I obviously don't understand a wizard's power

[danzibr]

Or any other tier 1 for that matter.

I mean, I know they're strong, but it seems to me that an uber charger who wins initiative and has some magic defense piercing would kill anything. Surely I'm missing something, as Wizard is tier 1 and Barbarian is tier 4.

[Greenish]

Charging is easy to block. Not all magic can be pierced.

That's assuming the wizard can actually be hurt by mere damage, which isn't a given.

[Edit]: Not that 1 vs. 1 combat has much to do with how the classes are tiered.

[Telonius]

Or any other tier 1 for that matter.

I mean, I know they're strong, but it seems to me that an uber charger who wins initiative and has some magic defense piercing would kill anything. Surely I'm missing something, as Wizard is tier 1 and Barbarian is tier 4.

You're missing the Celerity spell line from PHB2. The spells' casting time is "one immediate action." This mean that, if it ever really matters, the wizard doesn't lose initiative. He casts Celerity, then moves out of the way of the charge, to a place that would be inaccessible to the enemies until his next turn. Or he Plane Shifts. Or casts Time Stop. Or does any number of things to ruin the charger's day. (One of my favorites, just for comedic effect, is "Wall of Iron" cast three inches from the charger's face).

[Yora]

As I understand the common classifications of tiers, the system does not actually state that a higher tier class will always win in a fight against a lower tier class.
Tier 4 classes have only a single trick, but this trick might actually be very effective. On the other hand, tier 1 classes have solutions for about every possible situation.

So yes, if a barbarian gets an opportunity to make a first strike against a wizard, he might quite likely kill him. But only then! If he doesn't kill him before the wizard gets his turn, the wizard has dozens of ways to find the time to buff up and dispose of the barbarian from a safe distance.
On the other hand, if the wizard gets the first action and it fails, that's not really a problem since he is able to take his time and try other things.

Also, the main focus of the game is not characters of equal level against each other, but characters working together against monsters. If you face a monster that doesn't care if it has a huge axe in it's face, and there are a lot of them, the barbarian is pretty much out of options. A decent wizard is never out of options. There's at least in theory a spell that should deal with the problem without much trouble.

[LordBlades]

Simplest way to address your case: contingent teleport in case wizard loses initiative. Ubercharger wins initiative, wizard teleports away. Next round he (quickened preferably but not mandatory) Teleports back in, activates Celerity (and Timestop if high enough level) and proceeds to kill said uberchager.

On the most general chase: ubercharger is a powerful trick when it works, but it only works in quite a limited number of cases: you need to have a charge line to the enemy, and you need to be able to get through the enemy's defenses (miss chances, AC and the like). Wizard on the other hand has a spell combo that's at least as devastating as ubercharging for probably any possible situation in the game.

[KillianHawkeye]

Tiers aren't about power, they're about versatility.

Sure, and uber-charger can do a shed load of damage, but that's about all they're good for. Wizards can eliminate threats without dealing damage at all, plus take care of the party's transportation needs, safe places to rest, bypass obstacles, etc., etc., etc.

[Yuki Akuma]

You're missing the Celerity spell line from PHB2. The spells' casting time is "one immediate action."

You're aware that you can't take immediate actions when you're flat-footed, right..?

[LordBlades]

You're aware that you can't take immediate actions when you're flat-footed, right..?

Not until lvl 17. After that there is just no excuse not to have Foresight up at all times.

[ILM]

Or any other tier 1 for that matter.

I mean, I know they're strong, but it seems to me that an uber charger who wins initiative and has some magic defense piercing would kill anything. Surely I'm missing something, as Wizard is tier 1 and Barbarian is tier 4.
Wizards (full casters in general) have so many tricks to prevent that from happening that a well-played one will be able to keep that from happening, ever. Celerity just puts the nail in the coffin, but really all you needed in your scenario above is Fly, a spell any wizard gets at level 5. Hell, levitate would work in most cases and you'd get that at level 3. Displacement, Mirror Image, line-of-sight obsuring tricks and the like make it pretty hard for the barbarian to hit the wizard. Sure, the barb has ways to defeat each layer of defense a wizard puts up, but he'll always be playing catch-up.

Of course, you could always set up the perfect ambush but then, even a commoner with a heavy pick or something can coup de grâce an overconfident level 20 in his sleep, yet nobody's claiming commoner > epic-ready PC.

Plus, a caster has so many options for all the other situations that don't involve HULK SMASH moments.

[Greenish]

The tier system is explained here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293), and you might also want to take a look at here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spellLists/sorcererWizardSpells.htm) and at some popular wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104002) guides (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19873034/Treantmonks_guide_to_Wizards:_Being_a_God).

[ILM]

Not until lvl 17. After that there is just no excuse not to have Foresight up at all times.
Yes there is: 10 min/CL duration.

[Cog]

Two hours covers a lot of adventuring.

[Eldan]

But it's not always.

Anyways, even at low levels, simple things like Grease, Glitterdust and Levitation make life hell for a charger.

[Claudius Maximus]

It's hardly impossible to hit CL 72. You can even get away with the admittedly much more manageable 36 if you cast it twice.

Anyway wizards and the like consistently beat melee types in the Test of Spite, even in the more melee-friendly cases when there were, for example, no buff rounds. Class tier was actually a pretty decent judge of expected performance.

[Eldan]

With a few notable exceptions, like the Samurai intimidator. :smallwink:

[McSmack]

The tier system isn't about power. It's about power AND versatility. A high level wizard has access to so many spells and abilities that they have literally dozens of ways of dealing with any situation. They can fill the same role as many other classes and in most cases do their job better than the original.

So with tier 1's they not only have the power to deal with any situation. They have the versatility to have options in how they deal with those situations.

[Calintares]

What if this wizard cast overland flight this morning, as most wizards at a high level would? What if the wizard used some sort of divination to know he'd encounter a hostile charger and prepared a contengiency casting improved invisibility/teleport/whatever at sight of an enemy? what if the wizard cast wall of stone arround your charger?

[Alchemistmerlin]

Or any other tier 1 for that matter.

I mean, I know they're strong, but it seems to me that an uber charger who wins initiative and has some magic defense piercing would kill anything. Surely I'm missing something, as Wizard is tier 1 and Barbarian is tier 4.

Every time you use the word "Tier" in a non-competitive game environment, fun dies a horrible, painful death.

God, what has happened to this game, I feel like I'm on the smash bros. forums and people are banana-gaming all over the place.

[Yora]

True, true. I've never been to dicefreaks, but I think they can't be any more into power gaming than this forum. :smallbiggrin:

[Tyndmyr]

You're aware that you can't take immediate actions when you're flat-footed, right..?

Contingent celerity is a solid way to fix this until you get foresight. Alternately, be a dire tortoise to always act in the surprise round.

This is at least moderate levels of optimization, though. Much like uberchargers who kill in a round. The tier system is really more about flexibility, not who can one shot who.

[Greenish]

Every time you use the word "Tier" in a non-competitive game environment, fun dies a horrible, painful death.Tiers were defined for fun, by people who don't enjoy a game where someone has a canoe and another a carrier.

But of course you're entitled to your condescension.

[Eldan]

True, true. I've never been to dicefreaks, but I think they can't be any more into power gaming than this forum. :smallbiggrin:

Eh. I think most people are not really "into" power gaming. As far as I see it, this discussion, and discussions like it aren't "you are doing it wrong if you aren't playing a wizard!", they are more "these are problems with 3.5 balance, you should watch out for them."

[Alchemistmerlin]

Tiers were defined for fun, by people who don't enjoy a game where someone has a canoe and another a carrier.

But of course you're entitled to your condescension.

As you are entitled to your No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination.

[Yuki Akuma]

Every time you use the word "Tier" in a non-competitive game environment, fun dies a horrible, painful death.

God, what has happened to this game, I feel like I'm on the smash bros. forums and people are banana-gaming all over the place.

What word would you prefer, then? Rank? Level?

Tiers are designed so people can see that, oh, wait, maybe a party made up of a Wizard, an Artificer, a Druid and a Monk isn't the best plan.

[Vladislav]

In summary, the ubercharger is Tier 4, because that's all he can do - charge. Any problem that can't be solved by charging and hitting with a pointy chunk of metal, he can't solve.

A social encounter? He has nothing, while the Wizard has Charm Person, Suggestion, Detect Thoughts, etc.
A door too strong to be physically broken? He has nothing, while the Wizard has Knock and Dimension Door.
The bad guy turned invisible and fled in an unknown direction? He has nothing, while the Wizard has a plethora of divination spells.
Surrounded by a clan of Stone Giants, too many to fight toe to toe? He has nothing, while the Wizard can go Invisible or Teleport or cast Confusion, or Gaseous Form.

And so on. The list could be easily extended.

[Cog]

Meh. I can understand the frustration. All too often I see comments like "Battle Sorcerer is a trap!" when it's tier 3 or more probably low tier 2.

The intent of the tier system is to help people play together on the same level and get along without overshadowing. There's plenty of people here who respect it on that level, too. There's just plenty who don't as well.

[shadow_archmagi]

Or any other tier 1 for that matter.

I mean, I know they're strong, but it seems to me that an uber charger who wins initiative and has some magic defense piercing would kill anything. Surely I'm missing something, as Wizard is tier 1 and Barbarian is tier 4.

The tier system is designed to measure power within the normal game framework. Your Ubercharger is on an adventure, he comes to a chasm. What does he do?

Your Ubercharger comes to a village where the people are plagued by disease. What does he do?

Your Ubercharger comes to a city, and is commissioned by the mayor to hunt down the local Slaneesh cult. What does he do?

Your Ubercharger now has to defend the city from a massive demonic invasion. What does he do?


The Barbarian is Tier 4 because even if you Optimize one really well, he can still only participate by dealing lots of damage.

Wizards can cure plagues, move mountains, build walls, burn forests, interrogate the dead, banish the demons, and so on. And builds like The Mailman are still happy to deal out lots and lots of damage.

Tier rating is perhaps best measured this way:

When the DM starts describing a problem, how likely is it that you'll be able to contribute, and how much?

[Feytalist]

What word would you prefer, then? Rank? Level?

Tiers are designed so people can see that, oh, wait, maybe a party made up of a Wizard, an Artificer, a Druid and a Monk isn't the best plan.

It's fine if they want to play that. The issue is with optimization over enjoyment. If the group as a whole enjoys the game as they play it, then there is no harm, and coincidentally, the whole point of D&D is realized.

It's only when gamers come in with their power gaming tactics that the game gets broken. I imagine that's why the tiers were invented. For the optimizers.

The point of the game is (was?) not who gets to press the save-or-die button first, but simply fun. And that's possible with any combination of characters and classes, if the players have the right mindset.

[Eldan]

Obviously:

Your Ubercharger is on an adventure, he comes to a chasm. What does he do?

Charge a cliff to create a landslide to fill the chasm.

Your Ubercharger comes to a village where the people are plagued by disease. What does he do?


I charge the bacteria.

Your Ubercharger comes to a city, and is commissioned by the mayor to hunt down the local Slaneesh cult. What does he do?


Charge the mayor. It's always the mayor.

Your Ubercharger now has to defend the city from a massive demonic invasion. What does he do?

Charge the demons.

I fail to see the problem :smallwink:
Charging is like explosives: if it can't solve a problem, you need more of it.

[Cog]

I imagine that's why the tiers were invented. For the optimizers.
Well, there's your problem. You're imagining instead of finding out (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.msg24721#msg24721), or even just listening to the people here telling you otherwise.

[Greenish]

As you are entitled to your No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination.I'm not quite sure what that, or banana-gaming for that matter, are supposed to mean, but I gather that it's supposed to be something less than flattering.

http://www.themerrygoround.co.uk/images/_lib/orchard-toys-one-banana-two-banana-game-detail-3003147-0-1290464104000.jpg
This is probably it.

[Alchemistmerlin]

I'm not quite sure what that, or banana-gaming for that matter, are supposed to mean, but I gather that it's supposed to be something less than flattering.

http://www.themerrygoround.co.uk/images/_lib/orchard-toys-one-banana-two-banana-game-detail-3003147-0-1290464104000.jpg
This is probably it.

Obviously not a man who has ever had a conversation with someone who has played WAY too much Super Smash Brothers.

I apologize, I did not mean to derail this thread as I did, merely a sigh of frustration that escaped me.

[AmberVael]

I fail to see the problem :smallwink:
Charging is like explosives: if it can't solve a problem, you need more of it.

Maxim Six: If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
:smalltongue:

Like others have said, you can increase your numbers all you please, but if you don't have options then you're going to have trouble anyway. It's not really about magic or specifics classes, it's just about capability to perform well in a wide variety of situations... thing is, in D&D, magic is really good at performing well in a wide variety of situations.

[Calintares]

It's fine if they want to play that. The issue is with optimization over enjoyment. If the group as a whole enjoys the game as they play it, then there is no harm, and coincidentally, the whole point of D&D is realized.

It's only when gamers come in with their power gaming tactics that the game gets broken. I imagine that's why the tiers were invented. For the optimizers.

The point of the game is (was?) not who gets to press the save-or-die button first, but simply fun. And that's possible with any combination of characters and classes, if the players have the right mindset.

The thing is that the higher tier classes will almost always overshadow the lower tier characters a lot of the time because the classes simply have much more to contribute. If people in the group is fine with being overshadowed then that's ok. But make no mistake about it, this occurs even if no optimization is attempted beyond not dumping ones primary casting stats and suchlike.

It's not a huge effort in optimization to simply go Druid 20 and at some point after level 6 take natural spell, often times a new player will chose it based on it sounding cool, but when that player plays together with someone who chose monk because it also sounded cool you might have a problem unless the monk-player is fine with always having less to contribute to the situation

[Veyr]

It's only when gamers come in with their power gaming tactics that the game gets broken. I imagine that's why the tiers were invented. For the optimizers.
There are so many things wrong with this post.

There is no "right" way to play the game. Your statement that the game works fine "if the players have the right mindset," is inherently insulting to anyone who cares about mechanics.

Believe it or not, tier issues come up in unoptimized play! There are plenty of stories of people playing with no looking stuff up on the Internet, no analyzing spell lists and feat, just naturally playing the game — and the Fighter 6 complaining after 3 combats about how the Druid 6 is two Fighters plus spells. And without tiers, this is very likely to devolve into "he must be cheating!" if people are convinced that the rules couldn't possibly be as unbalanced as they are.

As Cog points out, you're making a classic case for that old idiom about assuming, here.

[Yora]

However there are also stories of people complaining that the monk doesn't give the druid any chance to be useful. Every class can completely outshine another when the players are not aware of the full potential of their characters.

[Leon]

Or any other tier 1 for that matter.

I mean, I know they're strong, but it seems to me that an uber charger who wins initiative and has some magic defense piercing would kill anything. Surely I'm missing something, as Wizard is tier 1 and Barbarian is tier 4.

Ignore the crap that is the tier system and you will have a better game. All the classes have Strengths and Weaknesses that will be better or worse in a given situation.

[Cog]

The more sources of variability you have, the more likely you are to end up with inequality. Player skill will be a problem either way. Awareness of the tiers lets you remove one of the sources of variability, or even take advantage of it to help lessen the other sources.

[Tael]

Let us examine the various Shticks of classes.

A Barbarian's Shtick is to beat things up. He does this rather well, and beating things up is a highly valued Shtick in D&D. Unfortunately however, he is rather limited is his means of beating things up, so he is only tier 4.

A Warblade's Shtick is also beating things up, but in addition, he can lead, talk to people, and has greater variety in the way that he beats things up.

A Wizard's Shtick however... is using magic. Which does everything. He does everything rather well, and thus is tier 1. A Wizard can do virtually the same amount of damage as a Barbarian, and will have more defenses while he does it, not to mention the many more ways he can damage things. And then tomorrow he teleports the party to the city, crafts some magic items, divines the future, Summons/Dominates some minions, and charms his way into being best buds with the king. And then while the Wizard is defending the kingdom from the evil lich army, the barbarian is still walking back to the city.

[Alchemistmerlin]

Let us examine the various Shticks of classes.

A Barbarian's Shtick is to beat things up. He does this rather well, and beating things up is a highly valued Shtick in D&D. Unfortunately however, he is rather limited is his means of beating things up, so he is only tier 4.

A Warblade's Shtick is also beating things up, but in addition, he can lead, talk to people, and has greater variety in the way that he beats things up.

A Wizard's Shtick however... is using magic. Which does everything. He does everything rather well, and thus is tier 1. A Wizard can do virtually the same amount of damage as a Barbarian, and will have more defenses while he does it, not to mention the many more ways he can damage things. And then tomorrow he teleports the party to the city, crafts some magic items, divines the future, Summons/Dominates some minions, and charms his way into being best buds with the king. And then while the Wizard is defending the kingdom from the evil lich army, the barbarian is still walking back to the city.

And the GM's Shtick is to take the Wizard's Shtick and beat him with it to make sure everyone at the table is having fun.

[Tael]

And the GM's Shtick is to take the Wizard's Shtick and beat him with it to make sure everyone at the table is having fun.

Of course. And the Tier system helps you do that by informing you about the relative power levels of characters. Wizards and Barbarians can be perfectly fine in a party together if:
a) No one is optimizing at all
or
b) The Wizard player acknowledges his power, and doesn't go crazy.

[Cog]

Or, rather than dealing out beating after the fact, you can use the tiers as intended, looking at them beforehand, and the Wizard player who's new to the game and had no reason to suspect that the classes weren't balanced now knows ahead of time that he'll have to watch himself... or, better, that if he wants to go side by side with his Barbarian buddy, he's maybe better off playing a Beguiler or Warmage or such.

[danzibr]

As you are entitled to your No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination.

I prefer Sheik for anything but 1v1v1v1 and Ganondorf for that, all items are go, all levels are go.

Except in Brawl I like Ike.

But the most fun (at least for a short while) is Mega Bowser Coin Mode.

[shadow_archmagi]

And the GM's Shtick is to take the Wizard's Shtick and beat him with it to make sure everyone at the table is having fun.

If the DM is having to intercede in game and constantly either design encounters around negating magic, or directly step in and say "No you can't do that" then that sounds like a problem, and something that isn't fun.

I know my players really resent it when the DM has to muscle in and nerf someone because they're "too good"

[Curious]

I believe both of the common fallacies have been used in this thread already, that is;

"I'm having fun so nothing is wrong."

This is an invalid argument because regardless of the specific conditions within your group that make it fun to play with a wizard and a monk in the same party, whether it be aggressive non-optimization or something else, their respective tiers still apply. And when thousands of other people play, they will notice the difference and have their fun diminished. This is a problem.


"I can fix it, so it's not broken."

This argument does not hold water, because if you need to fix something it is already broken. Just because it is possible to nerf the wizard directly after he sends your plot spiraling down the loo, it doesn't mean he wasn't broken in the first place.


Optimization isn't a crime. It is stretching the bounds of the system to create characters with the ability to actually contribute to the party. The tier system allows for a quick and easy way to get a grasp on the respective power levels of similarily optimized characters.

[Tael]

Optimization isn't a crime. It is stretching the bounds of the system to create characters with the ability to actually contribute to the party. The tier system allows for a quick and easy way to get a grasp on the respective power levels of similarily optimized characters.

Well, I'd hardly call most optimization "stretching the bounds of the system". That's more like very high level Practical Optimization to Theoretical Optimization.

[shadow_archmagi]

Optimization isn't really relevant to the discussion; just reasonable spell selection is 90% of a wizard achieving tier 1. Did you take fly? Fly is pretty great. Anyone can see fly is pretty great. Fly pretty much solves chasms, castle walls, rivers, floods...

That line of thought is all you really need.

[Tael]

Optimization isn't really relevant to the discussion; just reasonable spell selection is 90% of a wizard achieving tier 1. Did you take fly? Fly is pretty great. Anyone can see fly is pretty great. Fly pretty much solves chasms, castle walls, rivers, floods...

That line of thought is all you really need.

And yet there are many people who rarely take Fly, instead filling up their spell list with more ways to make things explode. Played with a guy whose 3rd level spell list was Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Vampiric Touch, and Keen Edge.

Just saying, it's not that hard to screw up a wizard.

[Cog]

Wizard is one of the flakiest tier ones, yes. That's even more reason to limit your sources of variability.

[Yuki Akuma]

Hey, Keen Edge is good. It makes the beatstick better at beating things with his stick.

(As long as his stick is actually not a stick but a bladed weapon of some description.)

[Tael]

Hey, Keen Edge is good. It makes the beatstick better at beating things with his stick.

(As long as his stick is actually not a stick but a bladed weapon of some description.)

Ah, you might think that, but no. He was an Elf, and he cast Keen Edge on his own Rapier.

[Yora]

Optimization isn't really relevant to the discussion; just reasonable spell selection is 90% of a wizard achieving tier 1. Did you take fly? Fly is pretty great. Anyone can see fly is pretty great. Fly pretty much solves chasms, castle walls, rivers, floods...

That line of thought is all you really need.
Beginners logic: But how often do you face those things? Goblins you face all day!
:smallwink:

[Elric VIII]

I would like to provide some anecdotal evidence to address the point of a Wizard/Druid/Artificer/Monk party.

I am in a game with a Blasty Sorcerer, a Dervish/Warblade, a Rogue that can one-shot pretty much anything that isn't a boss, and a Ninja/Shadowdancer. I'm playing the Cleric. Our party was, before the Ninja arrived (and with a little op help from me), between tier 2-3 (I lost a few CL to be more melee-ish).

The Ninja showed up and has pretty much skirted death each session. I originally spent the first few trying to buff her and bring her up to the party's level of usefulness, but now I just keep her alive and let her do her own thing.

Now, here's the rub. She has been having fun the whole time, but I was missing out on a chance to contribute (and have fun) myself while I was trying to strengthen her.

So, it's not always the low tier player that will be robbed of fun. Sometimes it's the more powerful classes that are expected to do things like cast Fly on the VoP Monk that will not enjoy the game.

Basically, the porpose of tiers is to attempt to get everyone on a equal playing field. There is nothing wrong with Tier 4, but you should make sure that the rest of the party will be of the same power level.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I think the main disconnect here is that while Tiers are a signal of how powerful a character can get (and an upper bound), they're a very noisy one. Sure, if you hold optimization constant and DM style neutral, the tiers show through at most levels of optimization, but in my experience optimization can vary wildly at the table. Worse, empirically speaking, we all have very little data, and it suffers from serious sample selection bias. For optimization levels below "high," the level of optimization and the few out-of-the-box powerful classes (ahem, Druid) are going to determine character power and versatility moreso than a difference in potential between, say, a rogue and a wizard.

Edit: My point is we can all take a step back. If some poster comes here talking about his fighter in a group of Wizard, Beguiler, and Druid, the pro-tier group will probably be concerned about balance due to facts about the game system. There's no need for anti-tier folk to resort to insults and condescension. But even though there is a real difference between the potential of these classes, there's a very large chance it's not a problem at that table unless the poster brings it up.

[nyarlathotep]

Of course. And the Tier system helps you do that by informing you about the relative power levels of characters. Wizards and Barbarians can be perfectly fine in a party together if:
a) No one is optimizing at all
or
b) The Wizard player acknowledges his power, and doesn't go crazy.

I'd disagree. An optimized wizard (one that focuses in buffs and battlefield control) is much more fun to play with because he's making the other characters better at their job rather than doing their own job better than them (like an unoptimized blaster). Wizards make the game less fun when they step on other people's shticks (dealing damage) or play with inherently unfun spell-types (divine every single last spell for the situation in advance/save-or-dies).

Also just a side not it really really bugs me when role-playing elitists talk about the tier systems or optimization without knowing anything about it. For instance an optimized wizard does not use save-or-dies as those fail to do anything at least out of 20 times and are frequently flat-out useless against immune creatures. Or when people claim the tier system is about one on one arena fights, which is exactly what it is not measuring. The tier system measures how well a class can contribute to any situation (puzzle, travel, combat, or social).


And yet there are many people who rarely take Fly, instead filling up their spell list with more ways to make things explode. Played with a guy whose 3rd level spell list was Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Vampiric Touch, and Keen Edge.

Just saying, it's not that hard to screw up a wizard.

That wizard is a bad player because he is stealing the fighter's shtick (dealing damage) and is unoptimized.

[Tael]

I'd disagree. An optimized wizard (one that focuses in buffs and battlefield control) is much more fun to play with because he's making the other characters better at their job rather than doing their own job better than them (like an unoptimized blaster). Wizards make the game less fun when they step on other people's shticks (dealing damage) or play with inherently unfun spell-types (divine every single last spell for the situation in advance/save-or-dies).

That's sort of what I was trying to say with "not go crazy", but yeah, almost everyone loves buff wizards.


That wizard is a bad player because he is stealing the fighter's shtick (dealing damage) and is unoptimized.

This however, I disagree with. You're not a bad player if you don't optimize, and having more than 1 person in the party do damage isn't a bad thing. The party paladin did much more damage to single targets than he did, and everyone was happy. One is only a bad player if they are making the game less fun for the others, and this guy was actually a pretty smart player in many instances.

[Alchemistmerlin]

You're a bad player if you are less concerned with "Are we defeating monsters, saving kingdoms, and participating in a great story" and more concerned with "The guy 2 chairs over did 2.5916 more damage than me and was 13% more useful! That means I'm losing DKP!"

[Curious]

You're a bad player if you are less concerned with "Are we defeating monsters, saving kingdoms, and participating in a great story" and more concerned with "The guy 2 chairs over did 2.5916 more damage than me and was 13% more useful! That means I'm losing DKP!"

You see, this is the problem. Most optimizers don't think of the game as a competition, as you seem to think. You optimize in order to have a competent character who can contribute, not so you overshadow your team-mates.

[Vladislav]

Hey, Alchemistmerlin

Defeating monsters, saving kingdoms, and participating in a great story is more fun when you're actually useful for that story.

Here's a story for you:

A fighter and a druid reached a village, where everyone was sad. The fighter tried to talk to people, but they didn't listen. He wanted to try and Intimidate them into talking, but the druid said, "wait, I have Diplomacy as class skill!". The druid talked to the people, and they told him about a huge dragon menacing the countryside. The heroes decided to set out to find the cave of the evil dragon, and to punish him for his crimes and make the countryide safe again. The druid sent his pet wolf to pick upon the dragon's scent. The fighter waited. The druid says "he went that way, toward that forest!", and the fighter followed. They got into a forest. When they got hungry, the druid found some berries for them to eat. Then, he used magic to speak to the plants and animals of the forest. The fighter waited. The druid said "the plants told me the cave is that way!" and the fighter followed. Before they entered the cave, the druid cast all manners of spells on himself, the wolf, and the fighter. The fighter waited. Then the druid changed into a huge Dire Bear, and lead the way. The dragon breathed fire on the group, but this didn't affect them, thanks to the druid's magic. The druid and his wolf rended the dragon's flesh hard, and the fighter helped a bit too, the druid's magic giving him strength. They defeated the dragon and lived happily ever after!

Great story, eh?

[Sacrieur]

You see, this is the problem. Most optimizers don't think of the game as a competition, as you seem to think. You optimize in order to have a competent character who can contribute, not so you overshadow your team-mates.

Aye, there be a difference between munchkins and optimizers.

[jguy]

Hey, Alchemistmerlin

Defeating monsters, saving kingdoms, and participating in a great story is more fun when you're actually useful for that story.

Here's a story for you:

A fighter and a druid reached a village, where everyone was sad. The fighter tried to talk to people, but they didn't listen. He wanted to try and Intimidate them into talking, but the druid said, "wait, I have Diplomacy as class skill!". The druid talked to the people, and they told him about a huge dragon menacing the countryside. The heroes decided to set out to find the cave of the evil dragon, and to punish him for his crimes and make the countryide safe again. The druid sent his pet wolf to pick upon the dragon's scent. The fighter waited. The druid says "he went that way, toward that forest!", and the fighter followed. They got into a forest. When they got hungry, the druid found some berries for them to eat. Then, he used magic to speak to the plants and animals of the forest. The fighter waited. The druid said "the plants told me the cave is that way!" and the fighter followed. Before they entered the cave, the druid cast all manners of spells on himself, the wolf, and the fighter. The fighter waited. Then the druid changed into a huge Dire Bear, and lead the way. The dragon breathed fire on the group, but this didn't affect them, thanks to the druid's magic. The druid and his wolf rended the dragon's flesh hard, and the fighter helped a bit too, the druid's magic giving him strength. They defeated the dragon and lived happily ever after!

Great story, eh?

Yeah, fighters get the shaft a lot when it comes to things like this. Some people do like the "I hit it with my [insert weapon of choice here]" but sometimes it is not enough.

Though this could be a problem with the DM as well. Just because the fighter doesn't have diplomacy, doesn't mean a villager won't talk to him. Especially if he goes "Why is everyone so sad?" If he is completely ignored and the druid asks the same thing but with a diplomacy roll, I'd be upset at the DM for giving him the relevant plot hook and not me.

I wouldn't mind the druid tracking better then me if I was a fighter. I mean, it is what he does. I'm not a ranger, if I wanted to track I'd roll up a ranger.

[Vladislav]

Ok, the "people not talking to the fighter" part was a bit of a stretch of course. I was just using hyperbole to make a point ...

[jguy]

A lot of it did make sense and I know what you were going for there. Fighters are woefully underpowered in comparison to higher tiers. At most, people take 2 levels of them for the bonus feats for a particular build.

I do remember one time I played a Fighter from level 1 all the way to level 5. He was actually the leader of the group but that is mostly through sheer dint of my own personality. He was a dwarf who specialized in throwing harpoons that were attacked to his full plate armor by that Bat-cable from MM2. He kicked a**.

By the end of the game, he was nearing where he could craft siege weaponry by himself in a few days time. We had to invade a abandoned castle filled with Hobgoblins. Do get through the kill zone in the front, he crafted rolling towershields to give full cover and a bloody Ballista that shot special Harpoons that were a one shot kill. He saved the party several times by going back for downed members and once saved the Rogue who had fallen down a 10 foot pit by throwing his harpoon down at him.

[true_shinken]

Eh. I think most people are not really "into" power gaming. As far as I see it, this discussion, and discussions like it aren't "you are doing it wrong if you aren't playing a wizard!", they are more "these are problems with 3.5 balance, you should watch out for them."

There is so much truth in Eldan's words that the rest of the thread just seems like a lie. It doesn't matter if you're saying the truth, Eldan's words are so true that even stating 'the sky is blue' or 'redheads are sexy' will seem like a lie if next to it.
This thread is now over and Eldan wins everything forever. :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

I have to sig that. :smallbiggrin: Mind if I do?

[Firechanter]

Good story Vladislav, sounds _so_ familiar.


I wouldn't mind the druid tracking better then me if I was a fighter. I mean, it is what he does. I'm not a ranger, if I wanted to track I'd roll up a ranger.

Yeah, so you can be upset about the Druid tracking better than you as Ranger. :p

[shadow_archmagi]

You're a bad player if you are less concerned with "Are we defeating monsters, saving kingdoms, and participating in a great story" and more concerned with "The guy 2 chairs over did 2.5916 more damage than me and was 13% more useful! That means I'm losing DKP!"

There's a fine line between "Doing 13% less damage" and "90% of the time I can participate in the game only by adding witty dialogue."

[true_shinken]

I have to sig that. :smallbiggrin: Mind if I do?
I'd be honored. :smallsmile: Please do.


There's a fine line between "Doing 13% less damage" and "90% of the time I can participate in the game only by adding witty dialogue"
No, there isn't. There is a huge canyon between those two positions. That was his point.

[nyarlathotep]

By the end of the game, he was nearing where he could craft siege weaponry by himself in a few days time. We had to invade a abandoned castle filled with Hobgoblins. Do get through the kill zone in the front, he crafted rolling towershields to give full cover and a bloody Ballista that shot special Harpoons that were a one shot kill. He saved the party several times by going back for downed members and once saved the Rogue who had fallen down a 10 foot pit by throwing his harpoon down at him.

That is not disproving the tier system in any way. It shows that you have a good DM that compensated for D&D being unbalanced by allowing the fighter these other options that allowed him to consistently contribute.

[true_shinken]

That is not disproving the tier system in any way. It shows that you have a good DM that compensated for D&D being unbalanced by allowing the fighter these other options that allowed him to consistently contribute.

Except that as far as I could tell from the post, everything that Fighter did was RAW.

Of course, this was level 5. You don't really need a lot of tricks to make a melee character contribute at this level.

[nyarlathotep]

Except that as far as I could tell from the post, everything that Fighter did was RAW.

Of course, this was level 5. You don't really need a lot of tricks to make a melee character contribute at this level.

Oh level 5 my bad.

[Boci]

Except that as far as I could tell from the post, everything that Fighter did was RAW.

Crafted special harpoons that were a one shot kill?

[Bang!]

Crafted special harpoons that were a one shot kill?
Ballista: 3d8 damage
Hobgoblin: 1d8+2 HP

I'd call that more of a timesaving handwave than a game-altering houserule.

[Boci]

Ballista: 3d8 damage
Hobgoblin: 1d8+2 HP

I'd call that more of a timesaving handwave than a game-altering houserule.

If the goblins were first level then sure, but then the harpoons aren't special are they?

Plus: Rolling tower shields? What was his mobility like carrying a balista around?

And whilst not breakinh RAW, how much down time did he need to build those (no way is it a few days by RAW)? Did it require extra WBL?

[jguy]

Couple clarifications for everyone.

The ballista was manned by the other members of the party who couldn't go out into the clearing without risk of being peppered to death by arrows. The rules for a ballista bolt is that its just a very big crossbow, so I decided to customize the bolts to be like Harpoons. If you got hit you were skewered to the spot. Some of the hobgoblins had class levels but even then, if they were hit they'd take damage again removing it, so 6d8. That is can even take out a level 5 character if rolled high enough.

The rolling tower shields were made like the ones you see in the Evil Dead: Army of Darkness (yeah, don't know any picture links). Big, reinforced plank of wood held up by a square base with wheels. No weight for us because we didn't carry it. Made several.

Crafting it took only a couple days since I had max ranks in crafting and had help from the towns folk. The cost was almost Nil. We cut down the timber ourselves and we used scrap metal from the loots we took.

[Boci]

Couple clarifications for everyone.

The ballista was manned by the other members of the party who couldn't go out into the clearing without risk of being peppered to death by arrows. The rules for a ballista bolt is that its just a very big crossbow, so I decided to customize the bolts to be like Harpoons. If you got hit you were skewered to the spot. Some of the hobgoblins had class levels but even then, if they were hit they'd take damage again removing it, so 6d8. That is can even take out a level 5 character if rolled high enough.

How were you transporting the ballista?


The rolling tower shields were made like the ones you see in the Evil Dead: Army of Darkness (yeah, don't know any picture links). Big, reinforced plank of wood held up by a square base with wheels. No weight for us because we didn't carry it. Made several.

You still have to pull it, plus how were you attacking if you had full cover?


Crafting it took only a couple days since I had max ranks in crafting and had help from the towns folk. The cost was almost Nil. We cut down the timber ourselves and we used scrap metal from the loots we took.

Yeah...no. I'm a liberal DM, and if a fighter of mine wanted to do something like that they are welcome, but you are not doing it in a couple of day, for no real cost from scraps at level 5, even if you are assisted by a horde of unskilled workers.

I'm glad it turned it worked and was fun for your group, but it doesn't say much about the fighter.

[jguy]

How were you transporting the ballista?



You still have to pull it, plus how were you attacking if you had full cover?



Yeah...no. I'm a liberal DM, and if a fighter of mine wanted to do something like that they are welcome, but you are not doing it in a couple of day, for no real cost from scraps at level 5, even if you are assisted by a horde of unskilled workers.

I'm glad it turned it worked and was fun for your group, but it doesn't say much about the fighter.

1.) We transported it by having it pulled by mules.

2.) We didn't pull it, we pushed it. We weren't attacking from behind it, we used it to get closer to the enemies without being attacked by arrows the whole way. Some goblins came up to us in melee and we attacked from behind it.

3.) I don't know what to say to the last part. The cost to make something is with its materials right? A ballista costs only 500g buy, so crafting it costs 1/3rd of that. It takes longer for my to make a Masterwork Fullplate then a ballista. The scrap metal were masterwork weaponry, which can be sold for half so 150g. All together with an abundance of metal, free wood, and me maxing craft, it took only a few days and was almost free.

[Boci]

1.) We transported it by having it pulled by mules.

And that wasn't a massive limitation?


2.) We didn't pull it, we pushed it.

Point still stands.


We weren't attacking from behind it, we used it to get closer to the enemies without being attacked by arrows the whole way. Some goblins came up to us in melee and we attacked from behind it.

Okay.


and me maxing craft, it took only a few days

8 ranks, 2 int mod, master work tools gives another 2, aid another again, taking a 10. Thats 22. 22 x 22 (I'll assume thats the craft DC needed to make the balista) = 484 silver pices worth of work per week. 3.4 weeks needed to make a balista, so w'll call that 24 days. Even if the townspeople's help halved that time, its still 12 days.



and was almost free.

The ballista probably, but the bolts that deal double damage? I've be less inclined.

I'm not saying you did anything wrong, my main problem is that nothing there has anything to do with being a fighter. Rogue's and wizards have more skillpoints and a higher int mod for the craft checks.

[jguy]

I actually have no idea how much the bolts would cost, but besides all of that, you make a good point. All of this was a Fighters attempt, and success, to do more then just swing a sword or throw a Harpoon in this case. A rogue and wizard could potentially do it better by having a higher int mod but max ranks are max ranks.

I think this thread might have degenerated a little from "Why Wizards are strong" to "Fighters suck"

[true_shinken]

8 ranks, 2 int mod, master work tools gives another 2, aid another again, taking a 10. Thats 22. 22 x 22 (I'll assume thats the craft DC needed to make the balista) = 484 silver pices worth of work per week. 3.4 weeks needed to make a balista, so w'll call that 24 days. Even if the townspeople's help halved that time, its still 12 days.

From Heroes of Battle: "Because siege engines are so expensive, you
measure progress in gold pieces, not silver pieces."

[Boci]

From Heroes of Battle: "Because siege engines are so expensive, you
measure progress in gold pieces, not silver pieces."

Well thats ironic, given that a full plate armour costs more. Still takes over a week, since the HoB rules also suggest that any more than 3 unskilled labourers assisting you does nothing to reduce the time.

[Jallorn]

Here's what I have to contribute:

Fighter: "I can kill a man in a turn."

Cleric: "I can kill a man in half a turn."

Wizard: "I can kill a man before my turn."

Bard: "I can get three psychopaths to kill people for me."

[Kantolin]

The tier system does not say 'X classes are bad'. It's an analysis of overall power levels between various classes, so everyone at a given table is aware of it.

It saves you the trouble of having a cleric of Kord in the party, having him cast divine power and righteous might, and having him then do around double the damage of the barbarian while also having flamestrikes.

It means that you will need a heavy gentleman's agreement to have things work out, all things even.

It doesn't mean 'Sorcerors are lower tier than Wizards, so if you play a sorceror you are wrong'. Nor does it say 'Wizards are too high tier so if you play one you are wrong'. (In fact, if I recall, JaronK who invented the tier system prefers to play the game at tiers 3 and 4). If you would like to play a monk, go nuts! Monks are fun for some people (Not me, however, but I do like Lurks, Shadowcasters, and Hexblades quite a bit, neither of which are very high tier at all, and one of my favorite classes is the fighter).

It's simply alerting you 'Hey, this 'barbarian' guy is tier 4, and there's a druid in the party, so he will probably be able to do a lot more than me'.

It also is particularly helpful to me. I don't mind being underpowered (at all), but a lot of people at my table do, and none of us optimize in the slightest. Summarily, when I played my psychic warrior in a group of underoptimized tier 4s and 5s (And a significantly underoptimized wizard), I made it a point to not take power attack or any similar combat feats - and I was right to avoid doing so. The tier list is a handy way to glance and say 'Well I'm playing a druid and my buddy is a fighter. Maybe now's a good time to try out an underpowered prestige class, or to avoid taking natural spell, or something'.

[jguy]

Or going with the PHB2 variant rules. Druids lose a lot but its like losing out on half of your nuclear arsenal. You still have enough to destroy the world anyway.

[Grommen]

Might want to keep in mind in regards to the tier rankings.

Your mileage will vary. The game is played in different ways, with different DM's and their perceptions of how the world works.

I don't have this problem with wizards in my games. They die fairly well, and they never seem to have the solution to any given problem. It is just our playing style.

This is a good thing. However it is exactly why this particular argument will never find resoulition, and why the tier system is completely full of crap. It assumes that everyone will play the game exactly the same way.

But no one does.

[Tvtyrant]

'redheads are sexy"

Make that female red head; it hasn't done me any good in life.

[RaginChangeling]

Might want to keep in mind in regards to the tier rankings.

Your mileage will vary. The game is played in different ways, with different DM's and their perceptions of how the world works.

I don't have this problem with wizards in my games. They die fairly well, and they never seem to have the solution to any given problem. It is just our playing style.

This is a good thing. However it is exactly why this particular argument will never find resoulition, and why the tier system is completely full of crap. It assumes that everyone will play the game exactly the same way.

But no one does.

No it doesn't assume everyone will be playing the game the same way, in fact it is much the opposite. The point of the tier system is that a Wizard or a Sorcerer can do just about anything, not that they do. If played to an equal level of optimization, a Wizard should be more effective in more situations than a Barbarian for instance.

"But wait!" You say, "In my game I never had any of those problems, Wizards seem to die really fast!" I would question what level of competence the Wizard and the rest of the party were played at. If the Wizard was using all his spell slots to deliver Shocking Grasps and the Barbarian has taken Power Attack, yeah the Barbarian is going to do better because he's being played to a higher level of competence. If the Wizard is instead casting Sleep or Glitterdust or Grease in combat, casting Knock and Ghost Sound and Prestidigitation out of combat well the Barbarian can't really match that because his class only lends itself to hitting people with a stick. The beauty of higher tier classes is while they can just blast, or plink away with direct damage spells, they also have enormous out of combat utility.

Can a Fighter fly? You may argue he can buy or find an item that will allow him to do so, a Wizard need only devote one of his automatic level up spells to learn it. Can a Fighter or Barbarian hit incorporeal creatures? With special and expensive weapons, a Wizard could hit every time if he so chose. And that is what the tier system talks about, not their performance but their capacity.

A Wizard can always be worse than the Fighter, a Fighter cannot always be better than a Wizard.

[Kantolin]

I don't have this problem with wizards in my games. They die fairly well, and they never seem to have the solution to any given problem. It is just our playing style.

That's actually also in the tier system - they assume equivalent optimization.

They even give some nods to this feature. I mean, you can have a vow of peace barbarian who has given up his vicious ways and never swings a weapon, and that would actually be an extremely neat and outrageously unoptimized character.

The tier system measures potential, assuming similar levels of optimization. If that barbarian was teamed up with a wizard who had a chronic habit of eating his familiar and refused to cast spells, they'd both be about on par with each other combat-wise.

If, the next day, the evil lichdragonmindflayer mind controlled both of them and clapped a helm of opposite alignment on them, one orphanage killing and bank robbing later and they both have a chunk of money.

The barbarian can go and do physical damage if the opponent is moderately cooperative.

The wizard can start planar binding in some balors or magic jarring the king or, possibly, do elemental damage if the opponent is moderately cooperative. Or possibly buff the barbarian into an unholy monstrosity who could take out the entire enemy kingdom himself.

If he then selects to 'do elemental damage' because the other things are overpowered, that's acceptable. Although the question then becomes 'how much damage is okay', as many optimized damage builds can be intolerable, but at least the barbarian can also do 'a lot of damage'.

That's what the tier system measures. It doesn't measure ubercharger leap attack nonsense barbarian vs eat-your-familiar wizards, nor does it measure vow of peace no-attacking barbarians vs optimized wizards. It measures 'This class can do a wide array of very potent things' 'This class can do significantly fewer potent things, but they're still really potent'.

It, in fact, encourages you to say 'Well, I'm playing a wizard. Planar binding is probably too strong for our party, as is polymorph nonsense'. It's also super helpful for a DM who has to interact with a new player, or That_Douche (Many groups have That_Douche), or in fact just happenstance - my first 3.5 wizard I was trying to make underpowered, so I didn't take magic missile or fireball since those were obviously the most useful spells, and instead buffed everyone else. I was then mind-boggled at just how useful that was.

If that player is playing a barbarian, they are going to be doing damage. It may be too much damage, and you can analyze there.

If that player is playing a wizard, you probably have to analyze every spell in their spellbook and decide if it's okay. I mean, 'I cast wall of force' is not specifically a game wrecker spell, but can be easily used to divide up a battlefield so it's now your party vs one bad guy at a time. Dominate person is something most optimizers don't like very much due to the various ways of resisting it, but then all of a sudden the king is in your pocket.

Or something! Whatever, the tier system isn't telling you not to play with a wizard and a fighter or that a wizard will always beat all fighters in a duel or something, it's just telling you that this could result in the fighter sitting on his hands. :P I play with wizards and fighters all the time! So do most people!

~~~~~~~

A brief edit: As a note, if you ask me, /my/ problem with the tier system is that ubercharger nonsense builds (And similar) can start on tier 5 fairly easily, and that's waaaaay too highly optimized for my games even if all the barbarian can do is charge and hit something. But that then leans more towards 'D&D tends to be too highly optimized for my tastes', and is not a fault of the tier system at all.

[Sacrieur]

To tease the fighter more.

---

After battling the dragon, the fighter and druid level up to level 8. The Druid gains the ability to shape change into a huge ****ing bear 3/day and access to more spells and adds 6 to his HP. The fighter gets to add 8 HP and gets a bonus feat. He selects weapon specialization, so he gets a whole +1 damage to his attacks.

---

It's hard to accept, I know. I feel as though WotC should nerf the fighter. I mean he does get to add +1 damage to ALL attacks. And technically he can slash his sword all day long. So technically it's like a + infinite bonus to damage! See, the fighter is clearly overpowered.

/Sarcasm

[ericgrau]

Yeah, fighters get the shaft a lot when it comes to things like this. Some people do like the "I hit it with my [insert weapon of choice here]" but sometimes it is not enough.

Though this could be a problem with the DM as well. Just because the fighter doesn't have diplomacy, doesn't mean a villager won't talk to him. Especially if he goes "Why is everyone so sad?" If he is completely ignored and the druid asks the same thing but with a diplomacy roll, I'd be upset at the DM for giving him the relevant plot hook and not me.

I wouldn't mind the druid tracking better then me if I was a fighter. I mean, it is what he does. I'm not a ranger, if I wanted to track I'd roll up a ranger.

Yeah, this. Plus a wolf usually can't make the DC to track a dragon in anything but mud, trail rations are cheap, plants don't have eyes and are pretty bad at finding caves, buffs are generally pretty weak. They also must be cast in a strong voice, alerting others of your presence. So you only want 1 or 2 while most spell slots should go to other spells. Then the fighter hits a lot harder and survives a lot longer than a druid, at least without cheese.

In 90%+ groups that works fine, though boredom is another complaint on less versatile classes even when they have higher numbers. Then you gotta get creative with gear and tactics, especially those dependent on strength or attack bonus, rather than your limited special abilities.

[Elric VIII]

...buffs are generally pretty weak.

My Cleric that uses GMW and Magic Vestment all day begs to differ. This is pretty much the biggest problem with the argument that melee is the best at dealing damage.

By using GMW and Magic Vestment you free up money you would have spent on those weapons to buy things like metamagic rods instead. This, in turn, allows you to quicken your Divine Power with a MM rod. Now you have full BAB, +6 enhancement to Str, and a +X weapon that is just on par with what a non-caster can afford. Oh, and you also have spells. Throw in something like Persisted (even without DMM, this is an amazing feat) Divine Favor and you are a god of war.

Just as an aside, you do have a weakness to Dispel Magic, but Divine Defiance is a nice answer to that, at least for a Cleric.

[Firechanter]

By the way, how much would a Lesser Rod if Chain Spell cost? Same as a Lesser Maximize (both are +3 slot feats)? Because that's really all a Wizard needs to buff the entire party with GMW.

[Greenish]

I don't have this problem with wizards in my games. They die fairly well, and they never seem to have the solution to any given problem.If the wizards never have a solution to any problem, isn't that a problem? :smalltongue:

He selects weapon specialization, so he gets a whole +1 damage to his attacks.+2. Weapon Specialization chain is okay for volley archers (and core only fighters who have nothing better to take).

[jguy]

By the way, how much would a Lesser Rod if Chain Spell cost? Same as a Lesser Maximize (both are +3 slot feats)? Because that's really all a Wizard needs to buff the entire party with GMW.

9000g I think, but I don't have the MiC in front of me. But yes, that became a party item for us when my Transmuter hit high enough level where I could make everyone's weapons +5 all day.

Speaking of Optimization, I played a Transmuter 5/Master Specialist 10/Archmage 2 in a long, ongoing Undead Campaign. I knew I was very powerful so I stuck to casting Slow, Web, Solid Fog and the such. Funny enough, sometimes I'd get bored with it because the two guys focused on damage where so hyper specialized in killing undead, they could wipe out encounters within the first 2 rounds. Their Init mods were insane so they would always go first so sometimes I'd never do anything. Sometimes you just want to throw around Disintegrates.

Part of it was my own fault once I got Polymorph Any Object...I mutated the party it beasts with massive stat bonuses. Turning the archer into an Arrow Demon might have been a mistake...

[Greenish]

9000g I think, but I don't have the MiC in front of me.Nah, it's 14 000gp like the Lesser Maximize.

[shadow_archmagi]

a chronic habit of eating his familiar

TAKING THIS FLAW


"Why'd you name him Puddles?"
"I spilled the soup!"

[Ormur]

To address the barbarian/tier 1 comparison I played in a mid-to-high level game as a wizard, with a druid and a barbarian. I'd say we were similarly optimized, which was only moderately. As a wizard I specialized in evocation but also took other more effective spells and the barbarian had shock trooper and leap attack.

The DM had to design every encounter specifically so the barbarian had something to do and it only worked because we effectively "wasted" turns buffing the barbarian once in combat.

In every game I've played the tiers have been very relevant and clearly reflected in play and since some of us enjoy the mechanical side of D&D as well, being aware of them is super helpful. They're a very useful tool specifically for groups that like a bit of optimization and for everyone to contribute.

[Grommen]

If the wizards never have a solution to any problem, isn't that a problem? :smalltongue:


You ain't kidden' :smalleek: I don't know how many times I've wanted to smack my players cause they cast fireball on a Devil.

But I think people are missing my point.

Even assuming average uberasation they have completely messed up their tiers.

My players don't care one iota about optimization. They are more likely to take a spell cause it looks kool, than because it will own every encounter.

That is not to say that spell casters can't be powerful. It's just in 20 years of DM'ing they look good on paper, but in actual game play. It is not a problem.

And one last pet peeve of mine. You all do know that you can buff the fighter right? Cast mind blank on them, bull's str, shield of faith, all that good stuff. Just wind em up and let em go. Then you don't even have to get your hands dirty in a fight, and the fighter will thank you for it latter. :smallbiggrin:

[Amphetryon]

And one last pet peeve of mine. You all do know that you can buff the fighter right? Cast mind blank on them, bull's str, shield of faith, all that good stuff. Just wind em up and let em go. Then you don't even have to get your hands dirty in a fight, and the fighter will thank you for it latter. :smallbiggrin:"Valid target for a buff spell" is not usually considered a ringing endorsement of a particular class's abilities.

[Greenish]

"Valid target for a buff spell" is not usually considered a ringing endorsement of a particular class's abilities.Case in point, I've often heard how monks make a great platform for buff spells.

[Edit]: If in 20 years your players haven't learned that devils are immune to fire, well, lets just say that perhaps your players are less than representative. Lets say they're… special.

[Boci]

My players don't care one iota about optimization. They are more likely to take a spell cause it looks kool, than because it will own every encounter.

Any spell can look cool.

[golem1972]

and many of the best buffs are personal (meaning they require a higher level of cheese to cast on the fighter)

[Boci]

and many of the best buffs are personal (meaning they require a higher level of cheese to cast on the fighter)

For clerics yes, but for arcane casters, a lot of their good buffs can be shared/given, haste being the classic example. Also, none of the spells Grommen mentioned were personal ranged, although by the tim e the wizard can cast mindblank the fighter should not be able to benefit from bull strength.

[shadow_archmagi]

I guess the ultimate argument here is

"A well played wizard has a lot more tactical options than even the best barbarian, so keep that in mind."

"That's full of crap! My barbarian always beats my wizard! My wizard always just takes fireball. "

"That's fair, but, you know, your group isn't representative of the whole."

"No, really, he casts FIRE on FIRE IMMUNE enemies. He's not a threat!"

The point here is that there's the potential for a mismatch, especially if your players are exposed to the internet and someone explains how Glitterdust is better than Fireball. Since the guide is posted on the internet it's a fairly safe assumption that they'll eventually start down the road of figuring out what works best.

[Greenish]

Since the guide is posted on the internet it's a fairly safe assumption that they'll eventually start down the road of figuring out what works best.It's not that you'd need a guide. Might be enough that you stumble on a cool-sounding spell, try it out, and beat an encounter by accident.

Or notice that hey, you can have a pet bear following you around, how cool is that? Hey, what if you turned into a bear yourself, now you have two bears!

[Vladislav]

A person unfamiliar with guns can conceivably forget to load bullets into his gun, or load the wrong kind of bullets. A gun can jam, rust, or otherwise malfunction. Also, a gunshot can sometimes miss. Sometimes, especially in the case of a poor marksman, it can go way off-target and even hit an ally. A gun can also run out of bullets at some point and will require reloading - which is a problem, if the user doesn't know how to reload a gun.

None of these is a valid argument to prove a knife being superior to a gun.

[Master_Rahl22]

A person unfamiliar with guns can conceivably forget to load bullets into his gun, or load the wrong kind of bullets. A gun can jam, rust, or otherwise malfunction. Also, a gunshot can sometimes miss. Sometimes, especially in the case of a poor marksman, it can go way off-target and even hit an ally. A gun can also run out of bullets at some point and will require reloading - which is a problem, if the user doesn't know how to reload a gun.

None of these is a valid argument to prove a knife being superior to a gun.

[/thread] No more discussion is needed.

[streakster]

A person unfamiliar with guns can conceivably forget to load bullets into his gun, or load the wrong kind of bullets. A gun can jam, rust, or otherwise malfunction. Also, a gunshot can sometimes miss. Sometimes, especially in the case of a poor marksman, it can go way off-target and even hit an ally. A gun can also run out of bullets at some point and will require reloading - which is a problem, if the user doesn't know how to reload a gun.

None of these is a valid argument to prove a knife being superior to a gun.

I've been running a gang for 30 years now, and I couldn't disagree more. I've never had a problem with my knife guys outshining my gun guys. Heck, the gun guys often throw their gun at people instead of firing it! Besides, the knife guys never need to reload.

[Curious]

I've been running a gang for 30 years now, and I couldn't disagree more. I've never had a problem with my knife guys outshining my gun guys. Heck, the gun guys often throw their gun at people instead of firing it! Besides, the knife guys never need to reload.

. . .
I'm not certain if you're joking or not. :smalltongue:

[RaginChangeling]

. . .
I'm not certain if you're joking or not. :smalltongue:

Hey man, its not his fault if his Police Cheif doesn't offer level appropriate encounters. Most Gangs should be facing tanks and stuff by that point, I'd like to see his knife guys deal with that without gun guy support!

[Sacrieur]

Hey man, its not his fault if his Police Cheif doesn't offer level appropriate encounters. Most Gangs should be facing tanks and stuff by that point, I'd like to see his knife guys deal with that without gun guy support!

I'd like to see them deal with it even with gun guy support.

[Strife Warzeal]

I've been running a gang for 30 years now, and I couldn't disagree more. I've never had a problem with my knife guys outshining my gun guys. Heck, the gun guys often throw their gun at people instead of firing it! Besides, the knife guys never need to reload.


Hey man, its not his fault if his Police Cheif doesn't offer level appropriate encounters. Most Gangs should be facing tanks and stuff by that point, I'd like to see his knife guys deal with that without gun guy support!


I'd like to see them deal with it even with gun guy support.

Best analogy ever. Of all time.

[true_shinken]

Best analogy ever. Of all time.
Ya know, Strife, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but streakster made one of the the best analogies of all time. Of all time.

[Strife Warzeal]

Ya know, Strife, I'm really happy for you and I'mma let you finish, but streakster made one of the the best analogies of all time. Of all time.

Yeah that was kinda what I meant Kanye, my first quote on the list was streakster.

[Kantolin]

My players don't care one iota about optimization. They are more likely to take a spell cause it looks kool, than because it will own every encounter.

Mine too. ^_^ I actually opted against picking fireball for the opposite reason of owning every encounter - because I was trying to make an intentionally underpowered unit.

This does not mean the tier system does not apply!

Heck, your players may pick all of their spells and feats utterly randomly by rolling.

The barbarian will be doing either damage... or nothing relevant. [or tracking, I personally like my barbarians as trackers]

The wizard will be doing damage, summoning balors, sculpting the battlefield, buffing his allies, dominating the king, magic jarring the bad guy's lieutenant, redirecting a river as a standard action... or nothing relevant. [Or tracking, there are a wide array of spells for tracking]

In both cases the characters could be doing nothing relevant. And there is totally nothing wrong with that! I love the ridiculously underpowered game I play in and wouldn't trade it for anything.

The tier system measures the fact that the barbarian can be doing damage or nothing, while the wizard can be doing a wide array of things, two of which are damage or nothing. If you have a gentleman's agreement of 'Wizards shouldn't do that as it's broken', then awesome - you have fixed the problem in one of the myriad of ways the tier system suggests.


And one last pet peeve of mine. You all do know that you can buff the fighter right? Cast mind blank on them, bull's str, shield of faith, all that good stuff. Just wind em up and let em go. Then you don't even have to get your hands dirty in a fight, and the fighter will thank you for it latter. :smallbiggrin:

That is exactly what the batman wizard is. ^_^ The batman wizard does not do damage to actually end encounters himself, he uses his spells to buff up his allies and for battlefield control - using solid fogs, walls of whatever, or what-not. He analyzes tons of things beforehand using divinations and the like to try to help the party be more prepared.

Really, the batman wizard is ridiculously party-friendly. Blaster wizards, at any level of optimzation, are actually less party friendly since it means the game has tons of toe-stepping, and I know the warmage makes many people in our underoptimized group feel somewhat ancillary when he blows up all the enemies at once with frequency.

This, however, does not solve the problem that the wizrad can do everything, nor does it change that. But remember, the often-touted batman wizard does, indeed, buff his allies, sculpt the battlefield so his allies can murder the enemies, and etc.

As a slight aside, though, I often see people whine that clerics spend more time buffing themselves instead of enemies... and that annoys me, as I went out of my way to play a timid goblin healer cleric in a core game, and then I hit level 7, and had to sit around there and stare.

I mean... there's divine power, which is personal and an extremely obvious choice, and would've made my 10 strength goblin comparable to the frontliners practically by itself due to how underoptimized everyone was. >_>

There's then what... I brought dimensional anchor, but people aren't teleporting everywhere in underoptimized play. Neutralize poison is ridiculously situational and I didn't acutally use it any time I memorized it. Spell Immunity and freedom of movement were like dimensional anchor.

Buffing other people as a cleric in core is difficult. Noncore makes this more plausible, but a lot of people who whine about CoDzilla seem to insist that going all-core makes things better. >_> If Divine Power or Righteous Might were touch I'd use them on the fighter, but they're personal.

And they're just sitting there being obvious picks, since 4th level cleric spells are really dull. Optimizers like planar ally and freedom of movement and stuff, but those aren't as often-used in our games. It didn't take us long to end up with Czilla, since... well, clerics kind of accidentally Czilla in core.

So bah! It doesn't take much to 'cast divine power once' or 'take natural spell' (Really, in core natural spell is the only feat that explicitly requires a druid! If you were a druid and didn't know what you were doing, you'd glance until you saw 'Druid 6' and take it unless your concept was 'I specifically do not want to cast spells as a bear'!)

[Veklim]

So to boil down all of this into one coherant idea on my part I'd have to say this.
A wizard can throw ridiculous magics about, kill hundreds and deal with any situation imaginable, until his spells run out. Or his spellbook is stolen. Or there's an anti-magic field.
A fighter can do a limited array of combat-specific moves indefinitely. He doesn't run out of weapon attacks per day and if his weapon is stolen he merely picks up another one and continues.
D&D has developed from a combat oriented boardgame. Since then whole worlds have emerged, new skills and situations have developed and entire classes have been created to fill the niches of a fully interactive rpg system. BUT, the game fundamentals still concern themselves with combat. As a result, multi-classing has become prevailant as more and more people come to the conclusion that fighter < wizard, rogue < wizard, the correct fighter/rogue mix eats wizards for breakfast.
Each class has it's drawbacks, it's advantages and it's sitautional niches where it truly excels. If anyone is having trouble with game balance then I'd argue they need to have words with their DM.

[Koury]

A wizard can throw ridiculous magics about, kill hundreds and deal with any situation imaginable, until his spells run out. Or his spellbook is stolen. Or there's an anti-magic field.

Unless, of course, the wizard wants to deal with those situations too. :smalltongue:

[Knaight]

Each class has it's drawbacks, it's advantages and it's sitautional niches where it truly excels. If anyone is having trouble with game balance then I'd argue they need to have words with their DM.

If balance is so screwy that the GM has to dedicate significant effort to maintaining it at all times then the game has issues.

[Yora]

So to boil down all of this into one coherant idea on my part I'd have to say this.
A wizard can throw ridiculous magics about, kill hundreds and deal with any situation imaginable, until his spells run out. Or his spellbook is stolen. Or there's an anti-magic field.
In a normal game, yes. That's why most people don't have any trouble with spellcasters.
But in a munchkin game like those usually discussed in this forum, there are ways to get around those limitations, too.

[Boci]

So to boil down all of this into one coherant idea on my part I'd have to say this.
A wizard can throw ridiculous magics about, kill hundreds and deal with any situation imaginable, until his spells run out. Or his spellbook is stolen.

Which one? The fake spellbook, the backup spell book or real one?


Or there's an anti-magic field.

Yes because they grow on trees. Its a mid level spell with a small range that is centrered on the caster. Its not a big deal, unless dead magic zones are the norm in your game setting.

Aditionally, the options your present means the wizard can do nothing. So its 100% or 0%.


A fighter can do a limited array of combat-specific moves indefinitely. He doesn't run out of weapon attacks per day and if his weapon is stolen he merely picks up another one and continues.

And proceeds to hit less accurately and without the special abilities of his former weapon. Or his item of flight was stolen and now all he can do it shoot for 1d8+1 damage with his bow. Or he gets exhasuted and cannot reach the opponents, or the opponent has miss chance.


In a normal game, yes.

A normal game for you is when the wizards reguarly encounter anti-magic fields and have their book stolen?

[Kantolin]

In a normal game, yes. That's why most people don't have any trouble with spellcasters.
But in a munchkin game like those usually discussed in this forum, there are ways to get around those limitations, too.

You are rightish - an antimagic field usually screws over most normal wizards.

The problems with it are threefold.

First is that antimagic field is kind of hard to get, and usually screws over whomever casts it as well - in core, the cleric can still do something therein with his medium BAB, but does he really want to lose all of his own spellcasting? I mean, the wizard can take a mace, and either withdraw behind someone else, or just move ten feet away and teleport or something - the wizard can easily make the spellcraft check to be aware of that if he doesn't have the spell himself (Not to mention, generic response is to run away).

Secondly, it also screws over the fighter unless he's rather well optimized. We had a DM who had a dragon use a plot-large Antimagic field, mostly to screw over the party psion (Who then retreated to the back of the party and started using his crossbow). Said dragon then went over and disassembled the fighter, who no longer had an AC to speak of (AC became 18? 20?), lost a chunk of his to-hit and damage (Nonmagical weapon, go!), and could no longer bypass DR/Magic. In an antimagic field, everyone sucks - just wizards suck slightly more than fighters do. One of the nonsense chargers you see on the boards could've solved that dragon since it remained on the ground for no reason, but our non-munchkiny fighter really couldn't do anything about it.

And thirdly! If you are resorting to a merry jaunt through anti-magic-field-land to reign in the wizard, that doesn't sound at all fun to be the wizard. It also encourages him to go find conjurations that work into antimagic so he can at least be functioning somewhere. Really, you should've just said 'No, you cannot be a wizard'. Not to mention that requiring anti-magic-field-land in the first place means the game is already borked.

Stealing spellbooks is similar. If the only way the wizard becomes fair is 'you cannot cast spells', then that is a curious state of 'balance'. It also, once it starts happening for awhile, starts encouraging people to find solutions to this if they want to be a wizard - whether spell mastery or being a sorceror - and this isn't trying to be a munchkin. It's like how most wizards I've seen gravitate towards rings of freedom of movement after the fourth time they've been grappled and utterly unable to do anything about it except waste their teleport. Not to mention the versimilitude wrecking with 'If they're able to steal the spellbook from my pants, why haven't they stolen everyone else's gear too? Or just slit all of our throats and called it a day?' The fighter sucks without his +5 Holy Keen Longsword, too.

It's really not 'If you weren't munchkiny, antimagic field could stop you'.

~~

Also, without munchkinery, a fighter's ability to swing his sword is severely limited by his HP, which requires (again, without munchkinery) someone to be spending spell slots or other resources. Thus, more or less, a fighter is just as reliant on spell slots as everyone else if not more so.

Edit: Oh, also!


Each class has it's drawbacks, it's advantages and it's sitautional niches where it truly excels. If anyone is having trouble with game balance then I'd argue they need to have words with their DM.

This is also true. A wizard, and generally speaking a tier 1 class, does not have the spell slots to have literally every option avaliable to him avaliable at once.

It's just that there are many more advantages to wizards, and many more niches where wizards excel, than there are say fighters. So it's a lot easier to make a sequence where the fighter has to let other people help him out than the wizard (who almost always, tommorrow or in 15 minutes, could have the appropriate solution).

Even if a fighter's niche is in-an-antimagic-field-when-the-wizard-has-also-has-his-book-stolen-against-enemies-who-are-poor-at-combat.

[Taelas]

The "It's not a problem because I can fix it"-line of thinking is a fallacy, people. If it were not a problem, you would not have to fix it in the first place.

If you can fix it and don't mind taking the time to do so, by all means, do so. But do not pretend you're not doing just that.

[shadow_archmagi]

Honestly though, I've never seen a wizard have his spellbook stolen in one of our games, and we've never encountered an antimagic field.

The former partly because 'thieves' in general are not a theme the DM uses a whole lot, and the latter because null magic zones are just not something that comes up a lot.

It also helps that I'm our party's primary caster most of the time, and I prefer artificers, psions, and sorcerers, because preparing spells is so much paperwork. But, as it's been said, if you're relying on the wizard periodically being kicked back to square one, then maybe that's a sign that he really is and does become really powerful.

[erikun]

I'd like to make this comparison to illustrate the difference.

The fighter can fight, can trip, and can power attack. The cleric can buff himself to fight, can debuff, and can heal.

The cleric can also buff the fighter, making the fighter twice as effective at fighting, tripping, and power attacking. The fighter cannot do the same - there is nothing the fighter can do that will make the cleric better at fighting, or debuffing, or healing.

That is kind of the point behind tiers: options. How much you can do, and how well you can do it, determines what tier you belong in. Cleric are tier 1 because they can buff themselves to be fighters, can buff fighters to be better, can summon allies to buff, can debuff, can heal, can divine, and can even trip and power attack if they really want to. Fighters end up in tier 4 because, in general, they can't.

(I'd also like to point out that the best option is an optimized Cleric buffing an optimized Fighter in this situation. The Fighter can get the feats earlier and make better use of the Cleric buffs than the Cleric can himself. A summoned ally won't have the optimal feats, and and you can't double up on buffs on an allied Cleric. Saying that an individual Cleric is better than an individual Fighter is not the same as two Clerics being better than a Cleric and a Fighter... all the time.)

[Eldariel]

Honestly though, I've never seen a wizard have his spellbook stolen in one of our games, and we've never encountered an antimagic field.

The former partly because 'thieves' in general are not a theme the DM uses a whole lot, and the latter because null magic zones are just not something that comes up a lot.

We've had attempted spellbook thefts. Wizards generally have enough precaution that it's non-trivial to accomplish, and there tend to be ways to reacquire it or replicate its contents in place (even if the Wizard doesn't keep it in extradimensional storage). It does hurt, but it's nothing Wizards can't deal with.

Null Magic Zones we actually deal with more than AMFs, mostly because we've played Faerun games and Faerun is chockful of places where magic works kinda funny, or not at all. They're...alright; the playing field is kinda level since the same problems apply for everybody (aside from stupidity like Initiate of Mystra) and people are aware of what they're getting themselves into and as such, can apply the appropriate preparations. Then again, our players are sorta up-in-the-known with regards to rules and as such, probably more equipped to handle such hurdles than an average joe.

AMFs are rarely a problem due to being small and anchored on the person casting it; move actions tend to solve vanilla AMFs with more esoteric tactics being necessary for more esoteric AMFs, but it's rarely efficient to try and get the AMF to a caster in the first place.


I'd also like to point out that the best option is an optimized Cleric buffing an optimized Fighter in this situation. The Fighter can get the feats earlier and make better use of the Cleric buffs than the Cleric can himself. A summoned ally won't have the optimal feats, and and you can't double up on buffs on an allied Cleric. Saying that an individual Cleric is better than an individual Fighter is not the same as two Clerics being better than a Cleric and a Fighter... all the time.

Yet, they still generally are. The Fighter has vastly limited options as mentioned. Clerics also have Personal buffs; while Fighter buffed by Cleric will probably outperform a Cleric buffing himself, having two Clerics buff themselves generally results in something superior than the Fighter and the Cleric buffing the Fighter. Especially once things like Dispel Magic come into play (of course, Fighters perform fine on the first levels if built for that). Which, of course, is an issue with both, magic and the design of the Fighter-class. So meh.

[erikun]

Yet, they still generally are. The Fighter has vastly limited options as mentioned. Clerics also have Personal buffs; while Fighter buffed by Cleric will probably outperform a Cleric buffing himself, having two Clerics buff themselves generally results in something superior than the Fighter and the Cleric buffing the Fighter.
Depends on what level. Sure, your 7th level Cleric could buff themselves with Divine Power for full BAB and +6 STR, but my Cleric has been doing the exact same thing for four levels with Bull’s Strength on the Fighter. Plus, a devoted ubercharger wielding a two-handed weapon will be far more damaging (after buffs) than two Clerics going sword-and-shield.

The strength of the Cleric isn't that you can wield a greatsword yourself and pick up Leap Attack + DMM Persist, but that you can summon huge earth elementals and fight along side them to wreck anything. Leave the Fighter optimization to the Fighters and give them a chance to succeed. You have much more you can be doing that trying to emulate a Fighter with you limited feats.

[Eldariel]

Depends on what level. Sure, your 7th level Cleric could buff themselves with Divine Power for full BAB and +6 STR, but my Cleric has been doing the exact same thing for four levels with Bull’s Strength on the Fighter. Plus, a devoted ubercharger wielding a two-handed weapon will be far more damaging (after buffs) than two Clerics going sword-and-shield.

The strength of the Cleric isn't that you can wield a greatsword yourself and pick up Leap Attack + DMM Persist, but that you can summon huge earth elementals and fight along side them to wreck anything. Leave the Fighter optimization to the Fighters and give them a chance to succeed. You have much more you can be doing that trying to emulate a Fighter with you limited feats.

Certainly, the first ~5 levels see Fighter/Cleric probably performing very similarly as higher level Personals aren't game yet. Clerics could just buff themselves with Bull's Strength with the same action (or have one buff the other); tho it's only +4. Leaving it to Fighters is all well and good but once we bring Heroics into the picture, or god forbid things like (Draconic) Polymorph, suddenly Clerics just begin doing Fighter's job better than the Cleric-buffed Fighter. Which is really the very root of the issue.

I mean, Clerics could go Sword'n'Board but they have just the same access to Animated Shields as everyone else so I see little reason not to two-hand, Power Attack, Knowledge Devotion and go to town. With Divine Might for good measure. Fighter Clerics can actually make superior buff platforms to straight Fighters, mostly on the back of Personal buffs and some Domains and Cleric PrCs.


Again, you shouldn't do that in a game but fact is that it's possible to make a Cleric that fights better than a Fighter buffed by a Cleric and that's really the root cause of the issue; why have Fighter and Cleric in a party when two Clerics would just perform better?

[erikun]

A Cleric with 14 STR, Divine Power, and Righteous Might is actually inferior to a Fighter with 20 STR, Bull’s Strength, and Enlarge Person (from the Wizard). And this has nothing with the feats the Fighter has: the self-buffing Cleric won't have the feats for chain-tripping or multiclass to make use of charging like the Fighter will.

Sure, you could have a Cleric with 20 STR and that takes Fighter levels for the additional feats, but at that point you're mostly a highly optimized Fighter than a combat-oriented Cleric.

And certainly Polymorph breaks things, but that's already a given. It also seems amusing to state that the Fighter is weak because the Cleric can beg someone else to cast Polymorph on them as well. :smalltongue:

[Eldariel]

And certainly Polymorph breaks things, but that's already a given. It also seems amusing to state that the Fighter is weak because the Cleric can beg someone else to cast Polymorph on them as well. :smalltongue:

Naa, Clerics can cast it themselves. Greater Anyspell.

[Aspenor]

A Cleric with 14 STR, Divine Power, and Righteous Might is actually inferior to a Fighter with 20 STR, Bull’s Strength, and Enlarge Person (from the Wizard). And this has nothing with the feats the Fighter has: the self-buffing Cleric won't have the feats for chain-tripping or multiclass to make use of charging like the Fighter will.

Sure, you could have a Cleric with 20 STR and that takes Fighter levels for the additional feats, but at that point you're mostly a highly optimized Fighter than a combat-oriented Cleric.

And certainly Polymorph breaks things, but that's already a given. It also seems amusing to state that the Fighter is weak because the Cleric can beg someone else to cast Polymorph on them as well. :smalltongue:

I fail to see how being unable to trip things matters when you still have the spellcasting of a pure cleric, after buffing to the strength and size of the fighter.

Woohoo...the fighter has a slightly higher STR and can trip stuff. The cleric has 90% of the combat ability of the fighter....and still has spells. Cleric wins.

[erikun]

Naa, Clerics can cast it themselves. Greater Anyspell.
Good point, I missed that - although now we're talking about 11th level, and for only about 10 minutes a day.

My point, though, is to allow the specialists to specialize. I'm not saying that Fighters outperform or even compare at high levels - noncasters kind of become obsolete at 13th level or so. I'm pointing out that a buffed Fighter is generally better than a buffed Cleric at straight melee combat in low/mid levels, even with the inferior target-other spells.

Also, a lot of the Cleric's non-spell optimization can be used by the Fighter. One level of Cleric for Knowledge Devotion is just as easy as one level of Barbarian for pounce.


Woohoo...the fighter has a slightly higher STR and can trip stuff. The cleric has 90% of the combat ability of the fighter....and still has spells. Cleric wins.
So you are telling me that between allowing the Fighter to bash stuff in the head with the Cleric casing, and allowing the Fighter to bash stuff in the head with the Cleric bashing stuff in the head, the most optimal decision is for the Cleric to bash stuff?! :smallamused: Surely you jest.

And the difference is the Cleric using Power Attack for 1.5x STR damage, and the Fighter using a lance and Shock Trooper to deal 6x full weapon damage in a full attack with no loss to hit. And trip. At an earlier level.

[Aspenor]

So you are telling me that between allowing the Fighter to bash stuff in the head with the Cleric casing, and allowing the Fighter to bash stuff in the head with the Cleric bashing stuff in the head, the most optimal decision is for the Cleric to bash stuff?! :smallamused: Surely you jest.
No, I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that the cleric should cast, and the fighter should go farm potatoes.


And the difference is the Cleric using Power Attack for 1.5x STR damage, and the Fighter using a lance and Shock Trooper to deal 6x full weapon damage in a full attack with no loss to hit. And trip. At an earlier level.
Or, he could go farm potatoes, because that's what he really ought to be doing. His shock trooper-lance-trip is not relevant. The cleric casts spells, and can do everything the fighter can do, and more.

[true_shinken]

Or, he could go farm potatoes, because that's what he really ought to be doing. His shock trooper-lance-trip is not relevant. The cleric casts spells, and can do everything the fighter can do, and more.
I really think you're missing the point.
Cleric can cast good spells, yes. Most of those good spells are buff spells.
So why should the Cleric cast them on himself... when he cast them on a much better prepared warrior, like the Fighter?
The Cleric can't do everything the Fighter can, not until very high level, and even then it takes resources he might be using for something else.
Yes, spellcasters are powerful, but if someone said in my table that non-casters are 'not relevant', I'd just have to show them a lesson Gandalf already seems to have learned.
http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr234/Chashak/gandalf_multiclass.jpg

[Greenish]

Indeed, as shinken pointed out, it's often more efficient to get the charger a clear route to charge than to beat things up yourself.

[Kantolin]

So why should the Cleric cast them on himself... when he cast them on a much better prepared warrior, like the Fighter?

Because (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm)many (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm)good (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divineFavor.htm)buffs are personal.

Also, why can't the fighter just also be a cleric and buff himself? Then you have two people being effective, and not one person enabling another person to be effective.

If the cleric's only job is to buff the fighter, a lot of people wouldn't enjoy playing clerics for the same reasons as why most wizards like fireball or most fighters like walking over and smacking things - people like being do-ers, and not the second bananas.

This is subjective, mind you, as the batman wizard for example enjoys buffing his allies and sculpting the battlefield such that his friends can solve problems (And this works well). I personally love playing the party-buffer who makes everyone else awesome. But it's not for everyone - it's apparantly not for the fighter's player, for example.

Edit: Also... um, bull's strength? I was playing a cleric who was absolutely devoted to party buffing and healing, and bull's strength is only useful for an extremely short length of time before the fighter very reasonably gets himself gauntlets of ogre power or something. In core, it's rough to buff your allies as a cleric - although the spell compendium and other splats helps this a lot and puts some more party-buffs on the cleric's list. ^_^

Of course then you have the problem that 'Yay, the cleric's buffs won the encounter!'... but people tend to be happier playing with batman wizards than playing with effective blaster wizards.

[Gametime]

Because (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divinePower.htm)many (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/righteousMight.htm)good (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/divineFavor.htm)buffs are personal.



Divine Power's main function is to get the cleric level with the fighter. It makes no sense to use it as an argument that the cleric is better off buffing himself; the fact that it's personal doesn't matter, because the fighter doesn't really need that buff anyway. He comes pre-packaged with it. (Okay, the +6 to strength is nice, too, but you could get 2/3 the benefit of that with a spell half the level.)

Divine Favor maxes out at +3 to attack and damage. That's only slightly more attack, and less damage, than fighters get from investing in the Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization trees, which are almost universally derided as weak feats. If the small bonus to attack and damage matters that much, the fighter can certainly get it with his oodles of feats.

Righteous Might is the only personal buff that really gives the cleric an edge over the fighter. It is, admittedly, a pretty sweet buff. Is it the equivalent of the many combat feats the fighter gets, all on his own? I'm not so sure. Certainly, the cleric can make himself a better combatant than the fighter, but with fewer spells he could just make the fighter even better and get the same result for less investment.

[Firechanter]

I see it the other way round: anything the Fighter can do as inherent class feature (thereby giving up potential features from other classes), the Cleric can easily emulate with spells.

re Divine Power: so you get the same BAB as a Fighter, and the same HP as a Fighter, and you save 36K for a Str belt.

re Divine Favour: +3 to attack and damage is great, especially for a _first level spell_. A Fighter has to spend something like what, 4 friggin feats to get a similar effect, and a Cleric just needs to cast a measly 1st level spell!

re Righteous Might: how exactly does a Fighter increase his size, get a size Strength bonus, and gain Reach that stacks with reach weapons?

Sure, all that is just a few rounds per day, unless you use the extremely popular (DMM) Persist option. Even without Nightstick abuse you can easily DMM-Persist Divine Power, regular-persist Divine Favour, and just tack on Righteous Might when you need it.

Really, you're the first person I've seen to say "a cleric's personal buffs aren't all that great".

A little anecdote. Once we had to take out a boss and his lieutenant, but there were only two of us that day: my Cleric/Ranger and a Fighter/Bard, both around level 16. At first I only had long term buffs on us, and got our asses handed to us. The bard was knocked out, and I barely managed to grab him and escape (using magic, of course). At a safe place, we healed up, and I reshuffled my spells. After resting, we went back in there, and this time I used DP and DF (regular, not even extended), and kicked both bosses' hides before the spells expired. Granted, the Bard also played it a bit smarter this time.

Long story short, what people are saying here is that Clerics (like other casters) can do everything a Fighter can do and are _still_ full casters on top of that. What is so hard to understand?

[Veklim]

A normal game for you is when the wizards reguarly encounter anti-magic fields and have their book stolen?

Actually, yes. I run games which reward ingenuity and lateral thinking. Magic in my settings is only stable in places where it's been tamed so to speak. Many of the wilder places (and therefore most often visited by the group) have rogue magic and anti-magic zones all over the place. The effects are often random but it's not uncommon for a wizard in my campaigns to be seriously challenged by these anomalies.
I do this for the sake of not just game balance but also for quality of gameplay. A wizard who needs only fire off a couple of high level spells to solve an encounter will get as bored and frustrated as the rest of the party at not having more to do. Thusly, I engineer encounters, environments and NPCs to create awkward and challenging scenarios.
A wizard can easily lose his spellbook with a proficient theif nearby, there are ways of protecting or obscurring said spellbook but nothing is infalible. On top of that there are rival NPC wizards in my campaigns who would do anything to gain access to an adventuring wizard's spellbook just to get hold of rare and unique spells they have either seen used or heard about.
This way, everyone gets a challenge, nobody can guess too well what's coming next, and most of the time the entire group have a role to play.

[erikun]

Really, you're the first person I've seen to say "a cleric's personal buffs aren't all that great".
True, the cleric's personal buff list is very nice. It's one of the best reasons to play a cleric. However, since I'm the one who brought it up, I feel like I should make a few points in the Fighter's favor.

First, the Fighter will generally be focusing on Strength, making it his highest ability score. The Cleric generally will not, focusing on Wisdom for extra spells. In fact, if we're talking about a DMM Cleric, it will probably be tertiary, after Wisdom and Charisma (16 CHA for one use of DMM Persist). It wouldn't be strange to see the Fighter with 20 STR at 8th level, while the Cleric only has 14 STR - and likely less. In the case of Divine Power, the +6 enhancement bonus to Strength doesn't so much propel them ahead of Fighters as put them on equal footing.

As for the other spells: Bull's Strength is roughly equal to Divine Favor (being only one point behind in to-hit for a THF character) and the main benefits of Righteous Might are replicated by the Enlarge Person spell. At this point, the Fighter is only -2 to hit and -2 damage behind the Cleric, and several feats ahead. A difference which can easily be made up thanks to the Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization feats - and those are one of the weakest choices the Fighter can make.

Also, note the investment you've made into making your Cleric competent in fighting. Three feats, all of your turn attempts, a 4th level spell slot, a 5th level spell slot (each battle), and a 7th(!) level spell slot. Compared to... one 1st level spell slot and one 2nd level spell slot, to make the Fighter equilivant. And the Fighter still has all his feats available. (Although considering we're talking about 13th level characters here, any beatstick is likely becoming redundant.)


Of course, there's nothing wrong with being a Cleric that ignores the standard Cleric advise. Although between focusing on Strength, ignoring Charisma/DMM, and losing caster levels for multiclassing out, the character is less of a cleric and more of a magical self-buffing fighter.

[Aspenor]

I really think you're missing the point.
Cleric can cast good spells, yes. Most of those good spells are buff spells.
So why should the Cleric cast them on himself... when he cast them on a much better prepared warrior, like the Fighter?
The Cleric can't do everything the Fighter can, not until very high level, and even then it takes resources he might be using for something else.
Yes, spellcasters are powerful, but if someone said in my table that non-casters are 'not relevant', I'd just have to show them a lesson Gandalf already seems to have learned.
http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr234/Chashak/gandalf_multiclass.jpg

Why should you bother casting them on the fighter, when you can kick the fighter out of the party and get somebody useful like another cleric, or a druid? Now, instead of one cleric using his spells to make a mook into something remotely threatening, you have two clerics using their spells. Or a cleric and a druid.

[Thurbane]

Every time you use the word "Tier" in a non-competitive game environment, fun dies a horrible, painful death.
Late to the party here, but I wanted to comment - FWIW, I mostly agree with this.

Far too many people misuse the tier system as a "don't play this class, ever, even if it's one you used to enjoy prior to reading this" hammer.

And at the end of the day, any "ranking system" of classes is going to be based mostly on personal experience and personal opinion. Sure, the people contributing to the ranking can be well versed in the game, but the fundamental fact remains. I certainly don't profess to be more of an expert on 3.5 gameplay that the creator(s) of the tier system, but I will say that my personal experiences aren't necessarily reflected by it.

[Boci]

Actually, yes. I run games which reward ingenuity and lateral thinking. Magic in my settings is only stable in places where it's been tamed so to speak. Many of the wilder places (and therefore most often visited by the group) have rogue magic and anti-magic zones all over the place. The effects are often random but it's not uncommon for a wizard in my campaigns to be seriously challenged by these anomalies.
I do this for the sake of not just game balance but also for quality of gameplay. A wizard who needs only fire off a couple of high level spells to solve an encounter will get as bored and frustrated as the rest of the party at not having more to do. Thusly, I engineer encounters, environments and NPCs to create awkward and challenging scenarios.
A wizard can easily lose his spellbook with a proficient theif nearby, there are ways of protecting or obscurring said spellbook but nothing is infalible. On top of that there are rival NPC wizards in my campaigns who would do anything to gain access to an adventuring wizard's spellbook just to get hold of rare and unique spells they have either seen used or heard about.
This way, everyone gets a challenge, nobody can guess too well what's coming next, and most of the time the entire group have a role to play.

My point was that in most games this wasn't the case, people just say anti-magic field, forgetting that someone must cast the spell and that its range is unimpressive.

As for the spell book: why are thieves so fixated on this? Since when do high level adventurers lack shiney stuff to steal?

I would be interesting in hearing how these rogue magic areas work.


Late to the party here, but I wanted to comment - FWIW, I mostly agree with this.

Far too many people misuse the tier system as a "don't play this class, ever, even if it's one you used to enjoy prior to reading this" hammer.

But far more use it as a guidline to assess how versatile each player could be. And the reverse is also true: if someone wants to play a druid in a low tier party, they will often be told about lower tier options.

[Tyndmyr]

So to boil down all of this into one coherant idea on my part I'd have to say this.
A wizard can throw ridiculous magics about, kill hundreds and deal with any situation imaginable, until his spells run out.

Rope trick. Or scrolls. Seriously, having giant piles of scrolls is a wizard thing. Might as well.


Or his spellbook is stolen.

How do you steal a well protected item from what is essentially a miniature god?


Or there's an anti-magic field.

Invoke Magic, Initiate of Mystra, Instantaneous Conjurations...keep on rocking.


A fighter can do a limited array of combat-specific moves indefinitely. He doesn't run out of weapon attacks per day and if his weapon is stolen he merely picks up another one and continues.

If his weapon is stolen, he is generally gimped. A magic weapon usually takes up a significant fraction of a melee chars wealth, and it is typically specifically chosen to complement his preferred style(ie, reach weapon with combat reflexes, etc). There is not always an identical replacement at hand.

Backup spellbooks are cheaper than backup magical weapons.

Also, the fighter DOES run out of hp.


the correct fighter/rogue mix eats wizards for breakfast.

Really? What mix is this?

[quote]Each class has it's drawbacks, it's advantages and it's sitautional niches where it truly excels. If anyone is having trouble with game balance then I'd argue they need to have words with their DM.

Right. Not broken because the DM can fix it. Oberoni fallacy, how you appear in every thread on class balance...

[MeeposFire]

could no longer bypass DR/Magic. In an antimagic field, everyone sucks

I just want to say that unless I am remembering incorrectly DR/magic is supernatural and is thus nullified in an anti-magic field so that small problem is not a problem. Rest is true though.

[Firechanter]

As for the "stealing the spellbook" stuff - it's never happened in any game where I was involved. Usually the gentlemen's agreement seems to be that central class features are sacrosanct. It's not like stealing a Fighter's weapon, it's more like chopping off his arms.

(Nevertheless, in a high-level pbp game where I play a Wizard I traded her familiar for Eideetic Memory just to avoid any temptation in that direction. The only spellbook this character has is a fake one filled with Explosive Runes. Also, her total known spells (at level 18) would amount to _10_ spellbooks, or two Eberrron spellshards.)

That said, spellbooks are rather unappealing to the normal, mundane thief, due to their abysmal resale value.

[Veyr]

I just want to say that unless I am remembering incorrectly DR/magic is supernatural and is thus nullified in an anti-magic field so that small problem is not a problem. Rest is true though.
I've just poked around, and see no indication of this. The Damage Reduction section in the Special Abilities chapter does not mention this. A Barbarian's DR/- is Ex; a Monk's DR/magic does not have a type listed. Monsters have DR/magic listed in their Special Qualities. I do not think that it goes away in an AMF.

On the other hand, the natural weapons of creatures with DR/magic do work, even in an AMF, since they aren't actually magical, just "count as" "for the purposes of damage reduction", and an AMF doesn't mess with that.

[Cog]

I'm pretty sure I've seen it somewhere else, but the only evidence I'm finding right now is on page 58 of the Rules Compendium. A vampire is given as an example in the sidebar, and its DR/magic goes away in an AMF.

Note that in the Vampire entry, the DR is given as an Su trait.

[Gnaeus]

Of course, there's nothing wrong with being a Cleric that ignores the standard Cleric advise. Although between focusing on Strength, ignoring Charisma/DMM, and losing caster levels for multiclassing out, the character is less of a cleric and more of a magical self-buffing fighter.

1. Is magical self-buffing fighter the most optimized roll a cleric can play? No.

2. Can a cleric (without multiclassing out, never lose caster levels) rocking domains like war, strength, and destruction, compete credibly with a fighter through low level play, and eclipse the fighter in high level play? Yes.

3. Would a cleric playing a magical self-buffing fighter step on the fighters toes in an unfriendly way? Maybe. It depends on the optimization and composition of the group. There is no reason why "priest of a war god" is inherently a less worthy concept than "guy with a sword".

4. Would I rather have 2 clerics in my group than a cleric and a fighter? I'll take the clerics. At any level.

[true_shinken]

Also, why can't the fighter just also be a cleric and buff himself? Then you have two people being effective, and not one person enabling another person to be effective.
Maybe people like being badass normals? Maybe you don't want a religious character? Power is not the only reason why people choose character class, otherwise we would all only play Pun-Pun.


If the cleric's only job is to buff the fighter, a lot of people wouldn't enjoy playing clerics
Did anyone say that buffing the fighter was the cleric's only job? Because I didn't see it.
Also, a lot of people don't enjoy playing clerics for lots of different reasons, same as lots of people don't enjoy playing fighters and lots of fools people don't enjoy playing a melee warlock. I really don't see your point... specially when you consider there are classes that only buff and many people have a blast playing them.



Far too many people misuse the tier system as a "don't play this class, ever, even if it's one you used to enjoy prior to reading this" hammer.

Thurbane, you're my favourite playgrounder ever.

[Veyr]

Maybe people like being badass normals?
D&D 3.5 is, quite frankly, the wrong system for that. It's so absurdly high magic that nothing completely mundane is going to be able to compete after about level 10.

[Gametime]

Long story short, what people are saying here is that Clerics (like other casters) can do everything a Fighter can do and are _still_ full casters on top of that. What is so hard to understand?

Did I give the impression that I don't understand? I apologize; nothing could be further from the truth. I understand perfectly well that clerics, played properly, are not only better than fighters but better than fighters at fighting. I am also generally of the opinion that two clerics can do anything a fighter and a cleric can do and much more.

All I am trying to suggest is that the cleric's personal buffs are not so enormously powerful that they make the cleric self-buffing an inherently better option than buffing his fighter buddy. Are they good? Certainly. But as others have pointed out, the fighter likely has a higher strength and definitely has a higher BAB to start - Divine Power is closing the gap, not pulling ahead. The same is basically true of Divine Favor; what matters isn't whether the fighter has to spend several feats to get the same benefit but whether those feats take up room that should be spent on other feats. The reason people usually don't advocate taking Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization isn't because the fighter can't spare the feats; it's because the bonuses aren't that huge. There's nothing wrong with a +3 here and a +3 there, but it's not going to eclipse the fighter when the cleric gets a minor boost like that.

Righteous Might is the big one, like I said. I'm still not convinced that it alone takes the cleric from "equal to fighter at bashing things" to "much better than fighter at bashing things." A magical item to get Enlarge Person - or, better yet, a Pearl to get some friendly caster to cast it on you - will get the fighter the reach boost. At that point, the stats are the only real point in the cleric's favor, and while that's big I don't think it's overwhelming compared to the boosts to tripping, bull rushing, or charging fighters can get from feats.

So would I say clerics are better than fighters? Obviously. Would I say two clerics are better than a cleric and a fighter? Probably. But would I say you should always buff yourself instead of your fighter friend? Probably not. Would I say you should make your friend playing a fighter reroll to a stronger class? Obviously not.

[Veyr]

Would I say you should make your friend playing a fighter reroll to a stronger class? Obviously not.
I disagree, at least as a blanket statement.

If a group is all Tier 1-2 casters who know how to play, someone who wants to play an unoptimized Monk doesn't fit in any better than the munchkin who wants to play a GOD Wizard in a group of Ninjas and Samurai.

I mean, it is equally selfish to play an underpowered character (compared to your group) for "roleplaying reasons" as it is to play an overpowered character (compared to your group) for "powergaming reasons". The general, sort of background discrimination (where the optimizer(s) are assumed to be wrong) and/or suggestion that we should all accept the lowest common denominator of optimization in a group is rather insulting, really.

[true_shinken]

D&D 3.5 is, quite frankly, the wrong system for that. It's so absurdly high magic that nothing completely mundane is going to be able to compete after about level 10.

Even if you were right (and I don't think you are), level 10 is really high and I haven't seen many campaigns get that far.
You don't have to be 'completely mundane'. A Fighter with a few wonderful toys is fine, it' a fantasy archetype, even.
And it's perfectly possible for the lower tier classes to compete with the MM monsters and such. It's the higher tiers that complicate stuff - you have to fiddle with the monsters,traps and such to provide some challenge. So I really don't see your point.

[Tvtyrant]

I disagree, at least as a blanket statement.

If a group is all Tier 1-2 casters who know how to play, someone who wants to play an unoptimized Monk doesn't fit in any better than the munchkin who wants to play a GOD Wizard in a group of Ninjas and Samurai.

I mean, it is equally selfish to play an underpowered character (compared to your group) for "roleplaying reasons" as it is to play an overpowered character (compared to your group) for "powergaming reasons". The general, sort of background discrimination (where the optimizer(s) are assumed to be wrong) and/or suggestion that we should all accept the lowest common denominator of optimization in a group is rather insulting, really.

And yet I hear "don't play a monk" at least ten times more often then "don't play a Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Archivist. These boards tend far more heavily towards optimization then away from it.

[true_shinken]

And yet I hear "don't play a monk" at least ten times more often then "don't play a Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Archivist. These boards tend far more heavily towards optimization then away from it.

This is not even a matter of optimization, it's a matter of playing high powered classes. BIG difference.

[Tvtyrant]

This is not even a matter of optimization, it's a matter of playing high powered classes. BIG difference.

It doesn't change my point that the majority of statements of the kind he is complaining about are directed down, not up.

[JaronK]

Secondly, it also screws over the fighter unless he's rather well optimized. We had a DM who had a dragon use a plot-large Antimagic field, mostly to screw over the party psion (Who then retreated to the back of the party and started using his crossbow). Said dragon then went over and disassembled the fighter, who no longer had an AC to speak of (AC became 18? 20?), lost a chunk of his to-hit and damage (Nonmagical weapon, go!), and could no longer bypass DR/Magic.

Totally unrelated nitpick: DR/Magic is a supernatural ability, which is lost in an antimagic field. See the 3.5 FAQ for details. DR/- and DR/(metals) is Ex, but DRs based on magic or alignment (such as DR/good, DR/magic, and IIRC DR/Epic) are all Su abilities. DR/Good and Adamantine is actually a Su and Ex ability... a rare thing indeed.

JaronK

[Greenish]

It doesn't change my point that the majority of statements of the kind he is complaining about are directed down, not up.It's easier to start high and tone down than it is to start low and tone up.

[Veyr]

And yet I hear "don't play a monk" at least ten times more often then "don't play a Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Archivist. These boards tend far more heavily towards optimization then away from it.
Those comments are (as far as I can tell) universally in threads asking for optimization help.

Also, that I have seen, none of those comments attempt to take the moral high ground like some of the comments about power-gamers do.

But sure, I'll buy your general point — we have opposite opinions and selectively notice the posts clashing with them more often, thus leading us to have different perceptions of the board. I'm not particularly interested in attempting some kind of impartial tabulation to prove my point, and I'm assuming you aren't either, so I guess we'll just have to accept that neither of us can say for sure one way or the other. With that in mind, I'll rescind any implication that the board does favor one way or the other, but I maintain that there are comments that can be insultingly anti-optimizer.


Totally unrelated nitpick: DR/Magic is a supernatural ability, which is lost in an antimagic field. See the 3.5 FAQ for details. DR/- and DR/(metals) is Ex, but DRs based on magic or alignment (such as DR/good, DR/magic, and IIRC DR/Epic) are all Su abilities. DR/Good and Adamantine is actually a Su and Ex ability... a rare thing indeed.

JaronK
FAQ is not RAW, and I don't see that in RAW anywhere (and I just looked). I haven't checked Rules Compendium, but it sounds like once again the FAQ is pretending that RAMSTS (Rules As Make Sense To Skip) are RAW.

In this case, I agree with him, but that's besides the point.

[Tvtyrant]

Those comments are (as far as I can tell) universally in threads asking for optimization help.

With that in mind, I'll rescind any implication that the board does favor one way or the other, but I maintain that there are comments that can be insultingly anti-optimizer.


I'll admit that you have a point here and I apologize for making this an issue. Good day sir.

[Veyr]

Wow, an amenably resolved disagreement on the Internet! Huzzah! Good day to you as well, sir.

[true_shinken]

Those comments are (as far as I can tell) universally in threads asking for optimization help.
You know, back in 339, we had a few rules most old timers adhered to.
The first one was to optimize within the parameters requested by the OP. You would be surprised how often people want help to optimize a Monk or a CA Ninja, because it's damn hard to do so. So saying 'play a Swordsage instead' is not really helpful, because dude wants to play a Monk or a CA Ninja, for whatever reason.
We get that far too often here in the playground. Someone wants to play a Monk... and gets pelted with a barrage of 'Monks suck!' comments, while people don't even know the context. Maybe his group is low OP and an optimized monk would work perfectly fine. Maybe he just wants the challenge. Maybe he is wrong and in for a world of hurt, but is it too much a bother to ask before declaring that he is wrong and monks suck?

[dextercorvia]

FAQ is not RAW, and I don't see that in RAW anywhere (and I just looked). I haven't checked Rules Compendium, but it sounds like once again the FAQ is pretending that RAMSTS (Rules As Make Sense To Skip) are RAW.

In this case, I agree with him, but that's besides the point.

Page 41 of the RC, with the exception that DR/Silver and DR/Cold Iron are Su.

[Kantolin]

Maybe people like being badass normals? Maybe you don't want a religious character? Power is not the only reason why people choose character class, otherwise we would all only play Pun-Pun.

Um?

The statement was 'I don't understand why [class] is more powerful', in this case specifically, 'Why are Clerics more powerful than fighters'?

I explained why clerics are more powerful than fighters. If this is no longer in question then okay then.

If you're asking 'why do people like fighters', there are a bunch of separate reasons for that. I like fighters myself - they're one of my favorite classes, after bards and psychic warriors (Although incarnum and binding is jumping in here).

Tier system is helpful for that - it states 'fighters are likely to be less powerful than wizards', so you can be aware of this fact. You can then work around it or be okay with this.



Did anyone say that buffing the fighter was the cleric's only job? Because I didn't see it.

You said:


Cleric can cast good spells, yes. Most of those good spells are buff spells.
So why should the Cleric cast them on himself... when he cast them on a much better prepared warrior, like the Fighter?

I was explaining why not. Many of the more useful buffs are personal, and many people play clerics so they can go whap things, not so they can let other people shine instead.


I really don't see your point... specially when you consider there are classes that only buff and many people have a blast playing them.

My point is that you can't say 'Clerics are fair because they could boost the fighter instead of boosting themselves. Not only are clerics not as good at it, a lot of people prefer to shine themselves than to exist solely so others can shine. The fighter's player, for example, is not able to reciprocate buffing the cleric in any way.

Thurbane:

Far too many people misuse the tier system as a "don't play this class, ever, even if it's one you used to enjoy prior to reading this" hammer.

I agree! I even said as much earlier - in fact, to quote me:

Originally posted by: Me

It doesn't mean 'Sorcerors are lower tier than Wizards, so if you play a sorceror you are wrong'. Nor does it say 'Wizards are too high tier so if you play one you are wrong'. (In fact, if I recall, JaronK who invented the tier system prefers to play the game at tiers 3 and 4). If you would like to play a monk, go nuts! Monks are fun for some people (Not me, however, but I do like Lurks, Shadowcasters, and Hexblades quite a bit, neither of which are very high tier at all, and one of my favorite classes is the fighter).

It just says 'Wizards are stronger than commoners'. It does not say 'No playing Commoners! If you want to play a commoner you are bad!'

>_> Granted, a lot of people ask questions like 'I obviously don't understand why a wizard is more powerful than a barbarian', in which it gets explained why. This does not mean you're not allowed to play a barbarian nor that you're wrong to do so (I've seen tons of games ban tier 1, and all the ones that ban tier 5-6 also have banned or significantly powernerfed tiers 1 and 2).

Edit:


The first one was to optimize within the parameters requested by the OP. You would be surprised how often people want help to optimize a Monk or a CA Ninja, because it's damn hard to do so. So saying 'play a Swordsage instead' is not really helpful, because dude wants to play a Monk or a CA Ninja, for whatever reason.

Actually usually, when people say 'I want to play a monk', they actually mean 'I want to play an unarmed unarmoured fighter who punches people'. It's just that in core, your singular option for that is the monk.

To compare, when someone says 'I want to play a lurk', they may be notified that a lurk is weaker but then get help doing so. And if someone says, "I want to play a monk the class, I know it's weak but leave me alone I want to play a monk, how can I be more useful?" then people will suggest ways of doing that, or house rules they've done to make usually-flurry usually-a-standard-action.

Also note - when someone says 'I want to be a monk', the general response isn't "Be a wizard." as that's not an unarmed fighter by default. :P I mean, a wizard would certainly be stronger than the swordsage.

[true_shinken]

Um?

The statement was 'I don't understand why [class] is more powerful', in this case specifically, 'Why are Clerics more powerful than fighters'?
Your whole argument is moot when you repeteadly say a fighter should farm potatoes.

[Tvtyrant]

You mean when Aspenor said that.


No, I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that the cleric should cast, and the fighter should go farm potatoes.


Or, he could go farm potatoes, because that's what he really ought to be doing. His shock trooper-lance-trip is not relevant. The cleric casts spells, and can do everything the fighter can do, and more.

[Kantolin]

Your whole argument is moot when you repeteadly say a fighter should farm potatoes.

I didn't. o_o

Nor do I think so.

Edit: I like fighters. ;_; Really, I play a lot of fighters - I'm tired of them at the precise instant due to the volume of them I've played, but I like them. And most of mine are sorely unoptimized to make use of extra options

[Gametime]

I disagree, at least as a blanket statement.

If a group is all Tier 1-2 casters who know how to play, someone who wants to play an unoptimized Monk doesn't fit in any better than the munchkin who wants to play a GOD Wizard in a group of Ninjas and Samurai.

I mean, it is equally selfish to play an underpowered character (compared to your group) for "roleplaying reasons" as it is to play an overpowered character (compared to your group) for "powergaming reasons". The general, sort of background discrimination (where the optimizer(s) are assumed to be wrong) and/or suggestion that we should all accept the lowest common denominator of optimization in a group is rather insulting, really.

There are a lot of assumptions in here that don't actually reflect what I originally said.

First of all, I've got no problem with offering optimization help. I'm all for educating people who don't know about optimization; maybe they still won't want to play optimized characters, and (in my opinion) that's fine, but the choice shouldn't be made for them out of ignorance. Second, I've got no problem suggesting another class that might fit the concept just as well while working better mechanically; swordsage for monk, warblade for fighter, whatever.

But forcing someone to change their class? That's jerk behavior. Now, maybe they deserve it; maybe they're being a jerk by refusing to change their behavior when it clashes with the group. But none of that was obvious from the phrasing I used. There's no reason to assume the fighter would be unoptimized, for one thing, and an optimized fighter can at least contribute to a group of tier 1s that aren't totally breaking the game. And I was specifically talking about making someone switch from fighter to cleric, a switch which requires a fairly serious jump in flavor (unlike switching to, say, warblade).

Finally, I disagree that it's just as bad to play a bad character as it is to play an overpowered character. It's annoying, certainly, but overpowered characters are a pain because they invalidate other characters. One player does everything and no one else has any fun. In contrast, a weak character does very little, perhaps nothing; that means everyone else still gets to do exactly what they wanted. If the DM plans encounters such that the lack of another potent party member is deadly, then there will be a problem when one person doesn't contribute, but a group of three tier 1s can handle a lot before they need a fourth. In contrast, a group of weaklings with one powerhouse in the mix has no appropriate encounter balance. Either the powerhouse steamrolls everything and the weaklings do nothing, or the powerhouse steamrolls everything even harder and the weaklings make meaningless contributions.

So, yeah, it sucks to have one outlier, but it's much worse when that outlier is too strong (in terms of "everyone having fun," not necessarily in terms of actually overcoming encounters).

[Kantolin]

Gametime here is a genius - a lot of what he's said I totally agree with. ^_^

I've also never personally been in a party where someone was underpowered and people were jerks about it. I've been in parties where everyone was jerks, mind you, but not 'You're not very strong, we hate you'. Everyone wants to be playing the game, you don't just tell a player to go home.

[Veyr]

There are a lot of assumptions in here that don't actually reflect what I originally said.
Absolutely true; I intended to be clear about that when I said "as a blanket statement" — I probably should have been more explicit, though. What I meant was that "Obviously not" does not, in my mind, apply in all situations, and explained a situation where it does not. Yes, I read things into your post that you probably didn't intend, but then the entire purpose of my post was that there are things that people say without realizing how uneven they can be. Such as "Obviously" the Fighter could not be in the wrong.


First of all, I've got no problem with offering optimization help. I'm all for educating people who don't know about optimization; maybe they still won't want to play optimized characters, and (in my opinion) that's fine, but the choice shouldn't be made for them out of ignorance. Second, I've got no problem suggesting another class that might fit the concept just as well while working better mechanically; swordsage for monk, warblade for fighter, whatever.
K. I don't really think I suggested that you didn't.


But forcing someone to change their class? That's jerk behavior. Now, maybe they deserve it; maybe they're being a jerk by refusing to change their behavior when it clashes with the group. But none of that was obvious from the phrasing I used. There's no reason to assume the fighter would be unoptimized, for one thing, and an optimized fighter can at least contribute to a group of tier 1s that aren't totally breaking the game. And I was specifically talking about making someone switch from fighter to cleric, a switch which requires a fairly serious jump in flavor (unlike switching to, say, warblade).
How is it any more "jerk behavior" to say (as the DM) "Your Monk is not capable of keeping up with his party-mates and is therefore unsuitable for this campaign," than to say "Your Wizard vastly out-performs your party-mates and is therefore unsuitable for this campaign"? This is exactly the discrimination I was referring to.

As for Fighter to Cleric, I certainly would never tell anyone that they had to play any particular class, but that particular transition could be refluffed if you tried hard enough (and looked the other way a bit, perhaps).


Finally, I disagree that it's just as bad to play a bad character as it is to play an overpowered character. It's annoying, certainly, but overpowered characters are a pain because they invalidate other characters. One player does everything and no one else has any fun. In contrast, a weak character does very little, perhaps nothing; that means everyone else still gets to do exactly what they wanted. If the DM plans encounters such that the lack of another potent party member is deadly, then there will be a problem when one person doesn't contribute, but a group of three tier 1s can handle a lot before they need a fourth. In contrast, a group of weaklings with one powerhouse in the mix has no appropriate encounter balance. Either the powerhouse steamrolls everything and the weaklings do nothing, or the powerhouse steamrolls everything even harder and the weaklings make meaningless contributions.

So, yeah, it sucks to have one outlier, but it's much worse when that outlier is too strong (in terms of "everyone having fun," not necessarily in terms of actually overcoming encounters).
Disagree, and this is exactly what my post was saying.

A character considerably weaker than his party-mates forces them to either save him constantly, or for the DM to go easy on him (and therefore fail to challenge his teammates). Neither is fair to the party, and the latter option is decidedly unfair to the DM, who has to spend extra time making sure there's something for the Monk or Fighter to do while the real characters do the real work.

It further strains credibility: why, exactly, is this group carrying this lame duck around? In some cases that might make sense, but characters that need that much protection generally ought to be NPCs. And plenty of character concepts fulfillable with Fighter don't make any sense as the one constantly having to be saved.

[Kantolin]

A character considerably weaker than his party-mates forces them to either save him constantly, or for the DM to go easy on him (and therefore fail to challenge his teammates).

Or the dragon ignores the fact that there's a monk there, weathers the few punches he is taking, and continues playing as though the monk wasn't there.

This may not make the monk's player too happpy about being ignored, but if the monk's fine with that, then that's not a problem - it means enemies are slightly less useful than they would be otherwise. The DM does not have to specifically go gank the monk.

Furthermore, many low-tier classes are tolerably skilled at not-dying, especially monks. If the dragon full attacks the monk, and then the cleric wizard and druid kill the dragon because he wasted his action... then awesome for them, right?


It further strains credibility: why, exactly, is this group carrying this lame duck around?

Fun? They're certainly more useful than summon monster?

[Gnaeus]

A character considerably weaker than his party-mates forces them to either save him constantly, or for the DM to go easy on him (and therefore fail to challenge his teammates). Neither is fair to the party, and the latter option is decidedly unfair to the DM, who has to spend extra time making sure there's something for the Monk or Fighter to do while the real characters do the real work.

It further strains credibility: why, exactly, is this group carrying this lame duck around? In some cases that might make sense, but characters that need that much protection generally ought to be NPCs. And plenty of character concepts fulfillable with Fighter don't make any sense as the one constantly having to be saved.

I agree. I was once in a party playing a reasonably optimized Druid 4/Conjurer3/Arcane Hierophant 2, when a new PC came in playing a Warmage 4/Cleric (healbot variety) 4. As a player, I was stumped. He is casting second level blasty spells at CL 4. I am casting 3rd level blasty spells at CL 9 (one of us had taken Practiced Spellcaster). There was literally nothing his character could do that I couldn't do and hadn't been doing much better. He performed so poorly in his "niche" that it wasn't even like I could leave it to him. He actively resisted optimization advice (High op stuff like "please ask the DM to swap one of your feats for Practiced Spellcaster" and "Mystic Theurge is better than alternating Warmage and Cleric levels.")

We solved it (sort of) with the credibility straining idea of handing him (new guy we had just met in a tavern) a sizable number of WBL breaking magic items to give him something to do in fights. I can only guess that if he had lasted long enough we would have had to keep giving him new staves every couple of levels as his ran out.

The DM should have just said "No. Play a Cleric, or a Warmage, or a cleric with blasty domains." This character is inappropriate to this party.

[true_shinken]

I didn't. o_o

Nor do I think so.

The I apologize, I directed all my statements to the guy who said so in this very thread.

[Raendyn]

I don't know if anyone has asked this before...

But, since we are comparing an "uber-charger" then the enemy is an also-uber wizard, right?

so
a: Can an uber-wizard loose initiative?

b: Can an uber-wizard die without magic?

there are plenty of persist-able spells that literally renders him invincible without magic. like persist delay death .... even if the charger wins the init....
& now that i mentioned it.

c: can an uber-wizard be hit from someone with an axe???

[Firechanter]

If you allow the Celerity line of spells, then
a: no
b: no (technically yes, but nothing is going to even attack him)
c: no

Ubercharging is pretty easy to do; you just need a couple of features (Pounce, PA boosters, damage multipliers); Uberchargers will always look pretty much the same.

Opposed to that, there are many more roads leading to Uber-Wizardry, but they also require more effort to put into them (generally speaking), and the results are also in an entirely different league.

[Gametime]

Disagree, and this is exactly what my post was saying.

A character considerably weaker than his party-mates forces them to either save him constantly, or for the DM to go easy on him (and therefore fail to challenge his teammates). Neither is fair to the party, and the latter option is decidedly unfair to the DM, who has to spend extra time making sure there's something for the Monk or Fighter to do while the real characters do the real work.

It further strains credibility: why, exactly, is this group carrying this lame duck around? In some cases that might make sense, but characters that need that much protection generally ought to be NPCs. And plenty of character concepts fulfillable with Fighter don't make any sense as the one constantly having to be saved.

I should clarify, then. I don't think stronger party members are obligated to save a hopeless cause. I think if someone in your game is playing an inexcusably weak character, you should explain to them that the character is too weak to keep up. You should offer suggestions on how to improve the character, including maybe alternate classes. But ultimately, it's their decision to play whatever. If they realize that the class is too weak, and still want to play it for whatever reason, that's their prerogative. People have fun in doing all sorts of weird things.

Part of deliberately playing a weak character, though, is realizing that your party members can't always save you. You've made the decision not to contribute as much as you could be; this, to my mind, frees the other party members from the obligation to spend disproportionate resources keeping you safe. You get to play what you want, they get to play how they want. Everybody wins.

Someone who insisted on playing a weak character and on being carried through encounters? That's a selfish jerk. No disagreement there.

[Eldariel]

b: Can an uber-wizard die without magic?

It's possible to become immune to all non-magical forms of offense with magic, yes. At which point either magic items (or comparables like psionic items or such) or spells/powers/comparables are needed to harm the target. E.g. very simple regeneration + energy immunity is exceedingly difficult to affect without magic and if we do something like delay death + beastland ferocity + ghostform, I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Technically old age could kill him but there are plenty of ways around that. And hell, if we truly talk about a high level paranoid Wizard Astral Projecting from his own demiplane with all the wards up on his body and the Astral Projection, no, he could most certainly not die without Breaching Obelisks and some heavy duty dispelling or Silver Sword or such.

[Cog]

Gametime: So if somebody really wants to play an optimized Wizard/Incantatrix or a DMM Cleric next to the Fighter, Monk, and Samurai, the DM should be just as accepting of that as well?

[Gametime]

I already said a too-powerful character is much more detrimental to party-fun than a too-weak character.




Finally, I disagree that it's just as bad to play a bad character as it is to play an overpowered character. It's annoying, certainly, but overpowered characters are a pain because they invalidate other characters. One player does everything and no one else has any fun. In contrast, a weak character does very little, perhaps nothing; that means everyone else still gets to do exactly what they wanted. If the DM plans encounters such that the lack of another potent party member is deadly, then there will be a problem when one person doesn't contribute, but a group of three tier 1s can handle a lot before they need a fourth. In contrast, a group of weaklings with one powerhouse in the mix has no appropriate encounter balance. Either the powerhouse steamrolls everything and the weaklings do nothing, or the powerhouse steamrolls everything even harder and the weaklings make meaningless contributions.



So, assuming you mean a top-tier character played optimally in a party of lower-tier characters, no, I don't think that'd automatically be okay.

[Thurbane]

But far more use it as a guidline to assess how versatile each player could be. And the reverse is also true: if someone wants to play a druid in a low tier party, they will often be told about lower tier options.
YMMV, but I see the tier system trotted out a lot (most?) of the time as a warning not to play a particular class.

I should point out, I don't have a problem with the tier system per se, I just hate to see it used as a device for telling people not to even consider playing certain classes.

Thurbane, you're my favourite playgrounder ever.
Thank you kindly. :smallbiggrin:

[Darthteej]

Why do these discussions always ignite these debates? For the love of god people, just direct the OP to a few overpowered spells, tell them to search the forums for similar arguments, and get a mod on this s**t to lock the thread down before it becomes what is for all intents and purposes a flamewar.

[nyarlathotep]

YMMV, but I see the tier system trotted out a lot (most?) of the time as a warning not to play a particular class.

I should point out, I don't have a problem with the tier system per se, I just hate to see it used as a device for telling people not to even consider playing certain classes.


That's a problem with the poster not the system.

[Koury]

Why do these discussions always ignite these debates? For the love of god people, just direct the OP to a few overpowered spells, tell them to search the forums for similar arguments, and get a mod on this s**t to lock the thread down before it becomes what is for all intents and purposes a flamewar.

Why are debates bad? Who is flaming who, especially in this thread?

[Gametime]

Yeah, the worst this thread has seen is some of us getting a little defensive. For the most part, I think we've done a good job staying civil.

Internet civility cookies for everyone!

[Boci]

YMMV, but I see the tier system trotted out a lot (most?) of the time as a warning not to play a particular class.

They way I remeber it mostly working is:

OP: Hey, I want to play this (insert low tier class), any suggestions?
Posters: Do you know there s also the (insert higher tier class with similar theme)?
OP: Yes, but I don't like that one as much.
Posters: Well, I wouldn't recommend it since they are not that good at their dodge, but if your set on it then (insert optimization advice).

[Amphetryon]

They way I remeber it mostly working is:

OP: Hey, I want to play this (insert low tier class), any suggestions?
Posters: Do you know there s also the (insert higher tier class with similar theme)?
OP: Yes, but I don't like that one as much.
Posters: Well, I wouldn't recommend it since they are not that good at their dodge, but if your set on it then (insert optimization advice).
Indeed. This or:
"You can do that, but you'll have to watch out for [problem particular low-tier class has]. Here are some options [list higher-tier ways to accomplish a similar archetype]. If your heart is set on [low-tier class], here's a good way to emphasize its strengths/minimize its weaknesses [insert advice]."

[danzibr]

They way I remeber it mostly working is:

OP: Hey, I want to play this (insert low tier class), any suggestions?
Posters: Do you know there s also the (insert higher tier class with similar theme)?
OP: Yes, but I don't like that one as much.
Posters: Well, I wouldn't recommend it since they are not that good at their dodge, but if your set on it then (insert optimization advice).

Though I used a Berserker for my example I actually made a Warblade.

EDIT: Ahh yes, I recall why. Warblade is one tier higher.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I already said a too-powerful character is much more detrimental to party-fun than a too-weak character.

So, assuming you mean a top-tier character played optimally in a party of lower-tier characters, no, I don't think that'd automatically be okay.

I would actually argue against this, given certain conditions. While a maxed out Malconvokor or strict, self-only buffing cleric in a group full of monks, samurai, and otherwise "low floor," minimally optimized classes would definitely be a worse scenario than one poorly optimized character just due to comparative resources and odds that the latter example could be altered with aid by the rest of the group (and, actually, that ONE GUY in the former, too, natch), I'm heavily inclined to say that most GOD-style wizards, especially of the war weaving variety can play still play nice with an otherwise unoptimized, "standard" team composition.

While the chance exists that some members may be bothered by the fact that the wizard is giving them "most of their bonuses," I'm willing to bet, in the heat of combat, most people will rather say "Wow! Thanks!" instead. Admittedly, this comes from times where I have done just this in two separate groups, so it probably should be taken with a grain of salt.:smallsmile:

[gomipile]

Yeah, the worst this thread has seen is some of us getting a little defensive. For the most part, I think we've done a good job staying civil.

Internet civility cookies for everyone!

Wait, is that.. cinnamon and lemon? Good show sir!

[cfalcon]

The tier system is designed to measure power within the normal game framework. Your Ubercharger is on an adventure, he comes to a chasm. What does he do?

Your Ubercharger comes to a village where the people are plagued by disease. What does he do?

Your Ubercharger comes to a city, and is commissioned by the mayor to hunt down the local Slaneesh cult. What does he do?

Your Ubercharger now has to defend the city from a massive demonic invasion. What does he do?


Part of the charm of some classes (most of the martial ones) is that they *don't* have any bag of tricks. They feel much more real. Equally, the magic users feel magical because they can help in odd situations such as this.

If Conan comes to a Chasm, he might go down into it, and find adventure, or build a bridge across it. What do you think he feels about the guy who speaks to eldritch spirits and hops across- or ferries everyone across? Has that guy had to work in a real framework, or is he just flaunting the one trick he knows, magic?

If Lancelot shows up at a plagued city, he'll try to help. If he had a friendly cleric along who could cure diseases, he'd be super happy about that fact, and he would help as best he could to divide up God's healing as best as possible. But without that crutch, he would try to help those he could. He's just a man.

Just because you can't roll a great gather information check doesn't mean that one of your allies can't, or that you can't go MAKE an ally that can.

Massive demonic invasions are beyond the ability of low level anythings to stop, but at high level, he stands on the wall and helps the defenders as best he can, and is overwhelmed. Obviously, he'd really like it if someone in the background in gating in solars (would solars in your game help in this sort of situation? Maybe?). Are there actually roleplay solutions as well, though? Could he (or anyone with strong enough heart) find a way to sabotage the demons on their way in, or weaken them?

The very real fact is these classes don't have easy answers because they aren't meant to. Should a fighter be able to one shot a demonic army because a wizard could, in some situations, ask for extraplanar help? That seems preposterous. Should the rogue be able to ask for angels to come and save the day as a class feature?



When the DM starts describing a problem, how likely is it that you'll be able to contribute, and how much?

Then I would say that everyone at my table is tier 1. They all contribute!

I don't dispute that magic is more powerful- I will say that this is obviously intended, as it's magic. The game is meant to simulate reality with magic dropped in, not a bastion of twilight raid where the mages and the rogues need to deal similar levels of deeps.

[Gnaeus]

Part of the charm of some classes (most of the martial ones) is that they *don't* have any bag of tricks. They feel much more real. Equally, the magic users feel magical because they can help in odd situations such as this.

Just because you can't roll a great gather information check doesn't mean that one of your allies can't, or that you can't go MAKE an ally that can.

Massive demonic invasions are beyond the ability of low level anythings to stop, but at high level, he stands on the wall and helps the defenders as best he can, and is overwhelmed. Obviously, he'd really like it if someone in the background in gating in solars (would solars in your game help in this sort of situation? Maybe?). Are there actually roleplay solutions as well, though? Could he (or anyone with strong enough heart) find a way to sabotage the demons on their way in, or weaken them?

The very real fact is these classes don't have easy answers because they aren't meant to. Should a fighter be able to one shot a demonic army because a wizard could, in some situations, ask for extraplanar help? That seems preposterous. Should the rogue be able to ask for angels to come and save the day as a class feature?

So what I hear you saying is that it is ok in your groups for some characters to have versatility that other characters lack. Cool.

Can you accept that some players don't enjoy their characters being much less powerful and versatile than other characters in their party?

Regardless of the answer to that, does the fact that you are cool with a group of adventurers consisting of a knight, a thief, and two demigods preclude having a rating system that tells players when they choose their classes whether they can expect to be a demigod or just a guy with a sword?



I don't dispute that magic is more powerful- I will say that this is obviously intended, as it's magic. The game is meant to simulate reality with magic dropped in, not a bastion of twilight raid where the mages and the rogues need to deal similar levels of deeps.

:smallsigh:

Fine. Magic is powerful. We get that. Most of those who play 3.5 prefer that.

That doesn't mean that an individual magic user, in the manner of a Druid or Wizard in 3.5, should be better than a barbarian or rogue at everything under the sun. It isn't so much that a 20th level wizard is better than a 20th level fighter. It is that he is better than the fighter AT FIGHTING, the fighters supposed strength. He is better than the rogue at hiding, information gathering, trap detection/avoidance, and murder. And he can be better than they are at all those things and still do his wizardy thing. Honestly, all he needs to be better than those classes in their areas of specialization are a couple of daily castings of Shapechange, leaving all the rest of his spells free.

Few 3.5 players are upset about differences in DPS (if they were, they would play 4.0). Many 3.5 players are concerned with, and deal with in different ways, the wild power disparity between 3.5 classes at the same cheese levels.

[Doug Lampert]

I should clarify, then. I don't think stronger party members are obligated to save a hopeless cause. I think if someone in your game is playing an inexcusably weak character, you should explain to them that the character is too weak to keep up. You should offer suggestions on how to improve the character, including maybe alternate classes. But ultimately, it's their decision to play whatever. If they realize that the class is too weak, and still want to play it for whatever reason, that's their prerogative.

I've found when I'm playing rather than GMing that I have far and away the most fun when I can ignore the distinction that some other characters are PCs and some are NPCs. I want to treat the world as having people in it. Not as having PCs/Real People and NPCs that don't really count.

To quote a runequest GM I played under once: There is no glowing rune that says PC on your character's forehead. Try to make a character the rest of the party would want to associate with.

The point is that a REALLY weak character often violates this rule. My character may have no objection to you tagging along, but he's no more likely to pretend you're a full member of the party or give you a full loot share than is true of any random peasant child we rescue from monsters and are bringing back to his mommy.

When I play Ars Magica (deliberately and explicitely unballanced), I EXPECT that if I'm not playing a wizard then all the wizards will treat me as a second class citizen at best. I certainly don't expect the wizards to give me valuable magic stuff that they can use or sell.

Mind, the optimization gap has to be HUGE before this becomes a big deal. A somewhat inferior character is still worth a LOT more than nothing in a fight. So you can easily excuse equal shares even when one guy is substantially more useful on average than another. But ultimately most adventurers are supposedly to be engaged in life-or-death struggles against formidable foes where defeat may well spell disaster for FAR MORE than just the party.

If Joe Random NPC carrying a torch and a heavy crossbow is as useful or more useful than Jack the badly-optimized spring-attack monk. Then why do the other characters bother giving Jack a significant treasure share? Given how much adventurers drag in Joe is probably willing to work for half a share or less. He might even bring friends, especially if you're on a quest to save his town. So IMAO the minimum standard is that by mid-high level (where loot is a MAJOR part of power and is routinely expected to be substantial compared to the average person's wealth), every character should be CLEARLY superior to a comparable level NPC warrior or adept built on the non-elite array. Otherwise why are we dragging along this bozo rather than finding that warrior or adept and offering HIM a share to come on our quest?

DougL

[Gametime]

I would actually argue against this, given certain conditions. While a maxed out Malconvokor or strict, self-only buffing cleric in a group full of monks, samurai, and otherwise "low floor," minimally optimized classes would definitely be a worse scenario than one poorly optimized character just due to comparative resources and odds that the latter example could be altered with aid by the rest of the group (and, actually, that ONE GUY in the former, too, natch), I'm heavily inclined to say that most GOD-style wizards, especially of the war weaving variety can play still play nice with an otherwise unoptimized, "standard" team composition.

Fair. Not all tier 1s can fill the buffbot role, though, and the response was (if I recall correctly) specifically about whether allowing a tier 1 in a low-tier party should always be okay. Your example makes a good exception, but I'd still argue that most tier 1 classes, played optimally, aren't going to play nicely with lower tiers.



The point is that a REALLY weak character often violates this rule. My character may have no objection to you tagging along, but he's no more likely to pretend you're a full member of the party or give you a full loot share than is true of any random peasant child we rescue from monsters and are bringing back to his mommy.

I don't see the problem with that. Assuming the party has no other reason for sticking together (which obviously varies from campaign to campaign), I don't see why your character shouldn't complain about weaker party members. Intra-party conflict can make for interesting roleplaying opportunities. So long as you inform the player about it beforehand, make it clear that it isn't personal, and make sure they know this might be a consequence of deliberately playing a weak character... why not?

If you don't tell them about it out-of-character first, then that's a problem. If you tell them about it and they throw a hissy fit and demand to be coddled, that's their problem. But if everyone is making reasoned, consenting decisions about their character that might lead to some roleplayed fighting? That sounds interesting and not at all problematic to me.

[Kantolin]

Two things, then.

First of all, this is a game meant for fun. If it bothers a person to such a tremendous extent that someone is doing less than you are in a game that you are incapable of having fun anymore, then that could make that person difficult to play with in general. You really shouldn't be that fanatical about 'sorry, we ran into a golem yesterday and that showed that you're not useful in every situation... so sorry, but we can't be friends anymore'.

I mean, geez... if you have a fighter, then that saves you the effort of summoning something between you and the opponent, and maybe while you're flying around counterspelling the lich, the fighter can keep the mooks off you, possibly get in a good blow against the lich, possibly force the lich to divide his attention, or worst-case scenario: The fighter does nothing. Unless he's stealing your spellbook or something, it certainly doesn't hurt to have him along. >_>

Secondly! Back to in-game. Let's indeed say that you are in a group that would much rather boot someone from the party than give them the +3 sword of cannot-be-used-by-wizards you just got.

What constitutes 'not useful'?

I was in a game where, for five solid runs in a row, everything we fought made its save against the plethora of spells our enchanter used. He used a wall of stone, and it turned out to be useless in the given situation. He then also went unconsciosu twice.

That was about three in-game months where the wizard was extremely unuseful because, almost exclusively, of abysmal luck. He was doing the right things in most cases, nobody was immune to mind-affecting saves, and only one of the enemies had a good will save. Two couldn't pass on anything but a natural 20, and both rolled 20s (Our DM was rolling openly and using book-stats for the goblins). The wall looked like it would make it that our party was the only one that could act, the solid fog he used happened to clip someone who had freedom of movement up.

In the next run, the monk was useless because the enemy could fly and the monk couldn't, and also the enemy's damage reduction was too high for the monk to break through very fiercely.

Which of these two characters would you boot from your party, from a strictly in-game perspective? As far as your characters are concerned, monks are awesome unless the enemy can fly, and the monk then got a dowiddly of flight which would logically fix that problem. Wizards, by comparison, tend to have a lot of nothing happen.

In that same group was a sword-and-board psychic warrior who routinely crit everything with his longsword, and was easily the star of the show by butchering everything, again mostly due to luck. There also was a shadowcaster, whos mysteries almost always seemed to work out excellently for the party (Of course, then he'd run out, but he was freaking awesome before that point).

In-character, at that instant, it'd seem like the psychic warrior and shadowcaster were muuuuch more useful than the wizard. Your characters cannot see 'These enemies had a 5% chance of not being dominated' vs 'These enemies had a 40% chance of making their saves against voice of command'. All your characters can see is 'The wizard hardly ever does anything'.

You can't even look at established characters for this, as that depends purely on the campaign setting. In an old setting of mine, the four previous heroes that defeated a similar evil and saved the world were a shadowcaster, binder, incarnate, and psychic warrior. Summarily, in-game, wizards were kinda looked down upon at being not-shadowcasters. And if your in-game characters had insisted that your wizard was more powerful than a shadowcaster, the multitude of high level shadowcasters could come easily show your level 4 wizard and his 2nd level spells a thing or two with their 9th level mysteries. In that setting, if you said a wizard was stronger than a shadowcaster, you're an idiot.

And that's even presuming that someone's class is listed above their head or something. What if the Fighter 5 is told he's quite useless and would be better as a wizard, takes this to heart, and by level 10 becomes a Fighter 5 / Wizard 5? Is that the solution?

The tier-system isn't an in-character way of judging class strength. >_> And personally, if someone said 'Bob isn't as effective as my character, so I want Bob out of the party', I'd be quite unhappy.

Edit:

If Joe Random NPC carrying a torch and a heavy crossbow is as useful or more useful than Jack the badly-optimized spring-attack monk. Then why do the other characters bother giving Jack a significant treasure share?

More useful... over how long a period of time?

What if the spring attacking monk was exceptionally well optimized and could do upwards of a thousand damage a round in a team where the wizard was throwing around unoptimized fireballs... but he kept on rolling 1s when he was attacking and thus was hyper unlucky?

What if all you were fighting was Rahaskas, and all of a sudden Joe's blessed crossbow bolts were ripping through them left and right while nobody else could do anything?

What if the party's optimized wizard could not hit with his orbs (kept rolling natural 1s)? Or what if a sizeable amount of people had [element] immunity, so the wizard kept wasting a large amount of turns on trying to guess along with an anguished, "Whaaa?! He's immune to force?!", and thus spent a couple runs in a row doing absolutely nothing?

What if the only reason the king wants to talk to the party is because he likes the fighter?

Like... maybe over the course of an entire campaign, if the lousy monk is less useful then sure, but by then you probably aren't meeting very many level 20 people to walk around with, and a lousy level 20 monk as a 'free summon' isn't that bad.

[Aquillion]

For the most part, the tier list isn't even about how classes compare to each other -- that's incidental. What it's really about is how they relate to the story. This is most obvious in the divide between Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes, which is largely a matter of Tier 1 classes being prepared casters who can get the right spell for a situation after 8 hours rest.

Will you always have a chance to do that? No. Will it always make you better than the Sorcerer? No.

But it means that the wizard is, in most situations, much more likely to be able to say 'all right, gimme a bit and I can resolve this with a wave of my hand' than a Sorcerer is. Wizards can change the game in more ways.

And both tier 1 and 2 casters can massively upset the game in general.

Let's say you have this big plot set up where the players are supposed to cross the chasm of despair, go through the orc-infested labyrinth of eternal demise, climb the endless tower and rescue the princess.

Tier 1 and 2 classes cast Teleport, grab the princess, and teleport home.

Tier 3 classes find the hidden passage under the chasm, track the evil wizard through the labyrinth while fighting the orcs, climb the outside of the tower and rescue the princess. Maybe they find an unexpected shortcut that lets them bypass the maze, or something, but overall, they follow the story.

Tier 4 and 5 classes tend to have trouble with things you'd expect them to be able to handle. They can't find a way across the chasm, or they can fight the orcs but can't find their way through the labyrinth, or when they get to the tower they just can't find a way to the top -- they eventually hit a barrier and just can't get past it.

Mixing tiers in a groups is all right if the differences are small -- generally, two tiers difference is all right. But if you put a Tier 1 and a Tier 5 in the same party, it's going to feel like the Tier 1 guy is doing everything -- like the story revolves around them. Even if everyone is involved in decisions, it'll be "all right, what's the best way to use the wizard's spells?", most of the time.

But the real point of tiers isn't about class X beating class Y -- it's about how if you put a Tier 1 class in a story intended for Tier 3s, you're going to find things not going the way you expected.

This isn't bad, necessarily. But if you adjust your game constantly to the tier 1-2s and let them change the direction of your story like that, you're going to end up with a game that's pretty much about them, which can leave the other guys feeling odd.

This video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw) sums the problem up nicely.

(A really good DM and a group that doesn't mind the issues involved -- or who is really aware of it and takes steps to avoid problems -- can avoid this, of course. But the tier list is there to highlight the potential for problems.)

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Fair. Not all tier 1s can fill the buffbot role, though, and the response was (if I recall correctly) specifically about whether allowing a tier 1 in a low-tier party should always be okay0. Your example makes a good exception, but I'd still argue that most tier 1 classes, played optimally, aren't going to play nicely with lower tiers.

Fair enough. I did not notice that the bold portion above was in relation to something previously mentioned, which is to say, I didn't read that message, so my comments given in the broader general sense that it is certainly possible for one higher tiered person to play with a bunch of unoptimized, lower tier people.:smallredface:

[Veklim]

........astounded by the posibility I'm the first person here to say this but........

Tier 1-2 classes, more than any other, have 1 thing in common. It is almost exclusively beneficial to stay mono-class and fly into prestiges for direction with them. The very thought of using *shudder* a lower tier class to improve performance is hideous :smalltongue:
Tier 3 onwards have an interesting set of choices. For one, they make it easier to do a magic dip without being tempted away by the promise of huge power (insert every 3rd post involving "Tier Wars"), but they also allow a player to get to unusual places and mix lower tier tactics. With most settings, you can obtain over time a small array of equipment to help with their abilities, but they can cover a broad base proficiently from early levels. A rogue with an eye on getting into duelist might well consider a fighter dip for base attack, especially if they're already using feats elsewhere.

Single class or multi class is really just high tier or low tiers.

But that's just my opinion.

[Greenish]

Tier 1-2 classes, more than any other, have 1 thing in common. It is almost exclusively beneficial to stay mono-class and fly into prestiges for direction with them. The very thought of using *shudder* a lower tier class to improve performance is hideous :smalltongue:That's not really about tiers. The beguiler at tier 3, the warmage at tier 4 or the healer at tier 5 don't want to lose casting levels any more than the wizard or the archivist, while the ardent (tier 2) can afford to dip into other base classes due to it's unique advancement mechanics.

[LordBlades]

Stuff


IMHO, the issue isn't always that the wizard 'is better as solving encounters than the fighter'. For the average player (non-optimizer), it doesn't really matter that the wizard's debuffs making the monster blinded/stunned/-50 to attack and AC made it possible to defeat the monster. As long as he's the most awesome sword swinger in the party, is usually enough.

The issues start to appear when you're bringing two widely different Tier classes that fulfill the same role. Such as bringing a DMM Persist Cleric or a Druid in the same party with a fighter. They're vastly better than him at what he does best(being a fighter).

[Thrice Dead Cat]

*snip*


*snip*

Honestly, this seems like the new monk thread. It's a problem that doesn't warrant being sticky-ed because it's too infrequent, but it's frequent enough that there is noticeable communication to how "the other half" lives.:smallbiggrin: I mean, for a time, monk threads were a thread a week. You could set your calender by them, I swear!:smallwink:

However, yeah, there are a lot of people who play 3.X as beer and pretzels - as something fun to do among friends - and there is nothing wrong with that. Then there are others that play this as "Okay, we have a system, how can I mess with X to get Y?" where both X and Y are anything and everything. Because of the internet and arguably 3.X's releases (up to and including more "home" homebrews like Fax's "d20r" and Doc Roc and Co's "Legend," compared to, say, the more commonly known Pathfinder), there is a potentially a larger concentration of the latter group on forums. Such is pure speculation, as I've not actively looked into these boards' very much alive roleplaying section nor do I feel such would actually be valid, no matter the results.

[Greenish]

Honestly, this seems like the new monk thread. It's a problem that doesn't warrant being sticky-ed because it's too infrequent, but it's frequent enough that there is noticeable communication to how "the other half" lives.:smallbiggrin: I mean, for a time, monk threads were a thread a week. You could set your calender by them, I swear!:smallwink:

However, yeah, there are a lot of people who play 3.X as beer and pretzels - as something fun to do among friends - and there is nothing wrong with that. Then there are others that play this as "Okay, we have a system, how can I mess with X to get Y?" where both X and Y are anything and everything. Because of the internet and arguably 3.X's releases (up to and including more "home" homebrews like Fax's "d20r" and Doc Roc and Co's "Legend," compared to, say, the more commonly known Pathfinder), there is a potentially a larger concentration of the latter group on forums. Such is pure speculation, as I've not actively looked into these boards' very much alive roleplaying section nor do I feel such would actually be valid, no matter the results.Again I'm at loss as to why you chose to quote me in a post that has nothing to do with what I said. :smallconfused:

[Thrice Dead Cat]

Again I'm at loss as to why you chose to quote me in a post that has nothing to do with what I said. :smallconfused:

Honestly, at this hour, I'm just bad with quotes. I somehow quoted you, assuming it was one of the relevant posts. Apologies, but the editing process is usually done in the actual edit button and I just forgot that one.:smalltongue: