is this official content? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Malachei

2011-11-11, 06:43 AM

Well, a decent Truenamer would have no problem having Universal Aptitude whenever needed, granting a +5 unnamed bonus to all skill checks for five rounds (or ten round, if extended). It is not even touch-range.

And having +10 to Knowledge checks seems trivial, unless you go Knowledge Devotion (and probably have Collector of Stories, as well).

This seems a good deal for a first-level utterance, and compared to a second-level spell slot.

I think it is a very good spell, but it is in line with several other spells, Alter Self, Insight Fortune, or Heroics, for instance, and arguably, they'd needed to be considered broken, as well. I think like others, it can be abused, but at higher levels, when 2nd level spell slots are not that valuable anymore, I'm not sure I'd always prefer a +20 competence over a +5 unnamed that lasts 5 or 10 rounds. Obviously, if you can time your skill check, need to make only a single one and have no other source of competence bonus, the spell is a better deal than the utterance. Otherwise, the utterance may be better.

And then there is Divine Insight, of course, which is also a second-level cleric (and paladin) spell, and lasts an hour per caster level and grants an insight bonus of 5 + caster level, maximum +15 to the caster.

Clerics normally have a bad skill list. I guess mostly, this would be cast to support another character, often a Rogue.

In general, I think, it may be a problem to have skill checks succeed on a natural 1 rolled.

Phaederkiel

2011-11-11, 07:33 AM

the difference between this and divine insight mainly beeing:

Divine Insight works only on your not-so-much-a-skillmonkey-Cleric.
Whereas guidance can be cast on your rogue, making him go ballistic.

remember, most of us play this game not as a one-on-one, optimizer vs crying dm, but with a group of optimizers against a sobbing dm...

so, rogui roguesson needing to open that unopenable chest? here you go.
need to know where the enemies are hiding in the wood? Search, some glasses and a divine guidance is all you need to bust through absolute lvl-unappropriate non-combat encounters.

Diplomancing works nice with that, too. For example, yesterday my Factotum had to haggle with a vendor for how much we would get selling our trash.

We make this check at 40% selling worth +diplomacy roll: selling price.

Reif the factotum has 6 in Diplomacy, takes a inspiration, another 6. I roll a 19. That makes 71%, which seriously helped us out equipping.

Now what am I supposed to do, if my cleric has guidance of the avatar?
setting it at 20% +dipl? Abolish haggling?

This spell kills singlehandedly about 90 % of all noncombat encounters that are resolved by skill rolls.

Malachei

2011-11-11, 08:50 AM

the difference between this and divine insight mainly

Yes, and I've pointed this out in my post. Still, for a gish or anyone with a decent UMD, this is not a problem.

Yes, I agree it is strong, and in a way it does nerf the skillmonkey. And if you feel you have to protect the skillmonkey (fair enough), then, by all means, don't allow the spell. There's two aspects to consider, though:

(1) Other spells. My argument is that there are other spells that do things (at least) as significant as making a single skill check. Rolling two dice or even having a reroll on a save or a skill check is a very strong effect, for instance.

(2) At low to mid levels, when this is really a big issue, how many second-level spell slots can you afford to spend? As with other spells, this also is an issue when you can cast them several times per day. As a DM, you'd have to adapt / work around many spells -- even many low-level ones. There are people who complain this, but I've never had an issue with the power level of the casters in my game. Even in high-level play, I have not run a game in which a single caster would disrupt my campaign / setting. I have, though, had a detective-style plot completely uncovered by the single application of invisibility. Would I say invisibility is broken? No.

(3) Potential abuse: Except for Diplomacy, maybe, and item creation, I don't actually see much potential for abuse. I'm sure many people will be able to point out a lot of potential for skill check abuses. Regarding item creation: I'd never let this apply to item creation, because I see the roll as the result of an ongoing process, that the spell's duration does not entirely cover. With Diplomacy, I'd never let a single skill check affect my NPC charm person-style. Yes, it should affect people and shift attitudes, but IMO, within common sense. I'm seeing the problem here more with Diplomacy rules and the DM following those by the too literally / to the letter. The question would then be where the problem is (in the spell or the skill application), because there are many other ways to get a high bonus on skill checks. This applies to many skills, but for Diplomacy, I've seen a couple of threads dealing with abuse and the various means to achieve it. Same goes for the Incantatrix and Persisting spells with high enough Spellcraft -- IMO, the skill system was not meant to support such features. Competence bonus items are too cheap, and there are so many other ways to boost skill checks that you won't solve the issues by banning a single spell.

(3) Other classes. For instance, the are martial adepts with Moment of Perfect Mind, Action Before Thought or Mind Over Body, help you make almost every save, every time, in every encounter, as long as you can refresh maneuvers. At mid-levels (let's say, 7th) covering the weak save means a net +10 bonus on your save (assuming only 14 Con).

So my point is: if we start arguing about a spell like this, we need a whole new notepad for other stuff to ban.

JaronK

2011-11-11, 02:11 PM

Coidzor

2011-11-11, 02:44 PM

How do you think Dwarven Clerics build all of that sweet swag with such poor skill ranks even for the most Einsteinian of Dwarfdom?

Hire Artificers?! Dwarves aren't made of money, you know. :smalltongue:

Malachei

2011-11-11, 02:55 PM

Basically, it's the usual T1 "I can do everything" problem. This is one of those areas that they just shouldn't be able to master (namely, all the skills ever). But they can, and it's a bit much. It's also huge for Favored Souls of course.

And yes, I do generally disallow Alter Self for similar "now you can do everything" reasons.

JaronK

I meant Alter Fortune.

I don't much believe in the tier system. In fact, I am convinced it leads to prejudice. A well-designed, well-played character is . How much "showtime" a character gets depends on so many things, and I really don't find the tier discussions to be helpful, at all. Yes, there are classes that tend to be stronger, if stronger means survivability and flexibility to face changing threats. Other classes pack more punch in special situations, but lack overall adaptability. It has always been this way since D&D and 1st edition AD&D. The (nowadays obsessive) idea of managing game balance over all class levels can, eventually, only lead to 4E-like concepts.

* shudders *

Regarding Alter Self, I've never had any problems with it. I manage this on a game-level, not on a rules-level. So, for instance, you need to have a specific knowledge of the creature you want to Polymorph, Alter Self etc. into.

Hire Artificers?!

Now here's a class that doesn't need a skill boost to be considered dangerous to the game :)

JaronK

2011-11-11, 03:04 PM

Luckily Wizards have Knowledge (Local) as a class skill, and thus know all about every form they'd want for Alter Self.

JaronK

NeoSeraphi

2011-11-11, 03:09 PM

It's pretty over the top, really. It's basically a "screw you Rogues" spell, since it lets you pass any skill you want as long as it's something you prep in advance (not so good for Spot, amazing for UMD or Craft or whatever).

Divine Insight is kinda the 3.5 version of this spell (5+CL to any skill, max +15, as a first level spell).

JaronK

Divine Insight is a 2nd level spell. (Spell Compendium, which overrides all previous versions of the spell)

Also, divine insight stacks with guidance of the avatar, as they are different bonuses. So at 3rd level, you can gain +28 to any skill check for two spell slots.

JaronK

2011-11-11, 03:11 PM

In my little world, Divine Insight is the 3.5 update of Guidance of the Avatar. It makes my life a bit happier. Because let's face it, that's just plain silly.

But yeah, in reality, Divine Insight (SpC) is an update of Divine Insight (BoED) and I do sometimes get them confused (they're very different spells). The BoED one is, IIRC, first level.

JaronK

Malachei

2011-11-11, 03:31 PM

Luckily Wizards have Knowledge (Local) as a class skill, and thus know all about every form they'd want for Alter Self.

JaronK

I wouldn't say this is a necessary interpretation of the rules. Alter Self does not address Knowledge skills.

In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities

I think it is a DM's call to judge whether this addresses transformation (polymorph). Strictly per RAW, identifying monsters and their abilities does not have to be equal to being able to transform into them.

Coidzor

2011-11-11, 04:03 PM

Now here's a class that doesn't need a skill boost to be considered dangerous to the game :)

I can do anything given time and gold is like that, yeah.

As to the rest...
I don't much believe in the tier system. In fact, I am convinced it leads to prejudice.

Well, in that case, you'd be putting the horse before the cart. The sentiment that Fighter is a worthless class outside of hitting things with sticks is as old as AD&D at least, if not the original incarnation.

A well-designed, well-played character is . How much "showtime" a character gets depends on so many things

Though it still mostly boils down to character ability and campaign focus, with circumstantial modifiers for DM and player style. Only in the more extreme departures from the game's paradigm will you see people playing Fighters and being rockstar personalities, for instance.

and I really don't find the tier discussions to be helpful, at all.

Well, no, it's not helpful to anyone to argue about whether the tier system should exist/be used, but I doubt that's the desired outcome anyway. Or what you meant, but there's not really much else I can point to as a "tier discussion," aside from homebrew classes where one is trying to figure out their relative power level and if they've achieved it, and it seems perfectly reasonable for the creator thereof to be interested in such things.

Yes, there are classes that tend to be stronger, if stronger means survivability and flexibility to face changing threats. Other classes pack more punch in special situations, but lack overall adaptability.

So you agree with the premise... But dislike the execution or something else? :smallconfused:

It has always been this way since D&D and 1st edition AD&D. The (nowadays obsessive) idea of managing game balance over all class levels can, eventually, only lead to 4E-like concepts.

That's not a result of the tier system. The tier system was codified so that those not steeped in the wisdom and lore of the ages can know that, no, the classes are not balanced and different scenarios challenge (or don't) different suites of abilities differently.

I think it is a DM's call to judge whether this addresses transformation (polymorph). Strictly per RAW, identifying monsters and their abilities does not have to be equal to being able to transform into them.

So you have to add on yet another dimension to the game in order to determine how one can be familiar with a creature after doing X thing but not being familiar with it if one can just recall everything about them from one's studies. Which isn't really RAW either, whereas Knowledge skills are the closest thing in the game already.

Malachei

2011-11-11, 04:15 PM

It is simply not explicitly covered, so subject to interpretation.

Phaederkiel

2011-11-12, 02:37 PM

Compared to say, Master's Touch (PHB II, 2nd level) which is an Immediate casting time and only gives +4 to one check, it's a bit over the top.

well, Immediate casting time is incredibly good. In danger of falling off your horse? Immediate saves your bacon.

@malachei:
1:Yes, these spells are strong. But at least they allow for failure.
Failure possible: tension and involvement.
Sucess guaranteed: smug detachment.

I try to avoid moments, where my players sucess is guaranteed.

2: This depends heavily on the party and the plot. In my game, the Priest is way better at crushing people with his weapon than at casting. He would be ineffective as a spellcaster in combat, so he prepares for the cases the party doesn´t need to smash someone, or noone can smash that someone.

Dispel magic, downdraft, inhibit; these kind of things.

If he was allowed to pack 4 guidances of the avatar, I think he would pack at least two.

3: yes, but diplomacy, bluff and sense motive (to which the bonus could easily be applied, especially when the player devises a moment to get some prep time) make a good part of the games social mechanic. I don´t talk about the possibilities of a bard charming the big bad in the pits of doom, but about intrigue and plot.

by the way, potion of glibness is something i also am wary of. But at least this one is really situational.

Malachei

2011-11-15, 04:54 PM

That's not a result of the tier system. The tier system was codified so that those not steeped in the wisdom and lore of the ages can know that, no, the classes are not balanced and different scenarios challenge (or don't) different suites of abilities differently.

The tier system was designed to allow self-appointed experts to indulge in stereotypes. To rules lawyers, nothing feels as good as making their own laws. It is even better when they can point to them afterwards.

The game never needed a tier system to explain to newbies that the wizard's capabilities surpassed those of the warrior (which is faster explained than reading the tier system, and can be explained by anyone who has witnessed 1+ sessions of mid- to high-level D&D).

I try to avoid moments, where my players sucess is guaranteed.

So do I. My point was not that I would love to see this spell in practice. My point was that this is not the most unbalanced spell, so if you decide to ban this spell, you may want to look at adding more stuff to the ban list.

This depends heavily on the party and the plot. In my game, the Priest is way better at crushing people with his weapon than at casting. He would be ineffective as a spellcaster in combat, so he prepares for the cases the party doesn´t need to smash someone, or noone can smash that someone.

A look at Spell Compendium, and a cleric can be a very effective spellcaster. Personally, I prefer more martial characters for smashing things. Of course, a cleric can copy pretty much every other class (cleric archer, cleric tank), so the cleric class is the actual generalist -- and with this spell, the skillmonkey is finally on eye level with the archer and tank, i.e. eating their heart out, because the cleric can do it better. Plus, the cleric's fluff is better than the factotum's.

If I think about it again, I'd rather have some more clerics than factotums flooding my game.

Coidzor

2011-11-15, 05:19 PM

The tier system was designed to allow self-appointed experts to indulge in stereotypes. To rules lawyers, nothing feels as good as making their own laws. It is even better when they can point to them afterwards.

The game never needed a tier system to explain to newbies that the wizard's capabilities surpassed those of the warrior (which is faster explained than reading the tier system, and can be explained by anyone who has witnessed 1+ sessions of mid- to high-level D&D).

So you're saying that they needed the tier system to indulge in stereotypes and then go right on to say that we've never needed a tier system to indulge in stereotypes. Kind of contradictory, that.

Malachei

2011-11-15, 05:33 PM

Coidzor

2011-11-15, 05:37 PM

The game did not need the tier system. A small number of people (some of them rules lawyers), wanted a new toy to play with, so they can have a new reference point in their discussions.

There's no contradiction.

Ah, so you're just not grokking the point of the system, then.

Though I'm curious, is it all only rules lawyers or is it only some people are rules lawyers? And if non-rules lawyers are using it, why is that so wrong?

Malachei

2011-11-15, 05:51 PM

Ah, so you're just not grokking the point of the system, then.

I must say I had to look up to grok.

Taken from the book 'Stranger in a Strange Land,' literally meaning 'to drink' but taken to mean 'understanding.' Often used by programmers and other assorted geeks.

I think you are a starting to get a bit sarcastic, and potentially rude here. I generally don't like the attitude of telling others that they don't understand something. I think it is unfriendly and leads discussions into a bad direction.

I don't like the tier system, the way it is used and tagged on everything, and I think it hurts more than it helps. I also think people's motivations for creating such content is not necessarily to add required additions to the game (there may be other, such as forum fame).

This is my opinion, and I think it is well-founded. I am sorry your argument was not able to convince me otherwise, so I hold onto it. Respect it as though you would like me to respect yours.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-11-15, 06:15 PM

The game did not need the tier system. A small number of people (some of them rules lawyers), wanted a new toy to play with, so they can have a new reference point in their discussions.

So, the 30,000+ people who play D&D and are on this forum is a small number? And that's not counting all the people on other sites.

Everyone uses the tier system. It's not a way to say everyone below tier 1 sucks. It's not a way to say straight barbarian shouldn't be played if ToB is allowed, although warblade with a barb dip should be suggested. It's not a way to say you should play a wizard instead of a beguiler. It's not to say you shouldn't play a fighter in a party with a wizard, but the wizard should be a team player.

Malachei

2011-11-15, 06:27 PM

As you can see from my posts above, I was talking about the people who created the system.

And no, not everyone uses it.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-11-15, 06:29 PM

As you can see from my posts above, I was talking about the people who created the system.

They don't use it for that. The only creator I know of is JaronK, and he never uses it for that.

Malachei

2011-11-15, 06:50 PM

but there's not really much else I can point to as a "tier discussion,"

Note this is not the most up to date version of this system, having been locked due to too many pages of discussion.

I think the amount of discussions that goes into a system whose purpose is to label classes based on relative power level really stands for itself. IMO, the system is almost completely needless. Often, it just states the obvious. Essentially, it becomes a convention (of terms used). I know some conventions take excessively long to design and communicate, of course.

But I think we are leading the OP's thread really off-topic now.

JaronK

2011-11-15, 07:06 PM

As you can see from my posts above, I was talking about the people who created the system.

Which "people" do you believe created the system?

JaronK

Malachei

2011-11-15, 07:13 PM

The main poster (you) and everybody contributing to it in the >45 pages of discussion.

Basically, it is an exercise in labeling.

JaronK

2011-11-15, 07:27 PM

Wow, that's a lot of people who were all debating something on the internet just for forum fame. So why is that about forum fame, unlike every other debate on how the game works and every other forum post ever? Are you sure this wasn't just people sharing their ideas and coming to consensus on an issue that many people are interested in?

And what precisely do you see as being wrong with labeling things, if it's done correctly? Do you also go around to supermarket workers and get upset that they label the costs of the food there?

JaronK

hex0

2011-11-15, 07:40 PM

Craft Poisonmaking + Guidance of the Avatar + Psionic Minor Creation = Win

Malachei

2011-11-15, 07:42 PM

While I am really positive regarding the homebrew content you created (the ninja, for instance), I really don't see much sense in labeling exercises. They are used to simplify and stereotype things. While some simplification may be helpful, often, harm is done because things are taken for granted. Now the general attitude is to expect me to take it for granted and use it. I don't, so I was asked to explain why I don't use it and why I am not a fan of it. So I did.

And what precisely do you see as being wrong with labeling things, if it's done correctly? Do you also go around to supermarket workers and get upset that they label the costs of the food there?

What has physical price tagging got to do with the matter at hand? In most supermarkets, I can't buy unlabeled products. I can play D&D perfectly well without the tier system. Even the forums would still exist without it.

Regarding labeling as a social act: I honestly believe the world would be a much better place if we'd put labeling under scrutiny, because it tends to give us easy answers that sometimes lead into the wrong direction. In fact, it is often used to obfuscate -- in politics, for instance.

sonofzeal

2011-11-15, 07:51 PM

Basically, it is an exercise in labeling.
Er... we are humans. Sorting things into categories is kind of something we're know for.

And, as it turns out, categories are often useful. While it may be obvious that Wizards are more flexible and adaptive than Fighters, few of us have personal experience with every class in the game. If someone's unfamiliar with Warlock and suspects they're brokenly powerful (as many people do at first glance), then seeing them down in Tier 4 may disabuse them of that notion. Similarly, someone who hasn't realized the power of Artificers may be surprised to see them in Tier 1, but further reflection will bear it out.

In short, some elements are obvious to some people, but none of it is obvious to everybody (hence all the discussion), and that's exactly where it becomes useful in communicating these trends to people who don't have total knowledge of every class in the game.... like, y'know, most of us.

JaronK

2011-11-15, 07:51 PM

But you just said that putting such labels under scrutiny (the 45+ page discussion you just referred to) is just looking for internet fame. So which is it? Is scrutiny a positive and necessary thing, or is it just fame seeking?

And yes, you could buy unlabeled products at the supermarket. If someone didn't put up a price tag for apples, you could still walk up to the cash register with an apple and they'd charge you for them. Of course, it would be nice to know before you went through the walking around with it process what the actual cost was. In that way, labels are useful. It would be deceptive to not tell you in advance what the prices are for the things you're buying, wouldn't it?

Which is kinda the point here.

Though of course, by scrutinizing this, you're just looking for internet fame, right? Just making sure I follow this logic...

JaronK

Malachei

2011-11-15, 08:16 PM

Just making sure I follow this logic...

You're not. You're trying to win an argument here by deliberately misunderstanding my post, simplifying my answers and trying to return my points. One of the simplest methods of debate is to return the points of your fellow debater and turn them around, whether applicable or not.

Actually, many supermarkets will not be able to sell you an apple without labeling, because they will not know the price and type of the apple without a lable to read with their electronic cash system. Some even have so many products that there is no general list the cash operator would be able to turn to to figure out the price and type of product.

tell you in advance what the prices are

Because it is entirely subjective and simplistic.

Again, I explained why I don't use / like the system. If you want to spend your time labeling, and see it as a valuable activity, be my guest.

Hecuba

2011-11-15, 08:28 PM

Regarding labeling as a social act: I honestly believe the world would be a much better place if we'd put labeling under scrutiny, because it tends to give us easy answers that sometimes lead into the wrong direction. In fact, it is often used to obfuscate -- in politics, for instance.

Out of curiosity, would you object to a list that notes, for example, base classes with a similar power range to a bard? If so, do you think that that wouldn't be useful (or would be detrimental) for homebrew/charop? If not, what distinction do you find between that and a list of tier 3s?

sonofzeal

2011-11-15, 08:37 PM

You're not. You're trying to win an argument here by deliberately misunderstanding my post, simplifying my answers and trying to return my points.
Given that JaronK, Jade Dragon, Coidzor, and myself all seem to be misunderstanding you... have you considered that either you're not expressing yourself clearly enough, or you're making leaps of logic?

Labels always bear scrutiny, that's a given. And categorizations are abstractions, and lose detail. But abstractions are necessary to reduce effort and speed comprehension. Have you ever played a pnp game with no (or minimal) abstraction? It's almost impossible, everything slows to a crawl and rules get tied into knots as the system attempt to account for every little detail.

Abstractions are useful. Don't bash on them too much.

You can play D&D without tiers. But as the number of sourcebooks increase, the usefulness of a tier list increases. And there's presently enough sources that a tier list is very useful indeed.

JaronK

2011-11-15, 08:42 PM

You're not. You're trying to win an argument here by deliberately misunderstanding my post, simplifying my answers and trying to return my points. One of the simplest methods of debate is to return the points of your fellow debater and turn them around, whether applicable or not.

You've spent this entire time claiming to know my motivations (and the motivations of countless other people online whom you've never met). This is not about winning an argument. I'm genuinely asking you why them discussing the original system is seeking internet fame, which seems a strange claim when you're clearly doing the exact same thing right here.

It's not oversimplifying at all to say that you've claimed the people who've discussed the system are seeking fame (and have other as yet unnamed ulterior motives). You're doing the same thing. The obvious conclusion is that you're doing whatever it is you think those people were all doing.

Actually, many supermarkets will not be able to sell you an apple without labeling, because they will not know the price and type of the apple without a lable to read with their electronic cash system. Some even have so many products that there is no general list the cash operator would be able to turn to to figure out the price and type of product.

I picked apples because in most supermarkets the checker actually has to memorize the codes and enter them in when they see any fruit or vegetable. They usually only have a general label in front of the apples... when you bring them to the front, they have no label on them.

Again, I explained why I don't use / like the system. If you want to spend your time labeling, and see it as a valuable activity, be my guest.

You really haven't. You've said it's "labeling" but labeling things isn't generally bad... it's a way of discussing things. We label things all the time (we give people names so we know what to call them, we put the ingredients of food on boxes so people know what they're buying, etc). Surely you don't think labeling itself is in some way bad? After all, labeling is just giving something a name so we can talk about it. And somehow you're saying it's about stereotypes, but since it's a discusion of the exact mechanics of a thing, I fail to see how stereotypes could even be relevant. It's not a stereotype to say that Fighters get 11 bonus feats and a base chasis as their only class feature, and that their class doesn't provide them with tools for dealing with the vast majority of social encounters. It's a basic fact.

So I'm seriously asking why you think people discussing a post online must clearly have ulterior motives and be seeking fame, and additionally why you're against using language to describe things, and furthermore what you meant by "stereotyping."

I am not simply trying to win some argument. I'm not even making an argument here. Though I'd appreciate it if you try not to project motives onto me. You have no idea who I am or what I want in life, other than what my words have said. Surely you can discuss with respect.

JaronK

Malachei

2011-11-15, 08:48 PM

JaronK

2011-11-15, 09:08 PM

Infernalbargain

2011-11-15, 09:09 PM

Given that all of you hail from the tier-camp, I'm not surprised. I don't think it is a coincidence, either.

I think the thread below is one example for the issues that come with the tier system:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=177030

... aka turning a meta-level discussion into a meta-meta-level discussion.

Or maybe people just want to learn the nuts and bolts of a game. There are people who legitimately enjoy breaking down systems and seeing what makes them tick and how to tear them apart at the seams. It has been reasoned that the critical power currency in D&D is number of distinct effective options. Crudely put, the tier system measures this.

Phaederkiel

2011-11-17, 03:36 AM

oof.

Here I want to ask for a simple clarification and find the verbal equivalent of an ungainly kindergarten brawl...

Can you not refrain from attacking each other personally?

Isn´t the question to malachei:
Was the knowledge of the tiers ever detrimental to your game? what you do you not like about the Tier system, except their creator alluded whish to label things?

I for instance think that the squishiness of many of the tier 1 classes +their heavily limited resources do not get enough consideration. Game reality often shows that the unoptimized sword-and-boarders can survive through a campaign, whereas casters tend to die.

A GM hindering her players from resting once the mages used his two best spells changes a lot.

I also think that the Tier system is ONLY relevant for highlvl play.

anyway, I ask the question i wanted to ask:

@Malachei: pray tell me what other spells are that unbalancing at this lvl?
whith which i mean: absolutely warping the game around their presence, nearly regardless of the lvl of the characters using them?

I can see Alter self coming. The whole polymorph line is so borked i would never allow it. But besides? Please do your worst, i like to know what i should not allow.

Prime32

2011-11-17, 05:48 AM

Given that all of you hail from the tier-camp, I'm not surprised. I don't think it is a coincidence, either.The "tier-camp"? Sorry, I don't understand your post. :smallconfused:

I've been around the CO scene a long time (since pre-Gleemax WotC), and it was harder to get into at first. The "Big 3" of wizard, cleric and druid were common knowledge, but it was hard for a newbie to get a clear answer on where things like monk and warlock fit in. Jaron didn't invent anything, but having something written out formally has made it way easier to explain class balance than it used to be. When I joined here, GitP was practically flooded in "monk is overpowered" threads, and now they're pretty rare.

Part of the reason the Tier thread got so long, IIRC, is because trolls broke in at one point.

Acanous

2011-11-17, 06:35 AM

Killer Angel

2011-11-17, 06:43 AM

And it's a great example of the primary problem of T1 classes... designers going "I want to be able to do that. I'll make a spell that just does that!"

Followed by "...and true strike gives +20 and it's only lev. 1. I'm even on the side of caution!"

Given that all of you hail from the tier-camp, I'm not surprised.

Please... we didn't invent anything.
The game system was updated, creating huge gaps between the power available to the various classes. Some differences are easy to see, some others not so much.
The tier system, it's merely a quick tool that can help the players in such a task.
I don't understand what's your problem.

The tier system was designed to allow self-appointed experts to indulge in stereotypes.
:smallannoyed:
I find this very inappropriate and unfriendly, but i'll concede the benefit of doubt.

Mystic Muse

2011-11-17, 11:55 AM

I for instance think that the squishiness of many of the tier 1 classes +their heavily limited resources do not get enough consideration. Game reality often shows that the unoptimized sword-and-boarders can survive through a campaign, whereas casters tend to die.

A GM hindering her players from resting once the mages used his two best spells changes a lot.

I also think that the Tier system is ONLY relevant for highlvl play.

Actually, wizards can outright end encounters from level 1. Granted, their spells are much more limited at that point, but that just means you conserve your resources rather than using all your good spells in one encounter.

The tier system is more relevant at high level play, but it's still relevant at low levels. Though, I guess it sort of depends on what you consider "High level play"

Tyndmyr

2011-11-17, 12:00 PM

As you can see from my posts above, I was talking about the people who created the system.

And no, not everyone uses it.

You are talking about JaronK, an individual who happens to post on this forum. He does not use it the way you claim it's "creators" do.

In fact, he included a helpful bit about why it was created and what it's intended to do that accompanies the tier list itself.

Therefore, your understanding of the tier system clearly is lacking, and I'm not sure why you're upset about all this. In short, I really don't understand why you're bringing all this up to begin with. If you dislike tiers, that'd be a bit of a separate conversation from this. And I'd suggest that you come up with better reasons than personal attacks on the creator if you want to be at all convincing.

Zherog

2011-11-17, 01:06 PM

(since pre-Gleemax WotC)

Ah, the good old days, when that site was interesting and, well, usable...

Everyone uses the tier system.

The problem with absolute statements such as this one is that they're very eas to debunk. I don't use the tier system, at all. Ever. Neither does Malachei. Why we don't use it is immaterial to debunking this statement.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-11-17, 01:13 PM

Given that all of you hail from the tier-camp, I'm not surprised. I don't think it is a coincidence, either.

I haven't done a single thing in creating the tier system. I'm not a member of the Wizards boards or BG, and I didn't even know they EXISTED until after I joined (although I think I followed a couple links to BG pre-joining).

Tyndmyr

2011-11-17, 01:14 PM

The problem with absolute statements such as this one is that they're very eas to debunk. I don't use the tier system, at all. Ever. Neither does Malachei. Why we don't use it is immaterial to debunking this statement.

Congrats on disproving hyperbole. The point is that a great many people use it and find it helpful.

It is still useful and helpful even if someone, somewhere does not know about or use it. In the case of the tier system, it's useful to a great many people.

Zherog

2011-11-17, 01:17 PM

Congrats on disproving hyperbole. The point is that a great many people use it and find it helpful.

It is still useful and helpful even if someone, somewhere does not know about or use it. In the case of the tier system, it's useful to a great many people.

Never claimed otherwise.

JaronK

2011-11-17, 02:16 PM

Don't mind me, I heard JaronK was showing up in a thread so I came to watch. He invented the Tier system, you know. He's all kinds of internet famous. I hope Ray William Johnson interviews him at some point.

Well I'm still not signing your underwear. Today I'm hanging out with Star Wars Kid and the girl from Lazytown, then later I'm going to go call up Dog and then go have dinner with Insanity Wolf and Y U NO. We're not going to invite Socially Awkward Penguin though... us internet famous folks have to stick together, but that guy's just weird.

JaronK

JoeYounger

2011-11-17, 02:17 PM

You do realize that nobody in this thread knows each other in real life? We're not in some camp together. This isn't about sides... there's nothing anyone can win here.

What's more likely: that everybody else in this thread is going out of their way to deliberately misunderstand you out of some form of hostility, or that you're actually not being clear?

I don't think he was trying to imply that you all know eachother, but more along the lines of you all have similar thought processes. That the same kind of people would be attracted to the tier system. I've looked at the tier system, and I can appreciate how much work went into it, and I'd even agree with it in a high OP campaigns. I don't use it because for the most part our campaigns are low OP'd enough that it never comes into it. We all suck terribad. Everyone from our monk to our wizard lol

Having read this whole post, I think that Malichai is kinda coming off in the wrong light. I didn't get the impression that he was saying anything to be rude or malicious, the tier system was mentioned and he said he didn't use it, and then furthered that by explaining why he didn't think it was needed. I agree with him on some points, but I think the main one he was trying to get across was that anyone who plays seriously enough to read into a system like the tier system is already aware that there are power level gaps. And while he could have said it better, my impression of what he was trying to say wasn't so much focused on "you're doing this for internet fame" but on "This is a pet project of incredibly knowledgable people who want to quantify something that I don't think needs to be quantified" The people who are reading it, know that the gap exists, your post just puts it in -incredibly- detailed and an elegant form. I don't think he was trying to be offensive, I honestly feel like the people who were involved in helping set the tier system in place read what he wrote and, understandably, colored it with what they percieved to be a malicious slight.

Curmudgeon

2011-11-17, 03:03 PM

Strictly per RAW, identifying monsters and their abilities does not have to be equal to being able to transform into them.
So you're going to change your form to a "er ... uh ... something with thick hide, like, maybe"? :smallconfused:

There's no list of forms inside the Alter Self/Polymorph/Shapechange spell line; it's not like the Summon Monster line in that regard. How else, by the rules, is your character going to know what particular creature types are?

(Remember, player knowledge has got nothing to do with this answer.)

Malachei

2011-11-17, 03:37 PM

but I think the main one he was trying to get across was that anyone who plays seriously enough to read into a system like the tier system is already aware that there are power level gaps. And while he could have said it better,

Thanks for pointing that out. I couldn’t have said it better (obviously).

First and foremost, I want to express that I did not want to attack anyone. If somebody feels I did, I am sincerely sorry. I was, honestly, a bit surprised that my point would be so hard to understand, and, honestly, I felt that part of the misunderstanding might have been deliberate. That might be a compliment, because I mostly think you guys are really smart. In any case, I may be wrong, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood you misunderstanding me.
My point was that I don’t use the tier system and I don’t see much utility in it. It seems I touched a taboo. Still, it is my point of view, to which I tend to hold on unless convinced otherwise (which is, by the way, not impossible).

Isn´t the question to malachei: Was the knowledge of the tiers ever detrimental to your game? what you do you not like about the Tier system, except their creator alluded whish to label things?

It was detrimental to my game because it creates prejudice and quick judgment. I also think it stimulates needless discussions. In general, I feel as a guideline it is biased. It is also leading to all types of arguments and “fixes”, which, IMO, may often be unnecessary or inaptly carried out. It leads threads off-topic, including killer statements such as “but everybody knows class X is tier Z”. I read somewhere that tier discussions lead to huge flame wars. Not useful to me.

I agree with some of JaronK’s introductory statements explaining the tier system. But there’s especially this part, to which I don’t agree:

As a rule, parties function best when everyone in the party is within 2 Tiers of each other (so a party that's all Tier 2-4 is generally fine, and so is a party that's all Tier 3-5, but a party that has Tier 1 and Tier 5s in it may have issues).

This is exactly the use of the tier system I dislike. It tells others what is best for their game.

I think it would be exaggerated to say "a rogue should not adventure with a wizard, because if they do, the party does not work best". But a lot of tier-talk is going in that direction. Using tier levels to limit party composition or to tell what is best is not something I see as helpful.

I for instance think that the squishiness of many of the tier 1 classes +their heavily limited resources do not get enough consideration. Game reality often shows that the unoptimized sword-and-boarders can survive through a campaign, whereas casters tend to die. A GM hindering her players from resting once the mages used his two best spells changes a lot.

I also think that the Tier system is ONLY relevant for highlvl play.

Of course people will tell you that you’ve not optimized your casters well enough :smallwink: -- but I think there is a lot of truth in this. I’ve been playing the various editions of (A)D&D for more than twenty years and casters have been dominating high-level play all the time. IMO, non-casters have significantly improved with 3rd edition, as balance has become a deliberate aspect of game design. But it is also the first edition of the game that existed with an internet community. And this community focuses on balance even more than the designers did. Thieves, a really weak class in 1st edition AD&D, had their loyal players, as did other supposedly low-tier classes. The tier system facilitates 3rd edition talk to focus even more on intra-party balance on all levels & classes. I think it is really hard for the non-casters to keep up with high-level casters – but it is the nature of the game, and changing that would significantly change the game. Or you’d have to play 4E, which, IMO, shows where the idea of balance on all levels & classes can lead. I’d rather play 3rd edition, and I’d rather see a player choose a character that will be fun to roleplay and meets their personal taste, than based on a tier label.

@Malachei: pray tell me what other spells are that unbalancing at this lvl? whith which i mean: absolutely warping the game around their presence, nearly regardless of the lvl of the characters using them?

As I'm usually against banning stuff, I'm a bit reluctant to help you out :smallbiggrin:

Followed by "...and true strike gives +20 and it's only lev. 1. I'm even on the side of caution!"

Should we ban True Stike?

Please... we didn't invent anything. The game system was updated, creating huge gaps between the power available to the various classes.

The power gaps have been there in all prior editions of the (A)D&D game. They used to be even bigger.

Some differences are easy to see, some others not so much.

May I ask, which differences do you refer to?

IMO, many tier discussions are not about the monk, but about which tier level to play in the campaign, including limiting class choice or using it as a reason to implement nerfs which often are poorly designed. Actually, I see some newbie players asking about the tier system, although I think the tier system may lead them to the wrong conclusions (not to play / allow a certain class) prior to actual game experience, which can be very different from the tier point of view. But most of the discussion, IMO, is actually experts (sometimes extensively) arguing about which tier a class should really be in etc. – and IMO, that’s a waste of time.

The reason I see the tier system as a tool more for expert arguments is in its nature: It tries to exactly rank the classes on a scale. Every internet forum user will know such a project is likely to lead to many discussions and arguments. Do less experienced players really need an exact scale? To give them advice on class choice etc., a more general guide for newbie DMs and players would serve the same purpose, without creating the arguments.

The tier system, it's merely a quick tool that can help the players in such a task. I don't see what's your problem.

I just don’t use the tier system, and I don’t see labeling the classes’ relative power as a useful exercise (it may be for others, but it is not to me). Most importantly, I am often disappointed by the quick judgment the tier labels lead to, followed by fruitless, endless arguments. That’s it.

Mystic Muse

2011-11-17, 03:44 PM

This is exactly the use of the tier system I dislike. It tells others what is best for their game.

That's not what that is saying at all.

He is saying that, in general, the game works best when everybody is within that range. He's not saying you have to play that way, or that it's even the best way to play, but that a group with a high tier disparity may have problems.

He's not saying you should play any specific way there, he's saying that having a party with a large gap in power levels may cause problems. This is entirely true, and it does happen. Somebody can outclass a fighter with a druid by complete accident, and there are several threads (Though not recent) Where somebody specifically mentions that's what happened.

Tyndmyr

2011-11-17, 03:44 PM

The tier system is not just about high level play. If everyone is at a similar level of optimization, you will still see differences in play.

I mean, you CAN jack up a druid, but it takes rather a lot of work. I've seen a first time player with a druid and little system mastery surpass a player with a CW samurai who was actually putting some work into being effective.

Malachei

2011-11-17, 03:58 PM

That's not what that is saying at all.

Read the quote again. It is what it is saying. Literally:

As a rule, parties function best when everyone in the party is within 2 Tiers of each other

"As a rule, parties function best when..." -- as a rule. What is there to argue about?

What I dislike is that people take this to their gaming groups and come across with stereotypes like "we need to nerf you tier 1s" or "we should all ban tier 1s" etc.

In the tier system, there are even houserules suggested for "fixing", including a modified point buy (by the way, how does a point buy solve "Wait I have a spell for this"?) -- all based on an entirely subjective scaling. People involved in the discussion over at BG have pointed this out, but have been ignored (and perhaps perceived as trolls).

Btw, Tyndmyr, I am not upset about things. Actually, I feel it is vice versa. It seems if someone questions the tier system, a great many people on the boards start to become upset.

It was brought up in the discussion, and I pointed out I don't use it and don't see it as useful, and since then, the discussion just keeps rolling on. Which kind of proves my point that the tier system leads to useless arguments.

Mystic Muse

2011-11-17, 04:04 PM

Read the quote again. It is what it is saying. Literally:

"As a rule, parties function best when..." -- as a rule. What is there to argue about?

The phrase "as a rule" means the same thing as "in general" so no, he's not telling you that there's a best way to play, he's just saying that the game tends to work best when there's a small gap between everybody's power level, and that's true.

Sorry if I come off as confrontational. Just trying to clear things up here.

Malachei

2011-11-17, 04:12 PM

While I'd say "as a rule" is a slightly stronger statement than "in general", I agree to what you mean.

But there's NO limitation in the statement. And the post goes on and suggest several houserule "fixes".

So people are telling me the tier system is addressing the inexperienced players who may not know the delicate power gap.
I don't see much use telling people that "as a rule (aka in general), a party works best when..." because these people go and take this to their gaming groups (and hassle their co-players with arguments about how to mess with the system).

People have been playing the classic adventure party (Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic-User) for so many years and here comes a tier system telling the less experienced players it is all wrong "in general".

And, while I know WOTC sometimes really could have done a better job, I have enough respect for professional game designers to say that people should wait to learn the game before they start to "fix" it.

JoeYounger

2011-11-17, 04:22 PM

The phrase "as a rule" means the same thing as "in general" so no, he's not telling you that there's a best way to play, he's just saying that the game tends to work best when there's a small gap between everybody's power level, and that's true.

Sorry if I come off as confrontational. Just trying to clear things up here.

I got ya, so it's not so much a "The party won't work as well" as it is "Someone will more than likely outclass someone else at the table, possibly removing some of the fun in playing. Making them feel usless and whatnot"?

Mystic Muse

2011-11-17, 04:35 PM

I got ya, so it's not so much a "The party won't work as well" as it is "Someone will more than likely outclass someone else at the table, possibly removing some of the fun in playing. Making them feel useless and whatnot"?

Yes, and that can sometimes happen without you intending to outclass them.

And sometimes, a party with both tier 1s and tier 6s can actually work together. This really comes down to your playgroup. The Tier system isn't meant to tell people how to play from what I can tell. It's meant to show how useful various classes are in various situations, and how big the gap is between certain classes. I think it does that pretty well.

The main thing I use it for is a balance point for my monster classes, and to tell people the level of versatility I would like from their characters.* That's pretty much it.

*Note: "Would like" Doesn't mean I'll stop them from playing a fighter or Monk or something similar.

Malachei

2011-11-17, 04:45 PM

Yes, of course! A party with different tiers can work perfectly together. Sometimes they don't. Sometimes, parties composed of similar tiers don't complement well. Sometimes, powerful parties fail terribly. Sometimes, weak parties excel. And whether this is the case or one character outshines another depends on so many things...

What's the point of excluding all these things, posting a scale (all other things being equal) and then saying "in general, a party works best..."?

The Tier system isn't meant

How do you know? How would a new player know? And does it matter if it is worded in another way?

And, if mostly experienced players use it and talk about it, whereas new players may actually be misled by it, what's the benefit of the system?

Mystic Muse

2011-11-17, 05:16 PM

What's the point of excluding all these things, posting a scale (all other things being equal) and then saying "in general, a party works best..."? I couldn't tell you that, as I was not involved in the process of creating the thread. As for why he excluded those, it's because he has to. The only thing he can assume will stay consistent in each game is the rules as written, (Because they're the rules made by the company that made the game) and so that's' what he has to work from.

For example, a game I'll be running soon has a ton of houserules that change the way the game works. I've got several of the more broken spells banned, two schools of magic don't even exist anymore (And several spells were transferred to other schools), several races don't exist, several sources are banned, and several types of spells are banned. There are very good reasons for all of these changes (Which I won't go into), but 99% of other DMs won't have these changes, so he can't factor these in to the tier system. He has to work from a consistent point so that it's relevant across nearly all games.

How do you know? How would a new player know? And does it matter if it is worded in another way? I specifically said "As far as I can tell" because I don't know. As I said, I wasn't involved in the creation of it. So, I don't know, I'm just working off of what I know of the list.

And, if mostly experienced players use it and talk about it, whereas new players may actually be misled by it, what's the benefit of the system? I'm not even sure what you're asking here. Just because new players mighty be mislead doesn't mean there's no reason for the system to exist. For me, it's helpful because when I say for my homebrew that I'm aiming for a certain tier, people know what I mean and know how to help with critique.

There are quite legitimate uses for the tier system, even if you don't like it.

JaronK

2011-11-17, 05:20 PM

While I'd say "as a rule" is a slightly stronger statement than "in general", I agree to what you mean.

But there's NO limitation in the statement.

You mean other than the first sentence in that section: "My general philosophy is that the only balance that really matters in D&D is the interclass balance between the various PCs in a group." I'm talking about my general philosophy there. Also, the sentence right before: "Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level."

So I'm saying that this is only a general averaging, and there's lots of flexibility in this.

So yes, "as a rule" here is the same as "in general."

And the post goes on and suggest several houserule "fixes".

This was demanded by some people who saw the system in its first incarnation and claimed it was all about telling people what was the "best" class. They insisted I throw in some house rules to "fix" it so as to prove I wasn't just showing that Wizards were "better" than Fighters.

So people are telling me the tier system is addressing the inexperienced players who may not know the delicate power gap.
I don't see much use telling people that "as a rule (aka in general), a party works best when..." because these people go and take this to their gaming groups (and hassle their co-players with arguments about how to mess with the system).

Actually, right before that I state what it's for... it's not about hassling anybody. It's for this purpose:

"1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group

2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.

3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).

4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a Fighter, and a Rogue, maybe you shouldn't let that fly.

5) To help homebrewers judge the power and balance of their new classes. Pick a Tier you think your class should be in, and when you've made your class compare it to the rest of the Tier. Generally, I like Tier 3 as a balance point, but I know many people prefer Tier 4. If it's stronger than Tier 1, you definitely blew it."

People have been playing the classic adventure party (Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic-User) for so many years and here comes a tier system telling the less experienced players it is all wrong "in general".

That was not the point at all. Rather, as clarified in the FAQ, I point out that if you're doing the classic Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard thing, you might consider not going overboard with the Wizard and Cleric, as you'll leave the Fighter and Rogue behind. Leaving the Fighter and Rogue behind is doing it "all wrong" as you say... making sure you're still working with them is what I suggested.

And, while I know WOTC sometimes really could have done a better job, I have enough respect for professional game designers to say that people should wait to learn the game before they start to "fix" it.

The purpose of the system is to help people to learn the game before they start to fix it (or at least, that's one of the stated purposes). That would be point 5.

@Malacei: What do you mean "How do you know? How would a new player know? And does it matter if it is worded in another way? " You know because it straight up says so in the opening! New players generally aren't mislead by it, because they read it completely if they read it at all. It's usually experienced vets who are mislead, because they assume it must mean something it doesn't after quickly skimming it.

JaronK

Phaederkiel

2011-11-17, 07:40 PM

@ Malachei: throw caution to the wind! Which lowlvl-spells do you deem as bad as guidance of the avatar?

regarding true strike: this is a spell that looks a bit scary. But what does it imply? It means, things get hit. Which they do on a regular basis and anyway. If used by a caster to make some ranged touch attack hit no matter what, it probably only needed to give a +5 or so, max. There is no overachievement when attacking.

There is, on the other side, such a thing as overachievement in skillchecks.
I would not think Guidance is truly broken if it would only make sure that Mr.Rogue makes that critical tumble. It gets broken fast when mr. Druid makes his handle Animal with a +20, or mr.Bard his diplomacy.

The other thing which makes me consider true strike less dangerous is that it bogs down your actions when you use it; Guidance is most dangerous in situation where actions are not in short supply.

BTW: I would banhammer anything even resembling a permanent true strike.
even gloves of fortunate striking make the game somewhat boring, if I had the choice again, I would not allow my players to use them.

(for clarification: we use some hilarious fumble tables on a natural 1...)

Coidzor

2011-11-17, 11:45 PM

(for clarification: we use some hilarious fumble tables on a natural 1...)

And in that you'd differ from the majority, as that's generally considered not so much hilarious as something that's only fit for a beer and pretzels joke campaign.

Phaederkiel

2011-11-18, 12:06 AM

sonofzeal

2011-11-18, 12:19 AM

I feel a tiny bit attacked personally, just to tell you.

why do you critize our style of playing?

(and, if I did anything wrong by using the bad word "hilarious": mostly you just throw your weapon away, on a really bad roll you hit yourself or break nonmagical equipment. We all like the added sense of danger in that, especially since it makes Combat much more interesting)

If you have anything constructive to say about such rules, please speak up.
If you haven´t, don´t.
Mostly, it draws ire because it almost invariably further penalizes the weakest classes in the game, while leaving the best ones unaffected. One group I was in used this rule, and the monk was terrified to use his full Flurry when any ally was in melee range, because he'd almost invariably do more damage to them than the monsters would... and because that particular character was always at the front (had an almost unhittable AC) he'd be the one drawing fire from 1's rolled by the rest of the party. I think the total damage he took from the rest of the party dwarfed the damage he took from monsters by several orders of magnitude.

The Wizard by contrast was always at the back out of range of other character's fumbles, and never had to roll attack dice so he never had to worry about fumbling himself.

It can be fun in a totally casual game where nobody cares about their characters and are just in it for the lulz... but in general it's frustrating, often anticlimactic, and exacerbates already-significant balance issues with the game.

JackRackham

2011-11-18, 01:44 AM

nyarlathotep

2011-11-18, 02:05 AM

IMO, non-casters have significantly improved with 3rd edition, as balance has become a deliberate aspect of game design.

This is absolutely and objectively false. 3rd edition significantly hurt non-casters.

1)Fighters lost the ability to move and full attack.
2)Fighters now take penalties to iterative attack (in AD&D all attacks were made at the same THAC0).
3)It is harder to interrupt spells because of concentration and fewer spells taking time to cast (In AD&D with attack speeds casters would have to wait until a set initiative to finish casting their spells during which they could be interrupted).
4)hp totals went up but fighter damage stayed the same per attack and went down overall due to the aforementioned full attack penalties.
5)Weapon specialization used to be the fighter's class feature, but now everyone gets feats and the fighters feats are strictly worse than weapon specializations used to be.
6)Now everyone can do what the rogue does just by spending skill points and more spells take the place of rogue abilities.

Coidzor

2011-11-18, 02:32 AM

It can be fun in a totally casual game where nobody cares about their characters and are just in it for the lulz... but in general it's frustrating, often anticlimactic, and exacerbates already-significant balance issues with the game.

Aye, beer and pretzels, although I suppose the joke campaign is optional. And, really, is a point of divergence of perspective even more severe than the "ok with the tier system" vs. "hates the tier system" dichotomy.

Malachei

2011-11-18, 03:01 AM

And in that you'd differ from the majority, as that's generally considered not so much hilarious as something that's only fit for a beer and pretzels joke campaign.

How do you know? Have you run a questionnaire? Are you following a majority of campaigns and know how they feel? Most importantly, why would a beer and pretzels game be less fun than yours?

A lot of groups have all kinds of houserules. Other groups changed the rule you can make a skill check on a natural 1. You may feel a houserule does not suit your game, but that doesn't make it silly. First and foremost, it is their game. Whatever works for them is fine.

@ Phaederkiel: One aspect of this discussion is that I feel people on boards are sometimes surprisingly insistent about imposing their play style or system on others. Especially some of the more experienced players and DMs, who perceive themselves as experts can have a tendency to tell you what is best and what is true in the D&D game, when it is actually only their opinion, personal judgment or preference. The tier system serves as a reference point for absolute statements like that, and it seems it is even taken for an objective reference point by some (which it is not, of course, but that is addressed below).

I object to your characterization of the tier system as 'stereotyping.' The classes in D&D are mathematical constructs spelled out on paper. The tier system doesn't present a simplified, over-generalized opinion of the classes because the classes ARE what they ARE. To a great degree, one can mathematically evaluate d&d classes. Subjectivity with regards to d&d classes tends to be setting specific (at MY table....)

They are what they are? Huh? You're telling me humanity is infallible in judgment? That the tier system has a magic sauce formula for calculating that the fighter is 23.47 points on the scale, whereas the wizard is 894.44 points on the scale? The tier system doesn't have a formula. It is entirely subjective, based on individual assumptions and interpretations. Whether those are (by the way, it would even be subjective (on a certain level) if individuals designed a formula or scale -- such is the crux with method and human fallibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallibilism)). And of course they are stereotyping. They lead players -- so many people are taking them for granted and use them in their arguments. "But everybody knows class X is tier Z," is just one of the many stereotypes that spring from it.

This is absolutely and objectively false. 3rd edition significantly hurt non-casters.

While I have an urge to agree with anyone whose screen name is Nyarlathotep (my favourite non-D&D adventure ever), I must disagree. First of all, it cannot be objectively false (because we're talking about opinions here, see above). I'd say we should be a bit careful with the use of the term objective, when we're talking about our opinions or man-made judgment / analysis -- else a mythos creature comes around the corner and makes us roll for SAN. Second, thieves had a much harder chance to succeed on low- to mid-levels than rogues do. They were also much easier to kill and had much lower damage output. Clerics had a much weaker spellcasting than today, especially when compared to magic-users. In general HP were much lower, so damaging spells and area effects were more lethal. Fighters had less methods to get their AC up in low- to mid-levels and had a much lower damage output. Part of this is due to the ability score bonus progression (Fighter with a 17 Str was +1 to hit, +2 to damage, IIRC), and a 16 Con was just +2 HP/level. For another subjective opinion on this, I remember 36 levels of playing an AD&D campaign, and the casters totally rocked for about 30 of it. For a detailed discussion of this, though, I would need to find my 1st edition books and sheets. Something which I don't know I can do (*remembers the boxes in the basement*).

That reminds me I have a copy of the complete masks of Nyarlathotep somewhere. I'll answer the rest after I've indulged in a bit of 1980s remembrance.

nyarlathotep

2011-11-18, 03:23 AM

While I have an urge to agree with anyone whose screen name is Nyarlahotep (my favourite non-D&D adventure ever), I must disagree. First of all, it cannot be objectively false (because we're talking about opinions here, see above). I'd say we should be a bit careful with the use of the term objective, when we're talking about our opinions or man-made judgment / analysis -- else a mythos creature comes around the corner and makes us roll for SAN. Second, thieves had a much harder chance to succeed on low- to mid-levels than rogues do. They were also much easier to kill and had much lower damage output. Clerics had a much weaker spellcasting than today, especially when compared to magic-users. In general HP were much lower, so damaging spells and area effects were more lethal. Fighters had less methods to get their AC up in low- to mid-levels and had a much lower damage output. Part of this is due to the ability score bonus progression (Fighter with a 17 Str was +1 to hit, +2 to damage, IIRC), and a 16 Con was just +2 HP/level. For another subjective opinion on this, I remember 36 levels of playing an AD&D campaign, and the casters totally rocked for about 30 of it. For a detailed discussion of this, though, I would need to find my 1st edition books and sheets. Something which I don't know I can do (*remembers the boxes in the basement*).

Perhaps I was bit strong on that earlier, but as far as I can tell in almost ever system specific way the classes that weren't casters got weaker.

For instance you say rogues are more likely to succeed in 3rd edition. Well only if you were using unmodified roll for AD&D and low DC locks in 3rd, because the percentiles could be deceiving to new players and DMs. Even though your success chance is given as a percent the quality of locks, traps, etc. drastically altered your chance to success. A poorly made lock for instance gave a 20 to 30 percent bonus to your success rate. Simple traps you were likely to run into at low levels (goblin made pit traps etc.) gave similar bonus to detection.

Additionally the hard caps on bonuses to hit and the absence of ways for casters to buff their save DCs made fighters much more durable relatively speaking. A fighter having fullplate actually meant something because every monster didn't have upwards of +50 to attack at later levels. Also something to remember fighter had much better save progression in AD&D compared to magic-users than they do in 3rd edition. So even though their HP was lower they were more likely to make their save against the damaging spells in the first place.

Also fighters were better at fighting than clerics because as stated before the feat equivalents (weapon specialization) were fighter exclusive. This made CoDzillas much harder to design because they lacked an equivalent and unless they had very very high strength couldn't make up for it with ability scores alone. Specifically it was usually more efficient bad then for clerics to buff the fighter rather than just to buff themselves and be the front-line fighter.

Edit: Yes you are right though about clerics becoming much much stronger in 3rd edition, no arguments here.

Killer Angel

2011-11-18, 03:54 AM

First and foremost, I want to express that I did not want to attack anyone. If somebody feels I did, I am sincerely sorry.

I appreciate the clarification. Tnx. :smallsmile:

Should we ban True Stike?

Nope, True Strike is fine. I was ironic, thinking that probably it was taken as a basis for the reasoning "it's OK to have a spell that gives +20 to everything".

The power gaps have been there in all prior editions of the (A)D&D game. They used to be even bigger.

Yes there were, but they weren't bigger. In AD&D spells got casting time longer as the level was higher, and the caster was more vulnerable during that time, while in 3.x you simply cast the spell. THe limitations of many spells were removed (1 year of life for any Haste. 1 point of permanent Con loss for any raise dead, and so on).

May I ask, which differences do you refer to?

Example: in the beginning, before learning the system, many peoples were convinced that monks were good, 'cause they seemed so. I remember peoples excited at all those bonus feats for fighters. Even now, you can find someone arguing that the sorcerer is on par with the wizard, 'cause the sorc casts more spells and doesn't have to decide a spell list for the day.
A "label" at least could make you think about it.

Most importantly, I am often disappointed by the quick judgment the tier labels lead to, followed by fruitless, endless arguments. That’s it.

That's reasonable.

Malachei

2011-11-18, 03:56 AM

Also fighters were better at fighting than clerics because as stated before the feat equivalents (weapon specialization) were fighter exclusive.

Well, thieves had 1d4 HD, and fighters had a much lower attack ratios. Weapon specialization was introduced in Unearthed Arcana (for AD&D) and was available to characters of all classes at high levels in D&D (Master's Set, IIRC). Unearthed Arcana is optional content for 1st edition AD&D, but yes, we used it, and while the fighter was less weak compared to the melee cleric, he still was compared to the magic-user. The +1/+2 didn't matter so much, and the additional attacks (3/2 rounds, i.e. 1.5 apr) were not perceived as a gamechanger by my group. I think weapon specialization came into play at second instance, (+3/+3) and at levels where it granted 2+ attacks per round (7+ IIRC), and by then the magic-users' dominance was on another level altogether.

Fighters also had a much higher chance of dying at low- mid-levels, IMO. First of all, their stats and mechanics, compared to a monster's, were smaller than in 3rd edition D&D. Second, area attacks and spells used the same dice they are using now, when rogue and fighter PCs tend to have significantly more HPs. A 10d6 fireball used to be a greater threat.

Perhaps grabbing a few old 1st edition adventures may illustrate the point. I feel that the average fighter and rogue can handle more threats today.

Another question: Have you played the Masks of Nyarlathotep? Fond memories?

Mystic Muse

2011-11-18, 10:47 AM

How do you know? Have you run a questionnaire? Are you following a majority of campaigns and know how they feel? Most importantly, why would a beer and pretzels game be less fun than yours?

He's not saying it would be less fun, just that it's more suited for a silly game than a serious one, because it actually makes the melee classes like Fighter/Monk that rely on iterative attacks worse as they level.

That they're really only suited for those types of games does seem to be the general opinion of this board. Every thread about critical failure rules I look through(And there are a lot), I find that the majority of people posting in them say something similar, or that they don't find it fun. Not all of the people, but the majority of them.

Actually, I do know of one off the top of my head where a lot of people did complain about somebody's critical failure rules (The person posting the thread was asking about his campaign's houserules). Would you like me to link it?

Malachei

2011-11-18, 10:52 AM

Mystic Muse

2011-11-18, 10:59 AM

I wouldn't say such a game would be silly, though.

People might be against it, call it "nerfing the weak" or say it is "unbalanced", but not necessarily silly.

If you'd link it, I'd read it more for understanding the general attitude of the people rather than for making sense of the houserule (I'd not have the houserule, but I wouldn't say the houserule means a silly game).

They say that, because it means the melee classes get worse at their job as they level up, because with iterative attacks your chance of rolling a one increases. Seems kind of odd for a level 20 fighter to have a bigger chance of messing up than a level 1.:smalltongue:

Here is the thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=221667) The complaints about the critical failure houserule begin at post number 6, and are kinda spread throughout the thread. There are definitely people who don't mind, but every thread I recall seeing that mentions critical failure rules has a lot of people (Though maybe not always the majority) saying "No, don't use them."

Zherog

2011-11-18, 11:12 AM

One of the big complaints I see about critical failures (in addition to what SS mentioned, which is definitely the biggest) is that most of the time, the implemented houserule doesn't include any sort of "confirmation" roll. That is, when you roll a 20, you don't crit; you threaten. Yet most houserules have an auto-fumble just for rolling a 1.

nyarlathotep

2011-11-18, 11:31 AM

Well, thieves had 1d4 HD, and fighters had a much lower attack ratios. Weapon specialization was introduced in Unearthed Arcana (for AD&D) and was available to characters of all classes at high levels in D&D (Master's Set, IIRC). Unearthed Arcana is optional content for 1st edition AD&D, but yes, we used it, and while the fighter was less weak compared to the melee cleric, he still was compared to the magic-user. The +1/+2 didn't matter so much, and the additional attacks (3/2 rounds, i.e. 1.5 apr) were not perceived as a gamechanger by my group. I think weapon specialization came into play at second instance, (+3/+3) and at levels where it granted 2+ attacks per round (7+ IIRC), and by then the magic-users' dominance was on another level altogether.

Fighters also had a much higher chance of dying at low- mid-levels, IMO. First of all, their stats and mechanics, compared to a monster's, were smaller than in 3rd edition D&D. Second, area attacks and spells used the same dice they are using now, when rogue and fighter PCs tend to have significantly more HPs. A 10d6 fireball used to be a greater threat.

Perhaps grabbing a few old 1st edition adventures may illustrate the point. I feel that the average fighter and rogue can handle more threats today.

Another question: Have you played the Masks of Nyarlathotep? Fond memories?

Oh you are right in that they were more fragile and likely to die at low levels, but so was everyone. I was merely talking about contribution to a fight relative to other classes.

Also don't get me wrong I like 3rd edition more than 2nd edition and think that increased survivability was a good thing, and the increased customization of 3rd edition is what makes it one of my favorite roleplaying systems. That being said I think that balance took a severe hit because of fundamental mechanical shifts without fundamental shifts in design philosophy.

As for the other question no I have not.

Malachei

2011-11-18, 11:45 AM

Oh you are right in that they were more fragile and likely to die at low levels, but so was everyone. I was merely talking about contribution to a fight relative to other classes.

Also don't get me wrong I like 3rd edition more than 2nd edition and think that increased survivability was a good thing, and the increased customization of 3rd edition is what makes it one of my favorite roleplaying systems. That being said I think that balance took a severe hit because of fundamental mechanical shifts without fundamental shifts in design philosophy.

I think 3.0 saw a fundamental shift in design philosophy, perhaps the biggest shift of all editions.

Also, 3.0 and 3.5 were the first editions of the game in which in-party balance became a design principle. We all know there's issues, but in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, frankly, nobody cared. General consensus seemed to be "magic-users suffer at low levels for the ability to become very powerful at high levels." If we look at the core party (Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic-User), I see a lot more class disparity in 1st and 2nd edition than in 3rd edition. Finally, with 3rd edition rules, a Rogue and a Fighter can also escape their straightjacket.

As for the other question no I have not.

Ah, too bad, I would have loved to chat with a fellow victim.

Tyndmyr

2011-11-18, 12:10 PM

Btw, Tyndmyr, I am not upset about things. Actually, I feel it is vice versa. It seems if someone questions the tier system, a great many people on the boards start to become upset.

I don't understand why. You impugned the motives of others. THAT would be why people were upset, not because of the tier system itself.

It was brought up in the discussion, and I pointed out I don't use it and don't see it as useful, and since then, the discussion just keeps rolling on. Which kind of proves my point that the tier system leads to useless arguments.

The tier system didn't lead to the useless argument. If you feel the argument was useless, surely, you must realize that the argument over if the tier system was valid or not was started by you. Not every discussion that makes mention of tiers has an argument in it, even. If you feel that discussions over the validity of tiers are "useless", why are you engaging in them and provoking them?

I will note that tier 1s and tier 5s in the same group IS a quite reasonable point to caution people about.

What's the point of excluding all these things, posting a scale (all other things being equal) and then saying "in general, a party works best..."?

Because that's how rating systems work. When you look at ratings of vehicle handling in consumer reports, they are rated on how well the car does. This allows the rating to be nice and concise. There is no need for each rating to include a long disclaimer about how an excellent driver could probably compensate for a car with poor handling.

This is how all rating systems everywhere that are functional and usable work. I would not expect a class rating system to discuss non-class things at length. That's not what it's for.

How do you know? How would a new player know? And does it matter if it is worded in another way?

You know what the tier system is for, because in the exact same post in which it appears, JaronK tells you what it is for. I'm not sure how he could make it more clear.

nyarlathotep

2011-11-18, 12:11 PM

I think 3.0 saw a fundamental shift in design philosophy, perhaps the biggest shift of all editions.

Also, 3.0 and 3.5 were the first editions of the game in which in-party balance became a design principle. We all know there's issues, but in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, frankly, nobody cared. General consensus seemed to be "magic-users suffer at low levels for the ability to become very powerful at high levels." If we look at the core party (Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic-User), I see a lot more class disparity in 1st and 2nd edition than in 3rd edition. Finally, with 3rd edition rules, a Rogue and a Fighter can also escape their straightjacket.

I think we're gonna have to disagree forever because while I agree that 3rd edition allowed fighters to become more than just "I hit him with my axe", the power disparity at high levels actually increased in 3.0 and 3.5. In 2nd edition a fighter could legitimately defeat a high level mage by getting in his face and not letting him cast spells, but in 3rd edition he just has to cast defensively and it is trivially easy to avoid disruption. That's why in modules and videogames for AD&D spellcasting villains always had prep time, or a favorable starting location, or some form of cheat (curse you Baldur's Gate and your spell tattoos) in order to make sure the fighter didn't devolve into "Bob just charges him and disrupts everything". In third edition though even leaving out celerity cheese the enemy caster can just 5 foot step away and cast forcecage, and not have to worry about his spell fizzling in the slightest.

Ah, too bad, I would have loved to chat with a fellow victim.

Given my group I probably would have DMed anyway, so chatting would be more along the lines of maniacal laughter.

Tyndmyr

2011-11-18, 12:17 PM

I think 3.0 saw a fundamental shift in design philosophy, perhaps the biggest shift of all editions.

Also, 3.0 and 3.5 were the first editions of the game in which in-party balance became a design principle. We all know there's issues, but in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, frankly, nobody cared. General consensus seemed to be "magic-users suffer at low levels for the ability to become very powerful at high levels." If we look at the core party (Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic-User), I see a lot more class disparity in 1st and 2nd edition than in 3rd edition. Finally, with 3rd edition rules, a Rogue and a Fighter can also escape their straightjacket.

There is more class customization, yes. However, that's not the same as power, exactly. The power gap is most certainly wider, especially at higher levels. That said, I care about that mostly from the standpoint of not increasing it with house rules.

And yes, I particularly dislike "drop your weapon on a natural 1" rules. The idea that, by mastering the art of using blades, you develop a tendancy to be unable to randomly throw them away every thirty seconds on average is...troubling. The image of a sword-wielding tourettes sufferer comes to mind instead of someone who is actually proficient.

Malachei

2011-11-18, 01:02 PM

Tyndmyr

2011-11-18, 01:23 PM

I've given a few reasons above why I believe the power gap may have been bigger in 1st and 2nd edition D&D.

Tyndmyr, pray tell, why do you think it actually increased?

Also, if you read my post above, I explicitly said that I don't use a natural one = fumble rule.

So you dislike them, as well? Does that make them "silly"?

Because my point was out that I wouldn't label such a game as "silly". And I think this term was what annoyed Phaederkiel.

After reading the first posts in the thread Soft Serve kindly linked, I must say that "silly", as a term, seems to have a lot of relatives among some of the posters in the thread ("stupid", etc.).

Why it's increased? Casters are much, much harder to put a sword into(Pathfinder only further increased this) or to stop from casting. Consider the old init style. You take a hit, there goes the spell. Interrupting casters was dead easy. In 3.5, everyone maxes concentration and has five foot steps. Interrupting even low op casters with any reliability requires a feat chain, a specific maneuver, and either another specific feat or reach.

So yeah, casters are better at taking on non-casters. That translates pretty directly to a power gain.

The natural one = fumble are about average as far as bad rules go. Some are far, far worse, with fumble charts including anything up to accidentally killing yourself or a teammate. But consider, even a "break your bowstring on a natural one, if you confirm the miss" is pretty unrealistic. I mean, I've done years of archery. I've never broken a bowstring. Hell, I'm not sure I've ever seen it happen. Note that for Dagorhir style events, many people use period bows and strings(longbow, myself), and these get hit with things, dropped on the ground and stepped on, etc. Even two natural ones in a row vastly, vastly overstates the probability of such a thing happening. Roughly the same is true for trained people throwing their weapon away.

So, from a realism pov, fumble rules are kind of a dead loss. How about from a balance perspective? Well, there's a blog in my sig with a post on that. It makes it worse. The best classes don't care, the worst classes are hampered.

So....why have them? I mean, if it's the kind of game where realism is not expected, you don't care about balance at all, and your attack rolls are mostly to throw pies at each other...I guess. But that seems pretty unusual.

Malachei

2011-11-18, 01:51 PM

Tyndmyr

2011-11-18, 02:18 PM

I can't remember the old initiative style ever leading to casters going down in a mid+ level encounter. However, I saw fighters and thieves killed by spells and area effects fairly often. Not only SODs, but blast spells, as well. 1d6 damage per level used to be something that could kill a thief and terrible frighten a fighter who didn't want to get hit again. Rogues and melee have gotten much more robust, IMO. So my experience from actual play back then is vice versa. Whatever. I think that was a digression from a digression. But you didn't address the question about "silly" games. Never mind.

Blasting spells used to be somewhat more potent. That said, d6/lvl aoes are still something that kind of bothers front liners. The fighter, for one, isn't likely to save against them. d6/dmg a level is pretty baseline in 3.5 as well. It's a blasting spell for people who aren't trying. Any caster who wants to blast is either going to be metamagicing it for more, or pumping caster level, or using spells that deal more damage. Or, more likely, all three.

Also, a number of blasting spells have other effects. Consider the bog standard orb of fire. Yes, it's a 1d6/lvl fire damage spell. However, there's basically no way to effectively avoid it(no save, no sr, etc) and THEN you get to save vs being dazed. So, you spend your next action possibly doing nothing, while the caster....hits you again, probably.

No, caster/melee spread definitely got worse.

I'm honestly uninterested in silly games. If it's your game, go nuts. But if it's the kind of game where your normal weapon is "pie", then basically, it's just a bunch of slapstick humor, and you can't really use that to draw any useful conclusions about the system.

Malachei

2011-11-18, 02:21 PM

Well, we agree to disagree. However, I really don't understand the last part of your post. I already said I don't use the fumble rules. Phaederkiel does. Does that make his game "silly"?

Tyndmyr

2011-11-18, 02:23 PM

Well, we agree to disagree. However, I really don't understand the last part of your post. I already said I don't use the fumble rules. Phaederkiel does. Does that make his game "silly"?

Not necessarily. However, using something like that in a non-silly game is counterproductive, just like introducing the feat Weapon Proficiency(Cream Pie) would be.

Malachei

2011-11-18, 02:33 PM

Not necessarily. However, using something like that in a non-silly game is counterproductive, just like introducing the feat Weapon Proficiency(Cream Pie) would be.

What you are saying is: "Phaederkiel's game is on the level of Weapon Proficiency (Cream Pie)."

You're making fun of it.

Simply because you don't share his opinion. As I said, I'd also not use the rule, but I'd never say his game is silly or introducing a fumble rule would be like introducing "Weapon Proficiency(Cream Pie)."

You're ridiculing his game.

Tyndmyr

2011-11-18, 02:55 PM

What you are saying is: "Phaederkiel's game is on the level of Weapon Proficiency (Cream Pie)."

You're making fun of it.

Simply because you don't share his opinion. As I said, I'd also not use the rule, but I'd never say his game is silly or introducing a fumble rule would be like introducing "Weapon Proficiency(Cream Pie)."

You're ridiculing his game.

That's...not what I'm saying at all. I don't know what his game is.

I'm saying if it IS a silly game, rules that cause a weapons expert to act as though his fingers are coated with butter might be amusing to him.

But if it's a serious game, such things will probably detract from the game. Just as other silly rules would be.

If you want a silly game, use silly things. If you want a serious game, use serious things.

Malachei

2011-11-18, 03:14 PM

If you want a silly game, use silly things. If you want a serious game, use serious things.

And you're the person that gets to decide what is silly and what isn't, along with Coidzor, yes?

Whereas Phaederkiel feels his game is serious, and still thinks having a fumble rule is ok for his game...

... Coidzor told him that's "fit for a beer and pretzels joke campaign" while you grant him "Weapon Focus (Cream Pie)".

Congratulations, Tyndmyr.

Mystic Muse

2011-11-18, 05:20 PM

And you're the person that gets to decide what is silly and what isn't, along with Coidzor, yes?

Whereas Phaederkiel feels his game is serious, and still thinks having a fumble rule is ok for his game...

... Coidzor told him that's "fit for a beer and pretzels joke campaign" while you grant him "Weapon Focus (Cream Pie)".

Congratulations, Tyndmyr.

Ooh. My one NPC for that game I'll be running soon has to have Weapon Focus/Specialization, ETC. Cream Pie. :smallbiggrin:

Why yes, this game is going to be silly beyond all belief.

Coidzor

2011-11-18, 06:08 PM

How do you know? Have you run a questionnaire? Are you following a majority of campaigns and know how they feel?

Nope, I'm following the majority of responses the forum generates when we have threads that hit upon this subject. :smallwink:

Most importantly, why would a beer and pretzels game be less fun than yours?

Congratulations, you just read way into something. Beer and pretzels is fine, if that's what you set out to do. It's not so fine if you want serious, epic fantasy. Thankfully, it's generally easy to recognize such things and excise them to revise the game to what's desired. Or to add them in if the game is getting too stodgy or something.

A lot of groups have all kinds of houserules. Other groups changed the rule you can make a skill check on a natural 1. You may feel a houserule does not suit your game, but that doesn't make it silly.

Silliness exists in a vacuum of whether it works, because otherwise you couldn't have the term joke campaign and its unironic use. :smalltongue:

@ Phaederkiel: One aspect of this discussion is that I feel people on boards are sometimes surprisingly insistent about imposing their play style or system on others.

Indeed, I think it's partially a defensive mechanism against accusations of being rules lawyers or other, similar epithets. Where, rather than, say, accepting differences, every side decides to get dirty until no one cares anymore and the thread moves on. Or dies, one or the other.

Especially some of the more experienced players and DMs, who perceive themselves as experts can have a tendency to tell you what is best and what is true in the D&D game, when it is actually only their opinion, personal judgment or preference. The tier system serves as a reference point for absolute statements like that, and it seems it is even taken for an objective reference point by some (which it is not, of course, but that is addressed below).

Ahh, and now you take a reasonable statement and take it back into exactly what you were condemning a moment ago. :smallannoyed:

They are what they are? Huh? You're telling me humanity is infallible in judgment? That the tier system has a magic sauce formula for calculating that the fighter is 23.47 points on the scale, whereas the wizard is 894.44 points on the scale?

Try making better comparisons and people won't think you've never actually read it and are just talking from biases developed in regards to other tier systems, such as those of video games of the fighting game genre. :smallwink:

The tier system doesn't have a formula.

No, it has a rubric, which is a fair basis for assessing what it states that it assesses. Not everything has to be immediately and instantly computed into numbers to be valid.

"But everybody knows class X is tier Z," is just one of the many stereotypes that spring from it.

Then you're misremembering the threads that come up on these boards, because that's a gross mischaracterization.

And you're the person that gets to decide what is silly and what isn't, along with Coidzor, yes?

Whereas Phaederkiel feels his game is serious, and still thinks having a fumble rule is ok for his game...

... Coidzor told him that's "fit for a beer and pretzels joke campaign" while you grant him "Weapon Focus (Cream Pie)".

That is a fairly common perception, yes, though I feel you're, perhaps, overstating it just a tad. Fumbles are unpopular round these here parts. And the stance in regards to them says more about the game one will contribute towards creating than the difference between a Coidzor and a Malachei in regards to their personal feelings about the tier system.

Although weapon focus (Cream Pie) isn't in the realm of beer and pretzels. That's the kind of joke campaign where you're not even casually doing it but instead going in for an inch, in for a mile and you can only really enjoy that kind of whole hog philosophy in a clowncars and cloudcukoolanders mindset. Which generally requires a bit of lightness that pretzels just can't afford. Popcorn works much better. Maybe some seltzer or other softdrinks.

Malachei

2011-11-18, 06:41 PM

navar100

2011-11-18, 07:40 PM

As for the original spell in question from the OP, I agree it is a bit much. It was probably created by inspiration from True Strike, to apply the +20 bonus to a skill check rather than an attack roll. Where as for a wizard True Strike is not so powerfully terrible because it's a net two rounds to make an attack roll, this spell is cast ahead of time to be used whenever you want during the duration. It is very versatile. Even if you allow the spell, a 2nd level slot is too good for it. Maybe 3rd level would have been better, 4th is fine. Even 5th for those who are still a bit leery. Still, the idea of the spell is fodder for those who criticize unbalanced spell power.

As for the Tier System, I agree with JaronK on its original intent. It defines the relative power level between the classes. It can help the DM to understand that as you approach Tier 1 he needs to be sure players aren't Winning D&D, and as you approach Tier 5 players aren't Losing D&D.

The problem is some people here take the Tier System and use it to berate Bad Wrong Fun, as seen here.

Why, oh why, oh WHY would your DM want a party of all Tier 1s? I he trying to prove how broken the d20 system can be, or does he just want his players to waltz through every single encounter he cooks up in a couple of levels?

I don't think the tier systems meant to be used this way, but if you want to keep everyone on about the same power level, tier 3 is where it's at. That's where you can fit most character concepts one way or another, and if someone really wants to play something else, the tier 4s won't feel as badly outclassed all the time (they may even be better than tier 3s in their specialty area) and tier 2s can play nicely without gimping themselves too much.

Really, the tier 1s and the tier 5s are the only ones that regularly ruin games; even that can be mitigated by a level cap... If you only allow 2 levels of cleric/wizard/witch/Druid for every 1 level in any other class, for example, you'll find that the tier 1s become much less appealing to play and at least some of their universe-breaking power gets toned down.

The original thread OP was asking how one can raise the low Tier classes to Tier 1 because originally his DM wanted all the players to be Tier 1. Some said it really couldn't be done. Others say you need to add spells. Some tried non-magic use advice. All was well until the quote.

As often happens, some people use the Tier System to tell others they are playing wrong. As I've mentioned before there are three types.

Type 1: Tier 1 is an abomination, no one should have such power!

Type 2: Tier 4 and below is an abomination. You suck donkey for playing one. You are a drain to the party's strength.

Type 3: Tier 3 is the One True Way. It is perfect harmony of balance. You should not play the game any other way.

The quote falls into Type 3 though a shade of Type 1.

This is what I think what Malachei is really having issue with. I was part of the original WOTC Forum discussion that inspired it, and despite my disagreements with JaronK in that discussion, the original intent of the Tier system was fair. It was never about wizards rule, fighters drool. Unfortunately, the meaning got warped into being about just that.