PDA

View Full Version : PSA: "The Wizard can do worse" is not a valid defense



Hyooz
2011-05-31, 01:55 PM
As this is a public service announcement, it is obviously directed at no one in particular.

There is an endemic, of sorts, going around wherein homebrewers defend particularly powerful abilities through the handwave of "The wizard has more powerful options" or some variant thereof. This is something we all need to be inoculated against.

Using the highest-level abuses of the Wizard's power as the baseline for power comparisons is counterproductive at best, and lazy at worst.

Yes, compared to, say, the Locate City Nuke, your class's at-will-no-save nauseate ability or 2d4 Con drain per hit might seem pretty tame. If you want this compared to those kinds of abuses, however, your class is woefully underpowered and can hardly contribute to encounters, despite the OP power.

A lot of people, unless told otherwise, will PEACH a creation against a Tier 3 level of power. Many consider this the ideal level of power, and thus is where they will default. If you have a particular power level in mind when you create a class, it helps everyone to specify that early in the process. PEACHes can be more focused and power concerns will be tuned to getting your class where you want it.

Until then, please do not cop out of improving your work with hand wave-y appeals to the almighty power of the Wizard. We want to see your work be the best it can be.

People who PEACH aren't out to destroy you or your work. We're here to help.

Mulletmanalive
2011-05-31, 02:07 PM
While i agree [stupid defence, though i personally rather like Tier 4], i can't help but laugh at how appropriate your avatar is to the tone of the post.

Hair pulling frustration...

Hyooz
2011-05-31, 03:03 PM
T-Rex is appropriate to many situations, indeed.

Seerow
2011-05-31, 03:18 PM
I tend to agree, a lot of people seem to misunderstand things like the tier system, and decide to make really strong abilities for their classes, and say "It's okay I'm aiming for a tier 2". The strongest recent example of this is this class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201136), where the OP wanted to make a tier 2 class, and his answer to that was a ton of bonuses and auto success on things, with a failure to include the options that typically make a tier 1-2 tier 1-2.

I'm not trying to pick on that poster, it's a pretty common failure on the part of homebrewers, especially those trying to make martially themed base classes, it was just a pretty recent and obvious example of that problem.

I think the biggest problem is that the assumptions of the game have always been melee = damage, while debuffing, mobility, utility, buffing, etc, is the realm of magic, oh and damage too. So when people think what to give to a melee class, they have trouble conceiving of options that aren't damage related.

NeoSeraphi
2011-05-31, 03:26 PM
I tend to agree, a lot of people seem to misunderstand things like the tier system, and decide to make really strong abilities for their classes, and say "It's okay I'm aiming for a tier 2". The strongest recent example of this is this class (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=201136), where the OP wanted to make a tier 2 class, and his answer to that was a ton of bonuses and auto success on things, with a failure to include the options that typically make a tier 1-2 tier 1-2.

I'm not trying to pick on that poster, it's a pretty common failure on the part of homebrewers, especially those trying to make martially themed base classes, it was just a pretty recent and obvious example of that problem.

I think the biggest problem is that the assumptions of the game have always been melee = damage, while debuffing, mobility, utility, buffing, etc, is the realm of magic, oh and damage too. So when people think what to give to a melee class, they have trouble conceiving of options that aren't damage related.

Yes, it was an unfortunate mistake on my part to try and solve my problems by giving the class attack options instead of utility options. The OP is right, Tier 3 is easier to PEACH and where non-casting classes belong and are comfortable.

For my two cents on the thread, I haven't really seen any posters who have been deflecting advice, but I guess I'm reading the wrong threads then. I do agree that if that did happen it would be ridiculous and defeat the point of the entire thread. If you're going to ask for PEACH, you should consider every poster's critiques carefully, not just dismiss them.

Jota
2011-05-31, 08:02 PM
your class's 20d6 at will no save damage ability

While I agree with your general assessment, I find this example contrary to your argument. Though perhaps more context is necessary, 20d6 at will no save averages to 70 damage. Now, I would normally expect someone to have access to this kind of damage on a 2d6 per level effect or a 1d6 per level effect, so at level 10 or at level 20. I can't seriously assume you would question such an ability at level 20, but even at level 10 the issue of this damage is not its magnitude (the pouncing barbarian and the dual-wielding rogue generally prove that by their placement in the fourth tier), but its no fail nature and range (if any).

So while 70 DPR is hardly concerning, the automatic nature of this damage might be of questionable balance at tier three, given it will two shot (give or take) most CR 10 monsters (quick glance at the SRD gives us coatl 58, clay golem 90, fire giant 142, cerebrilith 103, bebilith 150).

To expound on that, against some of these monsters, this damage is inappropriate, as they have no abilities of similar power (forget damage, let us simply speak in the terms of a two round kill). The fire giant doesn't unless he's in close proximity against someone relatively squishy, and the clay golem is also a bit lacking in the offensive department despite a slew of defensive abilities.

Against the others, however, namely the other three, this damage keeps pace with save or game over abilities (plane shift, psionic dominate, and web, respectively). The saves of the first two aforementioned abilities are DC 20, which measured against the Tome of Battle trio, typically lauded for their well-established place in tier three, stands as follows:


Warblade 10 (+6; +3 base, +3 cloak of resistance)
Crusader 10 (+10; +3 base, +2 Wis, +2 Cha, +3 cloak of resistance)
Swordsage 10 (+14; +7 base, +4 Wis, +3 cloak of resistance)

The warblade, at least, should have Moment of Perfect Mind, but that still makes these abilities very much likely to 2HKO. This makes this monsters more or less equivalent in power to their tier three opponents, which is appropriate given the definition of CR.

I wouldn't say such a battle would solely come down to winning initiative (a general hallmark of what wizard-ish characters are often associated with), but in these cases given, a 20d6 at will ability makes a character competitive (more or less the definition of tier three), rather than overpowered.

Hyooz
2011-05-31, 08:15 PM
I wouldn't say such a battle would solely come down to winning initiative (a general hallmark of what wizard-ish characters are often associated with), but in these cases given, a 20d6 at will ability makes a character competitive (more or less the definition of tier three), rather than overpowered.

I don't recall putting PEACH in the subject line :smalltongue:

I really should be more careful with my examples when I'm whining about something. Ah well, it got pointed out, time to come up with something REALLY egregious but not quite hyper wizard cheating.

Jota
2011-05-31, 08:33 PM
I don't recall putting PEACH in the subject line :smalltongue:

I really should be more careful with my examples when I'm whining about something. Ah well, it got pointed out, time to come up with something REALLY egregious but not quite hyper wizard cheating.

When you least expect them... swordsage peaches.

I only really felt obligated to say something because those kinds of abilities are incredibly common, an easy default in cases where you aren't doing something more interesting, and though generally boring, are typically balanced, especially when they're just damage and not save or nauseated or some such.

Veyr
2011-05-31, 08:40 PM
I don't agree that there is a "standard" balance point. Yes, many people prefer Tier 3 +/- 1, but that's not universal. Before jumping on someone regarding balance, it might be wise to ask. I definitely disagree with your claim that anyone who wants to use a different balance point needs to pro-actively put a disclaimer to that effect on the class — either everyone does (not a bad idea), or no one should be expected to. There is no "default" balance point, contrary to your claims.

And if someone does choose Tier 1 or Tier 2 as a balance point, then "the Wizard can do worse" becomes a very valid defense, I would think.

Hyooz
2011-05-31, 11:09 PM
I don't agree that there is a "standard" balance point. Yes, many people prefer Tier 3 +/- 1, but that's not universal. Before jumping on someone regarding balance, it might be wise to ask. I definitely disagree with your claim that anyone who wants to use a different balance point needs to pro-actively put a disclaimer to that effect on the class — either everyone does (not a bad idea), or no one should be expected to. There is no "default" balance point, contrary to your claims.

And if someone does choose Tier 1 or Tier 2 as a balance point, then "the Wizard can do worse" becomes a very valid defense, I would think.

It's like you read what I wrote and then wrote it down again.

I never said there's a "standard." I said most people will default to tier 2-4 for balance determinations. Thus, when no alternate standard is provided, PEACHers will use their own, which as you agree is tier 3ish. Thus, it makes sense to mention if you're shooting for a different balance point. I'm not sure I understand why PEACHers should have the burden of asking the creator to specify - it gets to the exact same place, just with some unnecessary time and posts thrown in.

And no, even if you are shooting for Tier 1 or 2, the most egregious of the Wizard's abuses should still not be used to argue balance. It's counterproductive. Everything is simultaneously balanced and woefully underpowered because, while at least they're not Pun-Pun, they're nowhere near as powerful as Pun-Pun.

(Disclaimer: I know Pun-Pun isn't a Wizard Abuse™.)

Zaydos
2011-05-31, 11:13 PM
Also a fair number of the Wizard can do worse defenses aren't actually wizard it's Incanatrix; and sometimes uses enough spells they'd have to be a focused specialist too.

Veyr
2011-05-31, 11:29 PM
It's like you read what I wrote and then wrote it down again.
Uhm, no? Not even a little bit.

I was responding specifically to this:

Most people, unless told otherwise, will PEACH a creation against a Tier 3 level of power. This is considered the ideal level of power, and where most people, even unfamiliar with the tier system, will default. It makes sense. If you're shooting for a different level, you should provide the power level you want your stuff compared against, and people will work from there.This is false. It is incorrect. You are making an unverifiable assertion and putting forth an unreasonable prejudice that homebrew that isn't aiming for Tier 3 needs to declare itself as such while Tier 3 work does not, because that is somehow the "expected" or "default" balance point, which simply isn't true.

Seerow
2011-05-31, 11:47 PM
Uhm, no? Not even a little bit.

I was responding specifically to this:
This is false. It is incorrect. You are making an unverifiable assertion and putting forth an unreasonable prejudice that homebrew that isn't aiming for Tier 3 needs to declare itself as such while Tier 3 work does not, because that is somehow the "expected" or "default" balance point, which simply isn't true.

On the other hand, tier 1/2 balance point is typically either really easy to do, or impossible to do. Both of those tiers require full 9th level spell casting, with a broad unfocused spell list. This means it's either pretty simple to do (take a wizard/sorc/cleric/druid chasis, and modify from there, leaving casting mostly in tact and giving class features) or way more work in terms of new abilities than 99% of homebrewers are willing to put in. ie a tier 1/2 Martial character, or even a magical character using a new resource system, would require writing up hundreds of unique abilities similar in power and versatility to spells, in order to bring the class past the tier 3 barrier and into the world shattering versatility territory of a tier 1/2 character.

So as a general rule of thumb, I don't think that assuming a tier 3/4 level of balance on non-caster characters is bad unless otherwise stated. If the assumption is wrong, the only person who's time is wasted is the person who critiqued it assuming the wrong power level, as the creator will make a post clarifying if the class was intended to be stronger or weaker than that. If the person posts saying "No that ability was meant to be strong, I wanted this to be on par with a wizard" we can then reexamine from that angle.

Veyr
2011-05-31, 11:49 PM
I simply considering this entire "PSA" to be extremely presumptive.

Hyooz
2011-06-01, 12:22 AM
I simply considering this entire "PSA" to be extremely presumptive.

Presumptive of... what, exactly?

You said it yourself that most people default to tier 3 when they're doing PEACHes. Unless the balance point is specified, people are going to default to what they consider idea, which again, by your admission, for most people is tier 3. Heck, I'm all for everyone providing the power level they're shooting for with their work. It makes sure everyone starts on the same page, and expedites the PEACH process, which if you're here asking for PEACHes, it helps to make that as easy as possible for the people taking their own time to help your work improve. So, if you're point of contention is that tier 1/2 people shouldn't be singled out, feel free to advocate for everyone specifying their intended balance point.

You're taking issue with a remarkably small part of the overall point purpose of this. Even if you are shooting for tier 1 power, using the worst abuses of the wizard's power as a baseline is counterproductive. Everything becomes simultaneously balanced in comparison and underpowered.

Dryad
2011-06-01, 01:13 AM
Okay; let's put it differently:
Mass destruction isn't fun. It's rather boring. Holding an apocalypse button makes you broken because it simply takes the game away.
The wizard has a few high level options that do just that, and it's simply not fun. Okay; I gather some people really love to be gods in the game world, but I think it's boring on the basis that if there is no danger, if there is no challenge, why not teleport to the boss, push the button, go home and have a cup of tea? And where exactly is the game-portion in that?

And this is why people shouldn't balance classes against completely broken abusable high-level spells.

(To be honest, I'm pondering on a homebrew 'wizard' fix (an Arcanist class) that's more potent on low levels, but lacks the bizarre boom at end levels, making it an overall more rounded class. Still tier 1-2 because of the vast variety in options, but no longer an end-level god-mode. Here's to hoping it will work out, but I'm still working on the basics, and I'm planning on editing loads of spells.)

Also: An attack that deals 20d6 damage might not be broken (though auto-hit no-save at-will seems boring, to me) but being able to hit that hard for each attack you make (dual-wielding plus BaB equals six to seven attacks) is a different breed of bunny. Just to put that in perspective, as well.

Veyr
2011-06-01, 08:37 AM
You said it yourself that most people default to tier 3 when they're doing PEACHes.
I said no such thing; I said "many". There is a difference. I do not know what "most" people think is appropriate. I'll wager that you don't either.


Unless the balance point is specified, people are going to default to what they consider idea
Also presumptive. Maybe they should ask.


So, if you're point of contention is that tier 1/2 people shouldn't be singled out, feel free to advocate for everyone specifying their intended balance point.
No, how about you do that? You're the one with the gall to speak for everyone with your little PSA.


You're taking issue with a remarkably small part of the overall point purpose of this.
By word count, it's the longest paragraph of your post.

Dryad
2011-06-01, 08:46 AM
Hey, now! No call for hostility; someone presents an opinion, and you are free to disagree.
Semantics are semantics, and when people default to the difference between 'most' and 'many,' that is to me a sign that they themselves are a minority who think the 'many' are wrong, but won't or can't present a good argument. Honestly; tackling someone on something as small as that is impolite and close to attacking their argument through off-topic banter.

So: PSA was presented. Disagree? Please present your counter-arguments.
And no; 'No you!' is not an argument. 'You're presumptious!' is not an argument either, and neither is any remark considering other people's mothers.:smallwink:

Veyr
2011-06-01, 08:52 AM
I don't, actually, disagree with Tier 3 as a balance-point; I prefer it myself.

I just want to know who Hyooz thinks he is, speaking for everyone and dictating the "rules" here.

Dryad
2011-06-01, 08:58 AM
I think you're reading too much into it, taking for offensive which was not meant to be so.
Relax. :smallcool:

Veyr
2011-06-01, 09:55 AM
Oh, I have absolutely no doubt that it was not intended to be insulting. He didn't think about how this might be perceived by someone who doesn't share his view point. Not considering the effects of your actions is known as being inconsiderate, and that's a negative adjective for a reason. It's just rude, and, as I said, presumptive.

He comes across as someone who assumed something was intended for Tier 3, critiqued it with that assumption in mind, and then is now annoyed that he wasted his time because it wasn't intended as Tier 3. He seems to think that everyone ought to specifically warn him when they disagree with him, and there's more than a bit of implication that people who disagree with him are simply wrong.

If critiquing something and its power level seems wildly off from your personal preference for balance, the appropriate thing to do would be to ask first, not throw a tantrum after you've wasted your time. Either ask first, or accept that sometimes your time will be wasted when you assume.

This whole thing really strongly suggests why they say what they say about assuming.

Kyrinthic
2011-06-01, 10:52 AM
To be fair, any suggestions that will make people giving feedback less likely to become frustrated and stop giving said feedback is at least worth listening to.

Perhaps the right end to the post is not 'assume T3' but rather Try to point out your assumed balancing level when you put something up for PEACHing. But if the post helps Hyooz not get frustrated when leaving feedback, there is nothing wrong with that.

IE, dont complain that his post is rude etc. You did this pretty well on your first reply, with maybe a hint of derision. He replied and rebutted your argument, your following reply became more negative, and less helpful to the thread as a whole. Take the anger down a notch and continue the first part of discussion and less focus on who is being presumptive and whatnot.

The amusing part is that your thoughts appear to an outsider to be much more similar than different

TheLonelyScribe
2011-06-01, 11:00 AM
Veyr, you are being a giant squid of anger. It might be best to stop being a giant squid of anger. The actual point of the poster's idea is to say that wizard abuses were not designed into the game and are a construction of players, and so cannot be used as balance. I know you wanted to shift on to another paragraph because it had a 'higher word count', but language does not always reflect ideas that accurately; if it did, 'antidisestablishmentarianism' would be a far more complex and subjective idea than 'evil'.

Veyr
2011-06-01, 11:07 AM
To be fair, any suggestions that will make people giving feedback less likely to become frustrated and stop giving said feedback is at least worth listening to.
That assumes that Hyooz speaks for all critiquers, and that is exactly the notion I'm taking issue with.


Perhaps the right end to the post is not 'assume T3' but rather Try to point out your assumed balancing level when you put something up for PEACHing.
Not a bad idea; if that had been what was suggested I would support it.


But if the post helps Hyooz not get frustrated when leaving feedback, there is nothing wrong with that.
There is because he didn't say "it annoys me", he said "it annoys us." He can very well speak for himself, thanks.


IE, dont complain that his post is rude etc. You did this pretty well on your first reply, with maybe a hint of derision. He replied and rebutted your argument, your following reply became more negative, and less helpful to the thread as a whole. Take the anger down a notch and continue the first part of discussion and less focus on who is being presumptive and whatnot.
But it is rude, and it does anger me. And "less helpful to the thread as a whole"? My entire point is that this thread should not exist. Hyooz is not entitled to make statements for the entire forum like that.

There are numerous similar concepts that would have worked fine. It is the specific way and wording that Hyooz chose to use that I take issue with.


The amusing part is that your thoughts appear to an outsider to be much more similar than different
I don't see how that would be the case.


Veyr, you are being a giant squid of anger. It might be best to stop being a giant squid of anger.
What is this I don't even

I assume that's a reference to something, but I don't know what.


The actual point of the poster's idea is to say that wizard abuses were not designed into the game and are a construction of players, and so cannot be used as balance.
In order, probably true, false, and false. People can and have used Tier-1-wizard as a balance point: Frank & K's work is of debatable quality, but it certainly is a lot of material aimed at that balance point, for example.


I know you wanted to shift on to another paragraph because it had a 'higher word count', but language does not always reflect ideas that accurately; if it did, 'antidisestablishmentarianism' would be a far more complex and subjective idea than 'evil'.
That paragraph is the only reason I commented in the first place, though it's not the only problem. It's the part that is particularly rude, however, and as noted, it is not a "remarkably small part" of his post. If he didn't intend it to be important, he probably should have just left it out.


Here's my point: it would be good if everyone posted the balance-point they were aiming at when they posted something, and failing that, any critiquers should clarify on that before critiquing (that, or note what they are assuming and accept the fact that they may be wasting their time).

However, Hyooz's assertion that Tier 3 is the default and anyone who uses a different balance-point has to specially mark that (while those who use Tier 3 do not) is wrong. Hyooz's opinion that Tier 1 is an invalid balance-point is equally wrong. Both of these are cases of Hyooz quite rudely trying to enforce his own opinions on others, and that I take issue with.

He is not saying "Everyone should mark the balance-point they aimed at", he is saying "Everyone who disagrees with me needs to mark the balance-point they aimed at." The former statement would be a neutral suggestion. The latter is preferential towards his own opinion, biased, unfair, and presumptive.

JoshuaZ
2011-06-01, 11:42 AM
There's another reason to homebrew for Tier 3/4 which is worth discussing: If one presents a Tier 1/2 class to a DM they are much less likely to allow it in a campaign than if it is T3 or lower. To uses the most obvious non-core T1, if the archivist were homebrewed rather than in an official book, I suspect that many DMs would look at that and just say no. So if you want to make things that other people can actually use in their games, it is a good idea to aim for T3.

Kyrinthic
2011-06-01, 12:04 PM
Here's my point: it would be good if everyone posted the balance-point they were aiming at when they posted something, and failing that, any critiquers should clarify on that before critiquing (that, or note what they are assuming and accept the fact that they may be wasting their time).

However, Hyooz's assertion that Tier 3 is the default and anyone who uses a different balance-point has to specially mark that (while those who use Tier 3 do not) is wrong. Hyooz's opinion that Tier 1 is an invalid balance-point is equally wrong. Both of these are cases of Hyooz quite rudely trying to enforce his own opinions on others, and that I take issue with.

He is not saying "Everyone should mark the balance-point they aimed at", he is saying "Everyone who disagrees with me needs to mark the balance-point they aimed at." The former statement would be a neutral suggestion. The latter is preferential towards his own opinion, biased, unfair, and presumptive.

I am not trying to say that he speaks for all critiquers, but he speaks for at least one, and really, every person giving useful critiques is important. I even think its a fair statement that T3 is the most common balance point, but it is at the very least a common balance point.

Given that fact, I think its not exactly a bad suggestion to say people should state what tier they are balancing towards, and if they do not, T3 is as good a place as any to look at as a default. You do not have to, but I expect Hyooz, and probably other posters do. I do not think Hyooz would have a problem with people stating they are balancing for T3, only that it can be frustrating when putting work in to look over a class, which is no small effort on more complex classes, only to find that its being weighted differently and said work is wasted. Preventing this frustration could theoretically lead to more feedback, which is always a good thing.

I think from what I have read of your responses, that you agree to almost all of that except the bit where T3 is going to be assumed if nothing is stated. In that case what Tier would you assume, or are you asking that people would need to wait till the author puts down a tier, and potentially lose out on feedback from people uninterested in guessing?

In general I feel that the homebrewer should always be the one doing the most work as it is his project, the feedback is a voluntary thing, and therefore the onus should be on the author to provide the information, not the review to demand it.

All that aside, the problem I noted is that you were taking what amounts to a relatively small difference of opinion, and being quite virulent in decrying it.

To quote you 'this thread should not exist'. This is an open forum, if you do not agree with a thread, state reasons you disagree, or dont read / follow the thread. But insulting the person who started the thread will garner you little support.

I do not see it as Hyooz making a statement for the entire forum, but rather a statement he believes can help the entire forum.

Ziegander
2011-06-01, 12:09 PM
There's another reason to homebrew for Tier 3/4 which is worth discussing: If one presents a Tier 1/2 class to a DM they are much less likely to allow it in a campaign than if it is T3 or lower. To uses the most obvious non-core T1, if the archivist were homebrewed rather than in an official book, I suspect that many DMs would look at that and just say no. So if you want to make things that other people can actually use in their games, it is a good idea to aim for T3.

Unfortunately, in my years of experience designing Tier 3 classes, I have never found this to be the case. In my experience, presenting a Tier 1 or 2 caster to a DM is FAR more likely to meet with approval than presenting ANY Tier 3 non-caster class. It has been my experience that, when a non-caster pulls off a fancy immediate action or deals level-appropriate damage, the average DM sees that as overpowered or even broken.

Hyooz
2011-06-01, 12:13 PM
...

Let me get this straight, Veyr.

The sole point of contention for you here, is that I worded things in such a way that, to you, sounded like I was being rude and taking a position of authority over people?

Chill pills, man. You need some. You are getting way too up at arms at a perceived slight from a potential reading of the way a particular paragraph was worded.


However, Hyooz's assertion that Tier 3 is the default and anyone who uses a different balance-point has to specially mark that (while those who use Tier 3 do not) is wrong. Hyooz's opinion that Tier 1 is an invalid balance-point is equally wrong. Both of these are cases of Hyooz quite rudely trying to enforce his own opinions on others, and that I take issue with.


My assertion is that most/many (choose your favorite word) people assume a Tier 3 level of power when they begin PEACHing a class. Some people might make different assumptions, based on the composition of the class (full casting is typically a good indicator of shooting for a 1/2 level of power), but whatever many/most people will assume, indicating the intended level of power helps everyone.

I guess we could ask in the first post of every thread with a piece of homebrew in it, but that's a nonsensical shifting of burdens that gets everyone to the exact same place in a longer period of time with more room for error than the OP just specifying from the beginning. It only makes sense to point out what you're shooting for, especially if you're shooting for something that many/most people won't assume right off the bat.

And finally, yes, this tier indication thing is a remarkably small point to my overall post. Maybe it's the biggest paragraph, by a small amount, but that's because it's an aside to the whole post (which, by word count, outweighs the one paragraph) which is primarily focused on asking people not to use the wizard's abuses to justify the power of individual class abilities that are stupid powerful.

Veyr
2011-06-01, 12:29 PM
...

Let me get this straight, Veyr.

The sole point of contention for you here, is that I worded things in such a way that, to you, sounded like I was being rude and taking a position of authority over people?

Chill pills, man. You need some. You are getting way too up at arms at a perceived slight from a potential reading of the way a particular paragraph was worded.
It was your words that stated what I took objection to. If you don't want to be objected to, you should word your statements more carefully. Again, I don't suspect you were intending to insult anyone, but unintentionally saying something rude is still rude. Like I said, they have a word for that: "inconsiderate".

Being inconsiderate is a massive pet-peeve of mine. You were writing a new thread, you had plenty of time to consider your words, but did not. That, to me, is rude.


My assertion is that most/many (choose your favorite word) people assume a Tier 3 level of power when they begin PEACHing a class. Some people might make different assumptions, based on the composition of the class (full casting is typically a good indicator of shooting for a 1/2 level of power), but whatever many/most people will assume, indicating the intended level of power helps everyone.
A. You have no proof of this claim.

B. Even if true, it is not a good thing. Assumptions are bad, mmkay? Either ask first, or accept that you might be wasting your time by assuming wrong. Or ask that everyone post their desired balance point. Choosing an arbitrary point as the "default" because it is your personal preference is presumptive, and you do not have the authority to make such a statement.


I guess we could ask in the first post of every thread with a piece of homebrew in it, but that's a nonsensical shifting of burdens that gets everyone to the exact same place in a longer period of time with more room for error than the OP just specifying from the beginning. It only makes sense to point out what you're shooting for, especially if you're shooting for something that many/most people won't assume right off the bat.
"Op specifying from the beginning" = well and good.

"Op specifying from the beginning when they disagree with Hyooz" = biased and presumptive.


And finally, yes, this tier indication thing is a remarkably small point to my overall post. Maybe it's the biggest paragraph, by a small amount, but that's because it's an aside to the whole post (which, by word count, outweighs the one paragraph) which is primarily focused on asking people not to use the wizard's abuses to justify the power of individual class abilities that are stupid powerful.
Maybe they were going for stupid powerful. At any rate, it's not just that paragraph, it's also the title of the thread. If it wasn't intended to be important... why did you name it that?

Hyooz
2011-06-01, 12:43 PM
Maybe they were going for stupid powerful. At any rate, it's not just that paragraph, it's also the title of the thread. If it wasn't intended to be important... why did you name it that?


Yes... the title of this thread referring to individual class abilities. The focus of 90% of my post. The tier specification thing is an afterthought, an aside, to the whole of the post. You are taking a huge amount of offense to a paragraph that, by your own admission is, at worst, accidentally inconsiderate.

But, hey, I'll go ahead and change some of the wording there. See if we can't avoid this kind of disproportionate response in the future.

Epsilon Rose
2011-06-01, 01:53 PM
I would like to raise an issue with this psa.

Saying "a wizard can do worse" and referencing some abuse is a waste of time. Just like saying "a warblade can do worse" and bringing up some infinite damage loop is a waste of time. This is because you're talking about abuses a player can perform not the intended function of a class. While that discussion might have some merit in corner cases where you've excepted that the class will be broken with enough outside material and the proper "players" and want to see if it'll be more or less broken then the official classes I don't think that's what the phase should always (or even usually) refer to.
I would like to assume that when most people use that phrase they're talking about the stuff a wizard is supposed to be able to do (which is still quite a bit and rather powerful) just like when they use it with any other class.

As such I think it's a bit disingenuous to say "'The Wizard can do worse' is not a valid defense". Instead a better statement might be "Known abuses that core classes are capable of should not be a part of P.E.C.H. except when discussing how to avoid them."; though that is a little less catchy.

Dryad
2011-06-03, 04:52 AM
Being inconsiderate is a massive pet-peeve of mine. You were writing a new thread, you had plenty of time to consider your words, but did not. That, to me, is rude.
Stop being so incredibly inconsiderate yourself, then. You're derailing someone else's thread based on nothing more than poor phrasing. Further more, you go as far as assume the worst of the one exhibiting this poor phrasing, refusing to back down with the explanations given, and are close to throwing a tantrum about not getting an apology for something as minor as a politically extremely slightly incorrect phrasing error.

To be honest, the one making most of the assumptions about other people, Veyr, is you. The one being inconsiderate, Veyr, is you.

Rose: I agree with you, there. However, even without too much abuse, some classes can do stuff throughout the game's progression that puts other classes to absolute shame.
An example here would be the psion. When levelling as wizard, but especially as a sorcerer, having a psion in the group is the best way to just get you to toss your hands in the air, give up and reroll.
It's simply not good when someone else not only constantly steals your thunder, but outdoes you in everything. Wizards, of course, could focus on pure utility; their spell-books allow for that, but a psion in your group will turn even the most determined wizard into an arcane toolbox that walks all by herself.

It's not just about class abuse. It's about fun. And that means that if one class is very clearly the most powerful in the group, making the success of every other player in the group seem only marginal, than the blame is on that one most successful class; it is unbalanced. And yes; the fun of a group really does falter when everyone is just sitting there to see how the HERO(tm) is taking on all the encounters single-handedly.
And that's why you should balance against a feel of equality. Everyone needs to feel they can get to contribute to a group. And you can do two things to accomplish that: Buff everyone to the power-level of the most powerful (meaning danger completely disappears, and as a result, so does the thrill and the fun) or simply nerf the most powerful to be in line with the mediocre, in which case the real powergamers will feel unjustly robbed of their god-modes, but to be honest: I don't much care for them anyway. :P

Temotei
2011-06-03, 05:01 AM
I find that many critiques are based only on tier 3, regardless of the OP's intent. It usually takes a page or two before it's hammered into everyone's heads that the OP wants something different than what's considered perfectly balanced in most games.

Oof. That was just an aside. I agree that using poor balance as a balancing point is bad. :smalltongue:

Ziegander
2011-06-03, 07:37 AM
An example here would be the psion. When levelling as wizard, but especially as a sorcerer, having a psion in the group is the best way to just get you to toss your hands in the air, give up and reroll.
It's simply not good when someone else not only constantly steals your thunder, but outdoes you in everything. Wizards, of course, could focus on pure utility; their spell-books allow for that, but a psion in your group will turn even the most determined wizard into an arcane toolbox that walks all by herself.

Explain this in more detail.

Dryad
2011-06-03, 07:50 AM
Level 3 sorcerer: I cast burning hands. Yay; 10 damage. Drat; they made the reflex.. Scratch that; five damage.
Level 3 psion: I use [A Power]. I deal twenty damage.

Veyr
2011-06-03, 07:59 AM
Stop being so incredibly inconsiderate yourself, then. You're derailing someone else's thread based on nothing more than poor phrasing. Further more, you go as far as assume the worst of the one exhibiting this poor phrasing, refusing to back down with the explanations given, and are close to throwing a tantrum about not getting an apology for something as minor as a politically extremely slightly incorrect phrasing error.

To be honest, the one making most of the assumptions about other people, Veyr, is you. The one being inconsiderate, Veyr, is you.
I am merely reading the words that he posted. He posted this in a discussion forum, which is an invitation for discussion. I did not ask to have myself spoken for by another. He did single out Tier 3 as the automatic default for the boards, and that's not something he has the authority to state.

If he didn't want his post discussed, and instead expected everyone to simply accept and adhere to the rules he posted... well, sorry, he (and you) had another thing coming, because that's not how the world, or this forum, work. If he didn't want criticism of his post, he should not have posted.

As for my being inconsiderate, nothing could be farther from the truth — I've considered my words very carefully in this thread. I try to do so, on a general basis, though I can't pretend I always succeed. You can argue that what I've done is rude, but it was very carefully so — I was careful to phrase myself exactly and not attack anyone; my only issue was with the wording in the post.


Also, you'll note that I dropped this two days ago. He said he'd change the OP; that's all I wanted (well, he should change the title too, but there's some leeway there for the sake of concision). It's still far from exactly what I'd wanted, but I'd accepted it as good enough.


An example here would be the psion. When levelling as wizard, but especially as a sorcerer, having a psion in the group is the best way to just get you to toss your hands in the air, give up and reroll.
It's simply not good when someone else not only constantly steals your thunder, but outdoes you in everything. Wizards, of course, could focus on pure utility; their spell-books allow for that, but a psion in your group will turn even the most determined wizard into an arcane toolbox that walks all by herself.
...:smallconfused:

The Sorcerer is more powerful than the Psion by a good bit. The Wizard is way more powerful than the Psion.

I mean, I don't disagree with your point — balance does matter and so does the balance point you choose — but this is an awful example.

Volthawk
2011-06-03, 08:01 AM
Level 3 sorcerer: I cast burning hands. Yay; 10 damage. Drat; they made the reflex.. Scratch that; five damage.
Level 3 psion: I use [A Power]. I deal twenty damage.

I can only think of one psion power that damages without a save at that level (Crystal Shard, which would have to be augmented to the maximum possible, the equivalent of a 2nd level power, to have a chance of dealing 20 damage), and that's outdone by, say, Scorching Ray (a 2nd level spell), which allows multiple targets and does more damage. All the other psion damaging abilities have saves, either for half (generally the energy x powers) or negates (Mind Thrust). So yeah, Psion doesn't always outdo wizards damage-wise, and only have 7 powers at 3rd level (only 2 of which are 2nd level powers), so they can't do as many things as wizards.

Ziegander
2011-06-03, 08:06 AM
Level 3 sorcerer: I cast burning hands. Yay; 10 damage. Drat; they made the reflex.. Scratch that; five damage.
Level 3 psion: I use [A Power]. I deal twenty damage.

We're supposed to compare the worst non-cantrip damage spell to some undefined Psion power? Explain this in more detail.

Dryad
2011-06-03, 08:08 AM
Also, you'll note that I dropped it two days ago.
I apologise for my tardiness in replying.

{Scrubbed}

Volt: I do see your point on the saves, and it was my mistake to not include the save DC (and thus failure chances) of the psion. So I'm sorry; that was bias overruling my better judgement.

My point still stands that, during early progression, arcane casters are simply less valuable than most others, while during high end progression, they become god-like. And I think it would be a mistake to balance against either of these.

Epsilon Rose
2011-06-03, 12:04 PM
Rose: I agree with you, there. However, even without too much abuse, some classes can do stuff throughout the game's progression that puts other classes to absolute shame.
An example here would be the psion. When levelling as wizard, but especially as a sorcerer, having a psion in the group is the best way to just get you to toss your hands in the air, give up and reroll.
It's simply not good when someone else not only constantly steals your thunder, but outdoes you in everything. Wizards, of course, could focus on pure utility; their spell-books allow for that, but a psion in your group will turn even the most determined wizard into an arcane toolbox that walks all by herself.

It's not just about class abuse. It's about fun. And that means that if one class is very clearly the most powerful in the group, making the success of every other player in the group seem only marginal, than the blame is on that one most successful class; it is unbalanced. And yes; the fun of a group really does falter when everyone is just sitting there to see how the HERO(tm) is taking on all the encounters single-handedly.
And that's why you should balance against a feel of equality.

I think you said something very key in that last sentence. You need to balance against the feel of equality, not the actual thing. That is to say, the role a class fills is very important when considering what's balanced and what's not, and what might be balanced for one set of roles might be unbalanced for another (and vice versa). For instance, if we look at your example, you chose to compare the psion to a scorer, not say, a barbarian who also does unfortunate amounts of no-save damage or a bard who also casts spell. This makes sense; The sorcerer (unlike the barb or bard) is a full caster like the psion so in game what they can do will be more directly compared. That's not to say that balancing classes against relatively unrelated classes isn't necessary, it's just less direct.


Everyone needs to feel they can get to contribute to a group. And you can do two things to accomplish that: Buff everyone to the power-level of the most powerful (meaning danger completely disappears, and as a result, so does the thrill and the fun) or simply nerf the most powerful to be in line with the mediocre, in which case the real powergamers will feel unjustly robbed of their god-modes, but to be honest: I don't much care for them anyway. :P

I don't agree with that. I think if you simply go through and nerf all the top flight things you can end up with a whole bunch of very grey and/or painful classes and while parts of that might be okay for grim and gritty or low fantasy games it takes a lot of the shiny out of high fantasy or cinematic games. I also don't think buffing everyone necessarily results in lack of challenge. I think it requires more thought on the part of the dm and probably stronger enemies (there are alternatives), since what was challenging no longer is, and eventually results in a game shift where you start having to figure out how to apply your power or what power you need to apply but that can be lots of fun and can result in more directly high-stakes encounters than grim and gritty settings normally allow.

Of course there's also the usually preferable middle ground of nerf the top a little and buff the bottom some.


My point still stands that, during early progression, arcane casters are simply less valuable than most others, while during high end progression, they become god-like. And I think it would be a mistake to balance against either of these.

That's more of a problem of how they advance than how to balance... I think.
It still needs to be fixed on both sides.

Keinnicht
2011-06-03, 12:16 PM
I disagree. D&D characters are supposed to be heroic. Incredibly heroic. First tier classes should be the baseline. To be entirely honest, I don't see what's so unreasonable about the locate city bomb. A 20th level wizard should be able to do crap like that.

Dark Kerman
2011-06-04, 01:17 PM
What is the Locate City Nuke? :smalleek:

Seerow
2011-06-04, 01:25 PM
What is the Locate City Nuke? :smalleek:

http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19865282/The_best_wizard_nuker


Specifically this post:
1: Take Locate City, a spell with a range of ten miles per level
2: Apply Snowcasting (Frostburn) to it, making it a [Cold] spell
3: Apply Flash Frost (PHBII) to it, making it deal 2 cold damage to everything in the area
4:Apply Energy Substitution (CArc) to it, making it an electric spell
5: Apply Born of the Three Thunders to it, allowing a reflex save to avoid the damage and changing the damage type
6: Apply Explosive Spell to it, forcing a second Reflex save to avoid being blasted to the edge of the area and 1d6 per ten feet traveled

Dark Kerman
2011-06-04, 01:34 PM
Thanks! I have heard it referenced before hand. :P Hmmm, looking at that, the felldrain metamagic feat would be interesting with a lot of 0 level commoners. :smalltongue: Anyone for a Wight-based zombie apocalypse? (But jokes aside, I think the arguement a wizard can do worst is not correct, unless you have situations whereby the npcs are pulling that sort of trick, in which case, it's open season.)

Solaris
2011-06-04, 08:09 PM
I disagree. D&D characters are supposed to be heroic. Incredibly heroic. First tier classes should be the baseline. To be entirely honest, I don't see what's so unreasonable about the locate city bomb. A 20th level wizard should be able to do crap like that.

They made Exalted for you.

wiimanclassic
2011-06-04, 10:56 PM
I disagree. D&D characters are supposed to be heroic. Incredibly heroic. First tier classes should be the baseline. To be entirely honest, I don't see what's so unreasonable about the locate city bomb. A 20th level wizard should be able to do crap like that.

Heroic. Not god like or more powerful then some gods who they can only not kill due to not having divine ranks or something.

ScionoftheVoid
2011-06-05, 11:33 AM
Heroic. Not god like or more powerful then some gods who they can only not kill due to not having divine ranks or something.

Not necessarily god-like, you mean. Being herioc and god-like is perfectly valid, just less common. And gods tend to be either underpowered for their level due to multiclassing poorly or nigh-impossible to defeat due to their Salient Divine Abilities (think that's what they're called) depending on the specific abilities they choose (the plane-wide - or interplanar, can't remember - range instant death one and instant crafting are particularly bothersome).

Also, Keinnicht, the problem with the Locate City Bomb (or more accurately, the versions which work - not the Eplosive Spell one) is that a low level Wizard can do it. A level twenty Wizard kills most of the commoners in a radius of miles? Whoop de doo. A Wizard who can't yet enter prestige classes yet does the same? Cooould be a problem there.

I try to make clear what tier my homebrew stuff aims for (generally 2 or 3). Which reminds me, I need to put together that improved Warmage's spell list at some point.