PDA

View Full Version : Theory vs practice



casper
2010-10-04, 04:38 PM
I was thinking to start this thread for quite a long time.
Every time someone asks here "Help me to optimize my Fighter", one of the first answers will be "Don't play a Fighter".
I am not going to say "D&D is balanced". It's not. I'm not going to say: "D&D is about roleplay, weak character can also be fun". It's usially no fun when your character is useless.
But.
I saw characters from Tier 1 and Tier 4-5 in the same parties for many times, and most of the times that didn't mean, that former was always shining and latter couldn't do anything right.

First time I was DMing a big campaign (craracters started at level 1 and ende as low-epic), there was a party of Ninja/Asassin/Blackguard, Barbarian/Frenzied Bersercer and Wizard (Maybe Archmage, I am not sure). And Wizard was the weakest of them - enemies just succeded their saving throws most of the times.

In another game (epic-level) there was a party of Abjurer/Master of the Sevenfold Veil, pure Figher and Ranger/Dwarven Defender/Deepwarden. Also there was a Bard with Ghost Template. Yes, Wizard rocked. But so did Fighter. And, most important, they perfectly supplemented each other. Wizard granted protection from almost everything to himself and others, and was casting various dispells (with really cool caster level) on the most dangerous enemies, making them... much less dangerous, at least. He also liked to cast Grease, but that's another story :-) Fighter, who took right feats, right skills and right items, was 24/7 killing mashine, sometimes dealing four-digital damage on full attacks. Without party Wizard, Fighter wouldn't live so long. Without Fighter, Wizard would have to use most powerfull spells in every combat => frequently need to rest => fail timelines. Together they could achieve almost everything they want in a single day. Bard, thanks to 24/7 incorporeality, was also rather useful as a scout. While Deepwarden (the same guy who played a Wizard from previous story)... His HP and AC could hit stratosphere, but most enemies simply didn't attack him, focusing on party members, who were actually dangerous. It's hard to be Tank in D&D...

And there are many similar examples. One of the most experienced players in my gaming group, who usially play what you would call Batman Wizard, is always happy to see a good Fighter in a party, just not to worry, that he would meet more monsters with SR, than expected or have more encounters per day than he have spells.

So I am pretty sure, that secret of good and fun D&D module is not "All party members should be within close Tiers" (though I admit, Tier system is really interesting), but "Every party member should be useful to party".

Or is there only our gaming group? And no one else never saw cool Fighter 20 or Monk saving the day?

Kurald Galain
2010-10-04, 04:46 PM
Tiers are a potential, not a guarantee.

Jack_Simth
2010-10-04, 05:04 PM
Tiers are a potential, not a guarantee.
Correct. And to expound on that, consider:

If a Wizard takes nothing but direct-damage Fire spells, he's at a loss when something fire-immune comes up. If he takes nothing but SR: Yes offensive spells, he's at a loss when something magic-immune comes up. If he takes nothing but "Save Negates" spells, he's at a loss when something with really high saves comes up. And so on. In order to break the game as a tier-1, you need to be very familiar with the system, the spells, and the opponents - taking some "SR: No" spells (Like Grease, Web, Glitterdust, Stinking Clound, Black Tentacles, and so on), some "Save: None" spells (Like most the Wall line, Black Tentacles, Scorching Ray, Otto's Irresistable Dance, Maze, and so on), some buffs for your allies for when you can't affect your opponent directly (Haste, Heroism, Greater Invisibility, and so on), some debuffs (Enervation, [Greater] Dispel Magic, Slow, and so on), and some personal buffs (Mirror Image, Displacement, Invisibility, et cetera), and so on - there's lots of categories.

If the player does not know exactly how and when to use which spells, and which ones to prepare, the Tier-1's... aren't gamebreakers.

Contrawise, a T-4 can potentially break the game a bit, if the DM doesn't know how to adapt without neutering the character. For instance, a strongly-built Charger build doesn't usually use anything over Tier-4, and can take down almost any CR-appropriate single opponent reasonably reliably once it comes down to a fight.

So you can totally have a Barbarian-12 take the spotlight from a Wizard-12. Will totally happen in some campaigns. The tiers aren't about power, for the most part. They're about flexibility.

See, with the right spells, a Wizard can do melee. He can open locked doors. He can sneak around. He can negate traps. He can even heal. Oh yes, and he can do wizardly things, too. And he can do them all reasonably well, and he can change roles from day to day. Ditto for the Cleric, and the Druid. They're tier-1.

The Sorcerer can do basically anything the Wizard can... except change his spell selection on a day-to-day basis. The Sorcerer can be built for any party role, but has difficulty switching from one roll to another. Ditto for the Favored Soul. Hence, tier-2.

The Warmage, Dread Necromancer, and Beguiler are (mostly) stuck with certain party roles; not only can they not switch around regularly, it's very difficult to bend them away from the party roles they were designed for, bur they're pretty good at them, hence, tier-3.

...and so on down the line.

Now, the tier system doesn't assume any particular level of optimization.... it does, however, assume a roughly equal level of optimization. That is, the Wizard player is exactly as good/bad at optimizing Wizards as the Sorcerer player is at optimizing Sorcerers, as the Beguiler player is at optimizing Beguilers, as the Barbarian player is at optimizing Barbarians, as the Fighter player is at optimizing Fighters, as the Monk player is at optimizing Monks, as the Truenamer player is at optimizing Truenamers, and so on.

If any one of...
1) The campaign caters to a one particular set of abilities over another
2) The players are playing at wildly different optimization levels
3) The DM is highly adaptable and alters the campaign to give all his players approximately equal spotlight time
... then the tiers won't seem accurate in play.

Wings of Peace
2010-10-04, 05:06 PM
A lot of it depends on the skill of the player's involved and their overall play styles. A skilled player of a lower tiered character might by virtue of cleverness solve a lot of situations that stopped the player of a higher tiered character. Like Kurald said it's more a measure of potential than a gurantee to power.

I've also seen cases with players like myself who are very experienced with casters but choose to intentionally restrain themselves at times as to not outshine the other party members.

bloodtide
2010-10-04, 05:21 PM
I've run tons and tons of games. I've yet to encounter most of the crazy stuff I see on the boards. Not that players don't try. It's common for a player too look over the board and make a crazy character..but the best made character is useless when the player does not have the (real) skill and experience.

Common ones---

1.Premature Nova--Very Common. The first group of orc bandits the party runs into, just 15 minutes into the game, and the premature nova player goes off. They do a great maneuver and do 200 damage....to an 25 HP orc bandit. Using up their nova(s) for the game.

2.One Trick Pony--Common. A sneak attack build is a good example. They can do 100 sneak attack damage, but very little else. And when the group is fighting undead, they just sit back and wait.

3.Clueless--Too Common. They just don't know the rules. They don't understand the simple stuff...you can't ''charm person'' a dragon. They waste all their stuff.

4.Lone Wolf--Common. They have a great character, but play alone and ignore the group. So even with all kinds of abilities, they can't make it alone. They often just get themselves into trouble.

5.Fuzzy Rules--Common. This is one of the worst. This player leader the rules the wrong way. Often they had a DM with crazy house rules. They of course think the houserules are in the Rules(yet never open the book to check). This leads to them wasting their stuff, again.

In the end, a 'normal' fighter can just make their way through the adventure. They don't have a wacky build..they just fight.

Saph
2010-10-04, 05:30 PM
The tier system is good for measuring maximum potential power in a theoretical optimisation environment. It's not much good for predicting how effective a class will be in practice. For instance, according to the tier system, a Sorcerer is supposed to be tier 2 and a Warblade is supposed to be tier 3. Yet if you sit an average group of players down and run them through a few level 1-5 games, I guarantee you that in most cases the Warblade will contribute much more in combat, because Warblades are much more powerful than Sorcerers "out of the box".

The tier system also doesn't take into account that relative class power varies with level. At level 20, the Sorcerer is godlike. At level 3, he's a wimp. Sure, it's possible to build a level 3 Sorcerer who's as effective as the party fighters, and do it without cheese . . . but doing so requires vastly more effort and knowledge of the game than it does to make a level 3 Warblade.

Trying to rank classes in 'tiers' also tends to make people lose sight of the fact that by far the most important thing about a class is who's playing it! Skill > build > class. That's to say, how well you build, design, and equip your character is more important than what base class you choose, and how smart you play your character is more important than either.

Eldariel
2010-10-04, 05:44 PM
A Commoner 1 can save the day. Saving the day is about the story. But when it comes to potential, Fighter 20 is way weaker than Wizard 20 simply looking at pure ability. Also, as someone who's played Fighter 6/Wizard 1/Arcane Archer to level 15, I can tell you that it's boring and you'll be way outgunned. We had an inter-party argument about how to deal with a Death Giant guarding certain mallet we'd been tasked to acquire.

My character (I wasn't present at the time) and a Halfling Rogue argued we can't leave the Death Giant alive. Others disagreed. Things got tense, I aimed an arrow at the Giant. Our Wizard cast Forcecage on me. Guess how many options I had other than go with "democracy" there? Even had I had Rod of Cancellation handy, I would've burned way, way more money than the Wizard burned on the Forcecage. My only way of getting out of the Cage was either waiting over a day inside it or having our Wizard dismiss it.


There also was a fight with a Purple Worm. Warrior-types tried to hit it for negligible damage (can't full attack after moving; I shot it some but as a Core Archer, didn't do much over 40 points of damage to it - and even most of that came from bow enhancements). It ate our Dwarven Defender (yes, this was our first time playing 3.5, we hadn't figured things out yet though these events were the starting point). Wizard cast Hold Monster and then we bashed it to death (no, we didn't know about CDG).

And then there was this Ragewalker [MM3] we encountered in the very same catacombs we finally faced the Death Giant in (this encounter was earlier). Guess what happened to our Fighters? Well, we tried to kill each other due to the bloodlust aura and our arrows getting blocked away by...well, the thing's ability that makes it immune to projectiles. Guess what happened to the Ragewalker? Well, one Destruction. It had a rather high SR (SR 28 I recall), but not an impenetrable one and we had two casters. And as you note, the party was entirely unoptimized. Heck, we didn't even know you could "optimize" in this game! We just went with the obvious, gave next to no treasure to the casters since they didn't seem it and overall just didn't think about it much...until this stuff started happening. The one time I truly saved the day, I did it with my level 3 Wizard-casting by casting See Invisibility when I had a hunch. And even then, since I had no means of controlling movement, I couldn't stop the Demon from ganking a party member on the surprise round though I was able to slay it afterwards.


What vexed me the most wasn't that I was unable to deal with those threats (though I obviously was; I was gonna get Rod of Cancellation later but guess what, that's not good for your budget especially when you need weapon for damage and AC items for AC and flight items for flight and so on...), but the fact that overall, all I could do in combat was either Manyshot something, Rapid Shot something or Wraithstrike > attack in melee (and yes, almost all my options were spell-based). And that's two more options than most martial types have, since I was built very suboptimally for both, TWF and archery (since I had 18 starting Str and 20 Dex I recall).

It's simply that Fighter-types have maybe 5 real options if built for solely that, while a spellcaster can go into double digits on level 3. And unless Fighter-types are optimized, there's simply a bunch of encounters they can't deal with. Optimized Fighter-types have a slightly smaller bunch, but still a bunch of encounters they can't deal with. I don't know about you, but having to sit in the sidelines since the opponent simply has abilities that make me useless is not my idea of fun.

If I instead had to just find what works, what this creature's weakness is, that would be way more interesting. But unless I have billions worth of treasure, I'm not gonna be able to cover everything that screws me over and even if I have billions worth of treasure, it's not my character but his stupid trinkets that are the heroes saving the world. My character is only the computer who is used to select which chips to use and then the chips do all the work.

And of course the Wizard wants someone to deal with the small fry they don't want to waste magic on but they can simply Bind some big Demon or some such to do the clean-up. Or cast Shapechange, which lasts 10 mins/level and can be made to last all day if they so desire, and allows you to gain just the set of abilities the encounter is weak to.

elonin
2010-10-04, 06:21 PM
Versatility also brings it's own challenges. Wizards can cast all sorts of utility spells but you only rarely know what you'll be facing each day. I'll admit to having trouble even at fifteenth level due to the dm at the time not following any sort of encounters between recharge guidelines. Often times I would end the day with only 1st and 2nd level spells remaining.

Shouldn't we also talk about wizards being so paranoid that they'd never make friends with anyone? Or the fact that they don't sleep? Or have every contigency planned for? Even though the spell can only be cast once and the feat is expensive.

Valameer
2010-10-04, 06:34 PM
I agree with the OP.

Keep in mind my group sticks pretty close to core.

First, no DM worth his salt (imo) allows more than one PrC without a pretty fitting backstory. Also the backstory must appear to necessitate the PrC mixture, not the other way around.

I find a lot of extreme builds and theoretical optimization around here would be laughed at in my games, or they wouldn't be very practical to a real campaign. If I see more than 3 classes on a 7th level build, you are about to tell me the most awesome backstory ever, or you are rerolling. Some optimization is fun, but it can be taken way too far. Keep in mind that:

1st, we start at level 1, and grow from there. You better not be waiting til level 15 to pull off your cheese.

2nd, there will often be a lot more than one encounter per day. Sure you dipped into one level of barbarian, but after you've raged (supernova'd) once you aren't nearly as effective as someone who has more staying power.

3rd, action economy, poor initiative and monsters having surprise rounds negates a lot of the craziness that casters can pull off in a real combat. Sure you can be the ultimate assassin when you know what you are up against, but how often does that happen? Usually the DM likes throwing a surprise or two that you find you aren't equipped for.

4th, duels are so rare. Sure, from level 5 on a prepared wizard cannot be beat by a fighter in a fair duel. Does this happen in your games a lot? Usually it's 4 PCs vs a bunch of monsters. The fighter-type wades in and is effective round to round, encounter to encounter. The wizard must choose carefully which foes and battles to dedicate himself to.

All in all, I can appreciate the tier system for what it is: a theoretical comparison. In practice, however, it really comes down to skill, luck and most importantly teamwork more than any tier rankings...

............except past level 15 - then it totally doesn't matter how great you can play a monk - you will never outshine the cleric. :smallsmile:

Koury
2010-10-04, 06:55 PM
I agree with the OP.

Keep in mind my group sticks pretty close to core.

First, no DM worth his salt (imo) allows more than one PrC without a pretty fitting backstory. Also the backstory must appear to necessitate the PrC mixture, not the other way around.

I find a lot of extreme builds and theoretical optimization around here would be laughed at in my games, or they wouldn't be very practical to a real campaign. If I see more than 3 classes on a 7th level build, you are about to tell me the most awesome backstory ever, or you are rerolling. Some optimization is fun, but it can be taken way too far. I'm sorry, but I can't understand why I would need a better or different backstory to play a Swordsage/Rogue/Shadowdancer then if I just played a Rogue. Either way, I'm a sneaky dude who likes to stick to the shadows. Needing to explain every ability via backstory is kinda rediculous.

Thurbane
2010-10-04, 07:02 PM
My pesonal experience, of some 25 years of playing D&D, is that real world, co-op, pen and paper games play out MASSIVELY differently than most of the TO threads I see on forums.

Many classes that excel or suck in theory, play out very differently depending on the DM, the adventure, the rest of the group and 1000 other variables present in a real world game.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-04, 07:03 PM
I agree with the OP.

Keep in mind my group sticks pretty close to core.

First, no DM worth his salt (imo) allows more than one PrC without a pretty fitting backstory. Also the backstory must appear to necessitate the PrC mixture, not the other way around.

The No True Scotsman: Love that fallacy.

But seriously, classes fluff are fluff not rules. Nothing says they have to be that way (except Assassin who has to kill as a Preq, but that is rare requirement of Prc).



If I see more than 3 classes on a 7th level build, you are about to tell me the most awesome backstory ever, or you are rerolling. Some optimization is fun, but it can be taken way too far. Keep in mind that:

1st, we start at level 1, and grow from there. You better not be waiting til level 15 to pull off your cheese.

Good point. Many builds are weak till higher levels. But that is build centric.
many builds are decent at any level:
Druid for example.
Heck, in Core Eldritch knight sucks if coming from 1st.


2nd, there will often be a lot more than one encounter per day. Sure you dipped into one level of barbarian, but after you've raged (supernova'd) once you aren't nearly as effective as someone who has more staying power.

Agreed, but who dips in Barbarian for Rage and doesn't take extra rage. Usually you dip for Pounce that has no use/day.


3rd, action economy, poor initiative and monsters having surprise rounds negates a lot of the craziness that casters can pull off in a real combat. Sure you can be the ultimate assassin when you know what you are up against, but how often does that happen? Usually the DM likes throwing a surprise or two that you find you aren't equipped for.

DM nerfing you for fun. Nice guy...


4th, duels are so rare. Sure, from level 5 on a prepared wizard cannot be beat by a fighter in a fair duel. Does this happen in your games a lot? Usually it's 4 PCs vs a bunch of monsters. The fighter-type wades in and is effective round to round, encounter to encounter. The wizard must choose carefully which foes and battles to dedicate himself to.

Yes, but Fighter is weaker vs monster than Wizard vs monster.
Oh snap, the duel is still happening with similar parameters.


All in all, I can appreciate the tier system for what it is: a theoretical comparison. In practice, however, it really comes down to skill, luck and most importantly teamwork more than any tier rankings...

............except past level 15 - then it totally doesn't matter how great you can play a monk - you will never outshine the cleric. :smallsmile:


Monks are rarely spoken as better than a Cleeic at any level.

The-Mage-King
2010-10-04, 07:04 PM
First, no DM worth his salt (imo) allows more than one PrC without a pretty fitting backstory. Also the backstory must appear to necessitate the PrC mixture, not the other way around.

I find a lot of extreme builds and theoretical optimization around here would be laughed at in my games, or they wouldn't be very practical to a real campaign. If I see more than 3 classes on a 7th level build, you are about to tell me the most awesome backstory ever, or you are rerolling. Some optimization is fun, but it can be taken way too far.

HERESY!

You need those two prestige classes by level 7 to make your character work!

You can't even have an effective Wiz/Druid theurge without levels in both of those classes, and in Arcane Hierophant and Mystic Theurge, by then!

Eldariel
2010-10-04, 07:05 PM
I agree with the OP.

Keep in mind my group sticks pretty close to core.

First, no DM worth his salt (imo) allows more than one PrC without a pretty fitting backstory. Also the backstory must appear to necessitate the PrC mixture, not the other way around.

I find a lot of extreme builds and theoretical optimization around here would be laughed at in my games, or they wouldn't be very practical to a real campaign. If I see more than 3 classes on a 7th level build, you are about to tell me the most awesome backstory ever, or you are rerolling. Some optimization is fun, but it can be taken way too far.

A few things about this:
1) Strong characters don't involve lots of classes. They involve one strong class. Don't confuse attempts to optimize weaker types (like warriors, theurges, gishes, etc.), which tends to require a bunch of classes, with strong characters. They are still weaker than any of Wizard X/Cleric X/Druid X where X is the effective level of the multiclassed character.

2) "Class" is a metagame construct. Your "Fighter" doesn't know he's a Fighter. Or a Barbarian. Or a Ranger. Those names mean nothing to him. Conan the Barbarian isn't a Barbarian by class, his ability set resembles a Rogue/Fighter/Ranger more. Your Rogues don't go around calling them Rogues; many may be self-styled thieves and many may live the life of city guard or a street artist or some such.

3) Many PrCs are not distinct entities. Consequentially, limiting PrCs does nothing but makes it impossible to efficiently build many characters and makes many weaker PrCs just not worth it. Would I take Spellsword if I had to take it all the way to take another PrC? Hell no, the class would cripple my character! Indeed, if I couldn't combine PrCs, I just would play something stronger since I like my options and don't mind power; I can scale down as much as necessary but I can't scale up from the max a class allows. I'd play a Wizard or a Druid. This just means the DM prevents the player from playing the character he wants.

Does a Fighter 2/Wizard 4/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5 somehow break the game? Hell no, it's not even terribly powerful! Or it may, but that's because he's got level 10 Wizard casting, not because of his Spellsword abilities or Abjurant Champion abilities! It's got Wizard casting, yes, but it pays an entire spell level of it to get better BAB. Can he contribute? Why, certainly! But take a party and put the Fighter 2/Wizard 4/Spellsword 1/Abjurant Champion 5 in, then try it with a Wizard 12 (rest of the party composition doesn't really matter as long as every single character isn't another Wizard) and the Wizard 12 will outperform the class combo every time. The limitation simply forces players to stick to pre-determined archetypes that have classes printed for them instead of making their own character with abilities that matches what their character can do, not what certain class tells them to.

And again, many classes are simply the same class by a different name. How do you tell an Eldritch Knight and an Abjurant Champion apart? Both are arcane spellcasters with skills in wielding weapons. There's no in-game difference between the two. Your character isn't gonna style himself an Eldritch Knight or an Abjurant Champion (unless he's strange); he may style himself a "Swordmage" or a "Warrior Mage" or some such, but frankly, he might as well not. Being able to use sword and cast spells is simply the ability set of the character. Who the character is is another matter entirely and it doesn't take anything away from the character with regards to roleplaying or power if he takes Abjurant Champion and Eldritch Knight to make his character concept work.

Some PrCs do come with fluff associated. But fluff may just as well be changed to match what you want your character to be. Why constrict yourself with what someone else came up with? Why not just play what you want to play? But really, don't confuse number of classes with power. Good classes don't really need multiclassing (though some PrCs can help), but classes without inherent scaling abilities gain a ton out of it, so multiclassing is mostly used to bring warrior-types a bit closer to the caster-types.


Keep in mind that:

1st, we start at level 1, and grow from there. You better not be waiting til level 15 to pull off your cheese.

How does that change anything? Heck, what does that even matter? Many players start on level 1 (I used too, until we got tired of having to reroll characters due to criticals, and due to the lack of mechanical individuality a level 1 character can have as they can only have one ability set from one level in one class), but class power isn't really relevantly impacted by level, except that obviously everyone dies a lot more, the lower the level is (and level 1, of course, tends to involve more ability checks than anything; anyone with 18 Strength is going to be a monster with a two-hander be he a commoner or a barbarian).


2nd, there will often be a lot more than one encounter per day. Sure you dipped into one level of barbarian, but after you've raged (supernova'd) once you aren't nearly as effective as someone who has more staying power.

One-level dips in Barbarian are only taken for abilities other than Rage, or with Extra Rage-feat for this very reason. I don't see what you are going for here.


3rd, action economy, poor initiative and monsters having surprise rounds negates a lot of the craziness that casters can pull off in a real combat. Sure you can be the ultimate assassin when you know what you are up against, but how often does that happen? Usually the DM likes throwing a surprise or two that you find you aren't equipped for.

Aren't those specific things specifically the reasons casters are so good in the first place? Casters have means to boost initiative while others tend not to, casters' actions tend to be extremely powerful meaning a limited number of actions increases their power hugely, and surprise rounds...well, generally a party that's constantly getting surprised is just doing something wrong.


4th, duels are so rare. Sure, from level 5 on a prepared wizard cannot be beat by a fighter in a fair duel. Does this happen in your games a lot? Usually it's 4 PCs vs a bunch of monsters. The fighter-type wades in and is effective round to round, encounter to encounter. The wizard must choose carefully which foes and battles to dedicate himself to.

The Wizard merely needs to conserve resources. Of course you need to avoid burning all your spells for no reason but why would you? You have enough to last all day and if you actually are doing something (as opposed to mindlessly wandering around the world fighting random monsters), you can generally have a rather good idea of what you'll need to be dealing with.

Not that it matters, with their Knowledges and broad spells, it's not hard to be prepared for everything a character of your level can be prepared for as a caster. But the point is, arcane spellcaster as an archetype generally has no trouble dealing with monsters that act as a warrior (that is, try to physically attack you without magical support). Obviously spellcasting monsters are more trouble, but the arcane spellcasters are better equipped to handle those (mirror match) than the warrior archetype that gets crushed the arcane spellcaster archetype (and thus monsters that use said set of abilities as well.


All in all, I can appreciate the tier system for what it is: a theoretical comparison. In practice, however, it really comes down to skill, luck and most importantly teamwork more than any tier rankings...

............except past level 15 - then it totally doesn't matter how great you can play a monk - you will never outshine the cleric. :smallsmile:

Of course system mastery matters and people who know the system better can contribute more than others. But when talking about a group where system mastery is relatively abundant and everyone knows what they're doing on a general level, tier system becomes a whole lot more relevant.

Do note that tier comparisons tend to be done by comparing a class's abilities on a given level against encounters of said level and seeing who can deal with most of the appropriate CR encounters. One-on-one duels are just something many forumites engage in when you have the new challenger who claims "Level X Fighter can defeat Level X Wizard in a single combat!" arrives again. Trust me, that happens way often.

Thurbane
2010-10-04, 07:24 PM
2) "Class" is a metagame construct. Your "Fighter" doesn't know he's a Fighter. Or a Barbarian. Or a Ranger. Those names mean nothing to him. Conan the Barbarian isn't a Barbarian by class, his ability set resembles a Rogue/Fighter/Ranger more. Your Rogues don't go around calling them Rogues; many may be self-styled thieves and many may live the life of city guard or a street artist or some such.
Just a note here: I've played in plenty of "less than serious"/non-imersive games where characters can and do refer to things such as class, Hit Points etc. It's actually not that uncommon...

Tael
2010-10-04, 08:03 PM
Actually, my group may just naturally optimize, but we had our own unwritten informal tier system before we ever thought about looking up D&D online. My first character, an archery ranger, I found to be extremely suckish, but I then followed it up with a sorcerer and pretty much dominated the game (literally, I love dominate person.)

The times when a lower tier character saved the day were mostly in plot scenarios, or very unfavorable conditions. (aka, the paladin saving the day vs. a demon who took extra damage from smiting; the barbarian punching out the sharks while the casters flounder with their -1 swim checks.)

Valameer
2010-10-04, 08:06 PM
Oh my, you are all quite decided I see. But then again, I've seen this all before.

I'm sorry, but I can't understand why I would need a better or different backstory to play a Swordsage/Rogue/Shadowdancer then if I just played a Rogue.

I'm not familiar with swordsage, but rogue/shadowdancer is probably played differently than a rogue. You can jump through shadows, right? That's pretty impressive! What if we took this a little further and made you a Rogue/Shadowdancer/Assassin/Arcane Trickster? You are a member of a secret fluff organization, have been trained to jump through shadows, and have tied your assassin magic and roguishness together to become something altogether different.

Yes, I think that's different than straight rogue, or a bard mimicking a rogue.

But you may play with little emphasis on the fluff behind classes. I don't. Explain why your character took so many different paths through life.

If you don't think fluff is supposed to effect balance, then what the heck, paladin? :smallsmile:


The No True Scotsman: Love that fallacy.

In my opinion? This obviously is a difference in taste, here.

Fluff, or flavor, give the game it's atmosphere to me. An assassin isn't an evil guy with a death attack. He's an Assassin. A monk isn't just someone who obviously doesn't take combat seriously. They are very mystical and dedicated to not taking combat seriously.:smallsmile:

I honestly don't see how people can skip the fluff so often... but I think the desire to mishmash various things that don't really make sense (according to fluff) has a lot to do with it.


DM nerfing you for fun. Nice guy...

I see how you read my quote, so I should specify. It's not that the DM looks your spell list over then finds a way to bone you over - it's just that you can't always be prepared for everything. From derro and their invisibility to golems... you are probably going to find your spell list flat-footed once in a while. Right?


Yes, but Fighter is weaker vs monster than Wizard vs monster.
Oh snap, the duel is still happening with similar parameters.

Right. Against one big monster per day. But that's boring and predicable. What about lots of mooks, all crammed into one tightly packed fortress? The spell casters help and do great for a while, but once the spells run low, it's those front-liners shouldering the burden - and the heals and buffs go a longer way on them than on you.


You need those two prestige classes by level 7 to make your character work!

:smallsmile: I hope that was sarcasm. But if not, hey! Let's all play exclusively gestalts from now on! It will be more fun, right?


1) Strong characters don't involve lots of classes.

Of course - I'm not saying that x/x/x/x/x is more powerful. It just smells so... artificial. But see below.


2) "Class" is a metagame construct.

This is where we differ somewhat. I know, I've heard the brow beating around here about this, but I don't buy it. This can be taken too far.

The fighter and ranger class could be pretty interchangable on the same character, yes. You could give me a million great examples of different builds for the same character. But some fluff still holds at some point - and for me that is Prestige Classes.

This is purely a difference in opinion, keep in mind. To me, reasonably restricting PrCs keeps the game less prone to abuse and maintains versimilitude.

I once had a conversation with Monte Cook about PrCs and he admitted they were mostly an after thought. He was surprised on how much the splat books took PrCs and ran with them. Mostly, they were intended to be campaign specific. In fact, right in the DMG it says as much. They are special. Joining them makes your character special. They don't all exist in every game world.

Most of the shenanigans I see players trying to pull off involves some pretty rare mixtures of PrCs. Honestly I just don't see what it adds to the game. More homework? More for the DM to review? You blast through an encounter or two before the DM reigns you in?

Characters aren't their classes, but Arcane Archers are a specific organization. Do you think that the racial restrictions exist because only elves or half-elves have the inherent intuition of how they might become an arcane archer? If you can't pick up the prestige class without even a lick of a notion (back story, character studying between adventures) of how you got it, does that kill it for you?

I'm not asking you to take PrCs all the way through, or even limit them. I'll work with you. But if you feel like you absolutely need them to keep up with the druid or wizard, then maybe I'm not running the right kind of encounters.

...that's fairly derailed from the actual point of the thread anyway. Anyway, what I really don't like to see is full casters with a load of full casting PrCs. That is specifically where I start to throw down the ban hammer.

At any rate, it would waste too much internet to respond to every point (although I do appreciate the feedback), so I'll sum it up: I've never seen such a disparity in power between a melee-warrior and a full spell-caster in an actual, well rounded game that would necessitate really strangely cobbled together builds - at least not at low through mid levels.

Spellcasters shine at times, but as we've all pointed out, it comes down to teamwork and player ability more than how many books you use to mishmash your ubercharger.

Wizards still usually sleep for 8 hours a night, right? :smallsmile:

Logalmier
2010-10-04, 08:12 PM
2) "Class" is a metagame construct. Your "Fighter" doesn't know he's a Fighter. Or a Barbarian. Or a Ranger. Those names mean nothing to him. Conan the Barbarian isn't a Barbarian by class, his ability set resembles a Rogue/Fighter/Ranger more. Your Rogues don't go around calling them Rogues; many may be self-styled thieves and many may live the life of city guard or a street artist or some such.



Just a note here: I've played in plenty of "less than serious"/non-imersive games where characters can and do refer to things such as class, Hit Points etc. It's actually not that uncommon...

This. As well, you want to know when to stop even in immersive games. Are wizards not allowed to call themselves wizards? Are Incantrix barred from referring to themselves as Incantrix or Incantars? It seems to me that the idea of someone being a 'wizard' is so grounded in a fantasy setting that it would be silly to have people in the game refer to arcanists as something other then terms such as 'wizards,' 'magicians,' 'spellcasters/spellslingers,' ect.

This applies to fighters as well. Sure, if you were really in character you wouldn't call someone a fighter or a barbarian based on their class levels, but a distinction should still be clear. There is a noticeable difference between someone who went to a school on warfare, has specialized in different tactics and weapons (the fighter,) and someone who just goes into a frenzy and beats everyone up (the barbarian.) Someone in game could call a barbarian a barbarian not based on their class levels, but based on the way they acted, just as they could call them a berserker or a savage or anything like that. And the could call a fighter a fighter based on the fact that they hit things and generally fight, albeit in a less crazy fashion then a barbarian.

Monks, paladins, clerics. They can all be referred to by their class name, simply because that's what they are in the game. It would be unnatural for a NPC to call a paladin "one of those guys who go around fighting evil people and smiting infidels all the time." Or a cleric, "one of those guys who works at the temple and can heal people." No, they would call the paladin a paladin, because a person who regularly fights evil and is blessed by the gods of good is a paladin. And they would call a cleric a cleric, because a person who's job it is to work in a temple of the gods and grant healing and diving favors is called a cleric. You can have people in game refer to characters in game by their class, without breaking the suspension of disbelief.

The-Mage-King
2010-10-04, 08:14 PM
:smallsmile: I hope that was sarcasm. But if not, hey! Let's all play exclusively gestalts from now on! It will be more fun, right?

...

...

... It wasn't.

Look at my signature. Does self "Self Proclaimed Munchkin//Roleplayer" say anything about my priorities?

That was not sarcasm. If you want a functional (able to cast 9th level spells in both classes is my opinion of "functional" for a theurge) character who draws strength from both the natural world and the arcane arts, you need to have at least one level in Mystic Theurge by level 5.

And anyway, half the fun is finding ways to make your characters as powerful as reasonably possible, given a set amount of resources...

JKTrickster
2010-10-04, 08:16 PM
I just want to mention another point in the class-don't-need-fluff-attached argument:

Oftentimes, PrCs can be terribly specific when it comes to the fluff and this is often frustrating for the players. I can't count the number of times that I've wanted a PrC ability that matched my character, but the fluff was pretty off from my character concept.


Also the entire classes are fluff probably came from the paladin. I don't really see any other base class that necessarily requires any specific fluff (not even the Monk or the Druid). The Paladin really is the only base class that requires a specific way to act, a specific alignment, and punishment if those aren't followed.

Although anyone can of course attest to the usefulness of the Paladin
anyway...

EDIT: To answer Logalmier's point that's....not necessarily true. Even in the monk section, it says LE monks can be assassins, spies, infiltrators, etc. Of which all of those could have equally been rogues/assassins, or maybe Fighters with specific bonus feats, etc....

So while you can call an assassin an assassin, you can also call a monk an assassin. Does that make sense?

Valameer
2010-10-04, 08:34 PM
...

...

... It wasn't.

Look at my signature. Does self "Self Proclaimed Munchkin//Roleplayer" say anything about my priorities?

That was not sarcasm. If you want a functional (able to cast 9th level spells in both classes is my opinion of "functional" for a theurge) character who draws strength from both the natural world and the arcane arts, you need to have at least one level in Mystic Theurge by level 5.

And anyway, half the fun is finding ways to make your characters as powerful as reasonably possible, given a set amount of resources...

But what are you building to be functional against? The rest of the party? Challenge ratings 4 greater than your level? There is, of course, no winning in D&D (usually), but I have seen players alienate themselves from the rest of the group by trying to one up their fellows over and over again. I am sure this is not your intention, but I have witnessed it before. I think a suitable goal is to play along with the group at a level everyone is comfortable with.

Why doesn't your DM run a game where you get a few templates for free, or always gestalt, if being powerful is the desired goal. Is it building-to-avoid challenge that's the desired end or playing as a team and being challenged by what the DM throws at you? Is the DM expected to build as expertly as you are to provide challenge?

I'll admit, I'm new to extreme optimization, and honestly asking, not trying to deride you.

And realise it's just different styles in play between us. I personally don't have the time or energy to peruse all the published books for 3.5 to catch every loop hole and optimise as best I can to challenge my players, and they don't have the time or energy to counter every monster build I might nefariously thus throw at them. So we keep it simple, and, I believe, end up with the comparatively same result as you. Less fun? Not to me.

Are you better at D&D than me? Of course not. More well versed? Sure. Does it matter? Probably not, to either of us. We play in different groups, after all.

But back to the topic at hand - I would like to know if all the classes well balanced in your games. I don't personally see a lot of the issues in power difference that tend to come up around here. Is your a different experience when it comes to the tier rankings?

Anyway, thanks for replying. :smallsmile:

JKTrickster
2010-10-04, 08:39 PM
Lyceios I just want to point out that the tone of your post was rather...extreme. It came off as harsh and I don't think that was needed.

To expand on those point, generally theurge casters...suck. Because often if you enter those PrCs the "normal way" you'll end up 3-4 levels behind in each spellcasting class which actually does make you nonfunctional.

So yeah, just wanted to make sure things remained tame between everyone...

EDIT: Actually I find classes..."balanced" in most of my games. Why do I use quotations? Because it's...weird. Classes like the fighter do have their uses. But a lot of the time, you naturally also look to the spellcasters to solve your problems. Oh that monster has fire attacks? Quick Wizard you better have a Fire Resistance Buff prepared. Or oh we have to get X quickly? Wizard you better have teleport. Things like that.

The Glyphstone
2010-10-04, 08:47 PM
Functional against what? The rest of the party? Challenge ratings 4 greater than your level? You can't 'win' D&D by powergaming, but you can alienate yourself from your group.


Function against challenge ratings equal to your level. A Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 1 is ECL7, and sporting 2nd level spells in both of his classes. A 7th level Wizard or Cleric is sporting 4th level spells in their specific classes, and due to the exponentially increasing power of spells by spell level, the pure-classer will be far more effective overall.

Comparatively, a Wizard 1/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 4 with the Precocious Apprentice early-entry trick will have 3rd level Wizard and Cleric spells at ECL7. He's still weaker than his single-classed counterpart, but far less so, and the versatility from that second spell set can almost make up for the lost spell level.

Valameer
2010-10-04, 09:02 PM
Lyceios I just want to point out that the tone of your post was rather...extreme. It came off as harsh and I don't think that was needed.

Thanks JKTrickster. I reread my post and it sounded awful and degrading in a way I don't really mean. Really, the voice in my head was much more lighthearted, I swear! Apologies to anyone who had to read the 'rough' draft. How long is "But, I'm a pixie!" a valid excuse, by the way?

I've only ever played with one Mystic Theurge, and he entered the class in the way you know the designers intended. Yes, the weak way. So wizard 3/cleric 3/theurge 3. He didn't steal the spot light by any means, but nor was he overshadowed. He made a good use of arcane and divine wands and ended up being an excellent buffer and healer. I don't really see what adding +2 caster levels to his arcane and divine spells would have done except perhaps upstage some of the other party members.

Some character builds are great on their own, and some are rubbish. I don't really know how great a yard stick to determine 'balance' that is, honestly. It's the contributions to the group as a whole that really shine through to me.

The Glyphstone
2010-10-04, 09:06 PM
lighthearted, I swear! Apologies to anyone who had to read the 'rough' draft. How long is "But, I'm a pixie!" a valid excuse, by the way?


In case you're serious, it's not...technically, merely discussing post counts or titles is against the rules, and it's never supposed to be or allowed to be a meterstick when judging someone's post.

The-Mage-King
2010-10-04, 09:06 PM
*Snip*

The Glyphstone captured my arguement almost precisely- I'm trying to make a character who has nice fluff, but also has the crunch to hold it up in combat. It's both role and roll play, after all.

If you were making a "Kung-fu master, able to destroy a wall in a single blow" would you go with a single classed monk with nothing to help him destroy objects other than Improved Sunder?

No. You should go with Unarmed Swordsage (for the Mountain Hammer line of maneuvers and better unarmed strike damage) and put ranks in Iaijutsu Focus, because that captures the ability you're really after, and allows you to function well in combat.


As for balance... Well, I don't have much room to speak about this- every game I've played in has been online, because I can't find a group that I can make it to the meetings of IRL, and most people here are at least some form of optimizer...

EDIT: Anndd I missed the "But I'm a Pixie" thing. Great. By "The Glyphstone has captured my arguement", I mean his post two before mine.

lsfreak
2010-10-04, 09:07 PM
On classes being in-character:

A person calls himself a paladin. He wears a breastplate and has a longsword with him at all times. He gains blessings from his god, including the ability to strike into the heart of evil with a single fells strike. He is charismatic and can sway others with words.

A person calls himself a paladin. He wears a breastplate and has a longsword with him at all times. He gains blessings from his god, including the ability to strike into the heart of evil with a single fells strike. He is charismatic and can sway others with words.

A person calls himself a paladin. He wears a breastplate and has a longsword with him at all times. He gains blessings from his god, including the ability to strike into the heart of evil with a single fells strike. He is charismatic and can sway others with words.

A person calls himself a paladin. He wears a breastplate and has a longsword with him at all times. He gains blessings from his god, including the ability to strike into the heart of evil with a single fells strike. He is charismatic and can sway others with words.

Tell me, which one is the paladin, which one is the sorcerer/rogue/arcane trickster, which one is a DMM:Persist cleric with Ordained Champion, and which one is the crusader? They all essentially look identical to the characters and those they interact with.

It's even easier to mix up things like TWF barbarian, TWB warblade, TWF fighter, TWF ranger, and TWF scout. From an in-character perspective, it may well be impossible to tell the difference.

Now, there's some that can stand out especially. Binders are a big one that can stand out, so is Incarnum. But for the most part, they mix together to the point where classes are indifferentiatable, especially for the common person in the world. A high level wizard might be able to distinguish between a shadowcraft sorcerer, an illusionist wizard, and a shadowmage, but their day-to-day activities are likely to draw no distinction for all but a tiny handful of people.

Koury
2010-10-04, 09:08 PM
How long is "But, I'm a pixie!" a valid excuse, by the way? About 50 posts, I believe. :smallwink:


I don't really see what adding +2 caster levels to his arcane and divine spells would have done except perhaps upstage some of the other party members.

Whoa now. Caster level and spell level are two very different things. Caster level is importiant for a lot of things, sure, but losing Spell Levels (as in "I'm able to cast level 2 spells instead of level 4 spells") is a rather huge deal.

Zore
2010-10-04, 09:11 PM
Thanks JKTrickster. I reread my post and it sounded awful and degrading in a way I don't really mean. Really, the voice in my head was much more lighthearted, I swear! Apologies to anyone who had to read the 'rough' draft. How long is "But, I'm a pixie!" a valid excuse, by the way?

I've only ever played with one Mystic Theurge, and he entered the class in the way you know the designers intended. Yes, the weak way. So wizard 3/cleric 3/theurge 3. He didn't steal the spot light by any means, but nor was he overshadowed. He made a good use of arcane and divine wands and ended up being an excellent buffer and healer. I don't really see what adding +2 caster levels to his arcane and divine spells would have done except perhaps upstage some of the other party members.

Some character builds are great on their own, and some are rubbish. I don't really know how great a yard stick to determine 'balance' that is, honestly. It's the contributions to the group as a whole that really shine through to me.

The problem comes when one character can do everything another character can do and more. Take a plain old Druid for example, at level 1 he can cast spells and has a animal companion that is roughly comparable to a fighter and has more skills. By level five he can turn into an animal that will be roughly at parity with the fighter and still has an animal companion and can cast spells out of wildshape. By level six he can cast spells in wildshape. The Fighter cannot contribute as much as the Druid even if he manages to out-damage it because he does not also provide flanking for the Rogue, or battlefield control, or healing, or skill use like the Druid can.

A Wizard can summon minons which can out fight a Fighter while also having the ability to render entire encounters trivial with intelligent spell usage. This is not always true, but no matter how well you play your Fighter they will never be able to contribute as much as a Wizard can.

WarKitty
2010-10-04, 09:14 PM
That's the fundamental point. Classes need to be balanced against the group that they're in. As a DM I run fairly high-powered games where my players should, as a general rule, be able to handle several CR+4 encounters back to back. So I encourage the lower-tier classes to pull in from wherever. Of course I also have a homebrew ability-swapping system in place.

As a player, I've run into this several times. I'm playing a druid, say. I want to go into a class that emphasizes my connection with the spirits of nature and eventually lets me become a fey, along with retaining my NG alignment. The closest I've found is...swanmay. Which I looked at once and thought "seriously? swan wild shape? What the hell?"

Eldariel
2010-10-04, 09:16 PM
If you don't think fluff is supposed to effect balance, then what the heck, paladin? :smallsmile:

Heh. Paladin is not stronger than other classes, or even as strong; they certainly aren't getting extra power through fluff. They fall about where Fighters and Barbarians do with regards to power; so they aren't losing due to fluff either. From what I see, the alignment restriction and Code of Conduct is simply there because such an ability set would not fit a character that doesn't fulfill certain qualifications. I mean, you can innately detect the presence of evil. But there are Paladin variants for each extreme; that doesn't make them less Paladins, just Paladins of different things. And Drizzt is a Paladin without a single level in the class.


In my opinion? This obviously is a difference in taste, here.

Fluff, or flavor, give the game it's atmosphere to me. An assassin isn't an evil guy with a death attack. He's an Assassin. A monk isn't just someone who obviously doesn't take combat seriously. They are very mystical and dedicated to not taking combat seriously.:smallsmile:

I honestly don't see how people can skip the fluff so often... but I think the desire to mishmash various things that don't really make sense (according to fluff) has a lot to do with it.

Just because you don't use classes' inherent fluff doesn't mean you don't have fluff in your games. Just that the fluff describes your character, not some random class in some random book that some random designer thought of. Sure, some classes can have some fluff requirements like describing some organization, but that's something you can agree with your DM and change game-from-game and if you'd want to take that class without such organizational ties, that should be fine too. No reason to restrict classes with some arbitrary constraints.

Now, I'm not of course telling you "this is how you must do it". I'm just telling you "this is how I view it; in my eyes using the fluff straight from the books detracts from the uniqueness of the characters, the campaign setting and the campaign and refluffing stuff to fit characters improves the immersion and the unique feel of the character". And of course, the "character is not defined by his classes; he's who he is and his classes serve as a mechanical representation of his abilities rather than definition of his personality". This is not to say you can't use the default fluff; if it fits your character, great! Some work saved! But I'm saying you shouldn't have to use it. That you should be able to make the character as you view it, rather than within the constraints of the system.

And again, this is IMHO. I'm not trying to force it upon anyone, just trying to explain my logic and why I disagree with your statements so strongly. People don't ignore fluff, people just give their character a fluff and ignore what the classes try to force upon it. That is, the idea of divorcing roleplaying your character from mechanical representation of your character to match the mechanical representation of your character with the fluff representation as well as possible.


I see how you read my quote, so I should specify. It's not that the DM looks your spell list over then finds a way to bone you over - it's just that you can't always be prepared for everything. From derro and their invisibility to golems... you are probably going to find your spell list flat-footed once in a while. Right?

Really, the higher level you get, the closer the number of situations you can solve comes to zero. This goes doubly since you have Scribe Scrolls as a class feature when a Wizard so you can keep scrolls of the less commonly used but necessary-when-necessary spells like See Invisibility and Wind Wall. That said, most situations can be solved with your generic assortment of battlefield control and some creature you use to kill mooks.

Wizard can provide those himself, mind. Things like Planar Binding are excellent for getting durable servants. Wild Cohort feat too. But in a party, a Wizard shouldn't of course; it's no fun for a warrior if Wizard does his job too. That does not ultimately change that one is irreplaceable while the other can be replaced in a number of ways if party lacks one.


Right. Against one big monster per day. But that's boring and predicable. What about lots of mooks, all crammed into one tightly packed fortress? The spell casters help and do great for a while, but once the spells run low, it's those front-liners shouldering the burden - and the heals and buffs go a longer way on them than on you.

Area-of-effect spells generally make Wizard hugely efficient against numbers of mooks. Indeed, the more foes you're facing the better a Wizard does. Warriors can generally hit one per turn, Wizard a handful or more. And save-or-X effects become brutally powerful against mooks, since mook saves just aren't up to par.

And if the mooks are so weak and so numerous that the Warrior can deal with hordes of them while the Wizard would run out of spells, they were never a threat to begin with and so it's mostly cleaning up; not a combat. Generally Wizard putting AC buffs up and throwing Alchemist's Fires will fare just fine at that point.

The thing is, if enemies are numerous and strong, Warrior can't deal with them either; he'll get pummeled. Wizard might if they aren't too numerous, but Warrior will run out of capacity much sooner since his capacity is way lower. And if they are extremely numerous and weak, both can deal with them without much effort. There's really no middle ground since Warriors' peak performance is so much lower than casters', and casters can replicate Warrior-types by using their class features to a degree.


This is where we differ somewhat. I know, I've heard the brow beating around here about this, but I don't buy it. This can be taken too far.

The fighter and ranger class could be pretty interchangable on the same character, yes. You could give me a million great examples of different builds for the same character. But some fluff still holds at some point - and for me that is Prestige Classes.

This is purely a difference in opinion, keep in mind. To me, reasonably restricting PrCs keeps the game less prone to abuse and maintains versimilitude.

I once had a conversation with Monte Cook about PrCs and he admitted they were mostly an after thought. He was surprised on how much the splat books took PrCs and ran with them. Mostly, they were intended to be campaign specific. In fact, right in the DMG it says as much. They are special. Joining them makes your character special. They don't all exist in every game world.

Most of the shenanigans I see players trying to pull off involves some pretty rare mixtures of PrCs. Honestly I just don't see what it adds to the game. More homework? More for the DM to review? You blast through an encounter or two before the DM reigns you in?

It adds more individuality to the characters and more ability to differentiate each individuals' abilities from each other. DM needs to review everything anyway so that's not really increased. Player can, or can choose not to, use prestige classes so it's purely an additional option. And PrC combinations frankly are there to make some interesting character concepts work, and to salvage poor PrCs. Some PrCs only give few worthwhile abilities due to poor balancing. The DM probably doesn't want to rewrite every poor PrC in the game. So, instead of rewriting everything, you take just the worthwhile levels in the class, combine it with other better-balanced classes and call your characters what you will. This simply gives you more options in character creation and more unique characters.

Sure, some PrCs can be organizations (this is the wording used in DMG too, btw; it specifies that they can be that or something else) and that's fine, but that should be up to DM and players to work out, which PrC presents which organization and what abilities those PrCs should have (DMG says this too). Using premade PrCs (which is less work), just ignoring the default fluff and rewriting the character into being of X organization regardless of his class composition is simply more efficient and universal (since every player has access to the same printed works).


Characters aren't their classes, but Arcane Archers are a specific organization. Do you think that the racial restrictions exist because only elves or half-elves have the inherent intuition of how they might become an arcane archer? If you can't pick up the prestige class without even a lick of a notion (back story, character studying between adventures) of how you got it, does that kill it for you?

Why can't a level 6 Elven Wizard/Fighter using a bow be an Arcane Archer? Why do you have to have levels in the class to be one? Honestly, what does forcing "PrC == organization, to be in organization you need levels in PrC" add to the game?


I'm not asking you to take PrCs all the way through, or even limit them. I'll work with you. But if you feel like you absolutely need them to keep up with the druid or wizard, then maybe I'm not running the right kind of encounters.

...that's fairly derailed from the actual point of the thread anyway. Anyway, what I really don't like to see is full casters with a load of full casting PrCs. That is specifically where I start to throw down the ban hammer.

Frankly, while I agree with you that full casters don't need more power, I'd rather nerf the spells that make them overpowered to begin with and buff up the martial types to broadly the same level, or at least a level where they have options, than start cutting down on PrCs.

Master Specialist is what specialization should've been all along; various spell specialists are great for certain characters (e.g. Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil is just sexy for someone who focuses on protective magic in general, or Prismatic spells specifically), Fatespinner is a temporal (or fatal, depending on how the setting handles time travel) caster who can alter the very fabric of the universe (for example), etc. They can present a number of things and taking them away, I feel, is a bit painful as a player. If anything, take tier 1s away entirely, take out the few bad apples in Psionics and let me convert all the awesome PrCs into Psion-ones.


At any rate, it would waste too much internet to respond to every point (although I do appreciate the feedback), so I'll sum it up: I've never seen such a disparity in power between a melee-warrior and a full spell-caster in an actual, well rounded game that would necessitate really strangely cobbled together builds - at least not at low through mid levels.

Spellcasters shine at times, but as we've all pointed out, it comes down to teamwork and player ability more than how many books you use to mishmash your ubercharger.

Wizards still usually sleep for 8 hours a night, right? :smallsmile:

Mayhap. Mayhap not. Usually in security in extradimensional space others can't enter without their permission though since level 5 (Extended Rope Trick) :smallwink:


This. As well, you want to know when to stop even in immersive games. Are wizards not allowed to call themselves wizards? Are Incantrix barred from referring to themselves as Incantrix or Incantars? It seems to me that the idea of someone being a 'wizard' is so grounded in a fantasy setting that it would be silly to have people in the game refer to arcanists as something other then terms such as 'wizards,' 'magicians,' 'spellcasters/spellslingers,' ect.

That's not what I said! Of course a Wizard can call himself a wizard; after all, he uses magic to accomplish various things. However, a Sorcerer can call himself a Wizard too! He could also call himself a mage. Or a Warlock. Or a witch. Whatever strikes his fancy! All those words, as words, mean is a person with some kind of an ability to use some kind of magic; Cleric could easily style himself a "Magician" too. A street actor doing parlor tricks can call himself a Wizard just fine, and actually does since that's what he is.

My point is that it's not your class and its name that determines what you call yourself; it's what you do that determines that. Multiclassing, PrCs and so on don't change that. Conan is still Conan the Barbarian in spite of being a Fighter/Rogue/Ranger; that doesn't even raise eyebrows. Drizzt is called a "Paladin of Mielikki" even though he doesn't have a single level of Paladin (and only few of Ranger; he's mostly a Fighter with one level in Barbarian); it's just fine!

Valameer
2010-10-04, 09:25 PM
Ok, I meant '+2 levels of existing arcane/divine spellcasting class.' Apologies.

Obviously if it's a difference between having ^that^ and not, well, you'd want it. But if those levels were what was intentionally sacrificed to gain the breadth of either more divine or arcane spells, well, give a little and get a little. It's not like no one played Mystic Theurges before precocious spellcaster was a feat.

Were they unoptimal? Slightly, yeah, cause level 4 spells are much better than level 3, and so on. Were they unplayable, always outclassed, and not worth taking until early entry became a thing? Not in my opinion.


In case you're serious, it's not...technically, merely discussing post counts or titles is against the rules, and it's never supposed to be or allowed to be a meterstick when judging someone's post.

It was tongue-in-cheek humour, Glyphstone.


Tell me, which one is the paladin, which one is the sorcerer/rogue/arcane trickster, which one is a DMM:Persist cleric with Ordained Champion, and which one is the crusader? They all essentially look identical to the characters and those they interact with.

Simple, Isfreak. The one that loses his class abilities when he associates with an evil character is the paladin.

I almost would suggest starting a new thread to debate the "YOU ARE NOT YOUR CLASS TITLE" debate, as it's a little off the track of the OP.

Not that I'm terribly excited to join a new thread to get brow-beat over my differing opinion. Nor do I think we really need that thread again already this week :smallwink:

Tyndmyr
2010-10-04, 09:46 PM
I was thinking to start this thread for quite a long time.
Every time someone asks here "Help me to optimize my Fighter", one of the first answers will be "Don't play a Fighter".

That's because it's easiest. One of the fastest ways to make a fighter more powerful is to trade levels of fighter for other classes. First two levels of fighter are fine, six if you're into dungeoncrasher.

If you ask for optimization, you get optimization.


I am not going to say "D&D is balanced". It's not. I'm not going to say: "D&D is about roleplay, weak character can also be fun". It's usially no fun when your character is useless.
But.
I saw characters from Tier 1 and Tier 4-5 in the same parties for many times, and most of the times that didn't mean, that former was always shining and latter couldn't do anything right.

Right. Imbalance won't always break the game. It exists, sure, but players often play as a team, and try to specialize in different areas. It makes more sense for a wizard to learn a spell to do something entirely new than to learn one replicating a rogue class feature, when he's limited on money or time.

Also, keep in mind that player skill and optimization skill are both heavy factors in terms of power levels. A brand new player with a wizard is likely not overpowered, because they don't know what they're doing, and wizards are very sensitive to optimization. A brand new barbarian is much easier to play, and much less variable in power.


First time I was DMing a big campaign (craracters started at level 1 and ende as low-epic), there was a party of Ninja/Asassin/Blackguard, Barbarian/Frenzied Bersercer and Wizard (Maybe Archmage, I am not sure). And Wizard was the weakest of them - enemies just succeded their saving throws most of the times.

Happens. Im guessing optimization differences, given that the wizard didn't PrC out before archmage, if then. Barb/frenzied berserker isn't bad, and assassin isn't a bad prc. Melee classes do fine in low optimization environments.


In another game (epic-level) there was a party of Abjurer/Master of the Sevenfold Veil, pure Figher and Ranger/Dwarven Defender/Deepwarden. Also there was a Bard with Ghost Template. Yes, Wizard rocked. But so did Fighter. And, most important, they perfectly supplemented each other. Wizard granted protection from almost everything to himself and others, and was casting various dispells (with really cool caster level) on the most dangerous enemies, making them... much less dangerous, at least. He also liked to cast Grease, but that's another story :-)[/quote[

That's what happens with a well played BC wizard. He WAS the most powerful(well, ghost is pretty awesome too), he merely shared the power out to his less fortunate companions. The fighter was not balanced because the classes are balanced, but because the powerful player opted to make them balanced.

This is not bad, by the way, but not every wizard does so.

[quote] Fighter, who took right feats, right skills and right items, was 24/7 killing mashine, sometimes dealing four-digital damage on full attacks. Without party Wizard, Fighter wouldn't live so long. Without Fighter, Wizard would have to use most powerfull spells in every combat => frequently need to rest => fail timelines. Together they could achieve almost everything they want in a single day. Bard, thanks to 24/7 incorporeality, was also rather useful as a scout. While Deepwarden (the same guy who played a Wizard from previous story)... His HP and AC could hit stratosphere, but most enemies simply didn't attack him, focusing on party members, who were actually dangerous. It's hard to be Tank in D&D...

Actually, an Iot7V can easily make himself pretty untouchable by enemies, and plink away with lower spell slots or wands, if desired. The only danger is similarly leveled casters, really.

Tanking does suck in D&D. Just doesn't work. AC optimization is thus generally pointless once you're significantly above party average.

Now see, since both the wizard and the bard can be effectively impervious to enemy attack, the fighter and deepwarden are mostly only there to make combat take a few less rounds. It shouldn't significantly impact spell usage, or time to clear areas. Keep in mind that with less party members, that's less slots used on buffs.

Now obviously, that choice wasn't taken...but if it ever becomes more apparent to the party that the wizard would be better off without them, you have a problem.


And there are many similar examples. One of the most experienced players in my gaming group, who usially play what you would call Batman Wizard, is always happy to see a good Fighter in a party, just not to worry, that he would meet more monsters with SR, than expected or have more encounters per day than he have spells.

So I am pretty sure, that secret of good and fun D&D module is not "All party members should be within close Tiers" (though I admit, Tier system is really interesting), but "Every party member should be useful to party".

Or is there only our gaming group? And no one else never saw cool Fighter 20 or Monk saving the day?

Well, the point is that balance is overrated. Good players are far more important than having class balance. This doesn't make the theory wrong, mind you. The classes ARE imbalanced. It just isn't a game ender if you've got mature people who want to play together.





I agree with the OP.

Keep in mind my group sticks pretty close to core.

First, no DM worth his salt (imo) allows more than one PrC without a pretty fitting backstory. Also the backstory must appear to necessitate the PrC mixture, not the other way around.

This is probably inadvisable, because dipping is not always indicative of power, it's usually more melee friendly than caster friendly(seriously Wizard 10/Incantatrix 10 or Wizard 13/Iot7V 7 is fine. Ridiculously powerful, even.), and hey, backstory doesn't even play into a lot of PrCs. Whats the backstory for an archmage? A caster that got really powerful. That's pretty much it.

PrC limits don't fix balance issues at all. They exist even in core, with no PrCs at all.


I find a lot of extreme builds and theoretical optimization around here would be laughed at in my games, or they wouldn't be very practical to a real campaign. If I see more than 3 classes on a 7th level build, you are about to tell me the most awesome backstory ever, or you are rerolling. Some optimization is fun, but it can be taken way too far. Keep in mind that:

I have pretty much never seen more than 3 classes on a 7th level caster. It can happen, but it's rare. You don't take multiple base classes as a caster unless you're going dual progression(which, in itself, is usually suboptimal). You take a PrC at level 6+. You *might* take a few levels of master specialist, depending on your goal, but that only gets you up to three classes.

No, it's the melee who wants two levels of fighter, a level of barbarian, a level of ranger, a dip into warblade, and a prestige class.

And what would such a backstory require?

Fighter. Generic guy who fights..something. Essentially every melee character ever made can justify levels in fighter.

Barbarian. The origins of which are "non-greek". In more fantasy, tends to be angry, violent, melee fighter. Not seeing a conflict here.

Ranger. Like a fighter, but in the woods. We'll ignore for the moment that things like Urban Ranger exist within the D&D rules, and thus rule that he has to be at least slightly woodsy. This doesn't conflict with fighter. Barbarian either. Barbarian? In the woods? No worries.

Warblade. A guy who goes to war, using a blade. Or other melee weapon. It's as generic as fighter.

So, basically, four classes, and all we've determined is that his background has to involve melee and the woods. Not hard.


1st, we start at level 1, and grow from there. You better not be waiting til level 15 to pull off your cheese.

I start at level 1 for most of my campaigns. This isn't unusual, but exceptions exist. Cheese exists at level 1, though. Plus, if you enjoy long lived campaigns, as I do, imbalance is more likely to arise naturally. My last RL campaign I played in lasted from level 1 to level 15. Balance was enforced by the stronger characters killing the weaker ones. Everyone ended up with optimized characters.


2nd, there will often be a lot more than one encounter per day. Sure you dipped into one level of barbarian, but after you've raged (supernova'd) once you aren't nearly as effective as someone who has more staying power.

Extra Rage solves that problem. And a level of barbarian doesn't sacrifice staying power over a level of fighter. More hit points, more skills, and whatever you traded fast movement for. Those are always useful. Not broken, hardly, but they give you a bit more in the way of ability, even when rage is used.


3rd, action economy, poor initiative and monsters having surprise rounds negates a lot of the craziness that casters can pull off in a real combat. Sure you can be the ultimate assassin when you know what you are up against, but how often does that happen? Usually the DM likes throwing a surprise or two that you find you aren't equipped for.

I can only imagine that you're unfamiliar with optimized casters. Casters are among the best at breaking action economy. Quicken Spell is the obvious example of that. Two spells per turn is remarkably powerful, and does not require a great deal of optimization to do. At higher levels, Time Stop is an even more dramatic example.

As for initiative, casters only generally care about three stats. Their casting stat, then con and dex, roughly equally. A +2 or +3 modifer off the bat is quite normal, which only dex-based characters like rogues will typically beat. Then, they get stat boosters, starting at level 3, even in core. At this point, they'll typically match or beat any other core class. Improved Init is considered a solid choice for casters. Divinations and spells to detect monsters(Alarm is a great example) assist in avoiding surprise rounds.

Outside of core, an increasing number of options become available to boost or outright ignore init. Celerity, Nerveskitter, Foresight, etc can all be used to avoid these issues. Personally, last time I ran an optimized wizard, I just persisted a bunch of spells, safe in the knowledge that it was unlikely a surprise round would hurt me. Still, I used nerveskitter because I had nothing better to do with level 2 slots.


4th, duels are so rare. Sure, from level 5 on a prepared wizard cannot be beat by a fighter in a fair duel. Does this happen in your games a lot? Usually it's 4 PCs vs a bunch of monsters. The fighter-type wades in and is effective round to round, encounter to encounter. The wizard must choose carefully which foes and battles to dedicate himself to.

Duels are not what class balance and the tier system is based on. Yes, a wizard can also clean up vs a fighter in a duel, but it's based on the fact that the wizard can do the fighters job, if he desires. Or the rogues. Or the rangers. Or, if creative, all at once.


All in all, I can appreciate the tier system for what it is: a theoretical comparison. In practice, however, it really comes down to skill, luck and most importantly teamwork more than any tier rankings...

Actually, JaronK said he created it based initially on what he saw around the table. Some theoretical stuff no doubt comes into it, as none of us play every class equally, but it's pretty reasonable, and pretty accurate. I suggest you read up on it, and look over exactly what he set out to measure.


............except past level 15 - then it totally doesn't matter how great you can play a monk - you will never outshine the cleric. :smallsmile:

It'll happen before that, in my experience. After level 10, it's relatively easy for class selection to result in one player accidentally outshining the rest. For instance, a bunch of first time gamers might end up with a druid and a monk. In that case, the monk will NEVER be as good as the druid.

It's better to know and accept that class imbalance is real, and address it via the players.

Valameer
2010-10-04, 10:05 PM
I really want this to be my last post in this thread.:smallsmile:


Now, I'm not of course telling you "this is how you must do it". I'm just telling you "this is how I view it; in my eyes using the fluff straight from the books detracts from the uniqueness of the characters, the campaign setting and the campaign and refluffing stuff to fit characters improves the immersion and the unique feel of the character".

I respect that. Fluff how you want - be careful around the paladin, though, honestly, and maybe the druid and cleric. I believe I mentioned this is only a problem spot form me when it comes to prestige classes, and then only when things are looking very... manipulated... for the sake of extra power on the character's part.

Honestly I would suggest building a new PrC that did exactly what you want, and running it by me, rather than trying to piece together your concept by grabbing 3 different PrCs from different settings. PrCs are intended to be fluid, and fit the roleplaying neatly. I know the "build your own PrC" doesn't work for everyone, due to different DMs. So I'm just telling you, this fits my personal taste.


Really, the higher level you get, the closer the number of situations you can solve comes to zero.

Less of a problem in core, but still there, yes. Did I mention I don't play high level games? Usually, in my experience, campaigns end in the high levels, so this isn't as much of a problem in my games. High level play *is* pretty unbalanced in core.


Area-of-effect spells generally make Wizard hugely efficient against numbers of mooks. Indeed, the more foes you're facing the better a Wizard does. Warriors can generally hit one per turn, Wizard a handful or more. And save-or-X effects become brutally powerful against mooks, since mook saves just aren't up to par.

And if the mooks are so weak and so numerous that the Warrior can deal with hordes of them while the Wizard would run out of spells, they were never a threat to begin with and so it's mostly cleaning up; not a combat. Generally Wizard putting AC buffs up and throwing Alchemist's Fires will fare just fine at that point.

Hm. This sounds theoretical. What about a strong-hold filled with smaller squads of reasonable threats. Level 6 party. You think the wizard could solo it or, if not, TPK? Wizard pointedly casts his controlling spells, and greatly aids his party. But the stronghold is only 3/4 conquered and they know about that big bad boss - so the fighter and barbarian step it up for a while so Wizzy can save his last big bangs for the boss fight. Honestly I see a lot of this in my games.

If the party retreats to rest and regain spells against reasonably intelligent foes - well the foes take that opportunity and use it against the players. They retreat, they hunt and ambush, they continue to harass the party. Wizzy has extended ropetrick? Great, but that doesn't make the bad guys shrug and give up. Maybe they have a way to detect and dispel. Maybe they'll run off with the MacGuffin.

It's always more complicated in an actual session than it is in theory. DMs hardly say "One of you is a wizard? Shucks, well, I'm out."


Why can't a level 6 Elven Wizard/Fighter using a bow be an Arcane Archer? Why do you have to have levels in the class to be one? Honestly, what does forcing "PrC == organization, to be in organization you need levels in PrC" add to the game?

Flavour. Lore. Honestly, I never said an elven wizard/fighter couldn't roleplay that he belonged to the arcane archers. Maybe he's actually going to take eldritch knight instead (which flavour-wise, is not an organization, so why not?)

Actually, what I said that started this heated debate is that I closely monitor for cheese when players are multiclassing PrCs all over the place. I monitor. Because I would like a story explanation for some combos, especially if they seem to be... reaching. Because the Arcane Archers are a loose organization passing down their talents in my game.

Prestige Classes usually have to be ok'ed by the DM. Usually they are. This makes sense to me.

Anyway - to each their own! I realise in online games DMs may be much more inclined to just handwave it with a "If it's official it's fine." That works for them.

And thanks for that very detailed response, Eldariel. It is appreciated. :smallsmile:

Eldariel
2010-10-04, 10:43 PM
I really want this to be my last post in this thread.:smallsmile:

*shrug* Well, be that as it may, you do present questions so I wish to try and answer them anyways. Whether you respond or not I'll leave up to your consideration but honestly, I think this is more or less what this thread is about (now that we've moved past the "What's in a name"-part more or less). So...yeah, if I may bother you a bit more :smallwink:


Hm. This sounds theoretical. What about a strong-hold filled with smaller squads of reasonable threats. Level 6 party. You think the wizard could solo it or, if not, TPK? Wizard pointedly casts his controlling spells, and greatly aids his party. But the stronghold is only 3/4 conquered and they know about that big bad boss - so the fighter and barbarian step it up for a while so Wizzy can save his last big bangs for the boss fight. Honestly I see a lot of this in my games.

If the party retreats to rest and regain spells against reasonably intelligent foes - well the foes take that opportunity and use it against the players. They retreat, they hunt and ambush, they continue to harass the party. Wizzy has extended ropetrick? Great, but that doesn't make the bad guys shrug and give up. Maybe they have a way to detect and dispel. Maybe they'll run off with the MacGuffin.

It's always more complicated in an actual session than it is in theory. DMs hardly say "One of you is a wizard? Shucks, well, I'm out."

Of course not; challenges are meant to be overcome. Heck, in my opinion the presence of a caster makes life as a DM easy! I need to drop much less in terms of hints when the party has access to Contact Other Plane/Commune/Divination/Scrying and I don't need to worry about encounter difficulty as much when the Wizard always has a bag of tricks and tons of Knowledges and if things go to hell, at least can use that emergency Teleport scroll to bail them out. I'm free to do a ton more stuff and rely on the casters as a DM! However, that's not the issue. The issue is challenging the caster and the martial types equally.

Now, this can be done; mostly it involves the casters simply focusing on making the job easier for martial types and martial types finishing the job. This isn't the only way casters can roll. In Arcane Adventures (a forum-game), we had a party of level 4 that constituted solely of Wizards and we basically just ran through encounters. A Grease here, a Color Spray there, a Glitterdust there, a Web there, Alter Self + fight there, some bow shots/Alchemist's Fire there and we had little trouble dealing with the various encounters (including hordes and hordes of Goblins - some with class levels and others just vanilla - and some Carrion Crawlers, Oozes and so on).


In your example, well, the "Fighter and Barbarian stepping it up" simply means beating up on less powerful encounters (and Barb Raging maybe two encounter). Because, I mean, the classes aren't really modal; their power doesn't vary. It's constant. As a Wizard, if Fighter and Barbarian kill the enemies without real risk of serious injury, you may at most burn a cantrip (maybe Daze something or so) or a spell ~two levels lower than the maximum level you can cast on it. Or you shoot with your crossbow.

As long as you don't pointlessly fight encounters you don't have to, you should have gas all day. If you face more encounters of such difficulty that the party can't deal with them without Wizard's help, than Wizard has spells for, you simply weren't gonna make it through without another Fighter being a Wizard instead. Yeah, the Fighter and the Barbarian do the clean-up and it's fine; but if they weren't there, the Wizard could be binding some creatures to do the same. Or heck, buy a bunch of Riding Dogs. They're badass. The real imbalance is the same party being better when a given party slot is taken by the caster over the non-caster. That is, a caster providing the party with more. And yeah, the games can be run with that; just, the imbalance is still there. The thing is, the game works as long as they players are fine with it. But I'd personally prefer playing in a way where every character gets a chance to shine and every one of them does something nobody else can. That's where I feel warrior-types really fail; they don't do anything nobody else can. They aren't special like PCs are stated to be. This is why I'm personally insatisfied with them and would rather have them be more powerful and special. Big one is skills; martial types tend to do what casters do with spells, with skills. Lacking decent skill access is one of the biggest flaws I find in Fighter & co. and that's why I tend to just handily toss them 8 extra skill points per level (and most other classes too; I don't screw Rogues over). And lots, lots more class skills. It simply gives them more options and allows them to contribute more often. And shows where they spend the time they don't spend perfecting their spellcraft.


Flavour. Lore. Honestly, I never said an elven wizard/fighter couldn't roleplay that he belonged to the arcane archers. Maybe he's actually going to take eldritch knight instead (which flavour-wise, is not an organization, so why not?)

Actually, what I said that started this heated debate is that I closely monitor for cheese when players are multiclassing PrCs all over the place. I monitor. Because I would like a story explanation for some combos, especially if they seem to be... reaching. Because the Arcane Archers are a loose organization passing down their talents in my game.

Prestige Classes usually have to be ok'ed by the DM. Usually they are. This makes sense to me.

Well, I've for example played the following character:
Star Elf Bard 8/Arcane Archer 2/Sublime Chord 2/Sacred Exorcist 4/Abjurant Champion 4

Who was she? Well, she was an elf with innate tendency to arcane magic who picked up a bow as most elves tend to, and found an almost natural connection with it. She developed her innate magical powers and trained archery as she grew; the natural step was learning how to weave magic into her arrows. She learned how to aim her shots supernaturally accurately with magical energy and how to cast spells through arrows. The arrows mere more of an appendage of her magic than a separate object.

Notice how there are no separate references to any of the prestige classes? All of them represent a part in the whole that forms the character and her abilities. They all make sense. It is only the combination classes that brings the character to life. And what of the music, you may ask? Well, she primarily used Song of Arcane Power (from Sublime Chord). I refluffed it as drawing upon an inner extra reserve of magic to empower her spells, since what's what it does.

Had I wanted to, I could've written Bard's songs into her story too; after all, she was magnetic beyond words (Charisma in the 30s by the end) and she did love music. But I didn't want her music to be the focus and channel of her magic; it was the bow. I simply refluffed them as spells. Magical enhancements that gave her and those she considered friends nearby an unearthly accuracy with weapons, or unearthly skill in something. They're supernatural, limited per day and with duration. "Perform: Oratory" means no instruments are necessary. She just says certain words. In other words, casts a spell.


Would you not allow me to play her because she has levels in the Arcane Archer class without belonging to an organization? It's her innate power and skill; I do not think an organization would fit into all that naturally. She is kind of a lone wolf specifically because of how magnetic she is; she doesn't want to lead or be the center of attention but that's where she always seems to end up when being with people

EDIT: And yeah, making new PrCs is the best option practically always. But it's also a lot of work. And you need a DM who accepts homebrew. Believe it or not, I've found many accept official material way more readily, in spite of quality of homebrew often being even higher than that of the official material. But...yeah, that's basically only a matter of convenience; making a new PrC for each character that has need for one works but is a lot of work, and more than many people want to put into the game.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-04, 10:47 PM
I really want this to be my last post in this thread.:smallsmile:

I respect that. Fluff how you want - be careful around the paladin, though, honestly, and maybe the druid and cleric. I believe I mentioned this is only a problem spot form me when it comes to prestige classes, and then only when things are looking very... manipulated... for the sake of extra power on the character's part.

Well, the background story is part of that. I see this as being unnecessarily punitive to players who are not great writers. I'd say that the average player is not fantastic at writing backstories. You get the odd guy who can write anything, but hey...this is a roleplaying game, not a writing concept. The backstory exists to fill out the characters background, not justify future power.


Honestly I would suggest building a new PrC that did exactly what you want, and running it by me, rather than trying to piece together your concept by grabbing 3 different PrCs from different settings. PrCs are intended to be fluid, and fit the roleplaying neatly. I know the "build your own PrC" doesn't work for everyone, due to different DMs. So I'm just telling you, this fits my personal taste.

That brings in all sorts of balance issues. Sure, multiple dips may be problematic, but there are limits. With homebrew, there are none beyond what the two of you think is reasonable. Not every player is great at homebrewing up PrCs. It's entirely possible for imbalance to accidentally arise here.

And of course, homebrewed solutions say essentially nothing about the inherent balance in the system.


Less of a problem in core, but still there, yes. Did I mention I don't play high level games? Usually, in my experience, campaigns end in the high levels, so this isn't as much of a problem in my games. High level play *is* pretty unbalanced in core.

Core is imbalanced. High level play is imbalanced. Putting the two together just results in more fun and games, but core only doesn't solve much in the way of problems beyond "buying all the books is expensive". A high level core wizard is just as insane compared to his melee buddies as he would be in the equivalent non-core party. Probably more so.


Hm. This sounds theoretical. What about a strong-hold filled with smaller squads of reasonable threats. Level 6 party. You think the wizard could solo it or, if not, TPK? Wizard pointedly casts his controlling spells, and greatly aids his party. But the stronghold is only 3/4 conquered and they know about that big bad boss - so the fighter and barbarian step it up for a while so Wizzy can save his last big bangs for the boss fight. Honestly I see a lot of this in my games.

Level six is fuzzy. The wizard's coming into his own...but it's an even level, where they are relatively slightly less powerful. He can probably solo appropriate CR encounters pretty reliably, though. Several of them. Especially if they're a batch of low level mooks. Wizards are very good at dealing with low level mooks. Consider the classic fireball. A generic, all purpose, unoptimized blasty spell at this level. Average 6d6, and enough range to generally hit the entire mob. Anyone who fails the save is dead. Any non-rogue who makes the save is, at best, in significant pain. Quite possibly dead.

An appropriate CR 6 encounter would be 4 level 2 opponents. A single fireball has decent odds of killing them all, and is basically always going to destroy at least 50% of the encounter. Any minor mop-up can be handled with a crossbow or magic missile. So, he can be assumed to be capable of handling as many CR 6 encounters per day as he has 3rd level slots. As a specialist, that would be 4. Scrolls can increase this number, as can more intensive optimization, but we're keeping this at a normal level for now.

So, yeah...he can kill an entire day's worth of encounters for the party. For single/dual creature encounters, Scorching Ray is rather lethal. You can use BC or other tactics to negate entire encounters with a spell, if you prefer...invisibility to just avoid an encounter still gets full xp by the rules.

Given decent use of level 2 spells, that puts him at a comfortable 6 encounters per day before he gets low enough that further encounters are no longer prudent.


If the party retreats to rest and regain spells against reasonably intelligent foes - well the foes take that opportunity and use it against the players. They retreat, they hunt and ambush, they continue to harass the party.

Six encounters per day is a ton of xp. Given the lack of sharing, our wizard will be leveling up roughly one and a half times per day. With this leveling, comes further endurance. On day 2, he has fourth level spells. On day 3, fifth level spells.

I don't see a full party clearing things more rapidly.


Wizzy has extended ropetrick? Great, but that doesn't make the bad guys shrug and give up. Maybe they have a way to detect and dispel.

Detect an invisible extraplanar portal in the air, in core? No. And dispel requires third level spells. This is frankly impractical if the caster is the least bit intelligent about this. Don't climb in the rope trick if there's a high level caster around.


Maybe they'll run off with the MacGuffin.

Fair enough. The hunting down and killing everything in the path is always a classic. But if the solo wizard couldn't catch up with them, a full party* probably couldn't.

*IE, a party where the wizard is the only tier 1 or 2. Obviously a full party of tier 1s results in even more obliteration.


It's always more complicated in an actual session than it is in theory. DMs hardly say "One of you is a wizard? Shucks, well, I'm out."

Well, they shouldn't. That's not the point of balance...it's to ensure everyone is more or less useful.


Flavour. Lore. Honestly, I never said an elven wizard/fighter couldn't roleplay that he belonged to the arcane archers. Maybe he's actually going to take eldritch knight instead (which flavour-wise, is not an organization, so why not?)

Flavorwise, almost all PrCs are not tied to organizations. And the DMG specifically encourages refluffing where desired, so there's no reason not to change those that do have fluff unless it's tied to the mechanics(ie, red wizard).


Actually, what I said that started this heated debate is that I closely monitor for cheese when players are multiclassing PrCs all over the place. I monitor. Because I would like a story explanation for some combos, especially if they seem to be... reaching. Because the Arcane Archers are a loose organization passing down their talents in my game.

Arcane Archer is a trap. Heavy multiclassing is only rarely a sign of optimization. It's often a sign of a player who simply likes a lot of things, and likes to sample them all.

Remember, classes are a metagame construct. Characters do not know that they leveled up. They don't know what their hit die is, or what class levels they possess. You no more need to explain every class level than you need to explain where each hp comes from.


Prestige Classes usually have to be ok'ed by the DM. Usually they are. This makes sense to me.

Anyway - to each their own! I realise in online games DMs may be much more inclined to just handwave it with a "If it's official it's fine." That works for them.

And thanks for that very detailed response, Eldariel. It is appreciated. :smallsmile:

An explicit pre-game ban list is helpful. Mine is generally very short. No infinite combos. No tainted casting. No beholder mage. Life is great. From there, we just figure out what everyone wants to play, and help them pick a build that does that well. Not all classes are balanced, but you can help the less effective ones be more effective, or at least offer advice when they want it. With that, and a cooperative group of players, a great number of problems are solvable.

Valameer
2010-10-05, 12:01 AM
*shrug* Well, be that as it may, you do present questions so I wish to try and answer them anyways. Whether you respond or not I'll leave up to your consideration but honestly, I think this is more or less what this thread is about (now that we've moved past the "What's in a name"-part more or less). So...yeah, if I may bother you a bit more

Alright, Eldariel, ya got me :smallsmile:

My first post in this thread came off needlessly strong-worded. Funny how different it looks after you read it a few hours later. :smallwink:

I can't possibly pull your guys' posts apart the way you did mine, but I'll try to hit what I think are some of the main issues. Keep in mind that my first post (weakly) stated that I play mostly core, mostly below level 15, and mostly start long running campaigns (ok, I missed that part) that begin at 1st level. So this is all subjective to my personal experience. My main point was I don't see unruly balance issues in my group.

Also, I'd like to concede that I equated tons of PrCs with odd grabs for power. We all see this differently because I tend to play from level 1 up, making the odd collections of PrCs dawn slowly and wildly change the characters capabilities from level to level (shadowdancer = suddenly can shadow leap, assassin = suddenly death attack). So it seems less natural than if the character entered play at level 15 with all these abilities under their belt.

Ok - that having been said:


Well, I've for example played the following character:
Star Elf Bard 8/Arcane Archer 2/Sublime Chord 2/Sacred Exorcist 4/Abjurant Champion 4

Who was she?

Well, did she enter play built like that, or did she progress? If the former, I would try to work with you to create a cool new PrC for that character. She sounds pretty rounded out and awesome. That's great! If it was the latter scenario... well, probably same thing if I knew your intentions for your character. Otherwise, we'd quickly work out (I'll admit, I don't play with most of those PrCs) that she had a tenative bond with her elven heritage and the archer-mages of their civilization. Or she worked diligently to devise a style of fighting that would cover arcane archer, ect.

Just like if you took a level of wizard after 6 levels of fighter. We'd retcon that you had been looking over the stolen wizards spellbook for the past month - perhaps you found you had a knack. I'm talking small justifications. Easy stuff, mostly for everyone's sake of versimilitude.

PrCs aren't acquired by wearing straight jackets, but the DM does have the right to not allow something he feels doesn't fit. It's not really about saying 'no,' but 'why?' PrCs are a great way to tie a character into the setting.


Lacking decent skill access is one of the biggest flaws I find in Fighter & co. and that's why I tend to just handily toss them 8 extra skill points per level (and most other classes too; I don't screw Rogues over). And lots, lots more class skills. It simply gives them more options and allows them to contribute more often. And shows where they spend the time they don't spend perfecting their spellcraft.

I do something like this too. I don't find it effects fighter-types in combat much though, but it makes them a lot more fun out of combat. And seriously, why doesn't the fighter have heal, spot and listen?

Tyndmyr,

PrC limits don't fix balance issues at all. They exist even in core, with no PrCs at all.

Very true. Core is not balanced, especially in theory. So then why would I allow full casters to grab whatever PrCs they want and use early entry and such to get into them? Do clerics need the boost of DMM? These are reasons I tend to keep it closer to core, and monitor a character concept.

PrC limits aren't my fix for it all. I consider it my perogative in my game, though.


I can only imagine that you're unfamiliar with optimized casters. Casters are among the best at breaking action economy. Quicken Spell is the obvious example of that. Two spells per turn is remarkably powerful, and does not require a great deal of optimization to do. At higher levels, Time Stop is an even more dramatic example.

I'm familiar - as far as core goes. Quicken Spell has it's place, but is it often worth the 4 spell slot cost, when you play in a team? It's great - don't get me wrong, but sometimes all you gain from blowing your spells so fast is needlessly upstaging your party. I've rarely found that a party needs someone with quickened spells to survive most encounters. Time Stop has never really been an issue, although I agree it is game breakingly good. It comes into play so late, though.


It's better to know and accept that class imbalance is real, and address it via the players.

I am aware of class imbalance, which is why I play the way I do. Instead of power creeping forward, ala tome of battle, we play without heavily optimising. We do a bit - but... it's like a gentleman's agreement between players and DM: "Use the cheese on me, and I'll use it back on you." It's still not balanced, but I find that a lot of theory breaks down in the game.

The perfect core wizard still works better with a party than without. Fighters still somehow manage to have crowning moments of awesome.


Well, the background story is part of that. I see this as being unnecessarily punitive to players who are not great writers. I'd say that the average player is not fantastic at writing backstories.

Imagine it less written down, and more just talked out a bit between player and DM before play. Also, when players start to fully realise their characters more, they are always free to add to and alter their history. So we both get a feel for your character.


And of course, homebrewed solutions say essentially nothing about the inherent balance in the system.

Of course, but the system leaves PrCs up to the DM's discretion, more than any other segment in the DMG. It's pretty much giving a big YMMV. Splat books back in 3.0 tended to really run with the million new PrCs, some broken, some fine. If the WotC PrCs are generally better than well thought out homebrew, then I'm missing something.


Core is imbalanced. High level play is imbalanced. Putting the two together just results in more fun and games, but core only doesn't solve much in the way of problems beyond "buying all the books is expensive". A high level core wizard is just as insane compared to his melee buddies as he would be in the equivalent non-core party. Probably more so.

Maybe. But core wizards get a lot less options at low to mid levels in core. And DMs are more than just referees to the rules. Rule zero is DMs decide what goes in their games. I can't imagine a table where the DM isn't an adjucator, that allows his players to dictate the rules to him. In any RPG (which are all unbalanced to some extent) the DMs guidance is what makes games flow.

Not only is core only more managable to me, it is also cheaper, it is just as fun at my table, and players don't have nearly as much homework.

People around here complain about balance so much, how fighters are terrible, how this or that needs a boost, how there are too many broken spell combos. Not at my table. In play I find that full-casters advantage isn't as pronounced. When it is a problem, the DM will step in and resolve it (usually without a huge nerf hammer, even). That was pretty much the intention of my original post.

YMMV, as always.

JonestheSpy
2010-10-05, 12:36 AM
Stuff

Hey, if it makes you feel any better I agree with pretty much everything you've said. It's just as valid as all the powergamer POV, even if less popular on ye olde internets.

Endarire
2010-10-05, 12:41 AM
As a level 6 Wizard (no PrCs), then by a strict RAW, I can use Heighten Spell + Metamagic School Focus (Conjuration) + Summon Elemental to clear out the fortress with my legion of one-at-a-time elementals.

If I went Strongheart Halfling (Focused) Conjurer, I could have had these feats from level 1:
-Augment Elemental
-Augment Summoning (traded for Scribe Scroll)
-Heighten Spell
-Metamagic School Focus: Conjuration
-Summon Elemental

My guy will chill, invisible, with some escape plans, while his minions do all the work.

And this doesn't account for Leadership. Were I an optimized Cleric, my undead army (augmented with Corpsecrafter, desecrate, and whatever else I felt like doing) would take the place of these summoned elementals.

Also, regarding limiting the number oc classes you can take, it seems very against 3.x's nature of 'be what you want.' You can freely multiclass (with some awkward exceptions like Paladin), and I assume you're taking these classes to bolster your role and character's vision. The very short reason you're taking these classes is, "because I'll be a better X." Even a radical change in direction, like going Wizard5/Swordsage1, will almost certainly make sense if this character progresses another level or few.

Regarding fewer options for low- to mid-level Wizards, how many do you need? I find my best options are in the PHB. Glitterdust, grease, web, slow, haste, Evard's black tentacles, contingency, teleport, dimension door, and many, many others are core. If I stick with core only, then I miss out on some spiffy abilities (nerveskitter, benign transposition, and perhaps some buffs, depending how easily I can Persist things), but my overall power barely varies. Even at mid- to high-levels, I'm still relying on a lot of my old tricks; grease, glitterdust, and so on. I speak from experience here.

Regarding caster power, I like having characters with spiky and smooth effectiveness. Effectiveness spikes with every spell that I cast optimially. A well-timed glitterdust can blind the hydra that would otherwise kill me, or a grease along the floor may make the villain slip and fall, preventing him from murdering the hostage. Effectiveness smooths out after awhile, when I have enough spell slots to feel less reserved about using my favorite or my 'best' spells.

What I don't want is a waste of abilities. In general, I hate metamagic feats when I must pay full price. Even at deep discounts, I'm leery. It's saying, "I'll pay a very valuable resource now, and maybe even several resources, for the hope of using this one trick before the campaign ends." Naw; gimme a reserve feat or somethin' I can use now.

Having DMed it, Persistent Spell ain't that bad. It makes parties predictable. As a DM, I can account for their ability dependency, and try to dispel them if I see it fit. It's the spiky effectiveness that wins so well because often the DM doesn't anticipate it.

Valameer
2010-10-05, 01:42 AM
Hey, if it makes you feel any better I agree with pretty much everything you've said. It's just as valid as all the powergamer POV, even if less popular on ye olde internets.

Thanks, JonestheSpy, that really is appreciated.

Mystic Muse
2010-10-05, 01:49 AM
The only problem I have with your system Lyceios is that it weakens melee more than it does magic. Granted, some classes don't need the boost (Tier 1 and 2) but some do (Tier 5 and 6)

The power problem in my campaign is pretty much solved though since I make my player's characters for them.:smalltongue:

Tytalus
2010-10-05, 08:59 AM
My experience is that the lower the optimization level of the group the closer the classes become in terms of power.


If I see more than 3 classes on a 7th level build, you are about to tell me the most awesome backstory ever, or you are rerolling.

Keep in mind that the lower-tier classes gain a lot more from multiclassing than the high tier classes. A wizard/cleric/druid20 is pretty much the pinnacle of power, to the point where prestige classes make little difference (except perhaps extreme examples like Incantatrix, Shadowcraft Mage or Planar Shepherd).

By limiting multiclassing, you are rather hurting those interested in something besides playing full casters.

I like to completely separate fluff from mechanics. If my concept is a character blending arcane and druidic magic then yes, I will need four classes (Wizard/Druid/MysticTheurge/ArchaneHeirophant) to be reasonably competent. I don't see why this needs an elaborate backstory. It's very straight-forward.



2) "Class" is a metagame construct. Your "Fighter" doesn't know he's a Fighter. Or a Barbarian. Or a Ranger. Those names mean nothing to him. Conan the Barbarian isn't a Barbarian by class, his ability set resembles a Rogue/Fighter/Ranger more. Your Rogues don't go around calling them Rogues; many may be self-styled thieves and many may live the life of city guard or a street artist or some such.


This. A thousand times this.


What if we took this a little further and made you a Rogue/Shadowdancer/Assassin/Arcane Trickster?

[..]

Explain why your character took so many different paths through life.


He didn't; he's been a sneaky rogue with an arcane talent and an affinity for shadows all his life. Some parts of it just developed later.

If there was a single class that did all that, by all means he would have taken it. But as it stands, he's had to go for several classes to make his concept work mechanically. That doesn't make his character any less natural than a fighter20. If anything, it's a much more refined concept than a what you can infer from "I'm a fighter20" alone.



This is purely a difference in opinion, keep in mind. To me, reasonably restricting PrCs keeps the game less prone to abuse and maintains versimilitude.

[...]

Most of the shenanigans I see players trying to pull off involves some pretty rare mixtures of PrCs.


Again, the most powerful builds don't require any PrCs at all, or one at most.



Characters aren't their classes, but Arcane Archers are a specific organization.


Only if you want it to be. It might very well be a mechanical representation of the elfs' aptitude of merging arcane magic and archery. Something that every elf can discover for himself without ever needing to be initiated into a strange organization.

Some (prestige) classes do have useful fluff, other don't. The mystic theurge for example is essentially just a tool to make an arcane+divine caster concept work mechanically at all. Whether it also is an actual organization or simply the representation of a single character's devotion to combining his magic talents depends on your campaign world. I prefer the latter. YMMV.

Psyx
2010-10-05, 09:25 AM
I consider the tier system quite laughable as anything other than a rather absurd intellectual exercise.

It focuses heavily on high-level potential, which is just flat-out inapplicable for every campaign I've played in. And it assumes that the player will 'be the best' that they can be. Tiering assumes players operate in some kind of solo-dungeon limbo, where individual ability outweighs team potential.

We all know that the best way to play RPGs is as a team. A party of T1 optimised summoners makes for a dull, dull game and we all know it. The meatshields have their place and always will. All of the characters have their place and always will.

The Tier system is often just a clarion call for those who want to always try to play the best characters and 'win'. Truth is that RPGs aren't about outshining your friends and winning everything all the while. That's never been the point, and never will be.

Psyx
2010-10-05, 09:27 AM
My experience is that the lower the optimization level of the group the closer the classes become in terms of power.

Exactly.

And the gap is obviously widened horribly if some people around the table optimise a lot and others don't. It's why I view excessive optimisation as a very bad thing for the game. Any game, in fact.

Eldariel
2010-10-05, 10:16 AM
We all know that the best way to play RPGs is as a team. A party of T1 optimised summoners makes for a dull, dull game and we all know it. The meatshields have their place and always will. All of the characters have their place and always will.

How do we know it? I've played plenty of Tier 1 games; Druids, Clerics, Malconvokers, Planar Bindings, Archivists, Artificers, Gishes, etc. all make for fine meatshields if that's what you need. But when you have as many disables as a party of pure Wizards, you don't need it, really. I mean, what's the meatshield needed for? It's not like he can force enemies to attack him anyways. The role is far from necessary.

I'll again mention Arcane Adventures; a game run for level 4 Wizards here in the forums. We didn't have a meat shield. We just had lots of Wizards with varying ability sets. We didn't really get hit. Between Abrupt Jaunt, few defensive buffs and our disables enabling us to deal with most opponents way faster than they could really bother us. And it was a ton of fun. When you have tons of options, life is all the more interesting as it's never the same day-in and day-out and you don't just deal with problems, you pick one of your dozen options from your bag of tricks and decide how to best deal with said problem.

Amphetryon
2010-10-05, 10:19 AM
I consider the tier system quite laughable as anything other than a rather absurd intellectual exercise.

It focuses heavily on high-level potential, which is just flat-out inapplicable for every campaign I've played in. And it assumes that the player will 'be the best' that they can be. Tiering assumes players operate in some kind of solo-dungeon limbo, where individual ability outweighs team potential.

We all know that the best way to play RPGs is as a team. A party of T1 optimised summoners makes for a dull, dull game and we all know it. The meatshields have their place and always will. All of the characters have their place and always will.

The Tier system is often just a clarion call for those who want to always try to play the best characters and 'win'. Truth is that RPGs aren't about outshining your friends and winning everything all the while. That's never been the point, and never will be.

A bunch of what you state as assumptions and what 'we all know' to be true I've simply not found to be true in my experience, at all. Meatshields have their place at certain tables and with certain playstyles. Playing the party Rogue when there were two summoning Druids in the group was not, actually, interesting, exciting, or even especially relevant to what the group needed when I did it, because their spells replicated all my character's abilities and reduced my contributions to what I could do as a storyteller, which removed the whole 'I'm playing D&D' aspect of the experience entirely. I can tell stories without an RPG. Incidentally, neither of the Druid players optimized 'to win the game': one was a newbie who just wanted to have as many pets as possible, while the other was roleplaying a character who didn't like getting into physical contact with people at all. That which you've put forward as the 'one true way' is not indicative of everyone elses' experiences, expectations, or results. Just saying.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-05, 12:17 PM
Also, I'd like to concede that I equated tons of PrCs with odd grabs for power. We all see this differently because I tend to play from level 1 up, making the odd collections of PrCs dawn slowly and wildly change the characters capabilities from level to level (shadowdancer = suddenly can shadow leap, assassin = suddenly death attack). So it seems less natural than if the character entered play at level 15 with all these abilities under their belt.

That happens at every level up, though. Boom, you suddenly get new abilities. The same happens with straight rogue. It's really no different.


PrCs aren't acquired by wearing straight jackets, but the DM does have the right to not allow something he feels doesn't fit. It's not really about saying 'no,' but 'why?' PrCs are a great way to tie a character into the setting.

PrCs are metagame information. They are no better at tying you to the setting in most cases than are skills.

Organizations and personal connections to the world are how to tie a character into the setting. And that should happen regardless of if a player is interested in prestige classes or not.




Tyndmyr,

Very true. Core is not balanced, especially in theory. So then why would I allow full casters to grab whatever PrCs they want and use early entry and such to get into them? Do clerics need the boost of DMM? These are reasons I tend to keep it closer to core, and monitor a character concept.

Core isn't balanced in practice, either. I've seen brand new players decide to go straight monk, while others go straight druid. Boom, instant lack of balance. PrCs are irrelevant to that.

Early entry is not applicable in core only. Where it's possible for casters, it typically chews up a feat or more meeting the requirements early, and for wizard, you sacrifice the level 5 bonus feat. You don't HAVE to allow early entry, but it is a tradeoff, and plenty of optimizers don't use it for PO because feats are valuable.


PrC limits aren't my fix for it all. I consider it my perogative in my game, though.

But why have them? You can add limits on anything, but what's the purpose? What does it add to the game? You could just as easily say it's your perogative to kill off the characters at the end of every session, but if the extra stuff doesn't improve the game, why bother?


I'm familiar - as far as core goes. Quicken Spell has it's place, but is it often worth the 4 spell slot cost, when you play in a team? It's great - don't get me wrong, but sometimes all you gain from blowing your spells so fast is needlessly upstaging your party. I've rarely found that a party needs someone with quickened spells to survive most encounters. Time Stop has never really been an issue, although I agree it is game breakingly good. It comes into play so late, though.

You are arguing for balance on the premise that the wizard doesn't want to be imbalanced. That's inherently flawed. Any character, no matter how overpowered, can play well in a team if he wants to avoid upstaging the party. That has nothing to do with balance, that's just being a mature player.

In terms of power, yes, quicken is essentially always worth the 4 spell slot cost, once you have the spell slots to use it. Consider the level 15 wizard. He casts level 8 spells. He can, if he wishes, quicken a level 1 spell at the cost of a level 5 slot, or a level 2 spell for a level 6 slot. He can take out 4-6 encounters per day without ever using the level 5 and 6 slots, so his effective cost is pretty non existant. In return, he gets to tear up the enemy faster. This might save him higher level slots by shortening the fight, and in addition, shortening the fight will put him at less risk. He has every reason to do so from the instant he gets level 6 spells onward.


I am aware of class imbalance, which is why I play the way I do. Instead of power creeping forward, ala tome of battle, we play without heavily optimising. We do a bit - but... it's like a gentleman's agreement between players and DM: "Use the cheese on me, and I'll use it back on you." It's still not balanced, but I find that a lot of theory breaks down in the game.

That's not making the theory break. Agreeing to play at a certain power level is actually reccomended in the tier system itself. I suggest you read it.


The perfect core wizard still works better with a party than without. Fighters still somehow manage to have crowning moments of awesome.

Depends. What happens when the wizard wants to sneak past some annoying thing he doesn't need to blow spells on. Invisibility or flight is awesome. Buffing the entire party costs him more, and anyhow, failure would be vastly more likely due to the guy in plate armor tagging along.

What happens when the fighter, with his terrible will save, gets turned against the wizard?

There are many situations in which the wizard is better off without allies.


Imagine it less written down, and more just talked out a bit between player and DM before play. Also, when players start to fully realise their characters more, they are always free to add to and alter their history. So we both get a feel for your character.

Classes are not what defines a character. How he acts, and what he cares about are what defines him. You and I can both play straight core fighters, but have very, very different characters. A build is the mechanical way in which you determine a characters powers. The build is but one component of a character.


Of course, but the system leaves PrCs up to the DM's discretion, more than any other segment in the DMG. It's pretty much giving a big YMMV. Splat books back in 3.0 tended to really run with the million new PrCs, some broken, some fine. If the WotC PrCs are generally better than well thought out homebrew, then I'm missing something.

Roughly 98% of PrCs are pretty trouble free. You have one or two, like beholder mage, that were intended as monster PrCs only, but can be accessed by players with great difficulty. I've never seen these used outside of TO. Then there's a very short list of high powered PrCs that can be unusually high optimization. Again, not generally a worry.

The majority of homebrew I've seen is inferior to the average WoTC stuff. Balance is often sketchy, ambiguities are common, layout is poor. Now, I can't judge your homebrew in particular without seeing it, but it strikes me that your way would make building a character rather slow, or rather messy. The amount of time necessary to take a couple of levels of each of a few classes is generally minimal, as compared to making a custom PrC for each character.

In addition, a heavy reliance on homebrew, displacing all standard PrCs, is certainly not used by everyone, and says little about the actual game balance.


Maybe. But core wizards get a lot less options at low to mid levels in core. And DMs are more than just referees to the rules. Rule zero is DMs decide what goes in their games. I can't imagine a table where the DM isn't an adjucator, that allows his players to dictate the rules to him. In any RPG (which are all unbalanced to some extent) the DMs guidance is what makes games flow.

Some games don't even have a DM position, so no, it's not what makes all games flow. 3.5 assumes the use of a DM, and gives him tools to ajudicate rules and such, but a heavy reliance on rule zero is unnecessary, and DMing with a heavy hand is often detrimental to the game.

Most groups that I play with routinely, especially my primary RL group, have a number of players who frequently DM. The rules are set not by them, but by the rulebooks of the game we're playing. Disagreements over the rules are handled by group agreement, as are initial decisions like what sort of campaign to play, what sort of setting to play in, etc. Everyone just talks about it, with no final authority, and it works out fine.


Not only is core only more managable to me, it is also cheaper, it is just as fun at my table, and players don't have nearly as much homework.

It can be all those things. However, that does not mean it is balanced.


People around here complain about balance so much, how fighters are terrible, how this or that needs a boost, how there are too many broken spell combos. Not at my table. In play I find that full-casters advantage isn't as pronounced. When it is a problem, the DM will step in and resolve it (usually without a huge nerf hammer, even). That was pretty much the intention of my original post.

YMMV, as always.

I suspect you would be better served by arguing that balance is not as important to game as other factors are. That's a rather easy to justify argument.

Instead, with theory vs practice, you are trying to demonstrate that the tier theory is wrong. This is much more difficult, and faces the challenge of much evidence against you.

Ormur
2010-10-05, 01:09 PM
I consider the tier system quite laughable as anything other than a rather absurd intellectual exercise.

It focuses heavily on high-level potential, which is just flat-out inapplicable for every campaign I've played in. And it assumes that the player will 'be the best' that they can be. Tiering assumes players operate in some kind of solo-dungeon limbo, where individual ability outweighs team potential.

We all know that the best way to play RPGs is as a team. A party of T1 optimised summoners makes for a dull, dull game and we all know it. The meatshields have their place and always will. All of the characters have their place and always will.

The Tier system is often just a clarion call for those who want to always try to play the best characters and 'win'. Truth is that RPGs aren't about outshining your friends and winning everything all the while. That's never been the point, and never will be.



And the gap is obviously widened horribly if some people around the table optimise a lot and others don't. It's why I view excessive optimisation as a very bad thing for the game. Any game, in fact.

The party in my game is playing classes or multiclass equivalents that range from tier 3 to 2. They are relatively optimized so I'd say their tiers are pretty well represented in the game. The sorceress is the most powerful but not by so much that she ruins the fun for the tome of battle players and the favoured soul just keeps everyone alive. Some of them enjoy a bit of practical optimization and as they are playing classes close in power they don't ruin the fun for anyone. I also get plenty of practice by trying to build encounters that challenge them.

That's what the tier system is intended for, ensuring that everyone has fun by knowing how powerful they will be in comparison to the other players.

I'm also a player in another game where we're just two high level tier 1 characters and we're having a blast. There are of course some sane restrictions on our power but within them we're trying to optimize just so we can handle the cosmic powers the DM is pitting us against.

The tier list is simply a useful tool for a party. Lower optimization groups might not have to take everything there at face value but it's very useful for groups that find optimization fun. That way you can both enjoy optimizing and have just as much fun playing.

Dralnu
2010-10-05, 01:50 PM
The only real balance concern is your specific party's balance. All this theory junk is merely nice to know.

Most of my campaigns have Fighters and Rogues sitting beside Clerics and Sorcerers. Nobody significantly outshines anybody. We're all a happy group.

I want to address one comment said in this thread, I'll paraphrase: "Any character can be powerful if the DM plays to his strengths."

Uh, well, isn't that the goal of a good DM? To make sure that the players are having fun regardless of what they choose? DnD is not a videogame. The DM is not your enemy that you must "defeat." Crack open the DMG, either 3.5 or 4e but I'm sure it's in the other ones too, and one of the first things you'll read is that the DM's job isn't to win but to work with the players to make a satisfying and fun experience for everyone.

If the DM is purposely throwing MULTIPLE encounters that render specific characters useless and detracts from those player's enjoyment, he's a bad DM. Throwing a constant stream of monsters that are immune to physical damage so that all the melee in the group just twiddle their thumbs is dumb. A DM can always win if he wants to. Your level 12 Wizard will still feel useless when Pun-Pun kills him in the blink of an eye. "Well, you should've contacted Pazuzu! N00b!"

No, the DM absolutely should play towards the character's strengths. Not always, but often enough that the player is happy. A skillmonkey should have encounters that let his skills shine. A fighter should have encounter that let his bashing shine. A spellcaster should have encounters that let his spells shine. That's how people have fun.

And on that note: some people like being a "I Power Attack" Fighter. Many people in my group don't want to be bothered with learning spellcasters. They want to roll up a character in 5min, not have to think much in battle, and spend most of their time roleplaying. What, you're gonna penalize them for not playing what you want them to play?

So then we come to an obvious question: how do we make Eladriel the powergaming Wizard and Bob the non-optimized Fighter both happy in the same group? The DM needs to walk a narrow line to try and keep both sides happy. The more a powergamer, well, "powergames," the more knowledgable the DM has to be. He needs to know all the tricks his players are capable of and deal with it accordingly -- houserules is one option, but the actual campaign balance is another. If we're taking, say, Wizard 6 and Fighter 6 as the party, I would copy down the Wizard's spell list for my personal use. I'd try to make the encounters as balanced as possible. For example, if the Wizard is abusing Glitterdust, I'd make some of the opponents be immune to the tactic (blindsight or whatever) while the others can be affected normally. Maybe I'll throw in some anti-spellcaster minions in the mix now and then. If the wizard is still 1shotting all the encounters despite my efforts to keep things balanced, then I'll just increase the encounters per day to make him have to ration his spells. If the fighter still lags, maybe I'll give him some super awesome weapons so he can eviscerate mooks as fast as a wizard can. Likely I'll use a little of all those options, and raise it incrementally if needed.

The above example, as many people pointed out, likely will never happen in an RL group. Most people just don't run into such large power disparities. People usually try and have fun as a collective and work off teamwork instead of trying desperately to stroke their own egos in the fantasy game. Spellcasters snapping campaigns in half with a passive DM is usually a theoretical forum phenomenon.

In the end, you should be enjoying yourself playing whatever you want -- provided that you aren't ruining everyone else's fun. A good DM will let you do that.

Koury
2010-10-05, 02:00 PM
If we're taking, say, Wizard 6 and Fighter 6 as the party, I would copy down the Wizard's spell list for my personal use. I'd try to make the encounters as balanced as possible. For example, if the Wizard is abusing Glitterdust, I'd make some of the opponents be immune to the tactic (blindsight or whatever) while the others can be affected normally. Problem comes in when you try to find something that can avoid ALL the common spells. Web, Glitterdust, Grease, etc, etc.
Maybe I'll throw in some anti-spellcaster minions in the mix now and then. What are goot anti-spellcaster minions? [/actual curiosity]
If the wizard is still 1shotting all the encounters despite my efforts to keep things balanced, then I'll just increase the encounters per day to make him have to ration his spells. The Wizards spells only need to last as long as everyone elses resources (like the Fighters HP).

Dralnu
2010-10-05, 02:10 PM
Problem comes in when you try to find something that can avoid ALL the common spells. Web, Glitterdust, Grease, etc, etc

You don't need to avoid all of them. You have the wizard's spell list so you know which ones he has access to. Develop encounters that you think won't be totally destroyed by a single spell. If the party still wins, that's fine. If they win and the fighter isn't having fun, then go back and try to tweak it again, trying to compensate for the new trick that the wizard pulled last time.

Eventually you'll hit a sweet spot and can tweak from there.


What are goot anti-spellcaster minions? [/actual curiosity]

Depends on the level and gear. At low levels it's pretty easy to disrupt the spellcaster. Archers readying attacks when he tries to cast. Creatures with see invisibility and dispel. Grapplers.

Higher levels gets more complex, and someone more experienced than I could probably give you a better answer. Offhand, I think it was golems or oozes (or both?) that are resistant to magic in general. NPCs with class levels in things like Occult Slayer, perhaps. It really depends on the tricks of the specific spellcaster that you're trying to challenge.

EDIT: Enemy spellcasters is another obvious one.

If all else fails, critters with AMF. :smallbiggrin:


The Wizards spells only need to last as long as everyone elses resources (like the Fighters HP).

Oh, taking care of HP is easy. Give 'em lots of potions, solved.

Awnetu
2010-10-05, 02:14 PM
If all else fails, critters with AMF. :smallbiggrin:


I pity the fighters in that fight. Also, I pity the group for the heavy handed response.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-10-05, 02:17 PM
My pesonal experience, of some 25 years of playing D&D, is that real world, co-op, pen and paper games play out MASSIVELY differently than most of the TO threads I see on forums.

Many classes that excel or suck in theory, play out very differently depending on the DM, the adventure, the rest of the group and 1000 other variables present in a real world game.

TO is TO for a reason. When someone asks for help, they're asking for character optimization, or, at least, should be. Theoretical optimization is nothing more than a mental exercise.


This. As well, you want to know when to stop even in immersive games. Are wizards not allowed to call themselves wizards? Are Incantrix barred from referring to themselves as Incantrix or Incantars? It seems to me that the idea of someone being a 'wizard' is so grounded in a fantasy setting that it would be silly to have people in the game refer to arcanists as something other then terms such as 'wizards,' 'magicians,' 'spellcasters/spellslingers,' ect.

Wizards of various sorts can call themselves whatever the hell they want to call themselves. Some wizards may refer to themselves as nothing more than a "summoner," a class which does not exist, barring Pathfinder. The same could be true for a druid or even a cleric.


I consider the tier system quite laughable as anything other than a rather absurd intellectual exercise.

It focuses heavily on high-level potential, which is just flat-out inapplicable for every campaign I've played in. And it assumes that the player will 'be the best' that they can be. Tiering assumes players operate in some kind of solo-dungeon limbo, where individual ability outweighs team potential.

The tier system is there largely to say "Hey, so not everyone is going to be this effective, but you should be on the look out for this sort of stuff." The fact that it has never been of use to you in your games means nothing as it is anecdotal evidence. Furthermore, the tier system actually does imply that the higher tiers actually do help out others. A wizard isn't tier 1 just because he can solo the dungeon: he's also tier 1 because he can make the fighter solo the dungeon.


We all know that the best way to play RPGs is as a team. A party of T1 optimised summoners makes for a dull, dull game and we all know it. The meatshields have their place and always will. All of the characters have their place and always will.

Or so you say, but, we've already got anecdotal evidence versus anecdotal evidence to show that such "knowledge" is not necessarily true.


The Tier system is often just a clarion call for those who want to always try to play the best characters and 'win'. Truth is that RPGs aren't about outshining your friends and winning everything all the while. That's never been the point, and never will be.

Yea... no. The tier system is there to calibrate something. Your statement is akin to saying that cars with speedometers are there for people who do NASCAR.

Aharon
2010-10-05, 02:18 PM
@Khoury
=>Good Anti-Spellcaster Minions
Well, anything that gets magic immunity or high SR, for starters. Yes, SR:No spells still get through. But many of these are single target, so you're wasting single-target spells on minions. You only have so many slots for your offensive spells... The Orbs compete with Evard's Tentacles, Dimension Door, Celerity, etc.

Examples are Half-Golems from MM2, which add 3 to the CR. Use the non-construct version, and they aren't imbeciles :smallsmile:

I admit that I didn't have to deal with an optimized full caster yet, though. My group has a Dread Necro, a Beguiler, and a cleric who optimizes turning (undead as foes aren't any threat at all for this group :smalltongue:)

Dralnu
2010-10-05, 02:19 PM
I pity the fighters in that fight. Also, I pity the group for the heavy handed response.

I pity the forumgoer who ignores all the legitimate alternatives that I provide and then zooms in on my joke option with the smiley.

Valameer
2010-10-05, 02:20 PM
I'm sorry, Tyndmyr, I'm not sure what you are still getting at. All along I've said "in my opinion," "your milage may vary" and "in my games/experience."

You seem to be talking like you know the facts across every table that has ever cracked a book, and you are attempting to enlighten me.

One - everyone on PrCs. How many times do I say this? They are part of the setting when I DM. So are a few classes, such as paladin (obviously has crunch tied with fluff), druid (semi-cohesive organisation that all speak druidic?), wizard (takes a lot of study and practice), cleric (probably group loosely with like-minded individuals).

Classes as fluff could be completely separated, I guess. But that isn't my reading of the rules. Humans could be flying spaghetti monsters, and half-orcs could be a race of pirates. My fighter fires short range lasers while yours swings his detachable hammer head. When you deplete an enemy's HP through tickling them, they stop moving. No one actually needs to eat or sleep because, hey?

Of course not.


That happens at every level up, though. Boom, you suddenly get new abilities.

Every class fits a theme. A paladin magically gets a poke-warhorse. Fine, that fits his theme of divine knight. The paladin can suddenly cast arcane spells? If you played him as a diligent studier of the arcane all along, that fits. If he was the typical holy knight, it doesn't. Why don't we say he doesn't cast arcane spells anyway, he just screams really loud an it acts like a color spray. When he pounds on his chest he gains the equivalent of mage armor. They are magical effects and can be dispelled as per usual, but the fluff is tailored to him now.


PrCs are metagame information.

Not always, not in every game. Speak for your own game. This isn't RAI, or RAW, so I don't know where you are getting this. Where in RAW do they say "You can completely disregard or redo the fluff however you please, if a pseudo-medieval setting isn't your thing, go hard." 4e does, but I don't think 3e does.

However, from the DMG, 3.5 revision, p 176:


Prestige classes are purely optional and always under the purview of the DM. We encourage you, as the DM, to tightly limit the prestige classes available in your campaign. The example prestige classes are certainly not all encompassing of definitive. They might not even be appropriate for your campaign. The best prestige classes for your campaign are the ones you tailor make yourself.

So I play it my way, backed up by the book even. You can stop telling me I'm wrong. I encourage you to play it however you want. IME it's not stifling my creativity to not use 1001 PrCs in every game. We make it personal and unique in our own way. And that works.


Core isn't balanced in practice, either. I've seen brand new players decide to go straight monk, while others go straight druid. Boom, instant lack of balance.

Maybe, but before level 5 it's not actually that pronounced in an actual game. A monk with high strength still gets to dish some damage, with two attacks right off. I see that, in theory, monks are terrible. We give them full BAB and d10 HD, which doesn't solve their problems, but I'm not here to discuss my houserules.

A well played tier 1 class dominates a well played tier 5 class in theory much more than in practice. The difference in ability is still there, but is mitigated by so many things that actually come up in campaigns. I'm not here to tell you the tier system isn't spot on. At high levels it's completely apparent that it is well thought out. But there are a lot of factors that can blur the line in a lower level game, and a good DM will do just that to keep balance in check.


You can add limits on anything, but what's the purpose? What does it add to the game? You could just as easily say it's your perogative to kill off the characters at the end of every session, but if the extra stuff doesn't improve the game, why bother?

To flip this, you could allow players to always build at level 20, gestalt, all books allowed, but what's the purpose? What does it add to the game? You could just as easily say it's your perogative to make the characters into new deities at the end of every session, but if the extra stuff doesn't improve the game, why bother?

Either one might be a fun one-off game, right? But neither one seems very fun as the norm. Screening PrCs is quite a bit different than throwing around the NO hammer like a juggernaut. If your going to sit here assuming that I'm a draconian DM, then I should address all your quotes like you don't even play with a DM. Just six players, telling each other how great all the treasure is.

So I guess I ask you: Why have any limits at all?


You are arguing for balance on the premise that the wizard doesn't want to be imbalanced.

Not so. I was saying wasting level 5 spell slots to flash an extra grease, or a 7th level slot for a quickened haste isn't always (or even, usually) the most effecient use for the wizards spells in a day. Unless you are really in deep doo-doo, you probably aren't relying on the wizard to solve every encounter. Non-spellcasters actually get to fight the big monsters sometimes. Why would the wizard waste his spells unnecessarily?

I get the impression that a lot of people here play little more than 1 encounter/day.

I just rarely see that happening in my games.


Depends. What happens when the wizard wants to sneak past some annoying thing he doesn't need to blow spells on. Invisibility or flight is awesome. Buffing the entire party costs him more, and anyhow, failure would be vastly more likely due to the guy in plate armor tagging along.

Great! Now you're in the enemy fortress / past enemy lines, alone. Good luck! I've seen rogues pull this one off too, and it doesn't always end well.


What happens when the fighter, with his terrible will save, gets turned against the wizard?

Equal chance that the wizard, with his terrible fort save, has already been polymorphed into a shrew, so what?

Everyone has strengths and weaknesses. DMs keep the game fair and fun.


There are many situations in which the wizard is better off without allies

The same can be said of rogues, yet there are more times where they rely on their allies.


Classes are not what defines a character. How he acts, and what he cares about are what defines him. You and I can both play straight core fighters, but have very, very different characters. A build is the mechanical way in which you determine a characters powers.

I agree. And there is a unique defining feature to characters who speak druidic with their secret orders, and those who hold themselves to the highest standards, and those who have earned the right to be called Archmage.


Balance is often sketchy, ambiguities are common, layout is poor. Now, I can't judge your homebrew in particular without seeing it, but it strikes me that your way would make building a character rather slow, or rather messy. The amount of time necessary to take a couple of levels of each of a few classes is generally minimal, as compared to making a custom PrC for each character.

Somehow in my games PrCs are still pretty rare. If you *must* do something that couldn't be encompassed in the core classes, then we'll start talking. No one feels like an idiot for taking 13 levels in fighter. Comparable to a beloved web comic I once read. Certainly fighter 13 isn't the epitome of good building, but no one is going to stop you from charging to the front with your ancestral sword and walloping on the lich. No one can say "you can't, you aren't Op'd. Let the wizard charge to the front with his greatsword from now on."

Actually the coolest, most kick-butt character I've ever DMed for was a paladin 15. His party was a cleric, sorcerer, wizard and druid. They never outshone him. They had tricks, but he got all the cool.

My favorite character that I've played was a barbarian 11. Again, there was an equal level cleric and wizard in the party, but the cleric was admittedly a newbie, and the wizard was evil and manipulative so no one trusted him. We all had flaws, but I did all the cool stuff.

Am I playing wrong?

We don't optimize, that's for sure (gentleman's agreement and all that) but I thought the tier system held up for groups who all shared a roughly equal optimization level.


Most groups that I play with routinely, especially my primary RL group, have a number of players who frequently DM. The rules are set not by them, but by the rulebooks of the game we're playing.

That sounds great. It works for you. I'm sure you have your own set of houserules, such as not using planar binding to summon an efreeti and whatnot.


It can be all those things. However, that does not mean it is balanced.

I never said it was, but we have a lot less problems than what comes up around these forums. I guess if I summed it up, it would be - Play smarter, not harder. Get a DM that isn't afraid of a munchkin. Then yes, you can play a fighter 13 and end up as cool as Roy Greenhilt.


I suspect you would be better served by arguing that balance is not as important to game as other factors are. That's a rather easy to justify argument.

Instead, with theory vs practice, you are trying to demonstrate that the tier theory is wrong. This is much more difficult, and faces the challenge of much evidence against you.

Maybe I should, I don't know. I'm simply trying to share what works for me. DMs usually keep track of the characters ability, for instance, and might drop the fighter a really badass new sword to help him out (plus it's way cooler loot than a headband of int). I respect the tier system, but I do think it breaks down a little in play and with DM adjucation (so long as they are aware of it). Wizards may have all the answers on paper, but filling up a spell book takes a lot of money - and the DM is free to tell you that you can't find that scroll of time stop.

If you are careful, and work together with your group, the tier theory can be sidestepped, and things can turn out fun. They have for me, with some speedbumps, of course. But a little bit of imbalance is nice once in a while. Just so long as it tips both ways.

The tier theory won't dominate my game because you say it should. And it didn't seem to even before I knew about it.

It is most apparent in high-op, high-level, all-the-books-you-can-pull-stuff-out-of games. Not everyone plays like that, and not everyone has a blatant balance issue. In fact, have you ever noticed how so many pixies around here are so baffled when veterans tell them the game is almost brokenly unbalanced? All the fighter-vs-wizard threads?

So why play like that? Why take the fun out of the game, if that takes the fun out of game for you? Why beat people over the head, trying to get them to play OP'd, and then trying to fix all the screaming balance issues that pop up?

Play it your way, and make sure it's fun. I'm sure you already do. That's my take.

Hyooz
2010-10-05, 02:26 PM
We all know that the best way to play RPGs is as a team. A party of T1 optimised summoners makes for a dull, dull game and we all know it. The meatshields have their place and always will. All of the characters have their place and always will.


Are you kidding? A team of optimized summoners sounds AWESOME. It's like playing Pokemon in DnD form.

Catoblepas, I choose YOU!

Awnetu
2010-10-05, 02:38 PM
I pity the forumgoer who ignores all the legitimate alternatives that I provide and then zooms in on my joke option with the smiley.

That was more aimed to say, it's a bad answer. Sorry text doesn't carry tone or anything like that very well.

Koury
2010-10-05, 02:44 PM
Depends on the level and gear. At low levels it's pretty easy to disrupt the spellcaster. Archers readying attacks when he tries to cast. Creatures with see invisibility and dispel. Grapplers. Mook archers don't do enough damage to make me worry about my Concentration check, in most cases. And thats if they roll to hit the right Mirror Image and still get past my Displacement, etc, etc.


Higher levels gets more complex, and someone more experienced than I could probably give you a better answer. Offhand, I think it was golems or oozes (or both?) that are resistant to magic in general. NPCs with class levels in things like Occult Slayer, perhaps. It really depends on the tricks of the specific spellcaster that you're trying to challenge.

EDIT: Enemy spellcasters is another obvious one.

If all else fails, critters with AMF. :smallbiggrin: Enemy spellcaster is the only one I'd worry about, really. And if they're mook casters, maybe not even then. You know who hates emeny spellcasters too? My Fighter buddy. :smallbiggrin:


Oh, taking care of HP is easy. Give 'em lots of potions, solved. I don't want my WBL being taken up by potions :smalleek: Especially as a Fighter. I'd think dropping the Cleric a Wand of Lesser Vigor or three would be the better option.

But really, how many fights do you plan on in a day? If you go with the standard four, Wizards quit worrying about spell slots very early in game.


@Khoury
=>Good Anti-Spellcaster Minions
Well, anything that gets magic immunity or high SR, for starters. Yes, SR:No spells still get through. But many of these are single target, so you're wasting single-target spells on minions. You only have so many slots for your offensive spells... The Orbs compete with Evard's Tentacles, Dimension Door, Celerity, etc.

Examples are Half-Golems from MM2, which add 3 to the CR. Use the non-construct version, and they aren't imbeciles :smallsmile: How are those guys dealing with my Grease again? Or Web (wait, does Web still work? I'd have to check)? I can still effectivly control the battlefield, I think. And as for the Orbs, if I'm Mailman-ing it up, I only NEED a few spell slots. :smallbiggrin:

Tyndmyr
2010-10-05, 03:17 PM
I'm sorry, Tyndmyr, I'm not sure what you are still getting at. All along I've said "in my opinion," "your milage may vary" and "in my games/experience."

You are defending the OP, and the entire premise of this post is that, in a theory vs practice scenario, the tier system is wrong.

You can't draw broad conclusions about the game based solely on your experience in a heavily houseruled environment, especially when many people have disagreed with your experiences.


One - everyone on PrCs. How many times do I say this? They are part of the setting when I DM. So are a few classes, such as paladin (obviously has crunch tied with fluff), druid (semi-cohesive organisation that all speak druidic?), wizard (takes a lot of study and practice), cleric (probably group loosely with like-minded individuals).

That may be true for you, but is not required by the rules. For instance, a common language such a druidic does not require that they all belong to the same organization. This would have hilarious implications for those who speak common.


Classes as fluff could be completely separated, I guess. But that isn't my reading of the rules. Humans could be flying spaghetti monsters, and half-orcs could be a race of pirates. My fighter fires short range lasers while yours swings his detachable hammer head. When you deplete an enemy's HP through tickling them, they stop moving. No one actually needs to eat or sleep because, hey?

Of course not.

Flying spagetti monsters are not fluff. Flight is crunch. The above argument is clearly hyperbole, not an actual example of refluffing.


Every class fits a theme. A paladin magically gets a poke-warhorse. Fine, that fits his theme of divine knight. The paladin can suddenly cast arcane spells? If you played him as a diligent studier of the arcane all along, that fits. If he was the typical holy knight, it doesn't. Why don't we say he doesn't cast arcane spells anyway, he just screams really loud an it acts like a color spray. When he pounds on his chest he gains the equivalent of mage armor. They are magical effects and can be dispelled as per usual, but the fluff is tailored to him now.

How does it matter if he gains spells that are arcane or divine? Is it really that important? The guys a warrior with a dab of spells. One level up doesn't change that dramatically.


Not always, not in every game. Speak for your own game. This isn't RAI, or RAW, so I don't know where you are getting this. Where in RAW do they say "You can completely disregard or redo the fluff however you please, if a pseudo-medieval setting isn't your thing, go hard." 4e does, but I don't think 3e does.

D&D frequently encourages you to refluff existing things. DMG2, for instance. There are nearly endless examples of them giving you a number of possibilities for your game, with the details left open.


So I play it my way, backed up by the book even. You can stop telling me I'm wrong. I encourage you to play it however you want. IME it's not stifling my creativity to not use 1001 PrCs in every game. We make it personal and unique in our own way. And that works.

Did I say you were wrong? It appears I did not. Therefore, the above is irrelevant.

Rather, I examined the pros and cons of a given playstyle. Retreating to "it's in the book, and you can't tell me it's wrong" indicates that you're not actually interested in discussing this, which is a bit odd when posting on a discussion board.


Maybe, but before level 5 it's not actually that pronounced in an actual game. A monk with high strength still gets to dish some damage, with two attacks right off. I see that, in theory, monks are terrible. We give them full BAB and d10 HD, which doesn't solve their problems, but I'm not here to discuss my houserules.

Well, full BaB and d10 HD is a significant change. A monk with those changes is no longer the same as the monk described by the tier system. Therefore, it is not valid to use it as evidence against the tier system.

Furthermore, a core druid has the same hp and bab as the monk personally, and also has spells and an animal companion. Lets take a wolf as an example of a level 1 animal companion. 13 hp(so team druid is substantially ahead of team monk in total hp). The monk has to flurry to get two attacks, so, he's -2 to hit compared to team druid. Team Druid can flank with itself. The animal companion can also trip as a free action when he hits. Team druid would utterly obliterate team monk, either head to head, or against an equivalent foe.


A well played tier 1 class dominates a well played tier 5 class in theory much more than in practice. The difference in ability is still there, but is mitigated by so many things that actually come up in campaigns. I'm not here to tell you the tier system isn't spot on. At high levels it's completely apparent that it is well thought out. But there are a lot of factors that can blur the line in a lower level game, and a good DM will do just that to keep balance in check.[/quote[

The tier system is an average. It assumes equal levels and optimization ability. Now, it's true that some classes vary in power by level. However, tiers are very apparent in low level play.

For instance, monks just not hitting things. I don't know how many times I've seen this problem, but it comes up quite a lot. Given that hitting things is a pretty core ability for monks, it's bound to come up in play. Without modifications, monks are pretty poor.

[quote]To flip this, you could allow players to always build at level 20, gestalt, all books allowed, but what's the purpose? What does it add to the game? You could just as easily say it's your perogative to make the characters into new deities at the end of every session, but if the extra stuff doesn't improve the game, why bother?

That would also be pointless. Finding another pointless example does not justify the first one. What does homebrewing a special class for each individual PC add to make up for the downsides? You haven't answered that one yet.


If your going to sit here assuming that I'm a draconian DM, then I should address all your quotes like you don't even play with a DM. Just six players, telling each other how great all the treasure is.

Did you read what I posted? We use a DM, but he doesn't have special rule-making powers. The rules are the rules, but he still makes encounters and all that. You are welcome to address that if you like.

However, the point is, you made a universal claim about DMs in ALL RPGs being required to act as an ajudicator, and for the necessity of rule zero. I disproved that.


Not so. I was saying wasting level 5 spell slots to flash an extra grease, or a 7th level slot for a quickened haste isn't always (or even, usually) the most effecient use for the wizards spells in a day. Unless you are really in deep doo-doo, you probably aren't relying on the wizard to solve every encounter. Non-spellcasters actually get to fight the big monsters sometimes. Why would the wizard waste his spells unnecessarily?

When you have 8th level spells slots, you don't need to save slots. Novaing merely allows more spells cast total.

Assume that our level 15 wizard is a specialist in...whatever. Something. He receives 26 spells/day total, just fer being a wizard. Another 8/day for being specialist(we're ignoring cantrips). Another 12 or so bonus spells. So, he's in the neighborhood of 46 spells per day, not counting consumables. He can easily burn several spells per encounters without worrying over endurance.


I get the impression that a lot of people here play little more than 1 encounter/day.

Well, given that I was specifically describing a tactic to nova in each encounter, while doing 4-6 encounters per day, I can only presume that you didn't fully read or understand what I posted. Or perhaps you're referring to something else. You can easily quicken spells and deal with many encounters per day by the time you reach level 8 spells.


Equal chance that the wizard, with his terrible fort save, has already been polymorphed into a shrew, so what?

Negative. First off, the wizard has access to far more stat boosters and save boosters than melee types do. Secondly, instant-death fort saves take place at higher levels that will-targetting spells. This makes them less significant overall. Consider Charm Person, at level 1. This could easily turn the fighter from an ally to a hinderence. Suggestion is worse. By the time you get to the nasty SoD spells, things like Dominate Person are around.

Plus, for parties, a dominated person is of more danger in a battle than a dead one. Either way, you're a man down. But with dominate, they're now a man up, too.

It's possible for a bad character to actually be worse for his companions than if he wasn't there at all.


The tier theory won't dominate my game because you say it should. And it didn't seem to even before I knew about it.

Nobody is saying that it SHOULD. They're saying that it can come up, even completely by accident. There is a great number of anecdotal accounts of this, and sometimes problems result. Therefore, the theory is fairly well supported. As mentioned by someone else, you're confusing the speedometer with the guy who drives fast. There's no casual relationship there.

Greenish
2010-10-05, 03:32 PM
Classes as fluff could be completely separated, I guess. But that isn't my reading of the rules. Humans could be flying spaghetti monsters, and half-orcs could be a race of pirates. My fighter fires short range lasers while yours swings his detachable hammer head. When you deplete an enemy's HP through tickling them, they stop moving. No one actually needs to eat or sleep because, hey?

Of course not.As mentioned, flying is crunch, and I'm pretty sure most creature types specify having to eat. Having a detachable head might make one immune to garrotes.

Otherwise, if they fit the campaign, why not?

Tyndmyr
2010-10-05, 03:34 PM
TL:DR for this thread.

In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice...

Dralnu
2010-10-05, 03:35 PM
Mook archers don't do enough damage to make me worry about my Concentration check, in most cases. And thats if they roll to hit the right Mirror Image and still get past my Displacement, etc, etc.

I think I should clarify what I meant by "low levels." Low, as in 1-5. A level 1 wizard's insta-gib Grease / Color Spray can be effectively hampered by a mook archer. And if not, there's still the grapples. And there's more options out there that I haven't thought of.

At what level are you going to start using Mirror Image and Displacement each encounter? Also, if most encounters are surprises, then a wizard spending the first 2 rounds of combat to make sure he lives while the fullplate Fighter charges on round 1 seems pretty fair.

You want higher levels, we can start talking counterspells and that feat that doesn't let a caster cast defensively when threatened. You add in swift action teleports? Your opponents can do it too. And I'll repeat: I'm not a DnD guru. Start a thread asking what DM methods are out there to defeat a wizard level by level, from specific actions, spells, feats, tactics, and monsters, and I'm sure you'll find waaaaay more than you or I could think of.

Everything has a counter out there. "But then I do XYZ" is not a valid argument, because you can just put on your DM hat and say "but then I do ZYX."


Enemy spellcaster is the only one I'd worry about, really.

Good for you?


And if they're mook casters, maybe not even then. You know who hates emeny spellcasters too? My Fighter buddy. :smallbiggrin:

As I said, every strategy has a counter. The more optimized the players are, the more optimized the DM has to be.

You can very easily make enemies that effectively counter Wizards but not have hard counters to Fighters.


I don't want my WBL being taken up by potions :smalleek: Especially as a Fighter. I'd think dropping the Cleric a Wand of Lesser Vigor or three would be the better option.

I never said anything about WBL. You just let them find the potions.

I was also using the Wizard and Fighter party. If you want to add in Clerics, sure, that's another option. My point remains.


But really, how many fights do you plan on in a day? If you go with the standard four, Wizards quit worrying about spell slots very early in game.

As many as the group in question requires so that the goal of toning down the wizard is attained. Since no party/character/player is the same, there's no absolute numbers.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-05, 03:37 PM
And I'll repeat: I'm not a DnD guru. Start a thread asking what DM methods are out there to defeat a wizard level by level, from specific actions, spells, feats, tactics, and monsters, and I'm sure you'll find waaaaay more than you or I could think of.

Everything has a counter out there. "But then I do XYZ" is not a valid argument, because you can just put on your DM hat and say "but then I do ZYX."

No, no, please don't start this thread. We have them all the time. It's the wizard vs fighter thread. It eventually devolves into ludicrous claims of christmas tree fighters simulating casters vs shrodinger's wizards. Then, they duel, and the wizards obliterate the fighters.

We already have one of these threads going RIGHT NOW. No more, please.

Dralnu
2010-10-05, 03:39 PM
No, no, please don't start this thread. We have them all the time. It's the wizard vs fighter thread. It eventually devolves into ludicrous claims of christmas tree fighters simulating casters vs shrodinger's wizards. Then, they duel, and the wizards obliterate the fighters.

We already have one of these threads going RIGHT NOW. No more, please.

I think you misunderstand. It's not Wizard vs. Fighter, it's Wizard vs. DM. I'm saying that the DM can win. Don't you agree?

lsfreak
2010-10-05, 03:39 PM
Negative. First off, the wizard has access to far more stat boosters and save boosters than melee types do. Secondly, instant-death fort saves take place at higher levels that will-targetting spells. This makes them less significant overall. Consider Charm Person, at level 1. This could easily turn the fighter from an ally to a hinderence. Suggestion is worse. By the time you get to the nasty SoD spells, things like Dominate Person are around.

And on top of this, fighters are far more bound by their WBL than a wizard is. A wizard can afford to boost their saves ridiculously high, while a fighter who does that cripples himself in another area. Specializing in one thing (offense, defense, action economy) costs a spellcaster far less than it does a martial character in terms of what they have to give up.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-05, 03:44 PM
I think you misunderstand. It's not Wizard vs. Fighter, it's Wizard vs. DM. I'm saying that the DM can win. Don't you agree?

That strikes me as possibly even more pointless. DM can "win" anything. Rocks fall. That doesn't make it a good solution to anything.

Dralnu
2010-10-05, 03:49 PM
That strikes me as possibly even more pointless. DM can "win" anything. Rocks fall. That doesn't make it a good solution to anything.

I agree. But now actually read what led up to the little part you skimmed and responded to. I'm telling Koury that if you have a party of a Wizard and a Fighter, as a DM with the Wizard's spell list in front of you, it's possible to make encounters that the Wizard cannot 1shot and the Fighter can participate in without feeling useless. I believe that it's possible to do at the low levels, and increasingly complex but still doable as we go up in levels. Koury is arguing against that.

Do you agree?

Tyndmyr
2010-10-05, 03:51 PM
It's possible. It can become not reasonable at a given point, though. When you have the kind of encounter with "the wizard's opponent", whom the rest of the party cannot really hope to touch, and a bunch of mooks for them to clean up.

Sure, it does challenge them both, but it becomes obvious that they're playing second fiddle. Thats a problem.

Keld Denar
2010-10-05, 04:00 PM
Every class fits a theme. A paladin magically gets a poke-warhorse. Fine, that fits his theme of divine knight. The paladin can suddenly cast arcane spells? If you played him as a diligent studier of the arcane all along, that fits. If he was the typical holy knight, it doesn't. Why don't we say he doesn't cast arcane spells anyway, he just screams really loud an it acts like a color spray. When he pounds on his chest he gains the equivalent of mage armor. They are magical effects and can be dispelled as per usual, but the fluff is tailored to him now.
The glory of D&D is that you CAN. You HAVE options. You can ignore them if you want, but that doesn't mean people who don't ignore their options are doing it wrong.

What if the Paladin venerates Mystra, goddess of magic? She, in the Forgotten Realms campaign setting has her own freakin order of PALADINS. They're called the Mystic Fire Knights. They learn how to cast WIZARD spells out of their paladin slots, and many of them multiclass into Wizard. Its written right there in the sacred fluff in Champions of Valor. Its a Paladin, who isn't acting like the PHB Paladin, yet it works.

Also, a very common diety for Paladins is Bahamut, the Platinum Dragon. Being a racial deity (like Gruumsh or Bloopdoolploop), he shows up in most of the published campaign settings like FR and Greyhawk. Bahamut is a diety of duty, honor, justice, and all other things paladiny. Also, dragons. Draconic blood is also fluffed to be one of the main drivers of sorcererous power, right? Its there in the PHB. So, what if a Paladin who feels called by Bahamut, who venerates Bahamut, comes to the realization that he feels this way because he's VERY VERY VERY distantly dragonblooded? That dragon blood in his veins is like fire, igniting sorcerous tendancies. It explodes violently from him one day. He takes a leave of absence from his Paladin duties to wander and meditate and learn to control his Sorcerer abilities through shear self-awareness (high Cha). Finally reigning in these abilities, he strives to go back to serving the paladinhood. He realizes he's not like the other boys who graduated from Paladin acadamy anymore though. He's been touched by Bahamut's blood which only recently manifested itself (due to age, faith, losing his virginity, whatever). Instead, he focuses on channeling the fire in his blood through the skill of his blade, forging it into a blazing suit of armor to protect him, and confound his enemies, Bahamut's enemies, with his combined abilities, the way that the dragons he venerates often do. In his adventures, he discovers that devils (sanctioned by Tiamat) are stealing dragon eggs for corrupt experiments. He vows to hunt down and slay all devils involved, and anyone who aides them, in the name of Bahamut. Bam! Paladin2/Sorcerer4/Spellsword1/AbjurantChampion5/SacredExorcist8. The classic Sorcadin build that has been around pretty much since CMage was published 4 or so years ago. One of the most streamlined gish characters ever built, uses 5 classes (3 of which are PrCs) including the titular Paladin. The character calls himself a Paladin of Bahamut his whole life, and anyone who disputes this fact gets a great sword to the face. The only part that requires a little help from the DM is the fluff behind SacEx, but most DMs would be pleased to be thrown a free plot hook.

And yea, melee characters are the ones who benefit most from multiclassing. What are a spellcaster's primary tools? Spells, which they only get from their 1 base class + casting PrCs. What are a melee characters primary tools? BAB and HP. Thats it. Your BAB doesn't reset back to one if you multiclass from Fighter to Barbarian like your caster level does when you multiclass from Wizard to Cleric. Nope, it STACKS. That means as long as you are getting BAB and HP, the rest of it doesn't really matter. You might be getting feats from Fighter, feats from Ranger, rage or other abilities from Barbarian, mettle from Hexblade OR Pious Templar, maneuvers from Warblade or Crusader, perma-Mind Blank from Occult Slayer, spells from a casting class like Sorcerer or Suel Arcanamach followed by a gishy PrC like Spellsword or Abjurant Champion, Cha synergy from Paladin2 or Turn Undead from Paladin4. Whatever features you are getting, you are putting them together in a way that makes the character stronger. Each builds on what you want to do because it adds BAB and HP.

So restricting multiclassing ONLY really hurts melee classes because melee classes are SOOOOO modular. Spellcasting classes rely on being linear to gain the next level of power. Melee classes are aren't bound by that linearity. To restrict them in such a way is unnecessary.

Dralnu
2010-10-05, 04:16 PM
It's possible. It can become not reasonable at a given point, though. When you have the kind of encounter with "the wizard's opponent", whom the rest of the party cannot really hope to touch, and a bunch of mooks for them to clean up.

Sure, it does challenge them both, but it becomes obvious that they're playing second fiddle. Thats a problem.

I was thinking more of "stuff that's very difficult for the wizard to handle but fighters handle normally" and "stuff that's potentially 1shotted by the wizard."

Example: Wizard and Fighter come across 6 baddies. 3 baddies, for whatever reason, are immune to the wizard's popular tactics, so the fighter goes to deal with them. The other 3 can be handled by the wizard so he doesn't get blue balls.

Far more work on the DM's part, but I have a feeling that it's possible.

Valameer
2010-10-05, 04:34 PM
You are defending the OP, and the entire premise of this post is that, in a theory vs practice scenario, the tier system is wrong.

You can't draw broad conclusions about the game based solely on your experience in a heavily houseruled environment, especially when many people have disagreed with your experiences.

While I agree with the OP, I've been defending *my* OP from then on, not theirs. I haven't said the tier system is wrong. It's a fine example of what can potentially happen, and might often happen in certain games.

I haven't drawn any broad conclusions. Everything I have said is subjective.


For instance, a common language such a druidic does not require that they all belong to the same organization. This would have hilarious implications for those who speak common.

Common is clearly different. Druids are part of a loose organization, fwiw. I didn't make that up by guessing based on their languages known. I don't see how "Though their organization is invisible to most outsiders," and "Druids are proficient in light and medium armor but prohibited from wearing metal armor;" are so different. One matters, one does not? My PHB doesn't have some text in red letters, and some in black. Maybe yours is different.


Flying spagetti monsters are not fluff. Flight is crunch. The above argument is clearly hyperbole, not an actual example of refluffing.

Obviously, the flight here is just fluff. The character doesn't actually have a flight speed. I thought you could separate flavour and rules?


I examined the pros and cons of a given playstyle. Retreating to "it's in the book, and you can't tell me it's wrong" indicates that you're not actually interested in discussing this, which is a bit odd when posting on a discussion board.

I think you examined the cons, yes. Did you touch on the pros? That's pretty graphic wording "retreating", "not interested in discussing this." I'm asking you to ease up on that sort of language, please. It's insidious and purposefully trying to make my arguments look weak, when I'm just trying to provide a paradigm that's worked for me.


Well, full BaB and d10 HD is a significant change. A monk with those changes is no longer the same as the monk described by the tier system. Therefore, it is not valid to use it as evidence against the tier system.

I didn't, I said I wasn't here to discuss my houserules. Monk is an extreme example of an unbalanced class, and I'm not opposing you there. It's a fairly easy mark for you to keep critiquing balance by, especially where you compare it to a druid.


tiers are very apparent in low level play.

I disagree. Outside of monks, which you've hammered home and are irrelevant to me, I don't find wizards, clerics, and druids that far off in usefulness compared to rangers, bards, and paladins.


However, the point is, you made a universal claim about DMs in ALL RPGs being required to act as an ajudicator, and for the necessity of rule zero. I disproved that.

Hm, I must have missed where you did that. Or where I made a universal claim. "Required?" Seriously? Should and must are different. The DMG has some helpful hints on how to adjucate and maintain balance if you care to peruse it.

The necessity of rule zero? Of course such a rule should exist. It's healthy to the game. Otherwise you get pun-pun. You don't have to ever use rule zero, but it's there if you need it. And some DMs will use it. So I guess you didn't really disprove anything.

As I've stated several times now, everything I've said is from my own experience. So stop trying to make me look like the fool who is using logic in an opinion thread. The only person I see here doing that is you.


Finding another pointless example does not justify the first one.

You made the first pointless example, Tyndmyr. I juxtaposed them to show you that you were being rediculous.


What does homebrewing a special class for each individual PC add to make up for the downsides?

Well, we don't do it often. Only when a character concept can't work as an existing class. Make up for the downsides of... homebrewing? I don't know. It's fun. Make up for the downsides of limited PrC options?

I don't need over 200 class options to enjoy my character. If I was compelled to search out a lot of PrCs, I'll be honest, I would probably do it out of a pure love of optimisation. Just like you said, a wizard is a wizard is a paladin. Why should we worry about working on your build so much, if the flavour you want is "wizard."


Assume that our level 15 wizard is a specialist in...whatever. Something. He receives 26 spells/day total, just fer being a wizard. Another 8/day for being specialist(we're ignoring cantrips). Another 12 or so bonus spells. So, he's in the neighborhood of 46 spells per day, not counting consumables. He can easily burn several spells per encounters without worrying over endurance.

Ok? So every round he casts one of those spells, clearing mooks and buffing the party. The cleric maintains a strict buff and healing regimen on the paladin, while the paladin fights one on one with Imix, Lord of Elemental Fire. With the wizard and cleric's help, the paladin cleaves Imix Himself in twain, and forevermore seals the Dark God in his eternal prison!

Wait, are we talking about building characters to play, or just to compare theoretical mastery?


Negative. First off, the wizard has access to far more stat boosters and save boosters than melee types do. Secondly, instant-death fort saves take place at higher levels that will-targetting spells. This makes them less significant overall. Consider Charm Person, at level 1. This could easily turn the fighter from an ally to a hinderence. Suggestion is worse. By the time you get to the nasty SoD spells, things like Dominate Person are around.

Plus, for parties, a dominated person is of more danger in a battle than a dead one. Either way, you're a man down. But with dominate, they're now a man up, too.

It's possible for a bad character to actually be worse for his companions than if he wasn't there at all.

Irrelevant. First, wizard blew half his spells on buffing himself when he could have buffed the fighter. Second, D&D is supposed to be fun. I don't often see good DMs punish players with characters weaknesses with stuff like this very often. So when it does happen, once in a while, it's exciting!


Therefore, the theory is fairly well supported. As mentioned by someone else, you're confusing the speedometer with the guy who drives fast. There's no casual relationship there.

Have I said that I respect the tier theories? I believe I did. Did I mention that a good DM is aware of the tier system? Oh, right, I did. Did I say that a good DM can blur the lines and make tiers not matter too much in play? I think so.

So all in all, in a well run campaign, players have fun, and don't get punished by all the stuff we potentially see in theory.

I'm not writing another essay on this topic, especially when my intentions are being obfuscated for the sake of argument.

Thurbane
2010-10-05, 04:44 PM
FWIW, I agree with many (most?) of the points that casper, Lyceios and Dralnu bring up.

I wouldn't say that the tier system is wrong: I would say that in the average co-op game, it is largely irrelevant, though. That's been my experience, anyhow. I might be a bit biased: I cut my teeth on 1E where it was accepted that Wizards are weak at low levels, but god-like at high levels - we didn't gnash our teeth about it, we just accepted it as "the spirit of the game" and played on...

What the tier system simply cannot do is account for individual playstyles, optimization levels, campaign/adventure setting, and those dozens of other variables between games. It isn't a bad tool for measuring classes in a vacuum, which as far as I know, is what it was designed for. It just bugs me when some people hold it up as some kind of universal truth proclaiming "DO NOT PLAY CLASS X, YOU WILL NOT HAVE FUN!". If you don't think this happens, have a good look around these forums somew time... :smallfrown:

Saph
2010-10-05, 04:52 PM
I wouldn't say that the tier system is wrong: I would say that in the average co-op game, it is largely irrelevant, though. That's been my experience, anyhow.

I'd agree. The tier system's useful if you're trying to gauge potential power in a high-optimisation environment, but since virtually no-one plays any class to its maximum potential power, it's of limited use in practice.

Koury
2010-10-05, 05:29 PM
I think I should clarify what I meant by "low levels." Low, as in 1-5. A level 1 wizard's insta-gib Grease / Color Spray can be effectively hampered by a mook archer. And if not, there's still the grapples. And there's more options out there that I haven't thought of. At level 1 that mook archer is wasting time waiting to attack until I cast a spell instead of just straight up killing me. I have, what, 6 HP at level 1? I win just by not casting a spell and effectively taking an enemy out of the fight by doing nothing in that situation. Level 1 isn't the best area of comparison.

By 3-5, however, I repeat what I said about not caring about the Concentration check. 5 damage (slightly above average if they are using a longbow), level 3 spell. DC 18.

+2 Con (fair, I believe)
+8 Ranks

So, without the least bit of optimization going into it, I need an eight. If he hits me. OK.



At what level are you going to start using Mirror Image and Displacement each encounter? Also, if most encounters are surprises, then a wizard spending the first 2 rounds of combat to make sure he lives while the fullplate Fighter charges on round 1 seems pretty fair. The Fighter is charging before I can buff him? Also, we're at least level 3 if the Fighter ha a full plate. So he has, what, 21 AC if he has a shield? I have 16 for most fights and 22 for 10 min/level when I need it (and if we're walking through a dungeon, 30 minutes will cover a few fights). So I'm harder to hit then him without miss chances anyway.


You want higher levels, we can start talking counterspells and that feat that doesn't let a caster cast defensively when threatened. You add in swift action teleports? Your opponents can do it too. And I'll repeat: I'm not a DnD guru. Start a thread asking what DM methods are out there to defeat a wizard level by level, from specific actions, spells, feats, tactics, and monsters, and I'm sure you'll find waaaaay more than you or I could think of. Yeah, not starting that thread. :smallbiggrin: And again, if someone is wasting actions redying counterspells on me, I've neutralized them without doing anything. Then I use my reserve feats until he actually does something. Then I cast my spells anyway.


Everything has a counter out there. "But then I do XYZ" is not a valid argument, because you can just put on your DM hat and say "but then I do ZYX."

Good for you? I feel like you're taking this a little personally, friend.


As I said, every strategy has a counter. The more optimized the players are, the more optimized the DM has to be.

You can very easily make enemies that effectively counter Wizards but not have hard counters to Fighters. So how does the fighter kill this thing after you wipe the wizard with it?


I never said anything about WBL. You just let them find the potions.

I was also using the Wizard and Fighter party. If you want to add in Clerics, sure, that's another option. My point remains. I assumed a standard party, yes. And ignoring WBL for one character isn't the best way to balance.


As many as the group in question requires so that the goal of toning down the wizard is attained. Since no party/character/player is the same, there's no absolute numbers. Well, the assumption is four encounters per day. Even EL encounters, that is, you can have more weaker ones, for instance. Breaking from this puts strain on the Fighter just as much as the Wizard and Cleric, if not more so.


I'm telling Koury that if you have a party of a Wizard and a Fighter, as a DM with the Wizard's spell list in front of you, it's possible to make encounters that the Wizard cannot 1shot and the Fighter can participate in without feeling useless. I believe that it's possible to do at the low levels, and increasingly complex but still doable as we go up in levels. Koury is arguing against that.

Do you agree? Here is a level 5 Wizard (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=240049) I'm currently using in a campaign. Its a fledgling Mailman build. It is in a party with a number of others and hasn't, to my knowledge, made anyone else feel useless.

I'm in no way arguing you can't "make encounters that the Wizard cannot 1shot and the Fighter can participate in without feeling useless."

I'm certainly of the mind that you can't make encounters that the Fighter can one-shot and the Wizard can't participate in, however.



I was thinking more of "stuff that's very difficult for the wizard to handle but fighters handle normally" and "stuff that's potentially 1shotted by the wizard."

Example: Wizard and Fighter come across 6 baddies. 3 baddies, for whatever reason, are immune to the wizard's popular tactics, so the fighter goes to deal with them. The other 3 can be handled by the wizard so he doesn't get blue balls.

Far more work on the DM's part, but I have a feeling that it's possible. OK, my popular tactics are Grease, Glitterdust and Web. I make the baddies prone/blind/entangled so my minions allies can work easier. What level 3-5 baddies are immune to those? Off the top of my head, incorporeal undead are it. And those are bad guys you really want the Wizard around for, I'd think. :smalltongue:

Starbuck_II
2010-10-05, 05:33 PM
Irrelevant. First, wizard blew half his spells on buffing himself when he could have buffed the fighter. Second, D&D is supposed to be fun. I don't often see good DMs punish players with characters weaknesses with stuff like this very often. So when it does happen, once in a while, it's exciting!



Wizard csst spells that are his on himself. He has that right. I mean, this isn't socialism.
No one owns those spells but the Wizard.

Thurbane
2010-10-05, 05:54 PM
Wizard csst spells that are his on himself. He has that right. I mean, this isn't socialism.
No one owns those spells but the Wizard.
Perhaps not, but in a co-op game, it's nice to share buffs around the party.

Also, it's heavily dependant on the style of game, personality of the players & characters etc. There is no "blanket statement" in regards to the correct sharing of spells/resources...

Eldariel
2010-10-05, 07:28 PM
If the DM is purposely throwing MULTIPLE encounters that render specific characters useless and detracts from those player's enjoyment, he's a bad DM. Throwing a constant stream of monsters that are immune to physical damage so that all the melee in the group just twiddle their thumbs is dumb. A DM can always win if he wants to. Your level 12 Wizard will still feel useless when Pun-Pun kills him in the blink of an eye. "Well, you should've contacted Pazuzu! N00b!"

There's way, way too much going on in the game to say things like that as generalizations. DM's job varies depending on the playstyle of the playgroup and the desires of the players (and the DM himself, of course). For example, many of us (yours truly included) enjoy immersive worlds. I enjoy encounters that are not in any way tailored for the party but could occur to anyone in that particular area of the world. If a level 1 party ends up in the Abyss, facing off against a Balor isn't out of the question. How that encounter goes is a different matter, but to me, player-tailored encounters detract from the enjoyment of the game as a whole.

The only kind of encounter tailoring we do is, when some hostile organization finds out something about the PCs, it will react according to the information they have available and the more information they gain, the more accurately anti-party attacks they will organize. As such, obviously avoiding letting the hostiles know too much about you before you move against the organization itself becomes really bad; but that's the way we like it. You can lose a war in the bedroom just as much as on the battlefield.

To me, immersion takes priority over balancing encounters for every character. I'm of the opinion that DM shouldn't have to balance encounters for the party. That's extra works and reduces the options the DM has available. If a party is overmatched they can just run or try to bribe their way out or talk or whatever. In such a gamestyle though, there's little room for vast differences in party members' efficiency.

You say DM should make encounters suit the party and challenge each party member about equally over the course of the campaign. I say DM should ensure the party members all have their unique areas of expertise so the balancing takes care of itself without anyone's intervention. We simply build the characters together.

If someone doesn't know the rules all that well, no problem! We simply ask him to describe the character he has in his head and what kinds of abilities he'd want the character to have. Then we think for a bit and go through all the class/feat combination options we can think of that would give the player what he desires, and run them by him with rough descriptions and he'll pick what he wants. Then we simply build the character together with him.


This way, everyone gets to play exactly what they want with a rather accurate mechanical representation (utilizing homebrew as necessary) and everyone is roughly on the same level. And the world tries to be believable and everyone gets to shine when their character is made to shine. And we get immersion; when you notice you are faced by opponents countering your strengths, there's a reason behind that and something has happened in the past that has lead to this instead of it being just another random encounter that happens to constitute of an anti-party.

To be clear, I'm not saying it's wrong for DM to customize encounters with the party in mind. I am, however, saying that it's not for nearly every playgroup, and for those it doesn't suit, it also cannot act as a balancing mechanism. It's also not the only balancing mechanism available; communal character creation works just as well.

Gametime
2010-10-05, 09:51 PM
I think it's safe to say that no one is DOIN IT RONG because they are aware of the tier system, or aren't aware of the tier system, or have balance issues in play, or don't have balance issues in play. If you and your players are having fun, that's all that really matters.

That doesn't mean the tiers are inaccurate, though. It just means they're limited in scope, as Thurbane and Saph have already said. The tier system tells you very little about how your character will function in play (unless you're a Truenamer, in which case there's not a lot of variance). It tells you a lot about how a hypothetical version of your character might function in play.

The tier system isn't prescriptive. It doesn't define how good you are, or how well you'll deal with encounters. It's descriptive on a broad scale; how well a certain class might respond to a series of challenges, how efficiently they handle it, how much variance in encounters a single character example can handle, and so on. For the purpose of measuring that sort of hypothetical upper bound, it's extremely helpful, and games that utilize that level of power do exist. For the rest of us, it's a nice shorthand to refer to a class's limitations.*

There's no such thing as badwrongfun when it comes to this game, so long as the players and DM are happy. Anyone suggesting otherwise, for any reason, is probably missing the point.

*Of course, using the shorthand often spirals into a long and circular discussion about the justification for the shorthand and ends up making the discussion much longer than it would have been if we had just enunciated the unique problems or advantages of each class in explicit detail to begin with, but so it goes.

FMArthur
2010-10-05, 10:30 PM
The number of DMs on the planet Earth who can make a functioning, open-ended plot actually handle the intended use of Divination spells is probably under a thousand.

Psyx
2010-10-06, 06:01 AM
Yea... no. The tier system is there to calibrate something. Your statement is akin to saying that cars with speedometers are there for people who do NASCAR.

Having only been aware of it for less than a year, I'd say it's a pretty optional tool at best.

[Purpose-built sports-cars tend not to have speedometers in them anyway... what would be the point?]

Whenever a player mentions it, I become wary, as -anecdotally- every player who I know who has ever mentioned it or heard of it is a dreadful min-maxxer, who has turned to the internet to make their 'habit' even more chronic, at the cost of increasing the disparity between them and others. I have not exactly met a lot of people who are familiar with the system who then DON'T play a Summoner in the immediate future! In other words, the system only affects the play of people who are already optimising, it seems. The other 90% of people I play with get on just fine without the system in place.

Tytalus
2010-10-06, 06:06 AM
Exactly.

And the gap is obviously widened horribly if some people around the table optimise a lot and others don't. It's why I view excessive optimisation as a very bad thing for the game. Any game, in fact.

The proper conclusion to draw from this is actually that varying degrees of optimization - not optimization itself - is the problem.

Aharon
2010-10-06, 10:32 AM
@Khoury
=> Low level battlefield Control (Grease, Web)
Take a base creature with levitation or flying with good/perfect maneuverability. This also hurts Trippers, though.
Or add one or more creatures with dispel magic as an SLA, there are enough of them.

=> Mailman
Yes, you take down one target per round, or two if you also quicken. Congrats, you're as effective as the competently charging melee guy.

Plus, you didn't ask for ways to obliterate casters, you asked for good mooks. Mooks eventually die. It's not their job to resist everything the players throw at them. If the Caster uses up spells, their job is done. And if lacking these spells in more important battles (say, again a BBEG) hurts, their job was done well.

Gametime
2010-10-06, 11:11 AM
Having only been aware of it for less than a year, I'd say it's a pretty optional tool at best.

Of course it's an optional tool. I don't think anyone here has suggested that understanding tiers is an absolute necessity to play D&D, nor even that the tier system purports to model exact results of games.


Whenever a player mentions it, I become wary, as -anecdotally- every player who I know who has ever mentioned it or heard of it is a dreadful min-maxxer, who has turned to the internet to make their 'habit' even more chronic, at the cost of increasing the disparity between them and others. I have not exactly met a lot of people who are familiar with the system who then DON'T play a Summoner in the immediate future! In other words, the system only affects the play of people who are already optimising, it seems. The other 90% of people I play with get on just fine without the system in place.

There's nothing about the tier system that involves "putting it into place." The tier system doesn't say wizards are always played better than fighters, or there's no reason to ever use a fighter, or that a certain paradigm needs to be adopted for games to work. It is a purely descriptive tool designed to quantify the upper bounds of character potential. That's it.

You can be completely unaware of tiers and still be playing a character that could be described as tier 1, and completely aware of them and playing a tier 5. Nothing about the system affects gameplay except insofar as it educates and informs players about possible outcomes.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-06, 11:20 AM
The number of DMs on the planet Earth who can make a functioning, open-ended plot actually handle the intended use of Divination spells is probably under a thousand.

Don't know. There's certainly plenty on this forum that can swing it.

Keep in mind that divination is a lot more limited in practice than TOers would have you believe. Wasting a lot of time and slots on COP determining what spells to prepare on day X is not generally practical.

Finding out info about the plot certainly is. Especially if, as so often is the case, the players have gotten fixated on something that is entirely off the main plotline. If the questions asked are not the right questions, the information gained, even if accurate, is likely not a problem. It may help them eliminate possibilities, but that's not a bad thing.

casper
2010-10-06, 11:37 AM
Thanks everyone for replies!

A bit later, i'll probably comment on some more posts, but now I just have no time for that. :redface:


That's because it's easiest. One of the fastest ways to make a fighter more powerful is to trade levels of fighter for other classes. First two levels of fighter are fine, six if you're into dungeoncrasher.

If you ask for optimization, you get optimization.

But there are still ways to optimize Fighter. I disagree with thos who say that he has no class features. Ton of feats IS class feature and with som books like PHB II it can be used right, IMHO :-)


Right. Imbalance won't always break the game. It exists, sure, but players often play as a team, and try to specialize in different areas. It makes more sense for a wizard to learn a spell to do something entirely new than to learn one replicating a rogue class feature, when he's limited on money or time.

This is one of the things I want to say. I understand, that wizard can do a rogue's job, but he can do something else, and do it better, when there is actual rogue in the party. And both wizard and rogue would be usefull and happy.


Also, keep in mind that player skill and optimization skill are both heavy factors in terms of power levels. A brand new player with a wizard is likely not overpowered, because they don't know what they're doing, and wizards are very sensitive to optimization. A brand new barbarian is much easier to play, and much less variable in power.

Again, i can only agree.


Happens. Im guessing optimization differences, given that the wizard didn't PrC out before archmage, if then. Barb/frenzied berserker isn't bad, and assassin isn't a bad prc. Melee classes do fine in low optimization environments.

You are right. Like you noted above, wizards are very sensitive to optimization, and the player made Wizard was rather new to a game, while Ninja was better at optimizing and Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker is rather hard to totally screw up.


That's what happens with a well played BC wizard. He WAS the most powerful(well, ghost is pretty awesome too), he merely shared the power out to his less fortunate companions. The fighter was not balanced because the classes are balanced, but because the powerful player opted to make them balanced.

This is not bad, by the way, but not every wizard does so.


Actually, an Iot7V can easily make himself pretty untouchable by enemies, and plink away with lower spell slots or wands, if desired. The only danger is similarly leveled casters, really.

Tanking does suck in D&D. Just doesn't work. AC optimization is thus generally pointless once you're significantly above party average.

Now see, since both the wizard and the bard can be effectively impervious to enemy attack, the fighter and deepwarden are mostly only there to make combat take a few less rounds. It shouldn't significantly impact spell usage, or time to clear areas. Keep in mind that with less party members, that's less slots used on buffs.

Now obviously, that choice wasn't taken...but if it ever becomes more apparent to the party that the wizard would be better off without them, you have a problem.

And here I'll disagree. I have a feeling, that you imagine our IoT7V as a daddy letting kids have fun.
It wasn't like that.
Both Wizard and Fighter was on pretty same level of optimizing. And both were aware, that Wizards are generally much better, than Fighters. But that wasn't a problem. Yes, Fighter wanted to prove, that you can be cool without inner magic ability or anything like that, roleplay-wise, but they always acted as a team. And I'm pretty sure, that without Fighter Wizard just wouldn't be so effective (by the way, "less slots on buffs" idea is kinda nonsense. There would ANYWAY be teammates for Wizard, or should I say to players: you know, there is a cool caster in a party, go home and don't bother him"? :smalltongue:). They met tons of monsters that was too powerful and spell-resistant to be neutralized by wands or even low-level spells. So for caster, each of them would probably cost one of usefull spell slots. Fighter did his job, mostly in single round and mostly without spending any resourses (even hp, he had an item to regenerate it). I'll say more - the party would almost sertanly be weaker if there would be weaker, if Fighter was replaced by some other character, be it even Tier 1 (which are still mostly can't to do, like, several hundreds damage a second all day long). The same goes to Wizard - he probably couldn't be replaced by something different without loss for party as a team.
Please, believe me, they really worked well together. Wizard didn't let Fighter to shine because he wanted poor little melee guy to feel better. He just directed most his resourses to party not being killed. And fighter directed it to kill. Those two things are usially primary adventurers' goals. And if Wizard tried to overshine Fighter in his area, he would need to sacrifice something. Why would it be needed?
On other hand, really unlucky tank could be actually useful as a Cleric or Druid. While Bard, that may sound awsome, but actually wasnt all that useful, would be better in what he already did with some class having Trapfinding feature and Spot as a class skill (a player had kinda funny backstory and didn't visit most session anyway, but, just theoretically).
And that lead us to a 4 classical roles - arcane magican, dinine magican. melee character and a skillmonkey - much older concept of well-balanced party, than Tier system.


Well, the point is that balance is overrated. Good players are far more important than having class balance. This doesn't make the theory wrong, mind you. The classes ARE imbalanced. It just isn't a game ender if you've got mature people who want to play together.

It is what I began with. Classes ARE imbalased and Tier system generally MAKES sense. But just having all characters playing the same Tier is not always a solution, and having them playing polar Tiers is not always a problem.

And yes, i think, everyone who participate inthis discussion, would generally agree, that the main issue is not what's called balance. The main issue is fun.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-06, 11:45 AM
And here I'll disagree. I have a feeling, that you imagine our IoT7V as a daddy letting kids have fun.
It wasn't like that.

Didn't mean to say it was, only that it *could* have been. Purely hypothetically. I've played a rather high optimization IoT7V before(he had enough levels of incantatrix to persist things, too), and while I obviously worked with the party, I certainly realized that there wasn't any particular reason why I had to.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-06, 11:46 AM
This is one of the things I want to say. I understand, that wizard can do a rogue's job, but he can do something else, and do it better, when there is actual rogue in the party. And both wizard and rogue would be usefull and happy.
Yes.

Aside from that, it bears repeating that opening locks is not "the rogue's job". Opening locks is neither important nor a big deal in any game I've ever been in, so it isn't anybody's job in particular.

Rather, the rogue can have a variety of jobs including stealth, sneak attacking, face, and so forth; and it is highly unlikely that, in a normal adventuring party, he will be upstaged by the wizard in all of these.

Amphetryon
2010-10-06, 11:48 AM
Tier is not always a solution, and having them playing polar Tiers is not always a problem.That's not really their function. Tiers serve as indicators to the DM that party balance may or may not be more precarious than s/he originally thought. It's entirely possible that the Fighter and the Wizard can play at the same table without either feeling like the other's contribution makes the game imbalanced or less fun. The Tiers are a handy tool to let the DM know that this is harder to achieve, in general, than it would be if those two players were to choose a Psychic Warrior and a Dread Necromancer. The Tiers let the DM know s/he may have to work harder to make the former pairing work smoothly in game than the latter.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-06, 11:49 AM
He shouldn't be. However, the potential is certainly present.

Invisibility/silence for stealth, any damage spells to replace sneak attack, any skill boosting spells to allow being a party face(and wizards get great skills per lev), and knock to solve locks.

Keld Denar
2010-10-06, 11:55 AM
Le sigh. Again, the Tier system isn't about direct power. Its about potential. Just because the Wizards in your games are team players and focus on group buffs and being a team player, doesn't mean he doesn't have the potential to break the game. Just because the Cleric doesn't cast Divine Powah on himself and out Power Attack your Power Attacker, doesn't mean he can't.

Tier 1 classes have the most POTENTIAL to outshine others, whether unintentionally(as often happens with Druids) or deliberately (making a Mailman Wizard or DMM Cheater of Mystra Cleric). Again, you can break the game by stacking together half a dozen charge and PA multipliers to deal quadruple digit damage attacks and one shot every monster ever printed. It does take a fair bit more work though. That doesn't disprove the Tier system. The point is that melee characters generally have about 1-3 paths to take to reach that level, while casters have dozens, and are versatile enough that they can change their game plan most days as they see fit.

In practice, you often don't see the huge differences between tiers. You might (especially with how intuitive Druids are), but you might not. Just because its dark in your bedroom doesn't mean light has stopped existing.

big teej
2010-10-06, 12:38 PM
I've also seen cases with players like myself who are very experienced with casters but choose to intentionally restrain themselves at times as to not outshine the other party members.

does the "ooh, that sounds cool" method of picking spells count as 'intentional self restraint'?

Emmerask
2010-10-06, 12:42 PM
Just because the Wizards in your games are team players and focus on group buffs and being a team player, doesn't mean he doesn't have the potential to break the game.

I would say more along the lines of theoretical potential to break the game, any wizard who tries to break my campaign will, if I donīt rule zero it on the spot, find theme self in a world of pain ^^

ericgrau
2010-10-06, 01:21 PM
Just a random comment but I remember wizards.com used to have a different forum section for theoretical optimization. I assume in an attempt to distinguish for those who didn't want to go so far. It didn't work though. The regular section became casual + high optimization minus pun pun while the theoretical boards become high optimzation + pun pun (& etc.). Or maybe that was their intent all along, but are there really enough people who post "Play pun pun" that it warrants another section?

I often hear comments that the tiers apply even in low optimization settings, but I'm not about to disagree if that suddenly switches to "you often don't see them in casual play". Ok, cool.

Starbuck_II
2010-10-06, 01:31 PM
Tiers exist, but Tiers are average.
So average players + Average tier= Tier system.
awesome player + Average Tier = Great character, may be above normal tier system.
Average player + Awesome tier= may or may not be great, but won't suck.

Druid is hard to fail in.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-06, 01:57 PM
Just a random comment but I remember wizards.com used to have a different forum section for theoretical optimization. I assume in an attempt to distinguish for those who didn't want to go so far. It didn't work though. The regular section became casual + high optimization minus pun pun while the theoretical boards become high optimzation + pun pun (& etc.). Or maybe that was their intent all along, but are there really enough people who post "Play pun pun" that it warrants another section?

Well, the limits of PO depend on the game. I've used early entry in actual played builds. I've played incantatrix/Iot7v with the ability to have over 40 buffs persisted at any given point in time. In those games, this was considered normal.

I've played other games in which a bard 1/wizard 2/rogue 1 was considered normal, and in which a barbarian/fighter was considered powergaming.

PO spans a very wide spectrum, and different people have different limits before they regard something as TO.


I often hear comments that the tiers apply even in low optimization settings, but I'm not about to disagree if that suddenly switches to "you often don't see them in casual play". Ok, cool.

The player is the most important part of the spectrum. You can play a commoner intelligently or a wizard stupidly.

Next, you have optimization ability. A highly optimized samurai can decimate an unoptimized sorcerer.

Lastly, you have the tiers. They are accurate descriptions of relative potential where the above two are equal. When the above two are not equal, well...those factors can easily be greater than the effect of the tiers. The tiers are a useful tool for measuring things, and quickly determining the power of classes you are unfamiliar with. Armed with that knowledge, you can make a better decision with regards to your game.

It would be silly to claim that the tiers are the only thing you need to consider when allowing stuff into your game, though.

casper
2010-10-06, 02:28 PM
Le sigh. Again, the Tier system isn't about direct power. Its about potential. Just because the Wizards in your games are team players and focus on group buffs and being a team player, doesn't mean he doesn't have the potential to break the game. Just because the Cleric doesn't cast Divine Powah on himself and out Power Attack your Power Attacker, doesn't mean he can't.

Tier 1 classes have the most POTENTIAL to outshine others, whether unintentionally(as often happens with Druids) or deliberately (making a Mailman Wizard or DMM Cheater of Mystra Cleric). Again, you can break the game by stacking together half a dozen charge and PA multipliers to deal quadruple digit damage attacks and one shot every monster ever printed. It does take a fair bit more work though. That doesn't disprove the Tier system. The point is that melee characters generally have about 1-3 paths to take to reach that level, while casters have dozens, and are versatile enough that they can change their game plan most days as they see fit.

In practice, you often don't see the huge differences between tiers. You might (especially with how intuitive Druids are), but you might not. Just because its dark in your bedroom doesn't mean light has stopped existing.

:frown:Didn't I mention, that I am not going to deny Tier system? I understand, what it is and what is it for. I played with Cheater of Mystra once. I was a Warmage, and the third one was Rogue. By the way, even such disbalance didn't spoil fun. But that's not the point.

I know - really, REALLY know, that potentionaly Tier 1 have more chances to break the game than Tier 6, and that they are more versatille, and that sometimes former can do EVERYTHING better than the latter, etc., etc., etc. You don't need to explain me that. But I called this thread "Theory vs practice". I wanted to check one thing: how often an advise not to make different party members more than two Tiers apart actually useful IRL. I just wanted to see, is there actually more "dark bedrooms" or fields flooded with light of the Mighty Tier System. Just some statistics. And though there is a plenty of theoretical conversations here, too (which, of course, is mostly also interesting), I already got some of this statistics, for which I say "thanks" to everyone participated.

Susano-wo
2010-10-06, 04:18 PM
/Quibble: COP doesn't really let youknow what you will need the next day. You get one word answers to questions from deities etc that are inherently resentful of you butting into their lives. also..."Random results obtained from the table are subject to the personalities of individual deities" So, yeah...
/end Quibble
(which is actually a great theoretcial vs practical dichotomy. IN *theory,* you can contact a diety with knowledge of the future to find out what you need to prep. In practice, it is quite a bit harder than that, since you have to deal with the deity lieing to you, just because he's annmoyed that you are even bothering him with your silly "what am I going to encounter tomorrow" questions:smalltongue:

Not to mention the issue that DnD metaphysics does not (iirc) cover: does your action of asking what to prep end up changing what actually happens? :smallamused:

Toliudar
2010-10-06, 04:37 PM
I just wanted to see, is there actually more "dark bedrooms" or fields flooded with light of the Mighty Tier System. Just some statistics. And though there is a plenty of theoretical conversations here, too (which, of course, is mostly also interesting), I already got some of this statistics, for which I say "thanks" to everyone participated.

In my pbp 3.0 and 3.5 games (and there have been dozens), players who play lower tiers are much more likely to get bored and drop away, especially when there are a couple of tier 1-2 doing more to advance things. This isn't to say that the wizards and clerics never vanish, but I have noticed a propensity for the fighters and barbarians to stop posting. Similarly, in my real life games, the only time when we've had a really good distribution of responsibilities in a group split between melee types and full casters was when we were playing Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved rules, which significantly tone down spells.

Valameer
2010-10-06, 04:51 PM
Not to mention the issue that DnD metaphysics does not (iirc) cover: does your action of asking what to prep end up changing what actually happens?

So true. I once had a diviner (in GURPS mind you) get himself killed that way...

There's a spell called "death vision" that forces you to experience the moment of your death (from the most likely future). It's supposed to usually be used to disrupt and frighten enemies, but a mage could also cast it on himself to gain a little insight into his own potential demise.

Great, why wouldn't I want to be prepared? But what happened in the meta-game I didn't plan for. It was a rookie GM, and she took about 15 minutes deciding what I saw (a very, very bad sign, in hindsight).

I saw a grove of twisted dead trees, and a demon ripping my heart out. "So," I figured, "I'll avoid evil forests, and anything to do with demons."

The day after (in game) I went to practice some spells. At the end of the day I went to pick my friend up from the plant-mage guild. Suddenly I enter the infamous 'cut-scene' mode, as I stroll through an idyllic garden. (Bad sign number 2)

An apprentice nearby critically botches a spell, which, in GURPS, has a very miniscule chance of summoning a demon (1 in 46656). Sure enough, a demon appears and the garden is twisted evilly by his presence. Without the option of doing much, I turn to run - but the demon catches me with some good rolls (and bad rolls on my part) and rips my heart out.

In game, I did all I could, but even fore-knowledge wasn't enough. In meta-game I pretty much asked the GM to think of a way to kill my character. :smallsigh:

Susano-wo
2010-10-06, 05:17 PM
...did the GM show you the roll? Cause if he/she just decided it, that sounds pretty terrible to me.Though, I can understand why, if you were constantly trying to find loopholes, etc, it might be a little well earned retribution.:smallwink:

But to have it screw you like that just because the GM wanted to...I dunno, just seems like going too far to me. Really, what I was talking about is that even on a quantum level (and lets not forget that we're talking about physics altering magic here), simply asking if you are going to encounter enemies weak to X element (or whatever..not sure exactly what the most effiicent way to troll COP for the future is..) might cause ripples through the universe, causing subtle changes that result in you taking a different path. [of cours,e you can also factor in that someone might be watching you, and decide for whatever reason to screw with you based on this foreknowledge]

A little extreme, but in this case I'd call it justified, since the player is trying to essentially scam a spell to get more out of it than is there on face value.

Though its probably not necessary. If you know you are going to be encountering fire monsters, and you have the option to go to a volcano for a quest, you might go there. But the fire monesters were actually in the dungeon of the Wizard's tower that you would have found and investigated if you weren't off looking for fire monsters to pummel.

Emmerask
2010-10-06, 05:23 PM
...did the GM show you the roll? Cause if he/she just decided it, that sounds pretty terrible to me.Though, I can understand why, if you were constantly trying to find loopholes, etc, it might be a little well earned retribution.:smallwink:

A gm is not a god who can predict the future or determine the outcome of a random roll, but if the player has an ability that predicts the future in some way then randomness is no option so the dm not rolling for it is perfectly fine in that case :smallwink:

Susano-wo
2010-10-06, 05:39 PM
that almost works, except the spell doesn't randomly determine the cause of death, or have the player pick one. The GM did that. Then said "Ha ha ha, and now I'm going to make it come true. So there." (unless there are factors I don't know about)

Valameer
2010-10-06, 07:35 PM
...did the GM show you the roll? Cause if he/she just decided it, that sounds pretty terrible to me.Though, I can understand why, if you were constantly trying to find loopholes, etc, it might be a little well earned retribution.:smallwink:

Nah, death vision is a fairly basic spell actually, and supposed to generally give you an impression like "You are surrounded by water, you can't breathe!" The double use of the spell (foreknowledge of your own death) is written right into the spell as one of it's extra uses (I love GURPS magic :smallbiggrin:)

What happened was, as a rookie GM, she didn't really have much planned, and so took the spell to mean "Oh, I have to figure out how he might die. I might as well make it an upcoming encounter so that it's relevant."

That's why I was saying: I only ended up in a life and death situation because my divination forced the GM to make up something for me to see, and she admitted later that she didn't handle it very well.

So - sometimes your divination doesn't only predict the future, it also directly causes it if the GM isn't very prepared :smallbiggrin:

Imagine a spell that lets you scry on yourself one year into the most-probable future for a few hours. In theory that is an amazing resource. Perhaps you'll overhear yourself saying things like "If only we knew the Oracle would betray us like that... we wouldn't have lost Belkar."

However, in practice, you are just forcing your DM to very quickly mash together an image of what the campaign might be like in a year. It's not only cruel to do that to a DM out of the blue, but it probably means that they have to make a bunch of decisions really quickly about what kinds of twists and turns their campaign will take. In essence, you force the DM right then and there to resolve a year's worth of potential plot and tell you the outcome.

Not always the smartest thing. Especially with a DM who loves riddles and cliffhangers. :smallwink:

Susano-wo
2010-10-06, 08:05 PM
Yeah, that seems like a pretty valid mitigating factor. :smallbiggrin:

And yeah, there are a billion ways to get screwed by relying on seeing the future.. Like working against the Oracle, causeing said Oracle to betray you and you 'losing' Belkar:smallamused:

The Big Dice
2010-10-06, 10:12 PM
Nah, death vision is a fairly basic spell actually, and supposed to generally give you an impression like "You are surrounded by water, you can't breathe!" The double use of the spell (foreknowledge of your own death) is written right into the spell as one of it's extra uses (I love GURPS magic :smallbiggrin:)
How many ways can you put out a fire?

I love that question, and that's what GURPS magic is all about.


However, in practice, you are just forcing your DM to very quickly mash together an image of what the campaign might be like in a year. It's not only cruel to do that to a DM out of the blue, but it probably means that they have to make a bunch of decisions really quickly about what kinds of twists and turns their campaign will take. In essence, you force the DM right then and there to resolve a year's worth of potential plot and tell you the outcome.
Plus there's no shortage of ways to block Divination magic in D&D.

Though answering things in smartass / inscrutable ways is always a good option when people start tossing Divinations around.

Player: "Where is the BBEG right now?"
Spell Given Answer: "Eating his dinner."

Player: "What are we going to fight tomorrow?"
Spell Given Answer: "The bearer of the skull." The Player doesn't know that the Boss Fight is going to be an NPC that's got a skull on the end of his staff.

And so on until players stop trying to annoy their GM with things that make him have to think instead of act or react.

Amphetryon
2010-10-06, 10:59 PM
Though answering things in smartass / inscrutable ways is always a good option when people start tossing Divinations around.Better at that point just to tell your players you don't want them casting Divination spells. Players often get cranky when their carefully chosen abilities do not actually do what they want and expect them to do.

Tytalus
2010-10-07, 07:17 AM
I wanted to check one thing: how often an advise not to make different party members more than two Tiers apart actually useful IRL.

In virtually all the 3.5 campaigns I've been involved in, a shared awareness of the tier system would have been a boon.

I mostly play with very casual gamers, who make rather unoptimized character choices. Overall, my experience is (as I mentioned before) that unoptimized play brings the tiers closer together. However, that only works to an extent. When you have a monk, a cleric (even if it's a healbot) and a sorcerer in the same party, the differences in power will show as the game progresses, in particular when you reach the higher levels. What's much worse than the difference in power is the difference in options (both in and out of combat), which is nicely reflected in the tier system. Half the time, the monk simply couldn't contribute meaningfully to a given situation, while the high-tier characters end up dominating every encounter - often without even trying.

In the end, in every single game with a large spread of tiers (4+ tiers difference) that I've been in, the DMs end up dropping unbalanced items (artifacts, among others) specifically for the low tier characters (monks, fighters, samurai, etc.) to make them keep up somewhat. Some bad DMs even routinely fudged dice rolls in favor of the weaker characters.

That does detract from the fun, IMHO. I'm quite certain that starting off with similar tiers would have helped a lot here.

Personally, I'm disliking tier 1 (and, to a lesser extent, 2) more and more for practical play. It's just not believable that the highly intelligent wizard doesn't realize that he'd be better off without having to drag his monk/samurai/etc. buddy around. Around tier 3 and 4, you have somewhat clearly defined areas of competence. Teamwork (something I very much enjoy about RPGs), i.e., combining each other's strengths while covering up individual weaknesses, makes a lot more sense when you actually have weaknesses in the first place. YMMV.

Kurald Galain
2010-10-07, 07:28 AM
Better at that point just to tell your players you don't want them casting Divination spells. Players often get cranky when their carefully chosen abilities do not actually do what they want and expect them to do.
Many divination spells have it written in the spell description that they can give cryptic answers.


In virtually all the 3.5 campaigns I've been involved in, a shared awareness of the tier system would have been a boon.
Well, yes: with inexperienced players, it can happen that a player upstages another purely by accident.

Chambers
2010-10-07, 07:36 AM
First time I was DMing a big campaign (craracters started at level 1 and ende as low-epic), there was a party of Ninja/Asassin/Blackguard, Barbarian/Frenzied Bersercer and Wizard (Maybe Archmage, I am not sure). And Wizard was the weakest of them - enemies just succeded their saving throws most of the times.

There's one of the "problems". I feel pretty confident in saying that if that Wizard had stopped casting spells that allowed saves and picked ones that didn't - you would see the difference between Tier 1 and everything else.

The Big Dice
2010-10-07, 08:25 AM
Better at that point just to tell your players you don't want them casting Divination spells. Players often get cranky when their carefully chosen abilities do not actually do what they want and expect them to do.

Divination isn't a Google search. It's magic attempting to see through time. Or it's poking a god to ask questions that it might or might not want to answer. It might be more accurate than a horrorscope, but I don't care how carefull you word it, I'm not giving you my session notes.

Amphetryon
2010-10-07, 08:54 AM
Many divination spells have it written in the spell description that they can give cryptic answers.


There is a difference between 'cryptic' and 'useless.' "When the goat turns, Red strikes true" was cryptic; it was not a divination that could only make sense after the events had come to pass, however. The particular type of Divination spell being discussed is that which can help the party prepare for an encounter. If the spells are going to give no help, they should simply be excised from your campaign, with a simple explanation from the DM that they don't function in his or her campaign world.

Remember, The Big Dice's complaint about divination spells, as he put it, was they are spells that:
make him have to think instead of act or react. Silly players, expecting their DM to have to think. :smallconfused:

Chen
2010-10-07, 09:43 AM
If you have a regular, mature group, restricting the power of the high tier classes (generally by restricting spells) is the easiest way to get various tiers to "mesh" in my experience. Flat out the rule was you can take spells from the Core books or you classe's splatbook (Complete arcane, complete divine etc). Any other spell needs to be researched using the appropriate research rules. Even with these conditions obviously all spells need to be approved by the group. We don't generally play a DM vs players type game. People want to have fun. If I see a spell that seems broken we'll look at it as a group and probably not let it in.

Self-regulation is also useful. For example in the current game we're playing I'm playing a warblade and another player (new to 3.5) is playing a fighter. Already my class is almost strictly better than theirs. So I can restrict myself and not dip into swordsage for 2 levels even though it would make my character significantly more versatile and probably a fair bit stronger in combat. Similarly the Psion could be taking things like linked power/synchronicity but again it would just be making any power disparities bigger. Everyone is there to have fun not to make other people feel useless. Mechanically the system is horribly imbalanced. To restore that balance it generally requires the group as a whole to put work into making things fun.

Kylarra
2010-10-07, 09:48 AM
Silly players, expecting their DM to have to think. :smallconfused:To an extent, it's a logical reason, within the context of having to think of the possibilities of what might happen, ie the probable actions of the players, and the consequences thereof in the world, and thus what could be the answer based on their divination. For me, my players rarely follow what I expect them to do, so without railroading, they'd get something cryptic and/or only retroactively visible, else they may invalidate it due to actions.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-07, 01:10 PM
I don't mind divination. Answers may be cryptic. However, I make sure that they are not entirely useless. Sure, one piece to the puzzle might be, taken alone, but a smart player can do a lot with an assortment of random clues.

The "how will I die" question has been asked before. Answers have included "alone", "in the dark", and "with the world in flames". You need not give specific answers to give useful ones.

And I never, ever use cutscene mode.

The Big Dice
2010-10-07, 01:31 PM
Silly players, expecting their DM to have to think. :smallconfused:
Thinking come between sessions, not during. You don't think when you're performing, that's what rehearsal is for. And equally you don't think during a game session. That's what prep is for.

Anything that makes you stop and go "Umm..." is Bad.

I don't mind divination. Answers may be cryptic. However, I make sure that they are not entirely useless. Sure, one piece to the puzzle might be, taken alone, but a smart player can do a lot with an assortment of random clues.
It's amazing how players can take what seems like random, off the cuff crytic nonsense right out of a crossword clue, then turn it into plot hooks and developments you hadn't thought of.

That said, it's equally valid that some players are sheep and won't go anywhere without a sheepherd.


And I never, ever use cutscene mode.
Cutscene mode is for events that the players have no power or ability to affect. It's for plot developments or sometimes for use as a lead in to a training montage. Complete with 80s AOR sound track and random shots of Dolph Lundgren from Rocky IV.

Susano-wo
2010-10-07, 01:46 PM
cryptic simply means hard to understand. it miht be useful or useless. If someone uses Augury to find out the best way dto go, I don't think its cool or fair for a DM to punish him for it. However, trying to Shoehorn COP into telling you what spells to prep? that's a bit too far. Its going beyond the spell and trying to wring some new usage out of it.

If this comes up all the time, yeah, you should probably have a talk with your players about your expectations vs theirs. But in game, COP giving you non-useful one word answers from extraplaner beings who are explicitely annoyed at your contact is perfectly fair.

Don't forget, Amphetryon, that COP doesn't say "this spell helps you prepare for furture encounters." It simply is a spell to contact another plane. You get 1 word answers about stuff. Like is the prince still alive, does the Grail really exist, is the Grail in location X...loads of stuff that you can ask that aren't "what spells should I prep tomorrow," only worded differently

@Tyndmyr +1 to no cutscene mode. No excuse for abitrarily dissalowing my character action. I can't do anything because I'm restrained? cool. But no Final Fantasy FMV's, thank you.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-07, 01:55 PM
Thinking come between sessions, not during. You don't think when you're performing, that's what rehearsal is for. And equally you don't think during a game session. That's what prep is for.

Anything that makes you stop and go "Umm..." is Bad.

Nah. I've done theater. It's not amazingly like DMing. But still, some people enjoy improv theater. I find it fun to watch, though I couldn't do it myself.

However, a bit of thinking at the table isn't a bad thing in many cases. It can make the game more enjoyable for the DM. After all, interesting choices that make your players stop and think is generally considered to be a positive thing, why can't the same be true for the DM?


It's amazing how players can take what seems like random, off the cuff crytic nonsense right out of a crossword clue, then turn it into plot hooks and developments you hadn't thought of.

That said, it's equally valid that some players are sheep and won't go anywhere without a sheepherd.

Ah yes. I've met a large number of both. The latter type probably wont bother with casting divinations in the first place. They need plot hooks in a much more obvious fashion. Fortunately, if you have a mix of players, you can use the former types to convince the latter.


Cutscene mode is for events that the players have no power or ability to affect. It's for plot developments or sometimes for use as a lead in to a training montage. Complete with 80s AOR sound track and random shots of Dolph Lundgren from Rocky IV.

Yup. I don't bother with that. Even if it's some event they have no practical means of stopping, I won't bother controlling their character reactions to it. They can do that, if they feel it's important.

ericgrau
2010-10-07, 01:56 PM
There's one of the "problems". I feel pretty confident in saying that if that Wizard had stopped casting spells that allowed saves and picked ones that didn't - you would see the difference between Tier 1 and everything else.
Ya, SoDs are pretty lousy. I don't see why people harp over them. But I've played games where almost none of my spells had saves and while it was quite good it was hardly game breaking (compared to say, the high damage output characters). I still didn't use any of the auto-success bypass this/that insta-win tricks that were obviously poorly thought out spells, nor any questionable rules interpretations or other abuse that does the same. Even in casual games that are merely civil I really don't see the tiers. Even "batman" casters, which I played, are over-glorified support builds. They're awesome, but really need to mesh with their direct damage allies to get anywhere. Reminds me of a DM who tried it for a BBEG and without a party it failed pretty hard. Successfully disabled PCs time and again for a slow fight, but eventually lost without much trouble to the PCs.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-07, 02:13 PM
Ya, SoDs are pretty lousy. I don't see why people harp over them.

Agreed. I wrote a post to this effect once, with a great deal of math. There was a surprising amount of disagreement on this point.


But I've played games where almost none of my spells had saves and while it was quite good it was hardly game breaking (compared to say, the high damage output characters). I still didn't use any of the auto-success bypass this/that insta-win tricks that were obviously poorly thought out spells, nor any questionable rules interpretations or other abuse that does the same. Even in casual games that are merely civil I really don't see the tiers. Even "batman" casters, which I played, are over-glorified support builds. They're awesome, but really need to mesh with their direct damage allies to get anywhere. Reminds me of a DM who tried it for a BBEG and without a party it failed pretty hard. Successfully disabled PCs time and again for a slow fight, but eventually lost without much trouble to the PCs.

Batman wizards are pretty party friendly. The problem is more of people who use things like Extended Wings of Flurry. Everyone even vaguely close to you who isn't friendly takes ludicrous damage with no save. You get a save vs the debuff, though.

You don't really need wierd combos, things like PW:Pain, Wings of Flurry, Streamers, are incredibly lethal at the level you get them, and require no particular optimization to shut down appropriate level fights with. With optimization, you can push these to insane levels.

Consider, for instance, the potential of fell drain in conjunction with PW:Pain or thunderhead. Because they deal damage every round, they deal a negative level every round. At low-medium levels, this gives you a fire and forget way to kill most things(at very low levels, PW: pain does this without fell drain). It doesn't take metamagic reducers and such to make this viable, though you can get amusing results if you use them.

Gametime
2010-10-07, 06:01 PM
So - sometimes your divination doesn't only predict the future, it also directly causes it if the GM isn't very prepared :smallbiggrin:



This is true, and it's a reason to avoid the spells with inexperienced DMs. An experienced DM who knows that the setting has Divination magic, though, should either have a few canned responses that broadly describe what he or she expects to happen prepared or should be decent at improvising. Being good at improvising and planning ahead is, obviously, the best idea.


Thinking come between sessions, not during. You don't think when you're performing, that's what rehearsal is for. And equally you don't think during a game session. That's what prep is for.

Anything that makes you stop and go "Umm..." is Bad.

When I'm at a loss as a DM, I take it as a sign that I either need to spend more time considering what my players will do or work on my improvising. I've never taken it as a sign that my players should stop doing unexpected things. Your mileage may vary.

Amphetryon
2010-10-07, 09:53 PM
This is true, and it's a reason to avoid the spells with inexperienced DMs. An experienced DM who knows that the setting has Divination magic, though, should either have a few canned responses that broadly describe what he or she expects to happen prepared or should be decent at improvising. Being good at improvising and planning ahead is, obviously, the best idea.

Secondary point: Divination magic + Sandbox-oriented players = recipe for trouble. If the Divination comes true, "you're railroading us, Dude!" If it doesn't come true "You said this stuff was going to come true. Don't you know your own campaign, Dude?"

[/voice of experience]

The Big Dice
2010-10-07, 09:55 PM
Yup. I don't bother with that. Even if it's some event they have no practical means of stopping, I won't bother controlling their character reactions to it. They can do that, if they feel it's important.
I don't mean controlling how characters react to a situation. I'm talking about the sniper they failed to spot taking out the prince. I'm talking about the car running a red light and killing the NPC they thought was the key to everything. I'm talking about the tower toppling over in an earthquake or any of a thousand other things that happen in-game that affect the PCs that they can't stop.

The world happens around the characters, not to them, and the world continues when the characters aren't in the area. It's not like they're pulling mobs or anything. Not if you want your game world to feel alive.

That's what cut scenes are for. Things that are seen but that can't be stopped.

And if you think that the characters should be able to affect everything that goes on around them just by the sheer fact that they are PCs, then you're missing out on the look on people's faces when they realise they can't stop something. Or worse, something they were hoping woudn't happen happens anyway because they forgot something.

Not to mention missing out on the simple fact that nobody can control everything that goes on around them.

Valameer
2010-10-08, 02:19 PM
Amphetryon, you have my sympathy. :smallbiggrin:

The way I usually handle unexpected divination is with a string of cryptic messages I pull out of my $%# ... err, portable hole.

They often make as little sense to me as they do to the players at the time, but after that I'll try to work them in where they are appropriate.

If I do it exactly right the players will piece my puzzle together right after it would have helped them out :smallwink:. Makes the game come together more, and they still have a chance of figuring out the riddle and stopping the event if they really dwell on the divination's answer.

"Aww, the voice of the river strikes in the 13th hour! Now it makes sense!"

However, with an experienced DM and educated players, divination can become one of the best ways of forwarding the plot. Expect them to use divinations to solve most mysteries, and plan accordingly so it's still a good challenge.

On cutscenes - I think most DMs who have found their rhythm tend to make no 'cutscene' last longer than a surprise round would. There are some spells like Otiluke's resilient sphere that make a good muted cutscene set-up, though. Not that you should ever deny a PC a saving throw for your plot's sake.

Otherwise why not just tell them a bedtime story? :smallsmile: