pathfinder tiers

[hivedragon]

has anyone classified the pathfinder classes into tiers?

[TheCoelacanth]

I would imagine that most of the classes stay in the same tier. The spellcasters lose some of the more broken spells but they still keep enough good ones not to drop a tier. The additions of bloodlines to sorcerer are nice but not enough to raise them to tier 1. Eschew materials for free doesn't substantially raise their power.

Barbarians can't rage for quite as long but they have more freedom to spread the rage out. They also get rage powers, some of them are nice but not super powerful. None of that is really enough for them to change tiers.

Bards don't get anything new that compares to the power of full spellcasting. They stay in the same tier.

Fighters might get them enough to move them up a tier from a core fighter but probably not higher than a dungeoncrasher fighter.

Monks get a slightly better progression with flurry of misses, a couple of extra bonus feats. Combat maneuver training would be helpful with some builds but they probably stay in tier 5.

Paladins get a caster level of paladin level - 3 instead of paladin level / 2 and an expanded spell list. Combined with the other features that may be enough to move them up to tier 4.

Rangers get slightly improved spellcasting, improved evasion and slightly better tracking. Probably not enough to move up from tier 4.

Rogues get some extra special abilities and a save-or-die capstone ability once/day/sneak attack target. Might move up to tier 3 if it was played well.

[Cartigan]

Rangers also improved how favored enemy works then adds "favored terrain" which will at least give them free initiative bonuses.

[TheCoelacanth]

Rangers also improved how favored enemy works then adds "favored terrain" which will at least give them free initiative bonuses.

The only difference I see with favored enemy is that the bonus applies to attack rolls as well as damage. That and the initiative are both a small power boost but neither adds the kind of versatility that going from tier 4 to tier 3 requires.

[Curious]

Rogue's and paladins also both benefit mightily from the change in certain rules, specifically smite evil and sneak attack immunities. Very few creatures are now immune to SA's, so the rogues become more capable of contributing to combat. Smite evil, on the other hand, has become a holy nuclear weapon in the paladin's arsenal, allowing them to utterly stomp any evil creature they come across. LoH also heals status affects now. I would make the argument that both of them move up to tier 3.
Fighters also get actual class features now, so they probably move up a tier as well, especially with the APG arcehtypes.

[Firechanter]

Also, Fighters still can only fight somewhat better, and gain NOTHING outside of combat, keeping them just as unattractive as they have been all throughout 3rd ed. Still crappy skill points, still crappy skill lists, still no options of contributing to any adventuring effort outside of combat whatsoever.

[Cartigan]

Also, Fighters still can only fight somewhat better, and gain NOTHING outside of combat, keeping them just as unattractive as they have been all throughout 3rd ed. Still crappy skill points, still crappy skill lists, still no options of contributing to any adventuring effort outside of combat whatsoever.

Of course, this ignores how the skill system was changed in Pathfinder.

[Lateral]

Yeah, even with their changes I don't think paladins get a tier boost all the way to 3. Four, yeah- you can easily coast to tier 4 on combat alone- but tier 3 requires an amount of versatility that it still lacks.

[Curious]

Of course, this ignores how the skill system was changed in Pathfinder.

It's true. If the fighter want's skills, he can use his favored class bonus to gain a rank every level, and if he is a human as well, he's suddenly getting 4+ skill ranks a level. Coupled with the skill condensation, this means that even a fighter can get at least a few essential skills.

[Reverent-One]

Also, Fighters still can only fight somewhat better, and gain NOTHING outside of combat, keeping them just as unattractive as they have been all throughout 3rd ed. Still crappy skill points, still crappy skill lists, still no options of contributing to any adventuring effort outside of combat whatsoever.

Their skill list has still expanded somewhat (though it could stand to be expanded even more), giving them a couple of Knowledge skills that could be useful in exploring and Survival, which gives them the capability to navigate for the party and track (as a "Track" feat is no longer required for tracking beyond a DC 10). That's more than 0 ways to contribute outside of combat.

[Lateral]

More than zero, but not enough. Never enough.

[MeeposFire]

Also many of those classes still lack ways to contribute outside of full attack actions. Remember in terms of in combat that was the biggest boost from TOB. You can spend a major feat tax in vital strike but even then it is not that great and due to other PF changes they ruined some possible synergies such as changing spring attack so that it is no longer an attack action (if it was like 3.5 spring attack you could use vital strike with spring attack).

Fighters I think move up a tier since the standard fighter was really close to being tier 4 anyway. The difference between barbarians and fighters are 2 skill points (and some list access) and one alternate class feature that grants pounce.

Rogues probably moved up since they were close anyway. Still they could really use a way to improve their standard actions.

Monks are hard to say but I find it extremely disappointing that they did not change flurry to an attack action. That would have been huge. Considering that they have some nerfs and some boosts they probably stay put (and flurry is still not that good).

[Curious]

Monks got nerfs? :smallconfused: I would like to see this. As far as I can tell, they got nothing but better- not that it helps much.

[MeeposFire]

Flurry has a stealth nerf in it. It says that you are using two weapon fighting which means you lose out on combing flurry with two weapons like you did in 3.5. While it was not common to make it work well you could combine the two if you could find a way to improve your accuracy through various means.

For instance at best you are getting +18/+18/+13/+13/+8/+8/+3

The original monk had +15/+15/+15/+10/+5. If you gave them the full BAB part it would have been +20/+20/+20/+15/+10/+5 and you could add two weapon fighting if you wanted to and bring it to +18/+18/+18/+18/+13/+8/+3. Remember you want more higher bonus attacks not more lower bonus attacks. That would have been a buff. Making it two weapon fighting is a slight nerf. Not a lot but it is annoying.

They also should have made it a full BAB class all the time. Flurry being full BAB and the rest of the time not is just dumb.

EDIT: Also they lost access to improved natural attack and the use of secondary natural weapons in the same round as when they flurry. That is a number of more nerfs. So I take it back they don't go up a tier in my opinion. Which is too bad I really want them to.

[Infernalbargain]

I would imagine that most of the classes stay in the same tier. The spellcasters lose some of the more broken spells but they still keep enough good ones not to drop a tier. The additions of bloodlines to sorcerer are nice but not enough to raise them to tier 1. Eschew materials for free doesn't substantially raise their power.

Human sorcerer with favored class picking up the spells is pretty borderline to teir 1. At 20th level counting bloodline and favored class their list looks like
12/8/8/7/7/7/6/6/7/4
which is nearly double the spells compared to 3.5 in addition to UMD being a class skill keyed off their casting that. A level 1 sorc will have a +9 to UMD with effectively 0 effort (20 stat, +1 rank, + 3 class). Also an important note is that they no longer have an additional feat tax to make quicken work.

[Lateral]

I don't know about borderline-tier 1. They may have a reasonably large list, but that's child's play to a wizard. Or cleric. Or druid.

[TheCoelacanth]

Human sorcerer with favored class picking up the spells is pretty borderline to teir 1. At 20th level counting bloodline and favored class their list looks like
12/8/8/7/7/7/6/6/7/4
which is nearly double the spells compared to 3.5 in addition to UMD being a class skill keyed off their casting that. A level 1 sorc will have a +9 to UMD with effectively 0 effort (20 stat, +1 rank, + 3 class). Also an important note is that they no longer have an additional feat tax to make quicken work.

They're still lacking the versatility of a tier 1. That's still only 4 level 9 spells, half as many as a wizard gets for free, plus a wizard can add spells in addition to those. UMD doesn't really help since a sorcerer could already use arcane scrolls and wands without it. The ability to quicken spells is a boost in power but doesn't address the lack of versatility (relative to tier 1).

[MeeposFire]

There is nothing wrong being in tier 2 anyway. In fact for the purpose that the tiers serve tier two is better than tier one in that you can interact better with more tiers. Tier two can interact well with tier ones and every tier that tier one plays nicely with plus one tier lower.

[Gnaeus]

Rogues probably moved up since they were close anyway. Still they could really use a way to improve their standard actions.

This, I think, is one of those areas where optimization levels makes a HUGE difference. Rogues gained extra HP, free feats, and the ability to sneak attack most enemies. In my game, that makes them T3.

On the other hand, a lot of the high optimization tricks that rogues used to get full sneak attacks with huge damage got nerfed hard. I'm looking at the changes to the Ring of Blinking, Grease, and Flask-thrower rogues. If you are in a game where rogues need full attacks with sneak attack dice to compete with other high op characters, rogues may actually have lost ground.

With regards to paladins, are we talking 3.5 core v. PF, 3.5 with all splats v. PF with access to 3.5 splats, or 3.5 with all splats v. PF only? Paladins got a lot of love in later 3.5 sources, like battle blessing and a greatly expanded spell list. A PF paladin who can use 3.5 books is definitely a strong T4 in my opinion.

[Infernalbargain]

I don't know about borderline-tier 1. They may have a reasonably large list, but that's child's play to a wizard. Or cleric. Or druid.

Cleric or druid I have to concede on list size. However, I'd don't know where people get the idea that wizards are going to have every spell on hand. Simple scribing every spell from core and APG costs you 125k and requires 22 spellbooks. So having all spells would eat 1/6 of your WBL and require a strength of 15 to carry unencumbered (12 if you use 43 traveller's spellbooks). That's when your GM is being generous and is letting the local level 20 wizard copy his entire spellbook and would take 467 days. If you had to go find scrolls of everything because your GM isn't mr. yes-to-everything, then that's 437k which is over half of your WBL (for simplicity I excluded the fact that scroll cost includes material cost which would likely put it at least at 475k). Now let's be honest, most wizards are going to actually only have at most like 1/4 of the spell list in their books because of scribing time and money and the fact that there are a number of spells just aren't that good (how many wizards are going to need gentle repose?).
Giving a wizard 1/4 of their list gives them:
All/15/16/15/13/14/13/12/10/8
12/8/8/7/7/7/6/6/7/4
Suddenly doesn't look as shadowed as
9/5/5/4/4/4/3/3/3/3 did back in 3.5.
Now I will admit that the wizard has edge on sorcerer in situations where a specialty situation comes up just once in a campaign (water-breathing) because they can just go get the spell after a day but quite frankly the sorcerer has enough to cover his bases now. Outside of intentional GM hostility, a well built sorcerer going to be able to handle whatever you throw at him.

[MeeposFire]

This, I think, is one of those areas where optimization levels makes a HUGE difference. Rogues gained extra HP, free feats, and the ability to sneak attack most enemies. In my game, that makes them T3.

On the other hand, a lot of the high optimization tricks that rogues used to get full sneak attacks with huge damage got nerfed hard. I'm looking at the changes to the Ring of Blinking, Grease, and Flask-thrower rogues. If you are in a game where rogues need full attacks with sneak attack dice to compete with other high op characters, rogues may actually have lost ground.

With regards to paladins, are we talking 3.5 core v. PF, 3.5 with all splats v. PF with access to 3.5 splats, or 3.5 with all splats v. PF only? Paladins got a lot of love in later 3.5 sources, like battle blessing and a greatly expanded spell list. A PF paladin who can use 3.5 books is definitely a strong T4 in my opinion.

Honestly this is one area where I think PF really dropped the ball. TOB and the multishot line of feats showed the way to making things work better for full attack based characters and they ignored it and produced classes that have the same basic problem as the classes made at the start of 3.0. It is so aggravating.

I had thought that same question in regards to how we are comparing things. I assumed we have access to all splats since I also assume we still compare these classes to 3.5 only classes like TOB.

Also I added even more ways monks were nerfed. Can you believe it they decided to nerf monks? Was it necessary? I mean if you took the PF monk, kept 3.5 flurry, made the flurry an attack action, allowed them to use imp. natural attack and let you use natural attacks like they did in 3.5, and just gave them full BAB would they really be too powerful? I don't seeing it being better than tier 3. If it got up to tier three that would be just right in my opinion (tiers 2-4 are where I like things and tier 3 is my golden tier when I think about tiers).

[TheCoelacanth]

Simple scribing every spell from core and APG costs you 125k and requires 22 spellbooks. So having all spells would eat 1/6 of your WBL and require a strength of 15 to carry unencumbered (12 if you use 43 traveller's spellbooks). That's when your GM is being generous and is letting the local level 20 wizard copy his entire spellbook and would take 467 days. If you had to go find scrolls of everything because your GM isn't mr. yes-to-everything, then that's 437k which is over half of your WBL (for simplicity I excluded the fact that scroll cost includes material cost which would likely put it at least at 475k).

A blessed book costs 12500 gp, has 1000 pages, weighs 1 pound and doesn't cost money to copy spells into. You could fit almost the entire list into two of those.


Now let's be honest, most wizards are going to actually only have at most like 1/4 of the spell list in their books because of scribing time and money and the fact that there are a number of spells just aren't that good (how many wizards are going to need gentle repose?).
Giving a wizard 1/4 of their list gives them:
All/15/16/15/13/14/13/12/10/8
12/8/8/7/7/7/6/6/7/4
Suddenly doesn't look as shadowed as
9/5/5/4/4/4/3/3/3/3 did back in 3.5.

The wizard still has roughly twice as many spells of every level except cantrips.



Outside of intentional GM hostility, a well built sorcerer going to be able to handle whatever you throw at him.

That's what makes it tier 2. They'll be able to handle almost anything but they might have to settle for a less than optimal spell. The tier 1 classes, given time, all have the potential to get any spell on their list. With some foresight, possibly from divination spells, they can be prepared for any situation. A sorcerer has to make do with the spells they know.

[Doc Roc]

Let's clarify something:
Being Tier One Is Not Necessarily Good.
Tier Two is a lot more fun, in my opinion and experience.

[Kylarra]

Given the way that the tier system is set up, the difference between tier 2 and tier 1 is simply that tier 1 has theoretical access to their entire spell list. Tier 2 is equally powerful (generally), but simply are "locked in" to one certain set of gamebreaking tricks as opposed to having access to multiples depending on the day or target.

[arguskos]

Let's clarify something:
Being Tier One Is Not Necessarily Good.
Tier Two is a lot more fun, in my opinion and experience.
I love you, unnecessary capitalization and all.

Also, on the topic of PF, we should really be asking "where are the new classes on the Tier list?" To that end, here's my ballparks:
-Oracle and Witch are both Tier 1 or 2, easy. Full casters with abilities that matter. Go figure.
-Summoner is probably Tier 3, for the same reason that a Druid sans Wild Shape would be Tier 3-ish and that the Wildshape Ranger is Tier 3.
-Inquisitor is also probably Tier 3, maybe Tier 4. A useful spell list, but not that great, a moderately good combatant, and the teamwork feat sub-theme thing it has going on is kinda nice. A deep skill list is another bonus.
-Alchemist is tough to classify. The extract list is pretty underwhelming, bombs are pretty meh, and mutagens are also kinda meh. The idea seems to be to make a gish out of the box, but I don't feel like it does a great job. Still, a reasonably deep skill list and lots of options likely put the Alchemist in Tier 3, though Tier 4 would be reasonable as well.
-Finally, the Cavalier. I don't feel like the Cavalier is diverse enough to really justify being placed any higher than Tier 4, and could honestly see it as Tier 5 (though that's a bit harsh IMO).

We range from Tiers 1 to 4 (5 if you feel mean-spirited towards the Cavalier) here. I think that's pretty reasonable.

[Doc Roc]

Okay, say anything else you want about PF and Paizo. Summoner is really cool, and really well executed. Could have been better, you find yourself with boring standard actions a lot, but...

Still. It's darn cool.

[Lateral]

Let's clarify something:
Being Tier One Is Not Necessarily Good.
Tier Two is a lot more fun, in my opinion and experience.

THIS VERY MUCH SO.

...Also, Tier 1 has all this bookkeeping that I can't really handle. I've never really played a Wizard (Clerics and Druids don't have spellbooks so it's easier, but it's still irritating,) but I've had fun with Sorcerers, Beguilers and Psions- all tier 2 or 3 casterfesters.

[arguskos]

Okay, say anything else you want about PF and Paizo. Summoner is really cool, and really well executed. Could have been better, you find yourself with boring standard actions a lot, but...

Still. It's darn cool.
It's pretty decent, yeah. A solid class and a solid concept. Not complaining about it in the slightest.

Is something similar slated for Legend, out of curiosity?

[Doc Roc]

It's pretty decent, yeah. A solid class and a solid concept. Not complaining about it in the slightest.

Is something similar slated for Legend, out of curiosity?

We can do it in Legend, and it may show up, but it won't be first party. I'm not out to steal Paizo's lunch. :)
Despite their somewhat curious treatment of certain elements of the optimization community, I'm not convinced they threw the first stone there. A lot of the people involved were pretty famously trolltastic, and could have handled the situation with wildly more aplomb. But then, they were denizens, and even I tend to regard that culture with the same dispassion you'd expect from someone vivisecting a snail. Paizo is mostly good people, who want desperately to make things that are good and fun.

There's plenty of wilds to explore, and so much to build. Room enough for us both.

[MeeposFire]

Oracle is probably tier 2. Spontaneous casting and cleric list.

Witch is harder to judge. You will need somebody to decide based fully on the spell list. There are some nice spells on it but by RAW since it is a custom list it will not have the support that the oracle gets for instance which can hurt a lot. It could have the dread necromancer "problem" (spell list too restricted to get into the higher tiers).

Inquisitor seems like to me a combo of ranger and paladin but it does not seem that good to me. I would think tier 4.

I agree with you on the summoner and alchemist. Probably closer to tier 4 on the alchemist but I am not entirely sure.

[arguskos]

We can do it in Legend, and it may show up, but it won't be first party. I'm not out to steal Paizo's lunch. :)
Well, I meant something more along the lines of a hardcore "animal companion" focused track or two. I know it can be done in Legend, I was just curious if you're going to.


Despite their somewhat curious treatment of certain elements of the optimization community, I'm not convinced they threw the first stone there. A lot of the people involved were pretty famously trolltastic, and could have handled the situation with wildly more aplomb. But then, they were denizens, and even I tend to regard that culture with the same dispassion you'd expect from someone vivisecting a snail. Paizo is mostly good people, who want desperately to make things that are good and fun.
Eh. Paizo are good people, and they do try to make goodfun stuff, but Jason Bulmahn seems pretty determined to ignore the op community when they point out flaws and design traps. I'm not saying he threw the first stone, I'm just thinking he threw the biggest, most dangerous stone, and that such was a bad decision.

Then again, when confronted with loltroll it's pretty easy to get tetchy, so perhaps he can't be blamed too much. Dunno. Complex situation.


There's plenty of wilds to explore, and so much to build. Room enough for us both.
Oh yes. There is at that. :smallcool:

[Doc Roc]

Eh. Paizo are good people, and they do try to make goodfun stuff, but Jason Bulmahn seems pretty determined to ignore the op community when they point out flaws and design traps. I'm not saying he threw the first stone, I'm just thinking he threw the biggest, most dangerous stone, and that such was a bad decision.

Then again, when confronted with loltroll it's pretty easy to get tetchy, so perhaps he can't be blamed too much. Dunno. Complex situation.


Depends on your mindset. The trolls were really tearing into the community as a whole, insisting that anyone who liked it was stupid. This is bad, and this is the part you don't hear about. As someone who now lives in fear of the same terrible fate, I'm starting to really empathize with Jason. It's hard to say what stone is the most dangerous when everyone is aiming for the head. All of this said, I am not on his side. I make a point, in general, of not siding.

Here's the part that matters: I think his response was wrong, was disproportionate. Most damningly, he chose the easy way out, the primrose path of ignoring fear.
It is the job of anyone who builds, anyone who loves what they make, to be prepared to be deeply wrong.

[Curious]

Actually, looking overthe APG options for the monk, I think you might be able to construct a pretty interesting character out of some of the abiities. You can steal extra Ki from dead oponents, or on a critical hit, slow time so that you gain an extra three standard actions, lots of goodies. And the best part is you can pick and choose abilties from all the archetypes, since they replace singular class features rather than all abilities.

[arguskos]

Depends on your mindset. The trolls were really tearing into the community as a whole, insisting that anyone who liked it was stupid. This is bad, and this is the part you don't hear about. As someone who now lives in fear of the same terrible fate, I'm starting to really empathize with Jason. It's hard to say what stone is the most dangerous when everyone is aiming for the head.
Not denying that. They were pretty awful (I read some of what happened there, not all of it though, since it made me angry on a few levels), but then again...


I think his response was wrong, was disproportionate. Most damningly, he chose the easy way out, the primrose path of ignoring fear. It is the job of anyone who builds, anyone who loves what they make, to be prepared to be deeply wrong.
...we get to this. You said it clearer than I did, and hit the nail on the head. Jason responded to trolls without a clear head, instead responding by just ignoring their salient points and reacting to the fire and brimstone they spewed. While that's a... method, it's a BAD one, and that's what's earned him my ire. You can't have a lead designer who is unprepared to admit faults and to work constructively to fix them.

It's hurt the PF community deeply, even to this day, as you can see by the fact that we're having this very conversation.

I do think however that they're taking a good stance going into the future. I feel like the APG was a really great book that showed them flexing some creative muscle, and that's good (if I could afford to buy a copy, I would, just to show some solidarity, something I feel is pretty important; I plan to do the same with Legend).

Also, the hell is with that (<---) anyways? You trollin? :smalltongue:

[Doc Roc]

Not denying that. They were pretty awful (I read some of what happened there, not all of it though, since it made me angry on a few levels), but then again...


...we get to this. You said it clearer than I did, and hit the nail on the head. Jason responded to trolls without a clear head, instead responding by just ignoring their salient points and reacting to the fire and brimstone they spewed. While that's a... method, it's a BAD one, and that's what's earned him my ire. You can't have a lead designer who is unprepared to admit faults and to work constructively to fix them.

It's hurt the PF community deeply, even to this day, as you can see by the fact that we're having this very conversation.

I do think however that they're taking a good stance going into the future. I feel like the APG was a really great book that showed them flexing some creative muscle, and that's good (if I could afford to buy a copy, I would, just to show some solidarity, something I feel is pretty important; I plan to do the same with Legend).

Also, the hell is with that (<---) anyways? You trollin? :smalltongue:

If I plan to use a post as reference, I try to make it stick out from my normal posts. I've spent about four weeks thinking about that particular post, and this was just an opportune moment for it to hit deck. Hop in chat?

[Gnaeus]

Also, on the topic of PF, we should really be asking "where are the new classes on the Tier list?" To that end, here's my ballparks:
-Oracle and Witch are both Tier 1 or 2, easy. Full casters with abilities that matter. Go figure.


I think Oracle and Witch are both tier 2. Witch might move to tier 1 if their spell list gets more support, but when we had this discussion (In which I was arguing that they were T1) I think we reached the conclusion that it was a tier 2, but a disproportionately strong tier 2, in much the same way that a sorcerer using loredrake for free levels and wings of flurry might be stronger than a wizard, but less versatile.


-Summoner is probably Tier 3, for the same reason that a Druid sans Wild Shape would be Tier 3-ish and that the Wildshape Ranger is Tier 3.

I agree on summoner. Druid sans wild shape is still tier 1. Spirit Shaman, with weaker casting than Druid, and no animal companion, is on the border between T1& T2, and even without WS Druid is still stronger than SS.


-Alchemist is tough to classify. The extract list is pretty underwhelming, bombs are pretty meh, and mutagens are also kinda meh. The idea seems to be to make a gish out of the box, but I don't feel like it does a great job. Still, a reasonably deep skill list and lots of options likely put the Alchemist in Tier 3, though Tier 4 would be reasonable as well.

I feel strongly that it winds up in 3. The ability to make low level potions even for spells that aren't on your list, while adventuring, in 2 hours per day, is difficult to overlook at low levels. And a character who can melee, ranged, or use items for spell support should probably live in tier 3.

[Veyr]

Paizo's insistence that somehow Rogues don't need and shouldn't get Sneak Attack on every attack in a full-attack (i.e. changing the Balance rules, etc) is inane and basically wrong. Probably doesn't change its tier, though, especially considering the other (more favorable) changes to Sneak Attack.

The Paladin is the only class they changed sufficiently enough to even warrant considering whether or not its tier has changed.

I have not read their new classes. I may have to take a look at Summoner based on reviews, and Alchemist just because I like the concept and would like to see it done well (though it is my understanding that the Alchemist does not do it particularly well).

[true_shinken]

I have not read their new classes. I may have to take a look at Summoner based on reviews, and Alchemist just because I like the concept and would like to see it done well (though it is my understanding that the Alchemist does not do it particularly well).
Alchemist is a solid tier 3.

[Cartigan]

I have not read their new classes. I may have to take a look at Summoner based on reviews, and Alchemist just because I like the concept and would like to see it done well (though it is my understanding that the Alchemist does not do it particularly well).
Read "Alchemist" as "Scientist from Classical Literature."

[navar100]

Let's clarify something:
Being Tier One Is Not Necessarily Good.
Tier Two is a lot more fun, in my opinion and experience.

Being Tier One is not necessarily Bad either.

It's only a matter of one's personal tolerance level of how powerful a player character can be and the subjective nature of a particular campaign.

[navar100]

Read "Alchemist" as "Scientist from Classical Literature."

They can get into a prestige class that let's you play Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
:smallsmile:

[Cartigan]

They can get into a prestige class that let's you play Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
:smallsmile:

That's most of the base class as well. They are releasing an alternate class that is Dr Mureau

[true_shinken]

Being Tier One is not necessarily Bad either.

Except it is.
No tier ones were designed as such. They are the product of bad game design, plain and simple.

[Doc Roc]

Being Tier One is not necessarily Bad either.

It's only a matter of one's personal tolerance level of how powerful a player character can be and the subjective nature of a particular campaign.

Ever GM'd for a group of Tier ones played to about 60% potential?

[navar100]

Except it is.
No tier ones were designed as such. They are the product of bad game design, plain and simple.

Except it isn't. You just have a lower tolerance level for PC power than I do.

[navar100]

Ever GM'd for a group of Tier ones played to about 60% potential?

Irrelevant.

You just have a lower tolerance level for PC power than I do.

[Curious]

Irrelevant.

You just have a lower tolerance level for PC power than I do.

Huh. Either the voice of ignorance or the voice of arrogance. If you can't contribute anything to the discussion that isn't an insult, or that implies that everyone else isn't as good as you are at playing the game, why do you bother posting?

[MeeposFire]

I don't think it was that arrogant. I think he is just saying that playing in the sort of high powered campaign that uses tier 1s to their full capacity may not be to your liking but his group like those high powered things. Hence his tolerance of high power comment. I don't think he was trying to say that you are bad just that saying that tier 1 is a bad level is not universal as hs group likes it. Personally my favorite is around the tier 3-4 range.

[Akal Saris]

Eh, I'd say that if you-re going core-only PF, then the witch and a well-built summoner are so high on the T2 chart that they're nearly on par with the druid, who seems to be the worst of the T1's in PF.

Otherwise, I'd put paladins and rogues solidly in T3, and maybe rangers and bards as well. The changes to the skills system had a huge impact on the 6+ skills characters IMO - all of them gained a lot of versatility by losing 2-4 redundant skills.

[Doc Roc]

Irrelevant.

You just have a lower tolerance level for PC power than I do.

I helped write most of the modern optimization guides, which might suggest I have pretty high tolerance levels. What I am saying is that encounter design becomes extremely difficult at T1+ Levels, which is not irrelevant. More work means less content, and T1 game play lends itself to extremely swingy combat, with players potentially dying prior to taking actions or even becoming aware of the threat.

If you want to make bold claims then the burden of proof, or at least amusing anecdote, lies with you.

[Darth Stabber]

The main reason tier ones are problem is "easy access to entire spell list" with druids and clerics having the easiest access, and wizards having the biggest list. Archivists are wizards with class features, and a theoretically larger list, and artificers, are more time intensive, but can pull ANY thing out. Look at tier 2 - sorcerers, psions, and all the other good spont casters can still destroy the world on a whim, they just have to comit to only a few doomday devices, instead of all. Tier 2s are still playing a diffent game than even tier 3s, and they sit with tier 1 as evidence of bad game design. The problem isn't raw power, the problem is that reasonable spell/power selection enables them to perform at a level that you need an ivy league masters degree in practical optimization to get out of tier 3.

Paradoxically, spont casters are sooooooo much easier to play than than their higher tieerd bretheren.

[Veyr]

Except it isn't. You just have a lower tolerance level for PC power than I do.
Actually, he was making a factual statement: None of the Tier 1's were supposed to be that powerful. That was a mistake on WotC's part. That is bad design by definition.


Irrelevant.

You just have a lower tolerance level for PC power than I do.
This... this is hysterical. Really. Do you have any idea who you're talking to?

[DeltaEmil]

Wizards and clerics were meant to be powerful. However, I do agree that they weren't meant to be that powerful as we know about it today. Wizards for example were meant to be powerful as in, they can throw a fireball that hits multiple enemies, deals like 10d6 damage, and do this only a few times per day, while they would be guarded by the party beatstick.
Not divining their sorry butts, having their own impenetrable demiplane-fortresses from which they send their astral copies surrounded by legions of solar bodyguards while the astral form has shapechanged itself into an invisible dragon with 100 heads that shoot disintegrating laserbeams and stuff.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ll_20110411_3.jpg

[Tael]

Irrelevant.

You just have a lower tolerance level for PC power than I do.

:smallconfused: You said... but...
*Collapses on the floor laughing*
*Wipes tears out of eyes*

Alright, good one! Now what's your real position?

[Provengreil]

I don't think it was that arrogant. I think he is just saying that playing in the sort of high powered campaign that uses tier 1s to their full capacity may not be to your liking but his group like those high powered things. Hence his tolerance of high power comment. I don't think he was trying to say that you are bad just that saying that tier 1 is a bad level is not universal as hs group likes it. Personally my favorite is around the tier 3-4 range.

it really kinda was arrogant, actually. regardless of meaning or intent, he just walked in and said "you must not be as good as me."

and yes, tier 1 is a bad level because nobody that exists there is supposed to. played intelligently, you don't have to try to break it, you just do. unless you relentlessly choose damage only reflex for half type spells and no special functions, you can shatter encounters. and if you do pick those spells, you're a heavy artillery with more shots than you need anyway. either way, something is wrong with the tier. this can be extended to tier 2 as well, because the only thing separating them from T1 is how many game breaking tricks they have.

[Provengreil]

[snips post]

Sorry for double post, something about a server error, idk. internet's not the best in my apt.

[Curious]

it really kinda was arrogant, actually. regardless of meaning or intent, he just walked in and said "you must not be as good as me."

and yes, tier 1 is a bad level because nobody that exists there is supposed to. played intelligently, you don't have to try to break it, you just do. unless you relentlessly choose damage only reflex for half type spells and no special functions, you can shatter encounters. and if you do pick those spells, you're a heavy artillery with more shots than you need anyway. either way, something is wrong with the tier. this can be extended to tier 2 as well, because the only thing separating them from T1 is how many game breaking tricks they have.

Quoted for truth.

[navar100]

I don't think it was that arrogant. I think he is just saying that playing in the sort of high powered campaign that uses tier 1s to their full capacity may not be to your liking but his group like those high powered things. Hence his tolerance of high power comment. I don't think he was trying to say that you are bad just that saying that tier 1 is a bad level is not universal as hs group likes it. Personally my favorite is around the tier 3-4 range.

Exactly. I commented that Tier 1 is not necessarily bad based upon one's tolerance level of power, and two people say I'm wrong as if Tier 1 is definitive of broken game design.

Me, personally, and people I've played with really don't give a rat's posterior that a spellcaster can cast Gate, we don't cry out in rage a wizard casted Rope Trick, we don't run away in horror the druid has Natural Spell, and we don't want to commit hari kari just because the cleric has Divine Metamagic.

I can still appreciate the power level of 3E magic. I'm glad Pathfinder improved the warrior's lot. I'm fine with the druid's wild shape nerf because it still works well, letting the druid do it without punishing for doing it with some penalty. Individual particular spells I didn't think needed to be nerfed, but even then the spells aren't now worthless. Pathfinder did lower the power a bit of spellcasters, and I'm ok with that. They don't punish spellcasters with penalties for the audacity of casting a spell.

[satorian]

In my experience (just 2 pathfinder campaigns, one of which went from level 1-15), SOME Oracles are tier 2. This certainly applies to Heavens. Many of the others, such as battle and the elementals, are strong tier 3s, mostly because they severely lack flexibility. In an undead-heavy world, Heavens would kinda suck, too. Remember that the cleric list, especially if not bolstered by WoTC sources, is not very good for a spontaneous caster. So much of it is situational.

Witches? Seriously? Have you looked at their spell list? My feeling is that witches with slumber are strong tier 2s, and without are tier 3s. Interesting concept, but poor design to have such a disparity within the class.

Paladins are tier 3. Smite is just so good now, and the weapon sub for mount can be a tasty way to free up WBL.

Fighters who take step-up are solidly tier 4.

I haven't playtested anything else, but it seems the summoner is kinda wonky, what with the pet v summons thing. Not bad or good broken, but just doesn't work right. The alchemist is too complicated for me to speak to without having seen it in action. Sorcs are still tier 2. Really, I don't think their power has increased that much. Rather, their fun quotient and verisimilitude has. Rogues, bards and barbs seem, at least, to be tier 3 now, but I haven't seen them in play. Wizards are wizards and druids are druids and clerics are clerics. However, the change to polymorph rules really has gimped both wizard and druid. Down a tier? Maybe not. But one tool in the box is now made of cardboard, so much so that I'd rather not use it at all.

That said, I have never seen a tier 2 break the game. My groups usually play with a mix of tiers 2-4. There are situational outshines, but nothing serious. I guess a sorcerer could find a way to optimize in such a way as to make it doable, but why? Truly, I feel the same is true of wizards. RAW, taking into account solid optimizing, wizards can break the game. But if they hold back a bit with builds and if divination isn't overused (in my groups, this is usually taken care of by a gentleman's agreement), schroedinger's wizard doesn't exist. A wizard who doesn't always know what is coming is not omnipotent. Still usually stronger than a sorcerer, but in PF, remember the spells were significantly altered.

[Doc Roc]

Exactly. I commented that Tier 1 is not necessarily bad based upon one's tolerance level of power, and two people say I'm wrong as if Tier 1 is definitive of broken game design.

Me, personally, and people I've played with really don't give a rat's posterior that a spellcaster can cast Gate, we don't cry out in rage a wizard casted Rope Trick, we don't run away in horror the druid has Natural Spell, and we don't want to commit hari kari just because the cleric has Divine Metamagic.

I can still appreciate the power level of 3E magic. I'm glad Pathfinder improved the warrior's lot. I'm fine with the druid's wild shape nerf because it still works well, letting the druid do it without punishing for doing it with some penalty. Individual particular spells I didn't think needed to be nerfed, but even then the spells aren't now worthless. Pathfinder did lower the power a bit of spellcasters, and I'm ok with that. They don't punish spellcasters with penalties for the audacity of casting a spell.

Dunno how precisely to respond to this, so I'm just gonna let it sit. Like I said, the burden of proof is with you. If you can show me how to reliably design interesting and challenging encounters with a consistent difficulty for parties heavy in T1 builds, I'd be delighted.

I out.

[Provengreil]

Exactly. I commented that Tier 1 is not necessarily bad based upon one's tolerance level of power, and two people say I'm wrong as if Tier 1 is definitive of broken game design.

Me, personally, and people I've played with really don't give a rat's posterior that a spellcaster can cast Gate, we don't cry out in rage a wizard casted Rope Trick, we don't run away in horror the druid has Natural Spell, and we don't want to commit hari kari just because the cleric has Divine Metamagic.


nobody screams about this stuff. it just allows you to have an "I win" button for any given situation and an easy way to get one when you don't.

Gate allows bringing in a solar, asking it to cast miracle, and using an actual "we win the battle" button.
rope trick is nearly impossible to deal with, it allows the party uninterrupable rest to memorize any spells they happen to need.
divine metamagic is fine until you use turn undeads to avoid raising spell slots, allowing quickened mass heals and the like for no real cost.
natural spell allows you to dump all physical stats and pump you wisdom to the extreme, then shift and still cast, resulting all stats being quite good.

again, though, the reason tier 1s are what they are is because they have to actively try NOT to break the game, as opposed to things like the ubercharger that take some real thought to make. this is the definition of bad design.

[Lost Demiurge]

This... this is hysterical. Really. Do you have any idea who you're talking to?

Some random dude on the net whose identity cannot be reliably proved or disproved. Moving along...

I really have no problem running and/or playing D&D games with folks who play classes from all the tiers.

But then I usually only play D&D with friends, who aren't usually competing to see who's got the longer... Uh, geek cred. Doesn't really matter if one guy can hop planes on a whim and another can't, so long as all of them are pointing their powers, items, and feats toward the bad guys.

Sure, I guess we could spend a few sessions yelling about bad game design, but I'd rather buckle down and play the game and have fun then obsess over something that's damn near impossible to balance anyways.

If you want to, go right ahead. Have fun!

[Doc Roc]

Some random dude on the net whose identity cannot be reliably proved or disproved. Moving along...

I really have no problem running and/or playing D&D games with folks who play classes from all the tiers.

But then I usually only play D&D with friends, who aren't usually competing to see who's got the longer... Uh, geek cred. Doesn't really matter if one guy can hop planes on a whim and another can't, so long as all of them are pointing their powers, items, and feats toward the bad guys.

Sure, I guess we could spend a few sessions yelling about bad game design, but I'd rather buckle down and play the game and have fun then obsess over something that's damn near impossible to balance anyways.

If you want to, go right ahead. Have fun!

Actually, given that my IP is from my work computer, and is non-dynamic, you could easily verify who I am. I'm not really interested in geek cred, dude, and I'm tired of everyone turning this into some bizarre imaginary contest. I am trying to explain to you that Tier 1s make generating content hard on a GM, if they're being played to potential. And that for some people, knowing that their character is intentionally crippled at a deep level so that the monk can tag along is a small but meaningful reduction in fun.

I am not in a contest. I do not care about this contest. I am not trying to "win D&D." I don't trivialize your concerns. Why do you trivialize mine?

Also, we could swap RSA public keys, that would let you verify who I am.

[Gnaeus]

Gate allows bringing in a solar, asking it to cast miracle, and using an actual "we win the battle" button.

True. But by the time you are gating in solars, you could cast miracle or wish yourself.



rope trick is nearly impossible to deal with, it allows the party uninterrupable rest to memorize any spells they happen to need.

Come on! Nearly impossible to deal with? Really? There are lots of ways to deal with Rope Trick, of which the easiest one is to have repercussions for parties which adventure for 5 minutes per day.


divine metamagic is fine until you use turn undeads to avoid raising spell slots, allowing quickened mass heals and the like for no real cost.

Nightstick stacking is a problem. DMM quicken takes 2 feats just to do that trick, and can only be done a couple times a day without trickery. It is strong, but not game breaking.



natural spell allows you to dump all physical stats and pump you wisdom to the extreme, then shift and still cast, resulting all stats being quite good.


Yeah? So? All stats being quite good is also not game breaking. This is probably pretty close to the definition of balanced tier 1 play, in that it is strong, but predictable, counterable, and not wildly disproportionate to what other high tier, optimized characters can do.


In my experience (just 2 pathfinder campaigns, one of which went from level 1-15), SOME Oracles are tier 2. This certainly applies to Heavens. Many of the others, such as battle and the elementals, are strong tier 3s, mostly because they severely lack flexibility. In an undead-heavy world, Heavens would kinda suck, too. Remember that the cleric list, especially if not bolstered by WoTC sources, is not very good for a spontaneous caster. So much of it is situational.

You know that Favored Souls are tier 2, right? And that oracles are pretty much better than favored souls?


Witches? Seriously? Have you looked at their spell list? My feeling is that witches with slumber are strong tier 2s, and without are tier 3s. Interesting concept, but poor design to have such a disparity within the class.

Seriously. Having played Witches in competitive tournament play, I can tell you that the only meaningful question is whether they are tier 1 or tier 2.

As to their spell list, it is kind of awesome. They can summon, heal, fort or will save or lose, buff, debuff, blast, battlefield control, travel, and use divinations. That is pretty close to the definition of a tier 1-2. The hexes are just a bonus.


Paladins are tier 3. Smite is just so good now, and the weapon sub for mount can be a tasty way to free up WBL.

Fighters who take step-up are solidly tier 4.

I haven't playtested anything else, but it seems the summoner is kinda wonky, what with the pet v summons thing. Not bad or good broken, but just doesn't work right. The alchemist is too complicated for me to speak to without having seen it in action. Sorcs are still tier 2. Really, I don't think their power has increased that much. Rather, their fun quotient and verisimilitude has. Rogues, bards and barbs seem, at least, to be tier 3 now, but I haven't seen them in play.


This makes me suspect that you do not understand the tier system. Barbarians were tier 4 before based on their ability to do damage. They have not gained a significant amount of flexibility, so they are still tier 4. Their tricks are still pretty much the same.

Similarly, Paladin was originally tier 5 in 3.5. It probably rose (in my opinion) to tier 4, as a result of a greatly expanded spell list, devotion feats and battle blessing. Smite does not significantly alter what a paladin can do, it only makes him a little better. The difference between tier 3& 4 is NOT how hard you can hit things, it is how flexible you are when your trick doesn't work. Paladin is not significantly more flexible in PF. In fact, if you are in a group that went from 3.5+ splats to core PF (as mine did), the paladin is actually less flexible, although it is still an improvement over core paladin in 3.5.

[MeeposFire]

I think this just showing that making a general statement that any tier is a bad place to play will not stand. For one group tier ones will not be a problem but tier 4s and below will be. In another tier 3 will be looked upon favorably but tier 1s will be looked at as being no fun. This is why you should always qualify that X tier is bad in your games for your fun. Then it is obviously an opinion and not an objective statement that can be disputed.

[Doc Roc]

I think this just showing that making a general statement that any tier is a bad place to play will not stand. For one group tier ones will not be a problem but tier 4s and below will be. In another tier 3 will be looked upon favorably but tier 1s will be looked at as being no fun. This is why you should always qualify that X tier is bad in your games for your fun. Then it is obviously an opinion and not an objective statement that can be disputed.

I has snaps'ed. (http://laughingsquid.com/wonderfully-creepy-sculptures-carved-from-bananas/)
The following is a rant, and can safely be ignored. It should be considered nothing more serious than a stack of cuttlefish.
I has math. I has science. I has SGTs. I has a comprehensive knowledge of the game. I has proofs. I has examples. I has years of suffering. I has builds. I has programmatic models.

And my opinion needs more qualifiers than I already give it? I've built a DEN out of WEASEL WORDS. And I need to weaken my opinion even more? To more deeply couch it in fluff and padding? So that the sharp edges don't catch your tiny careless toes?

Tier Ones do stuff that just is hard to even think about intelligently. How am I supposed to plan my game around a phase space so large that I have trouble reliably coming up with a small fractional subset of the options? How am I supposed to improvise when my players are casting divinations like they're candy? Or I have to ask them to use a black marker to wipe out about 60% of the spells in the game. Oh. That's a solution, huh? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRVUOGUmxJI)


The take-away is that sure they are fun enough sometimes, but you can't tell me that Monk doesn't feel a bit sad when Wizard shapeshifts into a chronotyrn.
And then the GM has to figure out what fights well against a chronotyrn. That time spent waffling and guessing and trying to build a fight that won't crack the earth by accident?
That could be spent on fun.
That's bad.

[MeeposFire]

/me snaps

I has math. I has science. I has SGTs. I has a comprehensive knowledge of the game. I has proofs. I has examples. I has years of suffering. I has builds. I has programmatic models.

Tier Ones do stuff that just is hard to even think about intelligently. How am I supposed to plan my game around a phase space so large that I have trouble reliably coming up with a small fractional subset of the options? How am I supposed to improvise when my players are casting divinations like they're candy?

You won't. It obviously is not an activity you want to do and you certainly would not enjoy it as it seems.

1) Some people play tier 1s. Fact

2) Some of those play them to their potential. Fact

3) Some people actually enjoy those games. I believe this to be true considering I have seen examples of it.


Since games are designed to be enjoyed I would say that yes you can have a good tier one game but only for people that like that sort of thing. You don't. I don't. Some do. Saying that they are wrong just because you can prove that it is difficult to play is just silly. All your proofs do is say that the game is really difficult run, hard to play, and would not be viable for most groups, but as soon as one person says my group enjoys it and it is their preferred way of playing then your proofs mean nothing to those groups.

Further you know some groups don't mind not being challenged and just love being powerful. Then a fun game is easy to do. Some people like a balanced game (I do personally) but some people don't care at all and just want to have super powered characters that can defeat anything no sweat. In this case a tier one game could be perfect.

EDIT: Your changed comment made me add stuff and that is cool. I agree with you that in your games, my games, and probably most people's games that you are right. Certainly what you are thinking is what I feel a designer should do. But I also know there are groups that like this sort of thing and like those tier one classes and they don't care about the "peon" classes in those games. In those games such a situation is alright since that is how they are happy. I personally would hate it. I want the monk to be good so if I were to design the game they would be and wizards would not be so strong but I don't deny that people have fun in different kinds of games (assuming they stay in their games. If they bring a fully optimized wizard into my games the character will be right out as that won't fit into my group but I know that is my personal feeling on the matter).

[Doc Roc]

Further you know some groups don't mind not being challenged and just love being powerful. Then a fun game is easy to do. Some people like a balanced game (I do personally) but some people don't care at all and just want to have super powered characters that can defeat anything no sweat. In this case a tier one game could be perfect.

If something exists as a standard option within a generic game, it should be suitable for use as a standard option within a generic game. If you call it out as a special option for high-powered play, that's totally cool. M&M does this, and succeeds on more fronts because of it. It has other oddities and some problems, but this, it does better. I agree that these high-end options are good for some groups. Hell, I've written guides about how to reach Tier Zero.

But pity the new GM who uses solid fog and accidentally TPKs his party. And yes, this happens.

[Gnaeus]

If something exists as a standard option within a generic game, it should be suitable for use as a standard option within a generic game. If you call it out as a special option for high-powered play, that's totally cool. M&M does this, and succeeds on more fronts because of it. It has other oddities and some problems, but this, it does better.

Pity the new GM who uses solid fog and accidentally TPKs his party. And yes, this happens.

But D&D doesn't have a good "Generic game". Yes, in your previous example, the monk cries when the wizard Shapeshifts. But the monk cries when I play an unarmed Swordsage. There are weak options, middle options, and strong options. That doesn't make the strong options bad.

And as to how you plan on beating tier 1s, I think the most common method is preparing over-strong encounters, and kind of assuming that a tier 1-2 party will have the right thing to beat it somewhere in their collective bags of tricks, and if they don't they will run away and beat it the next day.

[Doc Roc]

But D&D doesn't have a good "Generic game". Yes, in your previous example, the monk cries when the wizard Shapeshifts. But the monk cries when I play an unarmed Swordsage. There are weak options, middle options, and strong options. That doesn't make the strong options bad.

And as to how you plan on beating tier 1s, I think the most common method is preparing over-strong encounters, and kind of assuming that a tier 1-2 party will have the right thing to beat it somewhere in their collective bags of tricks, and if they don't they will run away and beat it the next day.

Until they don't have time to run, and insta-gib? I am unhappy with this solution. When I say Tier 1 is bad, I mean that it is bad in the context of 3.x, where there isn't explicit support for it at a deep level. Writing high-powered stuff is wicked hard, and can be really frustrating. As T1s were designed to be T3, there's no real mechanism by which you can construct this stuff, or think about it.

The rules cease to help you adjudicate, without having near total system knowledge. To me, that defines a corner case, and unhandled corner cases are bugs.

[Lost Demiurge]

Actually, given that my IP is from my work computer, and is non-dynamic, you could easily verify who I am.

Why would I care about that? The poster who demanded "Do you know who I am?" rubbed me the wrong way with that statement. I don't know who he is, I'm not expected to know who he is, and I don't really care. But if someone speaks with such arrogance, I figure I'm doing them a favor by puncturing their bubble before they try talking like that in real life to someone who'd take it worse and answer with a fist.


I'm not really interested in geek cred, dude, and I'm tired of everyone turning this into some bizarre imaginary contest.

I don't either. I presented my views about the whole big brouhaha. Not trying to win a contest, simply pitching my 2 cents into the ring.


I am trying to explain to you that Tier 1s make generating content hard on a GM, if they're being played to potential.

They can, yeah. It's why scaling is the hardest part of ANY rpg. Characters aren't created equal. And even the ones that are equal on paper, are not necessarily equal, as imagination, inspiration, and even luck play a part in how effective a character is at solving problems that crop up in-game.


And that for some people, knowing that their character is intentionally crippled at a deep level so that the monk can tag along is a small but meaningful reduction in fun.

Some people act like that, yeah. Most of my friends don't. The ones that do find parts of the game that they enjoy, and let a pointless obsession with absolute equality slide because fairness is in the eyes of the beholder, and thus you cannot make everything fair for everyone all the time. Is a monk less well-put-together than a wizard? Probably, as folks who've run the system long enough can tell you. Does this make me less likely to play a monk? Not at all. I'll find a way to contribute and be useful regardless of what I'm playing.



I am not in a contest. I do not care about this contest. I am not trying to "win D&D." I don't trivialize your concerns. Why do you trivialize mine?

I have presented an interpretation of the central issue as it applies to my demographic. And an honest one... To me, the tier system isn't a problem because we don't care about it. Everyone in my regular group is long out of college, and busy getting on with their lives. We have quite a lot to occupy our days, and there are always more forms of stress out there, and always bills that keep coming, and emergencies that arise... Real life is enough of a pain in the arse. When we sit down to game, things might not always go smooth, and the game might not always be balanced, but we can usually find SOME way of having fun. And we do. A prime part of this is sharing screen time, and letting everyone do their thing. Combat? Sure, some builds shine better than others, but that's just combat. As long as the bad guys die and the good guys win, who cares how they get to the end of it?

So your view of the problem is very different from mine, especially given your aspirations and achievements in the arena of game design. It's what you do. It is not what I do (Not yet anyway), so I don't consider it a huge problem. On paper it could be, but when the dice hit the table... Nah. If it's a problem it's not a problem for anyone I care about.

And I present to you the idea that while I am not a game designer or someone deeply involved in mathematical analysis, I am still very much a roleplaying geek, and representative of the mid-30s hardcore roleplayer demographic. It may be a good idea to look at my viewpoint and realize that while you may not agree with it, it is worth analyzing. Especially if you want me to take a look at your products.



Also, we could swap RSA public keys, that would let you verify who I am.

Now why in the seven hells would I want to do THAT. I don't care! And I'm not givin' you any keys there, internet guy!

I understand that you're frustrated with the trend of the discussion, but maybe you ought to relax a bit. Go hit a different forum for a while. You've presented your views reasonably well on the thread, no sense in getting upset at random gamers posting on a forum.

[Doc Roc]

Why would I care about that? The poster who demanded "Do you know who I am?" rubbed me the wrong way with that statement. I don't know who he is, I'm not expected to know who he is, and I don't really care. But if someone speaks with such arrogance, I figure I'm doing them a favor by puncturing their bubble before they try talking like that in real life to someone who'd take it worse and answer with a fist.



I don't either. I presented my views about the whole big brouhaha. Not trying to win a contest, simply pitching my 2 cents into the ring.



They can, yeah. It's why scaling is the hardest part of ANY rpg. Characters aren't created equal. And even the ones that are equal on paper, are not necessarily equal, as imagination, inspiration, and even luck play a part in how effective a character is at solving problems that crop up in-game.



Some people act like that, yeah. Most of my friends don't. The ones that do find parts of the game that they enjoy, and let a pointless obsession with absolute equality slide because fairness is in the eyes of the beholder, and thus you cannot make everything fair for everyone all the time. Is a monk less well-put-together than a wizard? Probably, as folks who've run the system long enough can tell you. Does this make me less likely to play a monk? Not at all. I'll find a way to contribute and be useful regardless of what I'm playing.



I have presented an interpretation of the central issue as it applies to my demographic. And an honest one... To me, the tier system isn't a problem because we don't care about it. Everyone in my regular group is long out of college, and busy getting on with their lives. We have quite a lot to occupy our days, and there are always more forms of stress out there, and always bills that keep coming, and emergencies that arise... Real life is enough of a pain in the arse. When we sit down to game, things might not always go smooth, and the game might not always be balanced, but we can usually find SOME way of having fun. And we do. A prime part of this is sharing screen time, and letting everyone do their thing. Combat? Sure, some builds shine better than others, but that's just combat. As long as the bad guys die and the good guys win, who cares how they get to the end of it?


Um, so let's back up a little. I'm known around here, unfortunately, for crazy-high-power builds. Which is why it was ironic that Navar was saying I didn't know about them and had no tolerance for it. I ran the high-powered arena around here, suggesting that I do at least tolerate them.

And I do consider your view point, and think it's a solid one. It just ignores a lot of problems, which as you highlighted, it is my job to kill. Ideally, we want your view to be _true_. We want there to be no problems. We want things to just flow elegantly. The problem is that sometimes, the Boss casts celerity into timestop into oh god tpk. This is Tier 1, and I think it is not so great.




Now why in the seven hells would I want to do THAT. I don't care! And I'm not givin' you any keys there, internet guy!


I know you're joking but this makes my head hurt.

[true_shinken]

1) Some people play tier 1s. Fact

2) Some of those play them to their potential. Fact

3) Some people actually enjoy those games. I believe this to be true considering I have seen examples of it.


Bolded for emphasis. If you're not playing a tier 1 to it's full potential, then you are not playing a tier one. Time and again we hear someone point out that unoptimized blasting wizards and healbot clerics are around tiers 3-4. I don't quite agree with those tiers for them (specially because what exactly is unoptimized, what exactly is a blaster wizard and what exactly is a healbot cleric are all highly debatable points), but that is a very relevant topic: that is NOT tier one. Everytime we get someone here saying 'wizards are fine, we always plays with wizards and we had no problem at all' did not face a tier 1 wizard. Or had a gaming group that really wanted to play Xbox while some other guy breezed through encounters using a build Doc Roc or PhoenixInferno cooked for him.

I only have one argument against the rest of your post: just because someone finds it fun, doesn't mean it was well designed. Tier 1's are a problem, they are a design mistake and they make the game a pain in the ass for the DM and for anyone not playing a tier one. That is a problem, no matter how you put it. Saying it's not a problem because you heard someone played one and had a blast with it is like saying losing your legs is not a problem because of this guy (http://www.yousuckatsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/pistorius.jpg).

[Gnaeus]

Bolded for emphasis. If you're not playing a tier 1 to it's full potential, then you are not playing a tier one.

No. The tiers are a guide to play at same optimization level. A cruddy tier 1 is still a tier 1. A cruddy tier 3 is still a tier 3. A cruddy tier 5 is still a tier 5. There is a shift if someone is more or less optimized than the other players in their group. A poorly played T1 gets compared with poorly played t3s, or poorly played t5s.

And even if your false statement were true, it merely makes the entire discussion meaningless. It devolves into: Tier 1s are bad, but unoptimized tier 1s are not tier 1s, so Wizard/Cleric/Druid are OK under certain playstyles, which is EXACTLY what meepos and Demiurge said.

[Doc Roc]

No. The tiers are a guide to play at same optimization level. A cruddy tier 1 is still a tier 1. A cruddy tier 3 is still a tier 3. A cruddy tier 5 is still a tier 5. There is a shift if someone is more or less optimized than the other players in their group. A poorly played T1 gets compared with poorly played t3s, or poorly played t5s.

And even if your false statement were true, it merely makes the entire discussion meaningless. It devolves into: Tier 1s are bad, but unoptimized tier 1s are not tier 1s, so Wizard/Cleric/Druid are OK under certain playstyles, which is EXACTLY what meepos and Demiurge said.

This, though perhaps a bit more delicately worded. :)

I would argue that the fact that they can vary vastly in utility is also a problem, though an orthogonal problem.

To return to topic, as I've said...
I think the PF guys could have done much much more to try and fix this. It's really depressing, honestly.

[true_shinken]

No. The tiers are a guide to play at same optimization level. A cruddy tier 1 is still a tier 1.
I disagree, specially when we consider the way the prc tier system works, by adding or subtracting tiers to a class.
Anyway, I don't to deal with your rudeness, so I won't be answering you again on this topic.

[Gnaeus]

I disagree, specially when we consider the way the prc tier system works, by adding or subtracting tiers to a class.
Anyway, I don't to deal with your rudeness, so I won't be answering you again on this topic.

Ok. Don't take my word for it, here is some JaronK taken from his tier thread

"Q: So what a minute, how can I use it then? My players all play differently.

A: First, determine what you'd say is the average optimization and skill level in the group, then make adjustments for people who are noticably different from that. I can't give examples of skill level, but here's an example for optimization. Imagine for a moment that your party has a Cleric with DMM: Persistant Spell, a Fighter with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack, a Beguiler with a Mindbender dip and Mindsight, and a traditional Sword and Board Fighter. Now, the first three are pretty optimized, but the fourth is pretty weak. So in that case, what you've actually got is a Tier 1, a Tier 3, a Tier 5, and a Tier 6, with that second Fighter being Tier 6 because he's far less optimized than the rest of the group. However, if your group is instead a healbot Cleric, a Beguiler who hasn't figured out how to use illusions effectively, a Sword and Board Fighter, and a Shock Trooper/Leap Attack Fighter, then the charge based Fighter is the odd one out. Bump him up a Tier... maybe even 2. So now you've got a Tier 1, a Tier 3, a Tier 5, and maybe a Tier 4. Remember, this whole thing is about intra party balance... there's no objective balancing, because each campaign is different."

[Lost Demiurge]

Um, so let's back up a little. I'm known around here, unfortunately, for crazy-high-power builds. Which is why it was ironic that Navar was saying I didn't know about them and had no tolerance for it. I ran the high-powered arena around here, suggesting that I do at least tolerate them.

Oh, okay. My mistake then. Still, message board fame is about worth a cup of coffee, and not the good starbucks kind. Can't assume that people know who you are, or what you've done when you're just an avatar and a posting history.

I DO see the irony, though...



And I do consider your view point, and think it's a solid one. It just ignores a lot of problems, which as you highlighted, it is my job to kill. Ideally, we want your view to be _true_. We want there to be no problems. We want things to just flow elegantly. The problem is that sometimes, the Boss casts celerity into timestop into oh god tpk. This is Tier 1, and I think it is not so great.


Yeah. This is why scaling's the greatest art a GM can learn, IMO. And it's never a precise one, sadly. It's going to vary group by group, since the glory and downfall of a game like D&D is that it gives the PC's SO MANY options both in build and action, that you can't account for every situation or playstyle in a scenario meant for universal consumption. God knows I've changed every module I've ever run, usually for the better. Don't know any GM's who play straight from the pages and expect things to go well...



I know you're joking but this makes my head hurt.

Ah, you'll recover. Besides, when you were literate about keys I smelled a fellow IT person. Figured it might make your head asplode :smallbiggrin:

[Doc Roc]

Oh, okay. My mistake then. Still, message board fame is about worth a cup of coffee, and not the good starbucks kind. Can't assume that people know who you are, or what you've done when you're just an avatar and a posting history.

I DO see the irony, though...


I agree, though generally you can intuit it from people's reactions. Veyr is quite far from arrogant by nature or inclination, and a very even-keeled chap, much more so than me.

It's all about distributed trust.

[MeeposFire]

Bolded for emphasis. If you're not playing a tier 1 to it's full potential, then you are not playing a tier one. Time and again we hear someone point out that unoptimized blasting wizards and healbot clerics are around tiers 3-4. I don't quite agree with those tiers for them (specially because what exactly is unoptimized, what exactly is a blaster wizard and what exactly is a healbot cleric are all highly debatable points), but that is a very relevant topic: that is NOT tier one. Everytime we get someone here saying 'wizards are fine, we always plays with wizards and we had no problem at all' did not face a tier 1 wizard. Or had a gaming group that really wanted to play Xbox while some other guy breezed through encounters using a build Doc Roc or PhoenixInferno cooked for him.

I only have one argument against the rest of your post: just because someone finds it fun, doesn't mean it was well designed. Tier 1's are a problem, they are a design mistake and they make the game a pain in the ass for the DM and for anyone not playing a tier one. That is a problem, no matter how you put it. Saying it's not a problem because you heard someone played one and had a blast with it is like saying losing your legs is not a problem because of this guy (http://www.yousuckatsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/pistorius.jpg).

I checked to be sure but I was not arguing that the game was well designed. In fact I went to great efforts to make it clear that playing in a higher teired game is not a tier I enjoy. I was more arguing that some people really like these tiers to play in and thus are allowed to say that it is not a bad place for their games to be played (or better put it is the right system for them to play). Considering that I got so sick of the 3.5 system that I refuse to DM it anymore (don't mind playing it but DMing it was far more work than I wanted to do for the fun that we had) I don't think you will have any worries about me defending the 3.5 system from these sorts of discussions :smallwink:.

[navar100]

Dunno how precisely to respond to this, so I'm just gonna let it sit. Like I said, the burden of proof is with you. If you can show me how to reliably design interesting and challenging encounters with a consistent difficulty for parties heavy in T1 builds, I'd be delighted.

I out.

I don't have to prove anything. Just because you can't make encounters for parties heavy in Tier 1 doesn't mean it can't be done. My DM did it previous campaign, common theme the enemy out numbered us at least two to one, but not all the time. Spellcasters could not defeat all the bad guys single-handedly. Also, contrary to popular anti-Tier 1 belief, bad guys actually do make saving throws such that whatever awesome I Win The Encounter spells the Tier 1 character uses don't actually win the encounter, even if some spells have no saving throw. Sometimes last campaign the spellcaster did cast that awesome spell that made things a whole lot easier. The non-spellcasters didn't cry about being useless. Instead, they were appreciative of the help and began their pummeling.

All I said was that Tier 1 is not necessarily bad. Some gaming groups get along just fine with it even when someone is playing a Fighter. There are other gaming groups who don't care for the power level of Tier 1, so they don't use them.

[Lost Demiurge]

I agree, though generally you can intuit it from people's reactions. Veyr is quite far from arrogant by nature or inclination, and a very even-keeled chap, much more so than me.

It's all about distributed trust.

Which, if you aren't familiar with all the participants an individual might not have an adequate range of experience to judge. Hell, I've been around a few years on this board and never run into you before. Just never crossed paths, and that's neither bad nor good, just how it is.

Distributed trust is a good way to put it, though.

[Doc Roc]

Which, if you aren't familiar with all the participants an individual might not have an adequate range of experience to judge. Hell, I've been around a few years on this board and never run into you before. Just never crossed paths, and that's neither bad nor good, just how it is.

Distributed trust is a good way to put it, though.

I took a break for the better part of a year due to burn-out revolving around Legend.

[navar100]

nobody screams about this stuff. it just allows you to have an "I win" button for any given situation and an easy way to get one when you don't.

Gate allows bringing in a solar, asking it to cast miracle, and using an actual "we win the battle" button.
rope trick is nearly impossible to deal with, it allows the party uninterrupable rest to memorize any spells they happen to need.
divine metamagic is fine until you use turn undeads to avoid raising spell slots, allowing quickened mass heals and the like for no real cost.
natural spell allows you to dump all physical stats and pump you wisdom to the extreme, then shift and still cast, resulting all stats being quite good.

again, though, the reason tier 1s are what they are is because they have to actively try NOT to break the game, as opposed to things like the ubercharger that take some real thought to make. this is the definition of bad design.

Way back when the implication of Divine Metamagic wasn't yet fully realized and Persistant Spell was only +4 spell levels, I did use the combo. My DM and gaming group was ok with it. That's my point. Some gaming groups see and recognize the power and just aren't particularly bothered by it. Particular combinations of stuff can lead to non-functioning of the game and are dealt with, but the existance of having a really powerful character is not an issue.

That same campaign. I couldn't attend a gaming session. Something went wrong in that missed session, and there was a TPK scenario. (Not literally every character dead, but the party was in major guano.) When I returned next session it was up to me to fix it all. I could cast Resurrection on a dead party member, but there was much more to do. I casted Greater Planar Ally for an Astral Deva to get some guidance and help to solve the problem. In addition to an amusing anecdote of learning that an NPC we've seen a few times was really this Astral Deva in disguise, the Astral Deva and I rescued the party. Everyone was happy about that! The DM was happy I saved the campaign. The players were happy I saved their characters. No one complained of my awesomeness. No hand-wringing that I got an angel to do my bidding. No complaints from the barbarian who likes to trip that I did something more potent than tripping. No complaints from the rogue saying all he gets to do is some extra d6 in damage in specific circumstances while I call forth the heavens!

The power level of Tier 1 just doesn't bother us.

[Claudius Maximus]

I think the argument the anti-tier 1 camp is making here is that tier 1's played to potential are bad. And for someone like Doc Roc "played to potential" means "beyond Team Solars." You can't claim that it isn't a problem because you don't play at that level, because then you're just ignoring the issue, which is that the potential power of the classes is too high.


Just because you can't make encounters for parties heavy in Tier 1 doesn't mean it can't be done.

Just because you can do it doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Tier 1's are a huge pain to deal with, in a general sense, and that's why they're seen as a design failure.

[Tael]

Navar, your tier 1's don't exactly sound like they're being player to potential. Just moderately optimized. What I'm thinking of is, let's say for example's sake, the following party:

Wizard/Incatatrix: Has a ridiculous amount of buffs up, and and blow anything with less than 1000 HP or 28 HD into the stratosphere with a standard action.

StP Erudite/Rainbow Servant: What's that? A creature with any kind of vulnerability? Oh look, there's a spell/power for that! (also applies to any other kind of challenge the PC's might face)

Druid/Planar Shepherd: If Wishes can't fix the problem, presumable acting 10 times faster than everyone else can.

Cleric: Who cares about prestige classes when you have 10 buffs up at all times and you're casting inside your own AMF?

How the hell do you challenge that? Of course, I'm talking about some pretty high power PrCs, but this isn't even that complicated. Even if for some reason all the party members aren't immune to damage, there is no give and take in encounters, either the PCs curb stomp everything, or they all die.

And that's only for combat. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of traps or roleplaying encounter one would use to give them any semblance of a challenge.

EDIT: One second thought, the StP Erudite probably doesn't work. Still, Beguiler is just fine.

[Doc Roc]

Navar, your tier 1's don't exactly sound like they're being player to potential. Just moderately optimized. What I'm thinking of is, let's say for example's sake, the following party:

Wizard/Incatatrix: Has a ridiculous amount of buffs up, and and blow anything with less than 1000 HP or 28 HD into the stratosphere with a standard action.

StP Erudite/Rainbow Servant: What's that? A creature with any kind of vulnerability? Oh look, there's a spell/power for that! (also applies to any other kind of challenge the PC's might face)

Druid/Planar Shepherd: If Wishes can't fix the problem, presumable acting 10 times faster than everyone else can.

Cleric: Who cares about prestige classes when you have 10 buffs up at all times and you're casting inside your own AMF?

How the hell do you challenge that? Of course, I'm talking about some pretty high power PrCs, but this isn't even that complicated. Even if for some reason all the party members aren't immune to damage, there is no give and take in encounters, either the PCs curb stomp everything, or they all die.

And that's only for combat. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of traps or roleplaying encounter one would use to give them any semblance of a challenge.

EDIT: One second thought, the StP Erudite probably doesn't work. Still, Beguiler is just fine.

Somewhere, there's a version of Algernon that uses feat shuffle, ocular spell, spelldancer, contemplative, and a few other things to fully assemble the cheater of mystra in distributed form. We called it the Loomlord of Mystra. It was bad enough, but there was a whole party to go with them. Also, you can get your tapestry pretty durn large if you want.

[Reluctance]

Navar, let me turn the question around, and let you pick up the burden of proof. Provide plots you'd want to run. Let the optimizers here have a crack at said plots, using only a single T1 caster.

The fact that the blasty wizard can outdamage the fighter is a lesser problem, and one that can be dealt with by jiggering with enemy difficulty a bit. The fact that a reasonably well-played T1 can trivially end whole plotlines is a much bigger deal. If the only people allowed to DM under your ideal vision of the game have the rules mastery to know of every move-countermove combo, the spare time and brainpower to account for all these, and the improvisational skills required to wing it when the PCs do something crazy, you're going to have very few DMs and consequently very few games. That's really all there is to it.

[Gnaeus]

That is true, to an extent. Certainly mid-high level casters can do that. For a long time, however, the groups I played in never got above level 8, and rarely above level 5. The amount of plot ending that can be done at those levels is less impressive.

[Tael]

That is true, to an extent. Certainly mid-high level casters can do that. For a long time, however, the groups I played in never got above level 8, and rarely above level 5. The amount of plot ending that can be done at those levels is less impressive.

Below level 7 I agree that casters don't have as much game-ending power, levels 7 and 9 really are the turning points. By then you have ridiculous knowledge gathering abilities, spells and powers that can completely curbstomp enemies, etc. Your group may like an E6 style game, but I doubt it's the norm. While you can discount really high levels to some extent, casters still dominate in mid level games. It's posed a serious problem not to our 10th level game, not so much in fights, but in story design. The GM has had to retcon/obviously improvise a lot of stuff, not because he is a poor planner, but because he can't possibly plan for every spell in the wizard and cleric's massive list.

[cfalcon]

I am trying to explain to you that Tier 1s make generating content hard on a GM, if they're being played to potential.

And I'll add that your GM needs to fix or nerf until everyone is happy. I don't understand why Gating in a Solar to cast Miracle is ludicrous, given how similar miracle and wish are in general- you save some XP, but still spend some. This still assumes that your DM allows you complete control of an angel: I wouldn't, though obviously he could aid you with miracle if he saw fit while he is undertaking actions to aid you in combat.

[navar100]

I think the argument the anti-tier 1 camp is making here is that tier 1's played to potential are bad. And for someone like Doc Roc "played to potential" means "beyond Team Solars." You can't claim that it isn't a problem because you don't play at that level, because then you're just ignoring the issue, which is that the potential power of the classes is too high.



Just because you can do it doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Tier 1's are a huge pain to deal with, in a general sense, and that's why they're seen as a design failure.

I'm not talking about game design and never had. All I said was that Tier 1 is not necessarily bad because some players, such as my group, don't particular mind the power that comes with playing Tier 1 classes. Those who do mind such power don't care for the Tier 1 classes. Some people are now getting on my case about it that I have no issue with the Tier 1 classes.

[navar100]

Navar, your tier 1's don't exactly sound like they're being player to potential. Just moderately optimized. What I'm thinking of is, let's say for example's sake, the following party:

Wizard/Incatatrix: Has a ridiculous amount of buffs up, and and blow anything with less than 1000 HP or 28 HD into the stratosphere with a standard action.

StP Erudite/Rainbow Servant: What's that? A creature with any kind of vulnerability? Oh look, there's a spell/power for that! (also applies to any other kind of challenge the PC's might face)

Druid/Planar Shepherd: If Wishes can't fix the problem, presumable acting 10 times faster than everyone else can.

Cleric: Who cares about prestige classes when you have 10 buffs up at all times and you're casting inside your own AMF?

How the hell do you challenge that? Of course, I'm talking about some pretty high power PrCs, but this isn't even that complicated. Even if for some reason all the party members aren't immune to damage, there is no give and take in encounters, either the PCs curb stomp everything, or they all die.

And that's only for combat. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of traps or roleplaying encounter one would use to give them any semblance of a challenge.

EDIT: One second thought, the StP Erudite probably doesn't work. Still, Beguiler is just fine.

Not in my original post on the subject but in a later posting I did say that any combination of things that makes the game non-functional is dealt with. When I played my Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell cleric the DM told me that he has to see how it goes with the possibility I couldn't use it any more, though he insisted on me actually having Persistent Spell feat to close the loophole of the feat RAW before errata which I agreed with. Turned out he could handle the power, so I kept it.

Pun-puns can happen. Their possibility of happening doesn't mean that Tier 1 classes are bad to use.

[navar100]

Navar, let me turn the question around, and let you pick up the burden of proof. Provide plots you'd want to run. Let the optimizers here have a crack at said plots, using only a single T1 caster.

The fact that the blasty wizard can outdamage the fighter is a lesser problem, and one that can be dealt with by jiggering with enemy difficulty a bit. The fact that a reasonably well-played T1 can trivially end whole plotlines is a much bigger deal. If the only people allowed to DM under your ideal vision of the game have the rules mastery to know of every move-countermove combo, the spare time and brainpower to account for all these, and the improvisational skills required to wing it when the PCs do something crazy, you're going to have very few DMs and consequently very few games. That's really all there is to it.

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said the bolded part. I only said that Tier 1 classes aren't necessarily bad because some people are comfortable with the power level involved.

[Reluctance]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said the bolded part. I only said that Tier 1 classes aren't necessarily bad because some people are comfortable with the power level involved.

The bolded part is the direct consequence of a T1 played to full potential. Please actually address the first part of my post, where I ask for T1-proof plots.

Look. I'll grant that some people like the wild, wacky world of powers interacting in every which way. I'm just saying that they're playing a very different game from the barbarians and rogues of the world. When two characters of the same level in the same system are playing such radically different games - especially when the system implies that they're all meant to bb about the same - that's a bug in the system.

[Provengreil]

Way back when the implication of Divine Metamagic wasn't yet fully realized and Persistant Spell was only +4 spell levels, I did use the combo. My DM and gaming group was ok with it. That's my point. Some gaming groups see and recognize the power and just aren't particularly bothered by it. Particular combinations of stuff can lead to non-functioning of the game and are dealt with, but the existance of having a really powerful character is not an issue.

That same campaign. I couldn't attend a gaming session. Something went wrong in that missed session, and there was a TPK scenario. (Not literally every character dead, but the party was in major guano.) When I returned next session it was up to me to fix it all. I could cast Resurrection on a dead party member, but there was much more to do. I casted Greater Planar Ally for an Astral Deva to get some guidance and help to solve the problem. In addition to an amusing anecdote of learning that an NPC we've seen a few times was really this Astral Deva in disguise, the Astral Deva and I rescued the party. Everyone was happy about that! The DM was happy I saved the campaign. The players were happy I saved their characters. No one complained of my awesomeness. No hand-wringing that I got an angel to do my bidding. No complaints from the barbarian who likes to trip that I did something more potent than tripping. No complaints from the rogue saying all he gets to do is some extra d6 in damage in specific circumstances while I call forth the heavens!

The power level of Tier 1 just doesn't bother us.

...so you cast one spell to do what it was intended to do rather than gate in a solar to grab a casting of miracle without paying XP to raise all of your party members for free? no efreeti infinite wish chains? wow, have you guys ever read half your spell descriptions? the implications of some of these spells go so far beyond the intentions it's absurd. I'd answer further but i'm pretty sure a lot of these other guys beat me to it.

[Gnaeus]

...so you cast one spell to do what it was intended to do rather than gate in a solar to grab a casting of miracle without paying XP to raise all of your party members for free? no efreeti infinite wish chains? wow, have you guys ever read half your spell descriptions? the implications of some of these spells go so far beyond the intentions it's absurd. I'd answer further but i'm pretty sure a lot of these other guys beat me to it.

Believe it or not, many players are not intending to break the system. I have never, ever, seen an infinite wish chain cause a problem in a game. I have never even seen a player suggest it as anything other than a joke. In my current game, if a caster wants to use a spell in a certain way and he thinks it might be problematic, he runs it by the DM first and we act like adults. With mature players, and an understanding that any trick we pull, the DM can pull back at us, this issue is not an issue.

[Provengreil]

Believe it or not, many players are not intending to break the system. I have never, ever, seen an infinite wish chain cause a problem in a game. I have never even seen a player suggest it as anything other than a joke. In my current game, if a caster wants to use a spell in a certain way and he thinks it might be problematic, he runs it by the DM first and we act like adults. With mature players, and an understanding that any trick we pull, the DM can pull back at us, this issue is not an issue.

Me neither. I have a munchkin inside. He spends a lot of time sobbing quietly in the corner as I look down my character sheets. but this conversation isn't about what he wants to do, it's about what he can do and why what he can do breaks the game and makes things unnecessarily difficult for the DM, etc.

[MeeposFire]

Me neither. I have a munchkin inside. He spends a lot of time sobbing quietly in the corner as I look down my character sheets. but this conversation isn't about what he wants to do, it's about what he can do and why what he can do breaks the game and makes things unnecessarily difficult for the DM, etc.

Actually this conversation is supposed to be about the tiers and pathfinder classes, not a discussion about tier 3 being the best tier, how much some people think playing in a tier one game is playing the game wrong, or that 3.5 is so messed up that playing it is problematic. Unfortunately this topic is a bit off base.

[Gnaeus]

Me neither. I have a munchkin inside. He spends a lot of time sobbing quietly in the corner as I look down my character sheets. but this conversation isn't about what he wants to do, it's about what he can do and why what he can do breaks the game and makes things unnecessarily difficult for the DM, etc.

But anyone can break the game and make things unnecessarily difficult for the DM. They can do stupid, campaign ending things. They can just refuse to engage in anything plotlike, or split the party in a way that the DM can't manage, and justify it with some IC reason. The unwritten contract in most groups (that I have seen anyway) is that players don't try to break the game, and the DM tries to run the game in such a way that doesn't shatter suspension of disbelief by making the PCs want to do what the players want them to do.


Actually this conversation is supposed to be about the tiers and pathfinder classes, not a discussion about tier 3 being the best tier, how much some people think playing in a tier one game is playing the game wrong, or that 3.5 is so messed up that playing it is problematic. Unfortunately this topic is a bit off base.

You are right, meepos. sorry.

[MeeposFire]

But anyone can break the game and make things unnecessarily difficult for the DM. They can do stupid, campaign ending things. They can just refuse to engage in anything plotlike, or split the party in a way that the DM can't manage, and justify it with some IC reason. The unwritten contract in most groups (that I have seen anyway) is that players don't try to break the game, and the DM tries to run the game in such a way that doesn't shatter suspension of disbelief by making the PCs want to do what the players want them to do.



You are right, meepos. sorry.

I am not mad at anybody just bringing up a reminder that as interesting as this can be it actually is not the conversation at hand. So its cool (that goes for everybody). Of course I am not the OP. If the OP likes this conversation the OP is more than welcome to say so and tell us to keep going.

[peacenlove]

On Topic, what do you think the Tier of magus (new class in Ultimate Magic) will be?

[Curious]

A secondary spellcaster with full BAB and the ability to effectively two-weapon fight with his magical abilities? I'm betting it'll be a solid tier 3.

[navar100]

...so you cast one spell to do what it was intended to do rather than gate in a solar to grab a casting of miracle without paying XP to raise all of your party members for free? no efreeti infinite wish chains? wow, have you guys ever read half your spell descriptions? the implications of some of these spells go so far beyond the intentions it's absurd. I'd answer further but i'm pretty sure a lot of these other guys beat me to it.

I wasn't high enough level to cast Gate. I still probably would have used Greater Planar Ally anyway because that was all I needed. I might have casted Miracle myself and not care about the XP because the party meant a lot to me than to worry about XP. When I finally could cast Miracle I was certainly not shy in doing so to get the party the heck out of Dodge fast when the excrement hit the air circulation device. I was still bad-ass myself, what with Divine Metamagic Persistent Greater Aspect of the Deity as just one of my persisted spells. The party, not just me, was very powerful. We faced equivalent powerful foes. We were facing Armageddon, as our world was being invaded by demons and devils.

No, we don't even try for inifinite wishes because that's stupid. Just because I Win The Game F You DM stuff is possible doesn't mean we must therefore try it. Everyone has limits. Our limit just happens to be at a higher power level than you are comfortable with.