Level A Class B = Level X Class Y

[inexorabletruth]

I summon the forum and it's collective build mechanics prowess to figure this formula out.

I'm trying to figure out what level/class combo can hold it's own with/against another level/class combo of a different tier.

For instance:
Level A Monk = Level Y Sorcerer
Level A Fighter = Level Y Cleric
Level A Sorcerer = Level Y Wizard

To keep it simple, let's keep it PHB classes only.

Statements like "A level 800 Monk might last a round or two against a Level 5 Druid" won't help much.

Let's start with at the bottom, and with mid-level classes (lvl 10):
Fighters and Monks

I'm of the opinion that a Level 10 Monk or Fighter can be a positive contributor to combat with, or a challenger against, a Level 6 Cleric, Wizard or Druid.

So Level 10 Monk or Fighter = Level 6 Cleric, Wizard, or Druid.

Would you say this is accurate or not? Of course, feat selection and Ability scores play into it a bit, so this is largely speculation, but so is the Tier system. I'm just looking for ballparks.

[Emperor Tippy]

How are you counting wealth by level? Because with level 20 WBL you could make a level 1 commoner a threat to a level 10 party, for example.

As for when classes match up, they never really do.

For example, a naked level ten million fighter would be defeated by a level 20 wizard without any real problem.

----
Generally, between levels 5 and 10, a monk 10 levels above the party is a decent challenge (so a level 15 monk against a level 5 party and a level 20 monk against a level 10 party); if you limit WBL to the same level as the party.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Note that the Tier System includes more than just combat. Combat is a large part of it (Warblades are T3), but the T1s generally break the game due to the crazy things they can do outside of combat. Your equations will depend on the optimization level, the campaign, and a multitude of other factors. Allow me to provide two examples:

A level X sword and board fighter who faces stupidly-played brute monsters will contribute about as much to combat as a level X unoptimized wizard who prepares blasts and niche utility for any X. As X goes up the unoptimized wizard contributes more and more out of combat by my construction, but you're considering combat only.

A Goliath Whirlpounce Barbarian 1/Dungeoncrasher Fighter 6 with Knockback, Shocktrooper and LA buyoff facing intelligently-played, re-statted, item-using monsters will contribute about as much offense on average as a level 5 or 6 wizard with Shivering Touch, Ray of Stupidity, Haste, and Sculpted BFC spells with MM reduction. But like before, the wizard will contribute much more outside of combat, and I'm inherently balancing the Goliath's damage potential with his potential for his schtick(s) being negated.

[Namfuak]

How much about the other character does each character know? Just that they are class/level x/y? Does the higher tier class get knowledge advantage on the lower? IE, would the monk know what the wizard would prepare? Also, are we talking both stand 20 feet away from each other and neither gets a surprise round? Is there time for self-buffs? Do the characters even wake up expecting to fight each other?

[navar100]

Level X any Class = Level X any other Class

This formula has worked for my group for 10 years now. Fighter, paladin, monk has been in the same party as wizard, druid, or cleric without any problems whatsoever. Everyone equally contributed each within their own individual ways and spotlight time as well as together as a party. A few times players felt lacking in combat. All that was needed was direction towards better feat choices and playing tactics. There was no resentment by the warriors on whatever spellcasters did nor vice versa.

[inexorabletruth]

To keep it simple, let's say that all players know the best way to optimize their characters by RAW.

A perfectly optimized monk vs a perfectly optimized wizard. Perfectly optimized fighter vs. perfectly optimized cleric.

We all know there's a productivity difference in combat between a Tier 5 character and a Tier 1 character. I'm just hoping to quantify it.

[JoshuaZ]

Level X any Class = Level X any other Class

This formula has worked for my group for 10 years now. Fighter, paladin, monk has been in the same party as wizard, druid, or cleric without any problems whatsoever. Everyone equally contributed each within their own individual ways and spotlight time as well as together as a party. A few times players felt lacking in combat. All that was needed was direction towards better feat choices and playing tactics. There was no resentment by the warriors on whatever spellcasters did nor vice versa.

With how much optimization? Were the wizards all playing blaster wizards or were they doing things like battlefield control and careful scrying?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

If "Perfectly Optimized" means TO, all classes are equivalent, including Commoner.

If "Perfectly Optimized" means the fringe of PO, further definition is required. Some believe getting 9th level spells at 1st level is TO, some believe it is high PO.

So, how about Test of Spite banlist + ban all the builds considered "Tier 0.5" or higher by ToS, and optimize from there? In that case, it's been shown that a Level 20 Fighter with full WBL usually loses to a Level 13 Wizard, but I'd wager that the same Fighter would beat a Level 12 Wizard. So that's a start.

[Spuddles]

For example, a naked level ten million fighter would be defeated by a level 20 wizard without any real problem.

There are some shenanigans you can pull with extra spell and magical training to get pseudo-casting. I'd guess that a fighter of 2x wizard level could out wizard the wizard, especially if chaos shuffle was in play.

[JoshuaZ]

To keep it simple, let's say that all players know the best way to optimize their characters by RAW.

A perfectly optimized monk vs a perfectly optimized wizard. Perfectly optimized fighter vs. perfectly optimized cleric.

We all know there's a productivity difference in combat between a Tier 5 character and a Tier 1 character. I'm just hoping to quantify it.

The problem is that this isn't the only difference. It isn't just a matter of straight combat. A 20th level fighter can't planeshift or teleport around the world or charm or disarm a tricky trap or open a magically sealed door. T1s, T2s have options that low tiers simply can't do at all without specific optimization to do that thing. Fighter 20/CW Samurai 20 still can't do many things a wizard can do. Even if they won on straight combat, they'd be helpless in most out of combat situations to the point where rogue 10/wizard 10, or just wizard 20 would be more useful in most games. The tiers arise from a lot more than just direct power scaling issues.

[navar100]

With how much optimization? Were the wizards all playing blaster wizards or were they doing things like battlefield control and careful scrying?

I played a Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell cleric, and this was when Persistent Spell was only +4 levels. It was changed to +6 published officially during the campaign, but I was allowed to grandfather in keeping the +4. Common persisted spells by campaign end: Mass Lesser Vigor, Divine Favor, Divine Power, Greater Aspect of the Deity. I had also cast Elemental Immunity and Extended Elemental Immunity. I cast Extend Heroes' Feast every day for a breakfast of champions. The Fighter appreciated another melee warrior with him, and the Rogue was always thrilled with my breakfast. The player still jokes about it from time to time.

[Malachei]

To keep it simple, let's say that all players know the best way to optimize their characters by RAW.

And that would be the one true way? Is there agreement on the boards which optimization strategy (i.e. which specific build) would be the optimal for class X? I'd expect the answer is no.


A perfectly optimized monk vs a perfectly optimized wizard. Perfectly optimized fighter vs. perfectly optimized cleric.

We'd need to sufficiently define "perfectly optimized" first.


We all know there's a productivity difference in combat between a Tier 5 character and a Tier 1 character. I'm just hoping to quantify it.

How would you want to quantify it? There are so many variables involved... I'd guess you'd have to generate so many assumptions that the applicability would be minimal.


Level X any Class = Level X any other Class
This formula has worked for my group for 10 years now. Fighter, paladin, monk has been in the same party as wizard, druid, or cleric without any problems whatsoever. Everyone equally contributed each within their own individual ways and spotlight time as well as together as a party.

My experience is similar.

[Answerer]

And this is why Legend is better. A = A′ (as in, character A is equally capable as character A′ of the same level). Monk X = Red Dragon X. Etc.

Of course, it's not perfect, but A = A′ is the goal in all cases, and for the most part they do an excellent job – far better than any other system I have seen, save, perhaps, 4E – but with massively more customization than 4E.

[Callista]

It's an interesting concept, but I don't think it would really pan out in the average group.

The average group isn't fully optimized, but a mix of people at different levels of optimization--the newbie playing the sorcerer is not as powerful as the experienced guy playing the paladin. That'll always be the case and it won't help to restrict the sorcerer. In fact, I don't think that making the levels exactly equivalent to each other is particularly important: 4th ed does that, and it just causes the classes to lose their distinctiveness. The really important thing is to have all classes in a party have ranges of power that overlap--which, in D&D, they do (though only slightly in cases like a wizard and a monk). In a realistic group, the better optimizers in the group will help everyone tweak their power levels to fit into the party better. If they're playing a powerful class, they'll pick non-cheesy options; if it's a less powerful class, they'll optimize more to fit with the rest of the party. That's how it's happened in the groups I've been a part of, and it seems to work just fine.

[nedz]

We all know there's a productivity difference in combat between a Tier 5 character and a Tier 1 character. I'm just hoping to quantify it.

0xc0000094

We tried doing this in another thread a couple of weeks ago, but we soon hit an infinity.

[inexorabletruth]

Hm... well thanks for the attempt.

Makes you wonder why people make homebrews to fix classes then, huh. Oh well. I don't think my question was answered, but that may be because the question is unanswerable. So with that, I tip my hat and ride off into the sunset.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Many classes have basic problems which are relatively easy to fix, but the classes are still hard to pin down in terms of level-by-level constant power comparison due to all the moving parts in an actual game.

[eggs]

Makes you wonder why people make homebrews to fix classes then, huh. Oh well. I don't think my question was answered, but that may be because the question is unanswerable. So with that, I tip my hat and ride off into the sunset.
If you look at many of those, you'll notice that the well-received fixes add solutions that add breadth to a character's capabilities, rather than d20's level-based numeric increases. Things like adding some means of flight or free movement into a melee class, or enriching a warrior class's noncombat capabilities.

The more common solutions are often brushed off because the designers misunderstand the problem that needs to be fixed. These are often just based on bigger numeric measures - things like tacking free [Weapon X] feats onto Fighters, or bumping the Monk up to full BA/d12 HD - which don't actually resolve the problem. For a concrete example, Pathfinder's proclivity of this sort of modification is one of the reasons it's scoffed at as a "fix" for 3.5.