"Unplayable" classes

[Silus]

Alternate title: A sleepy newbie gets educated

Ok, here's what I don't get. Why are some classes deemed "unplayable" (Mostly the martial classes)? It sounds like "unplayable" equates to "I can't munchkin like mad".

"I can't become a God at lvl 1? UNPLAYABLE!"
"I don't have maximum utility? UNPLAYABLE!"
"I can't kill everything in the room just by looking angrily at it? UNPLAYABLE!"

Just how it sounds to me anyway.

[Doc Roc]

Ok, here's what I don't get. Why are some classes deemed "unplayable" (Mostly the martial classes)? It sounds like "unplayable" equates to "I can't munchkin like mad".

Fighters are often strictly inferior to druid pets, and harder to replace. Do you want to be playing Beta to Fido's Alpha?

[Silus]

Fighters are often strictly inferior to druid pets, and harder to replace. Do you want to be playing Beta to Fido's Alpha?

But a Druid can only have so many pets at a time, and, unless I'm mistaken, cannot tailor their leveling path to their own needs/preference, correct?

Defense statted and geared Fighter vs a druid pet of the same level for example.

[AugustNights]

Anything is "playable," but some classes are frustratingly difficult to use in the building of an effective and contributing playing character.
The True Namer comes to mind first, a class that revolves around a scaling skill check difficulty that was poorly planned.

Many of the "unplayable" classes require a high degree of system mastery to make even a moderately contributing member of any given team. Compare a Fighter with a Druid's animal companion, for example.

Just about any and every class can be optimized to heck and back, and tier 1 classes will have more options in this regard (and any other regard), but the problem with many classes tier 4 and below, is that you can effectively do the same thing and more and better with different classes.

JaronK's Tier List, for references. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=ed4neg5sk0n7a33jt5stvrlgu3&topic=5293)

[Xiander]

I have not actually seen that phrase used about any class apart from the truenamer.

Apart from that i think it is an overstatement to call any class unplayable in general. I get that a sword and board fighter is next to useless in a group which includes another melee char with a charger build, a Divine meta magic cleric, a batman-wizard and a cheesed up factotum.

But most actual groups don't.

Honestly my own personal favorite D&D character was a poorly optimized fighter/rouge, who basically played like a fighter with fewer HD, some extra skills and a few sneak attack dice.

[Doc Roc]

But a Druid can only have so many pets at a time, and, unless I'm mistaken, cannot tailor their leveling path to their own needs/preference, correct?

Defense statted and geared Fighter vs a druid pet of the same level for example.

So the guy that the enemies walk past vs. the deadly dinosaur coated in a thick slurry of buff spells?

[Gullintanni]

But a Druid can only have so many pets at a time, and, unless I'm mistaken, cannot tailor their leveling path to their own needs/preference, correct?

Defense statted and geared Fighter vs a druid pet of the same level for example.

That's the point Doc Roc is making though. In order to be on par with a Druid's pet, you have to munchkin the crap out of your Fighter. In other words, that "leveling path" you're talking about...if a Fighter doesn't make optimal choices for that path, then he's typically strictly inferior to the Druid's pet.

At which point, if you don't want, to use Doc Roc's phrasing, to play Beta to the Alpha Animal Companion, then unless you're willing to optimize, a Fighter is unplayable...at least in any party with a Druid.

[Doc Roc]

That's the point Doc Roc is making though. In order to be on par with a Druid's pet, you have to munchkin the crap out of your Fighter. In other words, that "leveling path" you're talking about...if a Fighter doesn't make optimal choices for that path, then he's typically strictly inferior to the Druid's pet.

At which point, if you don't want, to use Doc Roc's phrasing, to play Beta to the Alpha Animal Companion, then unless you're willing to optimize, a Fighter is unplayable...at least in any party with a Druid.

Also, there's less social stigma to killing and eating the animal companion. And the druid can replace the freshly jerkied war horse in 24 hours.

[ahenobarbi]

Well it depends on your group. Playing unoptimized character when rest of the team does haevy optimalization is no fun. But all classes are playable...given appropriate environment.

[Silus]

Anything is "playable," but some classes are frustratingly difficult to use in the building of an effective and contributing playing character.
The True Namer comes to mind first, a class that revolves around a scaling skill check difficulty that was poorly planned.

Many of the "unplayable" classes require a high degree of system mastery to make even a moderately contributing member of any given team. Compare a Fighter with a Druid's animal companion, for example.

Just about any and every class can be optimized to heck and back, and tier 1 classes will have more options in this regard (and any other regard), but the problem with many classes tier 4 and below, is that you can effectively do the same thing and more and better with different classes.

JaronK's Tier List, for references. (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=ed4neg5sk0n7a33jt5stvrlgu3&topic=5293)

The whole "I can do anything better than you" thing is what gets me. Sure, if you were playing with only one or two people in a party, I could see how that much optimization and utility would be needed. Even in a group of 4 or so, there's bound to be a spot that's not going to be covered, but chances are, there's going to be some overlap or even some overshadowing.

And honestly, the tier system seems just short of being "THEES EES BEST CLASS".

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the whole tier system and what is "unplayable" only really come into effect with people that optimize their characters beyond the norm.

[Doc Roc]

The whole "I can do anything better than you" thing is what gets me. Sure, if you were playing with only one or two people in a party, I could see how that much optimization and utility would be needed. Even in a group of 4 or so, there's bound to be a spot that's not going to be covered, but chances are, there's going to be some overlap or even some overshadowing.

And honestly, the tier system seems just short of being "THEES EES BEST CLASS".

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the whole tier system and what is "unplayable" only really come into effect with people that optimize their characters beyond the norm.


:: snaps ::
You don't like it. So it's wrong. Go, go forth, and have fun.

[DoctorGlock]

Why did I call them unplayable?

It has nothing to do with munchkining the crap out of things, it has everything to do with the class no being able to fulfill it's given role or contribute.

A fighter is supposed to be a deadly warrior, firm and resolute, protected by resolve and steel. He folds to the first will save, AC does nothing and without significant optimization he cannot hit. He cannot put out enough damage because enemies are always moving denying him the opportunity to full attack, and in core only he will never have the means to make a single attack matter.

The monk is even worse. He is supposed to be a wise aesthetic scholar and warrior. He hits less often than the fighter, his abilities do not synch (fast move+full attack?), his AC is somehow worse and does not have any skills to be a scholar.

The ranger suffers from the above and from the fact that archery does not work.

The paladin has the same write up as the fighter but with worse stats like the monk and a revoltingly restrictive code of conduct.

[Draconi Redfir]

Granted i dont get much into it because i beleive the system to be wrong, but i think what it's saying is essentually

"if it cant do magic, it can't do anything."

[Silus]

:: snaps ::
You don't like it. So it's wrong. Go, go forth, and have fun.

*Sigh* Methinks I just need more gaming experience to understand. The group that I played with was pretty un-optimized and this never came up. Heck, one of the guys played a Ranger/Monk gestalt and nobody commented on it beyond the gestalt thing.

Or maybe I should not be typing up this stuff at 7AM on only two hours of sleep.



Why did I call them unplayable?

It has nothing to do with munchkining the crap out of things, it has everything to do with the class no being able to fulfill it's given role or contribute.

A fighter is supposed to be a deadly warrior, firm and resolute, protected by resolve and steel. He folds to the first will save, AC does nothing and without significant optimization he cannot hit. He cannot put out enough damage because enemies are always moving denying him the opportunity to full attack, and in core only he will never have the means to make a single attack matter.

The monk is even worse. He is supposed to be a wise aesthetic scholar and warrior. He hits less often than the fighter, his abilities do not synch (fast move+full attack?), his AC is somehow worse and does not have any skills to be a scholar.

The ranger suffers from the above and from the fact that archery does not work.

The paladin has the same write up as the fighter but with worse stats like the monk and a revoltingly restrictive code of conduct.

Seems to me that the classes are being looked at on a class-by-class basis as opposed to "how can they work in a group?", which is more how they should be looked at. At least in my experience, one does not go toe-to-toe with an encounter on one's own. One guy tried that, got eaten by a bug.

[AugustNights]

But a Druid can only have so many pets at a time, and, unless I'm mistaken, cannot tailor their leveling path to their own needs/preference, correct?

Defense statted and geared Fighter vs a druid pet of the same level for example.

I think that's part of the problem.
You are comparing an entire class against a single aspect of another.
And the results are iffy.

EDIT: The tier system... is actually without optimization... it's just a summation of the very issue at hand. A cleric, without even trying, will do the fighter's job. The fighter will need to try, have a level of system mastery, and a degree of luck, to do their job. That is not very fun. Playing should be fun.
Thus unplayable could be used.

[sonofzeal]

The True Namer comes to mind first, a class that revolves around a scaling skill check difficulty that was poorly planned.

I'm playing one right now, at lvl 9. Even without a masterwork tool and custom magic items, and without Paragnostic Assembly for that matter, I'm still more or less compeditive on the skill checks. If I could take 10 on Truenaming (I can't), I'd have 5/day use of 12 different utterances. That's not that bad. If my utterances were Sorcerer Spells Known, I'd be doing alright.

The problem with Truenamer isn't the DCs. The DCs are a little harsh, but even just dropping them to (10+2*XYZ) instead of (15+2*XYZ) would bring them entirely within reason.

The problem is that Truenaming sucks. Almost none extend beyond 60 feet. Almost none last longer than 5 rounds. Almost none affect more than a single target. And every single mechanic seems tilted against them.

Take Casting Defensively, for example. An Arcane caster has to make a static Concentration skill check. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, a DC 15 Concentration check removes the chance of an AOO. Truenamers, instead, get +5 on the DC of their Truespeaking - already a harsh penalty - and get an additional +5 for every other attacker! It's completely out of line with any other subsystem, and becomes even worse when you realize the Truenamer class seems intended to be a sort of pseudo-gish with medium BAB, light armor, and a large number of melee buff utterances.

You can keep your DCs, they're manageable, just as long as there's something worth doing when I can manage to pass the check.

[Draconi Redfir]

*Sigh* Methinks I just need more gaming experience to understand. The group that I played with was pretty un-optimized and this never came up. Heck, one of the guys played a Ranger/Monk gestalt and nobody commented on it beyond the gestalt thing.

Or maybe I should not be typing up this stuff at 7AM on only two hours of sleep.

Nahh, you just got one of the good groups that don't know about the teir system. Stick with em, don't tell em about it. Trust me, its alot more fun this way.

[Helldog]

Or maybe I should not be typing up this stuff at 7AM on only two hours of sleep.
I agree with this totally.

[Silus]

Nahh, you just got one of the good groups that don't know about the teir system. Stick with em, don't tell em about it. Trust me, its alot more fun this way.

Oh I wish I could have stuck with'em, but they're back in Florida and I'm stuck in Texas. And they started playing 4E (I won't get into my dislike of hat edition here).

[Doc Roc]

Nahh, you just got one of the good groups that don't know about the teir system. Stick with em, don't tell em about it. Trust me, its alot more fun this way.

Ignorance is not the solution. If you can't trust your friends with system knowledge, there is something seriously wrong here that no revision or lack of vision is going to eliminate.

[Greenish]

Ok, here's what I don't get. Why are some classes deemed "unplayable" (Mostly the martial classes)? It sounds like "unplayable" equates to "I can't munchkin like mad".
To answer that question, we'd need to know what is deemed unplayable by whom and where? Because I seriously have no idea what you're talking about.

[DoctorGlock]

Nahh, you just got one of the good groups that don't know about the teir system. Stick with em, don't tell em about it. Trust me, its alot more fun this way.

Not telling a group about a ranking system does not change the fact that one class has as its description "Alter Reality" next to another class with "Hit it with a stick, probably miss", which I was telling my group before I ever heard about the tier system.

Edit: At Greenish- it was me in another thread, I stated my argument here a few posts up.

[Silus]

Ignorance is not the solution. If you can't trust your friends with system knowledge, there is something seriously wrong here that no revision or lack of vision is going to eliminate.

Honestly, in my old group, if someone mentioned the tier system, nobody would really care. We'd still be making our Elf Ranger/Monks named Walker: Planar Ranger with fake beards, Tiefling Swashbuckler/Dervishes, and anthro-Dodo rogues with a magic wardrobe of disguises.




Not telling a group about a ranking system does not change the fact that one class has as its description "Alter Reality" next to another class with "Hit it with a stick, probably miss", which I was telling my group before I ever heard about the tier system.

Edit: At Greenish- it was me in another thread, I stated my argument here a few posts up.

Hey, I wanna stress that I mean/meant no offense or ill will towards you or your opinion. It's something that's been on my mind for a while so I figured (in my lack-of-sleep addled "wisdom") I'd try to figure out what the dealy-o was.

[NOhara24]

*Sigh* Methinks I just need more gaming experience to understand. The group that I played with was pretty un-optimized and this never came up. Heck, one of the guys played a Ranger/Monk gestalt and nobody commented on it beyond the gestalt thing.

Or maybe I should not be typing up this stuff at 7AM on only two hours of sleep.




Seems to me that the classes are being looked at on a class-by-class basis as opposed to "how can they work in a group?", which is more how they should be looked at. At least in my experience, one does not go toe-to-toe with an encounter on one's own. One guy tried that, got eaten by a bug.

No. Classes need to be examined on their own, and their ability to perform their intended role. It's impossible to look at each class based on possible group combinations, namely because there is an infinite number of combinations of classes in a given party.

"Unplayable" happens when a given class is very, very terrible at performing it's intended role. Granted, the only one that I've heard of that's actually "unplayable" is the truenamer, as it's been said before in this thread. All of the other classes tier 5 and up are very playable. The lower tiers become more viable with a more knowledgeable player.

That said, I would say you need more experience. As you spend more and more time optimizing characters, you'll soon see that a solo encounter is far from a death wish.

[Helldog]

Honestly, in my old group, if someone mentioned the tier system, nobody would really care. We'd still be making our Elf Ranger/Monks named Walker: Planar Ranger with fake beards, Tiefling Swashbuckler/Dervishes, and anthro-Dodo rogues with a magic wardrobe of disguises.
But at least you will make an educated choice.

[Wings of Peace]

Honestly, in my old group, if someone mentioned the tier system, nobody would really care. We'd still be making our Elf Ranger/Monks named Walker: Planar Ranger with fake beards, Tiefling Swashbuckler/Dervishes, and anthro-Dodo rogues with a magic wardrobe of disguises.

There's nothing wrong with that style it sounds like you had fun. The tier system doesn't address the fun-level of a class and technically it doesn't address power either (it addresses versatility which just happens to equate to power in 3.0/3.5 D&D). The tier system essentially says "Assuming all other things are equal, here's which classes can do the most by the numbers."

[Doc Roc]

Honestly, in my old group, if someone mentioned the tier system, nobody would really care. We'd still be making our Elf Ranger/Monks named Walker: Planar Ranger with fake beards, Tiefling Swashbuckler/Dervishes, and anthro-Dodo rogues with a magic wardrobe of disguises.

That's better than fine. That's good. I'm not telling you that your fun is wrong, or even that it is endangered. It's part of why I normally don't use the term unplayable for much other than truenamer.

[brujon]

Unplayable is something that cannot contribute meaningfully to a party without *significant* effort by the player. There are no REAAAL unplayable classes in 3.5, with significant optimization, even a commoner can shine(in a party of unoptimized monks).

OP's vision is the classical view of the "roleplay vs rollplay" kind of guy, and is all kinds of wrong. Optimization isn't bad, and min-max is different fom munchkining. That's a pejorative term. Playing on the strenghts of a archetype and minimizing the weaknesses is min-maxing, and it's smart playing. People do that everyday with their aptitudes. Things like "I want to play a Samurai". You can go on and use the OA Samurai, or the CW Samurai... But you can just as easily use a Warblade that focus on Diamond Mind and Iron Heart and refluff, and BAM.( Hell, OOT's has just such an example... See Miko. She's a Samurai... That doesn't have any levels in Samurai.) You'll be much more effective and contribute more to the party that way. Avoid things like TPK's which are definetely not fun, or suddenly realizing that you became useless or just obsolete. Things like avoiding feats that give static benefits such as Toughness or Diehard that aren't prerequisites for a Prestige Class or some other feat that's REALLY useful... Avoid dumping too many points into CHA or WIS because your warrior "Is a real wise and gallant sword-gentleman". Hell, General populace has a 10 or an 11, if you have a 12 you're already above-average beautiful/wise. No need to sink an 18 there.

That said, in that definition of "unplayable", these are the classes from tiers 5 and 6 from JaronK's list. Of course, everything changes if the entire party is Tier 5 or 6, because then their relative power will be balanced and no player will feel shunned or badly outperformed. But a party of tier's 5 & 6 will have *real* trouble facing CR-appropriate encounter where a party of tier 3's would burn minimal resources, and tier's 1 and 2 would just steamroll over.

[DoctorGlock]

Hey, I wanna stress that I mean/meant no offense or ill will towards you or your opinion. It's something that's been on my mind for a while so I figured (in my lack-of-sleep addled "wisdom") I'd try to figure out what the dealy-o was.

No offense taken, I should give the same disclaimer, I often come off as rather terse. If you have different findings than I do, good, but that is what I have found, the rate of turnover from the classes I call unplayable is very high, mostly due to player dissatisfaction with mediocre abilities.

[Draconi Redfir]

Ignorance is not the solution. If you can't trust your friends with system knowledge, there is something seriously wrong here that no revision or lack of vision is going to eliminate.

There is nothing wrong with not knowing about the system, My group doesn’t know about it, and we all play what we want to play, not what the system tells us to play. And you know what? Our group is all the better for it, everyone contributes, everyone is fair in a fight, hell one guy made a monk that punched out a hill giant. By himself

[DoctorGlock]

There is nothing wrong with not knowing about the system, My group doesn’t know about it, and we all play what we want to play, not what the system tells us to play. And you know what? Our group is all the better for it, everyone contributes, everyone is fair in a fight, hell one guy made a monk that punched out a hill giant.

Since when does the system tell you what to play? It tells you what to expect from a class, not "thou shalt not play a monk", rather that "the monk does not alter reality, the wizard does, this is not equal"

[Helldog]

not what the system tells us to play
Who is telling you what to play? :smallconfused:

[sonofzeal]

Alternate title: A sleepy newbie gets educated

Ok, here's what I don't get. Why are some classes deemed "unplayable" (Mostly the martial classes)? It sounds like "unplayable" equates to "I can't munchkin like mad".

"I can't become a God at lvl 1? UNPLAYABLE!"
"I don't have maximum utility? UNPLAYABLE!"
"I can't kill everything in the room just by looking angrily at it? UNPLAYABLE!"

Just how it sounds to me anyway.
Could you perhaps quote a few offending posts for us, so we know what you're talking about without the hyperbole?

I did a google site search (http://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C1LENN_enCA455CA455&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=site%3Awww.giantitp.com+unplayable) for this site and the term "unplayable". I got this thread, a number of comments about video game disks being broken, and one person saying that an ECL 5 character with LA +4 and Fighter 1 is "unplayable". Also some very vehement comments about things not being unplayable.

So... uh, links?

[Silus]

OP's vision is the classical view of the "roleplay vs rollplay" kind of guy, and is all kinds of wrong. Optimization isn't bad, and min-max is different fom munchkining.

To be fair, I've had some pretty bad experiences with optimization and min-maxing. An Owlbear rogue that could not only hide in plain sight (BOO! HISS!) but could easily grapple and subdue a creature at least 4 CR higher than it and was designed to give the party a hard time.



Could you perhaps quote a few offending posts for us, so we know what you're talking about without the hyperbole?

I did a google site search (http://www.google.ca/search?rlz=1C1LENN_enCA455CA455&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=site%3Awww.giantitp.com+unplayable) for this site and the term "unplayable". I got this thread, a number of comments about video game disks being broken, and one person saying that an ECL 5 character with LA +4 and Fighter 1 is "unplayable". Also some very vehement comments about things not being unplayable.

So... uh, links?

Sorry, sorry. It's mostly a combination thing between the tier system and optimization and how some classes are just deemed "crappy" in relation to other classes (Fighter vs Druid pet seems to be popular).

[LordBlades]

The whole "I can do anything better than you" thing is what gets me. Sure, if you were playing with only one or two people in a party, I could see how that much optimization and utility would be needed. Even in a group of 4 or so, there's bound to be a spot that's not going to be covered, but chances are, there's going to be some overlap or even some overshadowing.

And honestly, the tier system seems just short of being "THEES EES BEST CLASS".

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that the whole tier system and what is "unplayable" only really come into effect with people that optimize their characters beyond the norm.

Actually, the tier system doesn't assume crazy optimization, but rather equal level of optimization from everyone involved. Some classes simply do the job of other classes better without trying too much. A warblade does anything a fighter does except better, an unarmed swordsage does the same for monk, factotum for rogue etc.

That being said I wouldn't go that far as to call a given class 'unplayable' apart from a very specific context. For example a tier 4-6, like let's say monk or samurai is unplayable if the rest of your party is decently optimized tier 1-2s.

[Doc Roc]

Who is telling you what to play? :smallconfused:

I mean, I am. You really should play Legend, I think. I've got a bias though. But I mean, THE THOUSAND[s of] COMBINATIONS OF THE LEGEND TRACKS DESCEND UPON YOU NOW. MY SELF-RESPECT WILL BURN TO THE GROUND.

[HunterOfJello]

The Tier System for Classes was very thoroughly thought out and has been debated to death by players of D&D up to its current version. Most people who play the game for long periods of time and get a good handle on the different classes end up agreeing with the outline set forth by the Tier System.

Take a moment to stop looking at the structure of the tiers and what all sorts of people in other threads have posted. Read the entire Tier System for Classes (Repost) (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=pav67ob7kmfmo9vr0kbocr8dk5&topic=5293) along with the introduction, explanation, DM suggestions, and FAQ. If you have further questions about a specific class or want more information about why some classes are deemed to be in the lower tiers than others, then check out the Why each class is in its Tier thread (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5070.0).


You seem to be currently arguing from a position of ignorance. You should change that. Each class was analyzed based on usefulness at its own role (not overall power) and versatility. The classes are not analyzed based on the use of cheese/munchkining/heavy optimization. They are also not analyzed based on the use of Prestige Classes. However, they are analyzed based on the use of splatbooks and the occasional Dragon Magazine entry. This is why Bards and Wildshape Rangers are in Tier 3. Bards got quite a bit better after Core from all of the extra feats and options they can choose from in other books. Rangers got the option of Wildshaping from one of the Dragon Magazine entires.

Note: If you want to include Prestige Classes into the mix, then check out the Tier System for PrCs (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0) thread.

[Gnaeus]

Figuring out what is "unplayable" is the central idea of practical optimization.

In a group with a Monk, a Ninja, and a sword and board fighter, even a moderately optimized wizard or cleric is probably unplayable. He will so dominate most games that the others will have difficulty contributing, and it strains credibility that he would adventure with those guys and give them an equal share of treasure.

Similarly, in a group with a druid, wizard and cleric, the CW samurai is probably unplayable. unless most fights are in anti-magic fields (and maybe even then, depending on optimization level), anything that threatens his buddies is out of the samurai's league.

Finally, it depends not only on party, but on DM. If your DM believes that monsters should be optimized, and NPCs should be optimized, and doesn't pull punches, a low tier character may only be a placeholder for a few games before death leads to reroll. If the DM customizes challenges to party level, a Monk/Warmage/Ninja/Samurai/Healer party will fare just as well as a Psion/Warblade/Wizard/Archivist/Artificer party, they will just fight weaker stuff. Neither way is wrong.

[sonofzeal]

To be fair, I've had some pretty bad experiences with optimization and min-maxing. An Owlbear rogue that could not only hide in plain sight (BOO! HISS!) but could easily grapple and subdue a creature at least 4 CR higher than it and was designed to give the party a hard time.

Er.... Owlbears aren't a playable race, even if they were Owlbears don't have sufficient Int to legally take PC classes, and even if they did Rogues don't get HiPS, and even if they did Owlbears eat a nasty penalty to Hide for being large.

This sounds like a DM's pet pseudo-homebrew monster. That's got nothing to do with optimization and everything to do with your DM.

[LordBlades]

Sorry, sorry. It's mostly a combination thing between the tier system and optimization and how some classes are just deemed "crappy" in relation to other classes (Fighter vs Druid pet seems to be popular).

Sorry to tell you, but some classes ARE crappy in comparison with other classes. This doesn't mean that it's wrong to play those classes in a game that's suited to their power and abilities.

[Greenish]

To be fair, I've had some pretty bad experiences with optimization and min-maxing. An Owlbear rogue that could not only hide in plain sight (BOO! HISS!) but could easily grapple and subdue a creature at least 4 CR higher than it and was designed to give the party a hard time.Ah, you've hit on something that can be accurately described as unplayable: races without level adjustment (such as, say, owlbear) are, by the rules, unplayable as player characters.

That sounds more like the DM and the player didn't understand the rules about playing monstrous races than min-maxing.

[Edit]:
Rangers got the option of Wildshaping from one of the Dragon Magazine entires.Wildshape Ranger is from UA.

[Leon]

Anything is "playable"

Many of the less favored classes are the ones that don't optimize well or have to work hard to reach a state of brokenness versus the ones that can do it by bumbling around with a blindfold on.


the tier system seems just short of being "THEES EES BEST CLASS".


Pretty much what it is.

It like all Homebrew should be examined and judged by the person wanting to use it as to whether its of any use. It is just a shame it clogs up the forum so much so often.

What number crunching says is best and what actually is when played by a person are two totally different things - like the much maligned Blaster Archetype of the Wizard, it is a perfectly valid and effective way to play the class.

Similarly the Healer Archetype is oft deemed not optimal - why is this such a big matter? Is it not better to have a character option to do what people may find useful and good to play with.

[Gullintanni]

I just want to clarify something about Jaronk's Tier system, as it is a useful tool. The Tiers are not necessarily a measure of relative power, but rather, a measure of relative ability to contribute. Certainly power is an element of it, but it's very far from the primary consideration (Tier 1 and 2 aside).

Tier 1 and 2 are a bit of an odd case. Tier 2 and Tier 1 have the same ceiling of power. Both are equally capable of breaking the game. The differentiating factor between the two is how much variety a given class has available to it to break the game. Clerics, Wizards and Druids have many ways to break the game; whereas Sorcerers and Psions have few, but both can do it.

Tier 3 and 4 function exactly the same way. Both can effectively contribute, but Tier 3 can contribute most of the time, whereas Tier 4 can only contribute in one or two ways. Generally speaking though, when they can contribute, Tier 4's can be expected to contribute approximately as much as a Tier 3.

Tier 5 in theory should do many things but not very well, and Tier 6 is reserved for classes that do nothing at all particularly well.

If you're not getting results or seeing how the Tier system might be applicable, your assumptions about the Tier system may be wrong. Many mistake it as a linear projection of power, with each Tier being more powerful than the Tier before it. This is not at all the case. The Tier system assumes equal levels of optimization, and at those levels of optimization strives to measure how often a character can meaningfully contribute in any given situation.

[Draconi Redfir]

Since when does the system tell you what to play? It tells you what to expect from a class, not "thou shalt not play a monk", rather that "the monk does not alter reality, the wizard does, this is not equal"


Who is telling you what to play? :smallconfused:

Last time i said "i want to play a monk" on this board, i was instantly assaulted with "WTF NO! SWRDSAGE IZ BETTER! JUZ CALL IT MONK INSTD!"

When really all i wanted to do was play a monk.

[DoctorGlock]

Last time i said "i want to play a monk" on this board, i was instantly assaulted with "WTF NO! SWRDSAGE IZ BETTER! JUZ CALL IT MONK INSTD!"

When really all i wanted to do was play a monk.

That's people telling you what to play, not the tier system's doctrine. Clearly anyone who says "PLY TEH SWORDSAGE CUZ IT T3!!1!" is misunderstanding the system just as much.

If they are telling you this because the monk in fact does not function as advertised however, then they are doing the right thing. If you want the archetype rather than the class, why not us e a class that works? If you want the class then why do you want something that does not function?

[Helldog]

Last time i said "i want to play a monk" on this board, i was instantly assaulted with "WTF NO! SWRDSAGE IZ BETTER! JUZ CALL IT MONK INSTD!"

When really all i wanted to do was play a monk.
Link or it didn't happen.

@ Leon
No.

[Silus]

Er.... Owlbears aren't a playable race, even if they did Owlbears don't have sufficient Int to legally take PC classes, and even if they did Rogues don't get HiPS, and even if they did Owlbears eat a nasty penalty to Hide for being large.

This sounds like a DM's pet pseudo-homebrew monster. That's got nothing to do with optimization and everything to do with your DM.


Ah, you've hit on something that can be accurately described as unplayable: races without level adjustment (such as, say, owlbear) are, by the rules, unplayable as player characters.

That sounds more like the DM and the player didn't understand the rules about playing monstrous races than min-maxing.

GitP monster advancement level....thing (Take a level in Owlbear, take a level in Rogue, ect. ect) + Wilderness Rogue (for HiPS) + min-max Munchkining Hide and Move Silently (Magic Items, Skill Focus, ect. ect.). Wasn't my character, I was DMing the game (first time DMing. Learned quite a bit).

Only thing that managed to smack'em around was a horde of Evolved Shadows.

[Doc Roc]

Last time i said "i want to play a monk" on this board, i was instantly assaulted with "WTF NO! SWRDSAGE IZ BETTER! JUZ CALL IT MONK INSTD!"

When really all i wanted to do was play a monk.

:: clenches eyes shut ::
So, because well-meaning people offered advice often derived from painful experience, you've come to believe that we're fundamentally wrong about classes and relative power levels? And that knowing these things be wrong?

Let me lay down a thick blast of enlightenment. We care about this stuff largely because most of us are GMs. We have to carefully tune, tweak, and tease encounters to fit disparate parties all the time. We have to worry about how solid fog will affect the fighter. It's painful. It increases our work load very considerably.

[Helldog]

I don't understand all the people who yell "The Tier System is teh EVULZ, it tells me what to play, I won't use it!!!111!!"

It's like not looking at the menu in a restaurant because it tells you how tasty the dishes are and how much they cost. :smallannoyed:

[sonofzeal]

Sorry, sorry. It's mostly a combination thing between the tier system and optimization and how some classes are just deemed "crappy" in relation to other classes (Fighter vs Druid pet seems to be popular).
Well, yes. Certain classes are categorically more effective than others. I'm a fan of the Tier system, I have it bookmarked, I refer to it fairly regularly.

And I'm playing a Truenamer right now.



Here's the thing - acknowledging the mechanical strength of one class over another does not dictate what I'll play. If I want godlike power, well that's a solved problem pazuzupazuzupazuzu and I can move on to playing what I want to play.

As a player, I tend to aim for lower-Tier classes unless I have something specific in mind, because I know I optimize better than the rest of my group and I could use the handicap to keep the playing field more level. As a DM I use it to nudge less-experienced players towards higher-Tier classes, or to give them extra advantages if they play lower tier classes. I'll be more strict with experienced players or high-Tier classes. This, again, helps even the playing field a little.

So... again, what are you arguing against, can you quote instances where people said something you thought was objectionable? How common are those sorts of posts?

[Greenish]

GitP monster advancement level....thing (Take a level in Owlbear, take a level in Rogue, ect. ect) + Wilderness Rogue (for HiPS) + min-max Munchkining Hide and Move Silently (Magic Items, Skill Focus, ect. ect.). Wasn't my character, I was DMing the game (first time DMing. Learned quite a bit).So that was a level 17 character focusing on stealth and grappling on a rogue chassis. Interesting, but it really doesn't sound optimized. At all.

Also, it seems we have a different definition of "muchkining", if Skill Focus and magic items for improving certain skills are it for you. :smallamused:

[Leon]

Anything is "playable"

Many of the less favored classes are the ones that don't optimize well or have to work hard to reach a state of brokenness versus the ones that can do it by bumbling around with a blindfold on.


the tier system seems just short of being "THEES EES BEST CLASS".


Pretty much what it is.

It like all Homebrew should be examined and judged by the person wanting to use it as to whether its of any use. It is just a shame it clogs up the forum so much so often.

What number crunching says is best and what actually is when played by a person are two totally different things - like the much maligned Blaster Archetype of the Wizard, it is a perfectly valid and effective way to play the class.

Similarly the Healer Archetype is oft deemed not optimal - why is this such a big matter? Is it not better to have a character option to do what people may find useful and good to play with.

[HunterOfJello]

GitP monster advancement level....thing (Take a level in Owlbear, take a level in Rogue, ect. ect) + Wilderness Rogue (for HiPS) + min-max Munchkining Hide and Move Silently (Magic Items, Skill Focus, ect. ect.). Wasn't my character, I was DMing the game (first time DMing. Learned quite a bit).

Only thing that managed to smack'em around was a horde of Evolved Shadows.


The Hide in Plain Sight ability on a Wilderness Rogue requires 13 levels of Rogue. An Owlbear has 4 racial HD and is normally too stupid to take class levels.

Assuming a crazy wizard cast Wish five times on the owlbear to increase its intelligence up to 7, and the owlbear then went out and learned how to become a rogue, the Owlbear Rogue 13 would have an ECL of 17 minimum.

Was the party a group of level 17+ characters? Otherwise, your group is using modified rules and should have their characters regarded as such.

[Ziegander]

Also, it seems we have a different definition of "muchkining", if Skill Focus and magic items for improving certain skills are it for you. :smallamused:

I actually find this to be a common definition of the term when used by gamers that don't frequent D&D forums. It seems that most all non-forumers I play with think that if you spend more than one resource on synergizing with a particular ability, then you are min-maxing (taking power attack and leap attack, for example; or maxing your Dexterity, taking improved Initiative, and using a Hummingbird familiar).

[AugustNights]

Many of the less favored classes are the ones that don't optimize well or have to work hard to reach a state of brokenness versus the ones that can do it by bumbling around with a blindfold on.

These classes that are easily broken, are also the ones that do their job well.
These are separate facts.
As an example of something that doesn't fall into both categories: ToB classes are good at their job, are popular on these boards, and are difficult to be game-breaking with.

That said, Even CW samurai has been "Broken" in Charop.
Anything can be optimized, even commoners.

[Silus]

Homebrew then.

I should have ruled the Owlbear gets with with the level drain from the "Evolved Shadow Nether Hound Wight, Rogue 4 (CR 12) " midboss for each round it was grappled....



So... again, what are you arguing against, can you quote instances where people said something you thought was objectionable? How common are those sorts of posts?

I'm not really arguing against anything (I think). It's more of a "I don't get it, what's the big flippin' deal?" kinda thing.

Thing that set me off (so to speak) was DoctorGlock's comment in this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=228303&page=6) thread regarding "fighter/monk/paladin/ranger is unplayable". Now I disagree with this notion on the grounds that at least in the games I played (not very optimized games, but enough to have the characters be good at their jobs), the martial classes tended to be the most useful. Played a Paladin for a campaign. Tanked more and killed more than the rest of the party combined with only Power Attack, Monkey Grip and Extra Smite, in addition to being the face of the party.

At least in the games that I've played (1-2 times a weekend for ~ a year thus far, going on +6 campaigns at least) the lower tier classes were more useful than the upper tier classes, so I'm having trouble understanding how a wizard or a druid is "better" than a paladin or a fighter when my experience says otherwise.


So that was a level 17 character focusing on stealth and grappling on a rogue chassis. Interesting, but it really doesn't sound optimized. At all.

Also, it seems we have a different definition of "muchkining", if Skill Focus and magic items for improving certain skills are it for you. :smallamused:

He was that "Chaotic Neutral" one-trick-pony kinda person. I'm sure I misused the term, but "munchkin" seemed appropriate when he's pulling magic items from the Magic Item compendium and everyone else is dipping into the more "balanced" books (Dm guide for example).

And he was lvl 9 (split between Rogue and Owlbear) and somehow had ~15-24 Hide mod. Or something. The elemental summoning Aasamar Paladin (class variant from a Dragon mag) was less trouble and his Daylight spell put the midboss out of commission.



The Hide in Plain Sight ability on a Wilderness Rogue requires 13 levels of Rogue. An Owlbear has 4 racial HD and is normally too stupid to take class levels.

Assuming a crazy wizard cast Wish five times on the owlbear to increase its intelligence up to 7, and the owlbear then went out and learned how to become a rogue, the Owlbear Rogue 13 would have an ECL of 17 minimum.

Was the party a group of level 17+ characters? Otherwise, your group is using modified rules and should have their characters regarded as such.

It was either the Rogue skill/ability that he cheated on without telling anyone, or it was a magic item from the Magic Item Compendium (which my group ended up banning). The guy was a cheat to be honest. Didn't inform the first time DM (me) about the HiPS rules and pulled the ability while indoors in an unnatural setting.

Like I said, I learned quite a bit from that game.

[Gullintanni]

At least in the games that I've played (1-2 times a weekend for ~ a year thus far, going on +6 campaigns at least) the lower tier classes were more useful than the upper tier classes, so I'm having trouble understanding how a wizard or a druid is "better" than a paladin or a fighter when my experience says otherwise.

I can honestly tell you that this doesn't match up to the common experience on these boards, and that I've also had exactly the same experience as you.

Coming from a position of system mastery, I know that the reason you're having this experience (and the reason I've DM'd groups that have this experience) is because the Tier 1s are either being played badly or without splat support. It is entirely possible with say a Cleric or a Wizard to pick spells that will be of little to no benefit in a given variety of situations. Especially if those classes focus on blasting and healing.

Healing is best done out of combat, and strictly speaking, damage is the one thing martial classes ARE good at; while the typical Wizard is not. Those same Clerics and Wizards could choose to prepare different spells on a given day and absolutely wreck encounters. That being said, the archetypal ways to play Wizards and Clerics (as Blasters and Healers) are the least effective uses of those classes. That's probably why you're having the experience you're having.

If your D&D play style is tailored to kick-in-the-door combat centric gameplay, and both your Wizards and your Fighters focus on unoptimized damage dealing, your Fighters will probably outshine your Wizards.

[DigoDragon]

It's like not looking at the menu in a restaurant because it tells you how tasty the dishes are and how much they cost. :smallannoyed:

Have you seen those pictures?! With their... perfectly cut portions of vegitables and juicy strips of meat? It's too much pressure for a hungry man to handle! :smallwink:


But yeah, what Helldog said. Assuming all outside forces are equal, yes the tier system seems to hold true. However, that shouldn't stop people from playing what they want. Much like "The Pirates Code"-- They're not so much rules as just guidelines.

[Greenish]

I should have ruled the Owlbear gets with with the level drain from the "Evolved Shadow Nether Hound Wight, Rogue 4 (CR 12) " midboss for each round it was grappled....CR 12 should be soloable by ECL 17 character. :smallamused:

Also, stacking templates can leave your monsters surprisingly fragile for their CR.

[Silus]

CR 12 should be soloable by ECL 17 character. :smallamused:

Also, stacking templates can leave your monsters surprisingly fragile for their CR.

Well the Owlbear was lvl 9 (as was the rest of the party). And the miniboss was backed by ~ 9 Advanced Evolved Shadows in a room with unnatural magical darkness (No darkvision and torches only showed like 1/2 the proper distance at least). If it wasn't for the Owlbear or the Daylight spell (Again, i learned some things. Like to review the player's characters to know what they are capable of), the party would have been slaughtered.

Stats so you can see what I threw at them:

Evolved Shadow Nether Hound Wight, Rogue 4 (Advanced Hit Dice) CR 12
Always Chaotic Evil Medium Undead (Magical Beast)
Init +7

AC 21 FF 16 Touch 12
(+2 Dex, +6 natural)
DR: 5/+1
Resistances: Acid, Electric 10, Fire 5, Sonic 10
HD: 12
HP: 70
Fort +3 Ref +2 Will +8

Speed 55 ft. (9 squares), Climb 20
Base Atk +7 Grp +8
Attack: Slam +12 1d4+5, +4 Profane Necrotic Focus Sickle +16 1d6+9
Full Attack: Slam +12 1d4+5
Space 5 ft. (1 squares) Reach 5 ft. (1 squares)
Abilities Str 20(+5) Dex 15(+2) Con -- Int 10(0) Wis 12(+1) Cha 18(+4)
Stat Points Gained From Advancement: 2

Total Feats: 5
Feats: Alertness, Blind-Fight, Improved Initiative, Run Track

Skill Points: 91
Skills: Appraise +3, Balance +5, Bluff +4, Climb +11, Craft (Trapmaking) +3, Decipher Script +3, Diplomacy +4, Disable Device +3, Disguise +4, Escape Artist +5, Forgery +3, Gather Information +4, Hide +5, Intimidate +4, Jump +3, Knowledge (Local) +3, Listen +8, Move Silently +11, Open Lock +5, Perform (Percussion instruments) +4, Search +9, Sense Motive +2, Sleight of Hand +5, Spot +8, Survival +6, Swim +3, Tumble +5, Use Magic Device +4, Use Rope +5

Create spawn(Su): Any humanoid slain by a wight becomes a wight in 1d4 rounds. Spawn are under the command of the wight that created them and remain enslaved until its death. They do not possess any of the abilities they had in life.

Energy drain(Su): Fortitude save DC 22(+4 HD, +0 Racial, +4 Cha, +0 Feat)
Living creatures hit by a wight's slam attack gain one negative level. The DC is 14 for the Fortitude save to remove a negative level. The save DC is Charisma-based. For each such negative level bestowed, the wight gains 5 temporary hit points.

Attacks = Magic
Scent
Disease: Demon Fever
Darkvision(Ex): 60 ft.
Low-Light Vision
Cold Immunity

Shadow Blend: In any conditions other than full Daylight, a shadow creature can disappear into the shadows, giving it 9/10 concealment. Artificial illumination, even a Light or Continual Flame spell, does not negate this ability. A Daylight spell, however, will.

Undead traits(Ex):

Sneak Attack(Ex): +((HD+1)/2)d6 damage while sneak attacking. If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage. The rogue's attack deals extra damage any time her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet. With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual -4 penalty. A rogue can sneak attack only living creatures with discernible anatomies-undead, constructs, oozes, plants, and incorporeal creatures lack vital areas to attack. Any creature that is immune to critical hits is not vulnerable to sneak attacks. The rogue must be able to see the target well enough to pick out a vital spot and must be able to reach such a spot. A rogue cannot sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or striking the limbs of a creature whose vitals are beyond reach.

Evasion(Ex): At 2nd level and higher, a rogue can avoid even magical and unusual attacks with great agility. If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage. Evasion can be used only if the rogue is wearing light armor or no armor. A helpless rogue does not gain the benefit of evasion.

Uncanny Dodge(Ex): Starting at 4th level, a rogue can react to danger before her senses would normally allow her to do so. She retains her Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) even if she is caught flat-footed or struck by an invisible attacker. However, she still loses her Dexterity bonus to AC if immobilized.

Cause Fear 1/Day
Spell Like Ability: Haste 1/Day, Greater Invisibility 1/Day
Fast healing 3
Regeneration 2

Yowling: Each round as a Free Action, the Nether Hound may
Yowl. All creatures (except for Undead & Evil Outsiders) within 100’ are Shaken (WillNeg, DC is Charisma-based) for as long as they are within 100’ for the Nether Hound. On a successful save, the creature is immune to that Nether Hound’s Yowling for 24 hours. This is a Sonic, Mind-Affecting, Fear effect.


Advancement [5-8(Medium)]

Shadow (Advanced Hit Dice) CR 5
Always Chaotic Evil Medium Undead ([Incorporeal])
Init +2

AC 14 FF 12 Touch 14
(+2 Dex, +2 deflection)
HD: 9
HP: 58 (9d12+0)
Fort +3 Ref +5 Will +7

Speed Fly 40 ft. (good) (8 squares)
Base Atk +4 Grp +4
Attack: Incorporeal touch +4 1d6+0
Full Attack: Incorporeal touch +4 1d6+0
Space 5 ft. (1 squares) Reach 5 ft. (1 squares)

Abilities Str -- Dex 14(+2) Con -- Int 6(-2) Wis 12(+1) Cha 15(+2)
Stat Points Gained From Advancement: 2

Total Feats: 4
Feats: Alertness, Dodge

Skill Points: 24
Skills: Hide +8, Listen +7, Search +4, Spot +7

Create spawn(Su): Any humanoid reduced to Strength 0 by a shadow becomes a shadow under the control of its killer within 1d4 rounds.
strength damage(Su): The touch of a greater shadow deals 1d8 points of Strength damage to a living foe.
Darkvision(Ex): 60 ft.
incorporeal traits(Ex):
+(Ex): 2 turn resistance
undead traits(Ex):

Fast Healing 3

Spell-Like Ability: Creeping Doom as Caster Level (9 HD), saves are Charisma Based

Advancement [4-9(Medium)]
Link for 3.5 version of creature
Link for Pathfinder version of creature

This was vs a monk/ranger gestalt, a Pathfinder Summoner, a paladin, a Deathless....Necromancer(?) the Owlbear Rogue.

[Ziegander]

Well the Owlbear was lvl 9 (as was the rest of the party). And the miniboss was backed by ~ 9 Advanced Evolved Shadows in a room with unnatural magical darkness (No darkvision and torches only showed like 1/2 the proper distance at least). If it wasn't for the Owlbear or the Daylight spell (Again, i learned some things. Like to review the player's characters to know what they are capable of), the party would have been slaughtered.

It just sounds like, to me and I'm sure a few others in this thread, that you have come to view the Tier system, system mastery, and optimizing in general in a negative light because you had a player that literally cheated and lied and because you allowed these things to happen because you were an inexperienced DM.

[Greenish]

He was that "Chaotic Neutral" one-trick-pony kinda person. I'm sure I misused the term, but "munchkin" seemed appropriate when he's pulling magic items from the Magic Item compendium and everyone else is dipping into the more "balanced" books (Dm guide for example).DMG items are not more balanced than MIC ones. More like the other way around, with DMG items pretty much having random prices, sometimes ridiculously low (hi there Candle of Invocation), sometimes way too high (Amulet of Mighty Fists).

Using permitted sourcebooks is hardly munchkining. Munchkings are the people who intentionally build overpowered characters, cheat, and try to "win the game".


And he was lvl 9 (split between Rogue and Owlbear) and somehow had ~15-24 Hide mod.12 ranks + (let's say) 3 dex + 2 skill focus + 5 cloak of elvenkind = 22. That's basically without even trying. (Skill Focus, :smalltongue:)

I don't think you're allowed to stop taking levels from the monster class until you've taken them all, and even if all of his levels were in wilderness rogue, he wouldn't have had HiPS.


It was either the Rogue skill/ability that he cheated on without telling anyone, or it was a magic item from the Magic Item Compendium (which my group ended up banning).There is no item granting HiPS in MIC. There is one in ToM, though.

I hope I misunderstood, but did your group ban MIC because you thought a known cheater might've gotten one of his abilities from it? I don't think that's correct, so why did you ban it?

[Silus]

It just sounds like, to me and I'm sure a few others in this thread, that you have come to view the Tier system, system mastery, and optimizing in general in a negative light because you had a player that literally cheated and lied and because you allowed these things to happen because you were an inexperienced DM.

I suppose so....:smallfrown:

The tier system doesn't make much sense due to my gaming experiences (I played with a group that made characters that were fun, not what had the most utility and whatnot), the campaigns never lasted long enough for us to actually get ahold on what was good past lvl 6, and I've no problems with optimization, so long as it's not one-trick-pony optimization (the Owlbear player did that with almost all of his characters and complained if/when that one trick was mess with).

I wanna understand and get, well, better.



DMG items are not more balanced than MIC ones. More like the other way around, with DMG items pretty much having random prices, sometimes ridiculously low (hi there Candle of Invocation), sometimes way too high (Amulet of Mighty Fists).

Using permitted sourcebooks is hardly munchkining. Munchkings are the people who intentionally build overpowered characters, cheat, and try to "win the game".

12 ranks + (let's say) 3 dex + 2 skill focus + 5 cloak of elvenkind = 22. That's basically without even trying. (Skill Focus, :smalltongue:)

I don't think you're allowed to stop taking levels from the monster class until you've taken them all, and even if all of his levels were in wilderness rogue, he wouldn't have had HiPS.

There is no item granting HiPS in MIC. There is one in ToM, though.

I hope I misunderstood, but did your group ban MIC because you thought a known cheater might've gotten one of his abilities from it? I don't think that's correct, so why did you ban it?

The ban was mostly due to the perceived absurd price vs power of the MIC items. At lvl 5, the guy in question had the starting gold (as handed out by the DM at the time) to drop a Huge Monstrous Scorpion on the party using a magic item from the book. Now, for an unoptomized group, that's one of those things you run away from pretty fast, especially when it grapples your two best people and the caster (a rogue, played by a guy that knew Rogues inside and out) is safe up in a tree.

Edit: Might have been Large instead. Regardless, the thing did a number on us before the DM retconned the encounter and let us try again.

[Medic!]

Unfortunately, here in the MMO age a mentality has surfaced that if something isn't "best in slot" than it's garbage. In our groups the monks and rangers and elves contribute just as much to the party effort as wizards, clerics, and Dragonborn Koboldwrought Lesser Lycanthropic Lichpire Crusader 1/Swordsage 1/Initiate of the Seven Carbohydrate Drink/etc etc etc

While there is a definate disparity in capabilities, it's a multiplayer game and everyone at the table is responsible to everyone else to make it as enjoyable of an experience as possible. That's literally the only thing that really matters. If that means the DM cheating monster ACs down a point or two so the monk can toss a highfive worth of Flurry of Dice now and again than so be it; If it means the wizard dropping a fireball instead of a cloudkill because the fighter just burned a feat on Great Cleave, so be it.

tl;dr Robots don't run games and strict statistical superiority sounds good but it's like picking a wife based on her measurements. Each character is a unique flower etc etc

[Helldog]

Unfortunately, here in the MMO age a mentality has surfaced that if something isn't "best in slot" than it's garbage. In our groups the monks and rangers and elves contribute just as much to the party effort as wizards, clerics, and Dragonborn Koboldwrought Lesser Lycanthropic Lichpire Crusader 1/Swordsage 1/Initiate of the Seven Carbohydrate Drink/etc etc etc

While there is a definate disparity in capabilities, it's a multiplayer game and everyone at the table is responsible to everyone else to make it as enjoyable of an experience as possible. That's literally the only thing that really matters. If that means the DM cheating monster ACs down a point or two so the monk can toss a highfive worth of Flurry of Dice now and again than so be it; If it means the wizard dropping a fireball instead of a cloudkill because the fighter just burned a feat on Great Cleave, so be it.

tl;dr Robots don't run games and strict statistical superiority sounds good but it's like picking a wife based on her measurements. Each character is a unique flower etc etc
Not everyone plays that way.

[HunterOfJello]

And I'd argue that a core only fighter/monk/paladin/ranger is unplayable.


Thing that set me off (so to speak) was DoctorGlock's comment in this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=228303&page=6) thread regarding "fighter/monk/paladin/ranger is unplayable". Now I disagree with this notion on the grounds that at least in the games I played (not very optimized games, but enough to have the characters be good at their jobs), the martial classes tended to be the most useful. Played a Paladin for a campaign. Tanked more and killed more than the rest of the party combined with only Power Attack, Monkey Grip and Extra Smite, in addition to being the face of the party.

At least in the games that I've played (1-2 times a weekend for ~ a year thus far, going on +6 campaigns at least) the lower tier classes were more useful than the upper tier classes, so I'm having trouble understanding how a wizard or a druid is "better" than a paladin or a fighter when my experience says otherwise.

Everyone has different opinions and just like you, I disagree with DoctorGlock.

Some of what's unplayable to DoctorGlock, is plenty playable to the rest of us. I'm playing a Dwarf Ranger in a Core-Only Pathfinder campaign right now who uses Power Attack with a 2hander and uses Quick Draw to switch to a bow and shoot arrows using Rapid Shot. He's pretty fun to play and has been useful in the group so far.

Using only the core books of MM1, DMG, and PHB provides a sad lack of versatility and character options for melee characters. In a core only game, do I think a fighter or ranger is generally unplayable for me? No. Not at all. In a core only game, do I think a paladin or monk is generally unplayable for me? Yes. However, that's because I hate alignment action restrictions that come automatically with the paladin and because I dislike monks for several reasons (including but not limited to bad design, improper for settings, terrible execution, underpowered abilities, and lack of ability cohesion).

Once you get outside of core, this can change quite a bit. Monks can do cool things when they take a few psionic feats and take the rest of their levels in other classes. A Monk 2/Psychic Warrior 18 plays just like a monk should while moving around fast and beating the crap out of people. Fighters get much better with the Zentarim variant from one of the online articles mixed with the Dungeoncrasher variant from Dungeonscape. Those two added together make a pretty mean bullrusher who is still set up to go jump into a prestige class of his/her choice to get even better at melee. Rangers are also good once you throw in some variants or even if you leave them alone but include some good feats and then get them into a good prestige class. Mystic Rangers are great and are very impressive when coupled with the Sword of the Arcane Order feat. Wildshape Rangers get tons of options and become crazy awesome bastards if they go into the Master of Many Forms PrC. There are lots of options for any of those classes outside of core, which was likely half the sentiment behind that guy's post.

~~~

As far as melee class usefulness in a party versus spellcasters usefulness. In many games at low optimization, melee classes can contribute quite a bit more to damage dealing and fights against monsters. This is highly variable however. If the optimization level goes up and the player controlling the spellcaster knows what they're doing, you can see this trend quickly reverse. A very smart player controlling a decently optimized melee character in a party of 6 or less will still always be an asset, but if the spellcaster goes into high optimization then the melee character may not even get a hit in on any of the fights before they're over.

Going back to the tier system, it's good to be mindful that the system was set up assuming that each character is set up with the same level of optimization. The system holds true regardless of the assigned level of optimization, but the gap between the tiers becomes larger as the optimization level gets higher. The same is true for the levels of the characters involved. If your group was using low optimization (which the use of Monkey Grip implies), then the difference between the tiers will not be immediately obvious until everyone gets into much higher levels.

[Medic!]

Not everyone plays that way.

For fun? Not playing for fun is the only way to do it wrong.

[Worira]

Not everyone finds it fun to play a character that is incapable of contributing meaningfully without magical gaps in their foes' armour inexplicably appearing.

[Greenish]

The ban was mostly due to the perceived absurd price vs power of the MIC items. At lvl 5, the guy in question had the starting gold (as handed out by the DM at the time) to drop a Huge Monstrous Scorpion on the party using a magic item from the book.Yeah, Amber Amulet of Vermin is one of the brainfarts of the book. You shouldn't judge the whole book for that, though.

[Helldog]

For fun? Not playing for fun is the only way to do it wrong.
No. Not everyone plays Magical Tea Party. I shouldn't be forced to play MTP to have fun.

[LordBlades]

Unfortunately, here in the MMO age a mentality has surfaced that if something isn't "best in slot" than it's garbage. In our groups the monks and rangers and elves contribute just as much to the party effort as wizards, clerics, and Dragonborn Koboldwrought Lesser Lycanthropic Lichpire Crusader 1/Swordsage 1/Initiate of the Seven Carbohydrate Drink/etc etc etc

If that works for you nobody's going to come and say that you're doing it wrong. It's just that it doesn't work for everybody. Not everybody wants(or can) to dumb down their powerful character so that the weak ones can contribute too. And for those people the tier system provides great help in identifying potential problems right from the start and helps them build a balanced party, where everyone contributes and has fun.


While there is a definate disparity in capabilities, it's a multiplayer game and everyone at the table is responsible to everyone else to make it as enjoyable of an experience as possible. That's literally the only thing that really matters. If that means the DM cheating monster ACs down a point or two so the monk can toss a highfive worth of Flurry of Dice now and again than so be it; If it means the wizard dropping a fireball instead of a cloudkill because the fighter just burned a feat on Great Cleave, so be it.

The bolded part is the core of the tier system 'class X can contribute more than class Y, and if you want them in the same game you might need to make some adjustments'.

[Medic!]

Yeah, the ones who don't just reflavor it as "Homebrew"

[HunterOfJello]

The ban was mostly due to the perceived absurd price vs power of the MIC items. At lvl 5, the guy in question had the starting gold (as handed out by the DM at the time) to drop a Huge Monstrous Scorpion on the party using a magic item from the book. Now, for an unoptomized group, that's one of those things you run away from pretty fast, especially when it grapples your two best people and the caster (a rogue, played by a guy that knew Rogues inside and out) is safe up in a tree.

Edit: Might have been Large instead. Regardless, the thing did a number on us before the DM retconned the encounter and let us try again.

I bet it was a Huge Monstrous Scorpion. The Magic Item Compendium has an item called the Amber Amulet of Vermin (Huge monstrous scorpion) that can summon one 1/day for only 700gp. A Huge Monstrous Scorpion is also a CR 7 monster and very dangerous to a party.

However, I'm going to guess that both the players and DM in that game did not print out the Errata from the WotC Errata Website (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a) for the MiC.

There is an entry in the errata that reads as follows:


Page 68 – Amber Amulet of Vermin
(table) [Substitution]
The scorpion size is incorrect. The Vermin entry on line five should read: Large monstrous scorpion

A Large Monstrous Scorpion is just a bit smaller than the Huge one, but is CR 3 instead of CR 7. Summoning a CR 3 monster 1/day for 700gp is affordable for a level 5 PC and a pretty good buy. Summoning a CR 7 monster for 700gp is beyond ridiculous.

Many problems can occur in this fashion and it's the responsibility of the DM to keep an eye on things like this. It's also the responsibility of the player not to cheat, but some forget about that. Players who abuse the splatbooks by using items, feat, and class features that have been specifically changed in errata are just scum in my opinion.

[Silus]

Going back to the tier system, it's good to be mindful that the system was set up assuming that each character is set up with the same level of optimization. The system holds true regardless of the assigned level of optimization, but the gap between the tiers becomes larger as the optimization level gets higher. The same is true for the levels of the characters involved. If your group was using low optimization (which the use of Monkey Grip implies), then the difference between the tiers will not be immediately obvious until everyone gets into much higher levels.

Wow, you seem to be pretty on the ball about this :smalltongue:

It's a shame we never got into the higher levels. Heck, we only got past lvl 6 maybe once because stuff always came up with whoever was DMing (or it was a TPK). Never got to play that Tiefling Swashbuckler Dervish though.



Yeah, Amber Amulet of Vermin is one of the brainfarts of the book. You shouldn't judge the whole book for that, though.

Just the straw that broke the camel's back. I think it was mostly out of spite at the player. I mean, nobody liked this guy. We tolerated him just 'cause we didn't want to try and find another new person for the group. Bad player, bad DM (He didn't know how tracking in fresh fallen snow works), but an amazing world builder.



I bet it was a Huge Monstrous Scorpion. The Magic Item Compendium has an item called the Amber Amulet of Vermin (Huge monstrous scorpion) that can summon one 1/day for only 700gp. A Huge Monstrous Scorpion is also a CR 7 monster and very dangerous to a party.

However, I'm going to guess that both the players and DM in that game did not print out the Errata from the WotC Errata Website (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a) for the MiC.

There is an entry in the errata that reads as follows:



A Large Monstrous Scorpion is just a bit smaller than the Huge one, but is CR 3 instead of CR 7. Summoning a CR 3 monster 1/day for 700gp is affordable for a level 5 PC and a pretty good buy. Summoning a CR 7 monster for 700gp is beyond ridiculous.

Many problems can occur in this fashion and it's the responsibility of the DM to keep an eye on things like this. (It's also the responsibility of the player not to cheat, but some forget about that.)

I actually just saw the errata not ten minutes ago when I was looking for the item on Google.

[Draconi Redfir]

Link or it didn't happen.


i'd like to, but search doesnt seem to work, and i cant for the life of me remember the name of the thread, plus it happened a long time ago. sorry!

still happened though.

[AugustNights]

No. Not everyone plays Magical Tea Party. I shouldn't be forced to play MTP to have fun.

Who is forcing?

[DoctorGlock]

The tier system doesn't make much sense due to my gaming experiences (I played with a group that made characters that were fun, not what had the most utility and whatnot), the campaigns never lasted long enough for us to actually get ahold on what was good past lvl 6, and I've no problems with optimization, so long as it's not one-trick-pony optimization (the Owlbear player did that with almost all of his characters and complained if/when that one trick was mess with).

I wanna understand and get, well, better.


"Better" really is just maximization of fun. In my group no one has fun with the classes I deride as unplayable, but if your group is enjoying them then go nuts. The tier system does not say you can't have fun with it, it is and always has been a tool to explain capabilities.

No, a non caster will never be as capable as a full caster, but if your players do not care that one person is summoning angels while another is riding a BMX, there is not much problem. The power divide almost shattered one of my games though which is why I now frown at classes that are either sub-par or hypercompetent.

[Prime32]

I suppose so....:smallfrown:

The tier system doesn't make much sense due to my gaming experiences (I played with a group that made characters that were fun, not what had the most utility and whatnot), the campaigns never lasted long enough for us to actually get ahold on what was good past lvl 6, and I've no problems with optimization, so long as it's not one-trick-pony optimization (the Owlbear player did that with almost all of his characters and complained if/when that one trick was mess with).

I wanna understand and get, well, better.Look at the Lord of the Rings, and how long and dangerous the quest to destroy the One Ring was. Now imagine how it would have turned out if Gandalf could cast mind blank and teleport.

High tiers aren't about hitting things hard, they're about not having to hit them at all. A tier 1 can do everything on this list (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StoryBreakerPower).

[AugustNights]

No, a non caster will never be as capable as a full caster, but if your players do not care that one person is summoning angels while another is riding a BMX, there is not much problem.

Indeed. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)

[Silus]

Look at the Lord of the Rings, and how long and dangerous the quest to destroy the One Ring was. Now imagine how it would have turned out if Gandalf could cast mind blank and teleport.

High tiers aren't about hitting things hard, they're about not having to hit them at all. A tier 1 can do everything on this list (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StoryBreakerPower).

*Chuckles* At least to me, that doesn't seem all that fun. It's like punching in console codes for a computer game. Sure, you can get phenomenal cosmic power the easy way, but it's so much more rewarding to do it the harder, non-easy-button way. And you may be able to get away with things you didn't think of if you had gone the T1 route.


"Better" really is just maximization of fun. In my group no one has fun with the classes I deride as unplayable, but if your group is enjoying them then go nuts. The tier system does not say you can't have fun with it, it is and always has been a tool to explain capabilities.

No, a non caster will never be as capable as a full caster, but if your players do not care that one person is summoning angels while another is riding a BMX, there is not much problem. The power divide almost shattered one of my games though which is why I now frown at classes that are either sub-par or hypercompetent.

Well by "better" I mean less ignorant of the tier system and all that jazz. I'll still play what I want or what the group is lacking without worrying about tiers. If I'm under performing, I'll just make it up with roleplaying (which I think also plays a pretty big part in how good a character/class can be).

[Gavinfoxx]

*Chuckles* At least to me, that doesn't seem all that fun. It's like punching in console codes for a computer game. Sure, you can get phenomenal cosmic power the easy way, but it's so much more rewarding to do it the harder, non-easy-button way. And you may be able to get away with things you didn't think of if you had gone the T1 route.


And THAT is why the Tier list is useful! It warns you where the relatively overpowered or underpowered options are! It warns you that playing a Druid is like entering cheat codes into your game. This is something that the game, by default, dose not warn you about!

[DoctorGlock]

*Chuckles* At least to me, that doesn't seem all that fun. It's like punching in console codes for a computer game.

It's why I stopped playing wizards really. I want more options than "hit it" but I want more complexity than "standard action: press win button"

[Ziegander]

*Chuckles* At least to me, that doesn't seem all that fun. It's like punching in console codes for a computer game. Sure, you can get phenomenal cosmic power the easy way, but it's so much more rewarding to do it the harder, non-easy-button way. And you may be able to get away with things you didn't think of if you had gone the T1 route.

I think maybe your problem is that you're equating the Tier system's assignment of classes into higher tiers with the Tier system asserting that higher tier = more fun. Which is absolutely NOT what it's trying to say, ever. The author of the Tier system prefers Tier 3 over Tiers 2 or 1. I prefer less efficient Tier 3, or more versatile Tier 4 for my games.

The Tier system is NOT designed to tell you what classes you should, or must play, or what classes you shouldn't, or mustn't play. It IS designed as a quick reference of which classes are more able to mechanically contribute to gameplay (without the DM just saying that they do, or fudging rolls so they do) in more situations. Obviously classes with cheat codes (Tier 1 & 2) can contribute more often than classes without them. That doesn't mean they are more fun. Actually, it can often mean that they are less fun.

[Helldog]

Who is forcing?
No one. I'm talking in general.

[Silus]

I think maybe your problem is that you're equating the Tier system's assignment of classes into higher tiers with the Tier system asserting that higher tier = more fun. Which is absolutely NOT what it's trying to say, ever. The author of the Tier system prefers Tier 3 over Tiers 2 or 1. I prefer less efficient Tier 3, or more versatile Tier 4 for my games.

The Tier system is NOT designed to tell you what classes you should, or must play, or what classes you shouldn't, or mustn't play. It IS designed as a quick reference of which classes are more able to mechanically contribute to gameplay (without the DM just saying that they do, or fudging rolls so they do) in more situations. Obviously classes with cheat codes (Tier 1 & 2) can contribute more often than classes without them. That doesn't mean they are more fun. Actually, it can often mean that they are less fun.

It's more of "Higher tier = more power" in my mind which may be true, looking at the tier lists. It's just one of those things that has changed my general outlook on class dynamics. Some mental adjustment is needed to equate utility =/= fun or power.

[Greenish]

*Chuckles* At least to me, that doesn't seem all that fun.Which is one of the reasons why the tier list warns you about them. :smallcool:

[LordBlades]

Well by "better" I mean less ignorant of the tier system and all that jazz. I'll still play what I want or what the group is lacking without worrying about tiers. If I'm under performing, I'll just make it up with roleplaying (which I think also plays a pretty big part in how good a character/class can be).

And what does RP have to do with mechanics? Will the uber wizrd can be a well fleshed char just as easily as Mike the mediocre monk.

[DoctorGlock]

And what does RP have to do with mechanics? Will the uber wizrd can be a well fleshed char just as easily as Mike the mediocre monk.

It does often change the RP dynamics though. A wizard can not be defined by a quest to travel to the farthest shore before he dies when he can just teleport. He cannot be defined by loss of a loved one when he can wish said person back into being. RPing a wizard cannot be about limits because past a certain point he has none.

That is not the same as cannot be RPed which opponents of the tier system sometimes suggest. My last char was an epic wizard/incantarix/tainted scholar/ultimate magus who was defined not by limits, he was a literal god after all, but by questions regarding the nature of humanity and free will. To this day he remains one of my favorite characters and was one of the most developed. I did get tired of the "I win" button, but meh.

[CN the Logos]

I suppose so....:smallfrown:

The tier system doesn't make much sense due to my gaming experiences (I played with a group that made characters that were fun, not what had the most utility and whatnot), the campaigns never lasted long enough for us to actually get ahold on what was good past lvl 6, and I've no problems with optimization, so long as it's not one-trick-pony optimization (the Owlbear player did that with almost all of his characters and complained if/when that one trick was mess with).

I wanna understand and get, well, better.

Perhaps a metaphor would help. Did you ever watch Superfriends/The Justice League when you were a child?

The druid can buff himself and his pet to make them substantially more effective in combat, transform into a combat-effective form himself, then wade into the fight casting spells as he goes. He can literally transform into a bear while riding a bear and summoning more bears as reinforcements. He is Superman.

The wizard can hit opponents with the magical equivalent of flashbangs, rendering them unable to fight back, throw them inside a cloud of solid fog so that they can't move faster than walking speed, create magical force fields that protect the party from harm, use divination to gather intel on the foe, use teleport et al. to rapidly get to/away from the fight, summon reinforcements (again), and if all else fails, hide inside a pocket dimension to recharge so that he can try all of this again the next morning. He is Green Lantern.

Going down the tiers a couple of steps, the bard doesn't have that kind of power, but is decent enough in multiple roles so that he generally has something to do, and with sourcebook options can buff everyone pretty substantially just by hanging around and singing. Skills and Bardic Lore also allow him to be "the guy who knows things" which is cool if you like playing that. He is Batman.

Going down to tier five, the fighter can hit things with a sharpened stick. If you focus all your feats on a single goal and pick wisely, he can hit things very hard with his sharpened stick, provided he's hitting them in the particular way his feats require him to, and they aren't flying, insubstantial, impossible to see, hiding behind a magical forcefield, or just out of range. He is Aquaman.

...Now, that's not to say that playing lower on the tier list is badwrongfun. I personally find that tiers three and four are best for playing/running the sort of stories I enjoy; PCs at this level have enough power to feel effective while still having weaknesses that I can challenge them with as a DM, and they need each other because no one can perfectly do everything. I'm hoping to find a system or variant that does this power level well, because I have a number of campaign ideas that could use it.

I'm currently looking at Legends, but I'm haven't gotten to the actual spells and such yet, so I'm not sure if the design philosophy was to nerf the wizard into something I'd want to play/DM for, or to bring everyone to tiers one and two. My happiness with the result depends on what I find there. :smallcool:

[Silus]

And what does RP have to do with mechanics? Will the uber wizrd can be a well fleshed char just as easily as Mike the mediocre monk.

Mechanics can sometimes be overshadowed by RP. Whereas a Wizard would have to use a good number of spells to, say destroy a garrison, a Bard could just convince half to unionize then sick the other half on those on strike (Happened in one of my games). No swords were drawn or spells cast and we got full encounter XP for roleplaying. Same way we swindled ourselves into owning a bar.

Gooooooood I need sleep. I think i stopped making sense like three posts ago....

Edit: I think what I'm trying to say is that overall utility does not always equate to who has the better mechanics.

[Helldog]

Mechanics can sometimes be overshadowed by RP. Whereas a Wizard would have to use a good number of spells to, say destroy a garrison, a Bard could just convince half to unionize then sick the other half on those on strike (Happened in one of my games). No swords were drawn or spells cast and we got full encounter XP for roleplaying. Same way we swindled ourselves into owning a bar.

Gooooooood I need sleep. I think i stopped making sense like three posts ago....
How high was the Bards Bluff/Diplomacy?

[Prime32]

Mechanics can sometimes be overshadowed by RP. Whereas a Wizard would have to use a good number of spells to, say destroy a garrison, a Bard could just convince half to unionize then sick the other half on those on strike (Happened in one of my games). No swords were drawn or spells cast and we got full encounter XP for roleplaying. Same way we swindled ourselves into owning a bar.The wizard could do that more easily, what with all his mind-influencing spells. (if you just want to destroy stuff, a barbarian is better than most casters)

[Big Fau]

Sorry, sorry. It's mostly a combination thing between the tier system and optimization and how some classes are just deemed "crappy" in relation to other classes (Fighter vs Druid pet seems to be popular).

When it comes right down to it, the Fighter has to be optimized extensively in order to outdo the Druid's AC. At the lower levels, this is flat-out impossible.

A long time ago, I remember reading a PbP campaign where the entire party was Gestalt with a PB higher than 32. The party had a Druid//I forget what else his class was, and a Warblade//Egoist. They were 3rd level.

In the first encounter, the Warblade/Erudite was being upstaged by the Druid's AC (a Riding Dog), despite being a Tier 2//Tier 3 mix. He was heavily focused on combat, but the Druid's AC was doing more damage, hitting more often, and being the more efficient threat. This animal companion had the Elite array (minus Int) and the Druid was allowed to customize it's feats a little. It dominated the frontlines.

The AC was expendable. The Warblade//Egoist was a PC, and very difficult to replace because his replacement had to be worked into the campaign's story. The AC could have been replaced in down-time with no explanation at all.

The kicker? This party was between a group of optimizers from WotC's CharOp boards (pre-4E). Every single one of them was capable of optimizing their characters off of the RNG, and the Warblade//Egoist was being shown up by a freaking Riding Dog.

[Greenish]

How high was the Bards Bluff/Diplomacy?+Yes. It's a bard, after all.

Bard can do that, and quite a few other things, which is why it's in T3.

[SamBurke]

Granted i dont get much into it because i beleive the system to be wrong, but i think what it's saying is essentually

"if it cant do magic, it can't do anything."

No.

WARNING: MEGA RANT.

There is psionics, maneuvers, and other subsystems. Vancian spell casting is not necessary to compete.

It is, however, necessary to win. Even psions who hit Tier 1 only do so due to the spells they've got arcane lists.

As to whether or not the tier list is correct: it is. Do you think you're the first person who's brought it into question? No. Will you be the last? No. This thing has been tried, tested, and tried again. Perhaps a person with good optimization can change those around. Perhaps a person with bad optimization could drop the wizard down to T2 or T3 (HA!).

This is about versatility, not awesomeness. If you want an awesome class, make your own, refluff, whatever you need.

Which classes are unplayable? Those classes that keep you from the game's purpose: having fun. Now, if your idea of fun is being stymied, having the rest of your friends be able to add something while you can't, in short, if you like being the Damsel Scrappy, grab those classes.

If you like being restricted into a moral code and being pre-determiniedly expected to clash with the party for all major decisions, choose a paladin.

If you would like to be the little engine that couldn't, trying to move about the battlefield and poke people ineffectively, choose the monk.

If you want to fail every single part of your class features up till the last level, consistently hurting yourself, being absolutely unable to do anything save against the most pathetically under CRed of enemies, choose a true namer.

These classes are not, in a logical sense, "UN" playable. Someone, somewhere, has played them. And, most likely, lost the ability to taste ice cream.

What these classes are, good sir, is unfun. I've seen fighters done in a way that makes them interesting. I've seen (and played) paladins who can groove with a prank or just generally have fun. I've heard of people uselessly trying to save the broken wreck of the true namer's chassis (which was like trying to pull a Prius out of an 8x 18wheeler pileup.).

Now, note, these were all in Pathfinder, a system which evens the playing field a lot. However, also note: that paladin? Frequently overshadowed by every other member of the party. Someone could hit harder than me, defend better than me, talk better than me. Those fighters? Optimized, and low level. It wouldn't have been the same up past level 7 or so.

Why does this matter? Well, the party is supposed to work together. DnD is about solving puzzles, with each person bringing something to the table. Doesn't matter what the puzzle is (the standard tier test: Fight/Diplomacy/Army), they should do *something.* When a class doesn't do this, it is a class that is dragging down your good time, and leaving the others unsupported.



In short, there ARE unplayable classes, in a basic sense. These classes are the ones that don't help the team, and, instead, actively harm your play experience and your friends'. Even if they can be played well, they have stand ins that are just that much better... so why play a fighter when you can play a war blade? Why play a paladin when you can play a crusader?

[Silus]

How high was the Bards Bluff/Diplomacy?

Oh....10 at level 2? *Checks character sheet* 8 Bluff.

Though I started off by asking the goblins (it was an orcish garrison that they were fixing up for their "Overlord". It was a weird game) what sort of benefits they would get under the Overlord (And this is after convincing an overworked Orc supervisor to give us half his goblin minions to work elsewhere). When they said no, I commented that if they formed a union, then they could squeeze better benefits out of the Overlord (better loot, healthcare, ect. ect.) and that without them as his army, the Overlord was just some schmuck in fancy armor.

Next thing we know, they're yelling "Unionize! Unionize!" in the hallway. I duck into another room and tell the foreman that the goblins are rioting. He goes out to stop them and they start brawling. Two more visits (one to a group of ogres, who I convinced to join by telling them there was a huge brawl in the hallway and that they wouldn't want to miss, and lastly to the head chief himself, who ran out to put a stop to the infighting) and the garrison was ours. All with, at most, 4 Diplomacy rolls and a little selective truth.



The wizard could do that more easily, what with all his mind-influencing spells. (if you just want to destroy stuff, a barbarian is better than most casters)

At level 2?

[Worira]

The wizard could do that more easily, what with all his mind-influencing spells. (if you just want to destroy stuff, a barbarian is better than most casters)

That's iffy; A bard has mind-affecting spells of his own, and generally has very good Bluff and Diplomacy modifiers, which can be used all day on as many people as the bard wishes, along with the crazygonuts Glibness. That said, those are all mechanical advantages that the bard has, which is why the bard is snugly in tier 3: it's capable of doing most things competently, and one thing, dealing with social situations, very well.

[LordBlades]

Mechanics can sometimes be overshadowed by RP. Whereas a Wizard would have to use a good number of spells to, say destroy a garrison, a Bard could just convince half to unionize then sick the other half on those on strike (Happened in one of my games). No swords were drawn or spells cast and we got full encounter XP for roleplaying. Same way we swindled ourselves into owning a bar.

Gooooooood I need sleep. I think i stopped making sense like three posts ago....

Edit: I think what I'm trying to say is that overall utility does not always equate to who has the better mechanics.

You do realize that's a direct effect of a given class (the Bard) being actually mechanically good at diplomacy/bluff? If you tried the same roleplay on a not-so-great cha and ranks in diplomacy/bluff guy, it would have probably failed spectacularly.

[Bastian Weaver]

It does often change the RP dynamics though. A wizard can not be defined by a quest to travel to the farthest shore before he dies when he can just teleport. He cannot be defined by loss of a loved one when he can wish said person back into being. RPing a wizard cannot be about limits because past a certain point he has none.

This isn't true. A wizard can be defined by a quest to travel to the farthest shore before he dies, whether he can or cannot teleport. Because the quest is "to travel to the farthest shore", not "get there as soon as possible". Take Ursula Le Guin's Wizard of the Earthsea. The mages there don't use their magic that way, because they know and care about things like natural balance, and because they know there's meaning and wisdom in doing stuff the old-fashioned way. They can do it. They just choose not to because they've got reasons.
It's a little something I like to call role-playing.

[Worira]

And what exactly is the reason a wizard in DnD 3.5e has for not using teleport to reach his or her objective?

[Suddo]

I'm not going to read all 4 pages, the amount at time of posting this, but I'll weight in.
Basically people often consider things unplayable when they don't see a reason to play it versus a better version. This is often brought up with martial classes because of the Tome of Battle. Unarmed Swordsage > Monk, Warblade > Fighter, Crusade > Paladin. This often means that outside of a 2 level dip these classes are often see as bad.

Some are more debatable than others. I personally always prefer Factotum to Rogue. But technically the rogue has its merits, most of them revolving around sneak attacks. The problem is that rogues can't solve enough problems without UMD abuse. The Factotum on the other hand can get better skill checks, poop standard actions and can cast spells of it's own accord, and can still UMD just as good as the rogue. I consider playing a rogue style character unplayable (outside of a very low-op group in which case I'm more just playing an less-than favorable character on purpose) because of these reason and because I dislike the fact that fortification just makes me sit in the corner.

Now this isn't to say that Bard is unplayable to Wizard. The Bard, outside of a few cool tricks, is still a decent character in my opinion and is actually more balanced than the wizard. It fits nicely into the tier (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0) I prefer, tier 3.
Now if you want to argue that tier 3 is too powerful for your liking then I'd agree that most "unplayable characters" are more playable, just as I'd play a rogue in a low-op game.

Hopefully that helps.
Edit: Oh and I don't think I've ever used unplayable, outside of hyperbole, to describe a class. I think its more of a hyperbole, than a belief, to get the point across.

[Gavinfoxx]

And what exactly is the reason a wizard in DnD 3.5e has for not using teleport to reach his or her objective?

Yea, exactly... do you know how common a fantasy trope of the wizard seeking the ultimate power and knowledge in the universe is?

Fantastically common...

[DoctorGlock]

This isn't true. A wizard can be defined by a quest to travel to the farthest shore before he dies, whether he can or cannot teleport. Because the quest is "to travel to the farthest shore", not "get there as soon as possible". Take Ursula Le Guin's Wizard of the Earthsea. The mages there don't use their magic that way, because they know and care about things like natural balance, and because they know there's meaning and wisdom in doing stuff the old-fashioned way. They can do it. They just choose not to because they've got reasons.
It's a little something I like to call role-playing.

You have to impose those limits yourself because there are none in the book. The mages in earthsea don't port around being demigods because the one that do that tend to wreck the world and end up trapped in a personal hell. In 3.5 they can. You just have to take the RP in a different direction because yes, RP based on limits you do not have is not possible

[Friv]

At level 2?

Sure, for an enchantment-focused wizard who was dabbling in cross-class. It is admittedly an unlikely build, but it is possible. Works better for a sorcerer, entertainingly.

You'll want to use enchantment and illusion, and take Diplomacy cross-class. As a sorcerer, you can easily have a +9 Diplomacy instead of +10, (+4 Charisma, 2 ranks, Skill Focus), and a wizard can have +7 or +8.

Add Charm Person for the foreman to obviate the need for a diplomacy check, and a Disgusie Self to convince everyone you're one of the orc workers and get a circumstance bonus on your rolls, and you're probably actually more likely to succeed than the bard was.

[Ceaon]

Mechanics can sometimes be overshadowed by RP. Whereas a Wizard would have to use a good number of spells to, say destroy a garrison, a Bard could just convince half to unionize then sick the other half on those on strike (Happened in one of my games). No swords were drawn or spells cast and we got full encounter XP for roleplaying. Same way we swindled ourselves into owning a bar.

Gooooooood I need sleep. I think i stopped making sense like three posts ago....

Edit: I think what I'm trying to say is that overall utility does not always equate to who has the better mechanics.

This post makes little sense to me.

Yes, a bard can charm, inspire and manipulate. To divide and conquer a garrison, you would need to roll. A bard is more likely to succeed at such rolls as, say, a fighter, because his mechanics support such rolls. Meanwhile, a fighter has only one, or very few, ways of conquering a garrison, all of which should require rolls as well - and against much lower odds of succeeding. On the other end of the pool is a wizard, who probably has some utility spell to capture the garrison almost withou chance of failure. Note that all of these mechanical actions can be preceeded by roleplaying but they do not have to be.

If your argument is that roleplaying can solve encounters regardless of class, the reason is not because the mechanics are balanced. The reason for that is because you aren't using the mechanics at all. Which is not a bad way of playing, but it does not proof balance.

If your argument is that fighters seem more powerful than wizards despite what the tier system and my fellow posters seem to indicate, there may be several reasons. Low-level-play. Challenges that play to low-tier characters' (few) strengths. High-tier characters not utilizing the fullest of their (vast) extent. High tier characters holding back intentionally. Again, none of these are wrong. In fact, as the tier system set out to demonstrate, the balance issues SHOULD be addressed, and those are all ways to do it.

In conclusion, let's say Fighty McStabsalot, the level 17 fighter, roleplays a great, rousing speech when he's about to fight a demon. He lacks the skills to do this, since the only social skill he could have bought full ranks is Intimidate, so let's say the DM does not require a roll. The fighter then attacks. He strikes for some damage. The demon counterattacks and strikes for more damage, killing the fighter. Meanwhile, Casty McOwnsalot, a level 17 wizard, roleplays just as well, then casts a single level 9 spell that ends the entire encounter (most of them do). Now, both of them roleplayed equally good, but one of them has the mechanics to back it up, while the other one doesn't.

Just take a look at a level 9 spell like Implosion. No fighter could ever hope to be able to "kill one creature/round" so reliably.

[Silus]

*Slumps over* I think I'll take a break from this thread for a while. Things that don't make sense are starting to make sense and things that make sense aren't making sense. Starting to feel like those 3AM gaming sessions where everything starts running together and everything seems like an amazing idea.

[Gavinfoxx]

*Slumps over* I think I'll take a break from this thread for a while. Things that don't make sense are starting to make sense and things that make sense aren't making sense. Starting to feel like those 3AM gaming sessions where everything starts running together and everything seems like an amazing idea.

Uh, why don't you take a nap and get back to us? And then tell us what precisely are you still confused about?

[Helldog]

*Slumps over* I think I'll take a break from this thread for a while. Things that don't make sense are starting to make sense and things that make sense aren't making sense. Starting to feel like those 3AM gaming sessions where everything starts running together and everything seems like an amazing idea.
Oddly enough, I tend to have THE BEST IDEAS when I'm seriously sleep deprived. Is that normal? :smallconfused:

[Silus]

Uh, why don't you take a nap and get back to us? And then tell us what precisely are you still confused about?

Not much to be confused on at the moment. Slight mild annoyance at the apparent overpowered utilityness of the upper tiers vs the more humble lower tiers, but hey, thems the breaks.

Methinks I'll go get some brunch or something and pop a 5-Hour Energy though.



Funnily enough, I tend to have THE BEST IDEAS when I'm seriously sleep deprived. Is that normal? :smallconfused:

Man, one session, one of the guys in my group managed to negotiate us into diety-hood at like 2AM. I still don't know how it happened. Ticked me off though 'cause I had the character I had made for only that one session then I had to scrap him.

[Gavinfoxx]

Not much to be confused on at the moment. Slight mild annoyance at the apparent overpowered utilityness of the upper tiers vs the more humble lower tiers, but hey, thems the breaks.

Is this more annoyance that there exist tier differences, or annoyance at which classes happen to be in which tiers? One thing that some DMs do is just tell the players what the target tier and target optimization level of the game, and allow anything (homebrew, third party, obscure sources, etc.) that overtly fits in that named power level. I'm in a brilliantly fun Tier 5 game, where we are all playing kobolds, for example, as well as a very interesting Tier 3 game that allows Homebrew T3 classes.

[Ancient Mage]

To Simplify the whole discussion:

The current tier system is built on versatility over power. The more versatile the class, the higher you score on the tier system. This does not make you unplayable however. Certain classes are only good at doing one thing, which they do very well. Put a fighter on one side of a 100 foot wide pit, and he'll have nothing to do. Put a wizard on one side of a 100 foot wide pit, and he'll have several dozen options for getting across.
Just because a class is not versatile, that does not mean it is unplayable, it just relies on other classes to do things it cannot.
if you look at the basic D&D party-wizard, cleric, rogue and fighter, you have 2 tier 1s, 1 tier 4 and 1 tier 5. Despite this "Horrible problem" it remains a good team to have in a dungeon. The fighter fights, the rogue sneaks and stabs, the cleric heals and buffs, and the wizard covers what the others cannot.
Does this mean that the wizard is most powerful? No. I've played a wizard to epic and back, through hell and heaven, and from the interior of a dragon to the depths of the earth. He's got a d4 hit dice, and still needs his friends to help him.
Most classes are not unplayable, they just aren't versatile. And if you have friends, that's not a problem.

-Ancient Mage

(note: the truenamer and other like classes that can't even do ONE thing correct are unplayable though. As long as you can do one thing well though, you're playable.)

[Gavinfoxx]

@Ancient Mage: I would say that at high optimization levels, the wizard does not need the Fighter/Rogue. He's better off having a few well trained animals, or hiring a few warriors, and not actually giving them a full share of the loot or magic items! And part of the point of the Tier system is, given all but the lowest optimization and lowest level party play, the Wizard/Rogue/Fighter/Cleric party does not work work well if everyone wants to contribute equally to encounters!

[Bastian Weaver]

You have to impose those limits yourself because there are none in the book. The mages in earthsea don't port around being demigods because the one that do that tend to wreck the world and end up trapped in a personal hell. In 3.5 they can. You just have to take the RP in a different direction because yes, RP based on limits you do not have is not possible

Exactly. What I'm saying is that there can well be more limits than those present in the book.
And now, for your pleasure, I present... dun dun DUNN...
Bastian's Top Five Reason Why a 3.5. Wizard Would Not Use Teleport to Reach His or Her Destination

Reason 5. He's not in a hurry, so might as well take his time and enjoy the ride. Maybe it's the last journey, and he's not coming back. Maybe he'll have to deal with something urgent as soon as he reaches destination, but not before that. And the islands in the Sea of Sorrow are lovely this time of year.
Reason 4. He doesn't exactly know where is he going to. There are several places that he needs to visit in order to gather information before he knows the exact location of his goal.
Reason 3. When he arrives, he's going to need every spell slot and every magic item in his possession. One spell could mean the difference between victory and defeat.
Reason 2. Whoever is waiting at the final destination, the wizard wants them to know he's coming. Maybe he's helping people, making their lives easier and nicer. Maybe he's destroying everything and everyone on his way. Maybe he's just carefully undoing everything some other character had done before that.
Reason 1. He always gets sick when using Teleport, and he wants to look his best when he visits that cute elven princess!

Naturally, all those reasons don't stop the wizard from teleporting to those other places, but they do make his journey longer and more complex than just casting a single spell.

And now the Single Ultimate Reason Why a 3.5 Wizard Would Use Teleport to Reach His Destination:
Because travels are boring.

Fair enough, I guess.

[Silus]

Is this more annoyance that there exist tier differences, or annoyance at which classes happen to be in which tiers? One thing that some DMs do is just tell the players what the target tier and target optimization level of the game, and allow anything (homebrew, third party, obscure sources, etc.) that overtly fits in that named power level. I'm in a brilliantly fun Tier 5 game, where we are all playing kobolds, for example, as well as a very interesting Tier 3 game that allows Homebrew T3 classes.

I dunno. It's like...I love the Swashbuckler class for example. It's fun, it's got some fluff that I like and it's easy to slip into the Dervish prestige, which is one of the two PrC's that I've wanted to try (Alienist being the second for all the Lovecraftian goodness). And before getting introduced to the tier lists, I was fine with Swashbuckler. Hell, ~60% of my characters were Swashbucklers in the hope of playing a Dervish. Then I look at the tier lists, which I am aware are just guidelines at best, and all I see is that I've been playing a sub-par class that most would scoff at. "Play a Warblade" I think would be the most common response.

The while tier thing has shaken my view of the 3.5 classes. Before I saw them as "each class has a job that they can do and do well", but now it's "each class has a job they can do, but some can do the job better than others, so don't worry about X, Y and Z classes". I know that's not really how it is, but I can't stop seeing it like that...

[NeoSeraphi]

What makes the fighter class unplayable for me is a simple little thing called nine dead levels. Seriously! It's not even a class, it's HALF a class! How can you call something playable when every odd level after first you receive absolutely no benefits from the class other than a couple of skill points, an extra point of BAB, and increased saves? (By the way, the barbarian gets all of those things, except his HD is higher, he has more skill points, and oh yeah, he has no dead levels. Even a +1 bonus to saves and AC against traps is better than nothing).

For me, what makes a class playable isn't how powerful it is, but how fun it is. And when you have to spend every even level thinking "Okay, let's just get enough XP to level up so I can start wishing for enough XP to level up again" instead of "Okay, let's get enough XP to level up so I can get another daily use of rage/wild shape or a higher Favored Enemy bonus!", that's not fun. It's just not. For me, at least. I'm sure many people disagree with me.

And the fighter is really the only class I consider to be "unplayable". I'll never play a rogue, but that's not because I think it's unplayable, just because I think it's terribly designed. The other core classes all have really fun and interesting abilities (provided you are able to multiclass/prestige out of paladin at 5th or 6th level) and WotC did a real stand-up job with the non-core base classes. (A few, like dragon shaman and hexblade are kinda iffy, but they're still fun to play)

[Gnaeus]

@Ancient Mage: I would say that at high optimization levels, the wizard does not need the Fighter/Rogue. He's better off having a few well trained animals, or hiring a few warriors, and not actually giving them a full share of the loot or magic items! And part of the point of the Tier system is, given all but the lowest optimization and lowest level party play, the Wizard/Rogue/Fighter/Cleric party does not work work well if everyone wants to contribute equally to encounters!

In his defense, "Ancient mage" was not playing an optimized wizard. This is pretty clear, because he believes that having d4/level hp is some kind of drawback to the wizard. I think we can safely say that most of the tricks that an epic wizard can use to be immune to something as meaningless as hp damage were probably not being used.

[Greenish]

I'll never play a rogue, but that's not because I think it's unplayable, just because I think it's terribly designed.Elaborate, please.

[Big Fau]

What makes the fighter class unplayable for me is a simple little thing called nine dead levels. Seriously! It's not even a class, it's HALF a class! How can you call something playable when every odd level after first you receive absolutely no benefits from the class other than a couple of skill points, an extra point of BAB, and increased saves? (By the way, the barbarian gets all of those things, except his HD is higher, he has more skill points, and oh yeah, he has no dead levels. Even a +1 bonus to saves and AC against traps is better than nothing).

It is a sad day when you realize that the entire Fighter class fits on a standard 3x5 index card...



I dunno. It's like...I love the Swashbuckler class for example. It's fun, it's got some fluff that I like and it's easy to slip into the Dervish prestige, which is one of the two PrC's that I've wanted to try (Alienist being the second for all the Lovecraftian goodness). And before getting introduced to the tier lists, I was fine with Swashbuckler. Hell, ~60% of my characters were Swashbucklers in the hope of playing a Dervish. Then I look at the tier lists, which I am aware are just guidelines at best, and all I see is that I've been playing a sub-par class that most would scoff at. "Play a Warblade" I think would be the most common response.

Just to point this out:


Q: Why is my favorite class too low? It should TOTALLY be much higher!

A: Remember, you're probably more experienced with your favorite class than with other classes. Plus, your personality probably fits well with the way that class works, and you probably are better inspired to work with that class. As such, whatever your favorite class is is going to seem stronger for you than everyone else. This is because you're simply going to play your favorite class in a more skillfull way... plus you'll be blinded to the shortcomings of that class, since you probably don't care about those anyway (they match with things that you as a player probably don't want to do anyway). As such, if I did this right most people should think their favorite class is a little too low, whether that class is Fighter or Monk or Rogue or whatever else. If everybody looks at this system and sees that one or two of their favorite classes are a tier or so too low, but most other stuff looks about right, I consider it a success.

Furthermore, you ultimately plan on PrCing into Dervish, widely considered a +1, if not +2 Tier PrC, which means your Swashbuckler characters are going to be Tier 4 on average. In the end, it is possible to use low-tier classes to accomplish something. You just really need to know what you are doing.



In his defense, "Ancient mage" was not playing an optimized wizard. This is pretty clear, because he believes that having d4/level hp is some kind of drawback to the wizard. I think we can safely say that most of the tricks that an epic wizard can use to be immune to something as meaningless as hp damage were probably not being used.

Having a d4 HD is a drawback: You need to keep caltrops around, thus putting your feet at risk of incredible pain.

[Gavinfoxx]

I dunno. It's like...I love the Swashbuckler class for example. It's fun, it's got some fluff that I like and it's easy to slip into the Dervish prestige, which is one of the two PrC's that I've wanted to try (Alienist being the second for all the Lovecraftian goodness). And before getting introduced to the tier lists, I was fine with Swashbuckler. Hell, ~60% of my characters were Swashbucklers in the hope of playing a Dervish. Then I look at the tier lists, which I am aware are just guidelines at best, and all I see is that I've been playing a sub-par class that most would scoff at. "Play a Warblade" I think would be the most common response.

The while tier thing has shaken my view of the 3.5 classes. Before I saw them as "each class has a job that they can do and do well", but now it's "each class has a job they can do, but some can do the job better than others, so don't worry about X, Y and Z classes". I know that's not really how it is, but I can't stop seeing it like that...

Well... look at this (homebrew) Swashbuckler. This one is intended to be Tier 3:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6799732&postcount=6

And D&D with Enforced Niche Utility (ie, you are good at the thing you are good at, and nothing else) is about Tier 4. There are still classes that do that, they are just mostly the T4 ones. You can play a game where everyone has their own protected nice, it's not hard! And you can even get most archetypes that way, too! Remember, these classes are all arguably tier 4 (some people consider some of them Tier 3):

Adept, Barbarian, Dragonfire Adept (with Breath Effects), Dragon Shaman (PHB2 11), Fighter (Dungeon Crasher variant), Jester (DC 36), Hexblade (CW 5), Marshal, Master (WotL 21), Montebank (DC 42), Nightstalker (Races of Ansalon 156), Ranger, Rogue, Savant (DC 45), Scout (CAd 10), Spellthief, Sohei (OA 27), Totemist, Warlock (CArc 5), Warmage (CArc 10)

That is a lot of classes!

Also, Dervish is a +1 Tier class for the classes that you are assumed to enter the class from.

[Venger]

Last time i said "i want to play a monk" on this board, i was instantly assaulted with "WTF NO! SWRDSAGE IZ BETTER! JUZ CALL IT MONK INSTD!"

When really all i wanted to do was play a monk.

people on this board really like ToB. if you don't want to be told to play a class from in there, just say there's no ToB allowed in your game and then that'll filter out advice you don't want, otherwise advice like that is inevitable when asking for any sort of help with a melee character.

[Greenish]

Remember, these classes are all arguably tier 4 (some people consider some of them Tier 3):

Adept, Barbarian, Dragonfire Adept (with Breath Effects), Dragon Shaman (PHB2 11), Fighter (Dungeon Crasher variant), Jester (DC 36), Hexblade (CW 5), Marshal, Master (WotL 21), Montebank (DC 42), Nightstalker (Races of Ansalon 156), Ranger, Rogue, Savant (DC 45), Scout (CAd 10), Spellthief, Sohei (OA 27), Totemist, Warlock (CArc 5), Warmage (CArc 10).If you're counting DFA and Totemist to T4, Duskblade ought to come along them.

[Edit]: And where's Incarnate?

[Gavinfoxx]

I was just copying and pasting. Some people put Totemist or Nightstalker at T3, for example. That particular list put Incarnate at T3.

[NeoSeraphi]

The Master class? WotL? This is something I have not heard of, and I thought I read every base class from WotC! I must see this class immediately, to gain homebrew inspiration from it! What sourcebook is WotL? (What does it stand for?)

[Gavinfoxx]

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11714.0

WotL: War of the Lance
LotT: Legend of the Twins
DC: Dragon Compendium
RoA: Races of Ansalon

There ya go.

[Silus]

Ugh, I know I'm gonna regret this....

*Googles Pathfinder tier lists*

[NeoSeraphi]

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11714.0

WotL: War of the Lance
LotT: Legend of the Twins
DC: Dragon Compendium
RoA: Races of Ansalon

There ya go.

War of the Lance? Legend of the Twins? Races of Ansalon? I've never heard of any of these! Are they campaign-specific or what?

[Gavinfoxx]

War of the Lance? Legend of the Twins? Races of Ansalon? I've never heard of any of these! Are they campaign-specific or what?

Yes, Dragonlance. Sorta kinda not quite 3rd party. Or partially third party, but with the blessing of wotc. Maybe Second Party? I never quite figured out the exact legal specifics.


Ugh, I know I'm gonna regret this....

*Googles Pathfinder tier lists*

Those mostly didn't change too much. Paladin went up a tier. Summoner, Alchemist, Inquisitor, and Magus are all arguably Tier 3. There's one guy that ignored JaronK's ranking somewhere, and that made it much more complex. But you can find a few threads all over the place where people try to slot the PF classes into JaronK tiers...

[NeoSeraphi]

Yes, Dragonlance. Sorta kinda not quite 3rd party. Or partially third party, but with the blessing of wotc. Maybe Second Party? I never quite figured out the exact legal specifics.


Okay, I feel much better about myself then. I was worried that some generic books had escaped my knowledge for so long. Still, it's impressive that one campaign-specific series drummed up 3 different base classes. I know Eberron brought us the artificer, but that's it.

[Greenish]

I know Eberron brought us the artificer, but that's it.Don't forget Magewright. :smallcool:

[Ancient Mage]

My query here is, what kind of campaign do you people play? My wizard was optimized for dungeon crawls, many of which were very dangerous for parties of levels higher than we were.
The D4 hit dice is a draw-back, no matter how you look at it. Even epic magic to protect you from damage can be dispelled. And at low levels, hit points are the only thing between you and Death.
Mr. Gavinfoxx, I would inform you that according to you, he does not need the fighter/rogue, but your alternative was to have mercenaries. This implies that he still needs SOME help...
In conclusion, the wizard is one of the most powerful characters in the game. He need not have many companions at high levels, if any at all. He becomes immune to everything, and is a god for all purposes. The trick however, is in getting there.

-Ancient Mage

(by the way, swashbuckler is not a versatile class, which is why it is "not a good class." I like wizards as much as any power-gamer, but I see no reason to belittle players who love to play classes that they deem fun like swashbuckler and fighter. I don't think its smart to play those classes, but I'm not going to rant at them about it.)

[NeoSeraphi]

Don't forget Magewright. :smallcool:

Of course, it's doubly impressive because they actually thought to make an NPC class.

[Silus]

My query here is, what kind of campaign do you people play? My wizard was optimized for dungeon crawls, many of which were very dangerous for parties of levels higher than we were.
The D4 hit dice is a draw-back, no matter how you look at it. Even epic magic to protect you from damage can be dispelled. And at low levels, hit points are the only thing between you and Death.
Mr. Gavinfoxx, I would inform you that according to you, he does not need the fighter/rogue, but your alternative was to have mercenaries. This implies that he still needs SOME help...
In conclusion, the wizard is one of the most powerful characters in the game. He need not have many companions at high levels, if any at all. He becomes immune to everything, and is a god for all purposes. The trick however, is in getting there.

-Ancient Mage

(by the way, swashbuckler is not a versatile class, which is why it is "not a good class." I like wizards as much as any power-gamer, but I see no reason to belittle players who love to play classes that they deem fun like swashbuckler and fighter. I don't think its smart to play those classes, but I'm not going to rant at them about it.)

Most of the games I participated in were more or less "Sandbox with rails". Like....the Elder Scroll series but more annoying. Sure, there's a main quest, but you don't have to follow it. The DM would give us some freedom, then pull some event that would throw us in the middle of the main quest.

But yeah, nobody optimized to any serious extent and either nobody knew of the tiers or nobody cared.

[Gullintanni]

(by the way, swashbuckler is not a versatile class, which is why it is "not a good class." I like wizards as much as any power-gamer, but I see no reason to belittle players who love to play classes that they deem fun like swashbuckler and fighter. I don't think its smart to play those classes, but I'm not going to rant at them about it.)

Eh...Swashbuckler needs 1 feat and three levels of Rogue to make it viable. It's not much on its own, but it fits extremely well into a few places.

[NeoSeraphi]

Eh...Swashbuckler needs 1 feat and three levels of Rogue to make it viable. It's not much on its own, but it fits extremely well into a few places.

Since when does having Sneak Attack make something viable? Speaking as a homebrewer who fixes classes all the time, I will tell you the number one complaint I get when I make a precision-damage class is how terrible precision damage is because so many creatures are immune to it. Seriously, that's the number one thing that people want fixed for those classes.

Here's a list of all the creatures who won't give a crap about your Daring Outlaw feat:

Undead, constructs, oozes, plants, elementals, swarms, incorporeal, any creature with fortification armor, any character affected by the heart of the elemental spells, plus the number of specific prestige classes that make you immune to critical hits like Green Star Adept, Warshaper, and Elemental Savant.

[Silus]

Eh...Swashbuckler needs 1 feat and three levels of Rogue to make it viable. It's not much on its own, but it fits extremely well into a few places.

I dunno....I'd prefer leveling right into Dervish and being a whirlwind of highly mobile bladed death.

*Reads and rereads the Dervish Dancer archetype for Bard in the Ultimate Combat book*

[Ziegander]

(by the way, swashbuckler is not a versatile class, which is why it is "not a good class." I like wizards as much as any power-gamer, but I see no reason to belittle players who love to play classes that they deem fun like swashbuckler and fighter. I don't think its smart to play those classes, but I'm not going to rant at them about it.)

I don't understand where this attitude that anyone is belittling anyone is coming from. The Tier system isn't designed to belittle players that enjoy playing lower Tier classes. People who use the Tier system do not use it as a way to belittle players that enjoy playing lower Tier classes. People who do belittle players that enjoy playing lower Tier classes are just *******s, but that doesn't change the fact that higher Tier classes can do more things and can do them with more efficiency than lower Tier classes.

Classes toward the middle of the Tiers (3 & 4) can do a respectable number of things with a respectable level of efficiency, and they do this without significant optimization. The further up and down you deviate from the middle the easier it is to "mess up" and make the game less fun, either by doing too many things with too much efficiency (thus trivializing encounters and other party members), or by doing too few things with too little efficiency (thus contributing little to gameplay and forcing other party members to stretch themselves thin and make up the difference).

Roleplaying has a lot to do with how fun the game experience can be and how memorable and exciting a particular character is. However, a character is not to be confused with a class, and a class has nothing to do with roleplaying. You roleplay your charcter. You select your class, a thematic series of mechanical statistics and abilities, in a way that fits your style of play and the type of character you want to roleplay. You can have a lot of fun roleplaying a character that was built using a lower Tier class. The fact that you are (or are not) having fun doesn't make that class any more (or less) versatile or efficient.

[Tvtyrant]

Nahh, you just got one of the good groups that don't know about the teir system. Stick with em, don't tell em about it. Trust me, its alot more fun this way.

You know, some people actually enjoy optimization. From my first character ever (a Cleric that took the magic and travel domains) to my latest (A kusari-gama equipped crusader) the thing that I have enjoyed most as a player has been tweaking around with stats.

[big teej]

I have not actually seen that phrase used about any class apart from the truenamer.

Apart from that i think it is an overstatement to call any class unplayable in general. I get that a sword and board fighter is next to useless in a group which includes another melee char with a charger build, a Divine meta magic cleric, a batman-wizard and a cheesed up factotum.

But most actual groups don't.
Honestly my own personal favorite D&D character was a poorly optimized fighter/rouge, who basically played like a fighter with fewer HD, some extra skills and a few sneak attack dice.

I'm not going to get on my usual soapbox, but I would like to speak in support of the emphasized statement.

in every game I've ever played in. ever.

the most influential and game impacting characters have been martial guys. barbarians, fighters, paladins, the occaisional knight.

[Hashmir]

But yeah, nobody optimized to any serious extent and either nobody knew of the tiers or nobody cared.

And that's the key, right there. From JaronK's tier list (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293):


Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier in terms of tier descriptions, 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.

When no one understands or appreciates the upper bounds of the most powerful classes, then those classes are effectively less powerful. Why do you think WotC released the base game with such tremendous power disparity between the monk and the cleric in the first place? It's (partially) because their playtesters didn't make use of just how game-breaking clerics can be.

And here's the thing - just because you're aware of it doesn't mean you have to make use of it. I'm playing a cleric right now, and I can assure you that in my hands, the cleric is not a T1 class. More like a T3. I'm aware that there are ways to break the game with it, but I don't really know how to take advantage of them anyway.

Think of it like an exotic weapon: Yes, it can do more damage and have crazy effects (see: spiked chain), but if you're not proficient with it, you're not going to accomplish much more than normal.

[Coidzor]

Alternate title: A sleepy newbie gets educated

Ok, here's what I don't get. Why are some classes deemed "unplayable" (Mostly the martial classes)? It sounds like "unplayable" equates to "I can't munchkin like mad".

"I can't become a God at lvl 1? UNPLAYABLE!"
"I don't have maximum utility? UNPLAYABLE!"
"I can't kill everything in the room just by looking angrily at it? UNPLAYABLE!"

Just how it sounds to me anyway.

Where are you reading this?

At a guess, I'd say you were taking commentary about something that can do X and Y instead of something that is limited to choosing between the two woefully out of context. At least if you're solely talking about these boards.

[Snowbluff]

Have you seen those pictures?! With their... perfectly cut portions of vegitables and juicy strips of meat? It's too much pressure for a hungry man to handle! :smallwink:


But yeah, what Helldog said. Assuming all outside forces are equal, yes the tier system seems to hold true. However, that shouldn't stop people from playing what they want. Much like "The Pirates Code"-- They're not so much rules as just guidelines.

Dude, if you have pics in the menu, that's a Tier 5 restaurant. Tier 4 and above restaurants don't have pics in the menu! :smalltongue:

Tiers are valuable! I would never suggest a monk, because I know it'll be next to worthless compared to the Tier 3's I normally GM for! :smallsigh:

And if you can't handle refluffing, I cry for you.

[Ancient Mage]

To respond to an earlier statement by Ziegander...
I am not saying that you have belittled those who are tier 4 or 5. I am not saying that tier 5's are as good as Tier 1's (that would be an outright lie anyway). What I AM saying, is that although the wizard, druid and cleric far outstrip other classes in terms of power, they are not "unplayable," which is the title of this thread if you have forgotten. Some people have come close to belittling tier 4s and 5s on this thread however, with rampant comments on the inability of tier 5s to do anything. This is not true. Just because they can only do one thing does not make them "unplayable," it just makes them less versatile and not as powerful as a tier 1.
And let us not forget that versatility is not the most important thing. The wizard is powerful because he has power in his versatility. The bard, the jack-of-all-trades, is weak in a combat-oriented scenario, cannot match the power of a wizard in spell terms, and cannot come anywhere near a rogue in sneaking terms. The bard is a weak class. But it is not unplayable.

[Helldog]

Some people have come close to belittling tier 4s and 5s on this thread however, with rampant comments on the inability of tier 5s to do anything.
Quotes, please.


The bard, the jack-of-all-trades, is weak in a combat-oriented scenario, cannot match the power of a wizard in spell terms, and cannot come anywhere near a rogue in sneaking terms. The bard is a weak class. But it is not unplayable.
Bard is tier 3. That's hardly "weak".

[Gavinfoxx]

Mr. Gavinfoxx, I would inform you that according to you, he does not need the fighter/rogue, but your alternative was to have mercenaries. This implies that he still needs SOME help...

And that help can viably be 'trained mules' at level 1 - 3 or so, going up to more powerful trained animals at midlevels, or skeletons or zombies, and then to planar bound / summoned help, etc. etc. It doesn't have to be anything that he couldn't possibly buy with his wealth by level at any point (and if he is adventuring without humanoid companions, he might be above wealth by level), and it doesn't have to be sentient, or require any investment of magic items by his part. And the Mercenaries? I was presuming Warrior class. You know. The NPC class. They are only there to hit things with reach weapons or to plink at whatever the wizard had bottled up. It was the Wizard that won the encounter, the other guys were there just to arbitrarily make some attack rolls. And really, the Wizard doesn't even NEED those; he could take a reserve feat and do it himself...

[Knaight]

I dunno. It's like...I love the Swashbuckler class for example. It's fun, it's got some fluff that I like and it's easy to slip into the Dervish prestige, which is one of the two PrC's that I've wanted to try (Alienist being the second for all the Lovecraftian goodness). And before getting introduced to the tier lists, I was fine with Swashbuckler. Hell, ~60% of my characters were Swashbucklers in the hope of playing a Dervish. Then I look at the tier lists, which I am aware are just guidelines at best, and all I see is that I've been playing a sub-par class that most would scoff at. "Play a Warblade" I think would be the most common response.
Putting aside how the Warblade can be used to fill the concept of the swashbuckler easily enough, the tier list still doesn't demand you play the Warblade. It merely informs you of the relative power and versatility of the Warblade and Swashbucker classes, and lets you make a more informed choice. If the group desires a low optimization level, going with Swashbucker might even make things easier (though deliberately trying to cripple a Warblade so as to be mechanically horrible could be more fun, depending on your attitudes surrounding character building).

The while tier thing has shaken my view of the 3.5 classes. Before I saw them as "each class has a job that they can do and do well", but now it's "each class has a job they can do, but some can do the job better than others, so don't worry about X, Y and Z classes". I know that's not really how it is, but I can't stop seeing it like that...
Each class has at least one job they can do, and some classes can do the job(s) better than others. That is how it really is - however, sometimes you want to use the options that don't do the job well. More power is not inherently better, as is evidenced by the numerous people playing games like Savage Worlds or Seven Seas when Amber, Nobilis, and Exalted exist.

Fundamentally the Tier system gives one more information about D&D 3.x, which lets them make more informed choices. I'd classify having more information as almost always a good thing, and would much rather believe in what is true than what is not, even if the truth (in this case that WotC botched their stated goal of balance in a big way) isn't as nice as the presented false version (that D&D is a perfect game in all ways and has no flaws).

[Tyndmyr]

I'm playing one right now, at lvl 9. Even without a masterwork tool and custom magic items, and without Paragnostic Assembly for that matter, I'm still more or less compeditive on the skill checks. If I could take 10 on Truenaming (I can't), I'd have 5/day use of 12 different utterances. That's not that bad. If my utterances were Sorcerer Spells Known, I'd be doing alright.

The problem with Truenamer isn't the DCs. The DCs are a little harsh, but even just dropping them to (10+2*XYZ) instead of (15+2*XYZ) would bring them entirely within reason.

Totally agree. The DCs are...pretty easy to hit provided you read enough of the truenaming section to figure out how they're calculated. 10+2*x would be entirely fair, and the current calc really isn't bad.


The problem is that Truenaming sucks. Almost none extend beyond 60 feet. Almost none last longer than 5 rounds. Almost none affect more than a single target. And every single mechanic seems tilted against them.

While those things are mostly true, each of them is not THAT big a deal. 60 feet is a goodly range. It's true that you have limited options beyond that...meh. This is rarely a great problem in most encounters.

Durations are likewise pretty good...if you can incapacitate someone for five rounds...he's not going to survive to round six. Most fights tend not to make it to six round anyhow. Not a big deal.

The single target problem is the most major downside, and you get a class feature later on that negates the hell out of it. Also, quicken.


Take Casting Defensively, for example. An Arcane caster has to make a static Concentration skill check. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, a DC 15 Concentration check removes the chance of an AOO. Truenamers, instead, get +5 on the DC of their Truespeaking - already a harsh penalty - and get an additional +5 for every other attacker! It's completely out of line with any other subsystem, and becomes even worse when you realize the Truenamer class seems intended to be a sort of pseudo-gish with medium BAB, light armor, and a large number of melee buff utterances.

You can keep your DCs, they're manageable, just as long as there's something worth doing when I can manage to pass the check.

Everything functions off modifiers to the check. This is both good and bad. Bad in that if everything is terrible all at once, the check is pretty high. Good in that optimization is strictly linear and obvious. EVERYTHING points the noob truenamer to "get moar truenaming".

The real problem is that the power selection is poor. There are some great utterances. But only enough for about one truenamer. Any other truenamer looks exactly the same.

[Gnaeus]

My query here is, what kind of campaign do you people play? My wizard was optimized for dungeon crawls, many of which were very dangerous for parties of levels higher than we were.
The D4 hit dice is a draw-back, no matter how you look at it. Even epic magic to protect you from damage can be dispelled. And at low levels, hit points are the only thing between you and Death.

Level 1. Abrupt Jaunt. Orc about to splatter you, you aren't there. Given how swingy low level play is (by which I mean, an orc barbarian who crits will kill a PC barbarian just as dead as a wizard), an abrupt jaunt wizard is harder to kill than probably any other PC. Alternately, there are multiple ways starting at level 1 to have a familiar (maybe traded for a skeleton, or an animal companion) who is tough enough to stand between you and the monster for the one to two rounds needed for you to kill it or escape.

Level 3. False life. At the cost of one of your spells per day, your average HP jumps to within about 3 hp of a fighter with equal con. Except, of course, that Mr. Wizard only really needs 2 stats, Int and Con, while aside from Str and Con fighter probably also needs wisdom (so he doesn't get mind controlled with his horrible will save), dex (for AOOs) and maybe Int (for combat expertise), so there is a good chance that the wizard will put more points or a higher stat into con than the fighter.

Level 3. Craft wondrous item. Given an assurance that he will have any legal item he wants, his fear of hp damage goes down, a lot. He can give himself more hp (+ con item, amulet of tears), or nice miss chances. Add to this the fact that (if he didn't take Abrupt Jaunt, or if he took it and then got a new familiar with a feat) his FAMILIAR can be taking his action to make the wizard invisible, cover him in fog or otherwise drop a barrier to stop the badguy from hitting the wizard, or can use his healing belt to give the wizard a little hp boost.

Level 7. Greater Mirror Image. Unless the bad guy is rocking True Seeing at level 7, when he tries to hit you, he's probably going to miss. This one can actually be done at level 3 as well, if you have an action to burn, but greater mirror image, as an immediate, is pretty likely to be available in almost any combat.

Level 7. Minor Shapeshift. Aside from other useful benefits, the wizard has a neverending pool of temporary hp.

Level 7. Heart of Earth. Another, bigger pool of temp hp. But also, if you blast through my temp hp, I drop the spell to activate an automatic stoneskin on myself. But also, if I have other heart spells up, I am resistant to crits and sneak attacks.

Level 7. Animate Dead. You can't hit me. There is a large skeleton in the way. See also: Craft Construct, Dominate Person/Monster, Planar binding line, Summon X, Wall of X.

Level 12. Contingent (or craft contingent spell) Dimension Door. At higher levels, this becomes contingent teleport. When hurt below a certain threshhold, I am no longer there.

Level 17. That wizard you see isn't here. He is in his fortress on another plane. The guy that kills you is an astral projection, and if you kill it, he projects another one tomorrow.

Is that enough, or would you like some more? HP damage is not a threat to the wizard at a mid-high optimization level.

[Ancient Mage]

hmmm, I've created a firestorm. I'll answer in order.

Helldog: look through the (really long) forum and you'll see a few instances. Remember, I did not say actually belittling, I said that they come close to it. Rampant yelling at the fighter for only being able to do one thing gets tiring after a while, even if it is true. And go play a bard through "Maure Castle" or "Expedition to Castle Greyhawk." You'll figure out that bard is sorta weak on a dungeon crawl.

Gavinfoxx: Ok, if you're just saying that with a bunch of thugs and some zombies, plus other magical back-up, the wizard can go himself, I agree. With a number of meat shields, he can be very effective. But he still needs someone besides himself (the mercs/animals/etc. (the zombies he made so I wont count those))

Gnaeus: Excellent post Mr. Gnaeus. You have listed several viable reasons why a d4 hit dice matters little.

Let us see a first level wizard go through Undermountain on a prolonged dungeon crawl though. I would love to see him win, but he would only last 1-2 encounters before having to flee and re-prepare. I'd rather have companions to help me through. And what fun is playing D&D by yourself?

-Ancient Mage

[Helldog]

Helldog: look through the (really long) forum and you'll see a few instances. Remember, I did not say actually belittling, I said that they come close to it. Rampant yelling at the fighter for only being able to do one thing gets tiring after a while, even if it is true. And go play a bard through "Maure Castle" or "Expedition to Castle Greyhawk." You'll figure out that bard is sorta weak on a dungeon crawl.
I still don't see any quotes.
You seriously gonna say that a Bard is weak because of two modules and a type of adventure that is dependent on the groups preferences? :smallconfused:


Let us see a first level wizard go through Undermountain on a prolonged dungeon crawl though. I would love to see him win, but he would only last 1-2 encounters before having to flee and re-prepare. I'd rather have companions to help me through. And what fun is playing D&D by yourself?
Uh... Despite the "Dungeons" in the systems name, you don't just explore dungeons. Also it's kinda silly to go exploring Undermountain at first level, don't you think?

Please, don't shift goal posts. We are talking about a Bard and a Wizard in general, not in specific situations. Maybe, MAYBE a Bard is less useful in your two modules, but that doesn't make the class weak overall. Likewise, I don't go exploring dangerous places with my 1st level Wizard, so I don't have to worry about his d4 HDs.

[Gavinfoxx]

What is wrong with a solo game? Those work very well for PbP... and the Wizard doesn't need any help from any, you know, PC classes. It can just be 8 GP Trained Mules, to get to the point where he can make his companions himself (undead, summons, binding, constructs, etc.)... And ultimately? An Abrupt Jaunt Focused Specialist Conjurer with good battlefield Control and a Reserve Feat (obtained via flaws) probably doesn't need anyone, even at level one.

[Greenish]

And go play a bard through "Maure Castle" or "Expedition to Castle Greyhawk." You'll figure out that bard is sorta weak on a dungeon crawl.Eh, build it right, you'll rock the crawl.

[Gnaeus]

Let us see a first level wizard go through Undermountain on a prolonged dungeon crawl though. I would love to see him win, but he would only last 1-2 encounters before having to flee and re-prepare. I'd rather have companions to help me through. And what fun is playing D&D by yourself?

-Ancient Mage

Oh, I would rather have companions also. But given my choice, I would replace the fighter and rogue. They are not doing things that a wizard cannot do. At first level, they are doing things that the wizard cannot do without expending limited useful resources. At high level, they aren't likely to even be doing that. Obviously, the value of those other characters is above 0, so a party of Wizard/Rogue/Cleric/Fighter is better than a solo Wizard. But they aren't close to being better than Cleric/Abrupt Jaunt Wizard x3, Cleric/Druid/Wizard/Archivist or other more optimized lineup.

A tier 1 probably can't solo D&D better than a full party including 2 T1s. A tier 1 probably can do anything a tier 4-5 can do, at least as well as the tier 5 can do it, while also retaining the ability to perform other tricks as needed. And if whatever that T5 did isn't useful on a certain day, the T1 can switch to doing something that will be useful instead.

[Big Fau]

And go play a bard through "Maure Castle" or "Expedition to Castle Greyhawk." You'll figure out that bard is sorta weak on a dungeon crawl.

I have done EtCG with a Snowflake Wardance-focused Bard. It was not nearly as bad as you think.


Oh, and Dragonfire Inspiration means you are the single most potent buffer the party has, barring only DMM Cleric with Warweaver levels (somehow).

[Doug Lampert]

@Ancient Mage: I would say that at high optimization levels, the wizard does not need the Fighter/Rogue. He's better off having a few well trained animals, or hiring a few warriors, and not actually giving them a full share of the loot or magic items! And part of the point of the Tier system is, given all but the lowest optimization and lowest level party play, the Wizard/Rogue/Fighter/Cleric party does not work work well if everyone wants to contribute equally to encounters!

The problem with Wizard/Rogue/Fighter/Cleric comes when you compare it to Wizard/Cleric/Druid/Cleric.

And if you play with enough groups and enough people then eventually someone will join your happy littel Wizard/Rogue/Fighter/Cleric table and something like the following will happen:
"I want to play a cleric."
"We've already got a healbot cleric."
"Oh, I've got a neat idea so I'll play one anyway, I'll concentrate on buff spells and melee and let him do the important stuff of in-combat healing."
"Well, it sounds awfully weak, but since we've already got all the rolls covered I guess you'll be a bit of a fifth wheel anyway."

And then a few weeks later everyone has noticed that the new guy is "hogging the spotlight" by solving most of their problems almost single handed. So the wizard picks up a couple of buff/battlefield control spells, and the buff spells make the fighter LOOK relevant, until the original cleric gets in on the act too and the Rogue gets killed and rolls a Druid instead and everyone notices that the fighter is sucking buffs to fight about as well as the cleric who does his own buffs and that with the batman wizard and the druid's AC and two clerics they really don't need a fighter at all.

And at that point you realize that the fighter is nearly completely useless. That if given a full share of treasure he's actually LESS valuable then an empty space over the mid to long run. And there are bitter recriminations and yells of "munkin" and all kinds of other problems.

Fighter works fine in Fighter/Monk/Healer/Rogue.
Druid works fine in Cleric/Druid/Cleric/Wizard.

But the two groups only mix well when no one looks at it very hard. That's what the tier system tells you, and its a good thing to know. And it's good to know before the guy who innocently wants to play a second cleric ruins your game.

Note that this doesn't mean you can't play the first group, but you should know that you are playing it so when someone comes in with a Druid, you can say "No thanks, we're playing less powerful characters than that".

[Tyndmyr]

Gnaeus, my favorite thing is a wand of Wings of Cover. It eats immediate actions, but you can basically just say "no" over and over against to basically anything that seriously threatens you. As a level 2 spell, it's not terribly expensive either.

You could also learn the spell, I suppose, but I find a wand is terribly handy.

Note also that a group of Fighter/Fighter/Fighter/Fighter tends to suck pretty hard when faced with anything outside of a narrow comfort zone. A group of Wizard/Wizard/Wizard/Wizard results in inter-dimensional high fives while destroying the world.

[Ancient Mage]

I started out by saying that the other classes are not unplayable. The definition of unplayable is that you cannot play them for one reason or another. In game terms this would mean someone who is good at nothing, has no redeeming values, and is worthless (a commoner, for example.).
I became forced to defend Tier 4 & 5 classes because of a misunderstanding of the definition of unplayable by a few people. So let me reiterate my statements:

WIZARDS ARE SUPERIOR, I never said they weren't! But just because a certain class is superior, that does not mean that another class should never be played.
The whole point of D&D is to have fun. Whatever suits you best (solo or party group/wizard or swashbuckler/bard or no bard) is fine, as long as you are enjoying yourself. Remember, D&D is a game.

-Ancient Mage

[Tvtyrant]

Gnaeus, my favorite thing is a wand of Wings of Cover. It eats immediate actions, but you can basically just say "no" over and over against to basically anything that seriously threatens you. As a level 2 spell, it's not terribly expensive either.

You could also learn the spell, I suppose, but I find a wand is terribly handy.

How are you getting the wand to activate as a swift action? The rules only allow the activation to be longer, as far as I know.

[Helldog]

I started out by saying that the other classes are not unplayable. The definition of unplayable is that you cannot play them for one reason or another. In game terms this would mean someone who is good at nothing, has no redeeming values, and is worthless (a commoner, for example.).
I became forced to defend Tier 4 & 5 classes because of a misunderstanding of the definition of unplayable by a few people. So let me reiterate my statements:

WIZARDS ARE SUPERIOR, I never said they weren't! But just because a certain class is superior, that does not mean that another class should never be played.
The whole point of D&D is to have fun. Whatever suits you best (solo or party group/wizard or swashbuckler/bard or no bard) is fine, as long as you are enjoying yourself. Remember, D&D is a game.

-Ancient Mage
Who said you shouldn't play lower tier classes? :smallconfused:

[Tyndmyr]

How are you getting the wand to activate as a swift action? The rules only allow the activation to be longer, as far as I know.

Per Rules Compendium, a wand takes the same action to activate as the spell it casts.

[PersonMan]

Who said you shouldn't play lower tier classes? :smallconfused:

DoctorGlock was one of the main ones, IIRC, who said that in his mind classes of a certain tier or below are 'unplayable' for him.

He (that is, Ancient Mage) said in his last post that he is defending tiers 4 & Co due to a misunderstanding about what 'unplayable' meant.

I'm not seeing any 'you shouldn't play lower tier classes' anywhere, or any reason to think that someone did. Maybe you misunderstood him? Or perhaps you mean his reference to "misunderstanding of the definition of unplayable by a few people"?

I think it's just a solidifying statement to get his point across, not a reply to a specific person or post.

[Socratov]

ehm... I think the rest of the thread will exactly follow like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106111)

personally... I just use what I like... I don't really care about the tier system.

What I do care about however is making my character akin to the optimization level of the rest of the group, but I unfortunately play with severe munchkins. So even when I cant do enough in combat, I just go silly-mode, or even worse, go trope-mode...

[Ancient Mage]

{{scrubbed}}

[DoctorGlock]

DoctorGlock was one of the main ones, IIRC, who said that in his mind classes of a certain tier or below are 'unplayable' for him.

He (that is, Ancient Mage) said in his last post that he is defending tiers 4 & Co due to a misunderstanding about what 'unplayable' meant.

I'm not seeing any 'you shouldn't play lower tier classes' anywhere, or any reason to think that someone did. Maybe you misunderstood him? Or perhaps you mean his reference to "misunderstanding of the definition of unplayable by a few people"?

I think it's just a solidifying statement to get his point across, not a reply to a specific person or post.

No, my statement was independent of tiers. I argued that classes that cannot perform as advertised, cannot survive against an equivalent foe, and cannot meaningfully contribute are unplayable.

[Binks]

but Doc Roc's comment is unwarranted and belittling toward fighters.
Belittling? Yes, it is belittling to compare Fighters to the Druid's AC. What's wrong with that? It's also belittling to compare a true namer to a wizard at decent levels, or a Samurai to a Warblade, or any other combination where one classes features/potential/versatility is greater than the other.

The Tiers are not 'you should never play these classes, play these instead' rules, they're guidelines intended to help everyone have fun. If you've never had any problem with overall group power level then why are you even looking at them? If, on the other hand, you struggle with keeping everyone around the same PL then the tier system is a fantastic means of making sure everyone has a role to play.

If you're having fun playing a Fighter in your game then why should you care that it's not as powerful or versatile as a Warblade? It's obviously powerful and versatile enough for your game, so have fun. On the other hand, if you find your Fighter is being regularly out-shined by the other party members it might be worth considering going up a notch or 2 on the tiers (keeping the same basic theme) to bring yourself more in line with the party.

I've played a Knight, and I've played a Crusader (tier 5/3). Both had the same basic theme, relatively similar optimization (I actually played the Crusader first, so if anything the Knight was more optimized), and both were fun to play. I would not have enjoyed playing the Knight in the game with the Crusader, however, as I would have been under-performing and finding it difficult to tank properly and I would not have enjoyed playing the Crusader in the Knight game either, however, as I would have probably out-shined most of the other players.

tl;dr
The tier system is a useful tool for people who enjoy optimization to ensure that they won't be too far above/below the rest of the party. It is not a rule you have to follow. Play what you enjoy, refer to the tiers if you find you're not enjoying it as much as you should be because of PL differences with the rest of the party.

[Helldog]

Helldog, here is a few things to look at

"Fighters are strictly inferior to druid pets"-Doc Roc, post #2-this thread

"A Fighter is unplayable"-Gullintanni, post #7-this thread

"and in core only he(the Fighter) will never have the means to make a single attack matter"-DoctorGlock, post #12-this thread

"If it can't do magic, it can't do anything"-Draconi Redfir, post #13-this thread

There are a few other examples to look at if you want to delve deeper into the 159+ post thread. Some of these are partially accurate, but Doc Roc's comment is unwarranted and belittling toward fighters.
As I said previously, I am fully in support of clerics, druids and wizards. I think they are the most powerful, and I am always a wizard myself. However, I will support the fact that other classes are not unplayable just because they are not gods.

-Ancient Mage
Not only are some of those quotes out of context, but also I still don't see anyone saying "Don't play lower tier classes". Saying that they are weak doesn't equal saying that you should not play them.

[Ancient Mage]

I have never said that anyone stated that no one should play lower tiers. What I did say was that people are belittling the lower tiers.
I agree that the tiers are there for a reason, the druid/wizard/cleric are significantly more powerful than the fighter/rogue/monk, etc.
My point here is that D&D is played for fun, and debating the playability of classes is pointless. Several of the comments below, particularly the one about fighters being inferior to a druid's animal companion are rather belittling toward the fighter class. Saying things like that or saying that the fighter will never contribute meaningfully to a battle is belittling. Period.
Fighters cannot stand up to wizards. True. Wizards become like unto gods. True. We should belittle and insult fighters by comparing them to animals and saying that they can never contribute to a fight. False.

-Ancient Mage

[Gnaeus]

My point here is that D&D is played for fun, and debating the playability of classes is pointless. Several of the comments below, particularly the one about fighters being inferior to a druid's animal companion are rather belittling toward the fighter class. Saying things like that or saying that the fighter will never contribute meaningfully to a battle is belittling. Period.
Fighters cannot stand up to wizards. True. Wizards become like unto gods. True. We should belittle and insult fighters by comparing them to animals and saying that they can never contribute to a fight. False.

-Ancient Mage

I disagree that it is mean to the fighter to say that he is inferior to the AC.

Lots of people have had play experiences where the fighter IS inferior to the AC, especially at the lowest optimization levels. I have been in games like that. I would MUCH rather tell the fighter player, "Hey dude, you are weaker than the druid's pet, are you ok with that?" than wait until he figures it out on his own and gets angry about how Smokey the bear is better than him while the druid sits back and laughs. The fighter in a group with a druid NEEDS to know that information, so that he can either optimize his character or prepare his role-play appropriately.

[Coidzor]

Some of these are partially accurate, but Doc Roc's comment is unwarranted and belittling toward fighters.

How can one belittle that which does not exist as an actual entity? How is that statement in any way meaningful even if one could do so? :smallconfused:

And if someone is so emotionally invested in the concept of the fighter class that they can't take any statement about the shortcomings of the fighter class, the fault lies with them.

So long as the language used falls within the acceptable limits of the board, which I imagine the language in this thread has for the most part.


We should belittle and insult fighters by comparing them to animals and saying that they can never contribute to a fight. False.

How can a character with nothing but fighter levels be insulted by being compared to an animal when they're evaluated in exactly the same ways based upon their statblocks and role in combat, which are cut from the same cloth? :smallconfused:

Seriously, I just don't see where you're coming from with this.

[DoctorGlock]

We should belittle and insult fighters by comparing them to animals and saying that they can never contribute to a fight. False.

If a class cannot keep up with the expected challenges, yes, we should point that out. I fail to see how this is belittling, and pointing out shortcomings should not be taboo.

[Helldog]

I have never said that anyone stated that no one should play lower tiers. What I did say was that people are belittling the lower tiers.
I asked: "Who said you shouldn't play lower tier classes?"
You answered with a bunch of out-of-context quotes that DON'T say that you shouldn't play lower tiers.


My point here is that D&D is played for fun, and debating the playability of classes is pointless.
No, it's not, because I won't have fun when my Monk, that I invested much time and work into, becomes useless in the presence of a moderately optimized Wizard or Cleric.

Several of the comments below, particularly the one about fighters being inferior to a druid's animal companion are rather belittling toward the fighter class. Saying things like that or saying that the fighter will never contribute meaningfully to a battle is belittling. Period.
Fighters cannot stand up to wizards. True. Wizards become like unto gods. True. We should belittle and insult fighters by comparing them to animals and saying that they can never contribute to a fight. False.

-Ancient Mage
Dude... I don't like it either. It pisses me off every time I see such jokes. But I'm not making such a deal out of it like you do, because I know it's completely true and posting "Stop being so mean guys :smallfrown:" IS pointless because it's not contributing to the discussion and it's against this sites rules to tell people what to post. :smallannoyed:

[T.G. Oskar]

Before this spirals out of control (and heck, it probably IS out of control), I'd like to address this...


Not only are some of those quotes out of context, but also I still don't see anyone saying "Don't play lower tier classes". Saying that they are weak doesn't equal saying that you should not play them.

I watched the thread as carefully as I could, and the only moment I saw something like this referred to "why play X class from Tier 5 if you can play it's better equivalent which is a Tier 3?", in its "ToB vs. core Martial" variant. This could be interpreted in many ways, but one of them definitely is "why play a weaker class when you can play a stronger one?", which is pretty darn close.

For starters, I recognize the worth of the Tier system, but I don't let my choices be defined by the Tier system. I recognize that the Fighter, aside from Zhentarim or Dungeon Crasher, can't really replace what a Warblade can pull off, if only because the latter resembles very closely the "Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards" problem (you get not only a fair amount of feats, but also proper class abilities, more HP, more skills, more skill points and maneuvers to boot), but I find that mentioning "play unarmed Swordsage instead" is a fair, but kinda insulting response to "I wanna play a Monk", particularly since there's also Tashalatora and Psionic Fist/of Zuoken, plus the idea that Psionics + Monk = cool beans. And, of all things, I'm vehemently against the answer "play a Crusader instead" when someone wants to play a Paladin, because while the Crusader is definitely better in combat, the Paladin offers things that the Crusader can't. A Paladin is hopelessly outmatched if the Crusader dips into Cleric and then goes RKV(V), but that's using a Tier 1 class which could beat the Pally in its own game and then tacking a Tier 3 with a class that boosts both to Tier 0.5 (because of Nightsticks + free swift actions plus near-full spellcasting).

All of this is opinion, of course, but it serves to make an important distinction: some things are fact, others are opinion. The Tier system isn't fact, but rather a guideline: an educated opinion which has just enough evidence to resemble a fact, but because of the nature of the system, it is very subjective. I mention this because there is anomalous data that may lead someone's opinion to the contrary (such as a Fighter that's well optimized vs. a Wizard that's mostly a blaster), even if the Tier system explicitly mentions the guideline of "equal degree of optimization". Being a guideline, it has its utility when discrepancies in power or utility emerge, but it isn't a directive to "play this class because X"; if the individual wants to play X class and has a good build to support it (and knows how to play it), the individual should play it because its his/her decision.

Most people looking for advice on this forum usually get two responses: either "play X class because it's better" or "here's a good build to support it". Every single thread I've seen has both answers, and both are equally valid, but opinion will usually make people think that one answer will seem a bit more arrogant than the other because it doesn't "respect the intentions of the poster" or worse, "powergaming at its best". That's...not entirely true, and most people will deliver the first answer because they find its the easiest way to solve the problem. I, for the other part, tend to work with the second answer just to give the other opinion, much like most other posters in here. So as long as that happens, neither answer is invalid. However, one thing I would ask is that people who say "play a Warblade/unarmed Swordsage/Crusader instead of Fighter/Monk/Paladin" gave a few more substance, since that helps the OP of any "help" thread.

There's also occasions where playing as a lower tier class could easily help. One idea is when someone wants to play a build focused on mounted combat; in that particular case, is a Crusader (which has exactly the same support for mounted combat as, say, just about every other class?) a better choice than a Paladin (who has a better mount, spells tailored for the mount, and just about enough feat choices to make mounted combat viable through all 20 levels)? In that particular situation, there is only one correct answer, though you may attempt to deliver a viable, alternate answer. Going off the tangent in this case isn't viable ("so what if you can't use your mount" is nto viable since the OP of that thread is asking for advice on a mounted combat build, not a build viable for many things), so one of the answers will sound pretty off. Luckily, that's only the rarest of the cases, and most often people here respond after serious filtering.

Having said that, "unplayable" classes depend mostly on the DM and the playstyle of the other people. Do remember that LogicNinja's "God" Wizard isn't just someone who ends battles in one turn with a single spell, but rather one that optimizes the party's function (through buffing, plus crowd control in order to reduce as much damage as possible from the enemy side). The Wizard could easily Gate a solar and end the battle in one turn, making the Fighter (and even the Cleric!) feel unneeded, but before that there were 16 levels where the Wizard relied on other spells to work. The Wizard still has to travel on foot (or at least a long distance) for its first 8 levels, and it requires a great deal of actual intellect to pull off the many tricks you can pull with, say, Charm Person or Silent Image (to say the very least). Once the Wizard pulls those spells off, then the other classes will feel as needless, but by no means "unplayable". If the buff spells start to become a "drain" on the resources, then why there are buff spells in the first place? A better answer would be "using X buff on Y character is most effective", because it addresses functionality; however, the game was designed with buffing in mind, and that's why there are so many buff spells around. Likewise, Glitterdust isn't an instant death spell; it's a spell that blinds opponents, but you still need someone to finish the job off. When people mention Glitterdust, they recognize its worth in essentially finishing the battle by reducing the inherent difficulty of the match (because, by being blinded, the enemy can't detect where the PCs are, so the danger is reduced, and loses various defenses that make PCs hit easier; hence, minimizing danger and maximizing offense, which leads to an easier battle), so it's resumed on "Glitterdust can finish a battle before it even begins". Only much later this axiom is true, but note that this happens "much later". At least before Hold Monster comes online, or maybe Dominate Monster.

I will concur that Truenamer is downright unplayable, because the mechanics themselves stack against them. The more powerful the creature, the more difficult it is to deal with it using your main ability, and even if you succeed, the mechanics stack it against you. However, the CW Samurai isn't unplayable (if Takahashi no Onisan proves this), the dips in Fighter, Monk and Paladin prove that there is still some worth to the class existing (and in the case of the Paladin, it's borderline viable to play it all 20 levels if you really know what you're doing), and some other classes aren't as "unplayable" as you think. Again, it's a subjective matter, and that's...mostly what everyone is mentioning, if I read correctly. Much like nothing is entirely "useless", no class (aside from Truenamer because of its mechanics) is really "unplayable", because there are situations in which they can still work. What these classes are, and what the Tier system provides an explanation of, lies on the side of their viability in play; in other words, they aren't viable in every table. I think that's something everyone can agree: they can still be played, hence they aren't "unplayable", but they might not work as effectively under other circumstances as classes of a higher Tier. There is no restriction to class selection (unless the DM enforces it, and last I know, none of the people here are this thread's OP's DM), but how much fun you can draw from that experience is subject to what the class can do, and thus their utility correlates to their "fun". And even THAT is subjective.

So I guess this can be resumed in: the Tier system is a guideline, so make good use of it (in other words, it's not THE LAW!!!, but rather something to enhance your fun), and that's probably the closest thing you can consider here as a fact.

P.S.: I dunno what's the rush over Doc Roc. He's probably the nicest optimizer I've spoken with, so it's a bit baffling that people treat him like an ogre. That doesn't mean he's always right.

[Ancient Mage]

Thank you for that wonderful explanation of tiers as a guideline, classes as a choice, and optimization as a part of gaming, not the end all to be all.

-Ancient Mage

Silus: I believe that your answer lies in Mr. Oskar's dissertation. Tiers are a guideline, and while certain classes are better than others, the best class for you is the one that you like the most.

[Socratov]

Helldog, here is a few things to look at

"Fighters are strictly inferior to druid pets"-Doc Roc, post #2-this thread

"A Fighter is unplayable"-Gullintanni, post #7-this thread

"and in core only he(the Fighter) will never have the means to make a single attack matter"-DoctorGlock, post #12-this thread

"If it can't do magic, it can't do anything"-Draconi Redfir, post #13-this thread

There are a few other examples to look at if you want to delve deeper into the 159+ post thread. Some of these are partially accurate, but Doc Roc's comment is unwarranted and belittling toward fighters.
As I said previously, I am fully in support of clerics, druids and wizards. I think they are the most powerful, and I am always a wizard myself. However, I will support the fact that other classes are not unplayable just because they are not gods.

-Ancient Mage

you know, along the same lines, there is this biblequote (can't remeber where it was or the exact quote) which went something liek this "God does not exist..." What people tend to omit however, is the rest of the quote: "...the devil said"

tl;dr - if you quote, do it right and complete...

[Silus]

Thank you for that wonderful explanation of tiers as a guideline, classes as a choice, and optimization as a part of gaming, not the end all to be all.

-Ancient Mage

Silus: I believe that your answer lies in Mr. Oskar's dissertation. Tiers are a guideline, and while certain classes are better than others, the best class for you is the one that you like the most.

*Hands a slice of fudge to Mage and one to Oskar*

I just realized (after reading your post) that it's like picking a Champion for League of Legends, which makes things a bit clearer for me =P

Also helps I think that I got some food in me, a nice nap on the couch and a hot shower >.>

[ericgrau]

I'd call unplayable as sitting at the gaming table doing almost nothing, bored at all your attacks failing and/or being quickly eliminated from the battle. Dominating everything without effort is the same. In any of these cases you essentially aren't playing.

This all depends on the strength of the monsters which depends on your fellow party members, therefore "unplayable" varies from group to group. But generally things are supposed to work 75% of the time so if your'e within 4 on some stat (fail half the time to near auto success) you can still play ok, so there's room for error. And I think likewise +4/-4 on everything, being 4 levels ahead or behind, is considered overwhelming/almost-hopeless on the encounter guidelines. Outside of that range the DM needs to step in and fix things, and really within +2/-2 is preferable.

Thus a shock trooper that doesn't need to worry about a -2 or -4 to his attack rolls vs. someone else with only power attack is unplayable in a group without similar characters, and totally fine in one that has similar PCs. A caster that tweaks out his save DCs up to high heaven in a group with a new player that has a low caster stat or who selects poor spells makes the situation unplayable; the DM cannot make encounters appropriate for both of them. Etc. A round of time is worth about the same, so a new player who wastes a single turn on a poor choice might get frustrated, whereas a ~+4 buff to a major stat that eats a turn is break even (compared to other actions; I'm not saying it's worthless, just par) and won't hurt things. Though a +8 or +10 could break things, again if it targets someone's primary attack form, again assuming the rest of the party doesn't get the same. Etc., etc.

I don't think there are any particular PC classes that are unplayable, but different classes might have different tricks available so depending on how many tricks are allowed a gap may arise which might grow too big.

[Doc Roc]

Helldog, here is a few things to look at

"Fighters are strictly inferior to druid pets"-Doc Roc, post #2-this thread


-Ancient Mage

Inferior is not unplayable. Do not dare put words in my mouth.

[big teej]

Inferior is not unplayable. Do not dare put words in my mouth.

maybe I'm missing something. but from what I saw, he didn't.

he credited each quoted line to a different person, yours was only the first.

it wasn't until the 3rd or 4th line that the assertation "such and such is unplayable" was mentioned.

[Zaq]

Dammit, folks. The Truenamer isn't unplayable. Trust me on this one. I should know.

It's frustrating, it's rarely worthwhile, and it's a rules headache at every turn, but it's not unplayable.

People really need to stop saying that it is.

[Coidzor]

Dammit, folks. The Truenamer isn't unplayable. Trust me on this one. I should know.

It's frustrating, it's rarely worthwhile, and it's a rules headache at every turn, but it's not unplayable.

People really need to stop saying that it is.

I dunno, that the class is all of those other things and makes people lose the ability to taste ice cream sounds like ample reason to discourage people from using it without using a rewrite or doing one themselves.

[Steward]

Dammit, folks. The Truenamer isn't unplayable. Trust me on this one. I should know.

It's frustrating, it's rarely worthwhile, and it's a rules headache at every turn, but it's not unplayable.

People really need to stop saying that it is.

I like to think of the Truenamer as badly written. Even if you set aside the controversial mechanics (the Truenaming skill check, the Laws of Resistance and Sequence, the quality of some of the utterances), the Truenamer class is just plain badly-written. There are whole sections of it that simply weren't finished, missing key details that were needed to play them. Prestige class features that directly contradict each other from one paragraph to the next. And -- this is my favorite -- a feat that makes the class even more difficult to use, without any compensatory advantage attached.

None of that has to do with Truenaming as a mechanic or the class itself -- that's pretty much all sloppy copy-editing. It felt as if they stapled a partially-edited rough draft of the class and decided to ship it out anyway. They fixed most (not all, but most) of the problems in the errata but frankly that's still pretty embarrassing for a professional game developer.

I agree though, Truenamers are playable, but not because the people who made it put a lot of effort into it.

[Zaq]

I like to think of the Truenamer as badly written. Even if you set aside the controversial mechanics (the Truenaming skill check, the Laws of Resistance and Sequence, the quality of some of the utterances), the Truenamer class is just plain badly-written. There are whole sections of it that simply weren't finished, missing key details that were needed to play them. Prestige class features that directly contradict each other from one paragraph to the next. And -- this is my favorite -- a feat that makes the class even more difficult to use, without any compensatory advantage attached.

None of that has to do with Truenaming as a mechanic or the class itself -- that's pretty much all sloppy copy-editing. It felt as if they stapled a partially-edited rough draft of the class and decided to ship it out anyway. They fixed most (not all, but most) of the problems in the errata but frankly that's still pretty embarrassing for a professional game developer.

I agree though, Truenamers are playable, but not because the people who made it put a lot of effort into it.

A-yup. I disagree about the errata helping, though . . . all it really did was make the LPM utterances usable, which they literally weren't before. Compare this to the Binder section, where they went so far as to errata the friggin' flavor text (not joking, look it up). It's obvious which class was the favorite child there.

But yeah, if the Truenamer had spent another month or two in development, I firmly believe that it'd be a vastly different class, and far superior to what we've got now. The whole thing has a rushed air to it, like it slammed into a deadline it just couldn't meet and had to go to print too early. You can see glimmers of someone realizing that things aren't right (most telling to me are the huge racial bonuses to Truespeak that the monsters get, since they couldn't effectively use their signature abilities in combat without them . . . but it's easier to slap a +10 bonus on a CR 4 monster than it is to rewrite the skill DC system to actually make sense), but there clearly just wasn't time to make it what it should be.

Again, though, not unplayable. Just really annoying to play.

[Leon]

@ Leon
No.

No what?



Anything can be optimized, even commoners.

Did not say that anything could not be - just that some classes are harder to make optimized and thus the classes that are hard to do things with are less favored than the ones that can break the game by sitting doing little.

[sonofzeal]

Did not say that anything could not be - just that some classes are harder to make optimized and thus the classes that are hard to do things with are less favored than the ones that can break the game by sitting doing little.
Consider the fact that T3 tends to be the most highly praised, not T1. I think that's telling.

[TurtleKing]

Ok I am one of the ones Silus played with in that group. I am also the one who played the Deathless Fleshgrafter.

As such for my character I played a GOD Wizard in particular the debuffing kind. Also if he thinks back with just one spell I could have ended that last fight so he noticed I waited using my not undead minions to fight with until the last moment. I gave the others a chance to be awesome and have fun before stepping in. Yes I also knew about the tiers and optimisation. I just optimised according to the character concept.

As for why play X class when another is better? Because I like that class. Such as some of my favorite builds is either Raptoran Fighter or Marshal/Stormtalon/finish up with either Fighter or Marshal. For a Bleach d20 gestalt I made a Fullbringer//Monk going for Fullbringer 20//Monk 5/Stormtalon 10/Monk 5 named Dhospar Filasik who could say Falcon Punch in elven just by saying his first name.

So in closing play a class you like optimising according to the character concept instead of just how much dps/versatility/power you can get.

[LordBlades]

WIZARDS ARE SUPERIOR, I never said they weren't! But just because a certain class is superior, that does not mean that another class should never be played.
The whole point of D&D is to have fun. Whatever suits you best (solo or party group/wizard or swashbuckler/bard or no bard) is fine, as long as you are enjoying yourself. Remember, D&D is a game.

-Ancient Mage

It does mean that some classes should not be played in certain conditions.

For example, let's say you have a sword&board fighter, non-twf rogue, healbot cleric and blaster wizard. They're slowly killing stuff via HP damage in 4-5 rounds while the cleric keeps them alive. They're probably fighting stuff way below level appropriate, but it's all right because it's challenging for them. Now let's say a 5th player wants to join with a full fledged CoDzilla: enough DPS to 1-2 shot most enemies, or he can just lock them down with a spell and end the encounters alone. Do you really think such a character belongs with the rest of the group?

Alternatively, consider a party of tier 1's, the kind of guys that can do anything, and only need each other for action economy reasons. What room is there in such a group for a guy whose main shtick is 'I walk up to the enemy and hit it with a stick for some damage?'

[MukkTB]

A class is unplayable if it is certain given your DM's style, that you will die playing it. A party wipe would be the cherry on the top. So... Given my selection of DMs, a commoner is unplayable for me. Probably. Everything is else playable although many things would be frustrating.

I prefer tier 3. I like to be a spellcaster but I don't want to be a demigod. I'd also feel stupid not using the wizard to his full potential. A side effect of reading this board is a small voice in my head that always says "An optimizer would be playing better." And I like to Gish but I don't care about full spellcasting so much as having some magical ability.

In addition my group plays a random selection of tiers because they don't really understand the concept with minimal optimization. Some time I might play a highly optimized T1 just to screw with them, but for now I'm happy enough not trying to totally obsolete them.

[horseboy]

system and optimization and how some classes are just deemed "crappy" in relation to other classes (Fighter vs Druid pet seems to be popular).
Oh, Oh, Oh, I made one of those comments! Yeah, the Hulkamania infected Steve Irwin with the python vs the "thought I knew how to optimize" Monkey grip Fighter. Here's how our day went:

Encounter 1 Fighter fails fort save vs Basilisk. Really? Have to club it to death.
Encounter 2 Tentacle monster in a well. Bendi tried to warn us, but wasn't a collie so no one took her seriously. Critter hit us with a confusion spell so nasty it took out me and the cleric. There was no way fighter could fit on the RNG.
Encounter 3 Fighter at point, because he's the fighter and he's "supposed" to be on the front line. Wis is a dump stat and spot and search are cross class. Didn't see the fleshraker hiding in the bushes. At least it shouted "surprise" so it wasn't rape. Between the surprise pounce and winning init, fighter went down with his bat on his shoulder.
Encounter 4 Some sort of monkey thing running around at the ceiling of a cave. Snake Grapples it, combat over. Offer to let fighter play AC so he could do something.
Encounter 5: The fighter's shinning moment. He cuts open a wall. Yes, his single greatest accomplishment all day was hitting an inanimate object.
Encounter 6: Flying bat monster. Fighter was useless.
Encounter 7: Orc Pirates. He managed to kill a guy. Snake took down enemy cleric and me and my summoned vipers took down boss.

[Gullintanni]

Helldog, here is a few things to look at

"A Fighter is unplayable"-Gullintanni, post #7-this thread

-Ancient Mage

I would like to point out here, that I really don't like being taken out of context.

The full text of my post read something to the effect of, "If you can't handle being second banana to an animal companion, then an unoptimized fighter is unplayable".

That's a pretty specific set of conditions. If you're going to quote me, then quote me in a way that reflects the intentions of my post please. Otherwise, please kindly leave my words out of your discussion.

[Ancient Mage]

I'm glad to see that this thread has morphed back into a more calm discussion than before. The going question now appears to be: What place does a Tier 1 have in a group of Tier 4-5s? I'll answer this by going through what the CREATORS of D&D named the "standard party."

Fighter: Fighters are simple and easy because many players don't want to spend a lot of time researching books and working hard to optimize. Also, in reality, a warrior is not going to have a thousand different powers and options. At low levels he is a fairly tough warrior, and if a player spends a bit of time on him, he can hit up to 200 points of damage at high levels. Not very powerful, but a dependable character, particularly at low levels, where the Tier 1's run out of power quickly.

Rogue: Rogues got hurt in 3.5. They were more powerful back in AD&D, so it is a bit hard to defend them. But again, the melee/skill classes shine at the low levels, keeping the demigods alive until they can become full gods. A wizard can't have every contingency planned for at 5th level, but a rogue always has lockpicks, dozens of skills, tricks and so forth. The sneak attack damage is respectable, but in terms of raw power, the rogue can fall behind in melee if not built right.

Cleric: The fighter specializes in the dungeon crawl or in a similar place where there are a low number of enemies, and combat is often. In this case, the cleric becomes a healbot for the warriors more often than not. The cleric was even called "The Most powerful character" by the creators of D&D, because "It would attract people to playing the healer role." The cleric benefits from having allies, but out of all classes, does not strictly need them. But if a 3rd level cleric runs into a locked iron door, an arcane puzzle, etc., he's going to be stumped. Companions are good.

Wizard: Wizards are the most representative of Tier 1. They can do anything. Some of you have kindly pointed out that they need no companions as a wizard. The problem is, not everyone is like us, and optimizes like crazy. Most first level wizards will pick mage armor, magic missile, acid splash(3) and not look in PH2 for the abrupt jaunt. If not played right, a low-level wizard is nothing more than a squishy man in a funny hat, who can cast a spell 1-2 a day that will hurt someone. It is not until high levels that even a non-optimizer will become powerful. The fighter, rogue and cleric will help the wizard survive to that point.

In brief, Tier 1-5 can adventure together, unbalanced, as long as everyone is having fun. If someone outshines the others, maybe that's just his contribution to the whole, and it benefits everybody. And if at 20th level, the wizard is winning everything while the fighter trudges along, remember, the low-level wizard used to rely on the fighter to be his shield a long time ago. The wizard won't forget that. In 3.5, there are different power levels, play which one is fun. If you want everyone to be equal, go play 4 rules.

-Ancient Mage

[LordBlades]

Cleric: The fighter specializes in the dungeon crawl or in a similar place where there are a low number of enemies, and combat is often. In this case, the cleric becomes a healbot for the warriors more often than not. The cleric was even called "The Most powerful character" by the creators of D&D, because "It would attract people to playing the healer role." The cleric benefits from having allies, but out of all classes, does not strictly need them. But if a 3rd level cleric runs into a locked iron door, an arcane puzzle, etc., he's going to be stumped. Companions are good.

Why would a cleric play healbot for a warrior? Apart from the fact that book tells you that you should, and the MMO mentality which dictates that if your class can heal others it should heal others. Cleric can do frontline just as well as a fighter (if not better due to 2 good saves): they've got same armor proficiencies(and some AC buffs for the times it really matters), only 1 HP/level less(but they can solve that if they want since Aid is a 2nd level spell), and 1 less BAB every 4 levels(but they get Divine Favor). Tbh, the moment I saw the cleric picture in the 3.5 PHB (was the first class I've ever played) I've pictured a guy who leads the charge, smashing skulls with the mace in the name of his god, not a guy who stands in the back and heals others.

Druid is even 'worse' in that respect: unless you're picking a fluff only animal companion or actively refrain from using it, it's going to fight ('cause that's all it can do) and odds are even without crazy optimization (wolf or riding dog are core choices) it's going to give the fighter a run for his money in the frontliner role. And then you've got spells (Entanlge can solve encounters on it's own at level 1) and later on Wildshape.


Wizard: Wizards are the most representative of Tier 1. They can do anything. Some of you have kindly pointed out that they need no companions as a wizard. The problem is, not everyone is like us, and optimizes like crazy. Most first level wizards will pick mage armor, magic missile, acid splash(3) and not look in PH2 for the abrupt jaunt. If not played right, a low-level wizard is nothing more than a squishy man in a funny hat, who can cast a spell 1-2 a day that will hurt someone. It is not until high levels that even a non-optimizer will become powerful. The fighter, rogue and cleric will help the wizard survive to that point.

We were talking about tier 1 classes played as tier 1. If you play a wizard like a tier 3 (that's how what you're describing sounds) then yeah, you won't have that much trouble fitting in a lower tier party. But what about if the wizard gets abrupt jaunt, and loads up on color sprays and sleeps, and is also a focused specialist or elven generalist so he's got enough spell slots to outlast the frontliner's HP? How well does he fit with the aforementioned fighter and rogue?



In brief, Tier 1-5 can adventure together, unbalanced, as long as everyone is having fun. If someone outshines the others, maybe that's just his contribution to the whole, and it benefits everybody.

Agree to that. Some groups just don't mind that.Long before I knew about serious charop and tier lists, I played a druid in a group with a TWF ranger, sword&board paladin and a +2 LA no early entry sorcerer/favored soul/mystic theurge. And nobody really cared I was stronger than all of them together.


And if at 20th level, the wizard is winning everything while the fighter trudges along, remember, the low-level wizard used to rely on the fighter to be his shield a long time ago. The wizard won't forget that. In 3.5, there are different power levels, play which one is fun. If you want everyone to be equal, go play 4 rules.

-Ancient Mage

This would in theory work (assuming tier 1s didn't own that badly from level 1 to 20) only if you have the campaign would last from level 1 to 20, which seldom does. From what I've read on various forums, campaigns that span more than 7-8 levels are rather rare.

[Tyndmyr]

Dammit, folks. The Truenamer isn't unplayable. Trust me on this one. I should know.

It's frustrating, it's rarely worthwhile, and it's a rules headache at every turn, but it's not unplayable.

People really need to stop saying that it is.

This. I get really frustrated at people who have never played the class, and whom are frequently wrong about rather important bits of it, telling me it doesn't work.

It works. It's about tier 3. It's not great, it doesn't have nearly enough selection of good utterances for variety, and one of the feats for it is written stupid, but the class works out of the box. I have shown time and time again that even a level 20 truenamer, using only core and Tome of Magic(needed for the class) can play a truenamer that's crushing his DCs. He doesn't even need to bother with UMD, but if he does, it's a class skill.

Honestly, the class would be playable, but a low tier(say 5 or 6), if you ignored the truenaming mechanic altogether. It's still pretty strictly superior to Expert and the like.

[sonofzeal]

This. I get really frustrated at people who have never played the class, and whom are frequently wrong about rather important bits of it, telling me it doesn't work.

It works. It's about tier 3. It's not great, it doesn't have nearly enough selection of good utterances for variety, and one of the feats for it is written stupid, but the class works out of the box. I have shown time and time again that even a level 20 truenamer, using only core and Tome of Magic(needed for the class) can play a truenamer that's crushing his DCs. He doesn't even need to bother with UMD, but if he does, it's a class skill.

Honestly, the class would be playable, but a low tier(say 5 or 6), if you ignored the truenaming mechanic altogether. It's still pretty strictly superior to Expert and the like.
Mmm... I'm playing one now at about lvl 10, and the limitations are seriously harsh. I can make my DCs, yes, but durations all stink, ranges all stink, I can't buff multiple allies, I can't debuff multiple enemies, and I don't have much utility either. I feel like I would be categorically stronger if I took everything I'd invested in Truespeaking, the 10000 gp for Amulet of Silver Tongue and feat investment on Skill Focus: Truespeaking in particular, and leveraged those towards rocking my UMD that much harder.

I've got the same BAB as an Expert, the same skillpoints per level, the same HD, the same proficiencies, and an Expert could grab UMD too. My conclusion is that, at least through mid levels, Truenamer is about on par with Expert. Not worse, since the Truenamer can do just about anything the Expert can do, but not better because the investment to do anything the Expert can't isn't generally worth it.

[Knaight]

maybe I'm missing something. but from what I saw, he didn't.

he credited each quoted line to a different person, yours was only the first.

it wasn't until the 3rd or 4th line that the assertation "such and such is unplayable" was mentioned.

Almost all of those quotes were mined and taken out of context, and even when they weren't some of the parallels drawn were false. Moreover, post 13 in particular didn't even vaguely resemble what it was portrayed as saying.

[Ancient Mage]

Knaight: On further examination, I will agree that on Post 13, I unfairly portrayed him as stating that non-magic classes are unplayable. I apologize to the poster #13 and to anyone else who this affects.
However, the others, and if you read T.G. Oskar's first few paragraphs, still are rather aggressive. I don't play fighters, and I know that some animal companions (if selected right, if buffed right, if given magical protection), will easily beat the fighter in terms of combat skill. Stating that fighters are inferior to druid animal companions is somewhat of lie, however.

(1): A fighter has better base attack, better hit points, more levels/hit dice, more magic weapons/armor/items, than an animal companion.
(2): an animal companion cannot get Melee Weapon Mastery, Great Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, Slashing Fury, or any of the dozens of bonus feats that a fighter can get.
(3): a good druid will buff his animal companion, but most of those buffs can apply to a fighter as well. A well-buffed fighter will meet a well-buffed animal companion, and even if they are matched in all other spell buffs, the fighters equipment/feats can save the day.
A poorly made fighter on the other hand, is wolf-chow.

LordBlades: I see part of your argument now. In my games, we usually play from the lowly first level to the epic 20th level+, so I see things in a different light. In addition, I am the only true optimizer out of my group, the others play for fun. Since I'm not the cleric, most of the clerics are healbots, and the fighters need healing, even though many fighters I play with are optimized as well as a fighter can be, they still need healing, and the clerics love to cast cure light wounds.

-Ancient Mage

[Big Fau]

Animal Companion VS Fighter stuff

I would like to reiterate my earlier post about a Gestalt Warblade//Egoist being completely outclassed by a Druid's pet Riding Dog, despite both of the players being capable optimizers.

While it is one instance of this happening (and thus not reliable proof of concept), the very fact that a Gestalt combination that was dedicated to melee combat was less efficient than a single class feature is fairly damning evidence.

[Tyndmyr]

Mmm... I'm playing one now at about lvl 10, and the limitations are seriously harsh. I can make my DCs, yes, but durations all stink, ranges all stink, I can't buff multiple allies, I can't debuff multiple enemies, and I don't have much utility either. I feel like I would be categorically stronger if I took everything I'd invested in Truespeaking, the 10000 gp for Amulet of Silver Tongue and feat investment on Skill Focus: Truespeaking in particular, and leveraged those towards rocking my UMD that much harder.

I've got the same BAB as an Expert, the same skillpoints per level, the same HD, the same proficiencies, and an Expert could grab UMD too. My conclusion is that, at least through mid levels, Truenamer is about on par with Expert. Not worse, since the Truenamer can do just about anything the Expert can do, but not better because the investment to do anything the Expert can't isn't generally worth it.

Not at all. For one thing, you get what, four skill focus(knowledge) feats for free? Even if you discount everything actually related to Truenaming itself, you're still strictly superior to Expert. If you wanted to gish it up, knowledge devotion would synergize well with it, for example.

I suspect you're comparing against T1/2 classes. Yes, a wizard is going to crush you on versatility...but what you're good at, you're not at all bad at. Consider the truenaming dispel. It is quite literally unstoppable, and does not give a crap about SR(with a +5 on your check), caster levels, etc. Saves? No need. It's just "that spell goes away".

Even at fairly high optimization tables(and I run one where things like early entry are considered standard, and Iot7v/Incantatrix was considered "fairly good, but balanced"), there's a place for the Truenamer. They're not the heaviest hitter, but dear god was he reliable. There was absolutely never a fight in which he did not contribute, no matter what wild and crazy things were going on. That has value.

[Coidzor]

In regards to the quotation issue: Please make use of the multiquote button (" next to the quote button) whenever possible, it helps visually set off the quotes as well as lets the reader see what the full context was if you have to truncate the quoted section for length.

Although, spoilers with disclaimers about what's inside the spoilers can help greatly with that issue.

[Helldog]

In regards to the quotation issue: Please make use of the multiquote button (" next to the quote button) whenever possible, it helps visually set off the quotes as well as lets the reader see what the full context was if you have to truncate the quoted section for length.

Although, spoilers with disclaimers about what's inside the spoilers can help greatly with that issue.
But that would hurt his argument, like, completely nullifying it... :smallfrown:

[Ziegander]

Not at all. For one thing, you get what, four skill focus(knowledge) feats for free? Even if you discount everything actually related to Truenaming itself, you're still strictly superior to Expert. If you wanted to gish it up, knowledge devotion would synergize well with it, for example.

Strictly superior to the Expert. Great. I have four bonus Skill Focus feats. I get a slight edge in using Knowledge Devotion. Maybe I'll eek out an extra +1 to my attack and damage rolls. Really? That's supposed to be exciting?


There was absolutely never a fight in which he did not contribute, no matter what wild and crazy things were going on. That has value.

A Fighter with a greatsword and a composite longbow can generally contribute no matter what wild and crazy things are going on, but that doesn't mean his contributions have much value.

[Doug Lampert]

Fighter: Fighters are simple and easy because many players don't want to spend a lot of time researching books and working hard to optimize. Also, in reality, a warrior is not going to have a thousand different powers and options. At low levels he is a fairly tough warrior, and if a player spends a bit of time on him, he can hit up to 200 points of damage at high levels. Not very powerful, but a dependable character, particularly at low levels, where the Tier 1's run out of power quickly.

Fighter is FAR AND AWAY the worst possible choice for endurance across many encounters. That's not his strength, that's his most critical weakness.

Because a fighter is a pure consumer of spells. He doesn't contribute any.

If Cleric/Wizard/Rogue/Fighter can handle it without spells and it's a combat encounter then Cleric/Cleric/Druid/Wizard can handle that same encounter without spells, because the second party is STRONGER in melee.

But when an encounter is tough enough to need spells party (2) has twice as many. Hence double the endurance.

Party 2 also has (1) guy and an AC who can't use a wand of CLW, and can trivially cover all the craft item feats and thus will make such wands if there's no magic mart. Party (1), not so much, only one guy who can use the wand and there's actually a pretty good chance they can't make it.

Cleric/Cleric/Druid/Wizard ROCKS for endurance against many encounters.

[ahenobarbi]

Strictly superior to the Expert. Great. I have four bonus Skill Focus feats. I get a slight edge in using Knowledge Devotion. Maybe I'll eek out an extra +1 to my attack and damage rolls. Really? That's supposed to be exciting?

Wel... maybe you don't find it exciting and that's ok. Maybe someone else finds this exciting and that's also ok.

Now since Truenamer gets everything expert does and more it has more potential. Even if it's just a bit.


Cleric/Cleric/Druid/Wizard ROCKS for endurance against many encounters.

Yes. The point is: some people have more fun playing weaker parties.

[Ancient Mage]

I never said that the fighter has massive endurance. And I did not say he does not suck up spells. He does. What I did say was that at low levels he can contribute to the fight without magical aid. At low levels he can be one of the tougher characters in a fight. And I never said that Wiz/Clr/Rog/Ftr was optimized. I said that it is not a bad choice, it works together well over a long period of time (a 1-20+ campaign), and it proves that Tier 1-5 can work together. Most people who play fighters are going to like fighting with a sword again and again. They are rarely optimizers. These people are not going to want to play a different class because THEY ENJOY playing fighter. It is not unplayable. No class is truly unplayable. If you look, that's the name of this thread. I Know that Drd/Clr/Clr/Wiz is better. I wish I could play a game with that set of characters. But until then, I'm going to tell my group's fighter that he is in a playable class, and I'm not going to tell him to avoid his favorite class.

-Ancient Mage

[Gnaeus]

In brief, Tier 1-5 can adventure together, unbalanced, as long as everyone is having fun. If someone outshines the others, maybe that's just his contribution to the whole, and it benefits everybody. And if at 20th level, the wizard is winning everything while the fighter trudges along, remember, the low-level wizard used to rely on the fighter to be his shield a long time ago. The wizard won't forget that. In 3.5, there are different power levels, play which one is fun. If you want everyone to be equal, go play 4 rules.

-Ancient Mage

If my big brother protects me from playground bullies when I am 8, it's true I wont forget him. But if I go on to get 3 black belts after serving in the special forces, and my brother grows up to be a mall-cop, I am not going to take him with me to save the world because "he used to be my shield a long time ago". I will take someone qualified, and send my fighter brother a postcard, not bring him with me to die.

As to people enjoying fighters, some do. More people enjoy playing characters that can pull their own weight in a group of equals, and fighters are bad at that. Worst, most people want to know how their character will perform, and fighters are awful at that. If a player wants to play a weak character, that's fine. I have played weak characters and had
fun. But I knew when I built them that they would never hold up in combat. Anyone thinking of playing a fighter needs to know the fluff is wrong. They aren't the best at fighting. They aren't even above average at fighting. If your fluff says you are Achilles, and your mechanics say you are the guy holding king Arthur's coconuts, you will not have fun.

[Ziegander]

Wel... maybe you don't find it exciting and that's ok. Maybe someone else finds this exciting and that's also ok.

An extra +1 to attack and damage rolls, that's not even guaranteed, isn't exciting. To anyone. It was a rhetorical question.


Now since Truenamer gets everything expert does and more it has more potential. Even if it's just a bit.

It actually doesn't get everything an Expert does. 1) It gets 2 fewer skill points per level. 2) It technically does have an equal number of class skills, but from a MUCH more restrictive list. So it isn't even strictly superior to an Expert.

Now, if you take the utterances into account, then, yes, the Truenamer has something that it can do that the Expert can't, especially if you work hard at getting Truespeech bonuses. But of course, the Expert can have many things it can do, through his diverse skill list, that the Truenamer can't (and very often the Expert doesn't have to work as hard to do his things).


Yes. The point is: some people have more fun playing weaker parties.

You misquoted me. I wasn't ever talking about a Cleric/Cleric/Druid/Wizard party. That would be Mr. Doug Lampert. I do enjoy playing "weaker" parties than that.

[Clawhound]

A Fighter with a greatsword and a composite longbow can generally contribute no matter what wild and crazy things are going on, but that doesn't mean his contributions have much value.

It is fair to say that, on average, the Fighter contributes less than other classes. It is inappropriate to say that a fighter's contribution as a character does not have much value. The player and the play's group are the ones who get to judge a character's contribution.

For example, I had a dwarf fighter who couldn't hit anything in Savage Tide. Utterly useless. The main thing that he did was that he did not go down, which sounds as laughable as it was. Yet, him not going down is what kept the party from going into TPK territory five times. Any class could have done that, of course. It didn't need to be a fighter. However, that character's contribution to those battles was held in high esteem by the other players. If asked, they would say he contributed greatly.

[LordBlades]

(1): A fighter has better base attack, better hit points, more levels/hit dice, more magic weapons/armor/items, than an animal companion.

HP, Base Attack and levels are debatable and depend on the particular level and animal companion (at level 1 fighter vs riding dog: same bab, 1 extra HD for the dog, and fighter needs 18 con to get more hp). Magic item yeah, the fighter should probably have more.

(2): an animal companion cannot get Melee Weapon Mastery, Great Cleave, Whirlwind Attack, Slashing Fury, or any of the dozens of bonus feats that a fighter can get.
But he can get: power attack, leap attack, shock trooper or combat brute, and use them better than a fighter due to pounce and more attacks usually.


(3): a good druid will buff his animal companion, but most of those buffs can apply to a fighter as well. A well-buffed fighter will meet a well-buffed animal companion, and even if they are matched in all other spell buffs, the fighters equipment/feats can save the day.

The big issue is that Wotc, being somewhat retarded made some of the best buffs range:personal. Nothing a druid could cast on the fighter compares to the awesomeness of Bite of the Werebear for example (+16 str, +8 con, +7 nat armor). Also, due to share spells, he can buff bot himself and the animal companion when he casts on himself. When he casts on the fighter, he only buffs the fighter.

[Gullintanni]

(3): a good druid will buff his animal companion, but most of those buffs can apply to a fighter as well. A well-buffed fighter will meet a well-buffed animal companion, and even if they are matched in all other spell buffs, the fighters equipment/feats can save the day.

A poorly made fighter on the other hand, is wolf-chow.


And this is how I was taken out of context. I specified that an unoptimized fighter (read: poorly made) is less effective than an Animal Companion. A good druid will not buff his Animal Companion. He will buff himself for Wild-shape based melee. Share Spells allows the AC to get in on that 100% of the time, even for personal only buffs, and oddly enough the typical Wild-shape applicable buffs work just as well on animals.

A straight Fighter who takes Power Attack, Cleave, Weapon Focus, and Weapon Specialization will be destroyed. And that's the definition of an unoptimized Fighter. For context, the full read of my post was:


That's the point Doc Roc is making though. In order to be on par with a Druid's pet, you have to munchkin the crap out of your Fighter. In other words, that "leveling path" you're talking about...if a Fighter doesn't make optimal choices for that path, then he's typically strictly inferior to the Druid's pet.

At which point, if you don't want, to use Doc Roc's phrasing, to play Beta to the Alpha Animal Companion, ...then unless you're willing to optimize, a Fighter is unplayable...at least in any party with a Druid.

Like I said, very specific conditions. Either you Optimize and you can beat an Animal Companion, or you don't optimize and you're second banana to the Animal Companion. If being second banana to an Animal Companion is not acceptable for you, then an unoptimized Fighter is unplayable.

Context sil vous plait.

[Tyndmyr]

Strictly superior to the Expert. Great. I have four bonus Skill Focus feats. I get a slight edge in using Knowledge Devotion. Maybe I'll eek out an extra +1 to my attack and damage rolls. Really? That's supposed to be exciting?

Playing wizard without using spellcasting is not particularly exciting either, and is going to be a LOT less effective.

The point is that, even without it's main class features, the class is comparable to a moderately powered NPC class(adept is better, commoner is worse). It's not a bad class. And Truenaming offers you a fair amount of abilities.


A Fighter with a greatsword and a composite longbow can generally contribute no matter what wild and crazy things are going on, but that doesn't mean his contributions have much value.

Nah. Such a bog standard fighter would quickly be irrelevant in truly high op play. Lack of mobility would crush him, AMFs crush him, anything targetting will tends to negate him and people run enough defenses that a shot from a bow is usually completely irrelevant. Fighters work at lower levels, and at lower op, but if you're playing mid-high level high op games, the fighter can't really keep up, and he is NOT a reliable contributor.

The truenamer is not hampered by such things.

[ahenobarbi]

An extra +1 to attack and damage rolls, that's not even guaranteed, isn't exciting. To anyone. It was a rhetorical question.


People get excited over various things (like watching sports), possibly getting a bit more of bonus to attack roll wouldn't be weirdest I've seen :smallbiggrin:



It actually doesn't get everything an Expert does. 1) It gets 2 fewer skill points per level. 2) It technically does have an equal number of class skills, but from a MUCH more restrictive list. So it isn't even strictly superior to an Expert.

Now, if you take the utterances into account, then, yes, the Truenamer has something that it can do that the Expert can't, especially if you work hard at getting Truespeech bonuses. But of course, the Expert can have many things it can do, through his diverse skill list, that the Truenamer can't (and very often the Expert doesn't have to work as hard to do his things).


Ack.



You misquoted me. I wasn't ever talking about a Cleric/Cleric/Druid/Wizard party. That would be Mr. Doug Lampert. I do enjoy playing "weaker" parties than that.

I'm sorry about that... lemme fix it.

[Ziegander]

It is fair to say that, on average, the Fighter contributes less than other classes. It is inappropriate to say that a fighter's contribution as a character does not have much value. The player and the play's group are the ones who get to judge a character's contribution.

Again, you are mistaking mechanical contribution for roleplaying contribution. You are mistaking the statistical contribution of the class, for the entertainment contribution of the character (and the player). A class =/= a character.

The Fighter class is able to contribute to every encounter in every day all the time. That's part of the appeal. The mechanical contributions of the Fighter class are unlikely to be of much value after a few levels.

Any given Fighter-based character is no less able to contribute to roleplay than any other character based on a different class. The roleplaying contributions of any Fighter-based character (and by extension, the player playing that character) are just as likely as not to be of equal value as those of any other character's and player's roleplay contributions throughout all levels of D&D.

However, I don't understand your example. Are you saying that his inability to be easily killed contributed to the overall mechanical viability of the group, or are you saying that his inability to be easily killed contributed to the overall entertainment of the group? If he couldn't kill anything by himself, then it stands to reason that his inability to be killed didn't do anything to directly assist the party, neither to help prevent party mates from being killed nor to pull victory from the jaws of defeat as the last man standing.

[Jayabalard]

No. Classes need to be examined on their own, and their ability to perform their intended role.They don't really... not unless you're workign on game design.

if your goal is to play, it's sufficient to just play them.


"Unplayable" happens when a given class is very, very terrible at performing it's intended role. I'd say that it happens when your character doesn't meet your expectations... regardless of whether other people would call those expectations reasonable or not.


That said, I would say you need more experience. As you spend more and more time optimizing characters, you'll soon see that a solo encounter is far from a death wish.To me, that just looks like you're saying that the more time you spend gaming the system, the more you'll notice flaws in the system.

[Tyndmyr]

A rating system is useful for classes. DMs and players alike can benefit from this information.

That said, declaring something a weak option is entirely different than declaring it unplayable...I've been contending throughout this thread that the Truenamer is quite playable.

It's not the most powerful class, obviously, but that's very, very different than unplayable. Chars like the TO one(Nup Nup) that never had any hp are the one's I'd label as unplayable. Taking any action kills him, so...yeah.

[Coidzor]

Any given Fighter-based character is no less able to contribute to roleplay than any other character based on a different class. The roleplaying contributions of any Fighter-based character (and by extension, the player playing that character) are just as likely as not to be of equal value as those of any other character's and player's roleplay contributions throughout all levels of D&D.

Actually, if one is roleplaying the character's mental abilities and skills in a way that is in line with the character, Fighters are actually less likely to contribute in roleplay due to their focus away from mental stats and their lack of class skills and skill points.

[Steward]

Actually, if one is roleplaying the character's mental abilities and skills in a way that is in line with the character, Fighters are actually less likely to contribute in roleplay due to their focus away from mental stats and their lack of class skills and skill points.

I feel as if (depending on your playstyle) stats can play a lesser role in roleplaying. Just because someone has low mental stats or few skills doesn't mean that they can't have meaningful character development or interactions with other people. I agree that, say, having an abysmally low intelligence should make it harder for a character to come up with plans or develop sophisticated ideas, but that doesn't mean that they won't have a personality. You could use Belkar as an example from OOTS; he likely has low Intelligence, awful Wisdom, and probably low Charisma too, but he still has a distinct, unique personality and is even capable of character development. Having bad stats or even an archetype that doesn't lend itself to roleplaying doesn't necessarily have to be an obstruction.

[Doug Lampert]

I never said that the fighter has massive endurance.

You specifically and CLEARLY claimed that he helps with the short endurance of tier one classes. He doesn't. He hurts it. At all levels.

[Clawhound]

Again, you are mistaking mechanical contribution for roleplaying contribution. You are mistaking the statistical contribution of the class, for the entertainment contribution of the character (and the player). A class =/= a character.

No, that was not my mistake at all. I was pointing out WHO does the assessing of how a character performs in a game. No matter what tier a class may be, it is the playgroup that judges contribution of a character. That is to say, Theoretical Contribution is different than Applied Contribution.

In my example, I showed how a low tier was perceived by fellow players as contributing by using a its class's mechanical attributes (hit points, AC). There's no role-playing in that example. I wasn't trying to prove something.

[Ziegander]

I feel as if (depending on your playstyle) stats can play a lesser role in roleplaying. Just because someone has low mental stats or few skills doesn't mean that they can't have meaningful character development or interactions with other people. I agree that, say, having an abysmally low intelligence should make it harder for a character to come up with plans or develop sophisticated ideas, but that doesn't mean that they won't have a personality. You could use Belkar as an example from OOTS; he likely has low Intelligence, awful Wisdom, and probably low Charisma too, but he still has a distinct, unique personality and is even capable of character development. Having bad stats or even an archetype that doesn't lend itself to roleplaying doesn't necessarily have to be an obstruction.

Quote for truth. I'd say the comment that a low(er) Intelligence (as in, the in-game ability score) makes a character less likely to contribute to roleplay was very uncalled for and untrue.


No, that was not my mistake at all. I was pointing out WHO does the assessing of how a character performs in a game. No matter what tier a class may be, it is the playgroup that judges contribution of a character. That is to say, Theoretical Contribution is different than Applied Contribution.

I don't understand what you're saying. The perception of the playgroup has absolutely nothing to do with the factual mechanical contribution of class. It doesn't matter if the playgroup perceives the Fighter's constant sword attacks as more relevant to the outcome of an encounter vs a Dragon than the Wizard's control spells and Shivering Touch. If the statistical facts show that the Wizard contributed more to the encounter, then he did. Player perception doesn't change that.


In my example, I showed how a low tier was perceived by fellow players as contributing by using a its class's mechanical attributes (hit points, AC). There's no role-playing in that example. I wasn't trying to prove something.

Obviously you were trying to prove something, but it's still lost on me. It's starting to sound like you were trying to prove that if the group perceives a character as being mechanically useful, then that makes the class just as mechanically useful as any other, if not more so than the class of a character that the group perceives as being less mechanically useful.

Yes, a group can think that the Fighter class is more mechanically useful than the Wizard class. That doesn't mean that they are correct.

[Derjuin]

I'm probably mirroring someone else's comments, but I saw mention of weak classes, tier list, roleplaying application and such, so I figured I would comment to help clear some fog or something.

The tier list isn't about power, it's about mechanical utility - who can do what and how much of it. That's why Wizards, Erudites, Clerics etc. are at the top - they can do pretty much anything you can think of - and Samurai is at the bottom - it's pretty much a Fighter with feats already selected for you. Regardless of their power, higher tier classes can simply do more. "Weak" or "unplayable" classes I would pretty much save for NPC classes (which are still playable, but are rather weak options except Adept and maybe Expert), because every class (even truenamer) is playable.

If someone is using the tier list to say "neener neener, I'm better than you", they're misusing it. I can't read JaronK's mind, but I'm pretty sure it was made with interparty balance in mind, for both players and DMs alike. I think the best application of it would be to fix interparty balance issues if someone feels like all they get to do at the table is say "I do the same action again with the same results" and are not enjoying it. Thus, it's not a necessary thing. Higher tier is not necessarily better, either; Wizards/Sorcerers/Erudites can break the game if they are played in specific ways, which would require DM intervention to keep the game together.

Roleplaying can be completely separate from your mechanical stats. The problem comes up when you try to make, say, a Knight in Shining Armor who Protects the Innocent, and then he fails to be able to protect the innocent because he doesn't have the class abilities that let him mechanically be a threat to enemies because he is a paladin. This character, however, still can be a threat to enemies through roleplaying! He can throw threats, one-liners and generally be a thorn in the enemy's side without mechanical things. You don't need a feat or class feature to have a Dwarf character shout "Come on, ye sissy bastards, show me what ya got!" to a bunch of Orcs. This is largely dependent on how the DM causes this character's foes to react to him, though, which is why it sometimes doesn't work.

There are a few options when this doesn't work, and one of them is looking to the tier list for options on how to make a nearly identical character that is a mechanical threat to enemies, and therefore will require their attention. The other is talking to the DM about it; they will most likely be willing to work out something with you if it improves everyone's enjoyment of the game!

TL;DR: Unplayable is a silly term that doesn't really apply to the game, since everything is playable. Tier list is for when the group (players + DM) need to enforce party balance/mechanical stats when someone feels left out or is hogging the spotlight at every turn. It isn't necessary at all if everyone is able to do their thing and feel good about it and enjoy the game, even if the party is "unbalanced" in someone else's eyes.

[Clawhound]

I don't understand what you're saying. The perception of the playgroup has absolutely nothing to do with the factual mechanical contribution of class. It doesn't matter if the playgroup perceives the Fighter's constant sword attacks as more relevant to the outcome of an encounter vs a Dragon than the Wizard's control spells and Shivering Touch. If the statistical facts show that the Wizard contributed more to the encounter, then he did. Player perception doesn't change that.


I'll begin again.

A class is not a character. A character is not a class.

We use Tiers to rate classes. They give us an indication of how effective a character built from those classes might be. Thus, Tier 1's > Tier 5's. No argument there.

A character is an actual implementation of a class. A player constructs the character from rules, and the effectivness of that character depend on how well the player created the character. A character goes through a variety of battles with other characters. The players of those characters form opinions about how well each character works and how much each character contributes. The trick here is that this assessment is not theoretical, it's practical, and takes into account their own party, their DM, and their campaign.

Going back to what you said:


A Fighter with a greatsword and a composite longbow can generally contribute no matter what wild and crazy things are going on, but that doesn't mean his contributions have much value.

Value is determined by the play group. That's all that I'm saying. Don't read any more into it than that.

[Ziegander]

I'll begin again.

A class is not a character. A character is not a class.

We use Tiers to rate classes. They give us an indication of how effective a character built from those classes might be. Thus, Tier 1's > Tier 5's. No argument there.

A character is an actual implementation of a class. A player constructs the character from rules, and the effectivness of that character depend on how well the player created the character. A character goes through a variety of battles with other characters. The players of those characters form opinions about how well each character works and how much each character contributes. The trick here is that this assessment is not theoretical, it's practical, and takes into account their own party, their DM, and their campaign.

Okay, thank you for restating your point. I wasn't following you at first. Yes, I agree with you that players form opinions about how well each works and how much each character contributes. But there is a separation between what the mechanics of the game system tell us and what the players' opinions tell us.

It's also necessary for us to know what the players' opinions are with respect to a character's mechanical contributions to encounters and with respect to a character's roleplaying contributions to encounters.

There is no theoretical/practical divide between what the game mechanics tell us and what the players' opinions tell us about the performance of a character if we are looking only for a character's mechanical contributions to encounters. We can review statistics and run numbers on those contributions.


Value is determined by the play group. That's all that I'm saying. Don't read any more into it than that.

This is where we disagree. And is possibly the result of a failure to communicate on my part. When I used the word "value" to suppose that a Fighter's attacks with a greatsword and composite longbow aren't necessarily of much value, I was speaking of value as measured by mechanical contribution to a combat encounter. That value may be evaluated by the play group, possibly even through faulty measurements, but it is ultimately determined at its most precise by the game mechanics.

For example, we can mathematically calculate, using rubric standards we choose alongside the rules of D&D, exactly how "effective" a Fighter was in a battle against a Dragon at meeting the rubric standards. The rubric standards can be anything from "damage dealt per round," "damage soaked per round," or "rounds keeping the Dragon from killing other party mates." And these calculations will be demonstrable facts, unalterable by the opinions of the play group.

[Coidzor]

I feel as if (depending on your playstyle) stats can play a lesser role in roleplaying. Just because someone has low mental stats or few skills doesn't mean that they can't have meaningful character development or interactions with other people. I agree that, say, having an abysmally low intelligence should make it harder for a character to come up with plans or develop sophisticated ideas, but that doesn't mean that they won't have a personality. You could use Belkar as an example from OOTS; he likely has low Intelligence, awful Wisdom, and probably low Charisma too, but he still has a distinct, unique personality and is even capable of character development. Having bad stats or even an archetype that doesn't lend itself to roleplaying doesn't necessarily have to be an obstruction.

It's more likely to be an obstruction which is enough for my point. Especially since the way you opened your argument was to give minor support to those who advocate just ignoring the rules of the game in order to roleplay.

Rather than the two not actually being in conflict, but that's a system issue, I suppose.


This character, however, still can be a threat to enemies through roleplaying! He can throw threats, one-liners and generally be a thorn in the enemy's side without mechanical things. You don't need a feat or class feature to have a Dwarf character shout "Come on, ye sissy bastards, show me what ya got!" to a bunch of Orcs. This is largely dependent on how the DM causes this character's foes to react to him, though, which is why it sometimes doesn't work.

So it only works if the DM houserules a taunt system into the game, even if it's entirely ad-hoc.

[Rossebay]

But a Druid can only have so many pets at a time, and, unless I'm mistaken, cannot tailor their leveling path to their own needs/preference, correct?

Defense statted and geared Fighter vs a druid pet of the same level for example.

The pet wins. As far as tailoring towards need, you said Fighter, not Warblade, right...?

[Talya]

Comment on an earlier post (I honestly can't read all the pages in this thread):

"The Tier System" is not a gaming system. It's simply a ranking of power and versatility -- it's a classification system, which doesn't change how people play, at all. The classes have their potential power (or lack thereof) regardless of the knowledge of the people playing them. If people are not noticing a discrepancy, it has nothing to do with them knowing or not knowing the tier system. It may have everything to do with the level of system mastery they do or do not have. If your fighter is keeping up to the druid, either the person playing the druid is incompetent, the person playing fighter is spectacular, or some combination of the two. This is regardless of whether they've ever even heard of class tiers. Class Tiers are simply a power ranking, nothing more.

[NNescio]

So it only works if the DM houserules a taunt system into the game, even if it's entirely ad-hoc.

And even then, it also suffers from the Knight problem -- as FMArthur puts it (on another thread, in a discussion about the Knight), it's a support that requires its own support. And unlike the Knight, who actually gets, well, class features, the dwarf Fighter is less likely to survive.

[Clawhound]

This is where we disagree. And is possibly the result of a failure to communicate on my part. When I used the word "value" to suppose that a Fighter's attacks with a greatsword and composite longbow aren't necessarily of much value, I was speaking of value as measured by mechanical contribution to a combat encounter. That value may be evaluated by the play group, possibly even through faulty measurements, but it is ultimately determined at its most precise by the game mechanics.

For example, we can mathematically calculate, using rubric standards we choose alongside the rules of D&D, exactly how "effective" a Fighter was in a battle against a Dragon at meeting the rubric standards. The rubric standards can be anything from "damage dealt per round," "damage soaked per round," or "rounds keeping the Dragon from killing other party mates." And these calculations will be demonstrable facts, unalterable by the opinions of the play group.

Thanks for sticking with me on this. And thanks for explaining value.

Yeah, we do disagree. While I do appreciate mechanical measures of performance, I think that there is enough unpredictability in the game that purely mechanical measures give us false indications. Unless you're playing a high OP game or dualing, good-enough is usually good-enough, and that satisfies most players.

[Coidzor]

And even then, it also suffers from the Knight problem -- as FMArthur puts it (on another thread, in a discussion about the Knight), it's a support that requires its own support. And unlike the Knight, who actually gets, well, class features, the dwarf Fighter is less likely to survive.

You got a link to that? I'm kinda interested in the context of that.

[NNescio]

You got a link to that? I'm kinda interested in the context of that.

Here.

(Context: Side discussion about the Tier list of the Knight)


I would never put them above Tier 5 even if they provide a role that is otherwise only filled by T3s (Crusader and Ardent), because the service they provide has such narrowly focused actual usage (being a support that requires its own support because it can't mitigate/recover from the consequences of using its own class features is ridiculous) and they can do nothing else. Being mediocre at your one job and being unable to do any other is pretty much what being Tier 5 is all about. Knight is the poster child for the tier and the perfect example of what is wrong with its members' design.

[TurtleKing]

Question. As Silus been on recently? I was wanting him to comment on my post a page back.

[Z3ro]

So it only works if the DM houserules a taunt system into the game, even if it's entirely ad-hoc.

Completely seperate from the rest of the conversation, I find the situation where an entire taunt system is required to make this work fascinating. I mean, what's wrong with the DM simply deciding the orcs attack the dwarf after he taunts them?

Sure, it wouldn't be a reliable, full-time strategy, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun with a whole set of rules involved.

[Knaight]

Completely seperate from the rest of the conversation, I find the situation where an entire taunt system is required to make this work fascinating. I mean, what's wrong with the DM simply deciding the orcs attack the dwarf after he taunts them?

Sure, it wouldn't be a reliable, full-time strategy, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun with a whole set of rules involved.

That would be an ad-hoc taunt system.

[NeoSeraphi]

We were talking about tier 1 classes played as tier 1. If you play a wizard like a tier 3 (that's how what you're describing sounds) then yeah, you won't have that much trouble fitting in a lower tier party. But what about if the wizard gets abrupt jaunt, and loads up on color sprays and sleeps, and is also a focused specialist or elven generalist so he's got enough spell slots to outlast the frontliner's HP? How well does he fit with the aforementioned fighter and rogue?

You can't be an elven generalist with abrupt jaunt, abrupt jaunt is conjurer-only

[Ziegander]

That would be an ad-hoc taunt system.

No. It really wouldn't. It would be that the DM decided that what the Dwarf said pissed off the Orc (or Orcs) enough to attack him. You know, just like how the DM decides the emotional responses, and the actions influenced by them, at ALL times outside of combat. Or is that an "ad-hoc social resolution system?"

[sonofzeal]

No. It really wouldn't. It would be that the DM decided that what the Dwarf said pissed off the Orc (or Orcs) enough to attack him. You know, just like how the DM decides the emotional responses, and the actions influenced by them, at ALL times outside of combat. Or is that an "ad-hoc social resolution system?"
Yes. Yes it is. By definition, even.

[Ziegander]

Yes. Yes it is. By definition, even.

I hope you realize the slippery slope you're on.

But let's get real here. The DM just says that some things are and that some things happen. Among these things are what NPCs say and what NPCs do. Please don't tell me that, because there are no mechanics that automatically determine what NPCs say and/or do in every possible situation that this is a bad thing.

[Coidzor]

No. It really wouldn't. It would be that the DM decided that what the Dwarf said pissed off the Orc (or Orcs) enough to attack him. You know, just like how the DM decides the emotional responses, and the actions influenced by them, at ALL times outside of combat. Or is that an "ad-hoc social resolution system?"

Enough to get them to ignore the druid's dog who is gnawing off their arm, the monk who just socked them in the face, the rogue who killed K'n'E, the wizard who flamebroiled the last female in the tribe to add insult to injury, etc. all in the middle of an active combat?

[Ziegander]

Enough to get them to ignore the druid's dog who is gnawing off their arm, the monk who just socked them in the face, the rogue who killed K'n'E, the wizard who flamebroiled the last female in the tribe to add insult to injury, etc. all in the middle of an active combat?

You're using specific examples of specific past, in-game events, and of specific actions being taken in a specific combat, to counter the general existence of the possibility that a Dwarf can say something to an Orc that pisses the Orc off enough to attack him. Think about that for a minute.

[Knaight]

Yes. Yes it is. By definition, even.

Yeah, that's pretty much what ad-hoc means (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hoc).


I hope you realize the slippery slope you're on.

But let's get real here. The DM just says that some things are and that some things happen. Among these things are what NPCs say and what NPCs do. Please don't tell me that, because there are no mechanics that automatically determine what NPCs say and/or do in every possible situation that this is a bad thing.
Nobody actually said that ad-hoc was a bad thing. It's just that if one player is dependent on ad-hoc decisions, and all the rest are fine when dealing with a subsystem something is likely amiss. Besides, if we include what can be done with ad-hoc forced movement, wizards, clerics, and similar start looking even better.

[Coidzor]

You're using specific examples of specific past, in-game events, and of specific actions being taken in a specific combat, to counter the general existence of the possibility that a Dwarf can say something to an Orc that pisses the Orc off enough to attack him. Think about that for a minute.

No, I'm pointing out that it's all rather pointless in the long run, even with such an ad-hoc system, because, really, the fighter that is cussing is not really doing anything notable in comparison with more pressing concerns in combat.

[Gnaeus]

Completely seperate from the rest of the conversation, I find the situation where an entire taunt system is required to make this work fascinating. I mean, what's wrong with the DM simply deciding the orcs attack the dwarf after he taunts them?

Sure, it wouldn't be a reliable, full-time strategy, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun with a whole set of rules involved.

Also, what is wrong with it is that it is increasingly ineffective over time.

At low levels, when the fighter is something like decent, you have lots of low-int foes like animals (I stand in front, so it will attack me first), vermin (I stand in front, so it will attack me first), mindless undead (I stand in front, so it will attack me first), and low int humanoids like the orcs, where, assuming you know orcish, your taunts may do something.

As level increases, so does average int of enemies, until in the last 5 levels, most enemies are intelligent spellcasters who will immediately see through the fighters little ruse. The iconic high level foes (Dragons, vampires, liches, beholders, demons and devils, drow, etc...) are all smart enough to ignore taunting dwarf, to fly over him to attack a threat, teleport past him, or just AOE everyone.

[Ziegander]

Yeah, that's pretty much what ad-hoc means (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hoc).

I wasn't arguing the ad-hoc part of it, rather that just because the DM makes an ad-hoc decision that the Dwarf pissed some Orc off and then made another ad-hoc decision that the Orc attacks the Dwarf, this doesn't mean that the DM has "houseruled" an ad-hoc "taunt system" into the game. All that situation means is that the DM is doing exactly what he always does in deciding how NPCs respond to non-mechanical stimuli. Yes, those are ad-hoc decisions, basically by definition, but this does not make for an ad-hoc taunt system. Which is kind of stupid anyway.


Nobody actually said that ad-hoc was a bad thing.

Which is why I mentioned the slippery slope and said, "please don't say [...]" to Sonofzeal. The tone of everyone bringing up ad-hoc has been universally negative about the concept, even if no one has gone so far as to say that it was "Magical Tea Party" yet. I was just pointing out that a HUGE portion of the game is essentially ad-hoc, and that saying that characters shouldn't try to combine roleplaying with combat or that DMs shouldn't make ad-hoc decisions to arbitrate the actions of NPCs in combat is pretty dumb.

This discussion started when Derjuin stated that, through roleplaying, a character can be a threat to enemies, and then everyone jumped on him, attempting to dismiss and discredit him, which I think was incredibly unfair and unfounded. Instead of trying to claim that ad-hoc decisions don't exist, or worse, asserting that they are universally bad, let's just acknowledge that they happen and that, yes, Derjuin was correct that, in some situations, roleplay can influence the mechanics of an encounter.

[Coidzor]

I wasn't arguing the ad-hoc part of it, rather that just because the DM makes an ad-hoc decision that the Dwarf pissed some Orc off and then made another ad-hoc decision that the Orc attacks the Dwarf, this doesn't mean that the DM has "houseruled" an ad-hoc "taunt system" into the game. All that situation means is that the DM is doing exactly what he always does in deciding how NPCs respond to non-mechanical stimuli. Yes, those are ad-hoc decisions, basically by definition, but this does not make for an ad-hoc taunt system. Which is kind of stupid anyway.

If it's something that the fighter is using as a crutch rather than a one-off that's irrelevant anyway, then, yes, it's an ad-hoc system rather than one-off ad-hoc decision.


Which is why I mentioned the slippery slope and said, "please don't say [...]" to Sonofzeal. The tone of everyone bringing up ad-hoc has been universally negative about the concept, even if no one has gone so far as to say that it was "Magical Tea Party" yet. I was just pointing out that a HUGE portion of the game is essentially ad-hoc, and that saying that characters shouldn't try to combine roleplaying with combat or that DMs shouldn't make ad-hoc decisions to arbitrate the actions of NPCs in combat is pretty dumb.

This discussion started when Derjuin stated that, through roleplaying, a character can be a threat to enemies, and then everyone jumped on him, attempting to dismiss and discredit him, which I think was incredibly unfair and unfounded. Instead of trying to claim that ad-hoc decisions don't exist, or worse, asserting that they are universally bad, let's just acknowledge that they happen and that, yes, Derjuin was correct that, in some situations, roleplay can influence the mechanics of an encounter.

Using an ad-hoc taunt system as an argument in favor of the utility of a Fighter is.... in poor taste, is more the idea, I believe.

[sonofzeal]

I hope you realize the slippery slope you're on.
Not really, no. NPC reactions have been pretty much Ad Hoc since the Basic Set, and continue to be pretty much Ad Hoc in every major pnp RPG I know of. So... uh, where exactly is this slippery slope taking us that we haven't already been?


But let's get real here. The DM just says that some things are and that some things happen. Among these things are what NPCs say and what NPCs do. Please don't tell me that, because there are no mechanics that automatically determine what NPCs say and/or do in every possible situation that this is a bad thing.
I didn't say that. I said that it's Ad Hoc, by definition. "Ad Hoc" means roughly "for the purpose", suggesting an on-the-spot decision rather than a general rule. Sometimes that's necessary - a general rule controlling all NPC reactions would be horribly unweildy and not nearly as much fun. Sometimes it's unnecessary but preferable - rolling randomly for treasure usually isn't as awesome as the DM giving you something custom.

WoW has a non-Ad-Hoc aggro system. Heck, several pnp RPGs have aggro systems (with varying degrees of functionality). D&D 3.5e has "goad" and "Knight's Challenge", which are aggro systems. Problem is, neither works very well. Generally speaking, a tank who wants to retain enemy interests and bear the brunt of their attacks has to rely on DM benevolence rather than actually being able to do anything to protect the squishy casters behind him.

And that's a bad thing. When a class can't actually do anything to support its primary role... yeah, bad. It'd be like a Mage who didn't have any spells and had to beg the DM to let his strange gestures and garbled speech have any effect. Not good.

[Ziegander]

If it's something that the fighter is using as a crutch rather than a one-off that's irrelevant anyway, then, yes, it's an ad-hoc system rather than one-off ad-hoc decision.

[...]

Using an ad-hoc taunt system as an argument in favor of the utility of a Fighter is.... in poor taste, is more the idea, I believe.

I agree with you here, but that's just not how I viewed what Derjuin was saying. He provided just one specific example of how roleplaying might make a character threatening in combat. I don't think he was trying to claim that the Fighter was flexible because he can yell at people, or that using roleplay makes any specific class more powerful or anything like that. Maybe he was, I dunno, that's just not what I saw.

[Prime32]

The issue here, as I see it, is that being a member of the fighter class won't make you better at something like that. A wizard with fifty defensive buffs is just as good at being annoying if he's RPed in the same way, and will also be a better tank mechanically.

EDIT: Actually, greater mirror image would probably make you significantly more annoying.

[Endarire]

Typically, the tier system becomes most noticeable starting at level 7. Why?

Level 4 spells.

Clerics get divine power (and in a core setting, what else will they prepare?). They already have animate dead, desecrate, and whatever else the GM allows.

Druids get spells along with Wild Shape and Natural Spell. They can feasibly have a mean ol' Animal Companion too.

Wizards get solid fog and black tentacles and polymorph and dimension door and scrying. (I thought black tentacles was 'meh' until I saw it nearly solo a fight!) They already have haste, stinking cloud and a bunch of lower level encounter-enders and problem solvers.

Psions, at tier 2, also have psychic reformation to change their build and their party's builds for minor XP and a 10 minute manifest. (This isn't a full build change, but psychic reformation can change a lot!)

Sure, level 7 martial adepts get level 4 maneuvers, but nothing that will reasonably stop a well-prepared tier 1 class. And the beloved White Raven Tactics? Items of that exist, and Artificers can make said items.

So what?

Every class can do something. Some classes can do their own jobs plus the jobs of one or more party members without trying that hard. Practically, there is usually a limit to the amount of "tier 1 awesome" you can perform in any campaign which reduces the chances of your expressing your tier 1/2 advantage (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=2074.0).

Why should Powerful Character X adventure with Party Y? The most likely reason is because these people are playing their fantasy selves in a multiplayer game and want to involve real life friends. They'll also forgive certain logical discrepencies, like why Powerful Character X hangs around with Party Y.

If things get too out of hand, Powerful Character X tends to get booted out of Party Y for upstaging them, often through GM Fiat.

I once played a Psion7, who, when he went nova, used energy missile to annihilate 4 of the 10 enemies in a fight meant to kill us. And he had a Psicrystal with White Raven Tactics and a cohort with White Raven Tactics. He never got to use WRT before the GM stormed off and swore never to GM again, and I was called a cheater despite my strict adherence to the rules the other players never cared to read.

From this nova experience, I've learned that it's possible to kill others' fun, even if done in self-defense of a character, and even when using only the rules as written.

Also, higher tiers are not a measure of absolute power. I had a Hood (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19872838/Little_Red_Raiding_Hood_A_Tale_of_38_Guide_to_the_ 35_Dragoon) I was trying out named Ebony. (After making this guide, I had to!) She wasn't a 'caster,' despite dipping caster classes. She inserted painful device A into enemy B for explosion C.

She was a Half-Minotaur Water Orc WhirlPounce Barbarian1/Cleric1 (Travel Devotion)/Psychic Warrior1/Warblade1/Conjurer1 (for Abrupt Jaunt)/Fighter2 who happened to be very mobile and very hard-hitting. And she was my cohort. Y'know, 2 levels behind everyone. (I was a Conjurer/Incantatrix/Hathran who didn't need to do much. I also learned that black tentacles can win fights and incapacitate party members.)

I was in a Pathfinder game with some 3.5 backwards compatibility. The party members were an Elf Conjurer/Swordsage (me), a Human Druid, a Human Artificer, and a Human Cleric/Crusader/Ruby Knight Vindicator. And the GM complained that Divine Surge (+8d8 damage) was too much damage. While other people took Leadership, I was denied a Psion cohort for him being too high a tier. In a tier 1 game. Where we couldn't do much.

What do tiers mean to me?

Tiers, in short, dictate whether I'll rock at low levels (1-6) and suck at high levels (7+) or 'suck' at low levels (1-6) and rock at high levels (7+). Tier 3s tend to be physical and rock the lower levels where most people play. Tier 1s and 2s (the non-physical kind, anyway) tend to rock the higher levels when a single spell can end a fight via incapacitating everyone and squeezing or otherwise damaging them to death.

What should you take from this article?

Challenging 3.5 and Pathfinder Parties in Practice (http://antioch.snow-fall.com/~Endarire/DnD/Challenging%203.5%20and%20Pathfinder%20Parties%201 %2031%2011.doc)

[Rossebay]

No, I'm pointing out that it's all rather pointless in the long run, even with such an ad-hoc system, because, really, the fighter that is cussing is not really doing anything notable in comparison with more pressing concerns in combat.

Actually, something I've found rather fair...

Let's say there's a Were-Brown Bear barbarian, a rogue, a wizard, and a cleric.
The cleric is a war-priest type, so he's healing his allies and beating people up with a hammer.
There's the Wizard who's doing battlefield control and some buffing.
There's the Rogue, who's just flanking or getting in sneak shots whenever he can...
Finally, there's the Were-Brown Bear Barbarian. The Half Orc you were just watching has grown 4 feet taller, 4 feet wider, a ton heavier, wielding an axe the size of you in one hand, and he's picked up one of your allies and thrown him at your leader. He's in the center of the battlefield, coated in the blood of your allies, and you know that if you don't defend yourself against this guy, you'll end up like your buddy over there.


It's an intimidate check. Suddenly, the bear looks like the biggest presence on the battlefield. The enemies target him, as he appears to be the biggest threat, and attempt to take him out. Those that pass (Sense Motive or Will vs. the Intimidate check) may decide not to attack, while those who fail are drawn to attacking him.

And it doesn't have to be a lycanthrope, obviously. It was just the first thing that came to mind.

Ad Hoc, but it goes along the 'Knight' style of thinking. It makes the defender role a bit more playable.

[Big Fau]

Except that, RAW, Intimidate doesn't work that way. The most that would do is act as a Demoralize check, which affects only one enemy and takes a Standard action, and only imposes a penalty for 1 round.

[Helldog]

Except that, RAW, Intimidate doesn't work that way. The most that would do is act as a Demoralize check, which affects only one enemy and takes a Standard action, and only imposes a penalty for 1 round.
Geez... Did he say that it's RAW? No, I think not. He just suggested it as a fair, in his mind, Ad Hoc system for those that don't like to roleplay. :smallsigh:

[Coidzor]

Actually, something I've found rather fair...

Let's say there's a Were-Brown Bear barbarian, a rogue, a wizard, and a cleric.
The cleric is a war-priest type, so he's healing his allies and beating people up with a hammer.
There's the Wizard who's doing battlefield control and some buffing.
There's the Rogue, who's just flanking or getting in sneak shots whenever he can...
Finally, there's the Were-Brown Bear Barbarian. The Half Orc you were just watching has grown 4 feet taller, 4 feet wider, a ton heavier, wielding an axe the size of you in one hand, and he's picked up one of your allies and thrown him at your leader. He's in the center of the battlefield, coated in the blood of your allies, and you know that if you don't defend yourself against this guy, you'll end up like your buddy over there.


It's an intimidate check. Suddenly, the bear looks like the biggest presence on the battlefield. The enemies target him, as he appears to be the biggest threat, and attempt to take him out. Those that pass (Sense Motive or Will vs. the Intimidate check) may decide not to attack, while those who fail are drawn to attacking him.

And it doesn't have to be a lycanthrope, obviously. It was just the first thing that came to mind.

Ad Hoc, but it goes along the 'Knight' style of thinking. It makes the defender role a bit more playable.

Meh, now you're just coming up with needless fluff to justify getting attention while doing the foremost workaround of fighters not being able to do their jobs of defenders and instead grabbing aggro by being the biggest direct threat (hello Shocktrooper pouncing) in a world where everyone is too dumb to remember to turn the robes into pincushions first.


Geez... Did he say that it's RAW? No, I think not. He just suggested it as a fair, in his mind, Ad Hoc system for those that don't like to roleplay. :smallsigh:

Wanting to keep the roleplaying aspect of the game roughly in line with the mechanics and capabilities of the characters in it ≠ being anti-roleplaying.

[Knaight]

Wanting to keep the roleplaying aspect of the game roughly in line with the mechanics and capabilities of the characters in it ≠ being anti-roleplaying.

But see, roleplaying prevents you from being allowed to have an opinion on the mechanics, because they just stop mattering due to playing a role.