dealing with tiers

[hivedragon]

I think everyone knows of this system. How do you deal with the obvious diferences in the power of classes? (don't say anything about 4e :smallsigh:). Do you nerf some of the stronger classes? Do you use gestalt? Or are your party members happy to be the runt of the litter (casters at level 5 and below and non casters at level 10 and above)

[OnePep]

I've played a tier 2 char (sorcerer) once. All other characters I've played where tier 3 or lower.
Because I wanted to DM, I decided to play a caster.
As if it was ment to be, I was invited to play with another group and I've grabbed my chance and build me a Mystic Theurge (Illumian archivist/wizard/MT).
The group consisted of three players (me, a rogue and a warlock) and a DM. We started out at lvl 5.
I thought we had a nice first session. But the warlock pm-ed me shortly after that. He thought I overruled him too much, for I did everything he would like his character to be best at. (Maybe a bit exaggerated...)
Now we've agreed that I will take the controle/buff/debuff role and things run smoothly now.

So I guess you could say D&D is a teamsport. If you have the better build, don't prove it all the time.

[Ernir]

Have you taken a look at the suggestions JaronK makes in his posting of the tier system? Are you looking for more suggestions? Or are you looking for a popularity check of the numerous suggestions already out there?

[Pyro_Azer]

If there is no problem there is no need for a fix. If the players do not constantly step on each others toes and hog the spotlight there is no need to adjust the mechanics. When I play a wizard I can easily open any door I come across with knock, but I don't. Why? Because that is the time for the rogue player's time to shine.

[Greenish]

When I play a wizard I can easily open any door I come across with knock, but I don't. Why? Because that is the time for the rogue player's time to shine.Unless it's arcane locked. :smallamused:

[Pyro_Azer]

Unless it's arcane locked. :smallamused:

Eh, when I am a rogue I do this. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20061106a&page=2)
So even if it is arcane locked.

[FMArthur]

Unless it's arcane locked. :smallamused:

Pfft. Your rogues must be doing something wrong, then. Proper rogues are of the "huge, super-strong, doesn't-like-big-words and gets angry if looked at" variety, with big two-handed lockpicks capable of bypassing Arcane Locks and a penchant for using them on doors regardless of whether or not they are locked. :smallwink:

[Godskook]

I think everyone knows of this system. How do you deal with the obvious diferences in the power of classes? (don't say anything about 4e :smallsigh:). Do you nerf some of the stronger classes? Do you use gestalt? Or are your party members happy to be the runt of the litter

I encourage a certain level of optimization such that tier 4 is the bare minimum.


(casters at level 5 and below and non casters at level 10 and above)

You're confused good sir.

-Druids have Entangle, decent AC, decent HP, a few useful skills(spot, listen, sense motive are all wis based class skills), decent attacks from Shillelagh, and an Animal Companion that's a better fighter than your party's fighter(ironic, no?)

-Clerics have *HIGH* AC, decent HP, healing, domains(possibly useful), buff/debuff spells, and if you're facing undead, this is the time frame when turning is useful, since at higher levels, most undead's HD outstrip your ECL by a good deal, or you've prestiged into something that doesn't progress turning level. I had a cleric PC quit on me, and the party's scout decided to gank him cause he was acting 'weird'. Well, I ran it, and 5-6 combat rounds later, the cleric was tying the scout up, having won handily(Hold person was used).

-Wizards, well, an Abrupt Jaunt wizard is a better tank than the party tank, and that's while looking like the squishy. That's not to mention all the *SPELLS* that are available at this level. Benign Transposition, Dimension Step, Glitterdust, Web, Grease, Alter Self, Heroics, Mirror Move, Mirror Image, etc, etc. Seriously, level 2 spells are notoriously powerful imho, and many of them are that way from the moment you pick them.

-Sorcerers, see wizard

That covers core. Need I go on?

[Amnestic]

Do you nerf some of the stronger classes? Do you use gestalt? Or are your party members happy to be the runt of the litter (casters at level 5 and below and non casters at level 10 and above)

No.
Only if everyone is gestalting freely and equally.
No.

It's quite simple really: You simply agree not to break the game and not to outdo each other. Druids may be an exception in that it's very easy to end up kicking all sorts of ass without trying, but even then it's not likely going to be a problem.

[MeeposFire]

I have yet to have to deal with it. My players have unintentionally have managed to stay within the same relative power level and when not I find ways to keep the challenge. That said I know how bad it can be done and it was a TON of work. Which is one reason that I refuse to DM anymore 3e type games, possibly forever, since the result was not worth the time and effort. Playing is alright though.

[Seerow]

No.
Only if everyone is gestalting freely and equally.
No.

It's quite simple really: You simply agree not to break the game and not to outdo each other. Druids may be an exception in that it's very easy to end up kicking all sorts of ass without trying, but even then it's not likely going to be a problem.

Honestly if you're using gestalt you've given up any pretense of a mechanically balanced game in the first place, so tiers should be the last thing on your mind.

[crazyhedgewizrd]

i generally ignore the tier system itself. most players play at a equal level of play anyway.

[McStabbington]

I've found that effective multiclassing can turn even crappy classes into something that is highly effective. Of course, it doesn't always work out consistently. In one of my last games, we were trying our first evil party, and I had a drow hexblade/spellthief with a penchant for poisons. While the hexblade and the spellthief on their own are pretty crappy, put this stuff together and I could basically take out any Tier one character (druid excepted, which they didn't have) I wanted. Any spell that didn't simply bounce off of me I could make the save on easily, and with evasion and mettle, that meant 0 damage for moi while they frantically threw every spell they had at me. Of course, it also meant I was chopped liver for the evil monk that ultimately throttled me to death when I turned on the party. There was quite literally nothing I could do against him, despite the monk being pretty low-tier.

[big teej]

I think everyone knows of this system. How do you deal with the obvious diferences in the power of classes? (don't say anything about 4e :smallsigh:). Do you nerf some of the stronger classes? Do you use gestalt? Or are your party members happy to be the runt of the litter (casters at level 5 and below and non casters at level 10 and above)

I expect my players to be mature enough to keep things in check. the occaisional "I'm new to the class" mistakes are acceptable. but my table has a standing agreement on game-breaking things.

"don't"

the long version is "don't. or else"
:smallbiggrin:

granted, I do consider myself blessed with one of the greatest groups in existence! :smallbiggrin:

[MeeposFire]

I expect my players to be mature enough to keep things in check. the occaisional "I'm new to the class" mistakes are acceptable. but my table has a standing agreement on game-breaking things.

"don't"

the long version is "don't. or else"
:smallbiggrin:

granted, I do consider myself blessed with one of the greatest groups in existence! :smallbiggrin:

That works alright assuming the game breaking is obvious. Sometimes the fact it breaks the game isn't obvious until you have used it such as gate. Use it exactly as intended can break the game or use some of the lower level spells that make the other classes feel bad but do so unintentionally. Many cases of the worst stuff is stuff being exactly as designed.

[Amphetryon]

i generally ignore the tier system itself. most players play at a equal level of play anyway.

This sentiment does not echo my experience.

Seriously consider banning Tier 5, and using a diminished point buy for Tier 2 and 1. Both should help a bit.

[Big Fau]

I ban Tiers 1, 5, and 6. Tier 2 is more manageable than Tier 1 (less spells to worry about), and Tiers 3/4 are the most entertaining to DM for.

[NNescio]

I've found that effective multiclassing can turn even crappy classes into something that is highly effective. Of course, it doesn't always work out consistently. In one of my last games, we were trying our first evil party, and I had a drow hexblade/spellthief with a penchant for poisons. While the hexblade and the spellthief on their own are pretty crappy, put this stuff together and I could basically take out any Tier one character (druid excepted, which they didn't have) I wanted. Any spell that didn't simply bounce off of me I could make the save on easily, and with evasion and mettle, that meant 0 damage for moi while they frantically threw every spell they had at me. Of course, it also meant I was chopped liver for the evil monk that ultimately throttled me to death when I turned on the party. There was quite literally nothing I could do against him, despite the monk being pretty low-tier.

I take it that your DM isn't a fan of area spells? Which are distressingly common among Tier 1~3 casters? Even if one considers only those they don't allow saves or still have effects even if you saved?

[Alleran]

I've honestly never really had a problem with it in-game. Sometimes it happens during character creation, but it's not hard to stop, since I always make sure to check and see what somebody's final build will be.

[Jack_Simth]

I think everyone knows of this system. How do you deal with the obvious diferences in the power of classes? (don't say anything about 4e :smallsigh:). Do you nerf some of the stronger classes? Do you use gestalt? Or are your party members happy to be the runt of the litter (casters at level 5 and below and non casters at level 10 and above)

It's called the "don't be an idiot" system (well, OK, the real word at the end is a little different, but I try to watch my language). Sure, the "right" cleric build can make the cleric "da bomb" in melee. The "right" Wizard build can end every other encounter with one spell (and the rest with two or three). So don't. If the Cleric casts Recitation while the Wizard casts Haste, the Cleric follows up with Righteous Wrath of the Faithful, and the Wizard casts Greater Invisibility on the rogue, then the melee machines become meat grinders, the Rogue becomes death on two feet, and everyone has fun.

It requires, you know, mature players, though.

[crazyhedgewizrd]

This sentiment does not echo my experience.

Seriously consider banning Tier 5, and using a diminished point buy for Tier 2 and 1. Both should help a bit.

so your players compete to see whos the best at everything.

[Godskook]

I've found that effective multiclassing can turn even crappy classes into something that is highly effective. Of course, it doesn't always work out consistently. In one of my last games, we were trying our first evil party, and I had a drow hexblade/spellthief with a penchant for poisons. While the hexblade and the spellthief on their own are pretty crappy, put this stuff together and I could basically take out any Tier one character (druid excepted, which they didn't have) I wanted. Any spell that didn't simply bounce off of me I could make the save on easily, and with evasion and mettle, that meant 0 damage for moi while they frantically threw every spell they had at me. Of course, it also meant I was chopped liver for the evil monk that ultimately throttled me to death when I turned on the party. There was quite literally nothing I could do against him, despite the monk being pretty low-tier.

Wow, poorly played casters then. I'm curious as to how you think you'd handle force-cage+cloudkill.

[big teej]

That works alright assuming the game breaking is obvious. Sometimes the fact it breaks the game isn't obvious until you have used it such as gate. Use it exactly as intended can break the game or use some of the lower level spells that make the other classes feel bad but do so unintentionally. Many cases of the worst stuff is stuff being exactly as designed.

an excellent and valid point.

and our group is aware of this, our mantra is "don't do it on purpose, and mention it in advance if you think it might."

now, if despite all our attempts at prevention/anticipation, someone accidentally breaks the game (such as the aforementioned Gate) we identify what the problem is and why it was a problem. then we (will) move to correct the issue.

as of now the group has played from 1 - 5 and we're doing okay, and our last session before the semester helped greatly illilstrat... crap.
illistrate
illustrate
....
helped greatly illustrate(?) what I've been talkin about, we have a cleric player that, after myself and the paladin, has the greatest working knowledge of the rules, and applied this knowledge to buff the party for a fight with a dragon.

more than once was the entire party stunned by the effects of some of his spells.

so I believe they're learning about what to worry about, and I have little to no fear about them avoiding it.

[Midnight_v]

In my last game I banned anything that below tier 4...
Without saying so... I said, for this game "Here are the classes available"
Which met with a few groans, cause I had a player who didn't want to learn a new system...
I was like hey, its the new system game!
To which they responded "but sorcerer is on this list!"

To which I responded... "Wait... are any of you gonna wanting to play a sorcerer or a wizard? No?"
"Its the new systems game!"

and yeah... that was playing it dirty they were a new group with a couple novice players and we had just started the new campaign, this go round...

I get the players to come together and make their pcs as a group, and decide how each person is going to contribute, specifically.
When the guy who was thinking to be a monk, discussed it with the crew and they casters were like "My character idea, doesn't really focus on buffing so much each fight, y'know?" he actually turned tack and chose a Crusader instead, saying the whole thing he wanted to do was tie people up in combat and protect the casters, "not die, had been thinking bout tanking the whole time".
Since he kinda got the idea in the last campaign thats what crusaders were about. He took the EXACT SAME backstory for his monk and wholesale ported it to the crusader.
The other players looked like "aren't you playing a different pc" He said "NO! I'm playing the same pc, he was just trained in a rare and better martial arts"
I was so proud :smile:

[peacenlove]

A weird solution for my group was the following: I deal with the fighting, they deal with out of combat / support in combat roles. Most of my players, who decide to DM, put absurdly easy encounters (for example a duo of hill giants when he knows I am an enchanter specialist :smallamused: ) and our sessions are freeform RP so the less optimized players can shine. However this works only because we have discussed it before with both the players and the DM.

When I am a DM (the majority of the time), I ban wizards and force clerics and druids to be spontaneous casters (ala unearthed arcana) by default. Also I require concepts and guidelines from my players (I deal nowadays mostly with new ones) and I create the characters. With my previous group we spent a session to oversee their characters before play, so we can trade optimization advice.
If, somehow a player outshines the party, it is not uncommon for the party to face a greater than normal challenge, resulting in the player killed but the party having greater treasure after (hopefully) defeating the challenge. This of course is again with the agreement of said player and only applicable in my old gaming group.
Lastly I default my games in T2 territory for my old players and T3 for new ones because purely by coincidence T3 seems the easiest to learn if instructed (short spell lists, tome of battle with his cards, incarnum is easier than it seems etc)

[Amphetryon]

so your players compete to see whos the best at everything.

Nope, didn't say that.

[navar100]

Ignore it.

It's the DM's job to ensure everyone has spotlight time. It is his job to ensure no one Wins D&D and no one Loses D&D. If he can't stand that, he shouldn't be DM. The only thing that matters is what the PCs for that particular game can do, not what is theoretically possible given all the time in the world, access to everything ever published by 3E, and having exactly what you need at the moment you need it.

[olentu]

Ignore it.

It's the DM's job to ensure everyone has spotlight time. It is his job to ensure no one Wins D&D and no one Loses D&D. If he can't stand that, he shouldn't be DM. The only thing that matters is what the PCs for that particular game can do, not what is theoretically possible given all the time in the world, access to everything ever published by 3E, and having exactly what you need at the moment you need it.

So ignore the difference in power of classes and then address the difference in power of classes. It seems sort of silly to go through all the trouble of ignoring what you are trying to mitigate.

[ImperatorK]

Ignore it.

It's the DM's job to ensure everyone has spotlight time. It is his job to ensure no one Wins D&D and no one Loses D&D. If he can't stand that, he shouldn't be DM. The only thing that matters is what the PCs for that particular game can do, not what is theoretically possible given all the time in the world, access to everything ever published by 3E, and having exactly what you need at the moment you need it.
Then why ignore it? It is very helpful for a DMs job.

[navar100]

Yes, ignore it.

Only pay attention to what the player characters for the particular game you are running can do. If the fighter likes to Trip, stop it already with the large flying four-legged monsters. If the druid likes to stay in wild shape as a bear the whole day because he has Natural Spell, fine, but he's useless during non-combat time when the party is in the city gathering info, getting supplies, or investigating. When the druid player sighs and agree to end/use up his wild shape back to human form, the bad guys catch wind of the players investigating and set up an ambush. The druid can't wildshape freely because a) the populace will not just accept a bear walking around their city and b) they could be in a building, an alley, or a sewer tube where wildshaping into a large animal wouldn't be prudent. The druid still has his fun being a bear in other combats. If the wizard Gates in a Solar every combat, either you are making combats too easy and the wizard is really just wasting a 9th level spell and XP when a lower level spell would do or you made the combat tough where the wizard had to Gate in a Solar and you were counting on it.

[myancey]

Yeah, I dislike the tier system. I just try to roll with whatever the player throws at me. If it's too powerful, I'll talk with the player or limit as I have to. I do my best to rarely limit things though.

[Amphetryon]

Yes, ignore it.

Only pay attention to what the player characters for the particular game you are running can do. If the fighter likes to Trip, stop it already with the large flying four-legged monsters. If the druid likes to stay in wild shape as a bear the whole day because he has Natural Spell, fine, but he's useless during non-combat time when the party is in the city gathering info, getting supplies, or investigating. When the druid player sighs and agree to end/use up his wild shape back to human form, the bad guys catch wind of the players investigating and set up an ambush. The druid can't wildshape freely because a) the populace will not just accept a bear walking around their city and b) they could be in a building, an alley, or a sewer tube where wildshaping into a large animal wouldn't be prudent. The druid still has his fun being a bear in other combats. If the wizard Gates in a Solar every combat, either you are making combats too easy and the wizard is really just wasting a 9th level spell and XP when a lower level spell would do or you made the combat tough where the wizard had to Gate in a Solar and you were counting on it.

That sounds very different from "Ignore it" from here. To my sensibilities, it's closer to "work to make the Fighter's choices work more often while minimizing the Druid's effectiveness." That sounds, to me, like the Fighter needs help while the Druid needs a Nerf-bat.

That's also something one might get from reading the original Tiers thread.

[Frozen_Feet]

Depends on what kind of game I want to run and with who.

Experienced players with good grasp of the system? I couldn't care less what they do. I assume they play the character they want to play and know what they're getting into.

Less experienced players with a concept in mind? I might point them towards higher or lower tier options if I know the character they're making isn't matching their goals. For example, if someone wants to be mystical kung fu guy, I might nudge them towards using a Psionic Warrior as a chassis and recreating the martial arts feel through feats, instead of having them play Monk.

If I desire to keep player power in check (for example, I'm running a low magic settign)? I'll restrict access to higher tier classes. If I want to keep a group balanced? I'll pick a subset of classes near or at the same tier.

In general, i'm not terribly conerned about mechanical power of my PCs. My GMing style neither requires or supports a perfect mechanical balance. I do not see it as a requisite of "fun" that everyone gets to contribute in equal amounts. There's more to spotlight time in RPGs and stories than character build anyway.

[myancey]

In general, i'm not terribly conerned about mechanical power of my PCs. My GMing style neither requires or supports a perfect mechanical balance. I do not see it as a requisite of "fun" that everyone gets to contribute in equal amounts. There's more to spotlight time in RPGs and stories than character build anyway.

That's a good way of looking at it.

Plus, a newer player using a tier one still might be overshadowed in power by an advanced player using a tier 5. I don't like the idea of limiting players to find that perfect mechanical balance.

[McStabbington]

Wow, poorly played casters then. I'm curious as to how you think you'd handle force-cage+cloudkill.

Well, admittedly half of that I couldn't really handle. I couldn't have done much against a Force Cage, although since I was dealing with a necromancer who a) loved creating undead and b) could only cast 6th level spells this was what you might call a low-probability possibility. The Fortitude partial of a cloudkill is a lot less frightening however when a) you can actually make your fortitude saves thanks to a combo of Great Fortitude, familiar and high constitution, b) mettle turns that fortitude partial into fortitude negates, c) by the time they saw me, they were dealing with fortitude saves of their own from a poisoned blade and d) they had some concern for not killing everyone else in the room.

I think you'd actually be surprised how broken maxing out Craft (Poison) and a little creativity can be. Will it necessarily save you from a completely optimized 20th-level evoker? That I don't know. But then again, I wasn't playing against a completely optimized evoker, and if by Tier 1 you really mean completely optimized evoker, I think your Tier problems are a lot less than you make them out to be.

[Ernir]

Yes, ignore it.

Only pay attention to what the player characters for the particular game you are running can do. If the fighter likes to Trip, stop it already with the large flying four-legged monsters. If the druid likes to stay in wild shape as a bear the whole day because he has Natural Spell, fine, but he's useless during non-combat time when the party is in the city gathering info, getting supplies, or investigating. When the druid player sighs and agree to end/use up his wild shape back to human form, the bad guys catch wind of the players investigating and set up an ambush. The druid can't wildshape freely because a) the populace will not just accept a bear walking around their city and b) they could be in a building, an alley, or a sewer tube where wildshaping into a large animal wouldn't be prudent. The druid still has his fun being a bear in other combats. If the wizard Gates in a Solar every combat, either you are making combats too easy and the wizard is really just wasting a 9th level spell and XP when a lower level spell would do or you made the combat tough where the wizard had to Gate in a Solar and you were counting on it.
That's just eyeballing the power differences described by the system rather than using the yardstick it provides. You may be ignoring the system as presented by JaronK, but you're addressing the same issue. :smallconfused:

[olentu]

Yes, ignore it.

Only pay attention to what the player characters for the particular game you are running can do. If the fighter likes to Trip, stop it already with the large flying four-legged monsters. If the druid likes to stay in wild shape as a bear the whole day because he has Natural Spell, fine, but he's useless during non-combat time when the party is in the city gathering info, getting supplies, or investigating. When the druid player sighs and agree to end/use up his wild shape back to human form, the bad guys catch wind of the players investigating and set up an ambush. The druid can't wildshape freely because a) the populace will not just accept a bear walking around their city and b) they could be in a building, an alley, or a sewer tube where wildshaping into a large animal wouldn't be prudent. The druid still has his fun being a bear in other combats. If the wizard Gates in a Solar every combat, either you are making combats too easy and the wizard is really just wasting a 9th level spell and XP when a lower level spell would do or you made the combat tough where the wizard had to Gate in a Solar and you were counting on it.

You know this sounds like the opposite of ignoring it.

[Pyro_Azer]

I think Navar was saying he ignores the tier system as a measuring stick of power but handles PC power on an individual basis. Playing against the druid's weaknesses is different from banning tier 1 classes, for example.

[Curmudgeon]

I like a layered set of remedies, as follows:

There's no rolling for any part of character level gain. (This is a good thing in general, even if you're playing without magic at all.) Adjust the points available for point buy based on the Tier System for Classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0):

15 point buy (This is where the Wizard is.)
22 point buy
28 point buy
32 point buy
40 point buy (This is where the Monk is.)
You might try 50 here, but really: just skip characters this weak. :smallsigh:
This assumes PCs are going to start in their primary class. If they change the primary class in later levels they'd retroactively lose points if necessary, but would never retroactively gain points.
There are no metamagic cost reducers of any kind, and certainly no "free" metamagic (ex: Incantatrix).
Beyond those spells that a class gets for free, spell access is limited. Wizards have free choice of 2 spells per level, and everything else is hard to get. The same goes for Sorcerers who want to swap out spells. Scrolls are 1/10th as common in treasure, and the costs for buying scrolls on the rare occasion that they're offered for sale are 5x as high as in standard rules. Finding someone who will allow copying their spellbook is rare, and the fees are at minimum 10x as high. Even finding out the name of a particular spell that will accomplish some desired aim can involve a quest for a spellcasting character, because magical knowledge is hoarded.
Finally, individual spells are scrutinized. For instance, the whole Alter Self-Polymorph-Shapechange line is dependent on knowing about particular forms, and those spells do not incorporate the various Monster Manuals. A spellcaster has to follow the standard skill rules:

They've got to Spot a creature of a particular type.
They've got to make the associated Knowledge check to know what type of creature it is.
Only then will the character know about that form; player knowledge of monsters is metagaming. :smallmad: Similarly, the power of the Shatter spell is dependent on the meaning of "solid", and any DM who lets a player get away with the anachronistic "neither liquid nor gas" chemical definition instead of "rigid, not flexible" should have Jello dumped in their pants. :smallyuk: Enlarge Person increases the weight of a character and their gear by a factor of 8, so they'll be stronger but (usually) slowed down by encumbrance. Scrutiny is important to keep spells from being abused.
This by no means corrects all the ways full spellcasting classes dominate the lower-tier classes, but it helps.

[Amphetryon]

I think Navar was saying he ignores the tier system as a measuring stick of power but handles PC power on an individual basis. Playing against the druid's weaknesses is different from banning tier 1 classes, for example.

The original Tier thread does not advocate banning Tier 1 (or any other Tier) unless it's been edited since I started this post. That makes the analogy somewhat inexact.

[Pyro_Azer]

The original Tier thread does not advocate banning Tier 1 (or any other Tier) unless it's been edited since I started this post. That makes the analogy somewhat inexact.

The tier thread does not, but about half the posts in this thread do.

[Honest Tiefling]

JaronK's list is a useful tool I use, and I encourage my players to keep it in mind. However, even he advocates using it as just a tool not a set of commandments. It should be taken with a player's ability and the campaign setting. He says in the post that he cannot address skill level, but that individual ability to maximize use of a build and ability to optimize will bump people up and down tiers and the DM should plan around that if a great disparity seems apparent.

So even the creator of the thread tells people to use the tier system with the player's abilities in mind, and to adjust according to each gaming group.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Through I will say that I find the tier system a lot less helpful when people do not optimize. But I still use it to determine potential power levels of players.

[navar100]

I think Navar was saying he ignores the tier system as a measuring stick of power but handles PC power on an individual basis. Playing against the druid's weaknesses is different from banning tier 1 classes, for example.

Yes. Thank you.

[Jude_H]

I've never played a game where class balance was actually a problem.

There have been Wizards that wrecked the game, but there have also been Fighters and Psions. They tended to be played by the same people. Those problems have been more a matter of the player than the class.

[Godskook]

Yeah, I dislike the tier system. I just try to roll with whatever the player throws at me. If it's too powerful, I'll talk with the player or limit as I have to. I do my best to rarely limit things though.

It isn't a 'tier system', its the 'tier list', and the semantics here are important. It doesn't matter if you 'like' it. Its an observational commentary(there's suggested fixes afterwards, but the list itself has no 'system' to it). If you disagree with the list's assessment, I'd say you're confused. If you merely think that its not relevant to your games, that's fine, but that just means your players plus your DMing style are factoring in heavily.


Well, admittedly half of that I couldn't really handle. I couldn't have done much against a Force Cage, although since I was dealing with a necromancer who a) loved creating undead and b) could only cast 6th level spells this was what you might call a low-probability possibility.

Well, suck a split empowered enervation for 2d4 negative levels.

Or there's the fact that a minion necromancer of that level should be *SURROUNDED* by tons of undead. 378 is not an unreasonable number(undead, not HD(Yes, that number doesn't care about HD)).

And why the hell wasn't he Necropolitan?


The Fortitude partial of a cloudkill is a lot less frightening however when a) you can actually make your fortitude saves thanks to a combo of Great Fortitude, familiar and high constitution, b) mettle turns that fortitude partial into fortitude negates, c) by the time they saw me, they were dealing with fortitude saves of their own from a poisoned blade and d) they had some concern for not killing everyone else in the room.

b)Only on passed save. You're stuck in a forcecage, and your saves can't be that good(I.e., you fail on more than a nat 1), considering the poor progression on all sides, despite the Cha bonus.

c)cloudkill+forcecage only kills what's in the forcecage after round 2.


I think you'd actually be surprised how broken maxing out Craft (Poison) and a little creativity can be. Will it necessarily save you from a completely optimized 20th-level evoker? That I don't know. But then again, I wasn't playing against a completely optimized evoker, and if by Tier 1 you really mean completely optimized evoker, I think your Tier problems are a lot less than you make them out to be.

hahahaha.

I wasn't describing an Evoker, let alone an optimized Evoker. I was pulling a basic, albeit high-end, batman combo out.

Hell, I wasn't even going through nearly half the scenarios possible, cause I didn't know what levels you were dealing with until now.

[Serpentine]

Well, to start with, in my games I stress that the emphasis is overwhelmingly on "interesting characters", not power, and that I tend to run very low-optimisation games.
I ask that people playing notoriously overpowered or high-powered classes tone it down somewhat. I have a few "please don'ts" in that regard: please don't take Natural Spell, please avoid look-ahead type divinations, please don't use Wind Walk, stuff like that. Choosing a build based on its power is out - trying to "break my game" with some powergaming combination or other doesn't make you talented - not as though that'd be hard - it just makes you a jerk (not that it's ever come up).
Often I request that these high-power class players choose a theme for their characters that will help restrict them but in a fun, interesting way. This is particularly for Sorcerers and to a lesser extent Wizards, but I like it when Druids choose to focus on a particular aspect of the class. I'm willing to make it easier for such characters to be themed, often giving small bonuses and even homebrewing a whole new class for them (one of my players of a Druid decided she'd like to become a volcano-based Druid, so I homebrewed a Magma Druid. It's significantly less powerful than the normal Druid, but she's loving it anyway).

At the other end, I'm thinking I'll tend to discourage people from choosing things like Fighters and Swashbucklers to a large extent, and instead recommending Tome of Battle to them. If they choose not to, I'll be happy to give them bonus stuff - a dramatic once-per-day ability, for example, whatever works for their characters. I may also tend to give them slightly better equipment.

Mostly, it isn't really an issue in my games. I ask that people playing riskily high-powered classes not abuse them, and I give lower-powered classes little boosts. So long as no one feels useless and everyone's having fun, it works.

Incidentally, one of my new players decided to switch from a Druid to a Ranger, primarily because, I think, he's a bit of an optimiser and was struggling to make his Druid not overpower the group. That was entirely his choice. We haven't played again since then (:sigh:), but I'm thinking I'll let him keep his Huge monitor lizard (maybe reduce it to Large, we'll see...) as a reward.

[Gnaeus]

Finally, individual spells are scrutinized. For instance, the whole Alter Self-Polymorph-Shapechange line is dependent on knowing about particular forms, and those spells do not incorporate the various Monster Manuals. A spellcaster has to follow the standard skill rules:

They've got to Spot a creature of a particular type.
They've got to make the associated Knowledge check to know what type of creature it is.
Only then will the character know about that form; player knowledge of monsters is metagaming. :smallmad:


So, for a PC like a wizard or archivist who spends his life learning about magical monsters (with the appropriate skill investments) to know about iconic, legendary monsters (like chromatic dragons for example) is metagaming and you get angry for it? That is as silly a rule as any I have ever heard. But the moment they see one for 6 seconds across a battlefield, THEN they get to make a knowledge check and know all about it? Just go ahead and have cyberwizards from the future no-save delete polymorph from their spellbooks while they are sleeping, it is less harmful to basic logic.

[Prime32]

Plus, the polymorph spells don't say you're copying a specific creature. A wizard who alter selfs into a form with the stats of a crucian could just be trying to give himself better natural armor.

[ImperatorK]

I would rule that you can't change into a creature untill you make an appropriate knowledge check. Simple really.
And encountering the creature does not give you appropriate knowledge about it. I mean, when you look at a duck you on't suddenly understand it's biology, right? (besides it's outside anathomy of course)

[Curmudgeon]

So, for a PC like a wizard or archivist who spends his life learning about magical monsters (with the appropriate skill investments) ... is metagaming and you get angry for it? That is as silly a rule as any I have ever heard.
You're making that up, I'm afraid. Wizards study spellcasting, not creatures. From page 55 of the Player's Handbook:
Characteristics: The wizard’s strength is her spells. Everything else is secondary. So, yes, I get upset when a player makes up something that directly contradicts the class characteristics, as you did. There's no Monster Manual built into the Alter Self spell, and a player who trots out that or any other book to look up creatures, when the character has no related experience, is indeed metagaming. There's nothing silly about players trying to grab even more power for a Tier 1 class. :smallfrown:

[Socratov]

So... If I was to start DM-ing my first game ever in a dungeon in which all the players will have to DM from time to time, and I would say that it's a gestalt where the general morality is "Use cheese as you will like cheese used onto you". Any tips as to watch out for?

and to say that I will jump into the (very) deep end is to say the least :smallbiggrin: (playing since november '10 :) )

[McStabbington]

Well, suck a split empowered enervation for 2d4 negative levels.

Or there's the fact that a minion necromancer of that level should be *SURROUNDED* by tons of undead. 378 is not an unreasonable number(undead, not HD(Yes, that number doesn't care about HD)).

And why the hell wasn't he Necropolitan?



*shrug* While I doubt I could convince you of much of anything, the simple fact was that wasn't the game we were playing, mate. Having that many undead would have brought the entire town down on our head, and it was important to our goals not to destroy the city.

As for his direct spells, that was one of the spells he used. He missed the range touch attack. The other spell he used (phantasmal killer) managed to get through my spell resistance, but between the high will saves and the +5 bonuses to spell saves I got between the two classes, I was never in any serious danger. The third spell was cut off when I made him make take some fairly steep constitution damage. He only remained alive because he had a blackguard and a monk with him that, despite being worthless, I couldn't do anything against.

It strikes me that your notion of tiers falls under the 2nd Inigo Montaya principle: I do not think that word means what you think it means. As I understand the word, tier refers to the ability of a higher class to 1) do a given thing in 2) more ways than a class set in a lower tier. Your vehemence seems to suggest that for you Tier 1 beats Tier 3 because one is Tier 1 and the other Tier 3. To that end, you're presupposing that a wizard has the spell selection, preparation and knowledge of my class' flaws to beat anything I can do. I'm guessing that in most games, that's not how it works. It certainly wasn't how it worked in mine.

[Godskook]

It strikes me that your notion of tiers falls under the 2nd Inigo Montaya principle: I do not think that word means what you think it means.

I've been around these boards long enough to know what the tiers mean.


As I understand the word, tier refers to the ability of a higher class to 1) do a given thing in 2) more ways than a class set in a lower tier.

To a degree, but more accurately, as someone else pointed out:


I thought the system went

1-2 omnipotent

3-4 potent

5-6 impotent

---------------------------


Your vehemence seems to suggest that for you Tier 1 beats Tier 3 because one is Tier 1 and the other Tier 3. To that end, you're presupposing that a wizard has the spell selection, preparation and knowledge of my class' flaws to beat anything I can do. I'm guessing that in most games, that's not how it works. It certainly wasn't how it worked in mine.

1.The only thing in this entire thread I have vehemence about is denying that I've been vehemently doing *ANYTHING*.

2.A well played tier 1 beats a tier 3 because the gulf in power is *THAT* large. If the tier 1 loses, its cause he did something wrong, not cause of the tier 3 doing anything. This has nothing to do with the tier 3's flaws, although that can help speed things up.

3.I wasn't using combos that were targeted specifically at your spellthief/hexblade. I was using *normal* combos, focusing on spells found in core.

[LordBlades]

There's no Monster Manual built into the Alter Self spell, and a player who trots out that or any other book to look up creatures, when the character has no related experience, is indeed metagaming. There's nothing silly about players trying to grab even more power for a Tier 1 class. :smallfrown:

That's what knowledge checks are for.
From the SRD


Knowledge represents a study of some body of lore, possibly an academic or even scientific discipline.


Let's take the SRD description of Knowledge: Arcana for example:



Arcana (ancient mysteries, magic traditions, arcane symbols, cryptic phrases, constructs, dragons, magical beasts)


Bolded the relevant part. So, if a character has put ranks in Knowledge: Arcana, he has studied about constructs, dragons and magical beasts among other things. If the character can make the required knowledge check, he knows about the monster in question. Saying that they have to see the monster first is just placing an arbitrary (and non RAW) restriction on the spell.

[The Rabbler]

~ terribly incorrect opinions ~

As much as I'd love to jump into the debate and help godskook teach you exactly what a correctly played wizard can do to your cute hexmage/spellthief, I'll interject to advise you to drop the subject.

Build a character from scratch to go up against a wizard. Then, read up on your wizards a bit, learn a combo or two, and build either batman or god (two of the more simple ways to play a high level, high-op wizard). Then run them against eachother in any arena that isn't a 5x10ft room with your character right behind the wizard. You should see why wizards are held in such high regards.

[Curmudgeon]

So, if a character has put ranks in Knowledge: Arcana, he has studied about constructs, dragons and magical beasts among other things. If the character can make the required knowledge check, he knows about the monster in question.
Yes, he knows something about that monster.
A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information. If the Wizard can make a Knowledge check high enough to elicit every single bit of information in a creature's writeup, I'll gladly take that as knowing about the monster in question. Of course, such DCs will generally be well over 100. Have you looked at how many pieces of useful information are in most monster descriptions?

A picture, or better yet, a Spot check of a live creature in action, is supposed to be worth a thousand words. My suggestion for dealing with tiers, in the matter of the abusable Alter Self/Polymorph/Shapechange spell line, limits what a Wizard can accomplish just by their class abilities, and puts the emphasis on getting out and encountering creatures ─ something where those top tier classes don't have an advantage over lower tiers.

[Gavinfoxx]

Isn't there a list of houserule classes that are roughly Tier 3 somewhere on these forums? Just use that, right?

[LordBlades]

Yes, he knows something about that monster. If the Wizard can make a Knowledge check high enough to elicit every single bit of information in a creature's writeup, I'll gladly take that as knowing about the monster in question. Of course, such DCs will generally be well over 100. Have you looked at how many pieces of useful information are in most monster descriptions?

By RAW, Alter Self/Polymorph line lacks the 'must be familiar with creature' line wildshape has. So by RAW you only need to know a creature exists in order to be able to assume it's form.
Not to mention that how much you need to know about a given monster to count as 'familiar' it's entirely subjective.


A picture, or better yet, a Spot check of a live creature in action, is supposed to be worth a thousand words. My suggestion for dealing with tiers, in the matter of the abusable Alter Self/Polymorph/Shapechange spell line, limits what a Wizard can accomplish just by their class abilities, and puts the emphasis on getting out and encountering creatures ─ something where those top tier classes don't have an advantage over lower tiers.

Scrying, Planar Binding, summoning spells and divinations beg to differ. A t1 caster can 'see' all the creatures he wants without leaving the comfort of his own living room.

[Serpentine]

Yes, he knows something about that monster. If the Wizard can make a Knowledge check high enough to elicit every single bit of information in a creature's writeup, I'll gladly take that as knowing about the monster in question. Of course, such DCs will generally be well over 100. Have you looked at how many pieces of useful information are in most monster descriptions?

A picture, or better yet, a Spot check of a live creature in action, is supposed to be worth a thousand words. My suggestion for dealing with tiers, in the matter of the abusable Alter Self/Polymorph/Shapechange spell line, limits what a Wizard can accomplish just by their class abilities, and puts the emphasis on getting out and encountering creatures ─ something where those top tier classes don't have an advantage over lower tiers.I would suggest that the DC for a Spot check to get the same information would be much higher. And really, "what it looks like" is one of the most very basic things a Knowledge check would reveal about a creature, followed fairly closely by biology - and much more in that regard than just looking at the thing.
A Knowledge check - at least in my opinion - isn't just "crap you come up with off the top of your head" or whatever you seem to think it is. It includes research, anecdotes, listening to stories from others, looking at pictures, reading accounts of disections, personal experiences, extrapolation, and so on. In effect, it incorporates your system, plus lots extra.

[Ceaon]

In my opinion, these tier arguments always boil down to two camps calling each other names.

One camp says tiers exist and the tier list is a good thing, and that it gives insight to a problem that 3.5 DnD has.
The other camp says tiers are not a problem (for them) and it should not come up if played the right way.

Edit: And I think they're both kinda right.

I think tiers do exist, but they are not as prominent as the tier list makes it out to be, mostly because most people automatically and almost unconsciously adjust the 3.5 system so that it works for their own group.

JaronK's tier list displays the tiers of characters in the level 5-15 range, of average and above optimization, playing DnD 3.5 by RAW. And I think that most people, even those in the first camp, do not play this way. People are adaptive and intelligent and can handily adjust the system to fit their own needs, play styles and group wishes.

(This also means that tiers may become more prominent when playing with groups you have not met before or with inflexible players.)

Does this mean the tier list is wrong? No. Does this mean it advocates a bad playing style? No! Does it mean the tier list is an informative read and gives insight to the system, even if the problems it mentions may never come up in your games? Yes!

I don't get why some people hate or defend the tier list so vehemently, it's just a great and well-thought out ranking of classes (which, I assume, was a lot of hard work for JaronK and probably others to put together) that makes no tier-dependent assumptions or evaluations of fluff, players, style, functionality or 'goodness' (except that a personal preference is mentioned).

It should be apparent that with some playstyles, a certain power discrepancy can be observed. The tier list is a method to show how big these discrepancies can be. How often this comes up in real play depends on a lot of other variables. Now, if someone disagress with these last three sentences, I'll be glad to hear your arguments for it.

[Socratov]

could I opt for a third group? I think tiers are a great way of (indeed) identifying a balance problem in DnD, but in my opinion, a good DM and a good group will know how to balance it out. It this proves too hard, then you could give buffs/nerfs to the respective characters, so that wuold make the third camp to see it more situational. I think it will depend on the players and the setting the players play in. further, i think the balance between classes depends on the level, at the early levels the amrtial classes are way more powerful then the casters, however around lvl 8-12 its is fairly balanced, and beyond that the casters will get the upper hand. So I'd like to think tiers are way too situational to be taken in absolute terms.

[NNescio]

could I opt for a third group? I think tiers are a great way of (indeed) identifying a balance problem in DnD, but in my opinion, a good DM and a good group will know how to balance it out. It this proves too hard, then you could give buffs/nerfs to the respective characters, so that wuold make the third camp to see it more situational. I think it will depend on the players and the setting the players play in. further, i think the balance between classes depends on the level, at the early levels the amrtial classes are way more powerful then the casters, however around lvl 8-12 its is fairly balanced, and beyond that the casters will get the upper hand. So I'd like to think tiers are way too situational to be taken in absolute terms.

Subtract 6 from both the upper and lower ends of your numerical estimates, then you're right.

E6 is relatively well balanced. 4th level spells are incredibly potent, after all.

Martial classes aren't that overpowered. Except for the ToB classes, which comes pre-optimised so they might be a tad OP among people who are used to low-optimisation games.

[Big Fau]

Subtract 6 from both the upper and lower ends of your numerical estimates, then you're right.

E6 is relatively well balanced. 4th level spells are incredibly potent, after all.

E6 also butchers classes to the point where half the rules get cut out.


While I admit there is some merit to E6, deleting that much material from the system is not a good way to go about balancing things, especially considering it just bandages the problem instead of addressing it.

[Optimator]

Yes, he knows something about that monster. If the Wizard can make a Knowledge check high enough to elicit every single bit of information in a creature's writeup, I'll gladly take that as knowing about the monster in question. Of course, such DCs will generally be well over 100. Have you looked at how many pieces of useful information are in most monster descriptions?

This is absurd. Beating a DC by 20 is considered a perfect success RAW.

[LordBlades]

E6 also butchers classes to the point where half the rules get cut out.


While I admit there is some merit to E6, deleting that much material from the system is not a good way to go about balancing things, especially considering it just bandages the problem instead of addressing it.


Well, since there is some material that causes problems, there are only two ways to address said problems: change the material that causes issues or remove it.

Truly addressing the balance issues of 3.5 is such a far reaching enterprise that you will probably:
a) end up with a system that doesn't resemble 3.5(the starting point) all that much
and
b)need less time to design a balanced game system from scratch.

[Trouvere]

Tiers, tiers, tiers.

Scene, a tiny village built too close to Goblin Cave, now on fire. Four young survivors.
W, a skinny lad clutching a big book: "mom! dad! nooooo!"
F, big and burly, with his grandfather's sword: "we swear we will avenge you!"
C, not quite so big, and rather pious: "we swear it by all that is holy!"
R, shifty looking lass: "Sure we do. I'll search the bodies for useful stuff."
W: "Let's go get those goblins! I know Color Spray! I can cast it twice."
F: "yes! We're all that's left of Unfortunately Sited Village. Let's swear now to always stick together. I love you guys."

Scene, later that afternoon:
W: I cannot believe that one goblin rolled a 19 on his Will save!
F: it happens, it happens. But I was there. He only stabbed me once, and I've got the HP to spare. I'll always look after you!
C: CLW.
W: thanks, F. Still, I did get nearly all the others.
F: ...yes.

Scene, a few weeks later:
F: buff me up, buff me up, I'm going in.
C: really? I could just...
F: no, I've got this. This is what I was made for.
W: well, if you're sure. Haste! Bull's Strength!
C: Bear's Endurance! Magic Circle Against Eeeeevil
...
F: I nearly died! Twice!
R: three times!
F: if it hadn't been for you and 'Butternuts!'...
W: Glitterdust.
F: right! We wouldn't have stood a chance.
W: oh well, it would have worn off in just a few rounds; you had to be there to finish them off.

Scene, a few weeks after that:
F: uh, W, I've been thinking. Maybe you should just cast Butternuts first, or that new one, Black Test-
W: Tentacles.
F: right! And not worry so much about setting me and R up.
W: no, really, I like doing it. I like to see you happy.
C: anyway, my god has just warned me about a cult of evil sorcerers in Ominous City. Want to go root them out?
F: sure! Uh... do they cast spells, at all, do they?
W: I should think so.
C: undoubtedly.
R: I'm moving really silently towards the door.
F: me too.
R: everyone can hear you.
F: fine! We'll do that sorcerer thing.

Scene, two days later:
F: it's not my fault my Wis is 8 and my base Will save is like +2. Stupid Minor Image. Stupid Hold Person. Stupid Deep Slumber.
R: I know! I'm based around Dex!
C: oh well, everyone has off days. Ready to take on -
F: there's a raiding party of gnolls with levels in barbarian crossing the Endless Grasslands!
C: boooring!
F: someone said he saw giants in the Craggy Hills!
W: yawn! We thought we'd go stop Necros the... Necromancer, before he rises as a lich and destroys all the lands with his army of shadows.
R: yeah! Sneeeeak attack!
C: you wish.
R: gah!
W: you don't have to come. If I don't have to prepare Haste 4 times, I could...
F: yeah, fine, I... have to... wash my hair today, anyway. So, it's a bit inconvenient for me. Short notice. You understand. You go sort that undead apocalypse thing out, we'll sort of... wait for you here.
W: right. Well. Teleport!
R: that's just rubbing it in.
F: this sucks. I'm mightier than any twenty common peasants from Badly Located Settlement!
R: we're still heroes, right?
F: we could go kill some gnolls while they're away.
R: you can sneak attack gnolls. Will you flank with me, buddy?
F: I love flanking. It adds +2, you know.
R: I know, F, I know.

Scene, some hours later:
F: that was a lot of gnolls.
R: with class levels. Keep running.
F: I wish W and C had been there!
R: They're busy!
F: we need a wizard. Just to, you know, help a bit.
R: I have gotten used to having one around. To the tavern!

Scene:
F: so, we want a wizard who can cast Black Test-
R: Testimonials.
F: that one. And Barrel-full-of-Pollywogs... the one that turns enemies into frogs. Just for the afternoon, to help us with some gnolls.
W2: I wield mighty arcane power! Here is my graduation certificate and a permission slip from my mother.
F: uh. How old are you?
W2: 30! ...17. I can cast Color Spray! Twice!
R: isn't there anyone else?
W2: they mostly went off to stop Necros the...
R: we heard.
W2: ...and there was a problem with a portal to the Nine Hells that...
F: dammit! Who's going to deal with gnoll invasions while all the wizards and clerics...
R: ...and druids...
F: ...are planeporting and teleshifting off to fight demon lords?
W2: us! Let's swear now to always stick together. I love you guys.
M: hey, I'm a 12th level Monk!
R: nnnnnnnnyeah.... no.

The fundamental hidden assumption behind the Problem with Parties of Multiple Tiers is that everyone is the same level. It's how the game is supposed to work, of course. But it's not really what would happen if the PCs were actual beings, and not the imaginings of 5 real people sitting around a table.

Tier 1s and 2s would graduate to the world-shattering threats (solving, and being). But tier 3 to 5s wouldn't just hang up their swords - they'd stick to problems they had a chance of dealing with. They'd recruit the best arcane and divine support they could find, who would be much lower level than them. Those wet behind the ears wizards would leap at the chance to dump their fellow survivor from Goblin Massacreville for a grizzled veteran, for now at least. Standard four-role parties would never stick together from 1st to 20th level; they'd constantly be splitting up and exchanging members.

Now, maybe for a player, it's boring being a 3rd level wizard alongside a 9th level fighter (or whatever level split proves to give everyone a meaningful chance of contributing). Maybe it's boring playing a party of entirely mundane 20th level PCs facing off against entirely mundane opponents.

But I don't know... suppose you turn on the television. Do you always want to watch a season finale of Doctor Who, in which a Time Lord saves the entire universe from destruction? Maybe sometimes it's good enough to watch Superman save the planet. Maybe an intelligence agent saves one city. Maybe sometimes you just watch a bumbling police detective solve the murder of noone important, eventually, even though three other people get killed during the course of the hour.

[Killer Angel]

The fundamental hidden assumption behind the Problem with Parties of Multiple Tiers is that everyone is the same level. It's how the game is supposed to work, of course.

Back in 1E and AD&D, thanks to the different advancement rate, it was fairly common.

[LordBlades]

Back in 1E and AD&D, thanks to the different advancement rate, it was fairly common.


Yeah, but in 3.5 one of the base assumption of the game is that a level x monk is an equal contributor to the party compared to a level x druid, which is extremely flawed in practice.

[Hecuba]

This is absurd. Beating a DC by 20 is considered a perfect success RAW.

Knowledge has specific rules when applied to monsters: success gets you one piece of useful information. Every 5 points above the DC gets you another piece of useful information.

So consider a pixie: if you ignored the stat box and only considered each SLA and listed combat option to be "useful information", you would have 15 elements.

The base DC is 11 (10+1 for 1 HD). The DC for knowing all 15 of those is 81. That's ignoring DR, movement, skills, organization, stats, or feats (which all might be considered "useful information"). Those would add (with skills, movement, and stats/saves each aggregated, so conservatively) 10 more "useful items," which would pump it to 131. If BAB, initiative, and standard weapons, are considered useful, it's 146.

And if the DM thinks that each stat, skill or save entry is individually useful, then you're at 226 for a CR 5 pixie with 1 hd. But, in fairness, if it doesn't have dance, it's only 221.

[Feriority]

Yes, he knows something about that monster. If the Wizard can make a Knowledge check high enough to elicit every single bit of information in a creature's writeup, I'll gladly take that as knowing about the monster in question. Of course, such DCs will generally be well over 100. Have you looked at how many pieces of useful information are in most monster descriptions?

A picture, or better yet, a Spot check of a live creature in action, is supposed to be worth a thousand words. My suggestion for dealing with tiers, in the matter of the abusable Alter Self/Polymorph/Shapechange spell line, limits what a Wizard can accomplish just by their class abilities, and puts the emphasis on getting out and encountering creatures ─ something where those top tier classes don't have an advantage over lower tiers.

Uhm. If I need a knowledge check of over 100 to represent having studied a dragon well enough to shapechange it, surely my spot DC should be *vastly* higher, because now I have to determine all of those characteristics by seeing them rather than from remembering some handy list in an arcane tome about dragons? You require Knowledge to bring up EVERY fact in the monster manual, but even if the dragon doesn't use half its abilities when I Spot it, that's close enough?

Or is seeing the physical form all that's required for me to be familiar? Because if so, the *first* relevant fact I can remember about the being for being five points above the DC is the nice illustration in the book. I'll happily NOT remember the details of what exactly it breathes - something nasty, good enough for me - and remember the picture.

After all, as a wizard, I not only studied these beings, I knew that powerful wizards can shapechange, and one day dreamed of being able to become a a great shapechanger (among other things, of course; I wanted to be a Great Wizard, not just Mr Magic Creature Form); I learned from the accounts of other wizards that visualizing the form was the most important part of familiarity, and emphasized memorizing the pictures when studying magical creatures.

It's in my backstory now, doesn't violate the rules of how Knowledge works, AND is entirely consistent with your use of Spot. I've even given myself a penalty on all Knowledge: Arcana checks to know things about magic creatures that aren't for the purpose of shapechanging, because now I know what they look like instead of what especially nasty thing they breathe.

[Curmudgeon]

Uhm. If I need a knowledge check of over 100 to represent having studied a dragon well enough to shapechange it, surely my spot DC should be *vastly* higher
The goal here is to help balance out the tiers. If you get a chance to Spot a particular type of dragon, very likely that dragon's going to Spot you, too. Studying the dragon in action and surviving that encounter ─ when you can't make the Knowledge DC to be aware of all its capabilities ─ is the balancing factor, and the reward is that you'll get to add a single new form to your Polymorph repertoire with only moderate skill checks.

[Killer Angel]

Yeah, but in 3.5 one of the base assumption of the game is that a level x monk is an equal contributor to the party compared to a level x druid, which is extremely flawed in practice.

Yep. I wasn't denying that, but only pointing out that the different editions, handled in very different ways the power difference between the various classes.
In 1-2E, casters were limited variously (casting time, slow advancement, and so on), while in 3.x those limitations faded away, and someone was expecting that there would have been a sort of balance...
At least, in AD&D, a group with PCs having different levels, was expected.

But I'm digressing.

[Feriority]

I recognize that it's a balancing factor. The problem is that it feels not only like an arbitrary balancing factor - arbitrary isn't necessarily bad - but an illogical arbitrary balancing factor. It doesn't make sense for watching a dragon during an encounter in which it doesn't actually use half its statted abilities to actually provide better information than the rigorous study my wizard has done according to the class fluff, my backstory, the class crunch, and the particular skills and abilities I have chosen for my character.

It's of particular annoyance to me because I have had to deal with a real world analogue of this - people who insist that having owned and used a computer makes them just as much an expert on how it works as my dedicated study, so I must just be an obstructionist or lazy when I insist that doing something is not so trivial and simple a task as it sounds in their head. There's nothing wrong with not being an expert, so long as you understand the limits of your non-expertise.

The idea that spot works better than Knowledge: Arcana for knowing about the magical properties of magical creatures seems to be an extension of the same idea to me. If you want to ban those spells entirely, that's acceptable to me - it's an arbitrary balancing choice, but it's one that doesn't break basic logic. The world functions just fine without shape-changing magic. But sticking nonsensical nerfs on the spells while retaining them doesn't sit well with me.

[LordBlades]

The goal here is to help balance out the tiers. If you get a chance to Spot a particular type of dragon, very likely that dragon's going to Spot you, too. Studying the dragon in action and surviving that encounter ─ when you can't make the Knowledge DC to be aware of all its capabilities ─ is the balancing factor, and the reward is that you'll get to add a single new form to your Polymorph repertoire with only moderate skill checks.

You do know that there are a bunch of other spells that contribute to tier imbalance much more than Polymorph? Also, I think it's much more civilized to simply talk to the wizard player and tell him 'I don't want you to use polymorph' rather than nerf it like this, which only encourages creative players to find ways around it via various divination.

[Serpentine]

The goal here is to help balance out the tiers. If you get a chance to Spot a particular type of dragon, very likely that dragon's going to Spot you, too. Studying the dragon in action and surviving that encounter ─ when you can't make the Knowledge DC to be aware of all its capabilities ─ is the balancing factor, and the reward is that you'll get to add a single new form to your Polymorph repertoire with only moderate skill checks.IIRC, you were arguing that it made sense. And, balancing attempt or not, it just doesn't make sense for you to know more about something just by looking at it (represented by Spot) than by researching, studying, listening to anecdotes about, examining disection and research notes about, and otherwise gaining an understanding of that creature (represented by Knowledge).
If you want to do it your way, you'd be better off taking the Animorphs route - you have to touch the creature before you can turn into it.

[Gnaeus]

And polymorph (as a ranged touch melee buff) gets used on fighter allies. A lot, at least in my parties. Nerfing it hurts the fighter more than the wizard in my experience, and encourages the wizard to be LESS of a team player.

It gives the fighter flight, reach, high enough strength/size to use combat maneuvers, sometimes energy resists. It is my one stop shop for ally-buffing. If you nerfed it so that it no longer served that function, I would replace it, and probably not with another buff spell (on my current character, probably Enervation and Orb of Fire would replace my 2 polymorph slots).

[prufock]

Does anyone actually find this a practical concern, or is it just a theoretical concern? Granted, my group isn't one of high-optimization, but I don't recall ever having a situation where anyone was completely useless, or one was doing everything. Maybe this is due to our play style, or the DM, but there always seems to be something for everyone to do in encounters, and we generally all contribute to role-playing.

But then, I suppose I wouldn't want to be the Samurai in a group of Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Samurai, either.

[MeeposFire]

Does anyone actually find this a practical concern, or is it just a theoretical concern? Granted, my group isn't one of high-optimization, but I don't recall ever having a situation where anyone was completely useless, or one was doing everything. Maybe this is due to our play style, or the DM, but there always seems to be something for everyone to do in encounters, and we generally all contribute to role-playing.

But then, I suppose I wouldn't want to be the Samurai in a group of Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Samurai, either.

It is both. It is theoretical since it does not take all play factors into the discussion (since that is not really possible) notice that it says using equal optimization these classes are in this order. If you have a group and the best optimizer is the fighter and your worst is a wizard the fighter might be competitive for a long time however this does not change the fact that if that wizard player gets lucky in picking stuff or starts "getting it" then things will quickly turn. The system is also practical since it helps you nip stuff in the bud faster since now you know to expect that a party such as that samurai party is very likely to become not fun for the samurai character in particular.

[LordBlades]

It is both. It is theoretical since it does not take all play factors into the discussion (since that is not really possible) notice that it says using equal optimization these classes are in this order. If you have a group and the best optimizer is the fighter and your worst is a wizard the fighter might be competitive for a long time however this does not change the fact that if that wizard player gets lucky in picking stuff or starts "getting it" then things will quickly turn. The system is also practical since it helps you nip stuff in the bud faster since now you know to expect that a party such as that samurai party is very likely to become not fun for the samurai character in particular.


I have found the tier system very applicable in practice:

My first D&D character was a cleric (human, worshiper of Kord, even took WP: Greatsword) as I was the last guy to joined the group, and I was asked to play a healer (other 2 chars were sword&board fighter and archery rogue). I though it was a good roleplay idea to seek being in melee as often as possible. Since the sword&board fighter wasn't getting hit often, I had plenty of time to do that. So I started using nice melee buffs, like Shield of faith, Divine Favor or Bull's Str. By the time I reached level 7 and got Divine Power, I was already a more effective character than the other 2 put together and the campaign stopped soon afterward.

Next game was an Eberron campaign with a somewhat larger group (6 ppl this time). I was playing a rogue/assassin with a rapier built around improved feint, while one of the other players saw alienist and liked it, so he pulls off a grey elf conjurer/alienist. He focused mostly on conjuration spells due to RP reasons, but because of that he practically broke the campaign in half (other chars included human monk, shifter ranger, human hexblade with a horrible player and a warforged fighter/juggernaut).

[Socratov]

so... actualy there is nothing you can do to keep DND balanced other then only allow for 1 or 2 tiers... but then again, what will you do in an all caster party without any good meatshield... sure the fighter isn't centre of the party anymore, but the wizard will still need a meatshield or someone to really attract attention to keep their spellcasting uninterrupted...

[Amphetryon]

so... actualy there is nothing you can do to keep DND balanced other then only allow for 1 or 2 tiers... but then again, what will you do in an all caster party without any good meatshield... sure the fighter isn't centre of the party anymore, but the wizard will still need a meatshield or someone to really attract attention to keep their spellcasting uninterrupted...

Actually, what the Wizard needs is smart tactics and - possibly at low levels - is the Cleric and/or Druid and/or Druid's Animal Companion to do the melee, and the same modicum of good luck any character needs. Combine that with a DM that doesn't deliberately set out to play "gotcha!" and there should be few problems.

[LordBlades]

so... actualy there is nothing you can do to keep DND balanced other then only allow for 1 or 2 tiers... but then again, what will you do in an all caster party without any good meatshield... sure the fighter isn't centre of the party anymore, but the wizard will still need a meatshield or someone to really attract attention to keep their spellcasting uninterrupted...

CoDzilla works perfectly as a meat shield. You can't really ignore a gargantuan Dire Polar Bear clawing at your face for insane amounts of damage. Same goes for any 'gish' build.

[Ceaon]

so... actualy there is nothing you can do to keep DND balanced other then only allow for 1 or 2 tiers... but then again, what will you do in an all caster party without any good meatshield... sure the fighter isn't centre of the party anymore, but the wizard will still need a meatshield or someone to really attract attention to keep their spellcasting uninterrupted...

If you don't have a meatshield, you fly.

If the enemy can fly as well, the meatshield wasn't really able to protect you anyway.

[Ernir]

Does anyone actually find this a practical concern, or is it just a theoretical concern?
I think this is an extremely practical concern, and one that has touched most games in which I have participated.

The games that last, that is.

the wizard will still need a meatshield or someone to really attract attention to keep their spellcasting uninterrupted...
As character and optimization level increases, this becomes less and less true.

[Gnaeus]

so... actualy there is nothing you can do to keep DND balanced other then only allow for 1 or 2 tiers... but then again, what will you do in an all caster party without any good meatshield... sure the fighter isn't centre of the party anymore, but the wizard will still need a meatshield or someone to really attract attention to keep their spellcasting uninterrupted...

What other people said. Also, wizard ACFs like Abrupt Jaunt make the wizard virtually immune to damage for the length of most low level combats. Also, by level 3, a wizard can tank quite well if he wishes. Alter Self+Mage Armor+False life (With possible addition of Shield or Mirror Image or Blur as needed) make the wizard as easily able to stand in the front line as the fighter. Not that he SHOULD, but if party needs a meatshield, wizard can meatshield.

[LordBlades]

What other people said. Also, wizard ACFs like Abrupt Jaunt make the wizard virtually immune to damage for the length of most low level combats. Also, by level 3, a wizard can tank quite well if he wishes. Alter Self+Mage Armor+False life (With possible addition of Shield or Mirror Image or Blur as needed) make the wizard as easily able to stand in the front line as the fighter. Not that he SHOULD, but if party needs a meatshield, wizard can meatshield.

This pretty much. Most tier 1 casters can roll with around 25-30 AC by level 5ish if they feel like it(and add significant miss chances to that), and that doesn't even include stuff like Dwarf Ancestor (awesome alter self option if you're an outsider).