Teir 1? i dont think so... [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Teir 1? i dont think so...

Devronq

2011-10-20, 02:40 AM

Thrice Dead Cat

2011-10-20, 02:42 AM

Check the test of spite logs. There are a lot of challenges. The general trick is to out batman the batmen.

ClothedInVelvet

2011-10-20, 02:49 AM

I love playing a Tier 1 character. I think it's great to be able to play a character completely focused on roleplay and backstory without having to worry about being useless in battle.

Sure, a rogue may have a great backstory and the player may be fantastic at getting into character and having fun, but in many encounters, he's useless.

A druid on the other hand, may have a fascination with sparrows and so may completely nerf one of his abilities by wildshaping into a sparrow all day long. And his companion may be a sparrow too. But he can still contribute something meaningful to the encounter.

One character that someone else played was a cleric who was terrified of battle. He would buff everyone up, but as soon as the fighting started, he'd climb the nearest tree or hide behind a chair. He was fun in RP and the other PCs didn't mind because he helped them by buffing.

Killer Angel

2011-10-20, 02:59 AM

If you win every fight no matter what, you can take on 10 terrasques at level 10 in one round when its not your turn why are you even playing?

I'm pretty sure that lots of wizards and clerics died in the history of D&D... :smallamused:

Endarire

2011-10-20, 03:48 AM

I played a party comprised of tier 1s. The GM nerfed things so much we couldn't reliably do 15 damage per hit at level 11. His ability to reliably roll high meant things reliably made their saves.

The party: Artificer/Druid/Wizard/Cleric

Gwendol

2011-10-20, 03:50 AM

I play clerics. Just because you can doesn't mean you have to...

Kol Korran

2011-10-20, 03:54 AM

first of all it depends on how optimized and game savvy these players are. i have two players, (one a wizard and the other a cleric) who are the more optimized in our group, but not necessarily game savvy. but they have been challenged, repeatedly, and have their own "near death experiences".

it also comes to the type of DMing. their main ability comes from picking the right spells for the right occasion, or picking versatlye enough spells to work in many situations. so some challanges do worktheir way, but sometimes you add surprises, time limits, limits on getting info and proactive foes to go against them.

some will chime a wizard and cleric should be able to deal with that as well. perhaps, we're not hardcore optimizers, but i think most players in most groups aren't. (or at least that's my take on it). it gives the players more options, more interesting ideas to try, which often brings to a better and more interesting game.

BobVosh

2011-10-20, 03:55 AM

I love wizards, and in every fantasy game I play them. D&D is no exception. Although I don't play them to the hilt like is possible.

faceroll

2011-10-20, 03:56 AM

Playing a practically optimized T1 means you're using control spells and doing clever stuff with rope trick, shape stone, or teleport. As far as encounters go, the big guy with the axe and over 9000 damage poses more of a problem for the DM.

Honestly, I find T1 characters far more reliable to have around. They typically have low damage output compared to the lower tiers and they don't get screwed by half the monster abilities out there, like level drain, death, disease, ability damage/drain, possession, large amounts of elemental damage, etc. etc.

Greymane

2011-10-20, 04:02 AM

In the grand game of D&D, I play what fits the character concept I want to use best. This is often tempered by what I would count as 'fun' that the game offers mechanically. I play a lot of Wizards and Clerics, not because they're powerful (but hey, it's a plus), but because they offer me the most options. I can only roll to hit with a fighter for so long before I die of boredom.

Playing a practically optimized T1 means you're using control spells and doing clever stuff with rope trick, shape stone, or teleport. As far as encounters go, the big guy with the axe and over 9000 damage poses more of a problem for the DM.

Honestly, I find T1 characters far more reliable to have around. They typically have low damage output compared to the lower tiers and they don't get screwed by half the monster abilities out there, like level drain, death, disease, ability damage/drain, possession, large amounts of elemental damage, etc. etc.

And this. When the party has a cleric or a wizard, I'm that much more comfortable throwing alips and vampires at them.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-20, 04:50 AM

I don't quite understand what tier 1 has to do with cheese or the other things the OP mentions... :smallconfused:
Tier 1 characters or rather classes, are like any other character or class. Only when the player optimizes it can become cheesy or too powerful. and even lower tier characters can cheese it up.
So... what's the deal with talking about tier 1? I mean, Wizard, Cleric and Druid are Core, base classes. People play them all the time. You didn't, OP?

Killer Angel

2011-10-20, 05:02 AM

So... what's the deal with talking about tier 1? I mean, Wizard, Cleric and Druid are Core, base classes. People play them all the time. You didn't, OP?

Apparently, not:

Does anyone actually play with tier 1 characters? I never have,

The funny thing is: from the question, it appears the OP doubt if someone ever played T1 characters...

Parra

2011-10-20, 05:07 AM

ClothedInVelvet

2011-10-20, 05:21 AM

Maybe the OP didnt strictly mean no one playing a Wizard/Druid/Clerid but more meant playing a Wizard/Druid/Clerid as fully optimised and defined by the Tier System?
As in people who play Wizard/Druid/Cleric but dont use total optimisation to really pimp them out to the levels that a T1 class can potentially reach. So they are a Wizard/Druid/Cleric but not actually 'Tier 1'

Even if that's not what the OP meant, I think it's probably a better question, and since the other debate is basically exhausted, we could transition into it.

I think what level of optimisation a player builds with is often dependent on his/her group. If your DM puts you through an extremely rigorous string of encounters, and everyone else is fully optimized, you might not be much use, if you survive.

Almost all builds can be dealt with by a good DM who wants to deal with them. That said, I doubt many people play optimized tier 1 classes when the rest of their group doesn't even use clerics, druids, or wizards.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-20, 05:31 AM

Maybe the OP didnt strictly mean no one playing a Wizard/Druid/Clerid but more meant playing a Wizard/Druid/Clerid as fully optimised and defined by the Tier System?
As in people who play Wizard/Druid/Cleric but dont use total optimisation to really pimp them out to the levels that a T1 class can potentially reach. So they are a Wizard/Druid/Cleric but not actually 'Tier 1'
Tiers aren't about how much optimized a class is. Tiers are about potential. A blaster Wizard is still tier 1 class. A healbot Cleric is still a tier 1 class. A Druid who only sends his animal companion to fight and does nothing else is still tier 1. Likewise, a highly optimized fighter is still tier 5.
It's not about what a character can do. It's about what the class can do.

Killer Angel

2011-10-20, 05:36 AM

Tiers aren't about how much optimized a class is. Tiers are about potential.

That's true.

A blaster Wizard is still tier 1 class. A healbot Cleric is still a tier 1 class. A Druid who only sends his animal companion to fight and does nothing else is still tier 1. Likewise, a highly optimized fighter is still tier 5.

I'm not sure I agree with this. A sorcerer stuck with an awful spell selection and with few or no scrolls, it's no more T2; while the class is T2, that character wasted its potential and losed versatility.

Anarchy_Kanya

2011-10-20, 05:44 AM

Tiers deal with classes.

Killer Angel

2011-10-20, 05:46 AM

Tiers deal with classes.

But are also applied to builds, AFAIK.

Parra

2011-10-20, 05:51 AM

Tiers aren't about how much optimized a class is. Tiers are about potential. A blaster Wizard is still tier 1 class. A healbot Cleric is still a tier 1 class. A Druid who only sends his animal companion to fight and does nothing else is still tier 1. Likewise, a highly optimized fighter is still tier 5.
It's not about what a character can do. It's about what the class can do.

Oh, I know. And I agree completly. However there is a misconception that I have seen time and again as to what the Tier system actually is, using arguements like" X class shouldnt be in Tier Y because it can do Z damage" to try, wrongfully, to validate their arguement.
Or in this case, if its what I think the OP was getting at (and I could be wrong), that to be in a certain tier requires a particular degree of optimisation that doesnt exist in most every game. Which again, as you pointed out, is not what the tier system represents.

Basically that they are confusing the Tier System with Total/Theoretical Optimisation.

Coidzor

2011-10-20, 05:54 AM

But are also applied to builds, AFAIK.

It's a bit contentious as to whether this is a proper utilization of the rubric, as it leads to confusion as to whether one is referring to the class or a particular character's build in certain cases, but, yeah, people do use it that way.

On the other hand, JaronK codified it and I think I've seem him use it that way before, so... *shrug*

Killer Angel

2011-10-20, 05:59 AM

It's a bit contentious as to whether this is a proper utilization of the rubric, as it leads to confusion as to whether one is referring to the class or a particular character's build in certain cases, but, yeah, people do use it that way.

Yes, I must remember that the tier system gives more an idea of the strenght's gap between the various classes, it's not necessarly limited to what you can or cannot do.
Considering an equal level of optimization in the group, an awful sorcerer will be T2 and an awful rogue will be T4.

Tyger

2011-10-20, 06:01 AM

Yeah, our group has had its share of highly enjoyable, fallible Tier I classes. My wizard (level 9ish I believe) was our first ever character death - completely due to player stupidity. :) Just because the chassis can handle the stress of 0-60 in 2 seconds doesn't mean the driver knows how to do it. :smallbiggrin:

As for the second question - some of our builds have approached a level of optimization that you see on the boards - hell, some are taken straight off the boards. That said, our newest campaign is a tier 3-5 low to no magic game. We want to challenge ourselves and want to worry about things like weather, encumbrance and distance for the first time ever. I am excited to give it a shot.

kulosle

2011-10-20, 06:24 AM

i play druids in a very optimized fashion, but not in a game breaking way. i'll optimize one aspect of the druid and neglect all others. i've made a druid skill monkey (not as absurd as it sounds), optimized the number of pets i have, optimized wild shaped. doing this with non tier ones mean your character won't be able to contribute anything to the game. i much prefer a skill optimized druid than a rogue or ninja.
plus they are great for when you DM specifically wants to try and kill you. many DM try not to kill you because it makes the game move slower or is less fun and derails plot. a DM i had once told us to all make tier 1 characters and throw in as much cheese and optimization as possible if we hoped to survive and he was actively trying to kill us. quit fun actually. the group ended up being cleric, conjurer, transmuter, druid, artificer, archivist. conjurer summoned creaturs that the transmuter and archivist buffed and the druid tanked a clericed healed. totally rediculous cheese and combo were achieved. so much killing went on it was great. there was a point where we got stuck at level 14 because we kept dying and being resurrected. it was also good for our gm. he loved not giving a damn.

Basket Burner

2011-10-20, 07:13 AM

Now im more or less asking this question to DM's only but anyone feel free to give a response. Does anyone actually play with tier 1 characters? I never have, nor do i think i ever will i wasn't even aware of characters being able to have the kinda power that tier 1 gives and i see absolutely no reason to even attempt to play with that kinda power. If you win every fight no matter what, you can take on 10 terrasques at level 10 in one round when its not your turn why are you even playing? (yes i know im exaggerating but not by much) Or if i dont want the above things to happen id have to put hours of planning into each encounter which is far more work than im willing to do.

To sum it up why would someone play tier 1 and how could it possibly be challenging without being ridiculously cheesy?

Yes. I've even seen some groups that were only Tier 1 or 2. Interestingly enough it is not only not an auto win, but there are any number of means to still threaten them starting with throwing Tier 1s right back at them.

It does mean the DM doesn't have to secondguess how they will contribute, just make whatever encounters are appropriate and be confident the party will find a way to solve the problems they are presented with.

It also means the party will be more or less immune to save or loses, which is also a good thing.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-20, 07:21 AM

Now im more or less asking this question to DM's only but anyone feel free to give a response. Does anyone actually play with tier 1 characters? I never have, nor do i think i ever will i wasn't even aware of characters being able to have the kinda power that tier 1 gives and i see absolutely no reason to even attempt to play with that kinda power. If you win every fight no matter what, you can take on 10 terrasques at level 10 in one round when its not your turn why are you even playing? (yes i know im exaggerating but not by much) Or if i dont want the above things to happen id have to put hours of planning into each encounter which is far more work than im willing to do.

To sum it up why would someone play tier 1 and how could it possibly be challenging without being ridiculously cheesy?

Sure. My incantatrix/Iot7v was awesome. We killed a fleet in....four rounds with that pretty optimized party, and that was mostly only that slow because we wanted to capture some ships for the money.

Your lack of willingness to do work is your choice. It's not universal. High op/high level encounters just take more work...but they payoff is fantastic. A 10 by 10 room with an orc and a chest is remarkably easy to set up, but it's not likely to be the encounter your players all tell stories about for years.

wayfare

2011-10-20, 09:27 AM

I've run a lot of 3.5, but I have not actually played much. I usually had no problems taking care of the Tier 1 classes in my party, but that's because I keep a firm reign on whats possible in the campaign world -- to the point where it might be a bit unfair:

I ban cheese spells or include dangerous clauses a'la AD&D (Wanna shapechange, ok, just be aware that you might become lost in the creatures mind)

I don't allow rest easily -- monsters are looking for you, the world is a dangerous place.

Altering Minds is BAD. Enslaving wills may lead you to evil (illusion is ok, but charm is dicey and domination is evil)

Only limited amounts of metamagic can apply to a spell

etc, etc

It works for us. But its not a must. There are a million ways a character can ruin an RPG. The guy can be annoying, or he could be "chaotic stupid" and use his thieving skills to rip off the party. Worse, the character could be "lawful stupid" and demand that the party abide by her alignment in all cases. You don't have to be T1 to make the game a chore -- and a responsible T1 player will make his party feel useful.

lorddrake

2011-10-20, 09:27 AM

My players use them all the time, but since none of them really is an optimizer or really cares about power (and I'm no Player Killer), they just plays with what they think will be the most fun (I have this player with an bard/swashbuckler/pale master/dragon disciple for the fun of it! And I have a player with a druid who can barely be any good to the team - she barely even knows what spells she can use).

Summing up: Tier is not all that problem if your players are not that fixated in being gods/conquerors of the universe...

Flickerdart

2011-10-20, 09:39 AM

EDIT: (some weird stuff doubled my post. What do I do now?)
When you go to Edit your post, there is an option at the top to Delete it instead.

The thing about playing a T1 to its full potential is that it's a lot of work. You have to keep huge books, prepare for lots of edge cases, only use the best spells, etc. Plus, you don't really get to be original, since the "best" builds have been rehashed so many times now.

lorddrake

2011-10-20, 09:43 AM

When you go to Edit your post, there is an option at the top to Delete it instead.

Thank you, Flickerdart!

And something else. The Tier 1 that I know need some tactical thinking that not necessarily everybody likes in their free time. (I remember a player once who played a Druid going about with a scythe just because it looked nice and wild...)

noparlpf

2011-10-20, 09:57 AM

I started out playing higher-tier classes. I really love the flavor of the Druid and Sorcerer, and as a newbie I wasn't breaking anything with them. I still don't use them to their full potential; I go for blaster arcane casters and healing/wildshaping Druids with a few self-buffs. These days, I usually have more fun playing classes like Barbarian, Ranger, Kensai (Fighter variant), and Healer, which puts me around Tier 4.

Zeta Kai

2011-10-20, 10:05 AM

An unoptimized wizard can be one of the most embarrassingly-useless classes imaginable, one that a fighter or monk can easily outclass. Same story with a psion. An unoptimized cleric is nearly as bad, as are Artificers. Only the druid is truly hard to screw up, as one has to be optimized poorly with spells, animal companion, & wildshape.

Meanwhile, rogues, fighters, monks, & barbarians are much more robust, in terms of optimization. They'll never be great, but it takes effort to make them actually terrible.

Basket Burner

2011-10-20, 10:36 AM

When you go to Edit your post, there is an option at the top to Delete it instead.

The thing about playing a T1 to its full potential is that it's a lot of work. You have to keep huge books, prepare for lots of edge cases, only use the best spells, etc. Plus, you don't really get to be original, since the "best" builds have been rehashed so many times now.

There is no such thing as an original build, best or otherwise.

Edit: Those classes are for the most part really easy to screw up.

Monk: Anything other than the absolute best way of building them will give you a terrible character (and even that best way doesn't give you a good one).
Fighter: Pick bad feats, don't have a 20 level build designed in advance to assign your feats and you will have a terrible character. Even just the first four levels matter a lot, because that is when you get around a third of your total feats. If you don't get yourself in order then, you're screwed.
Rogues: Very, very easy to mess up. Something as simple as falling into the trap of making a non combat character under the erroneous belief that skills are useful will give you a useless character. In fact, they are even easier to screw up than the Fighter as you have to play them in a very non intuitive way to make them any good.
Barbarian: The only one of those that actually is hard to screw up, simply because charging with a greataxe isn't hard to understand.

Tyndmyr

2011-10-20, 10:39 AM

Eh, I find there's MORE room for creativity in high tier builds. More options, more choices.

There's always an underappreciated spell to dig out and add to the list. Fighters...not so much.

Basket Burner

2011-10-20, 10:42 AM

Eh, I find there's MORE room for creativity in high tier builds. More options, more choices.

There's always an underappreciated spell to dig out and add to the list. Fighters...not so much.

There is. I could make a campaign spanning half a dozen levels or more in which every encounter contains at least one Tier 1-2 enemy and each of them has their own thing they do and is different from all the others. But there is still no such thing as an original build because someone has always done it first. My point is that worrying about originality is a waste of time.

Flickerdart

2011-10-20, 10:46 AM

JaronK

2011-10-20, 10:54 AM

Tiers measure only classes. A specifically optimized build or a certain way of playing may cause a character to seem like it's in a different tier than its class suggests (for example, you can optimize the heck out of a Warmage and make it act like a T1 class... by being a Dragonwrought Kobold with the Sovereign Archetype that gives them the entire Cleric class list. But it was as much the racial abilities and overpowered tricks that did it as it was the class).

Anyway, you can absolutely play a T1 class without going for the full potential. Nothing forces you to use Planar Binding loops for infinite Wishes as a Wizard. The class just gives you that ability, but you don't have to do it. And of course DMs can use specific nerfs to bring a player down to reasonable levels if they want too (probably wise to do so). Or you can simply use your power to boost the party as a whole, and go from there. With great power comes great responsibility, and all that.

And with that said... some people really like playing super powered characters. They just need DMs that can handle battles becoming chess matches as these god like beings probe each other's defenses and counter each other's moves ("I am in the form of a Dire Tortoise, so I get a surprise round automatically" "I'm immune to surprise due to my Divine Oracle levels, so I cast Celerity and go before that!"). It's not really the kind of game I like to play, but some people do have a lot of fun with it and it's very challenging to keep coming up with more and more tricks to counter the ever evolving challenges. There is something to raising and undead army and just considering them to be ablative armor ("Hah, it'll take my opponent an action or two to destroy them!") in the next serious fight.

JaronK

Morph Bark

2011-10-20, 11:27 AM

Meanwhile, rogues, fighters, monks, & barbarians are much more robust, in terms of optimization. They'll never be great, but it takes effort to make them actually terrible.

I disagree on Fighters. If you pick a lot of useless feats in a similar manner as picking a lot of useless spells for a wizard, you will be utterly worthless.

I agree with regards to rogues and barbarians though. Monks I don't have enough experience with at high-level play.

Rangers and Paladins are a bit harder to do.

big teej

2011-10-20, 11:38 AM

I'm pretty sure that lots of wizards and clerics died in the history of D&D... :smallamused:

-thinks back on favorite DM kill-

yes..... yes they do..... :smallbiggrin:

FlyingScanian

2011-10-20, 11:51 AM

-thinks back on favorite DM kill-

yes..... yes they do..... :smallbiggrin:

With a comment like that, you must to tell us more...

As for the original topic... well, I haven't done it YET, but am slowly getting there (a very slow group does mean that you don't get to play quite as many characters)

Basket Burner

2011-10-20, 12:32 PM

I wasn't talking about being the most original super awesome guy. What I mean is this: for me, making the little pieces fit together is part of the fun. The best ways in which pieces fit together have been documented, and I'm aware of them, so this is no longer fun. The not-as-good and more obscure ways haven't been documented, because not enough people have found them or any other reason like that, so as long as I get there without having seen it done before, it's still interesting for me.

Basically, I enjoy reinventing the wheel.

People have worked out things like CW Samurai builds just as much as Tier 0 Wizard builds. People have worked out how to optimize basket weaving. As in the literal weaving of baskets.

Don't worry about whether or not someone has done this before, because they have. As long as your build works and does what you want it to you're good.

Flickerdart

2011-10-20, 12:56 PM

People have worked out things like CW Samurai builds just as much as Tier 0 Wizard builds. People have worked out how to optimize basket weaving. As in the literal weaving of baskets.

Don't worry about whether or not someone has done this before, because they have. As long as your build works and does what you want it to you're good.
I am very well aware of those builds as well. I don't build them either, precisely because it wouldn't be interesting now that I know how.

jaybird

2011-10-20, 01:45 PM

faceroll

2011-10-20, 02:31 PM

JaronK

2011-10-20, 02:40 PM

Talentless

2011-10-20, 02:52 PM

Quite optimized. Without abusing the wording of Reserves of Strength or getting Epic, how would you pull that off? Heck, without abusive levels of optimization, I don't think I could pull off a 4 figure Wings of Flurry.

JaronK

I suppose if you total up the damage from blasting a swarm fighting goblin army you might hit four figures...

As a sub-question, has anyone actually had a game where the theoretical break the game world universe and everything optimization builds of wizards could actually be built?

Most DMs I've had have built in some extra costs into the standard win the game spells. They're still good spells, and still a very good idea to pick up, but they don't shatter the campaign world.

Optimator

2011-10-20, 03:07 PM

My group plays tier 1 classes all the time. We're an experienced group with experienced DMs. We also have a gentleman's agreement not to roflstomp all over the campaigns.

jaybird

2011-10-20, 03:30 PM

Doing 1,000+ damage is kind of optimized.

But it isn't playing to the strengths of the Wizard, and reduces the number of really nasty tricks he can pull by quite a bit. The short definition of Tier 1 is "a whole lot of world breaking tricks", so by specializing to that degree I'd argue that Wizard is more of a Tier 2, with one or two world breaking tricks, which is a lot easier to deal with for the DM.

As for Wings of Flurry, easy. Arcane Thesis, Spell Specialization, and Spell Perfection all on Wings of Flurry on a Dragon-blooded Sorcerer with levels in Incantatrix and Spellwarp Sniper (War Mage if you can fit it in). Spellwarp it out with a Sneak Attack and stack on standard Mailman tricks.

faceroll

2011-10-20, 03:37 PM

But it isn't playing to the strengths of the Wizard, and reduces the number of really nasty tricks he can pull by quite a bit. The short definition of Tier 1 is "a whole lot of world breaking tricks", so by specializing to that degree I'd argue that Wizard is more of a Tier 2, with one or two world breaking tricks, which is a lot easier to deal with for the DM.

As for Wings of Flurry, easy. Arcane Thesis, Spell Specialization, and Spell Perfection all on Wings of Flurry on a Dragon-blooded Sorcerer with levels in Incantatrix and Spellwarp Sniper (War Mage if you can fit it in). Spellwarp it out with a Sneak Attack and stack on standard Mailman tricks.

I hate that kind of **** when I DM. Glass cannons are really hard to balance encounters with.

tyckspoon

2011-10-20, 04:17 PM

I hate that kind of **** when I DM. Glass cannons are really hard to balance encounters with.

Oh, well, that's not a problem. Alter Self/Mage Armor/Wings of Cover/Ruin Delver's Fortune/Greater (or Superior) Resistance.. if your 'glass' cannons care, they're probably more resilient than your Fighters and other 'harr I have HP go ahead and hit me' types. And that's not even starting on the short-term defenses you can put up if you think something is threatening enough to justify them.

faceroll

2011-10-20, 04:21 PM

Oh, well, that's not a problem. Alter Self/Mage Armor/Wings of Cover/Ruin Delver's Fortune/Greater (or Superior) Resistance.. if your 'glass' cannons care, they're probably more resilient than your Fighters and other 'harr I have HP go ahead and hit me' types. And that's not even starting on the short-term defenses you can put up if you think something is threatening enough to justify them.

I am quite familiar with a wizard's defensive arsenal, but how relevant is it to the quoted text?

Personally, I find it a lot more interesting to play unoptimized (as in, not Batman or CoDzilla) Tier 1 classes.

tyckspoon

2011-10-20, 04:30 PM

I am quite familiar with a wizard's defensive arsenal, but how relevant is it to the quoted text?

As I didn't quote that particular bit of text, I'm not sure why my post should be assumed to be relevant to it.

faceroll

2011-10-20, 04:32 PM

As I didn't quote that particular bit of text, I'm not sure why my post should be assumed to be relevant to it.

I was having a discussion with jaybird and you interjected, as it appears, irrelevant information. I was just double checking to see if you were providing anything relevant.

Redshirt Army

2011-10-20, 04:40 PM

This entire discussion stems from this post:

Personally, I find it a lot more interesting to play unoptimized (as in, not Batman or CoDzilla) Tier 1 classes. An artillery Wizard fits in pretty well with a party whose other best members are a sword-and-board Cleric and a Pegasus-riding Paladin (Aerial Cavalier PrC). Efreet farms may be mechanically effective and Paladins might suck, but four-figure Fireball damage and an airborne knight are hella cool.

So the point being raised is not that you cannot optimize a Wizard to do that level of damage, or even that a Wizard optimized to do four digits of damage is fragile, but rather that it's difficult to call a 4 digit build unoptimized.

JaronK

2011-10-20, 05:08 PM

...which is especially true if said Wizard is rocking out with all the nice Wizard defenses as well.

JaronK

Zeta Kai

2011-10-20, 06:57 PM

I disagree on Fighters. If you pick a lot of useless feats in a similar manner as picking a lot of useless spells for a wizard, you will be utterly worthless.

Fighter get full BAB no matter what they choose for feats. That alone guarantees Tier 6, maybe even Tier 5 if played wisely. A wizard with worthless spells is much worse than a Fighter with worthless feats.

JaronK

2011-10-20, 07:03 PM

Terazul

2011-10-20, 07:07 PM

Fighter get full BAB no matter what they choose for feats. That alone guarantees Tier 6, maybe even Tier 5 if played wisely. A wizard with worthless spells is much worse than a Fighter with worthless feats.

Except that spells can more easily be changed, and most "worthless" spells are still leagues better than "worthless" feats :smallconfused:.

Coidzor

2011-10-20, 08:46 PM

Personally, I find it a lot more interesting to play unoptimized (as in, not Batman or CoDzilla) Tier 1 classes. An artillery Wizard fits in pretty well with a party whose other best members are a sword-and-board Cleric and a Pegasus-riding Paladin (Aerial Cavalier PrC). Efreet farms may be mechanically effective and Paladins might suck, but four-figure Fireball damage and an airborne knight are hella cool.

...Where is that PrC from? :smallconfused:

Fighter get full BAB no matter what they choose for feats. That alone guarantees Tier 6, maybe even Tier 5 if played wisely. A wizard with worthless spells is much worse than a Fighter with worthless feats.

Tier 6 is the useless NPC classes and Complete Warrior Samurai, so... I'm not sure what you're trying to say by saying that full BAB guarantees the fighter the worst place on the Tier list aside from the unique place held by Truenamers. :smallconfused:

Besides, a wizard with worthless spells has had a lot of trouble to go about grabbing them and has an easy game mechanic to switch those spells out.

Feat retraining is a variant rule that's of variable popularity and has restrictions that limit its usefulness anyway.

sreservoir

2011-10-20, 08:55 PM

...Where is that PrC from? :smallconfused:

apparently, white wolf's scarred land campaign setting: ghelspad.

shadow_archmagi

2011-10-20, 08:58 PM

But a Wizard with worthless spells could have useful ones the next day. A Fighter with useless feats is pretty out of luck without retraining (and even that takes time). If a Wizard is feeling useless, the player can change the way they're playing immediately. If the Fighter feels useless... sorry.

JaronK

Assuming they have useful spells in their spellbook, which is a small assumption but one that's there regardless.

I enjoy Tier 1 characters because my favorite part of a game is the creation of "The Plan." That moment when the players all put their resources together and come up with some zany scheme that might just work. "Okay, so, living things can't teleport into the castle. But what if we just Dimension Door the cheese into the kitchen; no one will think anything of one extra roll. That way we've got our obligation to the gnomes done without any extra work. Then Domingo can wildshape into an eagle and air-drop Hegurow onto the roof; they'll be alerted when he goes through the barrier but he can use the Chameleon Oil we've been saving to blend in with the shingles; they can't search the entire rooftop. Then...."

With a tier 1 character, you have way more options, and thus a way better chance of being able to organize The Plan instead of just having to storm the castle. I feel like pouring water onto the ground so all the knights just sink into the mud is a lot more satisfying than just taking away their hitpoints.

When my Fighter reaches the grand canyon, I have very few options. I can't punch the abyss. When my Wizard reaches the grand canyon, I can use a wall of iron as a bridge, stone shape a bridge into existence, Fabricate a tree into a bridge, Fly across, Polymorph into a spider and then walk down one side and up the other... I like having options, and being able to choose from a variety of viable moves.

Ifni

2011-10-20, 11:10 PM

It does mean the DM doesn't have to secondguess how they will contribute, just make whatever encounters are appropriate and be confident the party will find a way to solve the problems they are presented with.

Or encounters that are not appropriate, too :smallwink:

I've played most kinds of characters, but I have to say the most hilariously awesome combats I ever played were in games where most of the party was tier 1-2, and the reason they were awesome was because they followed the pattern:
(1) We managed to get ourselves into a truly horrible situation that was almost entirely our own fault (frequently due to overconfidence),
(2) The GM mocked us mercilessly and gleefully played the situation to its full potential, through tears of laughter,
(3) We figured out a way to win anyway. Generally a very strange way.

Anecdotes in spoiler:
My favorite example was the time that our entire L15 party knocked on the gates to a city in the Abyss, and only when we got hit by a CL 20 Blasphemy did we realize that nobody had loaded a Silence or Antimagic Field contingency (which was our standard practice when going to the Abyss, but apparently everyone had thought someone else was handling it). This was also on an Abyssal layer where no transportation magic worked - no flight, no Phantom Steeds, no dimensional travel - and so we'd been staying a bit closer together than usual. We all made the Will save against banishment, nobody suffered from the paralysis effect because our warweaver had Freedom of Movement up on the whole party, and some of us could negate Daze with immediate actions and weren't flat-footed, but the Strength loss was very bad, on a party full of Strength-6-8 casters. Our GM rolled well, too.

One of the Fatespinners spent a reroll to reduce the strength loss on the Warweaver, to the point where he was still capable of acting. That meant he could remove everyone's Daze and put the party in a sculpted-Silence bubble on his turn, to prevent them from just Blasphemy-locking us (there were three of them and they all had Blasphemy at will). Unfortunately, the party's other arcanists were ALL still on Strength 0 and thus incapable of not-purely-mental actions.

It was the archmage's turn. Everyone looked at him expectantly. He announced, "Using my Archmage high arcana, I cast... Mass Bull's Strength".

GM: :smallconfused: "You're on strength zero."
Wizard: "It's a spell-like ability."
GM: :confused: "You took Mass Bull's Strength as a spell-like ability?"
Wizard: "No. I took Limited Wish as a spell-like ability."
GM: "... Oh."

And then, with everyone on Strength 4, un-dazed, un-paralyzed, and sitting happily inside a hollow bubble of Silence, the encounter ended quickly and decisively in the party's favor.

(This was the same wizard, who, many levels earlier, had been the beneficiary of a Polymorph spell purely to raise his Strength above zero, after he failed a save vs spider poison. For some reason the most creative spell uses I've ever seen have been to do with fixing casters' Strength loss :smalltongue: "The gray elf wizard is paralyzed from the poison!" "I know! Turn him into a troll!")

The next encounter, in the game with the High Arcana: Limited Wish: Mass Bull's Strength incident, ended up revolving entirely around a bunch of telekinetically thrown swords. One of the sorcerers loved her Telekinesis, and had a horde of Unseen Servants who carried around weapons for her so she could toss them at people. When you Chain +5 Greater Magic Weapon on them first thing every morning, this is a rather powerful strategy, especially if you're using Large greatswords (also known as "the TK Blender"). Of course, when you walk into an encounter with a bunch of demons who also have Telekinesis at will, what goes around comes around... very literally, in this case. The entire combat consisted of people (on both sides) directing a whirling storm of magical blades around the room with their minds, while throwing up battlefield control and reactive defenses to try to avoid getting hit. In a hall of mirrors. The imagined visuals made me very happy :smallsmile:

Also, the phrase "Whack-A-Marilith", which still makes me giggle at the memory, and which would not have happened on a table without several powerful casters. (We had non-casters in that team too, and they were essential - properly buffed meleers with active Zealot Pacts and someone doing the Greater D-Door shuffle really tear through demons quickly.) The GM thought six mariliths coming through the Abyssal gates each round would be enough to give the L15 party the message that they were in over their heads and should leave. Mwahahahaha.

I like high-tier play, just for the range of possibilities.

(Although I will say that in all these cases, the party had teamwork down to a science, and in every fight except the TK one, the people actually doing all the killing were low-tier classes - because by far the most efficient way to proceed, resources-wise, was to have the super-buffed meleers slaughter everything while the casters controlled the battlefield and dealt with any unexpected emergencies. A well-played high-tier character can make everyone else in the party much, much better at what they do.)

Also, +1 to shadow_archmagi re Plans :smallbiggrin:

Daftendirekt

2011-10-21, 02:02 AM

you can take on 10 terrasques at level 10 in one round when its not your turn why are you even playing?

Nobody could ever do that. You know why?

Tarrasques are like Highlanders.

THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE.

Killer Angel

2011-10-21, 02:10 AM

Assuming they have useful spells in their spellbook, which is a small assumption but one that's there regardless.

Even if they don't, they can purchase scrolls and improve. Not in a matter of one day, but still much more easier than a fighter doomed with wrong feats.

Coidzor

2011-10-21, 03:33 AM

Nobody could ever do that. You know why?

Tarrasques are like Highlanders.

THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE.

That's why you go to the Plane of Tarrasque. Where everything is made of Tarrasque. Even the Tarrasques. And then you get in a fight with the air while the ground beneath you is part of a Tarrasque that's too big to notice you. :smallbiggrin:

Or, I suppose, you could find someway to get the Tarrasque from several different material planes all in one place for a fight in the Outlands that you make a fortune off of the ticket sales thereof.

tiercel

2011-10-21, 04:43 AM

I've played in plenty of games with so-called "tier 1" classes, and never had much problem.

First of all, it's worth remembering that there's a difference between the theoretical optimization thought exercises on boards like these and actual in-game characters. (At least, this is true in my experience.) --This isn't a statement about whether a given class is "tier 1" as written in the rules, it's saying that my experience that if something comes up that really will break the campaign, the DM laughs and/or sneers and says "no."

Second, the vast majority of my playtime in campaigns has been at low-to-mid levels (lvl 1-9 or so). Some people treat the "tier system" as if it is a hierarchy equally true at all character levels. Granted, full casting increasingly outstrips other class abilities the higher level you go, but at level 1? Not so much. (As previously noted, druid is a notable exception just because of the level-1-animal-companion issue.)

The one time I played in a campaign for an extended time at higher levels (lvl 13+), the full casters did start really taking over. But higher level campaigns are fundamentally different because you almost never *run out* of spells and can literally cover most situations, while still having spell slots to burn as swift/immediate actions (a part of the action economy that noncasters typically can't tap into, at least much, w/o ToB maneuvers).

Basket Burner

2011-10-21, 06:27 AM

Or encounters that are not appropriate, too :smallwink:

I've played most kinds of characters, but I have to say the most hilariously awesome combats I ever played were in games where most of the party was tier 1-2, and the reason they were awesome was because they followed the pattern:
(1) We managed to get ourselves into a truly horrible situation that was almost entirely our own fault (frequently due to overconfidence),
(2) The GM mocked us mercilessly and gleefully played the situation to its full potential, through tears of laughter,
(3) We figured out a way to win anyway. Generally a very strange way.

In my case it's been that the party knows what they are doing, but so does the DM. So instead of the encounter being weak to spells, and falling over with one spell you have to work at it to get the one shot move to land on them. If they had played badly, tier 1 or not they'd die violently.

Though I am very shocked that a party of tier 1s is not immune to poison. That's just one of the basic things you do in such a group, right along with making your lowest save at least +20, and being near immune to basically everything.

jaybird

2011-10-21, 06:51 AM

I hate that kind of **** when I DM. Glass cannons are really hard to balance encounters with.

No harder then the standard save-or-suck caster, in my admittedly limited GMing experience. I simply don't see the difference between a squishy Wizard taking something out of commission in one shot with Colour Spray and a squishy Wizard taking something out of commission in one shot with an overclocked Fireball.

missmvicious

2011-10-21, 09:37 AM

Tier 1? Lol. For me and mine, there's nothing like a Level 1.

I love making a wimpy, incompetent character with crap armor and improvised weapons and figuring out how to make my PC make it in the world.

Out-batman the Batmen? I like to out-Robin the Supermen. Being creative with combat and thinking shrewdly about terrain, combat advantage and teamwork makes all the encounters more fun.

Take those 0-Level spells and work it. Bull Rush that over-sized moron off the cliff. Just met a dragon? Better hope those diplomacy roles are high! If I have a character who has to trust in guile, stealth, ingenuity, and (when all else fails) luck, then I've built a mighty fun character.

If I've built a character who should have no problems wading through hordes of Goblins all by it's lonesome, and nothing short of a Nat 1 will miss his opponents AC, then why would I bother adventuring. That's not a journey, that's a destination. I love taking an incompetent little mess and turning it (level by level) into a shining, golden god. Of course, that rarely happens. My PCs usually either get killed off or the game falls apart as life catches up to us, or the DM is throwing a tempter tantrum, but then I get to do the other fun part about D&D... making a new character!

Try this for fun some time, all you battle-scarred veterans of D&D.

DM a campaign with these stats:
Level 1: Anything/Non-evil/Class based starting GP

Ability Score Points: Roll 4d6 best-of-three: No rerolls (if you trust that your PCs won't cheat) or 60 point starting, arrange how you want, no stat below 3 or above 18 (a fun house rule for min-maxing).

Youngest possible adventuring age.

Players must come up with a full dossier for their PCs. And I mean, full. Where'd they come from? Why are they adventuring? Do they have any family? How do they get along with them? How do they get along with the people in their home town (owe somebody some money, got chased out on a rail, well loved by all, but you want to spread your wings and see the world now?) How do they style their hair, where did they get their armor/shield/sword from? If it was a gift, from whom? If they bought it, where and when? Make them really think their character through. Adventurers who adventure for the sake of adventuring make for easy gameplay, but the really fun PCs are the fully-baked ones.

Here's my favorite character I ever played as:
Level 1 Half-Orc Cleric of Kord: Ruminster

Born the illegitimate son of the Orc shaman and a human slave/rape victim, he was a disgrace to his otherwise puritanical tribe. They beat him, mocked him, and forced him into a life of servitude and subjugation until his body was criss-crossed with whipping scars and one tusk was broken off by one of the tribesman as a vulgar display of superiority; he was denied a place in the world, freedom, and even a name. Though many tried, the shaman would never allow them to kill his son, but not because he loved him; because he delighted in the tortures they used and because he wanted his son to live on as a testament to the horrors of cross-race breeding. Ruminster (not his name at the time) hated and feared his tribe. But he knew nothing outside of the microcosm of toiling day and night to their every whim. Until one day, a nearby human military force, concerned that the orcs were growing too great in numbers attacked the tribe and scattered them back into caves and woods. Ruminster ran. Strong from years of toil, light from being forced to live naked in shame, and lean from a life of eating scraps and working hard, he easily outdistanced the invading army and his kin until he found himself lost, nearly a hundred miles away, in a world he'd never seen, and on a trail that led toward a mighty kingdom.

There he met a Cleric of Kord, Tyler (yes a Fight Club reference), a zealot who saw his raw strength, happened to speak a smattering of Orcish (Ruminster wasn't allowed to learn other languages as a slave and was completely illiterate) and taught him about Kord, how to read and write, and how to fight. He gave him a club to train with and he was a friend who could teach Ruminster that not the entire world, at least, was cruel. There, he gained the name One-Tusk as a testament to his resilience through pain and strife. He never liked the name much, but it suited the purpose better than "slave" or "hey you, yeah you" which is how he was accustomed to being addressed. Eventually, with a new set of skills and a stronger, well nourished body, he ventured out on his own to prove himself to his new god. On the way, he encountered a young farm girl, a mere child who had never seen an Orc before and yelled, "RUN, MONSTER!" upon seeing him, but due to the distance and the inarticulate speech little children tend to have, he misinterpreted it as RUMINSTER and thought he liked the sound of the word... thought it sounded strong and powerful... something he desperately wanted to be. So, he discarded the name One-Tusk, and forever more became Ruminster...

On his travels, (since he was afraid of cities and towns) he lived out in the wilds, and his feeble Cleric's Vestments became tattered, threadbare and reduced to little more than a loincloth and scraps for bandages, until he found a cow in a pasture, clubbed it and dragged it off to prepare it for dinner and clothing. He spotted a campfire in the distance, and followed it, thinking "One cow is too much food for me. Perhaps I can share it with these travelers." It was during this event that he met Ellywick, a Gnome Bard who found Ruminster (this odd, strong-but-gentle monster) to be utterly amusing. She spoke Orcish, among many other languages, fluently and they talked about their various life experiences. Noticing that he was nearly naked, she fashioned him a leather suit from the cow-hide, and (as a bit of a prank) made a codpiece out of the cow skull. Then she got him a walking stick (quarterstaff), and for the price of carrying her on his shoulders, she agreed to write a song about him. So they became traveling companions and best friends from that day on. She taught him Common (beyond the basics that Tyler taught him), and educated him (as well as one could) on the ways of civilized culture... and the rest was adventure.

He wasn't epic... he was barely even competent, and he never spent his money wisely, so he always had crap for armor and traveling gear, but it was hard for the group not to laugh at Ruminster's crazy exploits. And as I got good at fighting, so did Ruminster. He ended up being the prize damage dealer/meat tank of the group... yet more than half of his ability scores were 10s at level 1. Best character I've ever played as. Also the first, so I guess it was all downhill from there... LOL.

Qwertystop

2011-10-21, 10:27 AM

These anecdotes are awesome.

The Gilded Duke

2011-10-21, 10:52 AM

I don't think the problem is with the tier system.
I think the problem is with the role system.

4.0 specifically lays out the Controller, Striker, Tank, and Healer.
3.5 seems to hint at instead Tank, Striker, Skill Monkey, Healer.

Instead I think there are only two main roles in 3.5 / Pathfinder
Controller
Striker

With then only three secondary roles.
Healer
Buffer
Skill Monkey

Martial characters often try to be controllers, Area Trip Lockdown, Grapplers, Intimidate Stackers, Bull Rushers, Pharaoh Monks. But too often the feat investment is too high to get more then one method of control to be worth it.

A Wizard, Witch, Druid, or even Bard are just so much better at controlling the flow of battle itself.

And if you have a good competent controller on your side everyone works better. Your Craven Rogues can always Sneak Attack. Your Frenzied Berserker can frenzy on the right people. Your Smackers can Smack. Your Mailmen can deliver your mail uninterrupted.

My point is...
There is no tank.
The tank is dead.
All hail the Controller.

Also, just because you are a controller doesn't mean you can't roleplay interesting characters. One of my most fun characters was a Gnome Illusionist / Master Specialist Illusionist / Archmage. Every turn he could effectively flat foot every enemy and stagger them with a 0 level spell if they made a successful save.

And his name was Karl the Conqueror.
A gnome illusionist with the personality of Conan the Cimmerian who loved killing other wizards. Karl married into the Red Tiger Barbarians, conquered a Drow city, and would cackle in triumph as he grappled and blinded entire battlefields.

My Ideal 4 man party:
Controller Wizard
Striker Cleric with some buff and healing
Striker Rogue with skill monkey
Controller bard with some buff and some skill monkey