[3.5] Best tier of power? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Person_Man

2011-09-26, 08:00 AM

Any Tier works fine if the DM and/or group is experienced enough. Lower Tiers just get more/better treasure and more liberal rules interpretations, higher Tiers must be more mature about spell/power selection. I personally prefer playing in Tier 1-3, though when I homebrew I generally aim for Tier 3, because it makes balance discussions easier.

Pathfinder Fighter is Tier 4 or 5, depending on whether or not you allow it to use all the various archtypes and alternate class features out there, and how liberal you are in combining them.

A really easy rule of thumb for determining Tiers: Is the class likely to spend most rounds trying to make a full attack action? If so, then it's Tier 4 or lower. Is the class capable of casting 9th level spells or psionic powers with a mostly unrestricted list? If so, then it's Tier 1 or 2. Everything else tends to fall into Tier 3. There are a few exceptions (Healer, Dragonfire Adept, Truenamer), but they're generally due to poorly written mechanics.

Elitarismo

2011-09-26, 08:16 AM

Ok, so which tier of power would the lovely posters of this forum say was the best for a generic game of DnD or it's equivalent? And as a side note, which tier would the Pathfinder Fighter fall into?

1 and 6, in that order.

The top three tiers are primarily defined by what they can do. The bottom three are primarily defined by what they cannot do. The tier system claims that the difference between 1, 2, and 3 is the number of game breaking tricks they get access to, but since even the most high power DMs are not going to allow the infinite loops anyways this is a moot point. There are however other key things that tier 1s and 2s get that 3s either get very little or none of that are not gamebreakers but are still requirements for success. So while a party of say... Bard, Beguiler, Crusader, Warblade will really have a hard time getting very far due to their weak to average saves and other key factors even removing the Crusader for a Cleric and leaving the rest as they are will go a very long way towards fixing their saves problems.

Since anything below tier 3 is primarily defined by what they cannot do, they will naturally spend a lot of time doing nothing important or nothing at all. That doesn't lend itself well to engagement with the game for obvious reasons.

The PF Fighter makes Tier 6 because it's worse than the 3.5 Fighter that is Tier 5. Same reason as the CW Samurai, except even it has some redeeming value.

Ceaon

2011-09-26, 08:21 AM

Eldan

2011-09-26, 08:22 AM

The top three tiers are primarily defined by what they can do. The bottom three are primarily defined by what they cannot do. The tier system claims that the difference between 1, 2, and 3 is the number of game breaking tricks they get access to, but since even the most high power DMs are not going to allow the infinite loops anyways this is a moot point.

That's not quite the only definition. Another important factor is just how many things you can do. A wizard with access to a variety of spells can, if he decides to do so, change his party role basically from one day to another. On Monday, he prepares fireball and Scorching Ray and is a blaster. On Tuesday, he prepares Alter Self, Bull's Strength and Enlarge person and is a fighter. On Wednesday, he prepares Planar Binding and Summon Monster and is a minion controller. A beguiler, on the other hand, is always a sneaky illusionist/enchanter and a Dread Necro is always a debuffer/miniomancer.

Firechanter

2011-09-26, 08:30 AM

The tier system claims that the difference between 1, 2, and 3 is the number of game breaking tricks they get access to

T3 does not get any game-breaking tricks. :smallannoyed:

Elitarismo

2011-09-26, 08:36 AM

How is the PF Fighter worse than the 3.5 Fighter? Power Attack nerf? I'd say the PF Fighter is tier 4. The only real tier-switcher would be the paladin (up a tier), and maybe the bard (down a tier).

My favored tier is 4. I like accomplishing things in a way that seems attainable by the common folk... if they had trained all their life or made a pact or something.

Every melee trick was nerfed into the ground. Feats were nerfed into the ground. It should not be hard to see why a melee class whose main thing is feats would suffer from this. Paladins and Bards were also nerfed.

Eldan: Of course it's not the only definition. That is why I immediately followed the illustration that that was a bad definition by providing a better one. The one you provide doesn't matter though because only the best things you can do matters. Otherwise Wizard would be Tier 5 because blasting is just that bad.

T3 does not get any game-breaking tricks. :smallannoyed:

Not entirely true. But also not the point. If you go by the original poster's definition of the tier system, and ban all the infinite loops/mass miinions/etc there are few differences between Wizards and the Tier 3 casters. In some ways a Beguiler is actually better than a Wizard. Their casting mechanics in particular.

Little Brother

2011-09-26, 08:37 AM

T3 does not get any game-breaking tricks. :smallannoyed:Wilder? D2 Crusader? 9th level spell Fighter 20?

If you try, you can break almost anything. Except CW Samurai, you can only make it okay.

Elitarismo

2011-09-26, 08:38 AM

Wilder? D2 Crusader? 9th level spell Fighter 20?

If you try, you can break almost anything. Except CW Samurai, you can only make it okay.

I was thinking more Dread Necro parties. Not the entire party is a Dread Necro. A Dread Necro is the entire party.

Blisstake

2011-09-26, 08:38 AM

Ok, so which tier of power would the lovely posters of this forum say was the best for a generic game of DnD or it's equivalent? And as a side note, which tier would the Pathfinder Fighter fall into?

A generic game of D&D? All of them. Generally when optimization doesn't become a factor, members of classes from different tiers can actually coexist.

Shotaro

2011-09-26, 08:49 AM

I think they all have their merits and a canny DM can deal with some of the issues the high tiers present, while the T6 classes just outright suck and I would warn a player that they would not keep up from the get go. We restrict to core but in general the "Wizard guy" is not batman with it. I am to an extent when I play a wizard (when wizard guy is DMing no less) and I am not massively overpowered but then he has restricted the spells available very harshly by school (thankfully the most restricted schools are the ones he thinks are most powerful - Evocation and Necromancy - which are barred schools for my guy, a transmuter).

My favourite classes are in T4 though - gotta love rogues man, gotta love rogues!

Eldan

2011-09-26, 08:50 AM

Eldan: Of course it's not the only definition. That is why I immediately followed the illustration that that was a bad definition by providing a better one. The one you provide doesn't matter though because only the best things you can do matters. Otherwise Wizard would be Tier 5 because blasting is just that bad.

True, you did. However, the best thing a class can do is also not the only definition of its power level. Versatility is the big difference between the sorcerer and the wizard, or any tier 2 and any tier 1 class. The wizard can literally do every trick in the book and copy the power of any class, without giving up his most powerful tricks. A sorcerer can still be built for melee or sneakiness, but he'll have trouble doing both that and general magic abuse.

Morph Bark

2011-09-26, 08:52 AM

Wilder? D2 Crusader? 9th level spell Fighter 20?

If you try, you can break almost anything. Except CW Samurai, you can only make it okay.

Wilder is Tier 2, D2 Crusader is a note of an infinite loop and if you take those out of the equation, the Tiers are still there.

I haven't ever heard of a Fighter 20 with 9th level spellcasting. :smallconfused:

The CW Samurai is actually easier to break. Ask Shneeky.

Radar

2011-09-26, 08:52 AM

Wilder? D2 Crusader? 9th level spell Fighter 20?

If you try, you can break almost anything. Except CW Samurai, you can only make it okay.
I beg to differ (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125885).

Also: 3rd Tier classes can be broken, but require an effort to become such. 1st and 2nd Tier classes require only smart choice of spells and use of their default class features to be broken - Animal Companion can be a better fighter, then the Fighter and it's not the Druid's strongest class feature.

Sucrose

2011-09-26, 08:55 AM

My favored tier is Tier 3. Nothing overtly gamebreaking, but everyone usually has something to contribute. I'd peg the PF Fighter at the same tier as its 3.5 counterpart sans Dungeon Crasher or Zhentarim variants, Tier 5.

How is the PF Fighter worse than the 3.5 Fighter? Power Attack nerf? I'd say the PF Fighter is tier 4. The only real tier-switcher would be the paladin (up a tier), and maybe the bard (down a tier).

My favored tier is 4. I like accomplishing things in a way that seems attainable by the common folk... if they had trained all their life or made a pact or something.

The issues commonly cited with the PF Fighter are that Power Attack has been nerfed, as has Improved Trip, and that, assuming PF material only (which is often demanded by PF DMs, and is the default for PF tournament play), the Fighter loses out on some of the useful ACFs that made Fighters worthwhile. Only way it really gains anything is via the skill system overhaul, and with typically average-to-low Int and low points per level, they're still well behind everyone in that arena save (possibly) Clerics.

A generic game of D&D? All of them. Generally when optimization doesn't become a factor, members of classes from different tiers can actually coexist.

Not remotely true. In that case, it simply becomes a case of how powerful the classes are 'out of the box,' and it's not a correctable problem, since the players, by definition of lacking optimization skill, do not understand the system well enough to correct for imbalance.

From my experience in such parties, the Druid continues to rule the roost, the Cleric and Wizard are a bandage box and a magic missile gun, the rogue gets half a fistful of d6 every now and again, and the Fighter is noticeably less effective than the Barbarian. Not really an improvement.

Talya

2011-09-26, 09:04 AM

Tiers 1 & 2 trivialize the game with a little system mastery, and occasionally even without any system mastery (the druid). As such, they're probably not the best place to be playing unless you've got responsible players and a great DM.

Tier 3&4 are viable without much system mastery in most cases, and damned good with a little bit of it. They're the sweet spot to be playing at.

Tier 5 is still entirely viable without cheesy tricks, but starts to show its weaknesses. If the DM has to compensate for having a well optimized tier 1 or 2 in the party, Tier 5 will feel entirely useless.

Tier 6 generally isn't useful. I'd include the monk here, even though JaronK listed him at Tier 5, he's not significantly better than the CW Samurai, whereas the fighter is.

I cannot comment on PF Fighter, because I don't play PF.

Gnaeus

2011-09-26, 09:06 AM

Every melee trick was nerfed into the ground. Feats were nerfed into the ground. It should not be hard to see why a melee class whose main thing is feats would suffer from this. Paladins and Bards were also nerfed.

Paladin is nerfed, if you live in Bizarro world and the definition of nerfed means "Got a lot better". The core PF paladin is much better than the core 3.5 paladin. The core + all splats 3.5 paladin is a little bit better than the PF paladin who does not have access to 3.5 splats. But that is only a function of 30 books to pull from instead of 5. Even most of the people who hate Pathfinder and will not play it agree that the paladin remake is a decent paladin fix.

Not entirely true. But also not the point. If you go by the original poster's definition of the tier system, and ban all the infinite loops/mass miinions/etc there are few differences between Wizards and the Tier 3 casters. In some ways a Beguiler is actually better than a Wizard. Their casting mechanics in particular.

He is right about this one Firechanter. Tier 3 casters already have some game breaking tricks, and it is pretty easy for them to use things like Arcane Disciple to get access to most of the game breakage of a tier 1.

Firechanter

2011-09-26, 09:12 AM

Granted, I don't know everything about T3 casters and will take your word for it. I just beg to differ about the "D2 Crusader" - that one is based on a faulty reading of the rules, or more precisely, deliberately ignoring a part of the rules that is clearly spelled out black on white, so that can hardly count. You can break the game with _any_ character if you simply ignore written rules.

Eldan

2011-09-26, 09:29 AM

And really, half of those things only work because of certain spells normally only available to the Tier 1s. And really, those are almost wizard class features anyway.

Greenish

2011-09-26, 09:39 AM

I haven't ever heard of a Fighter 20 with 9th level spellcasting. :smallconfused:There is no such thing.

And yeah, CW samurai is easy to break. Optimize intimidate, you roll over any encounters where it works, suck in the ones where it doesn't. That's broken, in the sense of "not working".

[Edit]: I prefer T3±1.

Elitarismo

2011-09-26, 09:54 AM

True, you did. However, the best thing a class can do is also not the only definition of its power level. Versatility is the big difference between the sorcerer and the wizard, or any tier 2 and any tier 1 class. The wizard can literally do every trick in the book and copy the power of any class, without giving up his most powerful tricks. A sorcerer can still be built for melee or sneakiness, but he'll have trouble doing both that and general magic abuse.

A guy with a gun is only going to be interested in unarmed combat in scenarios in which he cannot shoot his enemies in the face. Any other time, he has a better trick. Along the same lines while the Wizard can do a bunch of stuff, only the best stuff sets the power baseline, as anything else means he's weaker.

The issues commonly cited with the PF Fighter are that Power Attack has been nerfed, as has Improved Trip, and that, assuming PF material only (which is often demanded by PF DMs, and is the default for PF tournament play), the Fighter loses out on some of the useful ACFs that made Fighters worthwhile. Only way it really gains anything is via the skill system overhaul, and with typically average-to-low Int and low points per level, they're still well behind everyone in that arena save (possibly) Clerics.

Many other things were also nerfed, but the idea is that they are now 0 trick ponies. Even with skills, it doesn't matter because the handful of skills that were worth using before were also nerfed, shutting down anyone who isn't a primary spellcaster as much out of combat as they are negated in combat.

Paladin is nerfed, if you live in Bizarro world and the definition of nerfed means "Got a lot better". The core PF paladin is much better than the core 3.5 paladin. The core + all splats 3.5 paladin is a little bit better than the PF paladin who does not have access to 3.5 splats. But that is only a function of 30 books to pull from instead of 5. Even most of the people who hate Pathfinder and will not play it agree that the paladin remake is a decent paladin fix.

The core 3.5 Paladin has a not nerfed PA, and a stat and item system that doesn't screw him over as badly for being a MAD character. The Improved Trip and Spiked Chain nerfs and so forth don't really matter as they didn't take those things anyways, but at worst the 3.5 Paladin is redeemable with enough sources whereas the PF version is hopeless no matter what.

There's a nice writeup I was linked to in which a PF Paladin specifically designed to kill an Ice Devil was demonstrated to be entirely unable to do so. 0.00% success rate. If you are a cold resistant anti evil outsider warrior of good, and you cannot slap an Ice Devil about like a red headed stepchild then that is clearly a user error problem... in selecting the PF ruleset for your games.

Again, 3.5 core Paladins are hopeless too. Same as any other core melee classes. But they can potentially work with enough books, which is still better than will never work, no matter what.

dextercorvia

2011-09-26, 10:15 AM

There is no such thing.

And yeah, CW samurai is easy to break. Optimize intimidate, you roll over any encounters where it works, suck in the ones where it doesn't. That's broken, in the sense of "not working".

[Edit]: I prefer T3±1.

It can be done. Its kind of silly, though. Essentially, you can get spells from feats. With enough feats and tricks, you can get 9th level spells. Fighters (elven ones especially) have an abundance of feats to shuffle into spells.

BlueInc

2011-09-26, 10:28 AM

Big Fau

2011-09-26, 10:34 AM

I beg to differ (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125885).

Also: 3rd Tier classes can be broken, but require an effort to become such. 1st and 2nd Tier classes require only smart choice of spells and use of their default class features to be broken - Animal Companion can be a better fighter, then the Fighter and it's not the Druid's strongest class feature.

In all honesty, Tier 3s can be broken only by using material designed for Tier 2 or Tier 1 classes. The d2 Crusader would not be possible without Imbue Healing, and the Wilder gets by on tricks designed for the Psion.

Beguilers, for example, can be made Tier 1 via Shadowcraft Mage. That doesn't mean the Beguiler is broken, just that it's a good chasis for a broken ability.

Tier 3s are widely regarded as being balanced and have very few game breakers. The few they do have actually belong to Tiers 1&2, and are not exclusive to Tier 3.

JaronK

2011-09-26, 10:38 AM

I like playing at Tier 3 most of the time, since it means my character is usually able to do something useful towards whatever the party is up to. I like running for T4, just because the characters are easier to control so the prep time is lower. But I also really enjoy playing and running all Commoner games when we're intentionally being MUCH weaker than we're supposed to be, and then letting creative rule interpretations and roleplay carry the day.

Every once in a while it's fun to cut loose with the crazy T1 power, though.

JaronK

Elitarismo

2011-09-26, 10:46 AM

I prefer tier 3; powerful enough to feel fantasy, restricted enough to still be a game.

Also, Elitarismo just doesn't like Pathfinder. People argued in circles with him for a whole thread until it got locked (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215556).

Pathfinder being a terribly balanced system has nothing to do with what I think about it, and everything to do with it being a terribly balanced system.

But by all means, do attempt to blame me for faults of a system I did not design. I'm sure that will do wonders for the topic here.

Tvtyrant

2011-09-26, 11:08 AM

As I understand it the tier system works best/most accurately without multiclassing. Tiers 2, 4, and 6 are inflexible and of a certain power level. 6 has tricks that don't really work well, 4 has useful tricks, and 2 can break the game. Tiers 1, 3, and 5 are flexible versions of the aforementioned tiers. A tier 1 can use the tricks of multiple individual tier 2s, 3s have the tricks of multiple individual tier 4s, and 5s get the tricks of multiple individual tier 6s.

Looking at the game from this point of view, tier 3 is often the preferred tier because you will always be able to contribute, even if you cannot defeat a challenge alone.

A tier 1 can always deal with the issue by itself, and a tier 5 can always do something, even if it isn't useful. 2, 4 and 6 are each built for a niche, so they are often sitting on the sideline not contributing much. Tiers 3 and 4 seem to be the default for most people because they allow you to actually do something without being either brokenly powerful or pathetically weak. In essence the high and low tiers are binary; either you win instantly or you die. The middle tiers have more flexibility then that.

Seatbelt

2011-09-26, 11:17 AM

A guy with a gun is only going to be interested in unarmed combat in scenarios in which he cannot shoot his enemies in the face. Any other time, he has a better trick. Along the same lines while the Wizard can do a bunch of stuff, only the best stuff sets the power baseline, as anything else means he's weaker.

I disagree with this statement. If you're say, a Navy Seal, you're awesome. You have an awesome gun, and awesome stealth and unarmed combat skills, and sweet gear, and great support, and you can tech up and roll out for any mission on a given day.

If you're say, just a guy who owns a gun and spends a lot of time at the range practicing your aim.. you and the Seal might be 100% equal at your skill with your strongest weapon (your gun). But the Seal is still better than you.

In this case the Seal is the wizard and the guy with the gun is the fighter. A mailman wizard isn't broken because he can do a lot of damage. Other builds can do a lot of damage and aren't broken. A mail man wizard is broken because he can do that, and also everything else without compromising his damage ability. He's not T1 because of his best trick. He's T1 because he has all the tricks.

erikun

2011-09-26, 11:32 AM

Ok, so which tier of power would the lovely posters of this forum say was the best for a generic game of DnD or it's equivalent?
There really isn't a single "best" tier range for a "generic" game, because even general games of D&D vary wildly. One group may prefer low-power games while another enjoys the high-powered tier 1 options. Saying that games average around tier 3-4 doesn't really tell us anything because all tiers in equal usage will give us an average of 3-4.

Tier 3-4 characters are generally able to do their job well and sufficiently support themselves directly. Tier 5 characters can do their jobs, but generally rely on other characters to provide support to do so well. Tier 1-2 are generally capable of dealing with large numbers of situations on their own, either producing the solution for a problem or creating their own solutions.

Tier 3-4 seems to be roughly the balancing point where enemy CR is concerned, which is probably the biggest issue if you are just starting with the system. Most tier 3-4 classes provide the "heroic badassery" theme, capable or taking out hordes of orcs themselves and working well with others. Tier 5 tends to be weaker, more along the lines of gritty heroic fantasy, and needs to stay together in a group to function well. The biggest concern with a tier 5 game is to avoid throwing enemies that would easily pick them apart and that they cannot deal with easily. Tier 1-2 is high-powered gaming, giving the players lots of abilities and the tools to deal with some really crazy situations. As a DM, you would probably need to optimize opponents (typically with class levels) to keep them at a competitive level.

I would not suggest running a tier 6 or tier 0 game without everyone being very familiar with the system. Sure, playing the "commoners to great heroes" can be fun, but the system doesn't do it that well and you'd want to be capable of adjusting in the necessary direction.

One last thing to note is that tiers measure a class's potential with an assumed amount of familiarity and optimization. I would not recommend allowing a Druid in a group of tier 4 and tier 5 characters, but a Wizard or Sorcerer would likely work just fine with people unfamiliar with the classes. The Druid has a much higher power "floor" and is far easier to produce a higher-powered character with any options. The Wizard has a much lower power floor, and any random selection of options will more likely produce a character with a lower average power level.

Lord.Sorasen

2011-09-26, 11:58 AM

Pathfinder being a terribly balanced system has nothing to do with what I think about it, and everything to do with it being a terribly balanced system.

But by all means, do attempt to blame me for faults of a system I did not design. I'm sure that will do wonders for the topic here.

Alright, let's get something out the way. You're belief that Pathfinder is a terribly balanced system may or may not have a level of truth. Maybe it's entirely true, I don't have enough system mastery to say.

What I can say is that a lot of people here, myself being one of them, really like Pathfinder, for various reasons. And your arguments on the board don't seem to line up with the actual gameplay experience of many players. So when you attack the system as a whole, it really strikes a nerve with a lot of the site's viewers.

Now, I'm all for discussion on the subject, but I can't help but feel like whenever you talk about Pathfinder the discussion goes to hell. There's a certain point when someone feels too strongly about something that this sort of argumentative behavior is inevitable. Unfortunately, this sort of behavior almost never changes anyone's mind about anything. Though we all (and I don't mean to single you out here, I mean all) act like we're giving real data it mostly seems to translate into emotional bickering. Yet... I do want to hear what you have to say. Just not here. If you hate D&D 3.5, you don't go responding to all the D&D threads with that opinion. It just gets people angry.

Which is why I'm going to suggest starting a thread for such a topic. If you hope to inform people on Pathfinder balance, which I assume is your goal, it seems like it'd be a far more efficient way to do it. Also I realize this was a ridiculously long post, but I'm going to post it anyway.

Elitarismo

2011-09-26, 12:07 PM

The Fighter and Monk are in odd tiers, not even ones. That argument doesn't work.

I disagree with this statement. If you're say, a Navy Seal, you're awesome. You have an awesome gun, and awesome stealth and unarmed combat skills, and sweat gear, and great support, and you can tech up and roll out for any mission on a given day.

Modern military. Melee combat is a last resort.

If you're say, just a guy who owns a gun and spends a lot of time at the range practicing your aim.. you and the Seal might be 100% equal at your skill with your strongest weapon (your gun). But the Seal is still better than you.

In this case the Seal is the wizard and the guy with the gun is the fighter. A mailman wizard isn't broken because he can do a lot of damage. Other builds can do a lot of damage and aren't broken. A mail man wizard is broken because he can do that, and also everything else without compromising his damage ability. He's not T1 because of his best trick. He's T1 because he has all the tricks.

Bad analogy. The Seal is the guy with his best option and some other stuff. The other guy took some martial arts classes from a dubious instructor. If the two ever fought the Seal shoots the other guy from far away and he never sees it coming. If the other guy gets close then the Seal can beat him at his own game very easily, but he's still going to prefer his best trick over any others.

And going the damage route requires such high degrees of narrow focus that it does limit your ability to do other things.

Oh and liking something does not make it good. I'm sure FATAL has its fans somewhere. Regardless I brought PF into the subject because the OP specifically asked about it, and I specifically answered his question.

Lord.Sorasen

2011-09-26, 12:30 PM

Person_Man

2011-09-26, 12:34 PM

Every melee trick was nerfed into the ground. Feats were nerfed into the ground. It should not be hard to see why a melee class whose main thing is feats would suffer from this. Paladins and Bards were also nerfed.

In fairness to Pathfinder, all of the standard melee tricks still exist, but now require a slightly different methodology to use. For example, Grapple was changed to a Standard Action in Pathfinder, even though it was an attack action in 3.X. But then they turned around and gave the Grab ability (which allows you to Grapple as a free action after a successful attack, which is basically the Scorpion's Grasp feat from Sandstorm) to various builds. The whole Combat Maneuver thing nerfs size bonuses and generally breaks up the bonuses from one feat into two feats, but various classes/archtypes that specialize in Combat Maneuvers get various other bonuses. Power Attack was nerfed, but you can still find plenty of other damage bonuses (which don't nerf your to-hit) floating around. It's not all in their core rule book (just as Shock Trooper and Leap Attack aren't in core 3.5), but it's out there.

Pathfinder is basically just an elaborate set of house rules for people who want to keep spending money on 3.X D&D. Some of it's good, some of it's garbage. The real benefit is that they're still publishing, so if you want new toys to play with, they have it.

Elitarismo

2011-09-26, 12:44 PM

On subject, my personal favorite tier is somewhere around 3-4, by which I mean I find the two tiers tend to work fine together without too many real balance issues.

Though you'll see here that there's obviously some debate about it, Pathfinder has its own tier system, and the rules for PF seem to mean that the tiers don't quite work the same and honestly shouldn't be compared. Pathfinder fighter particular seems a cut above D&D core fighter, but a cut below dungeoncrasher zhentarim fighter. If you gave PF fighter access to 3.5 fighter feats and alternate class features, it would no doubt be stronger, but that should be obvious. It still wouldn't pass tier 4 though. To pass tier 4 you need something special.

Note that while pathfinder nerfed a lot of combat maneuvers and power attack, they seem to have really improved the options for archery. The ability to perform something of a lesser power attack, options like smite evil to bypass damage reduction, etc etc seem to make PF stronger in 3.5 at least in that regard.

To make archery even begin to be viable, you need:

Seeking, Force, Splitting. The last two of those at least do not exist in PF, and without them you're not doing enough damage to make a difference and are still subject to all the flaws of non magical ranged combat.

Person: You are still going to be entirely unsuccessful at those things. When you lose 80 damage and gain 5, you're still down 75 damage. Once you consider that's 75 per hit, well good luck killing anything before it kills you.

Grappling was already a monster only thing, the maneuver nerfs just reinforce that.

Grendus

2011-09-26, 12:50 PM

Fighter is still T5. It was placed in T5 based on the assumption that the person hadn't gone dumpster diving for feats and ACF's. You'll notice that the Dungeoncrasher was T4, as was the Zhentarim Soldier. Pathfinder Fighter may be a little lower on the T5 list, but it's still T5. You can still pull off some nice tricks, and in a party of T3 and lower it will be underwhelming but will carry it's weight, but it's not as bad as the commoner (which was designed from the ground up as being the worst class imaginable, and they succeeded).

Most players will tell you that T3/T4 is the best place for parties without a lot of system mastery. At that level, there are generally fewer build traps for the unaware (DEATH OR GLORRRRYohgodIgotstompedbyagiant) without running the risk of accidentally breaking the game (*coughdruidcough*). Generally speaking, once you're familiar with the game and optimization, any set of tiers can play together, provided they agree to play together. An optimized commoner still has no place in a party with a batman wizard, even if the commoner is a tricked out charger.

Lord.Sorasen

2011-09-26, 01:20 PM

To make archery even begin to be viable, you need:

Seeking, Force, Splitting. The last two of those at least do not exist in PF, and without them you're not doing enough damage to make a difference and are still subject to all the flaws of non magical ranged combat.

Person: You are still going to be entirely unsuccessful at those things. When you lose 80 damage and gain 5, you're still down 75 damage. Once you consider that's 75 per hit, well good luck killing anything before it kills you.

Grappling was already a monster only thing, the maneuver nerfs just reinforce that.

Wait I hate to ask, but why would you need force? I mean, yeah in 3.5 you need force, but there are plenty of ways to negate damage reduction. The paladin's smite evil is the obvious one right now. And while I see the value of splitting bow in a very precision based build, that same PF paladin can use divine bond to place a good handful of d6 on each shot. Not up to the standards of splitting, but it's not all that bad. And I feel obligated to mention that the PF archer here can do all this with a mundane bow. She still has all that money to buy... I believe force is +2, Seeking is +1, Seeking is +3... So a +7 longbow, at minimum. More if you were hoping for an enhancement bonus higher than 1. They also get charisma to hit.

Tyndmyr

2011-09-26, 01:25 PM

One last thing to note is that tiers measure a class's potential with an assumed amount of familiarity and optimization. I would not recommend allowing a Druid in a group of tier 4 and tier 5 characters, but a Wizard or Sorcerer would likely work just fine with people unfamiliar with the classes. The Druid has a much higher power "floor" and is far easier to produce a higher-powered character with any options. The Wizard has a much lower power floor, and any random selection of options will more likely produce a character with a lower average power level.

This cannot be over-emphasized. Potential to break the game does not guarantee that they'll break the game.

I like versatile classes, myself. High tier stuff. They lead to more possibilities and complex games. That said, I won't recommend a wizard as a first character.

Elitarismo

2011-09-26, 01:27 PM

Wait I hate to ask, but why would you need force? I mean, yeah in 3.5 you need force, but there are plenty of ways to negate damage reduction. The paladin's smite evil is the obvious one right now. And while I see the value of splitting bow in a very precision based build, that same PF paladin can use divine bond to place a good handful of d6 on each shot. Not up to the standards of splitting, but it's not all that bad. And I feel obligated to mention that the PF archer here can do all this with a mundane bow. She still has all that money to buy... I believe force is +2, Seeking is +1, Seeking is +3... So a +7 longbow, at minimum. More if you were hoping for an enhancement bonus higher than 1. They also get charisma to hit.

Force is so you are not instantly and entirely negated by a simple Wind Wall at all levels of play. Of course Wind Wall becomes available long before Force does, but even so... DR is of no consequence. What you need is a very large volume of attacks to make up for the very low damage per hit. Otherwise due to the way the system works you are simply a melee character with a worse weapon.

Without Force and Splitting, you're stuck doing low or no damage, which means you might as well not be there at all.

And a ranged Paladin? As if they don't have enough MAD problems...

I've intentionally avoided mentioning ranged all this time because it's a non factor in any discussion about viable builds.

Lord.Sorasen

2011-09-26, 01:59 PM

Force is so you are not instantly and entirely negated by a simple Wind Wall at all levels of play. Of course Wind Wall becomes available long before Force does, but even so... DR is of no consequence. What you need is a very large volume of attacks to make up for the very low damage per hit. Otherwise due to the way the system works you are simply a melee character with a worse weapon.

Without Force and Splitting, you're stuck doing low or no damage, which means you might as well not be there at all.

And a ranged Paladin? As if they don't have enough MAD problems...

I've intentionally avoided mentioning ranged all this time because it's a non factor in any discussion about viable builds.

What MAD problems? In 3.5 yeah sure. But in PF they get
- The same divine grace, and high will save, so no need to worry about wisdom or con for saves.
- The same charisma to attack rolls with smite, but now smite lasts until the target dies.
- Lay-on hands is a flat (level/2)(1d6) rather than (Level)(Cha), but you get uses equal to (level/2)+(Cha). But the real boost here is getting the ability to use this power on yourself as a swift action. What I'm getting at here is the paladin can use charisma to heal herself for more damage than that point of constitution would grant.
- Spellcasting is charisma based now.

So, Dex/Charisma -> Strength or maybe con? That's not really all that MAD at all.

Also, damage reduction is most certainly not a non-issue. A monster with damage reduction/5 will take 5 damage less for every single arrow the splitting bow archer fires. That sort of thing will add up, especially for someone who's bow is mostly spent on getting a ton of arrows.

I should note that PF smite evil bypasses all damage reduction. It also deals paladin level damage per arrow. Which isn't much but like with damage reduction it adds up. Not to mention unlike the popular "precision damage" archery build, the paladin's smite works from any distance, against all evil enemies, which makes this archer viable against a larger number of foes.

And for the record, whether a force bow bypasses a wind-wall is a huge point of debate. Just trying to find out what the force bow did led me to 3 arguments on it.

That being said wind wall is a dumb spell and it's written terribly and needs a rewrite in either edition.

Tvtyrant

2011-09-26, 02:04 PM

Can we not choke up every discussion with pathfinder vs. 3.x debates?

Frosty

2011-09-26, 02:13 PM

Core PF Palaldin certainly is better than Core 3.5 Paladin. How much better is up to each person to decide.

Can a Core 3.5 Paladin beat the Ice Devil?

Grendus

2011-09-26, 02:26 PM

Why, did someone beat an ice devil with a level 13 PF Paladin? Just curious. I'm not even sure a core only wizard could beat an Ice Devil reliably (good SLA's, high saves, high damage output... it could be done, but the Ice Devil has a much better than even shot against a level 13 wizard).

sreservoir

2011-09-26, 02:27 PM

Elitarismo

2011-09-26, 02:52 PM

What MAD problems? In 3.5 yeah sure. But in PF they get
- The same divine grace, and high will save, so no need to worry about wisdom or con for saves.

He's up against much higher DCs, so he's the same or worse off.

- The same charisma to attack rolls with smite, but now smite lasts until the target dies.

Not enough to matter or make up for what they lost.

- Lay-on hands is a flat (level/2)(1d6) rather than (Level)(Cha), but you get uses equal to (level/2)+(Cha). But the real boost here is getting the ability to use this power on yourself as a swift action. What I'm getting at here is the paladin can use charisma to heal herself for more damage than that point of constitution would grant.

See above. At most you are saving a few wand charges. Though that's actually weaker. If you are dump statting Con you just die before you can heal yourself of a tiny fraction of the damage you took.

- Spellcasting is charisma based now.

Paladins have 0 spells worth casting in core, so doesn't matter.

So, Dex/Charisma -> Strength or maybe con? That's not really all that MAD at all.

Four stats? Are you serious?

Also, damage reduction is most certainly not a non-issue. A monster with damage reduction/5 will take 5 damage less for every single arrow the splitting bow archer fires. That sort of thing will add up, especially for someone who's bow is mostly spent on getting a ton of arrows.

If your damage is so low that losing 5 of it is a concern, the problem isn't that you are losing 5 of it, it's that you don't have enough damage to matter even if you are not losing 5 of it. Not to mention that it is quite trivial to bypass it entirely for an archer... which isn't a point in their favor because of the previous point but does mean that DR is a non factor.

I should note that PF smite evil bypasses all damage reduction. It also deals paladin level damage per arrow. Which isn't much but like with damage reduction it adds up. Not to mention unlike the popular "precision damage" archery build, the paladin's smite works from any distance, against all evil enemies, which makes this archer viable against a larger number of foes.

I'm not assuming precision damage builds. Regardless due to the way the system works you are close to the enemy when you attack them, and due to the way archery works you still aren't really hurting them.

And for the record, whether a force bow bypasses a wind-wall is a huge point of debate. Just trying to find out what the force bow did led me to 3 arguments on it.

Nope. Your arrows are now made of force. Wind Wall blocks normal projectiles. Not bolts of force. Even if that weren't true, then all you have done is proven that 3.5 archers were also bad, and not that PF archers are good.

That being said wind wall is a dumb spell and it's written terribly and needs a rewrite in either edition.

When an entire style is shut down so cheaply and easily, I take that as a warning sign to not have high expectations of it as it clearly is not a viable or effective tactic.

Frosty: No. But a 3.5 all in Paladin could take him. A PF all in Paladin would still be a holy pinata.

Grendus: A Wizard could take him. A Cleric or Druid could take him. A Rogue might be able to take him (3.5 only, PF Rogues are the things that make PF Paladins look viable). I find it telling though that a PF Paladin built for the specific purpose of defeating a specific at level opponent that their class abilities should give them a huge advantage against has absolutely no chance of actually doing so.

Infernalbargain

2011-09-26, 03:24 PM

Blisstake

2011-09-26, 03:29 PM

Not remotely true. In that case, it simply becomes a case of how powerful the classes are 'out of the box,' and it's not a correctable problem, since the players, by definition of lacking optimization skill, do not understand the system well enough to correct for imbalance.

From my experience in such parties, the Druid continues to rule the roost, the Cleric and Wizard are a bandage box and a magic missile gun, the rogue gets half a fistful of d6 every now and again, and the Fighter is noticeably less effective than the Barbarian. Not really an improvement.

In my experiences, Druids have managed to play with Fighters without either complaining about one being too powerful. Though there is a definite power difference (not what I was arguing against) the game is fully playable regardless. I am saying that you can still have a fun session (which, to my knowledge, is the entire point of D&D) without restricting every player to a particular tier.

Elitarismo

2011-09-26, 04:26 PM

@Elitarismo

If you read through the post on the Tier system, you will see that a class's tier is not determined by their performance in high-op games, but rather their relative performance in similar op games.

Their performance is determined by what they can do. Otherwise Wizard would be a lot lower because even high power DMs ban Binding chains and such (and in low op games they'll be blasting, or so I've been told), Factorum would be lower because they wouldn't have skills from an unupdated 3rd edition sourcebook and so forth, most of the Tier 4s would be Tier 5s...

Sucrose

2011-09-26, 04:49 PM

In my experiences, Druids have managed to play with Fighters without either complaining about one being too powerful. Though there is a definite power difference (not what I was arguing against) the game is fully playable regardless. I am saying that you can still have a fun session (which, to my knowledge, is the entire point of D&D) without restricting every player to a particular tier.

Then you may count yourself lucky. It is not a probable result of a game in which you pay no attention to the system that you are using. Further, even in your idealized case, you noticed a power difference; this is a problem that needs to be dealt with. It seems that you and your fellow players dealt with it by suppressing any irritation felt with it. I prefer to remove the problem altogether, via the group working together to hit the right power level.

I said nothing about restricting things to a single tier. I stated simply that games where optimization is not a consideration result in more imbalance, rather than less, because optimization is all about system mastery; if you understand the system, then you can use that understanding to aim for the same general power level as the rest of the party. My games after acquiring competence in the 3.5 system have been much more enjoyable than when I thought monk was awesome.

Wings of Peace

2011-09-26, 04:59 PM

I like tier 1 play myself even when playing a class like the Fighter. Admittedly in my case this is largely because I enjoy things like "I attack again!" just as much as I enjoy "I cast these spells!".

Eldan

2011-09-26, 05:03 PM

Then you may count yourself lucky. It is not a probable result of a game in which you pay no attention to the system that you are using. Further, even in your idealized case, you noticed a power difference; this is a problem that needs to be dealt with. It seems that you and your fellow players dealt with it by suppressing any irritation felt with it. I prefer to remove the problem altogether, via the group working together to hit the right power level.

I said nothing about restricting things to a single tier. I stated simply that games where optimization is not a consideration result in more imbalance, rather than less, because optimization is all about system mastery; if you understand the system, then you can use that understanding to aim for the same general power level as the rest of the party. My games after acquiring competence in the 3.5 system have been much more enjoyable than when I thought monk was awesome.

I see where he is coming from, though. In my games, when I still had any, the usual reaction was "Huh. He's more powerful than me. Who cares." Though our druid (the only one we ever had) was a kobold dual-wielding scimitars and using his wildshape to turn into small birds for scouting.

prufock

2011-09-26, 05:14 PM

Keep in mind that your number of players might impact what tier you want to play in. Less players call for higher tier, I would think, since you want to make sure all roles are handled.

Personally, I've never played in a game where tier was even an issue. Mixed tiers all the way.

Greenish

2011-09-26, 05:29 PM

It can be done. Its kind of silly, though. Essentially, you can get spells from feats. With enough feats and tricks, you can get 9th level spells. Fighters (elven ones especially) have an abundance of feats to shuffle into spells.That some fancy PF option?

Factorum would be lower because they wouldn't have skills from an unupdated 3rd edition sourcebook and so forthFactotums hardly rely on Iaijutsu Focus for their tier placement, and OA had both update leaflet and an update in a Dragon Mag.

Coidzor

2011-09-26, 05:52 PM

^: Update leaflet, you say?
A generic game of D&D? All of them. Generally when optimization doesn't become a factor, members of classes from different tiers can actually coexist.

...How do you propose taking out the players who build and play the characters out of the equation, exactly? :smallconfused:

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-09-26, 06:34 PM

I prefer to play with Tier 3, personally. I might come up with a TO trick that soars higher than that, or a gimmick for a lower tiered class, but it's not really designed to be played in an actual game.

Case in point: Takahashi. He's actually probably around Tier 4... he does one thing, and does it well, but he's a one-trick pony. It's a surprisingly good trick for a Samurai, don't get me wrong, but he's dead boring to play. Why? Every action is 'I move into range and Mass Staredown'. That's all he ever does. It's okay for lockdown, but it's supremely uninteresting to play.

It's why my homebrew game world I'm making is full of T3 classes. It flat out bans all PhB classes, in fact. ToB is used for melee. Beguiler, Dread Necro, and Warmage are the 'primary casters' (Coutals don't exist in this game), with MoI, ToM (except Truenamers), Warlock, and DFA as various flavors of caster types. I even had to make my own Priest class so they could have a divine caster class that isn't either worthless or completely dominant.

navar100

2011-09-26, 06:45 PM

sreservoir

2011-09-26, 06:46 PM

It can be done. Its kind of silly, though. Essentially, you can get spells from feats. With enough feats and tricks, you can get 9th level spells. Fighters (elven ones especially) have an abundance of feats to shuffle into spells.

let's see. we'll start with a human or elf fighter, which takes magical training at 1st to cast as a sorcerer. other than that, we have at least 24 feats that I can think of -- fighter bonus, level advancement, and five from elder evil devotion. perhaps take practiced spellcaster an obtain familiar for infinite feats or something. I don't think we'll need that many, though. we'll want the following feats:

also necessary: at least 13 con, 10 int, 13 wis, loads of cha, and you're going to be moderately depraved at minimum.

magical training (3 0-levels as sorcerer or wizard)
eldritch corruption

we can cast one of our 0-level spells, heightened by eldritch corruption to a 9th, although only with "ally" with 19 con next to you all the time.

but that's not actual 9th-level spells, that's just a 0-level spell that looks like a 9th. to actually get real 9ths, we need things extra spell and extra slot or something to that effect. those require caster levels 3 and 4.

practiced spellcaster (sorcerer)

no, you don't seem to actually need sorcerer levels for this. since magical training says you're treated as a sorcerer or wizard for casting the spell, this should work. reading is questionable, though.

some metamagic
sanctum spell

we'll need these to qualify as having 10th-level spells.

(stick heighten spell in there)
earth sense
earth spell

because why the hell not? now you have "11th-level" spells.

extra slot

with your crap caster level, you qualify for this. the highest level of spell you can cast is 11th. get a 10th-level spell slot.

you now no longer need eldritch corruption, because this slot "never changes level" and you can heighten one of your cantrips to 9th with real metamagic. it gets brought up to 10th by either earth spell or sanctum spell, or 11th by both.

extra spell

again, the highest level of spell you can cast is 11th, so you can choose up to a 10th-level spell. you should be able to take an epic spell, because they're treated as 10th. but we want 9ths, right?

extra slot

oh, right, we want 9th level spells, don't we.

add more extra slots, extra spells, or metamagic to taste.

oh, and before I forget.

extra spell (any 2nd-level spell)
silent spell
still spell
quicken spell
innate spell (that spell)

actually, you could do it all with wizard option, and you wouldn't actually need all the extra spell feats. but you have enough feats, right?

ten feats, I think that is, you're kind of insane, but you can be a fighter 20 with 9th-level spells. you should be able to take a bonus feat from taint, too, I think.

1 magical training
h practiced spellcaster
t eldritch corruption
3 heighten spell
6 sanctum spell
9 earth sense
12 earth spell
15 extra slot
18 extra spell

yeah.

if we use two flaws, we can finish at 12. if we DCFS the three armor proficiencies and the fighter bonus feat, we can get it done by 1st. but good luck finding a) someone to cast DCFS and b) someone with 19 con, at level 1.

anything wrong with the build?

Coidzor

2011-09-26, 08:02 PM

It would also help for them understand that just because a spell can solve a problem doesn't mean that's the only or best way to do it. Sometimes, teamwork gets things done better than solo with your spells.

So the solution to them being too good at solving the problems set before them is to twiddle their thumbs and not contribute while others struggle to solve the problem they can easily solve?

Kind of a hard sell, that.

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-09-26, 09:28 PM

None of them, because Tiers are irrelevant. If anything it's a guide to point GMs where the higher you go the more you need care a character doesn't Win D&D and the lower you go the more you need care a character doesn't Lose D&D, but no Tier is better than the others for the One True Way to play the game. So basically, you specifically target a particular character based on how optimized he is? Not very fair, if you ask me.

A fighter and monk can be in the same party as a druid and a wizard and everyone be equally happy. Class abilities are only relevant for what the player gets to do. The character's effectiveness on the game as a whole depends upon the player making the effort and the DM allowing for the effort. If a fighter or monk player does everything right but is The Suckage anyway, the DM has failed at his job. If the druid or wizard get away with Everything, the DM has failed at his job. How could the monk or fighter be in any way relevant in a party with a druid and wizard, both of whom can do the beatstick tank or DPS role MUCH better.

Again, how is the GM supposed to keep the Druid or Wizard from pressing win buttons that isn't either targeting or blatant plot-says-this?

The fighter or monk player may need to learn better tactics or just redo some feats by DM fiat if it comes to that. It would also help if the DM would stop it already with the Large Four Legged Flying creatures with 10ft reaches every combat. The druid or wizard player must cut it out already looking for loop holes, such as a wizard trying to sell walls of iron and the druid player stating out every creature ever published to wild shape into. It would also help for them understand that just because a spell can solve a problem doesn't mean that's the only or best way to do it. Sometimes, teamwork gets things done better than solo with your spells.

So basically, tiers are irrelevant because of Rule 0 and homebrew, combined with only using monsters that explicitly are vulnerable to the one shtick the lower-tiered characters have, and to set arbitrary limits on what the higher-tiered are allowed to do?

Mmm... sorry, that's kind of a tough sell.

dextercorvia

2011-09-26, 09:30 PM

That some fancy PF option?

Factotums hardly rely on Iaijutsu Focus for their tier placement, and OA had both update leaflet and an update in a Dragon Mag.

Naenhoon Illumian Fighter

Magical Training (PGtF) You can (spontaneously) cast a couple of 0 level spells per day. Caster Level 1.
Heighten Spell (PH)
X Bloodline (Dragon Comp.) Add nine known spells
Arcane Disciple (CD) Something with Miracle.
Planar Touchstone: Catalogs of Enlightenment--Sun Domain (PlH, DLCS) This one is thanks to Darrin. The Sun domain in the DLCS grants TU as a cleric.
Extra Turning (PH)
Earth Sense (RoS) Prereq.
Earth Spell (RoS) +1 level when using Heighten
Extra Slot* (CA) 9th level slots. Enjoy.

*You need an Orange Ioun stone, Ring of Arcane Might, and to be under the effects of a CL11 Create Magic Tattoo to qualify/benefit.

Little Brother

2011-09-26, 09:55 PM

There is no such thing.

And yeah, CW samurai is easy to break. Optimize intimidate, you roll over any encounters where it works, suck in the ones where it doesn't. That's broken, in the sense of "not working".

[Edit]: I prefer T3±1.
Uh, it is, see below, and they fall under mediocre. If I want a scarecrow, I'm going with a DN.

1 magical training
h practiced spellcaster
t eldritch corruption
3 heighten spell
6 sanctum spell
9 earth sense
12 earth spell
15 extra slot
18 extra spell

yeah.

if we use two flaws, we can finish at 12. if we DCFS the three armor proficiencies and the fighter bonus feat, we can get it done by 1st. but good luck finding a) someone to cast DCFS and b) someone with 19 con, at level 1.

anything wrong with the build?

The one I saw used some touchstone and some dragon magazine stuff, but that works as far as I can see.

navar100

2011-09-26, 10:02 PM

So the solution to them being too good at solving the problems set before them is to twiddle their thumbs and not contribute while others struggle to solve the problem they can easily solve?

Kind of a hard sell, that.

If the rogue can pick the lock, you don't need to cast Knock or use a wand charge. Use Knock when the rogue is not around or otherwise unable to open the lock. If the party needs to climb something but there's no rush or any impending danger, use the rope and climb up with the aid of those who have ranks in Climb. No need to cast Levitate. Save it for when you absolutely need it.

A fighter can kill a particular monster one on one. One spell of Displacement on the fighter is probably all you need to do. Perhaps cast Protection From Evil on him so he can safely ignore the enemy summoned monsters to concentrate on the BBEG of the combat or maybe his Lieutenant. Save your I Win The Combat spells for the adventure arc ending combat when the fighter will appreciate you killing the masses to keep them off his back. He'll cheer you going all Voldemort because the party needs you to. Show the bad guys what it means to be a Wizard! The fighter is right there leading the applause.

The simple things.

CockroachTeaParty

2011-09-27, 12:57 AM

I'd say the answer to the thread's main question depends on the campaign, and to a certain degree, starting level.

Playing the Age of Worms adventure path? I'd recommend nobody below tier 2, if you can help it. Tier 3 at the absolute minimum. That campaign will devour anything else alive (quite literally).

Starting at level 1? At low levels, the Tier 1's and 2's often fall behind Tier 4's and 5's. The barbarian and fighter are saving the day with weapon damage, while the wizard casts a few spells and is then a glorified commoner.

Many Tier 3's have the distinction of being pretty good at just about any level. The Tome of Battle classes start strong, and remain relevant into the teens, for example.

N. Jolly

2011-09-27, 02:21 AM

I myself am loving Tier 3, as it's preventing my party from straight out trouncing some of my encounters, and more often, me from doing the same to their games. I'm currently playing a Magus (PF class), and it's been a lot of fun getting my gish on, despite knowing that if I was a wizard, I wouldn't have to be in melee.

I've played at a lot of different tiers, but I'd try to keep it 4 and up, as lower then that and you really do risk someone feeling worthless, which is an awful feeling to have to play through. Some groups may be able to do it, but I have a rogue in my current game who's really feeling the burn with the Bard, Oracle, and other characters always having something fun to do.

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-09-27, 02:45 AM

Starting at level 1? At low levels, the Tier 1's and 2's often fall behind Tier 4's and 5's. The barbarian and fighter are saving the day with weapon damage, while the wizard casts a few spells and is then a glorified commoner. Ummm... no. That's if the wizard has zero clue what he is doing. Besides, at 1st level, there isn't much difference between a Commoner and a Fighter anyways. And you can have enough spells, if you really want, to last all day long. Summon Monster works pretty well to have your own pet that is, by himself, probably nastier than the fighter is.

Druids are simply locking everything down with Entangle and plunking away with a crossbow until everything is dead. It's hard to hurt someone when you can't reach them.

Clerics have the same armor as fighters, can self-heal, and in general, isn't too bad in a fight on the front line. Unless they want to go Cloistered, in which case, they simply Sanctuary and laugh as nothing is allowed to attack them.

That's why they are Tier 1... they can win at any level.

NNescio

2011-09-27, 02:50 AM

Eldan

2011-09-27, 02:51 AM

Yeah. I'd still rather play a sorcerer with, say, Grease, Silent Image and a crossbow than a fighter.

Heck, I'd rather play that level 1 sorcerer than a level 10 fighter, in the same game against the same opponents. Sure I'd lose,but it would be less boring.

Longcat

2011-09-27, 06:20 AM

For me, it's T1-3, perhaps leaning towards T2.

Talya

2011-09-27, 07:12 AM

A tier 1 and a tier 5 in the same group is exactly like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)

Knaight

2011-09-27, 07:13 AM

A tier 1 and a tier 5 in the same group is exactly like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)

Is it sad that I knew what that was before I even clicked on it.

Longcat

2011-09-27, 07:13 AM

A tier 1 and a tier 5 in the same group is exactly like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)

Without clicking, let me guess: Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit?

Frosty

2011-09-27, 10:19 AM

Without clicking, let me guess: Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit?
That's my exact guess as well. That skit never fails to amuse me.

Morph Bark

2011-09-27, 11:16 AM

That's my exact guess as well. That skit never fails to amuse me.

I'd be more amused if they had a sequel titled "BMX Summoner and Angel Bandit".

Eldan

2011-09-27, 12:31 PM

But he even tries to be a party player and buff his allies instead of doing it all himself!

Longcat

2011-09-27, 12:53 PM

I'd be more amused if they had a sequel titled "BMX Summoner and Angel Bandit".

Actually, we've nicknamed our Druid "Bear Summoner" and our Warblade "Greatsword Bandit".:smalltongue:

Frosty

2011-09-27, 01:53 PM

But he even tries to be a party player and buff his allies instead of doing it all himself!Yes, and it illustrates how the Fighter is utterly dependent on the wizard to solve many problems.

Sucrose

2011-09-27, 01:53 PM

But he even tries to be a party player and buff his allies instead of doing it all himself!

The problem is probably him having defeated the whole challenge in the earlier situations, so BMX Bandit knew full well that the angels could do more than cart him over to where he needed to land.

KoboldCleric

2011-09-27, 01:54 PM

I most enjoy T5±1. I dislike high magic settings: I dislike substantial magical support being the standard expectation; I dislike the exponential power curve of high tier classes. I enjoy mysterious magic, subtle or climactic magical support, and characters whose power growth from 1 to 20 (given the preceding assumptions) can be reasonably explained.

Frosty

2011-09-27, 01:55 PM

The problem is probably him having defeated the whole challenge in the earlier situations, so BMX Bandit knew full well that the angels could do more than cart him over to where he needed to land.Yeah because, y'know...BMX Bandit performing a combat maneuver popping a wheelie is gonna quickly and safely disarm 30 fanatics-with-assault-weapons.

Sucrose

2011-09-27, 01:58 PM

Yeah because, y'know...BMX Bandit performing a combat maneuver popping a wheelie is gonna quickly and safely disarm 30 fanatics-with-assault-weapons.

Oh, not denying that, up to that point, Angel Summoner was just being pragmatic. Just explaining why party relations didn't improve when he tried his hand at buffing.

Talya

2011-09-27, 02:07 PM

Those angels had a lousy flight speed.

BlueInc

2011-09-27, 03:06 PM

I'd be more amused if they had a sequel titled "BMX Summoner and Angel Bandit".

"Alright, I'm going to open a portal to the Celestial Realms, sneak past legions of the heavenly hosts, steal the Winged Boots of Glory from the Archangel of Highest Holiness, and use them to run as fast as a horse!"

"...or I could just, you know, summon the BMX cyclists."

Big Fau

2011-09-27, 03:40 PM

JaronK

2011-09-27, 04:02 PM

I disagree. As long as the monsters are played as monsters and not intelligent actors, and as long as you're willing to get defeated (and likely killed) sometimes with a contingency for that (like Rogue sneaks your bodies out for a Resurrection) it can absolutely work... and you feel REALLY accomplished when you win.

JaronK

Mr.Moron

2011-09-27, 04:31 PM

KoboldCleric

2011-09-27, 04:35 PM

Aye. JaronK has it spot on. I could use a system designed around that style, and sometimes do, but using 3.5 that way is usually more challenging.

Tengu_temp

2011-09-27, 04:40 PM

Tier 3 has ToB, Factotum and other classes that are actually mechanically fun to play. Guess where my vote is?

CockroachTeaParty

2011-09-27, 04:46 PM

Ummm... no. That's if the wizard has zero clue what he is doing. Besides, at 1st level, there isn't much difference between a Commoner and a Fighter anyways. And you can have enough spells, if you really want, to last all day long. Summon Monster works pretty well to have your own pet that is, by himself, probably nastier than the fighter is.

Druids are simply locking everything down with Entangle and plunking away with a crossbow until everything is dead. It's hard to hurt someone when you can't reach them.

Clerics have the same armor as fighters, can self-heal, and in general, isn't too bad in a fight on the front line. Unless they want to go Cloistered, in which case, they simply Sanctuary and laugh as nothing is allowed to attack them.

That's why they are Tier 1... they can win at any level.

Even if a wizard knows what he's doing, at level 1, he's going to run out of spells sooner rather than later. Clerics, sorcerers, they all feel the burn at low levels. Starting about level 3, depending on feats and other things, they start to have some endurance, but once they're tapped at low levels, they pale in comparison to fighters, barbarians, and especially 'all day' classes like Crusaders, or even Dragon Shamans.

Your understanding of spell durations at low levels aside, I will admit that druids are pretty fierce at just about all levels, but even then, after running out of spells they rely on their animal companions and lackluster fighting ability; they don't come into their own truly until they fully embody the Triple Threat of Casting, Companion, and Wildshape.

I think a lot of people underestimate the power and usefulness of an 18+ Strength score at low levels, not to mention having more than 5 or 6 hp.

Elitarismo

2011-09-27, 04:55 PM

JaronK

2011-09-27, 05:03 PM

Until you find an infinite HP cheatcode, there's no such thing as all day classes. Most of the ones that supposedly are are even more limited than those with more explicitly limited resources.

*Ahem* Crusader, Dread Necromancer, Binder.

JaronK

Elitarismo

2011-09-27, 05:11 PM

*Ahem* Crusader, Dread Necromancer, Binder.

JaronK

All of which either do not do that or only do that in a manner viable out of combat. Which still leaves your all too limited resources prone to rapid depletion in combat.

Aquillion

2011-09-27, 05:14 PM

There's no "best" tier; it depends on what sort of game you want. As a general rule, though, the further you get from Tier 3 in either direction, the more experienced of a DM you need.

Tier 1-2 is good if you want a game where the characters totally set the direction of the story and can drastically change the world with a few easy actions. It tends to require a more experienced DM who knows their group, someone who can think on their feet and adapt rapidly to their players, especially at Tier 1 (Tier 2 is a bit easier, because you can predict what the players will do to an extent based on their available spells or powers or whatever.)

Tier 3-4 is the closest to 'standard' -- what most people probably think of when you say D&D, if they haven't experienced the problems 3.x and earlier have with balance. Definitely, if it's your first game or you're playing with an inexperienced DM, you want this range.

5 is more of a problem. It's easy to accidentally leave a Tier 5 character bored with nothing to do, even if the entire group is Tier 5. Because everyone is so narrowly focused, tier 5 games also tend to easily suffer from 'decker syndrome' -- that is, situations where one person does their thing while everyone else has nothing to do. Definitely avoid Tier 5 games if one person in your group has a weird thing they want to do.

Unless you're doing something weird with experienced players as a joke or something, tier 6 should be avoided if at all possible (there aren't even enough classes there to make a serious game.) You could theoretically tone things down to let it work, but why? All tier 6 classes are either not intended to be used by PCs, or are design trainwrecks that are unlikely to be fun for most PCs without modifying the system to support them.

Curious

2011-09-27, 05:14 PM

Eh, using PF rules, Glorious Heat plus the cantrip Spark = infinite healing. It's not that hard to get.

JaronK

2011-09-27, 05:26 PM

All of which either do not do that or only do that in a manner viable out of combat. Which still leaves your all too limited resources prone to rapid depletion in combat.

What resources, precisely, is a Crusader depleting rapidly in combat? What about a Binder? Both can heal all day long (via stances or bound vestiges) and neither has any mechanic that uses up uses per day (except a few rare Binder vestiges that most folks don't use). As for the Dread Necromancer, Charnel Touch heals him all day long, and by level 6 he can spam Imperious Command as a primary combat tactic... and at level 1-3 or so he just attacks with Charnel Touch and heals with the same. So... what are you talking about?

JaronK

Elitarismo

2011-09-27, 05:46 PM

What resources, precisely, is a Crusader depleting rapidly in combat? What about a Binder? Both can heal all day long (via stances or bound vestiges) and neither has any mechanic that uses up uses per day (except a few rare Binder vestiges that most folks don't use). As for the Dread Necromancer, Charnel Touch heals him all day long, and by level 6 he can spam Imperious Command as a primary combat tactic... and at level 1-3 or so he just attacks with Charnel Touch and heals with the same. So... what are you talking about?

JaronK

Current HP, of course.

Amphetryon

2011-09-27, 05:48 PM

Current HP, of course.

All three classes - Binder, Crusader, Dread Necromancer - have decent-to-good means of replenishing Current HP in combat without spending extra actions.

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-09-27, 05:57 PM

Even if a wizard knows what he's doing, at level 1, he's going to run out of spells sooner rather than later. Clerics, sorcerers, they all feel the burn at low levels. Starting about level 3, depending on feats and other things, they start to have some endurance, but once they're tapped at low levels, they pale in comparison to fighters, barbarians, and especially 'all day' classes like Crusaders, or even Dragon Shamans. Considering a focused specialist wizard has MORE spells per day than a Sorcerer or Cleric of the same level? I think you seriously underestimate the number of spells a 1st level Wizard can have.

Sleep. Encounter winner against anything at level 1 Wizard is likely to find himself up against. Duration? Longer than you are going to be alive.

Clerics simply ignore the 'burn' as you call it, by wading into melee anyways. Same armor, many of the same weapons, with self healing or buffing available.

Your understanding of spell durations at low levels aside, I will admit that druids are pretty fierce at just about all levels, but even then, after running out of spells they rely on their animal companions and lackluster fighting ability; they don't come into their own truly until they fully embody the Triple Threat of Casting, Companion, and Wildshape. What is this 'running out of spells' thing? Their animal companions are a class ability, one of the ones that makes them so devastating in combat. At 1st level, he either casts Entangle, duration of 1 minute (MORE than long enough) and plunks away with a crossbow (or a bow, if he's an elf) until they all fall down dead. OR, if for some reason he's running a marathon campaign designed specifically to screw over casters by throwing dozens of encounters per day at them, he uses a longspear with his animal companion.

I think a lot of people underestimate the power and usefulness of an 18+ Strength score at low levels, not to mention having more than 5 or 6 hp.

I think you seriously underestimate the power of 'you lose' buttons. I also think you overestimate the duration of combat. If it's turn 4, and something is still up, either you're root-rotting, or you've Done Something Wrong.

Lord.Sorasen

2011-09-27, 05:57 PM

Level 1 Wizard has 2-5 Color Sprays.

Level 1 anything has the HP for 1-2 rounds of combat.

Spells are not the limiting factor to endurance. Not arcane spells, at least.

Until you find an infinite HP cheatcode, there's no such thing as all day classes. Most of the ones that supposedly are are even more limited than those with more explicitly limited resources.

Yes, but color spray doesn't always work. And the range is 15 feet. Try it on an orc. If it fails and you don't have someone there to block that attack, your wizard is almost certainly dead. Low armor class vs. a +4 falchion which will deal an average of a little over 8 damage. You could boost your ac with mage armor but it only lasts an hour: it'd imply you were ready for it to happen, or you had been casting the spell every hour on the hour for the duration of the adventure.

And furthermore, what if you lose initiative?

You're right, most level 1s have enough hp to take only one or two blows before dropping. But the 14 con fighter will take 2, the 14 con wizard will take 1. You can heal the guy taking 1 hit. You can't cure a dead wizard at level 1. Furthermore, those valuable resources could easily be as simple as "a cleric casting cure light wounds" at these levels.

Actually, I have to wonder what valuable healing resources you're talking about. If a character dies in two rounds than healing is entirely worthless on any account, and you might as well have every character dump constitution and play glass cannon.

I guess what's confusing me is that it's almost like we're talking about different games. So I want to clarify. Your descriptions give me this image of your campaigns as being determined solely by high DC spellcasting. Combat of any other method would be a waist of time and irrelevant. I'm not saying this to try to be provocative, but that's seriously the feeling I'm getting.

sreservoir

2011-09-27, 05:59 PM

All of which either do not do that or only do that in a manner viable out of combat. Which still leaves your all too limited resources prone to rapid depletion in combat.

what part of those classes have limited resources?

hell, binders have fast healing and 1d8+10 one per five rounds as a standard action just by binding buer, and summoning via zceryll bralani gives 3d8+6 2/5 rds. add arete if you care and you are really, really hard to kill by damage.

sure, during combat, you don't want to waste actions healing, but I wouldn't count summoning bralani which can go die and/or stall the enemy after curing their 6d8+12. every five rounds, four rounds with a feat, two packets of 3d8+6 hp. that's some 20 hp a pop.

but out of combat, you heal 7d8+22 every five rounds, split into 3d8+6, 3d8+6, and 1d8+10, which can go to anyone.

dread necros can heal almost all the hp they have in two touches, starting level 1.

Wings of Peace

2011-09-27, 06:09 PM

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-09-27, 06:20 PM

Yes, but color spray doesn't always work. And the range is 15 feet. Try it on an orc. If it fails and you don't have someone there to block that attack, your wizard is almost certainly dead. Low armor class vs. a +4 falchion which will deal an average of a little over 8 damage. You could boost your ac with mage armor but it only lasts an hour: it'd imply you were ready for it to happen, or you had been casting the spell every hour on the hour for the duration of the adventure. I'll take a 1 in 20 odds of auto-win, thanks.

An Orc has a will save of -2. Yes, that's below zero. A Wizard can get his DC up to 16 just by choosing the right race, and 17 if he specializes.

Once out of twenty times, the wizard might die. Nineteen times out of twenty, the orc is guaranteed to die. It only takes about four or five times to level. Odds are pretty good that the Wizard is going to make it to 2nd level, with even more spells per day. Then when he hits 3rd, he either uses invisibility or Mirror Image and laughs at your pathetic attempts to use physical damage against him.

And furthermore, what if you lose initiative?Well, let's look at that as well.

Orcs have an initiative of +0. A Wizard has two stats he absolutely needs to boost... Int and Dex. Literally everything else is a dump stat, except possibly con, which only needs to not be a penalty. Since he can't use metamagic on anything (unless your winding up for EncounterEnder combos like Fell Drain/Arcane Thesis/Practical Metamagic, in which case it is completely irrelevant), Improved Initiative is always considered to be a good choice for a 1st level Wizard.

So let's say the Wizard has a comfortable +5 mod on his Initiative, which is probably lowballing, but a decent number for purposes of calculating.

A quarter of the time, it doesn't matter what the orc rolls. If you roll 15+, you go first.

If the orc rolls a 5 or less, it doesn't matter what YOU roll, because you win.

In other words, having a +5 over an orc in initiative doesn't mean you are going first a quarter of the time, because with even odds, you'd be going first half the time. You'd be going first at least three-quarters of the time.

Want to make it even better? Now let's look at some interesting numbers:

Orcs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/orc.htm) have 5 hit points.

A heavy crossbow has a 50% chance of killing one outright, in one shot. Even in the hands of a Wizard. So just use Nerveskitter to guarantee yourself first in the initiative pool, and snipe him before he can move.

You're right, most level 1s have enough hp to take only one or two blows before dropping. But the 14 con fighter will take 2, the 14 con wizard will take 1. You can heal the guy taking 1 hit. You can't cure a dead wizard at level 1. Furthermore, those valuable resources could easily be as simple as "a cleric casting cure light wounds" at these levels.The problem is that the Wizard has too many ways of not being hit in the first place... namely killing it before it can close.

Actually, I have to wonder what valuable healing resources you're talking about. If a character dies in two rounds than healing is entirely worthless on any account, and you might as well have every character dump constitution and play glass cannon.Which is what a Wizard is.

I guess what's confusing me is that it's almost like we're talking about different games. So I want to clarify. Your descriptions give me this image of your campaigns as being determined solely by high DC spellcasting. Combat of any other method would be a waist of time and irrelevant. I'm not saying this to try to be provocative, but that's seriously the feeling I'm getting.

Which would you rather do... piss something off, or win in a single round? I don't know about you, but I'd go for the 'win in a single round', personally.

Wizards and other full casters dominate because they can tweak their DC's of their 'save or lose' spells high enough that nothing can make the save except on a nat-20.

At that point the analogy is rather like a guy toting around a rocket launcher vs everyone else using chainsaws. There's a definite edge, and it's not on the chainsaw.

Wings of Peace

2011-09-27, 06:40 PM

*Stuff*
In the case of Wizard's I'd like to add that Abrupt Jaunt is probably one of if not -the- best way to stay alive at low levels.

sreservoir

2011-09-27, 06:49 PM

In the case of Wizard's I'd like to add that Abrupt Jaunt is probably one of if not -the- best way to stay alive at low levels.

not necessarily. a +4 initiative (hummingbird familiar) does wonders for your survivability, because low levels are also somewhat like rocket tag, except with less rockets.

Dsurion

2011-09-27, 06:56 PM

Wings of Peace

2011-09-27, 06:59 PM

not necessarily. a +4 initiative (hummingbird familiar) does wonders for your survivability, because low levels are also somewhat like rocket tag, except with less rockets.

I feel like the two are roughly equal but that's probably due to my own personal play style more than anything else. +4 Initiative is definitely awesome but Abrupt Jaunt is an Immediate Action and so can be used even on my opponents turn.

sreservoir

2011-09-27, 07:05 PM

I feel like the two are roughly equal but that's probably due to my own personal play style more than anything else. +4 Initiative is definitely awesome but Abrupt Jaunt is an Immediate Action and so can be used even on my opponents turn.

can't do that while flat-footed, though. better to take actions quickly and make sure they're dead before they can act.

Wings of Peace

2011-09-27, 07:10 PM

can't do that while flat-footed, though. better to take actions quickly and make sure they're dead before they can act.

A fair point and one I blame on how much I've been jumping between 3.5 and Pathfinder (in this case because I forgot that 3.5 Wizards don't get Divination/Foresight focus).

JaronK

2011-09-27, 07:31 PM

Current HP, of course.

Crusaders, at most levels, can heal a huge percentage of their hitpoints very easily. Consider the following completely standard Crusader 1 scenario:

Crusader with his 12 hitpoints (Con 14) and his +3 to hit (Strength 14) is using a Glaive, let's say, so he hits for 1d10+3. And he's got a Chain Shirt and Dex 14 (16 AC). But out pop 3 Orc Warrior 1s (5hp, Falchion +4 Melee for 2d4+4, 18-20 Critical, 13 AC, straight out of MM1). Our Crusader has Extra Granted Maneuver. Note I haven't even through racial abilities in here.

I'm going to use a dice roller here. So, Orcs win initiative (13 vs 11) and charge in (oh no, no AoOs on the first round!). They all attack, but only one hits (14, 21, and 8 rolled) for 6 damage. Our crusader is hurting at 6 hitpoints.

Now it's the Crusader's turn. He randomly gets Stone Bones, Vanguard Strike, and Crusader's Strike. He takes a step back and attacks with Stone Bones in Martial Stance hitting one Orc. He immediately heals to 8 hp while gaining DR 5/- and killing the Orc (7 damage). The Orcs step forward and attack, both missing, but with the DR it probably wouldn't matter anyway. Crusader uses Crusader's Strike (his other maneuvers would be useless here, since he evidently has no allies), but misses. Orcs attack, one hits for 9 damage... thank goodness for Steely Resolve, but our Crusader's hurting bad (he's now at 4 hp with 5 delayed damage). Crusader attacks back with Douse the Flames, killing (6 damage) one Orc and setting his current hitpoints to 2. Then he steps back five feet.

Our last Orc attacks, thankfully missing. New random maneuvers are the same as last time and our Crusader wants more hitpoints, so he'll use Crusader's Strike. He barely hits, but does 12 damage, killing the Orc... and heals 8 hitpoints between Martial Stance and Crusader's Strike, so he's back up to 10.

Notice how our first level Crusader wasted nothing as far as actions or opportunities are concerned, yet took 15 damage during the fight and ended at just 2 hitpoints below normal... and his DR move didn't matter while one of his healing strikes missed. Clearly, this guy has a LOT of healing potential. A single strike brought him from almost dead to basically fully healed. And as Crusaders level up, they get even more such abilities.

Binders... Zceryll. At high levels they can spam Heal, all day long. At low levels, they've got endless Cures. Or they could use Buer for all day healing for themselves and their party too, though that's not in combat healing.

Dread Necromancers can easily get Fast Healing 1d6 (Black Sand) or even more than that (Necrosis Carnexes). No worries at all.

Seriously, all of these classes can heal all day long without spending resources. HP is not a resource issue for them.

JaronK

Lord.Sorasen

2011-09-27, 07:33 PM

-wizard things-

I concede, in this I am soundly defeated.

Though I can't help but feel that a unit with virtually no chance of dying could be called a glass cannon. And I still feel that in a battle with like 4 orcs, one of them is probably not too unlikely to win initiative and kill immediately.

That said, at this point I'm not seeing it as being any better for a martial class. Probably worse given the relative difficulty they'd have boosting initiative.

Dralnu

2011-09-27, 07:53 PM

Curious

2011-09-27, 08:22 PM

-Awesome battle-

You have given me the sudden urge to play a low-level Crusader. I am even now working on the character sheet. :smallamused:

CockroachTeaParty

2011-09-27, 10:24 PM

What is this 'running out of spells' thing?

How many low level games have you participated in? If you're playing a dungeon crawl in a particularly stagnant dungeon, and you rest every time you run out of spells, then it probably won't be an issue.

Not everyone's going to be playing focused specialist wizards, but even then, if the party has to fight multiple encounters before resting, they'll likely be tapped dry.

For that matter, a lot of the low-level save or lose spells are Mind Effecting, and should the cleric flub some turning checks, I've often seen low level parties desperately relying on fighters to mow down undead.

I think you seriously underestimate the power of 'you lose' buttons. I also think you overestimate the duration of combat. If it's turn 4, and something is still up, either you're root-rotting, or you've Done Something Wrong.

I don't underestimate their power at all. They're certainly useful. But in actual play, there are too many variables to guarantee a strategy for victory. Enemy numbers, enemy composition, terrain, the ability or inability to rest and recover, coupled with little money to spend on things like healing wands and potions, make for an often unforgiving and dangerous low-level experience.

You're approaching the argument in a bubble; I'm talking from experience in real games, with real people. For purposes of the question asked initially in this thread, examples from theoretical optimization and strategy are worth consideration, but there's also trends to consider in actual play, from a wide variety of player types.

So again, I would say at low levels not to so quickly dismiss the tier 4's and 5's. As many people have said, and what some of the arguments surrounding Crusaders and similar classes lends validity to, is that the tier 3 classes come close to the ideal power level most players and DMs probably want to be aiming for.

ShneekeyTheLost

2011-09-27, 11:01 PM

How many low level games have you participated in? If you're playing a dungeon crawl in a particularly stagnant dungeon, and you rest every time you run out of spells, then it probably won't be an issue.

Not everyone's going to be playing focused specialist wizards, but even then, if the party has to fight multiple encounters before resting, they'll likely be tapped dry.

For that matter, a lot of the low-level save or lose spells are Mind Effecting, and should the cleric flub some turning checks, I've often seen low level parties desperately relying on fighters to mow down undead. Never ran into that problem. However, Grease would respectfully disagree with your assessment that all Save or Lose spells are mind-affecting. In fact, it's downright lethal to undead who are mindless and thus cannot make skill checks and auto-fail balance. Which means they're auto-prone with no way of getting back up. Proceed to crossbow time.

I don't underestimate their power at all. They're certainly useful. But in actual play, there are too many variables to guarantee a strategy for victory. Enemy numbers, enemy composition, terrain, the ability or inability to rest and recover, coupled with little money to spend on things like healing wands and potions, make for an often unforgiving and dangerous low-level experience.You still don't get it. The trick to Save or Lose is to make it impossible to make the Save, thus it becomes a win-button. Most of the variables don't even apply in most cases. An inability to rest and recover is either Plot-Railroading, and the hallmark of a lousy GM, or insufficient imagination on the party's part.

You're approaching the argument in a bubble; I'm talking from experience in real games, with real people. For purposes of the question asked initially in this thread, examples from theoretical optimization and strategy are worth consideration, but there's also trends to consider in actual play, from a wide variety of player types. I've been playing real games since the boxed edition back in the 70's, and have been GMing since the early 80's. I've GM'd, and played in, THOUSANDS of games. This is based on my experiences in such games.

So again, I would say at low levels not to so quickly dismiss the tier 4's and 5's. As many people have said, and what some of the arguments surrounding Crusaders and similar classes lends validity to, is that the tier 3 classes come close to the ideal power level most players and DMs probably want to be aiming for.

Tier 4's can at least contribute. Tier 5's and 6's simply can't find a way to contribute when the party also includes Tier 1's unless aforementioned Tier 1's are deliberately nerfing themselves, or have been arbitrarily nerfed by the GM in one way or the other.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-27, 11:11 PM

Tier 4's can at least contribute. Tier 5's and 6's simply can't find a way to contribute when the party also includes Tier 1's unless aforementioned Tier 1's are deliberately nerfing themselves, or have been arbitrarily nerfed by the GM in one way or the other.This is a bit extreme. Even a commoner with the nonelite array can contribute at level 1... CDG'ing color sprayed orcs and goblins.

Incanur

2011-09-28, 12:08 AM

A Wizard has two stats he absolutely needs to boost... Int and Dex. Literally everything else is a dump stat, except possibly con, which only needs to not be a penalty.

Be careful. The handbooks I've read actually (http://dictummortuum.blogspot.com/2011/09/wizards-handbook-part-one-attributes.html#more) recommend Con over Dex. 10-Con wizards work fine, of course, but having so few hit points and such a low Fort save is a significant liability.

Improved Initiative is always considered to be a good choice for a 1st level Wizard.

Wizards get Improved Initiative as a class feature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#wizard). :smallsmile:

Wizards and other full casters dominate because they can tweak their DC's of their 'save or lose' spells high enough that nothing can make the save except on a nat-20.

I question this. Back in 3.0 days, sure, but 3.x has made it hard work to achieve unbeatable spell DCs. You can't rely on a failed save against optimized and/or buffed opponents. If full casters could only do save-or-lose tricks, they wouldn't be nearly so godlike as they are now. It's the mobility (teleport, plane shift, astral projection), minions (animate dead, planar binding, gate), mind control (dominate person, magic jar), and environmental manipulation (solid fog, move earth, earthquake) that make tier-1 classes mighty.

In fact, it's downright lethal to undead who are mindless and thus cannot make skill checks and auto-fail balance. Which means they're auto-prone with no way of getting back up.

:smallconfused: Where are you getting this?

An inability to rest and recover is either Plot-Railroading, and the hallmark of a lousy GM, or insufficient imagination on the party's part.

A world without some time sensitivity lacks dramatic tension. Going through the grinder is a classic fantasy trope. Consider this passage from The Fellowship of the Ring:

'A Balrog,' muttered Gandalf. 'Now I understand.' He faltered and leaned heavily on his staff. 'What an evil fortune! And I am already weary.'

JaronK

2011-09-28, 12:38 AM

Mindless undead can make dex checks. They just have no ranks, and are automatically flat footed due to not having 5 balance ranks, and are likely to fail.

JaronK

Coidzor

2011-09-28, 01:37 AM

Wizards get Improved Initiative as a class feature (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#wizard). :smallsmile:

Twice with Dragon Magazine. :smallamused:

Greenish

2011-09-28, 05:16 AM

Twice with Dragon Magazine. :smallamused:Thrice if elf.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 06:35 AM

All three classes - Binder, Crusader, Dread Necromancer - have decent-to-good means of replenishing Current HP in combat without spending extra actions.

Nope. Not a single one of them keeps up with incoming damage.

Yes, but color spray doesn't always work. And the range is 15 feet. Try it on an orc. If it fails and you don't have someone there to block that attack, your wizard is almost certainly dead. Low armor class vs. a +4 falchion which will deal an average of a little over 8 damage. You could boost your ac with mage armor but it only lasts an hour: it'd imply you were ready for it to happen, or you had been casting the spell every hour on the hour for the duration of the adventure.

Whoever blocks that attack (and there is no blocking) is dead in 1-2 hits, same as you. The only difference at level 1 is that the Wizard has an AoE SoD at level 1 limited by his 2-5 spell slots, and the Fighter has a single target save or die at level 1 limited by his 1-2 rounds of HP.

And furthermore, what if you lose initiative?

Same as anyone else, you lose. Welcome to level 1. This is why you shouldn't play level 1.

You're right, most level 1s have enough hp to take only one or two blows before dropping. But the 14 con fighter will take 2, the 14 con wizard will take 1. You can heal the guy taking 1 hit. You can't cure a dead wizard at level 1. Furthermore, those valuable resources could easily be as simple as "a cleric casting cure light wounds" at these levels.

Nope, both die in 1-2.

Actually, I have to wonder what valuable healing resources you're talking about. If a character dies in two rounds than healing is entirely worthless on any account, and you might as well have every character dump constitution and play glass cannon.

All characters die in 2 rounds max. If you dump Con, then all you've done is turn two round kills into one round kills. The solution is to make sure you can survive two rounds and then win in one.

I guess what's confusing me is that it's almost like we're talking about different games. So I want to clarify. Your descriptions give me this image of your campaigns as being determined solely by high DC spellcasting. Combat of any other method would be a waist of time and irrelevant. I'm not saying this to try to be provocative, but that's seriously the feeling I'm getting.

If the martial characters aren't taking steps to get their damage up to credible levels then what happens is only those PCs that cast spells can influence combat in favor of the party. The others are just kind of there. Meanwhile spellcasting enemies 1-2 round the people and martial enemies also 1-2 round people. PC martials are the only ones left out of the game.

If they are, which is what I am getting at then they can join in the game called D&D that everyone else is playing. Which is why someone that does 70 a round at level 6 is merely average. Because that's how much damage it takes to even begin to compare to basic, out of the box core spells. And that's at a level before enemy HP really takes off. More than that though, my point is that the whole concept of "low op" or "mid op" martial characters is a farce. There's a name for those. It's called "Corpse, A".

what part of those classes have limited resources?

hell, binders have fast healing and 1d8+10 one per five rounds as a standard action just by binding buer, and summoning via zceryll bralani gives 3d8+6 2/5 rds. add arete if you care and you are really, really hard to kill by damage.

sure, during combat, you don't want to waste actions healing, but I wouldn't count summoning bralani which can go die and/or stall the enemy after curing their 6d8+12. every five rounds, four rounds with a feat, two packets of 3d8+6 hp. that's some 20 hp a pop.

but out of combat, you heal 7d8+22 every five rounds, split into 3d8+6, 3d8+6, and 1d8+10, which can go to anyone.

dread necros can heal almost all the hp they have in two touches, starting level 1.

At what level?

Three other things:

1: Bad math on the Crusader, as expected. Here is how it actually works:

If any two of the three Orcs hit the Crusader, he dies, as he is in 1-2 shot territory just like everyone else.

Healing 1d6+1, or even 1d6+3 does not negate even a single hit worth of damage.

It comes down to purely a factor of hoping the Orcs do not get the statistically probable outcome at any point in this or any of the other fights.

2: Dex over Con on a Wizard? No, that's terrible advice. Why would you do that?

3: Any lack of differences between character tiers at these levels are solely because level 1 (and 2) play is purely luck based. It doesn't matter what you are, what you do, or how you do it. All that matters is that you don't get two consecutive 11s+ or so on a D20 rolled against you at any point in time.

Talya

2011-09-28, 06:41 AM

Hmmm. At the moment I have to agree with Incanur...at low levels.

A wizard is overrated at these levels. They usuallly do not have automatic "You lose" buttons. They do not have the defenses that prevent them from being hit...or if they do, they're not contributing anything else. Their spells are easily resisted, they are fragile, and they run out quickly. A dramatic feeling campaign should have time sensitivity, and therefore they run out of spells all too quickly. Area spells rarely cover enough area to hit more than one opponent. The fighter, meanwhile, is a meat-shield, and killing most stuff on one swing, with a more reliable to-hit chance than the wizard's save DCs.

Yeah, no. At level 1, that tier 5 fighter is usually contributing more than that Tier 1 wizard.

All this means is the wizard is a poor way to describe the difference between tier 1 and tier 5 at level 1. Instead, pick the druid, who has everything the fighter has and the wizard has put together.

Amphetryon

2011-09-28, 06:54 AM

Nope. Not a single one of them keeps up with incoming damage.Given the relative weight D&D puts on ability to heal vs ability to do damage, that complaint comes off as an indictment of the entire system, since there's no class that keeps healing on par with incoming damage while contributing anything else to the combat. Any decently optimized class presented as a counterargument to this will fall to any decently optimized damage dealer.

Is it your intent to say that the entire system is simply broken beyond repair, and identifying the best tier is a fool's errand?

Knaight

2011-09-28, 07:21 AM

Talya

2011-09-28, 08:04 AM

1: Bad math on the Crusader, as expected.

Not true.

1) Even if he loses initiative, the crusader has a defacto DR of 5/- with his delayed damage pool. That gives him plenty of time to heal up any excess damage taken.

2) The orcs have a less-than-50% chance of hitting him. His starting AC is going to be between 16 and 18, they have +4 to hit. While it's entirely possible even all three will hit, it's more likely all three will miss him than two will hit.

3) The orc damage roll is 9, on average. Yes, that is more than he's healing: he's on average healing half of what the orcs do to him. That's going to turn those 2 hits into 4 or 5.

4) The very next round, the crusader has DR 5/-, on top of his delayed damage pool. This means it's fairly likely he'll heal more than the orcs do to him.

5) How can you have "bad math" on a legitimate simulated combat round? The rolls were even statisticly within the norm!

2: Dex over Con on a Wizard? No, that's terrible advice. Why would you do that?

Agreed.

3: Any lack of differences between character tiers at these levels are solely because level 1 (and 2) play is purely luck based. It doesn't matter what you are, what you do, or how you do it. All that matters is that you don't get two consecutive 11s+ or so on a D20 rolled against you at any point in time.

While this is true...the wizard's luck is a coin toss to determine if he lives or dies. The d10/d12 hit die combatant gets to fail 2-3 coin tosses before they're down.

Eldan

2011-09-28, 08:05 AM

But you also aren't constantly in combat. Five to ten minutes of downtime between fights, and those classes are right back where they started.

Talya

2011-09-28, 08:14 AM

But you also aren't constantly in combat. Five to ten minutes of downtime between fights, and those classes are right back where they started.

Typically this is using resources that level 1 parties don't have a lot of. Healing up outside of combat just means the spellcasters are out of spells.

There are exceptions. Anything that provides unlimited healing is a wonderful boon to high Hit Die melee types, though in the long run, it doesn't make them even to the spellcasters.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 08:21 AM

Given the relative weight D&D puts on ability to heal vs ability to do damage, that complaint comes off as an indictment of the entire system, since there's no class that keeps healing on par with incoming damage while contributing anything else to the combat. Any decently optimized class presented as a counterargument to this will fall to any decently optimized damage dealer.

Is it your intent to say that the entire system is simply broken beyond repair, and identifying the best tier is a fool's errand?

The point is that in combat healing isn't meaningful, which means there is no such thing as going all day and that further, the so called unlimited classes are not only not unlimited, but are actually more limited than those with more explicit limitations. Again, the example of 2-5 Color Sprays vs 1-2 rounds of HP comes to mind.

Not true.

1) Even if he loses initiative, the crusader has a defacto DR of 5/- with his delayed damage pool. That gives him plenty of time to heal up any excess damage taken.

Delayed damage isn't DR. It's extra HP. In effect the Crusader has an HP of 17. Of course the Raging Dwarven Barbarian with an HP of 17 dies in 1-2 hits as well, so what makes the Crusader so special? Exactly.

2) The orcs have a less-than-50% chance of hitting him. His starting AC is going to be between 16 and 18, they have +4 to hit. While it's entirely possible even all three will hit, it's more likely all three will miss him than two will hit.

Charging and flanking and such. But fine, we'll say 50%.

That means 8 possible outcomes (H - hit, M - miss).

H H H
H H M
H M H
H M M
M H H
M H M
M M H
M M M

In exactly half of these scenarios, he is hit at least twice. 50/50 chance to die a round, every round, every combat. Not looking so good anymore is he?

4) The very next round, the crusader has DR 5/-, on top of his delayed damage pool. This means it's fairly likely he'll heal more than the orcs do to him.

Of the 4 scenarios in which he does not die immediately, 3 still have him getting hit once. So he's now one hit away from death, and even though the DR 5 would turn that to two they have the same 50/50 shot of taking him down. 75% chance to be dead at the end of the second round. And if not dead, he dies from delayed damage right after.

5) How can you have "bad math" on a legitimate simulated combat round? The rolls were even statisticly within the norm!

That is not how you run a statistical analysis. Particularly when you can just roll over and over and over again until you get the results you want.

While this is true...the wizard's luck is a coin toss to determine if he lives or dies. The d10/d12 hit die combatant gets to fail 2-3 coin tosses before they're down.

Nah, all of them die in 1-2 hits on a purely random basis. This is because the Wizard's HP is just high enough to not die in 1. But the high HP guys aren't high enough to not die in 2.

noparlpf

2011-09-28, 08:25 AM

Let's see...I really like the Druid and Sorcerer, but I'm tired of them.
What I mostly play nowadays: Barbarians, occasional Fighters, sometimes PrC builds, Rangers, the occasional precision-based melee build, and sometimes optimized Healers. So whatever tiers those fall into. I assume, due to lower versatility, that they're lower tiers.

Eldan

2011-09-28, 08:26 AM

That sounds Tier 4-ish.

Talya

2011-09-28, 08:44 AM

The point is that in combat healing isn't meaningful

Normally it is not, except the Crusader doesn't give up any of their other actions to get it.

Delayed damage isn't DR. It's extra HP. In effect the Crusader has an HP of 17. Of course the Raging Dwarven Barbarian with an HP of 17 dies in 1-2 hits as well, so what makes the Crusader so special? Exactly.

I said de facto DR. Meaning, for this round, it's just as good as DR. (Better, actually, since it boosts his damage the following action, but that's neither here nor there). I questioned him only giving the crusader 12 hit points, mine would start with one or two more (of course, he didn't bother picking a race, either), but that's neither here nor there. Most level 1 opponents will take 3 hits to drop a crusader.

Charging and flanking and such. But fine, we'll say 50%.

If your opponents at that level are charging/flanking you, you've done something wrong. If opponents like orcs (among the tougher opponents at that level, too) have a chance-to-hit you of more than 45% (and ideally, 35%), you're also doing something wrong. This skews your outcomes a great deal. Especially if you are still standing after two hits, which any melee character should generally be.

Nah, all of them die in 1-2 hits on a purely random basis. This is because the Wizard's HP is just high enough to not die in 1. But the high HP guys aren't high enough to not die in 2.

The average level 1 wizard has 5-6 hit points. The average heavy melee has 12-to-17 hit points. The average level 1 opponent does about 6 damage. (For every heavy hitter like an orc doing 9, there are 3 goblins doing 3.)

So no, I do not accept that a wizard has enough hit points to reliably avoid death in one hit, just as I do not accept that the average heavy melee will die to 2 hits.

Amphetryon

2011-09-28, 08:59 AM

The point is that in combat healing isn't meaningful, which means there is no such thing as going all day and that further, the so called unlimited classes are not only not unlimited, but are actually more limited than those with more explicit limitations. Again, the example of 2-5 Color Sprays vs 1-2 rounds of HP comes to mind.

Given an expectation that at least 20% of those Color Sprays will be saved against (assuming unweighted dice), and that, conservatively, 10% of the 1st level opponents faced will be immune (grimlocks, undead, plants, etc.), I'm not seeing how the Wizard is doing anything truly more meaningful to survive at 1st level. Anything intelligent that does survive would reasonably go after the biggest threat; the guy in the robes that just took down half of the bad guys' buddies definitely qualifies. Mage Armor, 7 HP and a 12 DEX gives you very poor odds against more than one attack.

Yes, you could optimize the Wizard more than the above. You could do the same for the Crusader, the DN, the Binder, or any other chosen example. I'm not seeing how any one class avoids the apparent issue of rocket tag depleting HP at a pace that outstrips healing and damage avoidance.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 09:52 AM

Normally it is not, except the Crusader doesn't give up any of their other actions to get it.

Using Crusader Strike means not using a different strike. Using Martial Spirit stance means not using a different stance. So yes they do.

I said de facto DR. Meaning, for this round, it's just as good as DR. (Better, actually, since it boosts his damage the following action, but that's neither here nor there). I questioned him only giving the crusader 12 hit points, mine would start with one or two more (of course, he didn't bother picking a race, either), but that's neither here nor there. Most level 1 opponents will take 3 hits to drop a crusader.

Nope. DR applies to each hit. Delayed damage holds up to 5 damage once, and that's it. If he's hit more than once, 5 damage is only blocked once. (If he were hit for less than 5 damage then it'd still block some from the next hit, but anything that does less than 5 damage a swing has better things to do even at level 1.)

If your opponents at that level are charging/flanking you, you've done something wrong. If opponents like orcs (among the tougher opponents at that level, too) have a chance-to-hit you of more than 45% (and ideally, 35%), you're also doing something wrong. This skews your outcomes a great deal. Especially if you are still standing after two hits, which any melee character should generally be.

Why is that? That's standard Orc tactics. Charge at someone, gang up on them, beat them down and continue. AC 16 is about as high as it goes at this level, maybe a point higher and that leaves you prone to random deaths at a very high rate. You will most likely respond to this by making some build that has an AC slightly higher than 16, and a damage output of about nil but all that does is reduce the odds per round of instant death to say... 25%, and give them many more rounds in which to do so. And before you say what about the party, if there is a party there they're just going to gang up on someone else and ignore him.

The average level 1 wizard has 5-6 hit points. The average heavy melee has 12-to-17 hit points. The average level 1 opponent does about 6 damage. (For every heavy hitter like an orc doing 9, there are 3 goblins doing 3.)

Level 1 wizard has 6-10 HP. Level 1 melee has 12-17. No one makes characters with Con lower than 14 unless they have a death wish (the 10 HP Wizard has 16 Con, and whatever familiar is +3 HP, not typical but it's there).

Goblins do 1d6 damage this round and 1d6 damage the next as a ranged touch attack. Each. There's also a lot more of them.

As for Wizard Color Spray effectiveness: 78% chance to work is better odds than the chances of hitting with a melee attack (which is around +6 at this level). So yes, enemies are going to be trying to gang up on the casters, and it's up to them to do something about it. 78% chance to end the fight in one move, per caster is pretty damn good, far better than any of the alternatives. I'm not sure why you brought this up though.

Talya

2011-09-28, 10:21 AM

Using Crusader Strike means not using a different strike. Using Martial Spirit stance means not using a different stance. So yes they do.

They're killing their targets with crusader strike anyway. Why not use it?

Nope. DR applies to each hit. Delayed damage holds up to 5 damage once, and that's it. If he's hit more than once, 5 damage is only blocked once. (If he were hit for less than 5 damage then it'd still block some from the next hit, but anything that does less than 5 damage a swing has better things to do even at level 1.)

Fair enough. They aren't likely to get hit more than once, but sure.

Why is that? That's standard Orc tactics.
Standard player tactics are to use terrain and map layout to deny them that charge, and use AOOs and player placement to deny them flanking.

maybe a point higher and that leaves you prone to random deaths at a very high rate.

Banded armor is pretty easy to start with. 17 on a heavy hitter should be normal.

Level 1 wizard has 6-10 HP. Level 1 melee has 12-17. No one makes characters with Con lower than 14 unless they have a death wish (the 10 HP Wizard has 16 Con, and whatever familiar is +3 HP, not typical but it's there).

Never met a wizard yet that took toughness as a bonus feat a toad familiar. Not saying it doesn't happen, but since swapping a familiar suffers all the same potential penalties as having a familiar die, and can't be replaced for a time period likely longer than the campaign itself, few people like to have something that's only useful at level 1.

Goblins do 1d6 damage this round and 1d6 damage the next as a ranged touch attack. Each. There's also a lot more of them.

...http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm there's nothing there about the ranged touch attack. Javelins are a normal thrown attack, not a touch attack. And if they're doing that, they aren't attacking with their mace. It's only one or the other. Also, there are only 3 goblins for every 2 orcs. Conversely, hobgoblins are the same CR as an orc, and do an average of 5.5 damage.

As for Wizard Color Spray effectiveness: 78% chance to work is better odds than the chances of hitting with a melee attack (which is around +6 at this level). So yes, enemies are going to be trying to gang up on the casters, and it's up to them to do something about it. 78% chance to end the fight in one move, per caster is pretty damn good, far better than any of the alternatives. I'm not sure why you brought this up though.

If the wizard has been "ganged up on" to the point he can hit all the targets with one color spray, he's likely already dead. Fortunately for him, a decent party has prevented them from getting anywhere near the wizard (and that also means that color spray isn't likely hitting more than one target.)

Aquillion

2011-09-28, 10:35 AM

Never met a wizard yet that took toughness as a bonus feat a toad familiar. Not saying it doesn't happen, but since swapping a familiar suffers all the same potential penalties as having a familiar die, and can't be replaced for a time period likely longer than the campaign itself, few people like to have something that's only useful at level 1.
Baleful Polymorph. :smallbiggrin:

(Or PAO, eventually, though I'd rather turn it into something horribly nasty.)

Seatbelt

2011-09-28, 10:39 AM

No one makes characters with Con lower than 14 unless they have a death wish (the 10 HP Wizard has 16 Con, and whatever familiar is +3 HP, not typical but it's there).

Sounds like your games assume a pretty high standard of optimization. I prioritize con too but everyone I know has played a character with less than con 14 for various reasons. You play rocket tag, even at level 1. Its good you found a way to play that you enjoy but that just sounds lame to me. My groups combat lasts 3-10 rounds usually, we heal in combat sometimes too..

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 10:55 AM

They're killing their targets with crusader strike anyway. Why not use it?

Leading the Attack, Douse the Flames... plenty of other things better.

Fair enough. They aren't likely to get hit more than once, but sure.

1/2 = hit twice or more.
3/8 = hit only once.
1/8 = not hit at all.

Being hit two or more times is the most likely outcome.

Standard player tactics are to use terrain and map layout to deny them that charge, and use AOOs and player placement to deny them flanking.

You are fighting Orcs on their turf.

Banded armor is pretty easy to start with. 17 on a heavy hitter should be normal.

17, interestingly enough gets hit half the time by charge or flank and more than that with both.

Never met a wizard yet that took toughness as a bonus feat a toad familiar. Not saying it doesn't happen, but since swapping a familiar suffers all the same potential penalties as having a familiar die, and can't be replaced for a time period likely longer than the campaign itself, few people like to have something that's only useful at level 1.

As I said, atypical but possible. I also don't think that's correct but am too lazy to check so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for now.

...http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/goblin.htm there's nothing there about the ranged touch attack. Javelins are a normal thrown attack, not a touch attack. And if they're doing that, they aren't attacking with their mace. It's only one or the other. Also, there are only 3 goblins for every 2 orcs. Conversely, hobgoblins are the same CR as an orc, and do an average of 5.5 damage.

There is not a single small creature alive that would engage in combat and not be using flasks to do it. There is also not a single creature alive that'd be fighting with sword and board of all things.

If the wizard has been "ganged up on" to the point he can hit all the targets with one color spray, he's likely already dead. Fortunately for him, a decent party has prevented them from getting anywhere near the wizard (and that also means that color spray isn't likely hitting more than one target.)

Goblins are rather small. Medium creatures not so much, but the idea is that he wins init, gets as many within that 15 foot cone as possible and takes them out before they take the party out. 78% success rate is better than anyone else gets at this level.

Sounds like your games assume a pretty high standard of optimization. I prioritize con too but everyone I know has played a character with less than con 14 for various reasons. You play rocket tag, even at level 1. Its good you found a way to play that you enjoy but that just sounds lame to me. My groups combat lasts 3-10 rounds usually, we heal in combat sometimes too..

This again?

D&D is rocket tag. No matter what. If you enter the rocket tag field unarmed, you should not be surprised to find yourself spontaneously exploding. That's why combat is 3 rounds or less (typically 1 or 2) no matter what the players do. At every level of play other than the Heal levels (11-15), a single at level enemy does more damage than healing recovers, and multiple lower level enemies do even more damage collectively. End result is that you still die, just you tie up more party actions in the process.

Con 14+ is mandatory so that this doesn't end up even worse than it already is. And that's vs entirely stock enemies, as in 0 optimization. After all those Orcs have less Strength than any PC martial character even after accounting for the Orc's +4 racial bonus and even assuming the PC martial character has no racial Strength bonus at all. Just to name one example of where the opponents clearly are not trying at all.

Optimized opponents would be more like +11 to hit, 1d8+8 damage... at level 2. With their off weapons.

Your DM going very easy on you/not playing D&D and calling it D&D has no bearing on this conversation. Simple math however does.

Talya

2011-09-28, 11:12 AM

Leading the Attack, Douse the Flames... plenty of other things better.

No, not really. Leading the attack is useless, since it's dead on a standard action attack. Likewise with Douse the Flames. It has 5hp or less!

1/2 = hit twice or more.
3/8 = hit only once.
1/8 = not hit at all.

Being hit two or more times is the most likely outcome.

You keep saying that as if by repetition you can somehow make it right. It is not.

You are fighting Orcs on their turf.

So what? you still have the advantage. you're the players! They are monsters! The players can control how the combat progresses, if they choose. If you don't want them to charge or flank, ensure you do not engage the enemy in a situation where they have the ability to do that. The monsters cannot, short of DM fiat. Ambushes that prevent player control should probably bump the CR of the encounter.

17, interestingly enough gets hit half the time by charge or flank and more than that with both.

For orcs, that's a 13 or higher. That's 40% of the time. (At low levels, as a player, I'd always go sword and board, too. I'm still killing just about everything in one swing, but +2 AC is a lifesaver at level 1. YMMV.)

There is not a single small creature alive that would engage in combat and not be using flasks to do it. There is also not a single creature alive that'd be fighting with sword and board of all things.

They have what the MM says they have. They fight the way the MM says they do. Monsters are not these things that DMs need to device tactics for. For the most part, they are preprogrammed and act in predictable ways. That's why there is a combat section.

D&D is rocket tag. No matter what. If you enter the rocket tag field unarmed, you should not be surprised to find yourself spontaneously exploding. That's why combat is 3 rounds or less (typically 1 or 2) no matter what the players do. At every level of play other than the Heal levels (11-15), a single at level enemy does more damage than healing recovers, and multiple lower level enemies do even more damage collectively. End result is that you still die, just you tie up more party actions in the process.

Con 14+ is mandatory so that this doesn't end up even worse than it already is. And that's vs entirely stock enemies, as in 0 optimization. After all those Orcs have less Strength than any PC martial character even after accounting for the Orc's +4 racial bonus and even assuming the PC martial character has no racial Strength bonus at all. Just to name one example of where the opponents clearly are not trying at all.

Optimized opponents would be more like +11 to hit, 1d8+8 damage... at level 2. With their off weapons.

Your DM going very easy on you/not playing D&D and calling it D&D has no bearing on this conversation. Simple math however does.

Your style of posting is highly offensive. Your way is not "the one right way." You are not right while everyone else is wrong. And your experiences are not the norm. And D&D is not what you think it is.

Gnaeus

2011-09-28, 11:15 AM

There is not a single small creature alive that would engage in combat and not be using flasks to do it. There is also not a single creature alive that'd be fighting with sword and board of all things.

1. the Monster Manual says you are wrong. Right there in the entry under goblin.

2. A flask of alchemists fire costs more than the goblin's entire equipment put together, and it can only be used once. Thats like saying that no one will use a greatclub because a masterwork greataxe is better. Sure it is, if you happen to have one.

Con 14+ is mandatory so that this doesn't end up even worse than it already is. And that's vs entirely stock enemies, as in 0 optimization. After all those Orcs have less Strength than any PC martial character even after accounting for the Orc's +4 racial bonus and even assuming the PC martial character has no racial Strength bonus at all. Just to name one example of where the opponents clearly are not trying at all.

Optimized opponents would be more like +11 to hit, 1d8+8 damage... at level 2. With their off weapons.

Your DM going very easy on you/not playing D&D and calling it D&D has no bearing on this conversation. Simple math however does.

It is appropriate for the DM to optimize monsters in an optimized party. It is equally appropriate for the DM to nerf monsters in an unoptimized party. Neither one is more or less D&D. If anything, when you swap monsters away from the printed statblocks to maximize their killing power you are moving away from mainstream, rules as written in the books, D&D, not towards it. That is not default D&D, and DMs that use monsters as written are playing the game the designers envisioned, not going easy on their players.

Frosty

2011-09-28, 11:17 AM

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 11:28 AM

You keep saying that as if by repetition you can somehow make it right. It is not.

Yes, because a 50% chance will become more or less than 50% if you deny that it is 50%. That is not how math works. 50% = 50% = 50%. That is how math works.

So what? you still have the advantage. you're the players! They are monsters! The players can control how the combat progresses, if they choose. If you don't want them to charge or flank, ensure you do not engage the enemy in a situation where they have the ability to do that. The monsters cannot, short of DM fiat. Ambushes that prevent player control should probably bump the CR of the encounter.

This makes 0% sense and is 0% correct.

For orcs, that's a 13 or higher. That's 40% of the time. (At low levels, as a player, I'd always go sword and board, too. I'm still killing just about everything in one swing, but +2 AC is a lifesaver at level 1. YMMV.)

Average HP of level 1 enemies = 13. Interestingly enough that's more than 1d8+4.

They have what the MM says they have. They fight the way the MM says they do. Monsters are not these things that DMs need to device tactics for. For the most part, they are preprogrammed and act in predictable ways. That's why there is a combat section.

I thought we were talking about D&D and not a computer game in which you fight identical clones of mobile units.

Your style of posting is highly offensive. Your way is not "the one right way." You are not right while everyone else is wrong. And your experiences are not the norm. And D&D is not what you think it is.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Given that you regard D&D as a cheap computer game, I'm quite fine with you and I not agreeing at all on what D&D is. I will be ignoring all further posts from you, so do not bother replying.

1. the Monster Manual says you are wrong. Right there in the entry under goblin.

2. A flask of alchemists fire costs more than the goblin's entire equipment put together, and it can only be used once. Thats like saying that no one will use a greatclub because a masterwork greataxe is better. Sure it is, if you happen to have one.

CR 1/3rd, Standard treasure. That means that the goblin has 100 gold worth of equipment. The Monster Manual says that I am right. Right there in the entry under Goblin. Mark off leather armor and light shield, still plenty left. Give it the morningstar and javelin anyways (lol at negative str mod creatures using str based weapons), still plenty left. It can get at least two flasks, and since combat only lasts 2 rounds anyways...

It is appropriate for the DM to optimize monsters in an optimized party. It is equally appropriate for the DM to nerf monsters in an unoptimized party. Neither one is more or less D&D. If anything, when you swap monsters away from the printed statblocks to maximize their killing power you are moving away from mainstream, rules as written in the books, D&D, not towards it. That is not default D&D, and DMs that use monsters as written are playing the game the designers envisioned, not going easy on their players.

And exactly as I said, 14 Con is the minimum in 0 optimization games. Damage outstrips healing in 0 optimization games. Nothing you said in any way disproves this, or even is relevant to it. Because when you use enemies as written, you put tight time limits on the encounter. Kill it before it kills you. Interestingly enough optimizing tends to move you away from Rocket Tag more than it moves you towards it, as defenses are easier to boost with optimization than offenses (because offenses are naturally high as is).

Though for what it's worth anyways due to the way D&D works it's easier to scale up than to scale down, so having a party that is "too strong" is better than one that is "too weak".

Party is too strong worst case scenario: Party defeats encounters (which they are supposed to do) very easily (which they aren't entirely supposed to).
Party is too weak worst case scenario: A plain encounter destroys them all (not supposed to happen).

Frosty

2011-09-28, 11:31 AM

In 0 op games, the enemies are toned down to match (or at least a good DM should to compoensate for his players' lack of experience)

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 11:34 AM

A level 2 Orc Barbarian or something with +11 to hit with 1d8+8 damage as an off-hand weapon is an extremely deadly encounter for anyone, and is likely something you'll only fight ONCE in your entire time as level 2s, because this is like the orc boss of a small warband. I'd treat this orc as a CR3, given the optimization.

You really should not assume that the only version of DnD is YOUR version. Every DM is different, and you can't say that yours is the correct way. Not everyone wants to always fight optimized opponents.

I said off weapon, not offhand weapon. As in a melee character using a bow. That's an off weapon.

That also wasn't an Orc. It's a Hobgoblin Fighter 2, with one effect boosting his to hit and damage. There's also 6 of them, and they're the mooks fighting a level 6 party.

Here is what I said again:

Optimized opponents would be more like +11 to hit, 1d8+8 damage... at level 2. With their off weapons.

As in I brought it up as context for what optimized opponents look like, as he was clearly unable to tell the difference.

Big Fau

2011-09-28, 11:43 AM

That also wasn't an Orc. It's a Hobgoblin Fighter 2, with one effect boosting his to hit and damage. There's also 6 of them, and they're the mooks fighting a level 6 party.

A 6th level Crusader should be able to solo half of those guys if he has the right feats and gear...

Talya

2011-09-28, 11:44 AM

Yes, because a 50% chance will become more or less than 50% if you deny that it is 50%. That is not how math works. 50% = 50% = 50%. That is how math works.

Except it's not 50%.

If you're getting attacked by three of the toughest enemies you'll fight at level 1 (like orcs) they have about a 40% chance to hit you. I can easily make that 30%.

How often you get hit by each number of attacks, with a 60% miss chance from the enemy, is like this:

All three miss: 21.6%
One hit: 43.2%
Two hit: 28.8%
All three hit: 6.4%

This makes 0% sense and is 0% correct.

If your players aren't making an effort to control the encounter, they are hurting themselves.

it's interesting you assume the DM is the only one using complex tactics, when in reality it should be only the players.

Average HP of level 1 enemies = 13. Interestingly enough that's more than 1d8+4.

Wow. 1d8+1 enemies have an average hp of 13? That's amazing.

I thought we were talking about D&D and not a computer game in which you fight identical clones of mobile units.

The DM is not trying to "beat" the players. He's simply putting up challenges for them to overcome. if you make them more difficult than the basic challenge as laid out in the books (which is fine), you are adjusting the CR upward. Reward should be proportionally boosted. Typically, a good DM is not arranging his encounters so that the players don't have any way of avoiding that coin toss for death.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt. Given that you regard D&D as a cheap computer game, I'm quite fine with you and I not agreeing at all on what D&D is. I will be ignoring all further posts from you, so do not bother replying.

I would suggest you do not tell me what I can, or cannot reply to. I will continue to point out where I disagree with your posts. You seem to have this very different view of what the normal way to play D&D is from the vast majority of other people here. At least they will see the replies, even if you don't want to look at them.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 11:45 AM

A 6th level Crusader should be able to solo half of those guys if he has the right feats and gear...

That would be... entertaining. What 6th level Crusader would be doing that, again? You can use the houserules in my sig to make him. You'll need them.

Big Fau

2011-09-28, 12:26 PM

That would be... entertaining. What 6th level Crusader would be doing that, again? You can use the houserules in my sig to make him. You'll need them.

32PB with 2 flaws, standard WBL, using the Bo9S, MiC, Core, Eberron Campaign Setting, and Exemplars of Evil. Core+4, that's it.

LE Warforged Crusader 6

Str: 16
Dex: 8
Con: 20 (Race)
Int: 8
Wis: 6
Cha: 12

Feats

1: Adamantine Body
Flaw: Stone Power
Flaw: Improved Initiative
3: Martial Study (Moment of Perfect Mind)
6: Blessing of the Godless (Exemplars of Evil)

Equipment (13,000gp)

+1 Greatsword (2,350gp)
Healing Belt (MiC, 750gp)
Steadfast Boots (MiC, 1,400gp)
Gloves of Fortunate Striking (MiC, 2,000gp)
Amulet of Health +2 (4,000gp)
Lenses of Revelation (MiC, Vestments of Divinity, 1,400gp)
4 Flasks of Unholy Water (for Blessing of the Godless)
WBL unspent: 1,000gp.

Maneuvers

1st level:
Crusader's Strike*, Stone Bones, Vanguard Strike, Douse the Flames, Leading the Attack*.
Stance: Martial Spirit, 2nd level Stance is Bolstering Voice

2nd level:
Mountain Hammer, exchanging Leading the Attack for Tactical Strike at 4th level.

3rd level:
Bone Crusher, exchanging Vanguard Strike for Revitalizing Strike at 6th level.

Skills

Knowledge (Religion) 9 Ranks (+8 total)
Concentration 9 Ranks (+15 total)
Intimidate 9 Ranks (+10 total)

AC 17 (low as hell, but he's a Crusader anyway)
HP: Average, so 78 (assuming you keep the .5s from the average of 1d10). Stone Power can provide an additional 10/round.

Depending on the size of the party (or if we have Cohorts/Hirelings/Animal Companions), this Crusader can use Blessing of the Godless to heal himself 6HP as an immediate action, and can do so anywhere between once/day to up to 6 times/day. Maneuvers readied are Crusader's Strike, Revitalizing Strike, Stone Bones, Bone Crusher, Mountain Hammer, and Moment of Perfect Mind (from Martial Study).

So yeah, DR 2/- and a delayed damage pool+Stone Power should be able to handle 3 level 2 Hobgoblin Fighters.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 12:53 PM

32PB with 2 flaws, standard WBL, using the Bo9S, MiC, Core, Eberron Campaign Setting, and Exemplars of Evil. Core+4, that's it.

LE Warforged Crusader 6

Str: 16
Dex: 8
Con: 20 (Race)
Int: 8
Wis: 6
Cha: 12

Feats

1: Adamantine Body
Flaw: Stone Power
Flaw: Improved Initiative
3: Martial Study (Moment of Perfect Mind)
6: Blessing of the Godless (Exemplars of Evil)

Equipment (13,000gp)

+1 Greatsword (2,350gp)
Healing Belt (MiC, 750gp)
Steadfast Boots (MiC, 1,400gp)
Gloves of Fortunate Striking (MiC, 2,000gp)
Amulet of Health +2 (4,000gp)
Lenses of Revelation (MiC, Vestments of Divinity, 1,400gp)
4 Flasks of Unholy Water (for Blessing of the Godless)
WBL unspent: 1,000gp.

Maneuvers

1st level:
Crusader's Strike*, Stone Bones, Vanguard Strike, Douse the Flames, Leading the Attack*.
Stance: Martial Spirit, 2nd level Stance is Bolstering Voice

2nd level:
Mountain Hammer, exchanging Leading the Attack for Tactical Strike at 4th level.

3rd level:
Bone Crusher, exchanging Vanguard Strike for Revitalizing Strike at 6th level.

Skills

Knowledge (Religion) 9 Ranks (+8 total)
Concentration 9 Ranks (+15 total)
Intimidate 9 Ranks (+10 total)

AC 17 (low as hell, but he's a Crusader anyway)
HP: Average, so 78 (assuming you keep the .5s from the average of 1d10). Stone Power can provide an additional 10/round.

Depending on the size of the party (or if we have Cohorts/Hirelings/Animal Companions), this Crusader can use Blessing of the Godless to heal himself 6HP as an immediate action, and can do so anywhere between once/day to up to 6 times/day. Maneuvers readied are Crusader's Strike, Revitalizing Strike, Stone Bones, Bone Crusher, Mountain Hammer, and Moment of Perfect Mind (from Martial Study).

So yeah, DR 2/- and a delayed damage pool+Stone Power should be able to handle 3 level 2 Hobgoblin Fighters.

Half of "those guys". In response to this:

Me: That also wasn't an Orc. It's a Hobgoblin Fighter 2, with one effect boosting his to hit and damage. There's also 6 of them, and they're the mooks fighting a level 6 party.

As "the mooks fighting a level 6 party" it's clearly implied that 1: There are more enemies on the field than just them. 2: They are the weakest enemies on the field. It is also implied that since they have "one effect boosting their to hit and damage" and said to hit is +11 and said damage is 1d8+8, and further Fighters have nothing that does this either naturally or by WBL that there is something else there to provide that one effect.

Now if you want to take on half of "those guys" meaning the entire encounter, and not the weakest part of it I'm amused enough to let you try, even though I don't allow flaws.

Knaight

2011-09-28, 01:04 PM

Now if you want to take on half of "those guys" meaning the entire encounter, and not the weakest part of it I'm amused enough to let you try, even though I don't allow flaws.

Given that it is one, of a handful of PCs doing so, that's not unreasonable. Moreover, in a corridor situation, the Crusader above could probably deal with all 6, without issue.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 01:08 PM

Given that it is one, of a handful of PCs doing so, that's not unreasonable. Moreover, in a corridor situation, the Crusader above could probably deal with all 6, without issue.

It isn't a corridor situation. It is the exact same situation in which the party facing this encounter is in. Though if it were a corridor situation, they could just kite him while shooting arrows at him, and they're all faster or at worst the same speed.

Assuming he is willing to back up his boast, I'm willing to take it to PMs (so as to avoid spoiling the encounter for the group currently fighting it).

Big Fau

2011-09-28, 01:22 PM

Half of "those guys". In response to this:

Me: That also wasn't an Orc. It's a Hobgoblin Fighter 2, with one effect boosting his to hit and damage. There's also 6 of them, and they're the mooks fighting a level 6 party.

As "the mooks fighting a level 6 party" it's clearly implied that 1: There are more enemies on the field than just them. 2: They are the weakest enemies on the field. It is also implied that since they have "one effect boosting their to hit and damage" and said to hit is +11 and said damage is 1d8+8, and further Fighters have nothing that does this either naturally or by WBL that there is something else there to provide that one effect.

Now if you want to take on half of "those guys" meaning the entire encounter, and not the weakest part of it I'm amused enough to let you try, even though I don't allow flaws.

You asked:

That would be... entertaining. What 6th level Crusader would be doing that, again? You can use the houserules in my sig to make him. You'll need them.

In response to me claiming that a 6th level Crusader could take 3 level 2 Hobgoblin Fighters who have a buff effect. This Crusader is, with the exception of Blessing of the Godless, unbuffed and capable of surviving 3d8+18 (after DR). He can withstand 2 whole rounds of average damage from 3 of them and still be above 1HP, never mind Stone Power, Martial Spirit, Crusader's Strike, and Revitalizing Strike. Hell, even Stone Bones helps him out here. God help those fighters if they Charge, because he can rip out a chunk of their HP if they do.

As for the flaws part, you can cut Improved Init and Martial Study, which means he takes Stone Power at 3rd level. He's still set, he just has a lower Init.

And he's capable of using White Raven maneuvers to help the party if he so chooses. And Blessing of the Godless helps the entire party, although he benefits from it the most.

I feel he does his job (tanking) quite well. All he needs to do is stand near the party's squishiest character (likely the Rogue, since spellcasters are good enough to avoid damage at 6th level) and he's set.

Seatbelt

2011-09-28, 01:22 PM

D&D is rocket tag. No matter what. If you enter the rocket tag field unarmed, you should not be surprised to find yourself spontaneously exploding. That's why combat is 3 rounds or less (typically 1 or 2) no matter what the players do.

Except that's not my experience at all. Furthermore why would you even want to play a 1 or 2 round combat? That doesn't sound fun at all. Thats like people who play Magic decks that win on turn 3. Congratulations. You're awesome.

At every level of play other than the Heal levels (11-15), a single at level enemy does more damage than healing recovers, and multiple lower level enemies do even more damage collectively. End result is that you still die, just you tie up more party actions in the process.

Maybe. I know that it's generally accepted that healing in combat is a waste of actions. But sometimes it happens. *shrug* The fact that my group sometimes heals in combat, and that combat lasts sometimes more than a minute, and that we are all still having fun, seems to suggest that your way is not the only way to play. Or maybe we're just idiots who are having fun wrong.

Your DM going very easy on you/not playing D&D and calling it D&D has no bearing on this conversation. Simple math however does.

Oh. I guess we are having fun wrong. My bad.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 01:51 PM

You asked:

In response to me claiming that a 6th level Crusader could take 3 level 2 Hobgoblin Fighters who have a buff effect. This Crusader is, with the exception of Blessing of the Godless, unbuffed and capable of surviving 3d8+18 (after DR). He can withstand 2 whole rounds of average damage from 3 of them and still be above 1HP, never mind Stone Power, Martial Spirit, Crusader's Strike, and Revitalizing Strike. Hell, even Stone Bones helps him out here. God help those fighters if they Charge, because he can rip out a chunk of their HP if they do.

You said "half of them" and later went on to indicate you just meant half of the mooks. I meant half of the encounter, which I did not fully describe but did heavily imply was composed of more than just them, particularly given the context in which I used the word mook. Now you say you can survive two rounds, but not three from what is actually one fifth of the encounter. On the bright side, since my houserules are in effect you get 110 HP, so you're not as squishy as you think. On the downside, you're attacking at +10/+5 for only 2d6+5 a hit. Suffice it to say that they have more than 12 HP, and more than 12 AC. Not looking so good for him anymore, even if it were just the three mooks.

As for the flaws part, you can cut Improved Init and Martial Study, which means he takes Stone Power at 3rd level. He's still set, he just has a lower Init.

Assuming that it were built for this (and thereby used the same rules the encounter uses):

1: Adamantine Body
Flaw: Stone Power
Flaw: Improved Initiative
3: Martial Study (Moment of Perfect Mind)
6: Blessing of the Godless (Exemplars of Evil)

You could take Adamantine Body as the flavor feat, so even with no flaws you're down one feat and not two.

And he's capable of using White Raven maneuvers to help the party if he so chooses. And Blessing of the Godless helps the entire party, although he benefits from it the most.

Could, but you were talking about him taking on these guys by himself.

I feel he does his job (tanking) quite well. All he needs to do is stand near the party's squishiest character (likely the Rogue, since spellcasters are good enough to avoid damage at 6th level) and he's set.

The enemies have no reason to attack him as he does very low damage and doesn't do much else threatening. So assuming he were in a party, he'd be getting ignored a whole lot. In the tanking department, he fails. But if you'd still like to test the solo thing PM me.

Except that's not my experience at all. Furthermore why would you even want to play a 1 or 2 round combat? That doesn't sound fun at all. Thats like people who play Magic decks that win on turn 3. Congratulations. You're awesome.

Because D&D is fast paced? Because the alternative is grinding on the same encounter so long you forgot why you were fighting it?

PS: Most of the good Magic decks gets wins faster than that.

Frosty

2011-09-28, 02:42 PM

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 02:59 PM

At level 6, he can have access to some maneuvers with decent damage. If they start ignoring him, he can start hitting them with the ones that hurt more.

DnD is not played in a vaccuum. Look, why don't we just say that we play different styles of DnD? Your DM and my DM throw different kinds of encounters at us, hence why different party compositions. In my own experience of play with PF (I have both DMed and played in PF games), the martial classes still contribute meaningfully (although there is no denying casters contribute more). Your games obvious have different encounters.

Stop it with the dismissive in your games type arguments. Especially when that is not how they actually go at all.

In my games, which are 3.5 + the houserules in my sig + a very small number of campaign dependent houserules the martial characters are able to be threatening, both for and against the party.

In 3.5 RAW games, martial characters can only keep up by putting in many times more effort. Casters are usable out of the box.

In PF RAW games, martial characters cannot keep up no matter what as they have been nerfed, their opposition buffed in ways that only matter to them, and meanwhile casters are buffed and their opposition is nerfed in ways that only matter to them.

Anyways, the main damage maneuvers are around maneuver level 4. So 1 level too high. He needs two rounds to kill one mook assuming everything hits. That's... bad. Using Stone Power means that hitting thing is even less likely to happen. I'm still willing to play it out if he wants to try, but it is clear his chances are not at all good as he simply lacks the dakka to make it happen.

Hecuba

2011-09-28, 03:18 PM

And exactly as I said, 14 Con is the minimum in 0 optimization games. Damage outstrips healing in 0 optimization games. Nothing you said in any way disproves this, or even is relevant to it. Because when you use enemies as written, you put tight time limits on the encounter. Kill it before it kills you. Interestingly enough optimizing tends to move you away from Rocket Tag more than it moves you towards it, as defenses are easier to boost with optimization than offenses (because offenses are naturally high as is).

"0 optimization" games do not have goblins spending their entire treasure on tools to optimize against the PCs. They do not have basic goblin soldiers optimizing position in combat to increase to hit. When you do those things, you are optimizing to increase difficulty. If the PC's are not equally optimized, it's your responsibility as the DM to tone it down.

Remember, the target for an equal CR encounter is that a party of 4 PCs should deplete 1/5th their resources and expect to win with some damage but no deaths.

There will still be some deaths, but that's part of the point of introducing randomness into the game. Despite this, if the party comes to you without your vaunted 14 con, it's your job as the DM to adjust how you plan the encounters so that the equal CR encounter is still appropriately difficult for an equal CR encounter.

Dienekes

2011-09-28, 03:47 PM

1/2 = hit twice or more.
3/8 = hit only once.
1/8 = not hit at all.

Sorry this annoyed me.

It is 1/8 that all 3 hit, 3/8 that 2 hit and 3/8 that 1 hit, and 1/8 that no hit.

I can arrange that to say:
1/8=all hit
3/8= 2 hit
1/2= 1 or less hit.

See 1 or less hitting is the most likely outcome!

That's not how statistics work. For pure averages 1.5 attacks hitting on average each round. So assuming 9 is average damage, and using averages there again. The Crusader would have to null roughly 9+4.5=13.5 points of damage per turn.

This is again assuming that each orc gets a +2 to attack, which if any Crusader gets themselves in that situation pretty much deserve to die. And that the Crusader is starting level 1 at only 16 armor, which is pretty low from where I've played. Generally I see 17-18 in my play.

Now you can go back to your argument, but please if you're going to manipulate math to say what you want it to say don't be so obvious about it.

Frosty

2011-09-28, 04:03 PM

Stop it with the dismissive in your games type arguments. Especially when that is not how they actually go at all.

In my games, which are 3.5 + the houserules in my sig + a very small number of campaign dependent houserules the martial characters are able to be threatening, both for and against the party.

In 3.5 RAW games, martial characters can only keep up by putting in many times more effort. Casters are usable out of the box.

In PF RAW games, martial characters cannot keep up no matter what as they have been nerfed, their opposition buffed in ways that only matter to them, and meanwhile casters are buffed and their opposition is nerfed in ways that only matter to them.

Anyways, the main damage maneuvers are around maneuver level 4. So 1 level too high. He needs two rounds to kill one mook assuming everything hits. That's... bad. Using Stone Power means that hitting thing is even less likely to happen. I'm still willing to play it out if he wants to try, but it is clear his chances are not at all good as he simply lacks the dakka to make it happen.
It does go that way. My DnD game type is OBVIOUSLY different than yours, hence why our group is able to get by without all of your rules. I have some housrules myself to nerf casters a bit, but they have nothing to do with how the martial classes themselves work.

My players get pissed off if most or all the high level enemy caster (not just the BBEG, but the other high level casters too) always have Quickened Dimension Door and Contingency Mirror Image up. That's not the level of op they want to play at.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 04:08 PM

"0 optimization" games do not have goblins spending their entire treasure on tools to optimize against the PCs. They do not have basic goblin soldiers optimizing position in combat to increase to hit. When you do those things, you are optimizing to increase difficulty. If the PC's are not equally optimized, it's your responsibility as the DM to tone it down.

Flasks - basic alchemical item.
Charging - basic tactics that even stupid Orcs can figure out.
Flanking - basic tactics that even less intelligent non sapient animals can work out.

If you're trying to claim that creatures as smart as people would not play to their strengths (being nimble) and avoid their weaknesses (being small and physically weak)...

These are basic enemies using basic tools.

Remember, the target for an equal CR encounter is that a party of 4 PCs should deplete 1/5th their resources and expect to win with some damage but no deaths.

You know as well as I do that doesn't work.

There will still be some deaths, but that's part of the point of introducing randomness into the game. Despite this, if the party comes to you without your vaunted 14 con, it's your job as the DM to adjust how you plan the encounters so that the equal CR encounter is still appropriately difficult for an equal CR encounter.

Sure. It's called "Hey, you might want to bulk up to 14 Con, as you're way too squishy otherwise." And what will happen is they'll say "Thanks Elitarismo." and go do that. Because they realize I'm looking out for their best interests. If for some reason they refused to do it, the encounters aren't going to start hitting like limp wristed pansies just because the party is squishy. That is stupid, and leads to playing stupid. Adventuring requires a certain degree of hardiness. The in world reason why 14+ Con is mandatory? They're the only ones tough enough to handle it. The rest stay at home.

Sorry this annoyed me.

It is 1/8 that all 3 hit, 3/8 that 2 hit and 3/8 that 1 hit, and 1/8 that no hit.

I can arrange that to say:
1/8=all hit
3/8= 2 hit
1/2= 1 or less hit.

See 1 or less hitting is the most likely outcome!

If 3 hits, the Crusader dies.
If 2 hits, the Crusader dies.
There is no functional difference between these outcomes, so it is fair to lump them together.

If 1 hits, the Crusader does not die and is 1 hit from dying.
If none hit, the Crusader does not die and remains 2 hits away from dying.
There is a functional difference between these outcomes, so it is not fair to lump them together.

That's not how statistics work. For pure averages 1.5 attacks hitting on average each round. So assuming 9 is average damage, and using averages there again. The Crusader would have to null roughly 9+4.5=13.5 points of damage per turn.

That is not how statistical analysis works. You do not use weighted averages. You determine what the chance of the worst case scenario is, and by extension the chance to avoid it. In this case, we have a 50% chance the Crusader is dead in round 1 and a near 100% chance he dies in round 2, either before or after his delayed damage wears off.

There was a nice thread around here linked about that.

This is again assuming that each orc gets a +2 to attack, which if any Crusader gets themselves in that situation pretty much deserve to die. And that the Crusader is starting level 1 at only 16 armor, which is pretty low from where I've played. Generally I see 17-18 in my play.

Now you can go back to your argument, but please if you're going to manipulate math to say what you want it to say don't be so obvious about it.

Yes, because it's not possible for two or more enemies to approach from different sides. Except that it is, and when they do it's +6 to hit... which means 50% chance to hit even the highest number you mention.

Edit: At those levels, those things are the most basic levels of defenses. Sounds like another person who treats D&D as a video game.

Gnaeus

2011-09-28, 04:11 PM

CR 1/3rd, Standard treasure. That means that the goblin has 100 gold worth of equipment. The Monster Manual says that I am right. Right there in the entry under Goblin. Mark off leather armor and light shield, still plenty left. Give it the morningstar and javelin anyways (lol at negative str mod creatures using str based weapons), still plenty left. It can get at least two flasks, and since combat only lasts 2 rounds anyways...

No, that is not remotely what that means. It means that the PCs should get treasure roughly equal to 300 gold on average when they defeat 3 goblins. The goblins may not even have most of their own treasure, most of the tribe's wealth is likely to have been appropriated by the leaders. The treasure table indicates that 3 goblins have a 23% chance of a mundane treasure type item, and that that item has a 17% chance of being alchemical, for a total of a 4% chance that 3 goblins have a single alchemical item. If they have an alchemical item, there is only about a 50% chance (or about 2% total) that it will be a weapon usable against PCs, and only a 12% chance (or about 1% total), that they have 2d4 flasks of alchemists fire.

Hecuba

2011-09-28, 05:09 PM

Flasks - basic alchemical item.
Charging - basic tactics that even stupid Orcs can figure out.
Flanking - basic tactics that even less intelligent non sapient animals can work out.

If you're trying to claim that creatures as smart as people would not play to their strengths (being nimble) and avoid their weaknesses (being small and physically weak)...

These are basic enemies using basic tools.

Those are in-game concerns. Combat optimization, as it relates to encounter balance, is a meta-game concern. Both have their place.

Moreover, there are a great deal of "basic tools" that are available that combatants are never trained to use and thus do not rely on. Some people might not be brave enough to, say, charge into a group of enemies. And while most animals will take advantage of flanking (or something like it) when they have their prey outnumbered, that flows naturally from having an enemy/prey outnumbered. There are far fewer for which it carries over as a general tactic when that they take advantage of when on equal footing, despite the fact that it would be effective and tactically sound.

You know as well as I do that doesn't work.

On the contrary, it works perfectly well. The listed CRs for many entries are problematic, but pursuing the balance point presented is a perfectly viable goal. Moreover, it is (in my opinion at least) your job as DM to actively pursue that balance point when let listed CRs fail to be appropriate for you group.

Sure. It's called "Hey, you might want to bulk up to 14 Con, as you're way too squishy otherwise." And what will happen is they'll say "Thanks Elitarismo." and go do that. Because they realize I'm looking out for their best interests. If for some reason they refused to do it, the encounters aren't going to start hitting like limp wristed pansies just because the party is squishy. That is stupid, and leads to playing stupid. Adventuring requires a certain degree of hardiness. The in world reason why 14+ Con is mandatory? They're the only ones tough enough to handle it. The rest stay at home.

1) You're making a huge number of in-word presumptions to make your in-world presumptions work. Just for starters, "Adventurer" would need to be something analogous to a profession, which is not a given. You're presuming that the adventure is voluntary rather than something the characters find themselves stuck being involved in, which is (again) not a given.
2) You're also making meta-game presumptions. There are at least 3 listed character generation methods where this isn't an option.

In the end, the very reason D&D isn't a computer game is because there is a DM sitting at the table to make sure that the challenge is structured to be properly challenging for the people at the table. If I, as a DM, could not find a balance point between "characters below 14 Con reliably die" and "limp wristed pansies," I would not start by presuming the fault was with the players and their builds.

Elitarismo

2011-09-28, 05:19 PM

Curious

2011-09-28, 05:22 PM

Hecuba

2011-09-28, 05:27 PM

Dangerous jobs call for people that can handle that danger. It's that simple. The ones that can't quickly die. Since I'd rather not have people quickly die, I take the steps to make sure they don't quickly die, and I do not turn a dangerous profession into anything but.

You're presuming it's a profession again: that's a huge storytelling limitation.

But more importantly, dangerous is a relative term. The challenges should be appropriately dangerous for the party they are designed for.

An encounter that is dangerous for a party built with 3d6 in order is probably significantly less so to a party built with 36 point-buy. That difference isn't fundamentally dissimilar to the difference between a group that optimizes con and one that doesn't. If you would modify encounters to maintain the appropriate difficulty for the former, why on earth would you not do so for the latter?

Frosty

2011-09-28, 05:47 PM

You're presuming it's a profession again: that's a huge storytelling limitation.

But more importantly, dangerous is a relative term. The challenges should be appropriately dangerous for the party they are designed for.

An encounter that is dangerous for a party built with 3d6 in order is probably significantly less so to a party built with 36 point-buy. That difference isn't fundamentally dissimilar to the difference between a group that optimizes con and one that doesn't. If you would modify encounters to maintain the appropriate difficulty for the former, why on earth would you not do so for the latter?Because in his world, all the people who have 3d6 arrays have died off :smallsigh: He just can't wrap his head around the fact that some campaign call for exactly those kinds of PCs.

erikun

2011-09-28, 05:58 PM

Because in his world, all the people who have 3d6 arrays have died off :smallsigh: He just can't wrap his head around the fact that some campaign call for exactly those kinds of PCs.
Wouldn't this mean that around 70% of the population dies due to violence before reaching adulthood?

Also, is there something wrong with a party simply choosing not to take on these ultra-dangerous situations at such a low level, and instead tackling something more reasonable? I mean, it seems a bit silly (to me) that we would assume highly dangerous encounters everywhere you look, but then assume that every character would follow the planted rails from encounter to encounter.

Incanur

2011-09-28, 08:15 PM

They do not have the defenses that prevent them from being hit...or if they do, they're not contributing anything else. Their spells are easily resisted, they are fragile, and they run out quickly. A dramatic feeling campaign should have time sensitivity, and therefore they run out of spells all too quickly. Area spells rarely cover enough area to hit more than one opponent. The fighter, meanwhile, is a meat-shield, and killing most stuff on one swing, with a more reliable to-hit chance than the wizard's save DCs.

I don't think we actually agree. :smallsmile: A well-built first-level wizard has both defense and offense in spades. Here's what I consider the iconic (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19873034/Treantmonks_guide_to_Wizards:_Being_a_God) choice:

The Smoking Hobbit
Conjurer 1
Race: Strongheart Halfling
Alternate Class Features: Martial Wizard, Abrupt Jaunt, Focused Specialist
Abilities (28 points): Str 6, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 18, Wis 8, Cha 8
AC: 14 (+3 Dex, +1 Size) 6hp Init +7 Fort +2 R+3 W+1
Feats: Improved Initiative*, Cloudy Conjuration, Spell Focus (Conjuration)
Spells: five cantrips and four 1sts per day
Threats of note: grease DC 16, wall of smoke DC 16, color spray DC 15

The combination of a high initiative bonus, four 10ft teleports per day, and 5ft-radius clouds of concealment triggered by even a conjuration cantrip makes this character rather difficult to kill. Grease and wall of smoke provide strong battlefield control and serious DCs few level-one foes will resist.

Fighters aren't useless or even bad at this stage of the game, but wizards have options they lack. I think the latter class comes out ahead overall.

Instead, pick the druid, who has everything the fighter has and the wizard has put together.

Hardly. Ye old riding dog in leather barding makes a decent tank but a fighter can perform the role better and dish out more damage. The druid herself suffers from low combat ability if she dumped Str and Dex as most do. The class has some great spells (entangle comes mind) but the druid-companion duo isn't the devastating force it becomes at level five. ("Hey barbarian, my fleshraker buddy and I just charged for 70ish damage each thanks to one spell and two class features. How does that make you feel?")

The point is that in combat healing isn't meaningful, which means there is no such thing as going all day and that further, the so called unlimited classes are not only not unlimited, but are actually more limited than those with more explicit limitations.

I can't support this. Dread necromancers and crusaders do tank like champions at first level. I bet those two and binder could take a whole pile of stock encounters. JaronK wasn't just whistling Dixie. :smallamused:

Nah, all of them die in 1-2 hits on a purely random basis. This is because the Wizard's HP is just high enough to not die in 1. But the high HP guys aren't high enough to not die in 2.

This is patently absurd. Attack damage ranges greatly at level one. It's not nearly as simple as you claim, and more hp is always better.

A level 2 Orc Barbarian or something with +11 to hit with 1d8+8 damage as an off-hand weapon is an extremely deadly encounter for anyone, and is likely something you'll only fight ONCE in your entire time as level 2s, because this is like the orc boss of a small warband.

Said foe would likely die horribly to color spray. The pouncing 28-pt-buy water orc barbarian 1 in a whirling frenzy attacks at +8/+8 and deals 1d12+12 with each hit if optimized for damage, but this character has only +2 to initiative and attempts Will saves at -2.

However, you raise an important point. Though perhaps less likely to actually win against the party than the gnome beguiler hurling DC-17 color sprays, I suspect PCs would fear the former more than the latter. Getting knocked unconscious isn't big deal as a long as your side still emerges victorious, while taking 37 points to dome kills you deader than dead.

Furthermore why would you even want to play a 1 or 2 round combat? That doesn't sound fun at all.

In my experience, 1-2 round combats just happen, especially when one big monster takes on the party. It depends. I've also seen over 10 rounds on occasion.

Talya

2011-09-28, 08:39 PM

I don't think we actually agree. :smallsmile: A well-built first-level wizard has both defense and offense in spades. Here's what I consider the iconic (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19873034/Treantmonks_guide_to_Wizards:_Being_a_God) choice:

At high levels of optimization, a wizard is a bit more survivable, yes, but once again, most of those spells are only ever going to hit one person, despite being area, and all it takes is one hit and that wizard is gone for good.

Lastly, I wouldn't count any ACFs when factoring in balance. Alternate Class Features are rare. Typically classes are played as is, right out of the box. Now, I'm not against class features (my favorite build is a 20 bard that has actually traded away about half of its class features), but let's not pretend they're the default.

Hardly. Ye old riding dog in leather barding makes a decent tank but a fighter can perform the role better and dish out more damage. The druid herself suffers from low combat ability if she dumped Str and Dex as most do. The class has some great spells (entangle comes mind) but the druid-companion duo isn't the devastating force it becomes at level five. ("Hey barbarian, my fleshraker buddy and I just charged for 70ish damage each thanks to one spell and two class features. How does that make you feel?")

The dog is also keeping the enemy on the ground with no loss in action economy. Also, a DC 20 Handle Animal check is fairly trivial to make for most druids at low levels. I'm not going to say the "Warbeast" template is default, any more than I'd say say Abrupt Jaunt is, but by the wording of it, it's completely and unquestionably legal for a druid to have applied this to a riding dog. If you allow crafting and/or any time spent before play begins, the druid will have applied it. That makes the dog in every possible way superior to the fighter at that level. (and gives it a 3rd level feat right at the start.)

Yeah, I'm not including that, because it comes in right there with abrupt jaunt--probably not appropriate for balance discussions.

It's true that the druid herself will lack strength and possibly dexterity at level 1, too. They'll still be far more durable than the wizard, however. They'll have given CON as much priority (or more!) as the fighter did, they have decent armor options (yay lamellar!), and 4 more hp from their hit die. This makes it easier for the druid to do their job without worrying about taking a stray hit or spending time or spell slots buffing up. Early on, the druid really does combine the best features of both fighters and wizards. As they level up, the wizard's spell list is superior, but I'm not convinced it ever really becomes blatantly better than the druid, with all the other neat tricks druids get that don't even force them to access their own formidable spell list.

I can't support this. Dread necromancers and crusaders do tank like champions at first level. I bet those two and binder could take a whole pile of stock encounters. JaronK wasn't just whistling Dixie. :smallamused:

This is patently absurd. Attack damage ranges greatly at level one. It's not nearly as simple as you claim, and more hp is always better.

Said foe would likely die horribly to color spray. The pouncing 28-pt-buy water orc barbarian 1 in a whirling frenzy attacks at +8/+8 and deals 1d12+12 with each hit if optimized for damage, but this character has only +2 to initiative and attempts Will saves at -2.

However, you raise an important point. Though perhaps less likely to actually win against the party than the gnome beguiler hurling DC-17 color sprays, I suspect PCs would fear the former more than the latter. Getting knocked unconscious isn't big deal as a long as your side still emerges victorious, while taking 37 points to dome kills you deader than dead.

In my experience, 1-2 round combats just happen, especially when one big monster takes on the party. It depends. I've also seen over 10 rounds on occasion.[/QUOTE]

Incanur

2011-09-28, 09:09 PM

At high levels of optimization, a wizard is a bit more survivable, yes, but once again, most of those spells are only ever going to hit one person, despite being area, and all it takes is one hit and that wizard is gone for good.

It would take a 16-damage hit to put the Smoking Halfling (or any wizard with 14 Con) in the grave. That's not terribly likely at level 1 apart from crits and water orc berserkers. I don't know why you assume area spells will rarely hit more than one foe. Even if the mage isn't forcing saves, battlefield control controls the battlefield. Being God means deciding who sees what, who moves where, and so on.

Casters simply do things martial classes can't. Sure, the elf generalist with 6 Con who memorizes two magic missiles will feel rather outclassed by a sword-&-board fighter, but the next day this character might opt for obscuring mist and fortuitously save the party from a band of goblin archers. The right spell can immediately turn a battle around or overcome some other sort of obstacle. Wizards can pull their weight without dominating every combat.

Lastly, I wouldn't count any ACFs when factoring in balance. Alternate Class Features are rare. Typically classes are played as is, right out of the box.

:smallconfused: This varies by group. The last folks I played with used ACFs galore once everybody became familiar with 3.5 D&D.

The dog is also keeping the enemy on the ground with no loss in action economy.

Don't get me wrong, druids still rock the house (or forest, as it were). But the animal companion isn't literally superior a fighter in every way, even with that warbeast template that requires at least two months of your PC's life. Fighters get reach weapons and improved trip, not to mention monstrous strength scores if they're orcs. Riding dogs don't hit for 2d6+9.

Yeah, I'm not including that, because it comes in right there with abrupt jaunt--probably not appropriate for balance discussions.

Warbeast requires prep time, a highish roll or not dumping Cha, and comes from a 3.0 book. Abrupt jaunt has no similar limitations.

Early on, the druid really does combine the best features of both fighters and wizards.

Unless you've got high abilities, I don't see this at all. With 28 points, either you've got 8-10 Str and Dex or you're sacrificing Wis. These stats make for a pitiful melee combatant.

dextercorvia

2011-09-28, 09:40 PM

[QUOTE=Incanur;11934683
Unless you've got high abilities, I don't see this at all. With 28 points, either you've got 8-10 Str and Dex or you're sacrificing Wis. These stats make for a pitiful melee combatant.[/QUOTE]

I think she means the durability of the Fighter with the spell options of the wizard.

DodgerH2O

2011-09-28, 10:07 PM

Wow... I know that this board selects for a certain type of player, but this thread has convinced me that the "Powergamers" I've had to deal with as a DM were amateurs. If my experiences as a player are anywhere near typical, most games of D&D are pitifully easy with minor optimization, since most groups exist to have a good time, and the DM doesn't usually throw ridiculous things like goblin alchemists at us.

Just a perspective to think about. The last game I played, a single-class Swashbuckler managed to devastate most combats because he had Tumble and an extra weapon. Nothing special, but sufficient optimization for the game we played, and it made for a good narrative nonetheless.

Talya

2011-09-28, 10:32 PM

I think she means the durability of the Fighter with the spell options of the wizard.

Almost, yes. Plus the animal companion doing the fighter's job.

navar100

2011-09-28, 10:33 PM

In my group combat takes 5 rounds minimum. This is because the DM has chosen as modus operandi to have the bad guys outnumber the party of 6 players plus 1d3 NPC tagalongs at least two to one in number with three to one not uncommon. The BBEG of the combat is equal or 1d2 levels higher than the party with 0-2 Lieutenants of equal or 1 level lower than the party.

This factors into other elements of play:
1) Healing in combat matters. Healing doesn't have to be better than enemy damage. Healing + party member's current hit points has to be better than enemy damage.

2) Healing matters because we care about each other as a matter of role play. The paladin especially has been known to stop attacking the enemy to heal a party member with Lay On Hands and even drag an unconscious NPC tagalong out of harm's way.

3) Because there are so many enemies, spellcasters cannot win the combat by themselves. Single enemy save or suck spells can work, but there are plenty of more enemies to deal with. Area spells cannot affect all the bad guys at once. Even for those who are affected, some actually do make their saving throws.

4) In addition to so many bad guys the spellcasters can't deal with them all, the PC warriors aren't ignored despite not even having a reach weapon. The DM doesn't metagame to have every single bad guy to always target the spellcasters because they are spellcasters. Particular bad guys might target a PC warrior because of Plot. General bad guys attack the PC warriors because getting stabbed with a pointy stick hurts. PC spellcasters will be targeted themselves too but as Plot or combat demands, not metagame hypothetical Gate chaining, Rope Trick rest abusing, who needs a rogue Knock casting, Black Tentacle fetishes, or other spell uses that make wizards all so Awesome target them just because.

Not every combat is like this. There are still plenty of 1 to 3 bad guys of higher level/HD fights, equal number of combatants fights, and the occasional cakewalk. Sometimes the spellcasters will be targeted because they are spellcasters.

The Tier System for us is irrelevant. The DM has found his solution to the alleged blasphemy of having Tier 1 and Tier 4 classes in the same party, and it required no Ban Hammer, Nerfing, or House Rules Gospel to the almighty deity of Balance. There are House Rules, just not prostrating for the god Balance.

Big Fau

2011-09-28, 10:47 PM

You said "half of them" and later went on to indicate you just meant half of the mooks. I meant half of the encounter, which I did not fully describe but did heavily imply was composed of more than just them, particularly given the context in which I used the word mook. Now you say you can survive two rounds, but not three from what is actually one fifth of the encounter. On the bright side, since my houserules are in effect you get 110 HP, so you're not as squishy as you think. On the downside, you're attacking at +10/+5 for only 2d6+5 a hit. Suffice it to say that they have more than 12 HP, and more than 12 AC. Not looking so good for him anymore, even if it were just the three mooks.

In case it wasn't obvious, I didn't read your house rules. At all. Because your house rules are not the same ones my DM uses. They're not even the same ones I use. Why would I play by your rules instead of the rules everyone can agree upon?

There's no point in arguing with someone who doesn't even adhere to CharOp 101. When debating a class' abilities, you ALWAYS* assume RAW unless the OP specifies otherwise.

*When debating Practical Optimization tactics, it is also assumed that things such as Pun-Pun, Shadow Miracles, Planar Shepherd, and other idiotically overpowered thought experiments are off-limits. Such overpowered concepts are only acceptable debates when the debate has reached Theoretical Optimization territory.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-28, 11:02 PM

The Tier System for us is irrelevant. The DM has found his solution to the alleged blasphemy of having Tier 1 and Tier 4 classes in the same party, and it required no Ban Hammer, Nerfing, or House Rules Gospel to the almighty deity of Balance. There are House Rules, just not prostrating for the god Balance.Getting a bit carried away with the blasphemy talk, no? For certain groups, having what amounts to a gentlemen's agreement to avoid problematic spells and tactics (and play at a relatively low optimization level) works. Good for you. I personally would rather play in an environment where casting black tentacles wasn't seen as both fetishistic (damn you, Japanese animation!) and fun-ruining.

Gnaeus

2011-09-29, 07:48 AM

Said foe would likely die horribly to color spray. The pouncing 28-pt-buy water orc barbarian 1 in a whirling frenzy attacks at +8/+8 and deals 1d12+12 with each hit if optimized for damage, but this character has only +2 to initiative and attempts Will saves at -2.

However, you raise an important point. Though perhaps less likely to actually win against the party than the gnome beguiler hurling DC-17 color sprays, I suspect PCs would fear the former more than the latter. Getting knocked unconscious isn't big deal as a long as your side still emerges victorious, while taking 37 points to dome kills you deader than dead.
.

I should point out that if melee is lame at low levels, as has been suggested, and if monster encounters should be optimized, as has been suggested, then my optimized orc will not necessarily be optimized for damage. I can pretty easily build a level 2 orc with a +7 or 8 will save and a luck reroll who can still deal enough damage to kill a low level wizard. Making low level encounters that will curbstomp a wizard isn't much if any harder than making low level encounters that will trivialize a crusader. (not that either one should be ones goal.) Any DM with decent optimization skills can kill any PC with level appropriate encounters if for some reason that is his goal.

Note: this post is not necessarily directed at Incanur, he was just the last person to bring up that optimized orc.

Lans

2011-09-29, 09:28 AM

You can also get immunity to mind affecting effects for a feat and a 'slight' flavor choice.

Incanur

2011-09-29, 11:02 AM

I should point out that if melee is lame at low levels, as has been suggested, and if monster encounters should be optimized, as has been suggested, then my optimized orc will not necessarily be optimized for damage.

I wouldn't say melee is lame at low levels. Not at all. Fighters do okay all the way through an E6 game. They're not outstanding or anything, but they're always valuable in combat. Crusaders and warblades do better still in battle while also having half-decent skills.

I can pretty easily build a level 2 orc with a +7 or 8 will save and a luck reroll who can still deal enough damage to kill a low level wizard.

If you're optimizing for Will saves, why on earth would you choose an orc? Steadfast Determination? And note that even +8 only gets you to a 60% success rate against killer gnomes with color spray. Not too bad, but the build does worse against martial threats as a result.

Making low level encounters that will curbstomp a wizard isn't much if any harder than making low level encounters that will trivialize a crusader.

Sure, the DM always wins if they want to. But guess which PCs can enjoy the benefits of knowledge and prep time in the game. That's right, the casters! Tier-1 classes have that status because of versatility and out-of-combat tricks more than simply the ability to kill opponents dead.

The tier-4 water orc berserker achieves vastly more damage than any first-level caster I can think of and has the potential to murder monsters well above her CR, but that comes at the price of being almost useless when the situation demands something other than 15-30 points to the dome.

Casters earn their godlike reputation by being able to do anything.

Note: this post is not necessarily directed at Incanur, he was just the last person to bring up that optimized orc.

In case anyone cares, I prefer gender-neutral pronoun when I can get them. I wish this forum had a gender option outside of the binary.

PlzBreakMyCmpAn

2011-09-29, 05:40 PM

People play above T6? Munchkins

Samurai, Aristocrat, Truenamer, Divine Mind w/ healing focus is the only way to play.

If it aint broke, don't fix play i

Knaight

2011-09-29, 06:06 PM

Wow... I know that this board selects for a certain type of player, but this thread has convinced me that the "Powergamers" I've had to deal with as a DM were amateurs. If my experiences as a player are anywhere near typical, most games of D&D are pitifully easy with minor optimization, since most groups exist to have a good time, and the DM doesn't usually throw ridiculous things like goblin alchemists at us.

Eh, the goblin alchemist example is pretty extreme. One person was going for that, most weren't. I wouldn't even use that if I did optimize encounters, because it is basically a goblin carrying around two grenades and nothing else. In world, it makes way more sense to have a weapon you can use in several fights - there is a reason the rifle, and not the grenade, is the basic infantry weapon. Which translates to, say, a spear and a bow. Or possibly a spear and a handful of darts.

noparlpf

2011-09-29, 06:09 PM

Eh, the goblin alchemist example is pretty extreme. One person was going for that, most weren't. I wouldn't even use that if I did optimize encounters, because it is basically a goblin carrying around two grenades and nothing else. In world, it makes way more sense to have a weapon you can use in several fights - there is a reason the rifle, and not the grenade, is the basic infantry weapon. Which translates to, say, a spear and a bow. Or possibly a spear and a handful of darts.

The DM running the real-life campaign I'm in this semester gave us a weird goblin "experiment" which was the tribe's shaman turned into a thing with wings and which attacked using a sharpened piece of its own sternum attached to a retracting cord in its chest. It wasn't too hard to kill, though. It was just a nifty thing he made up to freak us out.

navar100

2011-09-29, 06:19 PM

Getting a bit carried away with the blasphemy talk, no? For certain groups, having what amounts to a gentlemen's agreement to avoid problematic spells and tactics (and play at a relatively low optimization level) works. Good for you. I personally would rather play in an environment where casting black tentacles wasn't seen as both fetishistic (damn you, Japanese animation!) and fun-ruining.

Let's just say that all the rhetoric I've read about game destroying Tier 1 and pathetic Tier 4 has used up all its tolerance. There is no One True Way to play the game. If your group cannot handle a druid and a fighter in the same party, that's your problem, not the game's.

Knaight

2011-09-29, 06:56 PM

Let's just say that all the rhetoric I've read about game destroying Tier 1 and pathetic Tier 4 has used up all its tolerance. There is no One True Way to play the game. If your group cannot handle a druid and a fighter in the same party, that's your problem, not the game's.

The Tier system objectively measures the potential of classes. It is a tool to make putting the druid and fighter in the same party work better, when you care about power balance between the classes. It is not a mandate that says you should never do this, let alone a mandate that says there is only one tier to use.

Curious

2011-09-29, 07:41 PM

Let's just say that all the rhetoric I've read about game destroying Tier 1 and pathetic Tier 4 has used up all its tolerance. There is no One True Way to play the game. If your group cannot handle a druid and a fighter in the same party, that's your problem, not the game's.

I'm not disputing the fact that people can make low tier characters work with high tier characters, they can, but it is the games fault that the disparity exists. Druids are demonstrably more powerful in every way than a fighter, and that is a problem of the system, not the group.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-09-29, 08:24 PM

Let's just say that all the rhetoric I've read about game destroying Tier 1 and pathetic Tier 4 has used up all its tolerance. There is no One True Way to play the game. If your group cannot handle a druid and a fighter in the same party, that's your problem, not the game's.The more effort I have to do to make a game work, the worse the game is ceteris paribus. Sure, most groups can handle different tiers in the same game, but a fighter (who cares about contributing meaningfully) is going to have to do some work to compete with a druid who actually uses his class features; worse, it's the type of work that some GMs* frown upon.

*The type of GM that bans ToB for balance purposes

Big Fau

2011-09-29, 09:20 PM

Let's just say that all the rhetoric I've read about game destroying Tier 1 and pathetic Tier 4 has used up all its tolerance. There is no One True Way to play the game. If your group cannot handle a druid and a fighter in the same party, that's your problem, not the game's.

A pathetic Tier 4 means either the DM has moved so far out of the class' specialties that the player cannot contribute, or the player has made extremely poor choices.

Tier 5s and 6s are pathetic. Tier 4s are just somewhat weaker Tier 3s.

navar100

2011-09-29, 11:08 PM

The Tier system objectively measures the potential of classes. It is a tool to make putting the druid and fighter in the same party work better, when you care about power balance between the classes. It is not a mandate that says you should never do this, let alone a mandate that says there is only one tier to use.

As was the original intent of its creation. However, that is not how it is used now on these forums. It is used as an attack depending on one of three views:

1) Tier 1 classes are an abomination of great power that no player should have. Banish it into the cornfield. Bad Wrong Fun

2) Tier 4 and below classes are an abomination of unbelievable suckage how dare you even consider playing such a class. You are a burden to the party. Bad wrong fun.

3) Tier 3 classes are the Holy Grail. Absolute Perfection in Every Way. I am so awesome to use only these classes. Anything else is Bad Wrong Fun

It's not Bad Wrong Fun for your particular game if you don't want Tier 1 classes, no below Tier 3 classes, or only Tier 3 classes. The issue is when people use the Tier System as justification and chastise those who play differently.

The more effort I have to do to make a game work, the worse the game is ceteris paribus. Sure, most groups can handle different tiers in the same game, but a fighter (who cares about contributing meaningfully) is going to have to do some work to compete with a druid who actually uses his class features; worse, it's the type of work that some GMs* frown upon.

*The type of GM that bans ToB for balance purposes

If you resent making the effort as you see necessary to make 3E work for you, then admit you don't like 3E already and play something else. There are game systems I don't like so don't play them, regardless of how many people sing their praises. Being the DM should be fun.

"You" is intended to mean colloquial "you", not particularly GoodbyeSoberDay.

Knaight

2011-09-29, 11:22 PM

As was the original intent of its creation. However, that is not how it is used now on these forums. It is used as an attack depending on one of three views:

Hardly. It only comes up when ideas like "nerf tome of battle, they make wizards look weak" are aired. The attacks are usually more along these lines:

Let's just say that all the rhetoric I've read about game destroying Tier 1 and pathetic Tier 4 has used up all its tolerance. There is no One True Way to play the game. If your group cannot handle a druid and a fighter in the same party, that's your problem, not the game's.
Emphasis mine. "If flaws in the game affect your play, that's your fault" is an attack. One saddled on the absurd notion that D&D is somehow a perfect game, with absolutely no flaws that could ever cause anything other than a perfect gaming experience. And that attitude is seen all the time. "D&D can handle everything", "D&D is high magic, so make your game high magic, it will fix min maxing", "Everyone who says they prefer a game other than D&D is a snob, like from the edition wars", "The game is flawless, you just suck at it" these statements are common on the board. Most of the backlash to the tier system is the same, it implies fairly heavily that D&D is imperfect, and we just can't have that.

Aquillion

2011-09-30, 01:25 AM

There is no One True Way to play the game.Good! I agree. Every tier has its own advantages, and some people combine them, while other people don't, and no one way is--

If your group cannot handle a druid and a fighter in the same party, that's your problem, not the game's.--well huh. :smallsigh:

Think about what you're saying. "If you don't want to play it the way I play it, that's your problem, not the game" amounts to accusing people of playing the game wrong. Most people in this thread have been very courteous and respectful about the different ways to approach the tier issues and how you can fit your game to them.

It feels like you're attacking things that haven't been said here and views that haven't been expressed. Can you quote the people you're replying to, and provide more concrete examples of what's been said in this thread that you disagree with?

navar100

2011-09-30, 05:50 PM

Not handling a druid and fighter in the same party means banning one or the other or both and advocating others do so, which has happened on these forums.

Handling a druid and fighter in the same party could mean:

1) You have no issues at all. Play on.
2) Alright, Natural Spell has to go.
3) The alternative ability of druid in PHBII works better. Let's use that.
4) The Fighter likes to use Improved Trip. I should cut down on having Large Four Legged Flying creatures with 10ft reach for most of the combats.
5) Sorry, I just cannot stand it. Either the druid goes or the fighter goes. Maybe both. Oh, someone on these forums is playing a Fighter looking for advice on how to improve. There happens to be a druid in the party. I'll ignore that and just focus on helping the player improve his Fighter. It'll most likely be a matter of feat choices. I'll refrain from chastising his group's choice of allowing a druid and fighter in the same party. Doesn't work for me, but his group is fine with it. Go them.