Class Tiers and Balance Questions [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

eggs

2012-05-22, 06:59 PM

The thing JaronK's tier list is useful for is looking at what tools a member of a particular class is going to have available. It's designed to be useful for a quick and dirty assessment of what sorts of tools a class in terms of optimization, before you really dig into the class itself.

And it's for squabbling over. That's a big part of it.

In terms of implementation, I find it to be a very useful tool in terms of communication (typing "T4" is easier than explaining the notion of classes which can be dragged into high-op games, but which require large investments to remain reliable contributors), but not particularly useful in predicting how powerful an individual character is going to be.

If you look over it and look at gameplay critically in terms of balance, you'll probably find that the balance curve is inconsistent across characters' progressions. At low levels, the Tier system doesn't document any really meaningful distinctions because effect of a particular class isn't so pronounced - a Wizard might drop half of a Goblin band with its color spray, but the Ranger will drop the rest with its bow. With a couple exceptions (Abrupt Jaunt, Invisible Fist, Animal Companions), the classes start on pretty equal ground in the action economy, nobody has any meaningful immunities (not even monsters), nobody has drastically different capabilities (give or take a teleport or two a day), and just about every class is able to flatten its opponents in a round or two. But at higher levels, the Fighter keeps doing the same things it was at level 6, while the Wizard gets to summon angels, turn into a balor and trigger a hurricane, all in one round.

Another interfering effect on character balance is player competence - a Wizard who bans Transmutation and Conjuration, then only prepares Meteor Swarms and Weirds could very easily be shown up in terms of both damage and utility by a straight Ranger who makes clever use of its skill list and summons. I've had plenty of games where Knockback Fighters leave Druid players feeling useless, or Swashbucklers upstage Clerics and Wizards - the Tier list does state that it assumes comparable optimization levels, but that assumption never valid.

Then there are nonstandard class/build options. The Monk is categorized as T5, but with a few class variants and alternate class features, it makes a solid and rather powerful T3. And when multiclassing enters the picture, many of the rules break down - from an optimization perspective, a 2-level Monk dip (without continued progression) is generally far more useful than a 2-level Sorcerer dip (without continued progression).

There were a few other contentions with the Tier thread (when it was still new and shiny and something worth arguing about). The smallest is the placement of individual classes (no three people will ever reach a consensus on where classes like the Erudite, Wilder, Lurk, Truenamer or Rogue belong); the other common disputes were the role of capability with magic items (eg. Does the Paladin's access to dirt-cheap wands of Rhino's Rush matter?), and the importance of the question being asked (eg. Is game-breaking potential more important than situational flexibility when assessing a class in terms of campaign performance?).

The one takeaway I would recommend from that list is to look at it in terms of a character's self-sufficiency - The T1-3 classes are generally competent through their class abilities alone, without high optimization or DM attention, but the T4-5 classes often require either very clever character building or the aid of outside sources in order to contribute at higher levels. Those classes are the ones which really need things like Anklets of Translocation or Boots of Big Stepping, just to stay in the fight at higher levels; with many of them in the group, as a DM, you're going to want to avoid going too long in any sort of attritional or "imprisoned, stripped bare, etc." scenario.

Even though I'm a bit harsh on the system itself, I would definitely say it's worth looking over just to know what people are talking about and to access that shorthand. But I wouldn't recommend the common knee-jerk reactions, like "Ban all but T3!" or "AMFed gameworld for Balance!"; Tier 1 classes generally work fine alongside Tier 5s - the most resource-effective means of problem-solving for both of them is typically mutual facilitation (if the Ninja unlocks the door or scouts ahead, the Wizard saves resources on Knock or divinations; if the Wizard blinds/tentacles opponents, the Ninja saves HP; if the Ninja Sudden Strikes the blinded/tentacled enemies, the Wizard saves spell slots).

The times when you really want to keep an eye on class balance are generally situations with either overlapping class functions (a Samurai will very likely be shown up by a Warblade; an un-ACFed Spellthief is going to have a hard time shining beside an Unseen Seer). Other than that, I'd read the list, think about its principles, but take its implications with a grain of salt.

Righteous Doggy

2012-05-22, 07:09 PM

So I see a lot of talk about class tiers on the forum, and while I'm familiar with the concept and have seen the rankings, I have unfortunately not actually played or DM'd enough D&D/Pathfinder to really get a sense of their importance. So the question is: what's up with class tiers? Why/when/how are they important?

It usually only comes up when you have 2 or more people of greatly different teirs. Like in a new group, a guy playing a fighter might have trouble keeping up with the guy playing a druid. He might be completely overpowered becuase its hard to be a bad druid, but its hard to be a good fighter. On the other hand, if it was a sorcerer and a Warblade they might have a much easier time playing with eachother without stepping on eachothers shoes or overshadowing the other.

Also, versatility. A fighter hits stuff. Okay. A monk hits stuff, okay again. Commoner... has chickens? They don't do much more sometimes... However, a spellcaster is only as limited as the spells he can cast. Need diplomacy? Voice of the dragon! Need stuff blown up? fireball! need broken? Polymorph and chain gate have your back while black tentacles eat mooks for breakfast and his army of constructs and undead ravage the battlefield doing the work of several parties. Can your fighter monk or commoner do any of these things? Not... as well, if ever.

And breakability. A fighter will have a very hard time breaking the game. He might have almost no hope. A wizard... might have an easy time devastating a continent in the right campaign and in the wrong hands.

CheeseMerchant

2012-05-22, 07:13 PM

I want to know in what situations class tiers are important and when they are not, and when they present a problem and when they pose no problem at all.

Class tiers have the largest impact (and are most important) when the DM has presented a problem and did not anticipate a solution available to a T1 or T2 character. This is sometimes referred to a "breaking the plot". The inverse of this (when a DM has anticipated solutions that are outside of the party's reach) is also problematic, but it easier to the DM to provide additional tools to the party than it is to deny tools to the party. Granted, both are within the DM's power, but the latter can lead to the players feeling "cheated".

Tiers pose no problem, however, when the players openly and effectively communicate their desires and preferences (both to the DM and to each other). This is, however, slightly more difficult than you might imagine.

Dienekes

2012-05-22, 07:14 PM

So I see a lot of talk about class tiers on the forum, and while I'm familiar with the concept and have seen the rankings, I have unfortunately not actually played or DM'd enough D&D/Pathfinder to really get a sense of their importance. So the question is: what's up with class tiers? Why/when/how are they important?

I anticipate that a good amount of answers will include a lot of "it depends on the campaign" and "the important thing is that everybody's having fun," which makes a lot of sense, but that's not what I'm asking. I want to know in what situations class tiers are important and when they are not, and when they present a problem and when they pose no problem at all.

The potential for there to be a problem is always there. All it takes is the guy who wants to play a high tier caster to really look at their spell lists and figure out the most effective way to play, or the monk and fighter type to not look too carefully at their feat selection and take traps like toughness and run.

For most new players, emphasis on most, the first couple of games at lower levels is where it matters the least. However, I have seen a Fighter at my own table angered when he was outfought by the Druid's animal companion very early in my time as a GM. Really, my suggestion is that when you do see someone lagging behind don't be too afraid to help them out (I've made Pounce a feat you can get at level 6 for instance, or I've given magic items here or there that does something interesting for their benefit). Or take the overpowering player too the side and explain the situation to them, generally they'll be pretty cool about limiting themselves. Remember the goal really is just to have fun. Also, unless the player is incredibly smart or looks online for help it's unlikely that the high tiers will be played to the highest of their capabilities, but that does not mean that they still can't be overpowered. So learn to eyeball it and keep track on how much everyone is contributing.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-22, 07:19 PM

Nevermind.

CheeseMerchant

2012-05-22, 07:34 PM

(Once there was a comment here, but the lights went out. I think it might have been eaten by a grue.)

Thank you.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-22, 07:37 PM

Let's not derail this thread. The OP has a good and valid question. Focus on the questions asked, not the manner in which some posters have replied.

Thank you.

You're right. I'm gonna edit that out of my post.

Rogue Shadows

2012-05-22, 07:38 PM

You're right. I'm gonna edit that out of my post.

*Ugh* another fun time ruined by human decency...I'll delete my observation...

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-22, 07:56 PM

{scrubbed}

{scrubbed}

Anyway.

Class tiers are important only insofar as they compare players trying to fulfill like roles or concepts. A T3 Beguiler and a T5 Fighter can exist harmoniously, even with the Beguiler being generally more diverse and capable as a Fighter, because it can be easily argued that the Fighter fulfills its niche as the melee combatant better than the Beguiler ever could. A T3 Warblade and a T5 Fighter, however, are going to cause problems with each other, because they fill identical niches, but the Warblade does almost everything better in every conceivable way (it even does Fighter-only feats better by being able to attune them to different weapons on a whim).

This problem becomes agitated somewhat when you consider the T1 classes, which can do everything and do it better than everything else. If a Fighter is a hammer and a Rogue is a pair of pliers, then the Wizard is a toolbox that also contains various hammers and pliers. The result is that, unless you somehow carve out an adventure path that requires the type of hammer the Fighter has (that the Wizard somehow doesn't), the Fighter is going to feel pretty obsolete when the Wizard decides to whip not only a hammer, but just the right hammer out of his toolbox.

Hiro Protagonest

2012-05-22, 08:14 PM

Classes of very different tiers can work together. For example, the fighter and rogue dominate combat, as long as the wizard is using Haste on them, then Slow on the enemies. Enlarge Person to give extra reach and bonuses to a lockdown melee build (Improved Trip, Combat Reflexes, Stand Still, and a guisarme or spiked chain), Grease to give the sniper rogue Sneak Attack while the reach fighter makes sure the enemies stay in the Greased area, etc.

You notice a good wizard when he's not there.

But wizards aren't always good. Perhaps they use Planar Binding and Summon Monster. Congratulations, they now have their own personal party, with divine casters, trap detectors, and warriors. Perhaps they stack up on personal defenses and read up on The Mailman (yes, I know that's a sorc build. But most of it works for wizards), effectively becoming a physical god, bringing his fiery wrath down upon his foes.

However, wizards can also hide behind the fighter with the only defensive spell up being Mage Armor, casting a Blur or Displacement on the beatstick before blasting with Fireballs. In this case, the wizard is pretty much tier 4.

Now, depending on how the tier 1s and 2s are played, the ToB classes might be overpowered. Or they might be par. Or they might be underpowered. ToB classes have a high floor and a low ceiling. Like a treehouse, as opposed to a tier 1's skyscraper.

Rubik

2012-05-22, 08:19 PM

Class tiers are important only insofar as they compare players trying to fulfill like roles or concepts.While the rest of the post is sound, I disagree with this statement. Not "only".

You also have to deal with the fact that T1-T3 can hold their own in nearly any campaign (or for T1 and 2, can break them in half if they try), and that T4-T6 can often not contribute meaningfully if the DM doesn't watch his step closely.

It's very easy for a fighter to not have any tools at all to help with a portion of a campaign. The same goes for a rogue, though less frequently.

A lot of T5s and all the T6s especially can be accidentally negated if the DM doesn't watch himself. After all, if a fighter doesn't have a magic weapon a stock-standard shadow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/shadow.htm) will slaughter him, even if he's level 60.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-22, 09:40 PM

While the rest of the post is sound, I disagree with this statement. Not "only".

You also have to deal with the fact that T1-T3 can hold their own in nearly any campaign (or for T1 and 2, can break them in half if they try), and that T4-T6 can often not contribute meaningfully if the DM doesn't watch his step closely.

It's very easy for a fighter to not have any tools at all to help with a portion of a campaign. The same goes for a rogue, though less frequently.

A lot of T5s and all the T6s especially can be accidentally negated if the DM doesn't watch himself. After all, if a fighter doesn't have a magic weapon a stock-standard shadow (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/shadow.htm) will slaughter him, even if he's level 60.

I agree (in particular with the last paragraph), but consider this largely a subset of the above-mentioned issue.

A game involving T1-2s is typically a game where all of the players can contribute all of the time (and, of course, in many cases can break the game). Every player feels effective in every situation and contributes in their own way, and nobody feels left out--in fact, a party consisting only of the Big Five has every answer to a problem, and given time and resources at their disposal, will overcome every obstacle (including plot). This can be a problem (in some games; others embrace it), but it stems not from tiers as much as optimization (a party can consist of the Big Five, but be either low-op or follow the Gentle/wo/man's Agreement, and be the most versatile quintet in the world without breaking the campaign, for example).

A game involving T3-4s is typically a game where all of the players can contribute most of the time, or some of the players can contribute all of the time. While no member of the party is able to do everything necessary to Win D&D, combined, a five-player party of Bard, Ranger, Rogue, Crusader, and Warlock (or some other arrangement) together can do almost everything through role fulfillment. That said, there are still some situations where some members of the party can't do anything to solve a problem--and that's okay. Of the above-mentioned party of five at level three, for example, only two can get through a steel door with a well-made lock--the Rogue, with Open Lock as a class skill, can pick a DC 30 ("good") lock with maximum ranks, masterwork thieves' tools, and a decent DEX score (14 or more) and nothing else if taking 20. The Crusader might be able to do one better; if the Crusader took Mountain Hammer, they can just punch through the door. The Bard, Ranger, and Warlock are all likely to be twiddling their thumbs the entire time. And that's okay.

A T5 group typically involves all of the players contributing some of the time, with few (if any) players contributing all of the time. While it does require some work (and thus borders on becoming a problem, if not one outright), a party consisting entirely of T5 characters can still solve the entire spectrum of problems with role fulfillment. For example, a group consisting of only T5 characters could include a five-person party consisting of Fighter, Ninja (Complete Arcane), Expert, Paladin and Healer. Each member of this party is either one-dimensional or completely weak, but collectively, their difficulties are surmountable. For instance, the Expert and CA Ninja could solve the steel door with good lock problem by picking the lock, or working together to pick the lock (if neither can accomplish the check alone). A Fighter may never be able to defeat a Shadow without specific magic items, but the Paladin can turn it by fourth level (and a CHA-focused paladin can easily destroy it), and the Ninja can kill it by eighth level using its ghost strike ability. While a single T5 character (or even a range of characters) can be negated by an encounter or obstacle outside of their scope, it's still more difficult to negate a party in this fashion. This is sometimes (but not always) an optimization or group dynamics problem instead of a tier problem; a party of four Fighters is going to treat the world like a nail and fail to solve any problem that requires a wrench, and a DM who is working ahead of his group may throw a Mailman at a party consisting of the above, but given equal optimization and a party who knows how role fulfillment works, plus a DM who designs encounters around the players intelligently, it's usually not a problem.

Only when you get into T6 territory do you truly run into a problem of some characters contributing none of the time, or no players contributing some of the time. These are the games where the problem of needing the right tool cannot be solved by intelligent party composition. A third-level party consisting of every T6 class in the game combined cannot open a steel door with a DC30 Open Lock check without heavy optimization (of a cross-class skill, be it Open Lock or Use Magic Device), nor can they defeat a single Shadow. This is the only time when I believe that a character can be independently determined to be dysfunctional without considering if other characters can do it better (and, I suppose, in a rare few T5 classes, as well). These are the classes that fulfill no roles. It's not that they don't fulfill any roles best (a Fighter is objectively worse than a Warblade, but an entire party can be built such that the Fighter still fulfills its role better than everybody else in the party), but that they don't fulfill any roles at all. At this point the game breaks down in the way you described solely on the basis of tiers, but beyond this, role fulfillment kicks in and helps the party solve most problems in big ways.

maysarahs

2012-05-22, 10:08 PM

My opinion is that Tiers become relevant the moment any character is intelligently played. The higher the tier, the faster the difference in its ability to manifest quickly. This will then be noticed by anyone of lower tier than you.

My first group (including me) were very naive. I overlooked spells like color spray, and glitterdust. I'd apply a single person buff once or twice, and then plink away with a longbow. The rest of my party made fun of me for my lack of damage output. I'd leave sessions with my feelings hurt because I'd chosen to play a wizard, and the groups only metric for effectiveness was attack bonus/damage.

This group goes from level 1-3, I start solely buffing the few group members who aren't major jerks to me, and I notice that certain decisions (namely the ones where I don't try to damage the enemy) make combat end rounds faster. During this time, our DM also happens upon his first optimization advice, and builds a miniboss kobold wizard with color spray as his most prepared spell. He ended up having to fiat our group of 7 characters winning.

Fast forward a few months, new gaming group (with closer friends), also I'd spend a few months on GitP. My new DM wants to show me that sandbox style gaming can work, so vows not to think of any plot until after we make any relevant decisions (I say this to show the tier discrepancy is not dependent on campaign) One friend makes a War Hulk, the other a Ranger, I am at it again with a wizard. Since this was supposed to be a one shot we decided to start at level 10 (though this is certainly not the earliest that the difference shows) In interest of giving others a chance to shine the only intelligent decisions I made were my spell selection. I spent most of my money on irrelevant things, I was a Wizard 10, and the only feat I chose to take that was related to wizardyness was Improved Initiative. I hoped to be utility, and support (I prepped spells like teleport, and fly, but I also prepared spells like glitterdust, and summon monster, and web and black tentacles) From the moment we had our first combat we fell into a pattern. Wait for me to fix everything. The Warhulk and Ranger come in and coup de grace whats left. I dealt an average of 4-5 points of damage every combat, but for my more naive friends (naive in this case could be synonymous with unoptimized, but I want to draw attention to the fact that I wasn't really optimized either) having spent 5 rounds of combat beating two peoples faces in and then joining me outside the tavern only to see all thats left of 8 more enemies are their hit points frustrated them.

The moral of my rather long story is that the fact that I was a tier 1 became relevant the moment I realized that my strength as a Wizard lay in being God (to use treanmonks term), and even though the only advice I took was spell selection, that's all it took to shine far and above any other character

tl;dr, I played in a game as a semi-intelligently played wizard, and it quickly became very frustrating for the rest of my table when I had a solution for anything (laid out by the rules no less) that was better than the solution every other party member could think of.

Togo

2012-05-23, 02:13 AM

Tiers are about the extent to which a higher tier character can make a lower tier character less relevent, either by duplicating their core abilities and being better at them, or by breaking the game.

Thus at low tier you get a lot of characters who are, mechancically, simply not as good at what they are supposed to be good at as higher tier characters. So a warblade is better at both fighting and martial manuvres than a fighter.

At higher tiers you get characters with abilities that bypass the standard mechanics and can defeat some situations by default. So a wizard that can make everyone fly, means that an encounter against, say, fiendish dinosaurs, becomes an auto-win for the party. The dinosaurs can't reach the party, and it doesn't matter how good they are at their own ability set.

The Tiers are based on a number of assumptions which are rarely true in practice. They assume that the highest tier characters employ tactics that break the game, that magical items are ignored, and that all that matters is the capabilities on your character sheet. In practice, many of the high tier tactics may end up being banned, magical items allow lower tier access to a subset of game-breaking tricks, and the game may well emphasise one character over another for reasons that have nothing to do with their character class.

The Tiers are intended to be a guide to a potential pitfall. Some classes are simply not very good at what they are supposed to do, and other classes have access to a large number of abilities that ignore the balancing mechanics of the game, and thus may provide easy victories. Both of these things can make players feel that their character is not properly represented within the game.

I'd suggest three things. Discourage characters from acquiring the ability to duplicate another character's abilities. Be careful of high tier characters and feel free to ban or limit options that you feel the DM will have difficulty dealing with in game. Be generous towards low tier characters and give them either additional capabilities or a situation where their abilities can shine. That way everything should converge quite nicely.

Eldebryn

2012-05-23, 05:13 AM

LordBlades

2012-05-23, 06:00 AM

The Tiers are based on a number of assumptions which are rarely true in practice. They assume that the highest tier characters employ tactics that break the game, that magical items are ignored, and that all that matters is the capabilities on your character sheet. In practice, many of the high tier tactics may end up being banned, magical items allow lower tier access to a subset of game-breaking tricks, and the game may well emphasise one character over another for reasons that have nothing to do with their character class.

While I agree with the rest of your post almost completely, I strongly disagree with this part. The tier system doesn't assume everybody is trying to break the game, rather that everyone has at least a basic understanding of their class's strengths and weaknesses, and at least try to play to them.

Wizards aren't Tier 1 because they can Chain Gate Solars and start infinite Wish loops on their own. Wizards are Tier 1 because their spell list contains solutions to all the imaginable problems, and having that solution ready is simply a matter of adding the right spell to the spellbook (if you don't already have it) and preparing it. Add to that the fact that they can completely change their bag of tricks from one day to the next.

Also, not quite as many high-tier tricks get banned in practice. Some DMs might ban spells they see as a problem, but I have yet to see a DM that forces wizards to play blaster or forbids druids from entering melee.

As for the second part, see the Stormwind Fallacy. Whether a character is emphasized or not based on RP reasons has very little to do with whatever mechanical ability he has or hasn't, and also has very little bearing on a character's mechanical performance. You can RP a wizard just as well as you can RP a Samurai.

Also, in my own personal opinion, for a given story, a character that has a solid mechanical build feels more complete and is more entertaining to play than one who doesn't

Togo

2012-05-23, 06:55 PM

Wizards aren't Tier 1 because they can Chain Gate Solars and start infinite Wish loops on their own. Wizards are Tier 1 because their spell list contains solutions to all the imaginable problems, and having that solution ready is simply a matter of adding the right spell to the spellbook (if you don't already have it) and preparing it. Add to that the fact that they can completely change their bag of tricks from one day to the next.

While I can see what you're getting at here, JaronK's own notes and comments disagree with you on this point. He's explicit that wizards are Tier 1 because of their ability to employ game-breaking combinations. He's also explicit that it is the flexibility of such characters, and not their raw power in a particular situation, that earns them a higher Tier.

That said, even without such combinations I'd place wizards at Tier 1. I don't think the relationship between spells and solutions to problems is as simple as you imply though. The rest of the high Tier structure starts to fall apart once you start banning combinations considered excessive. You'd need to start moving classes around, depending on what you ban. Would a cleric really be Tier 1 without DMM, or abuse of summoned/called creatures?

Also, not quite as many high-tier tricks get banned in practice. Some DMs might ban spells they see as a problem, but I have yet to see a DM that forces wizards to play blaster or forbids druids from entering melee.

Druids in melee aren't all that dangerous. They're dangerous at mid-level, and tough grapplers at higher level, but a properly built melee character overtakes them pretty quickly.

And I've certainly played in campaigns both where wizards don't have free access to spells, and to those where druids don't get access to armour they can wear in wild shape, can't use most items in animal or plant form, and are prevented from being in wild shape all day by the pace and structure of the game.

As for the second part, see the Stormwind Fallacy. Whether a character is emphasized or not based on RP reasons has very little to do with whatever mechanical ability he has or hasn't, and also has very little bearing on a character's mechanical performance. You can RP a wizard just as well as you can RP a Samurai.

Meh, the Stormwind Fallacy is fallacious, a point I made in Stormwind's original thread, as it is constructed around a strawman arguement. In any case the point I was making was nothing to do with ability to roleplay, it was merely the point that what happens in the game grants abilities to characters via the plot and story that have nothing to do with their character sheet.

Also, in my own personal opinion, for a given story, a character that has a solid mechanical build feels more complete and is more entertaining to play than one who doesn't

Sure, but for a given mechanical discrepency, story has the capability to iron out the comparative capabilities of two characters. Amongst the assumptions that Jaronk makes in the Tier system is that the DM does nothing to even out differences and experiences of each character, which in practice may not be the case. In fact it's the very willinginess of the DM to rearrange things that spawned both this thread and the original discussion of Tiers.

I don't think we particularly disagree with eachother, we're just describing the same thing from different ends. I agree with you that, for me at least, some form of mechancial parity is highly desirable, and that high Tier characters have advantages beyond a set of broken combinations. But many games go some way to solving this, and I don't see the problem as insurmountable.

navar100

2012-05-23, 08:50 PM

Basically, this (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0) should explain everything.

Some people will try to tell you that the tiers don't matter, that they're all theoretical, that in a real game those things don't happen, etc. etc. etc.

This is not true.

There may be games where characters behave in ways that are contrary to their tiers. Houserules, differing levels of optimization, etc. etc. can all affect how much they actually appear at a given table.

But all else being equal, in a game played as suggested by the DMG and according to the rules of the classes' abilities, the tier system has been borne out at countless tables. Even among new players, it is quite possible to stumble upon the fact that the Druid is massively better than the Fighter.

I've been summoned!

Yes, it is true. All the Tier system tells you is that the higher up a class is, the more versatility it has in encounters and warns it has potential the class can break the game by Winning Everything by some combo of class abilities the game can't function. Lower Tiers have less flexibility and warns the class can break the game by Losing Everything, not being able to succeed at encounters because of poor build choice or DM oversight in making encounters. It's handy as a guide.

What the Tier System is not but has been abused to be is a Holy Bible of how to play the game and if you don't adhere to it you are a blasphemous sinner playing the game wrong. I speak in hyperbole but that is what it's become. There are four cults to the Tier Religion.

1) Tier 1 is an abomination! Players should not have such power! Ban! Ban! Ban! Gate exists! Natural Spell exists! It's the Apocalypse! The game is ruined! Spellcasters always have every spell ever published at every moment they need the most perfect spell to win the day. Spellcasters have every feat ever published they need at the moment for whatever circumstance to overcome. Spellcasters always get through spell resistance and bad guys always fail their saving throws. Spellcasters never, ever fail at anything. They win! Ban! Ban! Ban!

2) You are The Suck for playing Tier 4 or 5. You are a drain on resources. You are beneath contempt because you rely on equipment. Just play a cleric or druid. You can't do anything. You always fail your Will saving throws. No one needs you. Bad guys always ignore you.

3) Praise be the Holy Tier 3. It is the One True Way to play the game. Balance is god! Everyone everywhere should play Tier 3. Play in Tier 3 and all your troubles will go away. Tiers 1 & 2 are for powergaming munchkins, but I repeat myself. Tiers 4 & below are not even worth considering.

4) 3E just blows, and the Tier System proves it! It is horribly unbalanced. You can't play the game without a major overhaul and rewrite. You have to ban a lot and house rule a lot. It's such a major clusterfunk of heaping garbage. I play (insert gaming system), and it's much better. Absolutely perfect in every way. Pathfinder?! Pshaw! It fixed nothing. It's also a piece of feces, just like 3E.

That is what the Tier System is now, and why it is useless. People use it as justification for their own personal preferences. Its original meaning as a class comparison critique and guide is buried.

1) Tier 1 classes do not have every spell every published. They can't prepare them all. They certainly have the flexibility and on paper you can theorizes lots of solutions, but in actual play a character only has what he has, not everything ever published. Still, the potential of "Winning D&D" is there. Look out for it, but don't fear its theoretical existence.

2) The warrior classes do just fine. It is true they lack in the amount of versatility of spellcasters, but they are only The Suck if the DM purposely makes them so. If the Fighter likes to Trip a lot, not every monster encountered will be some iteration of a Large four-legged flying creature. The Fighter gets to do his shtick. As for out of combat, that's roleplay, but skills are fine too. DCs don't have to be high. Not everything a Fighter needs to Spot will be a Rogue with a high Hide. Still, the skill system could be improved. With bias, Pathfinder did it well enough. This is where the low versatility comes into play. In combat, a monster is not going to ignore a character hurting it with a pointy stick despite said character not having a class ability preventing it from moving. To do so is DM metagaming. The character will kill the monster if ignored. Using magic items is fun.

3) Tier 3 has nice fun classes. Tiers 1 & 2 has nice fun classes. Tiers 4 & 5 has nice fun classes. If you don't like a particular class, that's your business. If you have a problem with another person playing a wizard or fighter, tough noogies.

4) If you hate 3E so much, good for you. Why should it bother you that others like 3E? Those of us who like 3E don't have whatever issues you do. We're playing with wizards and fighters in the same party without any problems whatsoever. Since WOTC went on to 4E, we're happy Paizo continues the 3E model, and we like it. You don't? Tough noogies. Why do you feel the need to come on to the 3E boards and bash it every chance you get? I don't particularly care for 4E, but I don't go there to complain about what I dislike about it.

Fineous Orlon

2012-05-23, 09:28 PM

Wizards aren't Tier 1 because they can Chain Gate Solars and start infinite Wish loops on their own. Wizards are Tier 1 because their spell list contains solutions to all the imaginable problems, and having that solution ready is simply a matter of adding the right spell to the spellbook (if you don't already have it) and preparing it. Add to that the fact that they can completely change their bag of tricks from one day to the next.

While I can see what you're getting at here, JaronK's own notes and comments disagree with you on this point. He's explicit that wizards are Tier 1 because of their ability to employ game-breaking combinations. He's also explicit that it is the flexibility of such characters, and not their raw power in a particular situation, that earns them a higher Tier.

Actually, Lord Blades may be correct if you read what he says as "Wizards aren't Tier 1 JUST because they can Chain Gate Solars...

I inserted 'just' because it seemed obvious to me that LB was implicitly acknowledging that tier 1 and 2 both have access to game-breaking combinations, he was looking for how those 2 tiers differed.

I think JaronK's main point about tier 1 is not that it has game-breaking power. I think that is his main point concerning both tier 1 and tier 2. Jaronk's main point about tier 1 would then be how it differs from tier 2.

It is tier 1's flexibility, the overt discussion of which shows up in the tier 2 part, that elevates it above and differentiates it from, tier 2, and is therefore the main point about tier 1.

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

Examples: Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges)

Fineous Orlon

2012-05-23, 09:37 PM

The rest of the high Tier structure starts to fall apart once you start banning combinations considered excessive. You'd need to start moving classes around, depending on what you ban. Would a cleric really be Tier 1 without DMM, or abuse of summoned/called creatures?

Of course. The tier system for classes is based on RAW. Start houseruling a bit, and, surprise, surprise, the initial RAW evaluations just may be less valid in the new circumstances.

A substantial part of the rest of your post is a refutation of the tier system because people you have seen don't play by RAW.

That is not really a refutation of the tier system, in fact,
But many games go some way to solving this actually partially supports the validity tier system, as there is a perceived need to mitigate the differences between the tiers.

Druids in melee aren't all that dangerous. They're dangerous at mid-level, and tough grapplers at higher level, but a properly built melee character overtakes them pretty quickly.

And I've certainly played in campaigns both where wizards don't have free access to spells, and to those where druids don't get access to armour they can wear in wild shape, can't use most items in animal or plant form, and are prevented from being in wild shape all day by the pace and structure of the game.

Meh, the Stormwind Fallacy is fallacious, a point I made in Stormwind's original thread, as it is constructed around a strawman arguement. In any case the point I was making was nothing to do with ability to roleplay, it was merely the point that what happens in the game grants abilities to characters via the plot and story that have nothing to do with their character sheet.

Sure, but for a given mechanical discrepency, story has the capability to iron out the comparative capabilities of two characters. Amongst the assumptions that Jaronk makes in the Tier system is that the DM does nothing to even out differences and experiences of each character, which in practice may not be the case. In fact it's the very willinginess of the DM to rearrange things that spawned both this thread and the original discussion of Tiers.

I don't think we particularly disagree with eachother, we're just describing the same thing from different ends. I agree with you that, for me at least, some form of mechancial parity is highly desirable, and that high Tier characters have advantages beyond a set of broken combinations. But many games go some way to solving this, and I don't see the problem as insurmountable.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-23, 11:07 PM

Awesome words

You are my new favorite human being.

LordBlades

2012-05-24, 12:33 AM

While I can see what you're getting at here, JaronK's own notes and comments disagree with you on this point. He's explicit that wizards are Tier 1 because of their ability to employ game-breaking combinations. He's also explicit that it is the flexibility of such characters, and not their raw power in a particular situation, that earns them a higher Tier.

The way JaronK puts it in his tier list (both the theory and the examples), I'm lead to believe that actual versatility (being the best at everything) has a higher bearing on what's Tier 1 and what's not, compared to the potential of breaking the game. And in practice as well, I've seen more people complaining about full casters that trivialize encounters by having solutions to anything, than people complaining about casters for pulling off truly game breaking stuff (like Wish and Gate loops).

That said, even without such combinations I'd place wizards at Tier 1. I don't think the relationship between spells and solutions to problems is as simple as you imply though. The rest of the high Tier structure starts to fall apart once you start banning combinations considered excessive. You'd need to start moving classes around, depending on what you ban. Would a cleric really be Tier 1 without DMM, or abuse of summoned/called creatures?

That's easier said than done. Most spell lists allow for multiple solutions to a given problem and meaningfully affecting a tier 1's ability to do stuff takes a lot of banning. Take for example trying to avoid tier 1's making fighters obsolete. You'd need to ban the spells that allow them to get their own fighter (Summon Monster, SNA, Planar Ally/Binding), the spells that allow them to become a better fighter (Polymorph, Divine power, Bite of X etc.) and the spells that allow them to circumvent the need for a front-liner altogether.

Sure, but for a given mechanical discrepency, story has the capability to iron out the comparative capabilities of two characters. Amongst the assumptions that Jaronk makes in the Tier system is that the DM does nothing to even out differences and experiences of each character, which in practice may not be the case. In fact it's the very willinginess of the DM to rearrange things that spawned both this thread and the original discussion of Tiers.

I don't think we particularly disagree with eachother, we're just describing the same thing from different ends. I agree with you that, for me at least, some form of mechancial parity is highly desirable, and that high Tier characters have advantages beyond a set of broken combinations. But many games go some way to solving this, and I don't see the problem as insurmountable.

That is true. The Tier system merely points out a (possible) problem. What the DM does about it is part of the solution. The fact that you need to fix it (and up to a point you can through various means) also implicitly admits it was broken in the first place.

This is where the low versatility comes into play. In combat, a monster is not going to ignore a character hurting it with a pointy stick despite said character not having a class ability preventing it from moving. To do so is DM metagaming.

It doesn't have to be DM metagaming, it can simply be monsters thinking according to what makes sense in game, as opposed to what makes sense IRL. In RL, a sword is dangerous. You can't really ignore the guy swinging at you, because one good sword blow will probably put even the strongest fighter out of action. In D&D, not so much. Apart from some quite specific circumstances (like chargers), a high-level character or monster can take dozens of 1d8+str hits until he drops. Spells on the other hand have the potential of knocking you out in one 'hit'. I'd suspect most experienced adventurers/monsters will have acquired this knowledge.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-24, 02:57 AM

The tier system is the bastard child of munchkins everywhere, and if you disagree with me, you are a CULTIST!

Because I, as a first-time player with a Wizard, have never had that "a-ha!" moment when a single casting of Command Undead on the tyrannosaurus skeleton and commanding it to eat the fifth-level Cleric that summoned it will solve the problem better than any of the pointy-sticky guys ever could.

There is your shift from "theoretical" to "practical".

Killer Angel

2012-05-24, 06:13 AM

Some people will try to tell you that the tiers don't matter, that they're all theoretical, that in a real game those things don't happen, etc. etc. etc.

This is not true.

Yes, it is true. All the Tier system tells you is that the higher up a class is, the more versatility it has in encounters and warns it has potential the class can break the game by Winning Everything by some combo of class abilities the game can't function.

We have plenty of examples of real play where the different impact of T1 and T4 on game is painfully evident.
The funny thing is that you admit that "the higher up a class is, the more versatility it has in encounters", thus saying the same thing Answerer was saying: tiers matter, and they're not theoretical.

3) Tier 3 has nice fun classes. Tiers 1 & 2 has nice fun classes. Tiers 4 & 5 has nice fun classes. If you don't like a particular class, that's your business. If you have a problem with another person playing a wizard or fighter, tough noogies.

This thing really bugs me. "Having fun", is not the same thing as "having equal chances to contribute meaningfully".

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-24, 10:02 AM

This thing really bugs me. "Having fun", is not the same thing as "having equal chances to contribute meaningfully".

His point is that D&D is about having fun. It is not (and never was) about "contributing meaningfully". You don't play D&D to win, you play D&D to have fun, and failing might be just as entertaining as succeeding.

Togo

2012-05-24, 10:06 AM

The way JaronK puts it in his tier list (both the theory and the examples), I'm lead to believe that actual versatility (being the best at everything) has a higher bearing on what's Tier 1 and what's not, compared to the potential of breaking the game.

Sure, that's why wizard is Tier 1 and sorceror is Tier 2, despite having the same spell-list.

And in practice as well, I've seen more people complaining about full casters that trivialize encounters by having solutions to anything, than people complaining about casters for pulling off truly game breaking stuff (like Wish and Gate loops).

Yes.. Although to a certain extent that is what wizards are designed to do. This is a class that has no combat skills, low hps, and an only use their powers a limited number of times per day. They are a class with a lot of disadvantages to compensate for their advantages. When casting a high level spell, the effect should be to make an encounter much much easier. That's what they do. However, like any class with a lot of penalties, they're prone to becoming much much better when those penalties are removed. So if your wizard can get any spell they fancy, ignores the annoying restrictions on so many spells, and the party is resting every other encounter, then you're making wizards better than they were written to be.

I agree with your core point, but then that is what the class is designed to do. I think the problem comes not because they can make encounters trivial, but rather when they can make every encounter trivial. I've encountered the problem the other way around, where a high intiative charger build simply wipes out the strongest enemy in everhy fight, and the rest of the party ends up as his cheering section and mop-up crew. That's a problem with balancing capabilities, and making sure every character has a chance to shine.

That's easier said than done. Most spell lists allow for multiple solutions to a given problem and meaningfully affecting a tier 1's ability to do stuff takes a lot of banning. Take for example trying to avoid tier 1's making fighters obsolete. You'd need to ban the spells that allow them to get their own fighter (Summon Monster, SNA, Planar Ally/Binding), the spells that allow them to become a better fighter (Polymorph, Divine power, Bite of X etc.) and the spells that allow them to circumvent the need for a front-liner altogether.

Nah, not so much. Summoning spells don't effectively replace a fighter. At low level they are notably shorter-lived than fighters, and at higher levels they have trouble competing with a well-built fighter. It's a problem when the spellcaster is optimised for summoning, and the fighter isn't optimised at all, but then it would be. As for the rest, I regularly ban the bite of the X line of spells, and persist spell. Divine power is fine once or twice a day - again casting a high level spell to make yourself shine is exactly what the cleric should be able to do - it's only when it becomes all the time that you get a problem.

Battlefield control is more of a problem. PCs are well rounded individuals capable of meeting a variety of challeges. Monsters aren't, so spells can target their weaknesses. This is where I find the spellcasters tending to dominate, and where the DM may want to invest some time.

That is true. The Tier system merely points out a (possible) problem. What the DM does about it is part of the solution. The fact that you need to fix it (and up to a point you can through various means) also implicitly admits it was broken in the first place.

Broken suggests it can't be repaired. It is a problem, but there are solutions to the problem. There, in fact, so many solutions to the problem that it's hard to find a game that hasn't gone some way to solving them. I'm not saying there isn't a problem, merely that it's a solvable problem.

Apart from some quite specific circumstances (like chargers), a high-level character or monster can take dozens of 1d8+str hits until he drops. Spells on the other hand have the potential of knocking you out in one 'hit'. I'd suspect most experienced adventurers/monsters will have acquired this knowledge.

By design, it is better to ignore the fighter and go after the wizards. That's not a bug, that's a feature. You need to use tactics to ensure that the monster is stuck with the tougher target. If your wizard has placed himself so that he draws monsters away from your melee specialist, your party has effectively failed the tactical part of the challenge.

Yes, spellcasters can mitigate their poor defense by devoting a higher proportion of their resources to defence, but then those resources are not available to help the rest of the party. It's more effective to work as a team.

Gwendol

2012-05-24, 10:15 AM

This thing really bugs me. "Having fun", is not the same thing as "having equal chances to contribute meaningfully".

I don't understand why you bring this up; Navar is saying that the decision to play a class/character should lie with the player/DM/group (in that order) and their enjoyment, not based on a list which essentially just says that Magic > no magic and SAD > MAD.

To say that having fun is not the same as being versatile and effective is trivial: since one is a subjective experience while the other can be more or less objectively measured.

Talya

2012-05-24, 10:32 AM

I've been summoned!

Which, I'll have you know, could only have been reasonably handled by a Tier 1 or Tier 2 -- occasionally a Tier 3.

Seriously, though, you're right. And yet you're not. There is a lot of truth in everything you've said, but you dismiss a lot of serious balance issues as being trivial.

Because I, as a first-time player with a Wizard, have never had that "a-ha!" moment when a single casting of Command Undead on the tyrannosaurus skeleton and commanding it to eat the fifth-level Cleric that summoned it will solve the problem better than any of the pointy-sticky guys ever could.

There is your shift from "theoretical" to "practical".

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Which isn't to say it's not real. In general, with players of equal skill, a Tier 1 class will get far more opportunities to dominate play and trivialize an encounter than a tier 5 class. It's a simple fact. I do believe that the difference is often overstated, however. At average levels of system mastery and optimization, the differences in power and versatility are still there, but they are far less pronounced and completely manageable - if the DM has a greater than average level of system mastery, anyway.

We have plenty of examples of real play where the different impact of T1 and T4 on game is painfully evident.
The funny thing is that you admit that "the higher up a class is, the more versatility it has in encounters", thus saying the same thing Answerer was saying: tiers matter, and they're not theoretical.

Just a clarification to support your statement. Tiers are just an abstraction. They are not a system for use in play, they're a classification. They are also somewhat subjective. People can argue about the placement of some classes in the tier system until till they are blue in the face and never come to a resolution. However, while a Tier 1 and Tier 2 might not be notably different in play, or a tier 2 vs. a tier 3, or even a tier 3 and a tier 4...because the exact placement of classes is subjective and there may not be a huge difference between any two classes only a single tier or maybe even two tiers apart, you better believe that a tier 1 will outshine a tier 6 in regular play, and they can do so dramatically, without any "cheese" on the part of the tier 1 player, or poor choices on the part of the tier 5 player. Some classes are easier to play badly than others. A wizard is a hard class to play well, despite it's massive potential. A druid, on the other hand, is a hard class to play badly. It will outshine the monk no matter what they do.

His point is that D&D is about having fun. It is not (and never was) about "contributing meaningfully". You don't play D&D to win, you play D&D to have fun, and failing might be just as entertaining as succeeding.

Most people won't have fun playing someone who cannot contribute meaningfully. There's a reason few people ask to play a commoner, aristcrat, or even expert in a party. While various playstyles are all valid, most people want to play BigDamnHeroes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigDamnHeroes) when they roleplay. If you're an incompetent schmuck because your class doesn't let you contribute easily, you can't play the hero well, which may impact your ability to have fun. I don't mind playing a melee type, but there's a reason I will rather heavily optimize in the lower-tier range to make my concept able to contribute.

BMX Bandit didn't have much fun. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-24, 11:54 AM

Which, I'll have you know, could only have been reasonably handled by a Tier 1 or Tier 2 -- occasionally a Tier 3.
Surely you jest. Healers and Truenamers get Gate.
Joke done, let's move on.

Seriously, though, you're right. And yet you're not. There is a lot of truth in everything you've said, but you dismiss a lot of serious balance issues as being trivial.
But I have to agree with him, balance is trivial to many playstyles and something the community seems to be obsessed about. It seems quite logic to me that a wizard should be more powerful than a fighter, the problem is that 3.5 magic is basically 'cost free'.
The funny thing is that the example mentioned before (the wizard using command undead to end a encounter with one spell) is how I think it's supposed to work. Every once in a while, the wizard has the right spell to change the tide and win an encounter by himself. But that's supposed to happen every once in a while and there's simply too much support to make wizards not 'squishy' and able to 'contribute all the time', so spellcasters as a whole end up outshining everyone else all the time once you realize what they can do.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Which isn't to say it's not real. In general, with players of equal skill, a Tier 1 class will get far more opportunities to dominate play and trivialize an encounter than a tier 5 class. It's a simple fact. I do believe that the difference is often overstated, however. At average levels of system mastery and optimization, the differences in power and versatility are still there, but they are far less pronounced and completely manageable - if the DM has a greater than average level of system mastery, anyway.
It depends on playstyle, as well. If you're a battlefield control wizard or a buffer artificer, most people won't notice (or won't care) how much more powerful you are, since you're basically empowering their characters.
I ran a very long campaign and we had two really optimized characters in the group - an artificer and a swordsage. To this day, whenever the group meets, everyone goes on and on about how the swordsages destroyed everything left and right... and foret that only happened because the artificer buffed him out of the wazoo.
Yeah, anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, but I wanted to say that. :smalltongue:

A druid, on the other hand, is a hard class to play badly. It will outshine the monk no matter what they do.
I disagree. I've had a fair share of bad druid players.

Most people won't have fun playing someone who cannot contribute meaningfully.
Define 'meaningfully'. I've had players happy to contribute because they talked to a powerful NPC and cut the party a good deal. Players can contribute with a plan ('Why don't you intimidate him, then he casts slow on him and then he hits him with Staggering Strike?'). In my experience, players want to play. Their characters doing something special doesn't matter as much as the players doing something special.

There's a reason few people ask to play a commoner, aristcrat, or even expert in a party.
I agree, though I think the reason is that those classes were not designed to appeal to anyone (though every once in a while we hear about someone playing an aristocrat). It's usually said that if you don't over-optimize the standard party of fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric performs just fine. When your wizard's only protection is mage armor, you'll won't even be in range to cast the gamebreakers.
What I mean is that you can play the game just fine without balance problems. I think most people do it, even. I'm not saying balance can't become a problem, I'm just saying it's usually overstated. Because of that, we frequently get people on the forums saying "I'm about to DM my first game, here is my banlist/fix/balance change". Why change stuff before you know they will become a problem? :smallconfused:

While various playstyles are all valid, most people want to play BigDamnHeroes (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BigDamnHeroes) when they roleplay.
I don't understand, BigDamnHeroes has nothing to do with power levels. In fact, the trope namer for Big Damn Heroes has River (the most powerful character in the Serenity crew by far) being rescued by the other, less powerful, crewmembers. I mean, Big Damn Heroes is about showing up just in time to save everyone. If the cleric loses his holy symbol, is about to be killed and a commoner throws him the holy symbol... the commoner is a Big Damn Hero. I'm not really sure what point you were trying to make here.
Heck, the trope even mentions that you don't have to succeed to pull a BiugDamnHeroes.

If you're an incompetent schmuck because your class doesn't let you contribute easily, you can't play the hero well, which may impact your ability to have fun.
Yeah, it may. That's exactly what I meant. Balance may become a problem. It may not. Which is most likely? Depends.

I don't mind playing a melee type, but there's a reason I will rather heavily optimize in the lower-tier range to make my concept able to contribute.
But that's a matter of taste. You like powerul characters. For many people (I'd say most people) just having a character is enough. They want to kill the orcs, it doesn't matter if they do it in two strikes or three strikes.

BMX Bandit didn't have much fun. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)
Yet Tyrion has far more fans than Melissandre, Buffy is the hero and Willow the sidekick, Batman works with Superman, Captain America leads the Hulk around, Spider-Man is often saved by Mary Jane, no one likes The Sentry but everyone likes Wolverine. Being less powerful can be just as fun as being more powerful, if only for the added challenge. Again, as I say, that's just a may.

TL;DR Balance can be a problem, but it gets overstated as always being a problem far too often in these forums.

Talya

2012-05-24, 12:05 PM

Yet Tyrion has far more fans than Melissandre,

Not all power is measured in magic spells or even weapon damage. But ALL power in an RPG is measured in some form on your character sheet and in the game rules.

Buffy is the hero and Willow the sidekick,

There are several reasons for that. Willow's a Tier 1 big bad, but she's only a tier 3 sidekick at her most powerful. Meanwhile, Buffy's a very solid level 20 Swordsage//Warblade by that time. :)

Batman works with Superman,
There's a reason TLN called the Wizard "batman." solidly tier 1. Not all power is brute strength.

Captain America leads the Hulk around, Spider-Man is often saved by Mary Jane, no one likes The Sentry but everyone likes Wolverine. Being less powerful can be just as fun as being more powerful, if only for the added challenge. Again, as I say, that's just a may.

Another point, don't let plot-power get in the way of a debate. You don't have the advantage of having the writers on your side at the table. ;)

TL;DR Balance can be a problem, but it gets overstated as always being a problem far too often in these forums.

I agree. And to make it better, still, I actually enjoy the optimization one has to do with a melee character to allow them to appear to contribute in a party with a wizard, cleric, and druid. Character building is FUN.

That said, for every person who overstates balance issues, there's always one that understates them, too.

Hecuba

2012-05-24, 12:21 PM

Another point, don't let plot-power get in the way of a debate. You don't have the advantage of having the writers on your side at the table. ;)

My, that must be a sad game. In my never-humble (and often bombastic) opinion, the writer should only side against the player when imposing conflict.

Talya

2012-05-24, 12:29 PM

My, that must be a sad game. In my never-humble (and often bombastic) opinion, the writer should only side against the player when imposing conflict.

The dice are impartial!

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-24, 01:10 PM

Not all power is measured in magic spells or even weapon damage. But ALL power in an RPG is measured in some form on your character sheet and in the game rules.
I disagree completely. Political power, for example, is very rarely in character sheets. Alusair Obaskyr and Obould Many Arrows have very large armies under their command in D&D 3.5, are both low level characters and no where in their character sheets are their armies ever mentioned.
Even in the Song of Ice and Fire rpg, with specific rules for intrigue and such, Tyrion Lannister has quite a lackluster character sheet.

There are several reasons for that. Willow's a Tier 1 big bad, but she's only a tier 3 sidekick at her most powerful. Meanwhile, Buffy's a very solid level 20 Swordsage//Warblade by that time. :)
Willow is a game changer whenever needed and she can use her magic mostly at will, she is just afraid of the consequences. In the comics it's even more obvious how much more powerful than anyone else she is, because they don't have to worry about special effects budget. She still manages not to outshine Buffy (even if they did give Buffy a short-term awful awful powerup that makes Flycops look like a good idea).
I see your point, though, and that was the point I was trying to make. Just because you can function at t1 power, it doesn't mean you should and there are plenty of reasons not to do it, meaning bance might not become an issue out of this.

There's a reason TLN called the Wizard "batman." solidly tier 1. Not all power is brute strength.
Yeah, because a wizard is always prepared and batman is always prepared. The thing is, Batman is not always prepared (not under good writers, anyway). Grant Morrison usually writes Batman very well, specially in the Justice League. He had Batman defeating Superman-level aliens in one issue (because they underestimated him) and being defeated by a badass normal villain a few issues later (because he understimated the villain).

Another point, don't let plot-power get in the way of a debate. You don't have the advantage of having the writers on your side at the table. ;)
Why not? :smallconfused: Isn't the DM's job to make the game for fun for everyone involved?

I agree. And to make it better, still, I actually enjoy the optimization one has to do with a melee character to allow them to appear to contribute in a party with a wizard, cleric, and druid. Character building is FUN.
I agree completely.

That said, for every person who overstates balance issues, there's always one that understates them, too.
Now this I disagree with. I think it's far more common on these forums to find people overstating balance issues than the other way around. I could be wrong, though, but that is what it looks like for me.

Talya

2012-05-24, 02:02 PM

I agree completely.

Well, to play devil's advocate against my statement you're agreeing with (because I rarely look at anything as black and white), I find in general, inexperienced players or those without much "system mastery" often gravitate toward lower-tier classes to start with. The person who selects a monk or a fighter is the least likely to be able to optimize them into an effective combatant. Conversely, they're also the least likely to play a primary spellcaster because they look harder to play and learn. (This is especially true for wizard and druid. Sorcerers and Clerics seem to get more newbie-lovin'.) This can actually exacerbate existing balance issues, making them a bigger deal than they should be.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-24, 02:07 PM

Rogue Shadows

2012-05-24, 02:18 PM

3) Tier 3 has nice fun classes. Tiers 1 & 2 has nice fun classes. Tiers 4 & 5 has nice fun classes.

I find it amusing that even this nice (and it is) dialogue admits that Tier-6 classes - by which I specifically mean the CW Samurai - does not have nice fun classes, at least within the context of game mechanics.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-24, 06:39 PM

His point is that D&D is about having fun. It is not (and never was) about "contributing meaningfully". You don't play D&D to win, you play D&D to have fun, and failing might be just as entertaining as succeeding.

I'm on a phone and the search function is a mess, but there was a thread not too long ago (it may yet be in the first few pages) about a Wizard who pimped out his Grapple modifier (pre-Black Tentacles) with nonpermanent resources better than the poster whose only trick was being good at grappling, just because he could. Which caused an understandably large amount of frustration for the poster, who wasn't having the least bit of fun being shown up at the one thing his character was built to do well, by someone who could swap their spell load out the next day and just not care.

Sure, this is just another example (and it's even an extreme one), but it still brings to light an issue that can and does occur on and off the table: if your shtick can be done better by someone else, sometimes it can make you wonder why you're even there, and for some people, that can be unfun.

That's not to say that failure can't be fun. I have a low-DEX archer in my campaign who's "bringing new meaning to the term 'critical miss', wenches!". I have another who splashes critical fumble effects (like letting go of a throwing dagger on the pullback and whipping it in the opposite direction) into his own failed actions--even though I don't use critical fumbles--because they enjoy the flavor of them. But if you sit down at the table with the desire to do something cool, such as be a master of open-palm strike fighting, and your character fails to deliver in its ability to do something cool (you are playing your bog-standard Monk), or someone else is doing the same thing better (your friend is playing an Unarmed Swordsage), then you are probably going to have less fun than if you could wall-run over the pit trap and pimp-smack the Big Bad yourself.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Which isn't to say it's not real. In general, with players of equal skill, a Tier 1 class will get far more opportunities to dominate play and trivialize an encounter than a tier 5 class. It's a simple fact. I do believe that the difference is often overstated, however. At average levels of system mastery and optimization, the differences in power and versatility are still there, but they are far less pronounced and completely manageable - if the DM has a greater than average level of system mastery, anyway.

I don't mean to say that it's not an anecdote. What I mean to say is that:

Some people will try to tell you that the tiers don't matter, that they're all theoretical, that in a real game those things don't happen, etc. etc. etc.

This is not true.

Yes, it is true.

All three of the statements being implicitly made here ("it is true that tiers don't matter", "it is true that they are all theoretical", and "it is true that in a real game those things don't happen") are proven false by a single accurate anecdote, because all that is necessary to correctly refute a "there doesn't exist" statement (which the third in particular is, but the others by the totality of the statement and the negatives count as well) is an accurate "there exists", and my anecdote does exactly that.

There exist people playing this game who, either through research or just borne out through experience, become aware of obvious differences in power between classes. There exist Clerics of Pelor and Hieroneous who discover that they don't have to ever prepare Cure spells, even if they're healbotting, which allows them to diversify their readied spells freely. (Many of these same people later realize that stopping damage from happening can be better than healbotting anyway, or that Cure spells are more efficient uses of your time out of combat than in.) There exist Druids who find Natural Spell of their own accord (it is in the Player's Handbook, after all). There exist Half-Orc Barbarians who take Power Attack at level 3 who realize that, if they trade their full base attack bonus while in rage, they'll have the same to-hit with their greataxe as the Elf Rogue or Human Monk (who took Weapon Finesse at 3 and has an otherwise equal to-hit attribute; let's say 18 STR for the Half-Orc and 18 DEX for the Rogue after racials), but they'll be doing 1d12+15 damage every hit, while the Rogue does 3d6+1 with a rapier only when flanking, and the Monk is doing 2d6+8 damage only as a full-round action. Such a player might learn Power Attack is good, but also that two-handed weapons are better than one-handed or light, and that flat damage bonuses (Power Attack/Rage's +9 combined) can be better than extra dice (+2d6 Sneak Attack conditionally). There exist Bards that felt weak for the first few levels, but begin to feel stronger when spells start to kick in (and not just the 0+bonus 1st-level spells, but actual spells in actual quantities. There exist Wizards who realize that Sleep deals with wolves better than Magic Missile, because sleeping enemies don't fight back. The list goes on, and on and on.

As long as one such player exists, the effects of the tier list are real and its existence is practical knowledge, and Answerer's post is true (something navar directly contested).

EDIT:

Batman works with Superman

And both work with Aquaman.

Just sayin'.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-24, 07:13 PM

I'm on a phone and the search function is a mess, but there was a thread not too long ago (it may yet be in the first few pages) about a Wizard who pimped out his Grapple modifier (pre-Black Tentacles) with nonpermanent resources better than the poster whose only trick was being good at grappling, just because he could. Which caused an understandably large amount of frustration for the poster, who wasn't having the least bit of fun being shown up at the one thing his character was built to do well, by someone who could swap their spell load out the next day and just not care.
People being jerks is a serious problem, of course. What that has to do with what I said, I don't know.

Sure, this is just another example (and it's even an extreme one), but it still brings to light an issue that can and does occur on and off the table: if your shtick can be done better by someone else, sometimes it can make you wonder why you're even there, and for some people, that can be unfun.
But I never said it couldn't happen. :smallconfused: I just said the importance of balance is overstated.

That's not to say that failure can't be fun. I have a low-DEX archer in my campaign who's "bringing new meaning to the term 'critical miss', wenches!". I have another who splashes critical fumble effects (like letting go of a throwing dagger on the pullback and whipping it in the opposite direction) into his own failed actions--even though I don't use critical fumbles--because they enjoy the flavor of them. But if you sit down at the table with the desire to do something cool, such as be a master of open-palm strike fighting, and your character fails to deliver in its ability to do something cool (you are playing your bog-standard Monk), or someone else is doing the same thing better (your friend is playing an Unarmed Swordsage), then you are probably going to have less fun than if you could wall-run over the pit trap and pimp-smack the Big Bad yourself.
Again, you're arguing against a point I never made, man. :smalltongue:

There exist Clerics of Pelor and Hieroneous who discover that they don't have to ever prepare Cure spells, even if they're healbotting, which allows them to diversify their readied spells freely.
But that's every cleric ever. :smallconfused: Spontaneous casting existis solely for this reason.

There exist Druids who find Natural Spell of their own accord (it is in the Player's Handbook, after all).
Natural Spell is hardly a gamebreaker. A Druid who thinks he can take Natural Spell and wade into melee unprepared is going to die horribly. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223072)

There exist Half-Orc Barbarians who take Power Attack at level 3 who realize that, if they trade their full base attack bonus while in rage, they'll have the same to-hit with their greataxe as the Elf Rogue or Human Monk (who took Weapon Finesse at 3 and has an otherwise equal to-hit attribute; let's say 18 STR for the Half-Orc and 18 DEX for the Rogue after racials), but they'll be doing 1d12+15 damage every hit, while the Rogue does 3d6+1 with a rapier only when flanking, and the Monk is doing 2d6+8 damage only as a full-round action. Such a player might learn Power Attack is good, but also that two-handed weapons are better than one-handed or light, and that flat damage bonuses (Power Attack/Rage's +9 combined) can be better than extra dice (+2d6 Sneak Attack conditionally). There exist Bards that felt weak for the first few levels, but begin to feel stronger when spells start to kick in (and not just the 0+bonus 1st-level spells, but actual spells in actual quantities. There exist Wizards who realize that Sleep deals with wolves better than Magic Missile, because sleeping enemies don't fight back. The list goes on, and on and on.
Man, seriously, what you're mentioning can hardly be considered a balance problem. Barbarians deal more damage than anyone. Yeah, of course they do, they're supposed to. :smallconfused: Of course sleep is better than magic missile. You actually wanted the Rogue to deal as much damage as the Barbarian, with no effort whatsover? The Rogue's domain is skills and trickery, the Barbarian's only domain is damage.
I mean, your post here is basically what I've been saying - balance is overstated in these forums. If a Rogue deals less damage than a Barbarian, that's perfectly fine, because the Barbarian will never hide in the shadows as well as the Rogue, for example. And unless you go out of your way to be a jerk (like the grappler wizard you mentioned before) you usually don't have a lot of problems out of those. So the Bard starts using his spells, what's the problem? He's supposed to. :smallwink:

As long as one such player exists, the effects of the tier list are real and its existence is practical knowledge, and Answerer's post is true (something navar directly contested).~
Wait, who are you arguing with now? I'm confused.

And both work with Aquaman.

Just sayin'.
you obviously don't know much about Aquaman. Superfriends joke aside, Aquaman is a very powerful hero and contributes very meaningfully in the justice league.
Here is Deathstroke the Terminator (you know, that guy who took the entire Justice League by himself in Identity Crisis) trying to run away from Aquaman and failing miserably.
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha2.jpg
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha3.jpg
This is Aquaman effortlessly beating a character who had just effortlessly defeated the Martian Manhunter (you know, that guy who defeated the entire Justice League in Final Crisis)
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha4.jpg
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha5.jpg
Here is Aquaman going toe to toe with Despero by himself. You know, Despero? That guy who defeats the entire Justice League by himself every time he shows up?

http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha7.jpg
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha8.jpg
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha9.jpg
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha10.jpg
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha11.jpg
Aquaman is about as strong, as fast and as tough as Wonder Woman. His psychic abilities are on par with the Martian Manhunter. His super senses are a just bit below Superman's levels.
Also, he controls all sea life. You know who lives in the sea?
http://a6.idata.over-blog.com/500x421/2/45/12/30/TARDIS-Chronicles/Aquaman-Cthulhu.jpg
My point being... don't use comics examples if you don't know much about comics. :smallwink:

Togo

2012-05-24, 07:29 PM

navar100

2012-05-24, 07:31 PM

I find it amusing that even this nice (and it is) dialogue admits that Tier-6 classes - by which I specifically mean the CW Samurai - does not have nice fun classes, at least within the context of game mechanics.

1) I often forget there's a 6th tier.
2) 6th tier also has the NPC classes not meant for players anyway and Truenamer, which fails to function by its own design.

As its original premise the Tier System accurately describes Tier 6. My issue is not with that original premise. I was there in the discussion that inspired JaronK to write it. Despite our disagreements in that discussion, I acknowledge he was fair in his assessment. There's inherent bias in whatever anyone writes, but in the context of the inspirational discussion he wasn't being dismissive of those who disagreed with him (me and others). The problem is people are using the Tier System now to be dismissive as justification for their personal preferences.

JKTrickster

2012-05-24, 08:00 PM

I think the Tiers are cool.

My two cents.

:smalltongue:

Okay now slightly more serious discussion. I think the Tier system is pretty nice and straight forward, and even if some of the classes can be placed in different Tiers, the list isn't horribly wrong when it lists the classes, so it's more or less fine.

About this idea on how important balance is - yeah it's up to the players. But doesn't the Tier system assume you care? I mean, if you don't, yeah the whole thing is a non-issue...but just raising questions about the Tier system means you have to care a little bit right?

About how the campaign/story/DM can help fix balance - sure....I guess? I don't quite understand point. Do you mean like, giving out non mechanical bonuses that wouldn't belong on a character sheet in order to boost a weaker character? So magical items would not be included?

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-24, 08:24 PM

People being jerks is a serious problem, of course. What that has to do with what I said, I don't know.

A player who feels useless, but doesn't want to feel useless, is going to have less fun.

But I never said it couldn't happen. :smallconfused: I just said the importance of balance is overstated.

A player who feels useless, but doesn't want to feel useless, is going to have less fun.

Again, you're arguing against a point I never made, man. :smalltongue:

A player who feels useless, but doesn't want to feel useless, is going to have less fun.

Not amazingly, that same quote applies equally to everything you said, because everything you said was a response to the same thing.

"Having fun" and "contributing meaningfully" are two different things, yes, I agree. This is why failure can be as fun as success to some (which I also agreed with). However, there is a strong overlap between "having fun" and "contributing meaningfully" for a lot of people, because their fun is contributing meaningfully.

How does this relate to tiers? Remember that tiers are just a system of classification. Being "tier 3" or "tier 5" isn't as important as what those terms classify, so let's look at what those terms classify, according to JaronK's Tier System for Classes:

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so.* Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Again, if you wanted to play Bruce Lee and wound up playing Star Wars Kid, and you are OK with that, then that's OK. For a lot of people, playing Bruce Lee, or at least feeling useful, is the fun, and a tier 5 class (by the standards listed above) is less likely to satisfy that player's idea of "fun" because it does not deliver as intended.

But that's every cleric ever. :smallconfused: Spontaneous casting existis solely for this reason.

There exist Clerics of Pelor and Hieroneous who discover that they don't have to ever prepare Cure spells, even if they're healbotting, which allows them to diversify their readied spells freely.

Re-stated and bolded for emphasis.

Natural Spell is hardly a gamebreaker. A Druid who thinks he can take Natural Spell and wade into melee unprepared is going to die horribly. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223072)

That is not at all what I said. Natural Spell does not make Bear Druid an unstoppable killing force or anything of that nature. It is still, however, one of the best options (if not THE best) for a Druid, ever, because they no longer have to choose between shape shifting and spells, which increases their versatility (and thus power) greatly. This is functionally the same as a Cleric learning they can healbot and other things. A Druid who learns to utilize Wild Shape and spells together is playing a qualitatively different game than a Fighter who learns to hit things and... Well.

Man, seriously, what you're mentioning can hardly be considered a balance problem. Barbarians deal more damage than anyone. Yeah, of course they do, they're supposed to. :smallconfused: Of course sleep is better than magic missile. You actually wanted the Rogue to deal as much damage as the Barbarian, with no effort whatsover? The Rogue's domain is skills and trickery, the Barbarian's only domain is damage.

It's like I'm describing basic, common-sense realizations that anybody who actually reads the Player's Handbook would make, and thus most players at most tables make in most games! By Jove, I think he's got it!

A Wizard who learns that Sleep and other save-or-sucks is better than Magic Missile and other damage spells learns that there are other things the Wizard can do that are better than just damage, but more importantly, the Wizard has that option. Compare to the Barbarian or Fighter, who... Don't. I mean, unless the melee guys take up bows and invest in Arrows of Sleep. Suddenly, the Wizard is playing a whole different game than the Barbarian or Fighter; in fact, you might say he is on a whole other tier.

Now, look back at the Barbarian/Rogue example: you went out of your way (above and below) to state that the Barbarian and Rogue are playing different games, and I'm not inclined to disagree (I believe both are balanced well against each other), but you completely ignored the third player in that mix: the Monk. I explicitly brought up the Monk because if you compare it to either of these classes, it pales in comparison in damage output: a Monk who rolls high on damage still has to hit twice with a worse bonus to compete with a Barbarian who rolls low. A Rogue that rolls low suffers more, but needs only one hit to compete with the Monk's two, and can do so at a higher bonus (since it doesn't need to take the TWF penalties to attack once) and pursues strategies that create easier to-hit situations out of necessity (flanking, denying DEX bonus). Now, for being behind the pack in damage output, all things equal and even ideal, what does the Monk get? They have no armor proficiencies and trade simple and martial proficiency for a fixed list, have the same skill points as a Barbarian (and far worse than a Rogue), have a worse Hit Dice than a Barbarian, and their ability set stretches their ability scores hopelessly thin. It really only gets better saves and a few marginally useful abilities (some of which either or both classes have), and that's it. Compared to the Barbarian or Rogue, you could say that it's qualitatively worse than either. In fact, you might even say that it's... Wait for it... On a lower tier.

Now, take that thought experiment a step further (or a tier further... Hur hur), leave the realm of core, compare the Monk to the Unarmed Swordsage (or just any Swordsage), and ask what you get by trading one for the other.

~
Wait, who are you arguing with now? I'm confused.

Not you.

Well, now you, but I quoted Talya because I was responding to Talya. I welcome the discussion nonetheless. :smallsmile:

you obviously don't know much about Aquaman. Superfriends joke aside, Aquaman is a very powerful hero and contributes very meaningfully in the justice league.
Here is Deathstroke the Terminator (you know, that guy who took the entire Justice League by himself in Identity Crisis) trying to run away from Aquaman and failing miserably.
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha2.jpg
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha3.jpg
This is Aquaman effortlessly beating a character who had just effortlessly defeated the Martian Manhunter (you know, that guy who defeated the entire Justice League in Final Crisis)
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha4.jpg
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha5.jpg
Here is Aquaman defeating Despero alone. You know, Despero? That guy who defeats the entire Justice League by himself every time he shows up?

http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha7.jpg
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha8.jpg
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha9.jpg
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha10.jpg
http://i793.photobucket.com/albums/yy216/melhoresdomundo/aquabucha11.jpg

My point being... don't use comics examples if you don't know much about comics. :smallwink:

Unsurprisingly, I can't read any single one of these comics, because they are in Spanish, so they all just look like single-page excerpts of Aquaman throwing spears and punches, and also Batman.

Finding three examples of Aquaman contributing is all well and good, but anybody can write someone to be (or seem) better than they are by virtue of plot device. Superman is a literal God, and yet everybody seems to conveniently know (and have) his incredibly rare and super-secret weakness on hand roughly a third of the time, or more as plot dictates. In D&D terms, this is known as Pre-Empting the Player, and is found in the DMG under "things no good GM should ever do". This doesn't make Superman weaker than Aquaman, or even change the fact that writers have to try hard to find increasingly contrived situations where Aquaman can do something that Superman and Batman cannot.

EDIT: OK, the picture of Aquaman riding Cthulhu almost made me pee a little.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-24, 09:11 PM

The thread in question featured a wizard who was better at grappling without using any spells. The thread concluded that the wizard's player was actually cheating, using the half-earth elemental template stacked with several other templates, and then incorrectly claiming it was LA +0.

The discussion was nothing to do with Tiers, since neither the poster nor the wizard were using any class abilities to aid their grapple.

Forgive me my poor memory, and I recall there being discussion about template stacking, but I also recall the only thing being said about it by the OP being that the player was vague about his bonuses. Also, somebody did end up posting a 3-level Wizard build that got, what... +26 to grapple? Legally? And suggested it might be the same build.

In any case, forgive me.

No, Navar was pretty clear what he was doing. He explained it in some detail. He was saying the differences exist and aren't as serious as they commonly represented. He wasn't putting himself in diametric opposition to Answerer's strawman arguement, that Tiers do/do not exist at all.

I will let navar handle this, but navar's assertion that it's overstated is dependent on Answerer's claim being wrong, which was said as such. Literally, "this is not true" / "yes, it is true". Everything that follows, follows from this basic statement (although most of it just seems to belittle anyone and everyone who believe the tier system has practical use).

To be clear, I'm one of the people you're talking about. If I have a character that ends up mechanically weaker than someone else, I get pretty cheesed off. What I don't do is treat it as some kind of inevitable feature of the system. It's a problem that can be solved in game, and usually is. In many cases, it isn't even all that difficult to solve, depending on the style of game you're playing.

I know; I can, and have, done this as a GM.

That makes none of this any less important to know, or any less practical in a real game setting. What happens if a DM who doesn't know the relative power of classes decides that Wizards can spontaneously cast from their spellbooks, and Druids/Clerics from their entire lists, because their chassis are so weak, and Clerics and Wizards get nothing but spells for almost all their levels? How frustrating it would be to choose the wrong spells at the beginning of the day, when the right spell is right there in the book! (I'm not spinning yarns, here. This was my first campaign, and this rule went unreversed for almost the whole time I was there, until the Cleric and I figured it out, convinced the Druid that, hey, maybe this wasn't fair to the others, and the three of us got the DM to overturn it. He also had a thing against Rogues, because buckets of d6 or something.)

Yes, you can make a Monk better by doubling the rate at which bonuses scale, or giving it full BAB, or some other, more useful features. Yes, you could make the Wizard worse by spot-banning the problem cards in the Wizard's deck, applying any number of "Wizard fixes" (some good, some bad, some ugly), lengthening the day, and so on. But unless you had a strong conceptual understanding of class balance and, say, tiers, how would you know?

I'm not sure why this is so controvertial. If you tell me you can't mitigate Tier problems, then I guess I can believe you. But are you happy with the concept that other people can?

I honestly believe that a Monk will not be able to outpace a Wizard in any game where the DM does not apply the harshest of all possible fixes to the Wizard, the best of all to the Monk, the Wizard's abilities are pre-empted, Aquaman plots for the Monk, and/or (preferably at least one or two "and"s) the Monk is much, much better optimized than the Wizard (which is played low-op for the purposes of this discussion). This isn't because they are four tiers apart; they are four tiers apart because of this. The power/versatility gap can be mitigated, but is too wide to eliminate, and without tiers, some people might not even be able to tell which one is stronger.

If players and groups are able to balance Wizard and Monk against each other through some form of Gentle/wo/man's agreement (the Wizard fights left-handed, or buffs the Monk, or both agree to class fixes, etc), then that is great; class balance is about harmony more than it is about everything being perfectly equal in power anyway (see: role fulfillment on my first post). But without a solid understanding of power balance, or at least a solid framework with which to work from (such as the tier system), you end up with DMs who buff Wizards and nerf Rogues, one player steals the show while the others twiddle their thumbs, and people can get less fun out of the game as a result.

Big Fau

2012-05-24, 09:13 PM

This doesn't make Superman weaker than Aquaman, or even change the fact that writers have to try hard to find increasingly contrived situations where Aquaman can do something that Superman and Batman cannot.

Agreed. Superman is canonically stronger than Aquaman, and in any issue/episode/panel where he is not it is because his weaknesses are being used by the writer to limit his ability to contribute to the problem at hand. In fact, 52 didn't happen that long ago. Look at how the League handles itself without the iconic DC heroes during the 52 arc. Now look at how the heroes that were in the spotlight performed.

Comics are as bad an example as the D&D novels because power levels cannot be accurately measured. Superman, when he first started out, was nearly completely incapable of actual flight (he just had a huge Jump check). There was a time where Superman was swimming in God Mode Sue status to the point that Kryptonite was featured in nearly every issue in order to reign him in.

Even in OotS the protagonists are only as efficient as the Giant decrees it. DC comics (and most other comics in general) are a bad analogue for the D&D Tiers.

Killer Angel

2012-05-25, 02:38 AM

His point is that D&D is about having fun. It is not (and never was) about "contributing meaningfully". You don't play D&D to win, you play D&D to have fun, and failing might be just as entertaining as succeeding.

OK, I'm gonna to repeat something that is well known. Many peoples have fun if their character is effectively useful, AKA, if they can do something important. Some classes impersonificate a concept, but they do it very poorly from a mechanic PoV... tier system summarizes this real fact.
You can having fun playing a CW samurai, but if you want to have fun while you CW samurai does amazing things letting all the other players staring in awe at you, I doubt you'll be satisfied. (unless all the group is composed of lower tiers, then you can have a chance)

The system is a tool.

Just a clarification to support your statement.

Thanks. :smallwink:

Togo

2012-05-25, 07:02 AM

I will let navar handle this, but navar's assertion that it's overstated is dependent on Answerer's claim being wrong, which was said as such.

Not quite. Read the post again.

Navar quoted Answerer's statement, yes, but he also quoted several paragraphs of reasoning and conclusions. You're applying his 'no this isn't true' strictly and solely to a single statement made by Answerer, rather than to his position, his arguement or his entire post.

Furthermore, by doing so, you're ignoring the content of navar's position, and what has actually been said by a thread full of people acknowledging the existance of Tiers but rejecting their overwheening importance.

It's entirely possible to reject someone's position without necessarily rejecting the premise on which their premise is supposed to rest.

I know; I can, and have, done this as a GM.

There you go. We actually agree on most of this issue. We agree on the existance of the Tier problem and on some of the steps you can take to mitigate them. It's only the emphasis that's a problem, which is presumably why you're focusing on Navar and Answerer.

That makes none of this any less important to know, or any less practical in a real game setting.

Well no, it does actually. The problem that's creeping into the background here is the idea of a standard game. It's present in Answerer's 'all other things being equal', and in your claim that something must be apparent as a problem unless the DM takes action to mitigate it.

However, in any real game that is run, the DM and players have already made a great many choices. Imagine a series of game tables at a convention, each with different DMs and players. Table 1's default game may be one in which, say, rules are interpreted loosely, restrictions are often handwaved, spells are plentiful, magic is an accepted and respected part of the base culture, and the party rests whenever it wants to. They'll look at the Tier system, and say, whoa, we know exactly what you're talking about.

Then you go over to table 2, and you have a game where rules are strictly enforced, all treasure, including spells, are only found as part of randomly rolled treasure, material from expansion books are only introduced gradually on a case-by-case basis, magic is regarded with suspicion, and the party rarely gets to rest between encounters. They'll look at the Tier system and say - whoa, what's their problem with spellcasters?

Then you go to table 3, and find six people in full costume, dice are rolled maybe once or twice a session, and people who use class abilities to instantly resolve situations are regarded as both sub-optimal, because they tend to miss the vital details that playing through a difficulty would provide, and are also rather boring to play with. And they look at the Tier system and say, whoa, why do these people think that character sheet capabilities have any effect on the character's ability to influence the story?

Can you see how knowing about Tiers is more or less useful, depending on the style of the game?

I suspect what you're doing is imagining some kind of 'standard' game, noting that many adjustments have to be made to that game to remove the problems associated with Tiers, and concluding that Tiers are vital and everyone must understand them.

But the standard game doesn't exist. Real games start from a great many different places, and the more I travel the more it impresses on me just how wide that variety is. For some of those start points, Tiers really aren't that big a deal.

I honestly believe that a Monk will not be able to outpace a Wizard in any game where the DM does not apply the harshest of all possible fixes to the Wizard, the best of all to the Monk, the Wizard's abilities are pre-empted, Aquaman plots for the Monk, and/or (preferably at least one or two "and"s) the Monk is much, much better optimized than the Wizard (which is played low-op for the purposes of this discussion).

Ok, while I do because I've seen it done.

This is what it comes down to. You believe Tiers are vital because you believe every game will hit balance problems along the lines of Tiers. I don't, because I've played in games that didn't hit balance problems along the lines of Tiers.

You were saying something about one counter-example being enough to prove the general statement false?

Talya

2012-05-25, 07:25 AM

Ok, while I do because I've seen it done.

The tier power for most classes doesn't really kick in until mid-levels. While there are exceptions (*Coughdruidcough*), at level 1, a fighter is often MORE useful than a wizard. A monk at level 1 who takes improved grapple and focuses on strength is going to utterly dominate enemy wizard spellcasters for several levels, until they get defenses to avoid being grappled. That doesn't eliminate their balance problems....

This is what it comes down to. You believe Tiers are vital because you believe every game will hit balance problems along the lines of Tiers. I don't, because I've played in games that didn't hit balance problems along the lines of Tiers.

In order for games at mid-levels not to show balance issues between tiers, the high tier classes need to be either intentionally gimping themselves, or playing incompetently, while the low tier classes need to be highly optimized and very good at their class. The difference in potential power between the single class druid and the single class monk is less pronounced than the difference in power between my 9 year old with a nerf dart pistol and the Starship Enterprise.

Malachei

2012-05-25, 07:55 AM

Some people will try to tell you that the tiers don't matter, that they're all theoretical, that in a real game those things don't happen, etc. etc. etc.

This is not true.

Why is claiming absolute truth for yourself so popular?

In my games, the tier system has never played a role.

Many proponents of the tier system argue it saves a lot of time, because you can just shortcut discussions. I think the power of classes can be talked about just as quickly by exemplifying the classes you have in mind that demonstrate the point you are making.

Actually, I think the tier system makes people lose time, because now the discussion is no longer about the power of classes, but about the tier system itself. I've seen so many arguments about the tier system that I think if the collective time was spent gaming, you could have played well into epic levels a handful of times or more.

To me, it is not a significant help in playing the game, and not even in explaining it to a new player. It seems to be very valuable to some people, but personally, I must say I find it really not much more than a labeling exercise. I also find it a somewhat biased labeling exercise. It has its disclaimers, but IMO, its messages still amount to telling you there's a right way to play the game.

Togo

2012-05-25, 08:10 AM

The tier power for most classes doesn't really kick in until mid-levels. While there are exceptions (*Coughdruidcough*), at level 1, a fighter is often MORE useful than a wizard. A monk at level 1 who takes improved grapple and focuses on strength is going to utterly dominate enemy wizard spellcasters for several levels, until they get defenses to avoid being grappled. That doesn't eliminate their balance problems....

It doesn't? Let's say we have a game that starts at level 1 and continues until level 5 or so. The game never reaches mid-level. You'd agree that the balance problems that come in mid-level simply won't apply?

In order for games at mid-levels not to show balance issues between tiers, the high tier classes need to be either intentionally gimping themselves, or playing incompetently, while the low tier classes need to be highly optimized and very good at their class. The difference in potential power between the single class druid and the single class monk is less pronounced than the difference in power between my 9 year old with a nerf dart pistol and the Starship Enterprise.

Ok, so if you literally have a 9 year old playing a druid, and a strategic genius playing a monk, you're still going to get problems with the druid overawing the monk? You seem to be saying not, which is also what I'm saying.

My point is that Tiers are not always a problem, and are often massivly distorted by the conditions present within an individual game. By saying that Tier will be a problem unless X, Y or Z is true, you're agreeing with me. On a table where X Y or Z is true, tiers aren't going to be so much the issue. I personally think there are many many more conditions to be added, but we still seem to be broadly in agreement.

Or have we misunderstood eachother?

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-25, 08:30 AM

Not quite. Read the post again.

Navar quoted Answerer's statement, yes, but he also quoted several paragraphs of reasoning and conclusions.

And also to underline the statement to give it special emphasis.

There you go. We actually agree on most of this issue. We agree on the existance of the Tier problem and on some of the steps you can take to mitigate them. It's only the emphasis that's a problem, which is presumably why you're focusing on Navar and Answerer.

Yes.

Well, that and I found navar's cult example and the obvious straw-men that each "cult" represented (complete with goofy hats and half-enpty cups of Kool-Aid) borderline insulting (though I guess I'm one to talk), though navar's latest post in this thread was much more even-handed, and the point of which I completely understood and even sort of agreed with (although I don't think a vocal minority speaks for the whole group, no matter how annoying or vocal).

Well no, it does actually. The problem that's creeping into the background here is the idea of a standard game. It's present in Answerer's 'all other things being equal', and in your claim that something must be apparent as a problem unless the DM takes action to mitigate it.

However, in any real game that is run, the DM and players have already made a great many choices. Imagine a series of game tables at a convention, each with different DMs and players. Table 1's default game may be one in which, say, rules are interpreted loosely, restrictions are often handwaved, spells are plentiful, magic is an accepted and respected part of the base culture, and the party rests whenever it wants to. They'll look at the Tier system, and say, whoa, we know exactly what you're talking about.

Then you go over to table 2, and you have a game where rules are strictly enforced, all treasure, including spells, are only found as part of randomly rolled treasure, material from expansion books are only introduced gradually on a case-by-case basis, magic is regarded with suspicion, and the party rarely gets to rest between encounters. They'll look at the Tier system and say - whoa, what's their problem with spellcasters?

Then you go to table 3, and find six people in full costume, dice are rolled maybe once or twice a session, and people who use class abilities to instantly resolve situations are regarded as both sub-optimal, because they tend to miss the vital details that playing through a difficulty would provide, and are also rather boring to play with. And they look at the Tier system and say, whoa, why do these people think that character sheet capabilities have any effect on the character's ability to influence the story?

Can you see how knowing about Tiers is more or less useful, depending on the style of the game?

I don't know if "YMMV" is a valid counterargument to a "there exists" statement, so much as it is proving my point. It doesn't matter if this happens in one in three tables, or one in three hundred (though I suspect the number is closer to the former than the latter)--if it's happening at all, then the list is practical for precisely that reason.

As far as the actual tables, it's been noted what an intelligently played Wizard can do with just their two bonus spells each level, even with limited book access. Random rolls and strict rules interpretations on Table 2 will only stop the Wizard if they aren't choosing carefully, and if they're aware that buying spells is not a thing, they will choose carefully (as a Sorcerer would). As for Table 3, I plead irrelevance: obviously a system designed to explain mechanical differences between classes, and act as a mechanical diagnosis sheet, will not matter in a game devoid of mechanics.

I suspect what you're doing is imagining some kind of 'standard' game, noting that many adjustments have to be made to that game to remove the problems associated with Tiers, and concluding that Tiers are vital and everyone must understand them.

But the standard game doesn't exist. Real games start from a great many different places, and the more I travel the more it impresses on me just how wide that variety is. For some of those start points, Tiers really aren't that big a deal.

Not quite. Tiers are an abstraction to me; a classification system, really. There are not problems with tiers, because tiers are just names for things; there are problems with power imbalances. Some of these are borne out of power imbalances innate to the class--a fairly large subset, actually--but other problems do exist. Tier classification is no different than a diagnosis sheet on a doctor's pad, or in your file: if there's a problem, you check the problem; if the problem is related to a power balance between players, you check what the problem is; if the problem can be measured in tiers, you see if the problem can be fixed; if the problem can be fixed, you do so. Diagnosis complete. If there's a problem, and it's related to obvious differences in power level, but there's no inherent class imbalance, the problem may be that the stronger player is better-optimized, or the weaker player lacks a firm grasp of how their character is played, or perhaps one player is more vocal than the other (and thus the other doesn't contribute), or both players are geared toward exactly the same concept and are butting heads over it (and one is winning, because of any of the previous reasons); tiers aren't used for adjustment, but are still used (and useful) for diagnosis. If there's a problem, but it's not related to obvious power imbalances in the group, or there's not a problem to begin with, you don't need to check if it's class-related at all.

Ideally, the doctor never checks your file to begin with. If he had to, however, you'd like to know that they don't misdiagnose.

I've already said it here, twice: my top priority isn't tier imbalance, but role fulfillment, or more importantly, concept fulfillment. I sit down with 10-12 players at my table, and more importantly than a set of classes, every single one of them has a concept: something they want their character to do. So at the top of the campaign, I asked each one of them to forget about classes, and tell me "what do you want your character to do?" ...And then built to make sure that each player had their concept idealized in a way that felt unique and diverse, was powerful or versatile enough to contribute, and most importantly, stepped on no toes. The result is that I have two Shadow-themed stealth-based Assassin-types whose class abilities are virtually disjoint, and yet each feels like they contribute, like their characters are unique and interesting, and are interested as a result.

That said, I actively avoided the Monk for a player who wanted a dedicated unarmed striker, because it would not have been able to fulfill his wants and needs for the class at all... And instead geared him toward Barbarian, which just does it better.

This is what it comes down to. You believe Tiers are vital because you believe every game will hit balance problems along the lines of Tiers. I don't, because I've played in games that didn't hit balance problems along the lines of Tiers.

You are wrong. I don't believe every game will hit balance problems along the lines of tiers. What I do believe is that at least some games will, regardless of whether or not anyone at the table is aware of tiers; there will be at least some games where power imbalances manifest themselves independent of the abstraction of tiers, and people become aware of balance problems along the lines of tiers. After all, the tier system was created to describe a phenomenon that was already happening at tables around the world before its creation; otherwise, it never would have been created in the first place! While the tiers themselves are an abstraction--a classification system--their implications on the game are far from theoretical, even within games that have no tier awareness and do not reference JaronK's classification system at all.

You were saying something about one counter-example being enough to prove the general statement false?

I was. The negation of "all are X" is "there exists a ~X". Navar's rejection of Answerer's statement (taken at face value) equates to "all allusions to tier imbalance are theoretical/don't happen in games", to which my rebuttal was "there exists a real-game example of tier imbalance"--a direct negation of the statement (if that was navar's intent).

Yours is not so.

The negation of "there exists an X" is "all are ~X". If I say "there exists at least one real-game example of tier imbalance", then saying "there exists at least one real-game example of no tier imbalance" is not enough to act as a rebuttal; the only genuine rebuttals would be to prove my example false or to prove that all games do not have tier imbalance.

Though I guess your counter-example of "a Monk outpacing a Wizard out of the box" is a counter-example that defeats an argument. I'm intrigued by that, by the way. :smallsmile:

Answerer

2012-05-25, 08:31 AM

Why is claiming absolute truth for yourself so popular?
It's pretty easy to make argument for the existence of something. I never said it applied to all games ever (I specifically listed mitigating or eliminating factors, in fact); I said that it did come up in real games, not just in theory.

I can say that it has come up in real games as an absolute fact... because it has come up in real games. I can name several that I've personally been a part of.

Fineous Orlon

2012-05-25, 08:35 AM

...

Furthermore, by doing so, you're ignoring the content of navar's position, and what has actually been said by a thread full of people acknowledging the existance of Tiers but rejecting their overwheening importance.

There you go. We actually agree on most of this issue. We agree on the existance of the Tier problem and on some of the steps you can take to mitigate them. It's only the emphasis that's a problem, which is presumably why you're focusing on Navar and Answerer.

Well no, it does actually. The problem that's creeping into the background here is the idea of a standard game. ...... It's present in Answerer's 'all other things being equal', and in your claim that something must be apparent as a problem unless the DM takes action to mitigate it.....

However, in any real game that is run, the DM and players have already made a great many choices. Imagine a series of game tables.....

The tier system for classes is a model of power distribution of the classes in 3.5 D and D, for the rules as written [RAW], and with some specific examples.

Not surprisingly, if one imagines a series of tables where the rules are used loosely, or ignored, or viewed as less than necessary, the tier system is less important, because the tier system does not model that.

What's the deal with insisting that some groups don't follow the rules as written, or some reasonable approximation of RAW?

Of course that is true!

Coincidentally, the more published rules a group ignores or excludes, the less valid the tier system is for that group!

And....? What does that entail beyond that trivial truth?...

Anyway, even non-RAW [or those not close to RAW] groups can get some benefit from the tier system, as said system reveals some pitfalls of the RAW, and thus is available help when a group starts coloring outside the lines!

navar100

2012-05-25, 08:38 AM

Why is claiming absolute truth for yourself so popular?

In my games, the tier system has never played a role.

Many proponents of the tier system argue it saves a lot of time, because you can just shortcut discussions. I think the power of classes can be talked about just as quickly by exemplifying the classes you have in mind that demonstrate the point you are making.

Actually, I think the tier system makes people lose time, because now the discussion is no longer about the power of classes, but about the tier system itself. I've seen so many arguments about the tier system that I think if the collective time was spent gaming, you could have played well into epic levels a handful of times or more.

To me, it is not a significant help in playing the game, and not even in explaining it to a new player. It seems to be very valuable to some people, but personally, I must say I find it really not much more than a labeling exercise. I also find it a somewhat biased labeling exercise. It has its disclaimers, but IMO, its messages still amount to telling you there's a right way to play the game.

Another way of saying it, without my hyperbole. :smallsmile:

I've mentioned this before. In my group's 3.P game, the paladin player noticed on his spell list a 4th level paladin spell (Knight's Move) that my sorcerer has been casting for several levels as a 1st level spell (Benign Transposition). His reaction? How interesting then goes back to having fun to what his paladin can do. The emotion he lacks is resentment. That is how all the players play. They are happy for the others of all the cool stuff they can do, but are just as happy with all the cool stuff their own character can do. There's a monk in the party. My sorcerer is casting Glitterdust all over the place. Good for me says the monk. Meanwhile, she's having a blast, tumbling all over, using flurry of blows, and spending ki. She did an excellent job rescuing a friendly NPC from a whirlwind-type cell while the party battled the banshee guardian. In a later combat against bone and chain devils, she was fine with fighting the chain devils while I and the psion dealt with an invisible flying bone devil she couldn't deal with. We won the battle and everyone was happy. She didn't cry "Oh, woe is me. There's a flying opponent I can't reach. I might as well go home. Sucks to be a Tier 5 monk in a party with a Tier 1 psion and Tier 2 sorcerer. I defied the god of Balance and am now being punished for it."

LordBlades

2012-05-25, 09:39 AM

Another way of saying it, without my hyperbole. :smallsmile:

I've mentioned this before. In my group's 3.P game, the paladin player noticed on his spell list a 4th level paladin spell (Knight's Move) that my sorcerer has been casting for several levels as a 1st level spell (Benign Transposition). His reaction? How interesting then goes back to having fun to what his paladin can do. The emotion he lacks is resentment. That is how all the players play. They are happy for the others of all the cool stuff they can do, but are just as happy with all the cool stuff their own character can do. There's a monk in the party. My sorcerer is casting Glitterdust all over the place. Good for me says the monk. Meanwhile, she's having a blast, tumbling all over, using flurry of blows, and spending ki. She did an excellent job rescuing a friendly NPC from a whirlwind-type cell while the party battled the banshee guardian. In a later combat against bone and chain devils, she was fine with fighting the chain devils while I and the psion dealt with an invisible flying bone devil she couldn't deal with. We won the battle and everyone was happy. She didn't cry "Oh, woe is me. There's a flying opponent I can't reach. I might as well go home. Sucks to be a Tier 5 monk in a party with a Tier 1 psion and Tier 2 sorcerer. I defied the god of Balance and am now being punished for it."

Some players think that way, but that doesn't mean all do. Some people are frustrated to realize that the only reason their character get dragged along is because they're a PC, and in game some of the other chars would have no problem whatsoever dealing with the encounters without him/her. OR the other way around: some people don't consider dragging alone what mechanically is 'dead weight' fun.

My most relevant piece of anecdotal evidence regarding the tier system: about 1 year ago we were playing a high power campaign. Party (IIRC) was DMM Persist Cleric of Mystra, some sort of Wizard Gish, Incantatrix(me), a Spellthief/Wizard/Unseen Seer/Incantatrix and a Malconvoker. Then a RL friend comes to the campaign, and decides to play a CA Ninja with a spiked chain. We tried in vain to make him reconsider , and since he was going through a rough time in RL, we didn't want to put the foot down too much. What followed were a few months that were quite frustrating. Not for him, he had fun, but for us 'babysitting the ninja' became a much tougher challenge than 'winning the encounter'. Much later, the DM confessed that it had been quite frustrating for him as well, since everything that the ninja could reliably engage would be flattened in 1 round by the cleric or the gish, and everything that was challenging for them would one-shot the ninja. Skill-wise wasn't much better either, since the Unseen Seer's skills were usually 10-15 points higher than the ninja's.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-25, 09:47 AM

A player who feels useless, but doesn't want to feel useless, is going to have less fun.
The wizard player in question was
a) cheating and
b) a jerk
so that piece of anectodal evidence has little to do with balance, if it has anything to do with it at all.

A player who feels useless, but doesn't want to feel useless, is going to have less fun.

Not amazingly, that same quote applies equally to everything you said, because everything you said was a response to the same thing.
Again, you're arguing against a point I never made... I never said there are no balance problems in 3.5, I just think balance problems are overemphasized around here.

"Having fun" and "contributing meaningfully" are two different things, yes, I agree. This is why failure can be as fun as success to some (which I also agreed with). However, there is a strong overlap between "having fun" and "contributing meaningfully" for a lot of people, because their fun is contributing meaningfully.
Sincerely, if all you want from the game is dealing a lot of damage and winning fights, you're playing the wrong game. If your only fun comes from blazing through encounters, D&D (and any RPG) will feel pretty boring to you (and most of all to your DM) really fast.
For most of the players I met, interacting with the fictional D&D world and pretending they are a half-dragon with a big stick is their fun. When my players and I want to play a medieval fantasy wargame, we play Legend of Drizzt and Wrath of Ashardalon and (surprise!) those games from WotC are exceptionally well balanced. You what other game from WotC is incredibly well balanced (though less than the D&D Adventure System)? D&D 4e.
There is whole game for balanced, streamlined D&D. If your fun is "contributing meaningfully", those are probably the games for you.
Again, I'm not saying 3.5 doesn't have balance problems. I just don't see why people make such a big deal out of it. They don't come up always and when they do come up, the DM can just say "Dude, not fun". Or maybe it does ruin everyone's campaign. Well, buckle up and play 4e then, damnit. :smallconfused:

How does this relate to tiers? Remember that tiers are just a system of classification. Being "tier 3" or "tier 5" isn't as important as what those terms classify, so let's look at what those terms classify, according to JaronK's Tier System for Classes:
I'm familiar with the tiers and I'm not against their use or existence. Again, you're arguing against a point I never made.

Again, if you wanted to play Bruce Lee and wound up playing Star Wars Kid, and you are OK with that, then that's OK. For a lot of people, playing Bruce Lee, or at least feeling useful, is the fun, and a tier 5 class (by the standards listed above) is less likely to satisfy that player's idea of "fun" because it does not deliver as intended.
Except you won't end up with Star Wars kid, unless your DM completely wants you to have an awful time or someone else chose a similar concept. Let's go with your Monk example. You're in a party with a Barbarian and he deals more damage than you. However, he can't sneak around. So your Monk is the one who sneaks into the gang leader's lair to recover the artifact (like Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon, sans artifact). The Barbarian deals more damage, but you are the one fighting unarmed, after all. You won't be able to be Bruce Lee without mooks to crush with a nunchaku, so when you're level 6 and faced with a horde of level 1 orcs, flurry of blows will feel incredibly satisfying.
Now, unless your idea of Bruce Lee involves teleports and kamehamehas, I doubt Swordsage can do it better. Heck, I don't think swordsage is even proficient with the nunchaku, is it?
Warblade could work, but more "Lee as a person" than "Lee in the movies", since the skill list lacks stealth (and still no nunchakus, damnit).
Yeah, Monk is weak. In many games, it will still be veyr likely to contribute. That's even what the tier system is all about, knowing in which game a Monk might fit. And the Barbarian + Monk combo is even JaronK aproved.

Re-stated and bolded for emphasis.
...And? Clerics are versatile, yeah. So what?

That is not at all what I said. Natural Spell does not make Bear Druid an unstoppable killing force or anything of that nature. It is still, however, one of the best options (if not THE best) for a Druid, ever, because they no longer have to choose between shape shifting and spells, which increases their versatility (and thus power) greatly. This is functionally the same as a Cleric learning they can healbot and other things. A Druid who learns to utilize Wild Shape and spells together is playing a qualitatively different game than a Fighter who learns to hit things and... Well.
The game's quality has nothing to do with this. The druid is more powerful. So what? :smallconfused:

It's like I'm describing basic, common-sense realizations that anybody who actually reads the Player's Handbook would make, and thus most players at most tables make in most games! By Jove, I think he's got it!
Was that necessary? We were having quite a civil discussion up until now.

A Wizard who learns that Sleep and other save-or-sucks is better than Magic Missile and other damage spells learns that there are other things the Wizard can do that are better than just damage, but more importantly, the Wizard has that option. Compare to the Barbarian or Fighter, who... Don't. I mean, unless the melee guys take up bows and invest in Arrows of Sleep. Suddenly, the Wizard is playing a whole different game than the Barbarian or Fighter; in fact, you might say he is on a whole other tier.
Ah, now I understand, you're once again arguing against a point I never made. :smallbiggrin:
I'm not against the tier system. In fact, I contributed to many threads that helped build the foundation of that system way back in 339.

Now, look back at the Barbarian/Rogue example: you went out of your way (above and below) to state that the Barbarian and Rogue are playing different games, and I'm not inclined to disagree (I believe both are balanced well against each other), but you completely ignored the third player in that mix: the Monk. I explicitly brought up the Monk because if you compare it to either of these classes, it pales in comparison in damage output: a Monk who rolls high on damage still has to hit twice with a worse bonus to compete with a Barbarian who rolls low. A Rogue that rolls low suffers more, but needs only one hit to compete with the Monk's two, and can do so at a higher bonus (since it doesn't need to take the TWF penalties to attack once) and pursues strategies that create easier to-hit situations out of necessity (flanking, denying DEX bonus). Now, for being behind the pack in damage output, all things equal and even ideal, what does the Monk get? They have no armor proficiencies and trade simple and martial proficiency for a fixed list, have the same skill points as a Barbarian (and far worse than a Rogue), have a worse Hit Dice than a Barbarian, and their ability set stretches their ability scores hopelessly thin. It really only gets better saves and a few marginally useful abilities (some of which either or both classes have), and that's it. Compared to the Barbarian or Rogue, you could say that it's qualitatively worse than either. In fact, you might even say that it's... Wait for it... On a lower tier.
Again... I never made that point. Sorry. I know you built a whole case here and whatever, but I'm not against the tier system.

Not you.

Well, now you, but I quoted Talya because I was responding to Talya. I welcome the discussion nonetheless. :smallsmile:
Man, I really hadn't seen that quote, sorry.

Unsurprisingly, I can't read any single one of these comics, because they are in Spanish, so they all just look like single-page excerpts of Aquaman throwing spears and punches, and also Batman.
They are not in Spanish, they are in Portuguese.
Ok, I'll make a few quick translations for you.
First comic
Deathstroke: I know well Green Lantern's strenghts and weaknesses. The hard thing will be escaping from Aquaman. After all, I'm not that fast anymore... and he is quick as a cat. I'm not that strong anymore and he can probably lift a truck over his head. Face it, Slade... you're in trouble. Unless I find a way use his strenghts against himself. That's it! He must have keen sight if he can see in the depths of the ocean. Good sight... sensitive eyes.
Deathstroke: Hey! Back here!
Aquaman: What...? My eyes!
Deathstroke: Sorry Aquaman, but I have to *kicks Aquaman* Damn, my attack bounced away.
Deathstoke: He is trong, even blind he can defend himself. I'd better stay out of reach because a single counterattackcan annihilate me.
Aquaman: Got you! Even blind, I can hear everything more than a kilometer away. You're going to need more luck next time, Slade.

Finding three examples of Aquaman contributing is all well and good, but anybody can write someone to be (or seem) better than they are by virtue of plot device.
Sure it is, my point is that it's not Aquaman's case. Aquaman is badass. Read Peter David's run of hsi title or Grant Morrison's JLA run, they have some of the best examples. Or Brightest Day. Or Flashpoint. Or Geoff Johns' new Aquaman title. I'm not using Aquaman as an example for anything, I'm just saying you used the wrong example. Aquaman is badass.

Superman is a literal God, and yet everybody seems to conveniently know (and have) his incredibly rare and super-secret weakness on hand roughly a third of the time, or more as plot dictates.
You are also obviously not familiar with Superman comics. That doesn't happen since Crisis on Infinite Earths. Kryptonite has been very rare since the mid 80s.

In D&D terms, this is known as Pre-Empting the Player, and is found in the DMG under "things no good GM should ever do". This doesn't make Superman weaker than Aquaman, or even change the fact that writers have to try hard to find increasingly contrived situations where Aquaman can do something that Superman and Batman cannot.
But you don't need contrived circumstances to make Aquaman do stuff Batman or Superman can't do, that's default.
Superman is not weaker than Aquaman. You know, there is a JLA story in the Morrison era where a rebel angel attacks Earth with an army of angels. Now, these guys are freaking badass. The League has their hands full. Superman and Flash are away in the moon HQ and a demon tries to make the moon fall on the Earth at the same time. Superman puts the moon back into place while Wonder Woman destroys the angels' chariot on Earth, Aquaman and the Martian Manhunter try to hold back the Big Bad Angel and Green Lantern holds the angel army back by himself. After getting things ready in the moon, Superman comes to Earth and rips the Big Bad Angel a new one. That story is largely considered a highlight of Morrison's run, because he knows how to deal with characters of different power levels. And that's a skill any 3.5 DM should have, I think. If you can't do that, 3.5 is probably not the game for you, because you have to deal with different areas of expertise anyway. 4e might work best, since the charactes are different from each other mainly due to fighting style.

EDIT: OK, the picture of Aquaman riding Cthulhu almost made me pee a little.

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
I'm glad you enjoyed that.

Agreed. Superman is canonically stronger than Aquaman, and in any issue/episode/panel where he is not it is because his weaknesses are being used by the writer to limit his ability to contribute to the problem at hand.
Well, his weaknesses make him unable to contribute against psychic or magic opponents, while Aquaman can (and does). There are a lot of psychic/magic villains, that's hardly the writer limiting Superman, that's the writer writing.

In fact, 52 didn't happen that long ago. Look at how the League handles itself without the iconic DC heroes during the 52 arc. Now look at how the heroes that were in the spotlight performed.
Actually, the heroes in the spotlight (aside from Booster Gold, Animal Man and Elongated Man) performed quite badly. Between the Rain of Supermen, Lobo reverting to his violent ways and World War III, the Triad being away for a whole year proved a very bad choice.

Comics are as bad an example as the D&D novels because power levels cannot be accurately measured. Superman, when he first started out, was nearly completely incapable of actual flight (he just had a huge Jump check). There was a time where Superman was swimming in God Mode Sue status to the point that Kryptonite was featured in nearly every issue in order to reign him in.
You know what, there was a time a Wizard could only cast a single 1st level spell a day and if he was hit by any attack at all, he lost the spell. :smallamused:
Comics change. D&D changes. I don't even think superheroes are good analogues for D&D discussions or whatever, I just want to point out your point doesn't stand by itself.

Even in OotS the protagonists are only as efficient as the Giant decrees it. DC comics (and most other comics in general) are a bad analogue for the D&D Tiers.
Agreed, it's a bad analogue of D&D tiers. It's still a good example of well made narrative and this might help a DM way more than the tier system.
I'd much rather have a DM that crafts a believable Eigen plot to have everyone contribute than one that says "no, Wizard is tier 1, you can't play that".

BlueEyes

2012-05-25, 10:19 AM

The wizard player in question was
a) cheating and
b) a jerk
so that piece of anectodal evidence has little to do with balance, if it has anything to do with it at all.
There's more where that came from.

I never said there are no balance problems in 3.5, I just think balance problems are overemphasized around here.
And you see the need to point that out because...?

Sincerely, if all you want from the game is dealing a lot of damage and winning fights, you're playing the wrong game. If your only fun comes from blazing through encounters, D&D (and any RPG) will feel pretty boring to you (and most of all to your DM) really fast.
90% of D&D ruleset are combat rules (that's probably an exaggeration, but it's true that most of the rules are for combat).

For most of the players I met, interacting with the fictional D&D world and pretending they are a half-dragon with a big stick is their fun.
And I'm sure that "most of the players you met" is the same as "most of the players in the world", because you're kinda presenting your (probably limited) experience as the more true than the experiences of those that say that Tiers are useful.

There is whole game for balanced, streamlined D&D. If your fun is "contributing meaningfully", those are probably the games for you.
Or maybe if your fun is to just roleplay, then you should play a freeform game instead of D&D that has many rules, mostly combat? D&D is a perfect game for us optimizers, but it's not so great for roleplayers.

Double post, sorry.
You can delete your post. It's easy.

Amphetryon

2012-05-25, 10:43 AM

. The tier system doesn't assume everybody is trying to break the game, rather that everyone has at least a basic understanding of their class's strengths and weaknesses, and at least try to play to them.
I would argue that the Tier System assumes that everyone at the table has roughly the same level of understanding of the system as everyone else at the table, rather than a "basic understanding". For example, a "basic understanding" can lead to a Blaster Wizard, which won't fit into the general Tier System paradigm unless the party is also a S&B Fighter, a Healbot Cleric, and a Sneak Thief.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-25, 11:07 AM

It's also remarkably handy for rating homebrew classes.

There's usually pretty substantial agreement about what tiers a class falls into unless you've done something truly wonky.

Talya

2012-05-25, 11:20 AM

Ok, so if you literally have a 9 year old playing a druid, and a strategic genius playing a monk, you're still going to get problems with the druid overawing the monk? You seem to be saying not, which is also what I'm saying.

The fact that you need a highly competent person playing the monk to equal a complete noob playing the druid is a balance problem in itself. In general, the tactical/strategic genius should far outshine the noob, assuming both try. If they don't, there's something not right.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-25, 12:02 PM

First of all, BlueEyes... chill. You're coming out quite strong for no real reason. I've been having quite a civilized and pleasant debate with LonelyTylenol and I really don't want to change the mood around here.

There's more where that came from.
Please point it out, then. Kinda hard to make a point when you don't mention your evidence, anecdotal as it may be.

And you see the need to point that out because...?
I could just as likely ask why you see the need to be pointlessly acid, couldn't I?

90% of D&D ruleset are combat rules (that's probably an exaggeration, but it's true that most of the rules are for combat).
Yeah, and that doesn't change my point in any way whatsover. It's not 100% combat. If all you want is combat, there are other games out there. D&D is not about combat and combat only.

And I'm sure that "most of the players you met" is the same as "most of the players in the world", because you're kinda presenting your (probably limited) experience as the more true than the experiences of those that say that Tiers are useful.
:smallsigh:
I'm not saying tiers are not useful. Please stop arguing against a point I never made.

Or maybe if your fun is to just roleplay, then you should play a freeform game instead of D&D that has many rules, mostly combat? D&D is a perfect game for us optimizers, but it's not so great for roleplayers.
Again, a point I never made. If your fun is to roleplay and engage in tactical combat, D&D is the game for you. If all your fun comes from combats, then you're not going to enjoy a big part of the game.

You can delete your post. It's easy.
And you see the need to point that out because...? :smallamused:

BlueEyes

2012-05-25, 01:33 PM

First of all, BlueEyes... chill. You're coming out quite strong for no real reason.
That's your imagination.

Please point it out, then. Kinda hard to make a point when you don't mention your evidence, anecdotal as it may be.
Example threads talking about problems related to tiers:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244113
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243618
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243551
I'm too lazy to search more.

I could just as likely ask why you see the need to be pointlessly acid, couldn't I?
Sure, but you could also answer the question if you're at it.

Yeah, and that doesn't change my point in any way whatsover. It's not 100% combat. If all you want is combat, there are other games out there. D&D is not about combat and combat only.
Yes it is. And BTW, who said anything about it being only combat? And why can't it be about fights but also roleplaying? What, you can't roleplay combat? :smallconfused:

I'm not saying tiers are not useful. Please stop arguing against a point I never made.
It kinda sounds like you do.

If all your fun comes from combats, then you're not going to enjoy a big part of the game.
Combat is the bigger part of the game and that's a fact. It is you (plural), who is more interested in roleplaying than mechanics or combat, that will have less fun playing D&D.

{Scrubbed}

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-25, 02:21 PM

That's your imagination.
It is not, you even went as far as directly offending me in your last post. I already made my point. I'm sorry if you disagree and really wish we could discuss without offenses. I see we can't, so I won't be discussing with you anymore.

Malachei

2012-05-25, 03:51 PM

That's your imagination.

Example threads talking about problems related to tiers:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244113
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243618
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243551
I'm too lazy to search more.

Sure, but you could also answer the question if you're at it.

Yes it is. And BTW, who said anything about it being only combat? And why can't it be about fights but also roleplaying? What, you can't roleplay combat? :smallconfused:

It kinda sounds like you do.

Combat is the bigger part of the game and that's a fact. It is you (plural), who is more interested in roleplaying than mechanics or combat, that will have less fun playing D&D.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Actually, I find your post rude, at least 9/10th of it.

Togo

2012-05-25, 05:19 PM

Actually, I find your post rude, at least 9/10th of it.

Uh... me too actually.

I think an increasing amount of the traffic is addressing points that noone has actually made.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-25, 05:58 PM

The wizard player in question was
a) cheating and
b) a jerk
so that piece of anectodal evidence has little to do with balance, if it has anything to do with it at all.

I already admitted the example was bad when corrected (by Togo), but after this post you're responding to.

My general point (quoted previously) still stands.

Again, you're arguing against a point I never made... I never said there are no balance problems in 3.5, I just think balance problems are overemphasized around here.

RE: This post:

His point is that D&D is about having fun. It is not (and never was) about "contributing meaningfully". You don't play D&D to win, you play D&D to have fun, and failing might be just as entertaining as succeeding.

Counterpoint: To some, "contributing meaningfully" is "having fun" and "having fun" is "contributing meaningfully". To them, failing is not as entertaining as succeeding, because failing means they are not doing the thing they sat down at the table to do, be it be an unparalleled kung-fu master (the Monk), an intimidating force of presence and order on the battlefield (CW Samurai), or somebody who bends personhood and the terrain with a single dirty word (Truenamer).

Sincerely, if all you want from the game is dealing a lot of damage and winning fights, you're playing the wrong game. If your only fun comes from blazing through encounters, D&D (and any RPG) will feel pretty boring to you (and most of all to your DM) really fast.

I'm not sure if this is a direct statement or the royal "you", but I don't. But I also DM a group of 10-12 people who all have different expectations of roleplay, role fulfillment, combat, etc., and I know that being a good, effective DM is about making sure all your players are satisfied (within reason), not just the ones that agree with you. If some, but not all players are satisfied purely with the roleplay element, that's great. For some. But not all.

For most of the players I met, interacting with the fictional D&D world and pretending they are a half-dragon with a big stick is their fun. When my players and I want to play a medieval fantasy wargame, we play Legend of Drizzt and Wrath of Ashardalon and (surprise!) those games from WotC are exceptionally well balanced. You what other game from WotC is incredibly well balanced (though less than the D&D Adventure System)? D&D 4e.
There is whole game for balanced, streamlined D&D. If your fun is "contributing meaningfully", those are probably the games for you.
Again, I'm not saying 3.5 doesn't have balance problems. I just don't see why people make such a big deal out of it. They don't come up always and when they do come up, the DM can just say "Dude, not fun". Or maybe it does ruin everyone's campaign. Well, buckle up and play 4e then, damnit. :smallconfused:

I actually hate 4e. It's balanced, but "samey". I like to play characters who are unique and interesting (at least, relative to the world), mechanically and roleplay-wise.

I'm familiar with the tiers and I'm not against their use or existence. Again, you're arguing against a point I never made.

See above, specifically "re:" and "counterpoint:".

Except you won't end up with Star Wars kid, unless your DM completely wants you to have an awful time or someone else chose a similar concept. Let's go with your Monk example. You're in a party with a Barbarian and he deals more damage than you. However, he can't sneak around. So your Monk is the one who sneaks into the gang leader's lair to recover the artifact (like Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon, sans artifact). The Barbarian deals more damage, but you are the one fighting unarmed, after all. You won't be able to be Bruce Lee without mooks to crush with a nunchaku, so when you're level 6 and faced with a horde of level 1 orcs, flurry of blows will feel incredibly satisfying.
Now, unless your idea of Bruce Lee involves teleports and kamehamehas, I doubt Swordsage can do it better. Heck, I don't think swordsage is even proficient with the nunchaku, is it?
Warblade could work, but more "Lee as a person" than "Lee in the movies", since the skill list lacks stealth (and still no nunchakus, damnit).
Yeah, Monk is weak. In many games, it will still be veyr likely to contribute. That's even what the tier system is all about, knowing in which game a Monk might fit. And the Barbarian + Monk combo is even JaronK aproved.

Nitpick on the "you are the one fighting unarmed": Barbarian does Unarmed Strike better. There's even a variant that gives it Improved Unarmed Strike and Two-Weapon Fighting with fists. This narrows the Monk-exclusive abilities listed above to "Move Silently as a class skill" (which does not necessarily exclude the Barbarian from sneaking, just from being as good at it) and "proficient with nunchaku" (which is tragic).

And that's the problem.

The Monk + Barbarian combo is neato.

Was that necessary? We were having quite a civil discussion up until now.

I'm sorry. I get... Animated, sometimes. Do you want me to remove it?

Ah, now I understand, you're once again arguing against a point I never made. :smallbiggrin:
I'm not against the tier system. In fact, I contributed to many threads that helped build the foundation of that system way back in 339.

Again... I never made that point. Sorry. I know you built a whole case here and whatever, but I'm not against the tier system.

Because this was not an argument against you, at all. Which you discover shortly after this point (but never correct).

I can hardly be brought to task for not fulfilling the checklist for responding to people I was not responding to.

Man, I really hadn't seen that quote, sorry.

It's 'k. You are just going to have to cope with the fact that I'm not arguing against points you made for half of this, but points you nevertheless took up a defense for.

They are not in Spanish, they are in Portuguese.

I'm sorry. I live in Hawai'i, where even the Portugese people don't speak Portugese. I speak and understand Japanese and some Hawaiian, and Spanish and Portugese are both further down the list of languages that see everyday use.

Ok, I'll make a few quick translations for you.
First comic
Deathstroke: I know well Green Lantern's strenghts and weaknesses. The hard thing will be escaping from Aquaman. After all, I'm not that fast anymore... and he is quick as a cat. I'm not that strong anymore and he can probably lift a truck over his head. Face it, Slade... you're in trouble. Unless I find a way use his strenghts against himself. That's it! He must have keen sight if he can see in the depths of the ocean. Good sight... sensitive eyes.
Deathstroke: Hey! Back here!
Aquaman: What...? My eyes!
Deathstroke: Sorry Aquaman, but I have to *kicks Aquaman* Damn, my attack bounced away.
Deathstoke: He is trong, even blind he can defend himself. I'd better stay out of reach because a single counterattackcan annihilate me.
Aquaman: Got you! Even blind, I can hear everything more than a kilometer away. You're going to need more luck next time, Slade.

Thanks.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-25, 06:59 PM

I already admitted the example was bad when corrected (by Togo), but after this post you're responding to.
Oh, I missed that, sorry.

Counterpoint: To some, "contributing meaningfully" is "having fun" and "having fun" is "contributing meaningfully". To them, failing is not as entertaining as succeeding, because failing means they are not doing the thing they sat down at the table to do, be it be an unparalleled kung-fu master (the Monk), an intimidating force of presence and order on the battlefield (CW Samurai), or somebody who bends personhood and the terrain with a single dirty word (Truenamer).
Well, all of these can be optimized into being quite useful, but I understand your point, it's quite hard to do. It's specially absurd with the Truenamer, where you have to optimize heavily to function halfway decently. Someone people manage to do amazint stuff with the Truenamer, though. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11664034&postcount=132)
Please note I'm not trying to say Truenamer is not weak or anything. It is the one truly broken class in D&D, since it can't use it's ability without optimization.
What I'm trying to say, basically, is that there are many times when balance problems will not arise. They are right there in the system, but in a casual stroll through D&D, you might just miss it.

I'm not sure if this is a direct statement or the royal "you", but I don't.
It wasn't a direct statement, no, it was more of a general "you". English language and it's perks.

But I also DM a group of 10-12 people who all have different expectations of roleplay, role fulfillment, combat, etc., and I know that being a good, effective DM is about making sure all your players are satisfied (within reason), not just the ones that agree with you. If some, but not all players are satisfied purely with the roleplay element, that's great. For some. But not all.
You are absolutely correct. That's the best way to use the tier system, to ensure your players have fun. Heck, it was even created for that.

I actually hate 4e. It's balanced, but "samey". I like to play characters who are unique and interesting (at least, relative to the world), mechanically and roleplay-wise.
I'm not a fan of 4e as well, but I acknowledge it met it's design goals real well, probably even better than 3.5 did.
This comment may be a bit out of place, but have you read an article by the Giant (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) that mentions RPing while in combat? That's something I think we kind of lose when we think too much about our character being effective. I could go on about it, but the Giant explains it a lot better than I ever could. I'm not against optimization - far from it, I'm kind of an optimizer myself, I just think sometimes we can go a little overboard.

Nitpick on the "you are the one fighting unarmed": Barbarian does Unarmed Strike better. There's even a variant that gives it Improved Unarmed Strike and Two-Weapon Fighting with fists. This narrows the Monk-exclusive abilities listed above to "Move Silently as a class skill" (which does not necessarily exclude the Barbarian from sneaking, just from being as good at it) and "proficient with nunchaku" (which is tragic).
I see your point. I was even going to say Rage doesn't fit Bruce Lee, but it kinda does, specially in a tranquil fury (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TranquilFury), Hokuto no Ken style, rage.

I'm sorry. I get... Animated, sometimes. Do you want me to remove it?
No problem, man. :smallsmile:

Because this was not an argument against you, at all. Which you discover shortly after this point (but never correct).
Sorry :smallredface:

It's 'k. You are just going to have to cope with the fact that I'm not arguing against points you made for half of this, but points you nevertheless took up a defense for.
Heh, yeah, I should have paid more attention, I guess.

I'm sorry. I live in Hawai'i, where even the Portugese people don't speak Portugese. I speak and understand Japanese and some Hawaiian, and Spanish and Portugese are both further down the list of languages that see everyday use.
You live in Hawaii? How awesome is that? Cool.
I used to study Japanese at college, but I had to stop. It's been... two years? Something like that.

Thanks.
I was going to translate everything, but then I got lazy :smalltongue:

Togo

2012-05-25, 08:43 PM

I don't know if "YMMV" is a valid counterargument to a "there exists" statement,

Since noone is, or has ever in this entire thread, argued against the existance of the Tier system, or even made a point about the existance or non-existance of anything else, this is an irrelevence.

Worse than that, it's a strawman arguement. Could you possibly address the point I was making rather than inserting your own?

It doesn't matter if this happens in one in three tables, or one in three hundred (though I suspect the number is closer to the former than the latter)--if it's happening at all, then the list is practical for precisely that reason.

Since noone is, or has ever in this entire thread, argued against the idea that the Tier system is sometimes useful, this is an irrelevence.

As far as the actual tables, it's been noted what an intelligently played Wizard can do with just their two bonus spells each level, even with limited book access. Random rolls and strict rules interpretations on Table 2 will only stop the Wizard if they aren't choosing carefully, and if they're aware that buying spells is not a thing, they will choose carefully (as a Sorcerer would).

Yes, so what? It's also been noted that a commoner 20 can break the game just by using WBL.

The point is still the same. Tables where Tier problems don't crop up do exist.

As for Table 3, I plead irrelevance: obviously a system designed to explain mechanical differences between classes, and act as a mechanical diagnosis sheet, will not matter in a game devoid of mechanics.

They have mechanics. They use the mechanics. They just don't consider them very important. Unless you're invoking badwrongfun, these people are ignoring Tier considerations, and are right to do so.

If there's a problem, but it's not related to obvious power imbalances in the group, or there's not a problem to begin with, you don't need to check if it's class-related at all.

Ok, so you're agreeing with what I said. Depending on the game, Tier-related problems may not crop up at all.

You are wrong. I don't believe every game will hit balance problems along the lines of tiers. What I do believe is that at least some games will, regardless of whether or not anyone at the table is aware of tiers;

In others words, you are claiming that Tiers exist, a position that noone has disagreed with on this thread.

Furthermore, you actually agree with my position - that Tier-related problems may not come up in a particular game.

I was. The negation of "all are X" is "there exists a ~X". Navar's rejection of Answerer's statement (taken at face value) equates to "all allusions to tier imbalance are theoretical/don't happen in games", to which my rebuttal was...

Sorry, let's just be clear here. When you say 'taken at face value', you're referring to this idea that navar was somehow claiming that tiers didn't exist at all.

I've already told you why I consider that interpretation to be mistaken. Navar himself described the post as hyperbole, and posted the same view in a more moderate tone. The position thus described you then acknowledged wasn't the position that you had thought navar held.

Given that we have now established that noone hold this opinion, why are you still using it as a strawman?

The negation of "there exists an X" is "all are ~X".

Noone on this thread is of the opinion that Tiers don't exist.

I appreciate that you don't have malicious intent, but you've systematically gone through my entire post attempting to rebutt what I say on the basis that it doesn't support the idea that Tiers don't exist, a position that noone on this thread has ever argued for. In doing so you've totally ignored the points I was making, and badly misrepresented my posts. Please stop.

As far as I can tell you actually agree with my position, and you're just arguing against me because I'm not treating the Tier system as the universal tool you feel it should be. Is this broadly accurate? Do you feel the Tier system is a fundamental checkpoint for all games, and if so, could you say why?

navar100

2012-05-25, 10:56 PM

Perhaps I need to rephrase.

Let it be known that I do acknowledge and accept the definitions of what it means to be in the various Tiers. I do acknowledge and accept that the plethora of 3E classes can be divided among these Tiers even if people disagree on the placement of some classes.

What I object to are people claiming said Tier System tells you how you should play the game. It does not. The closest it comes to that is JaronK recommending a gaming group play with classes that are at most one level apart, though high-end Tier 3 with Tier 1 could work. That, however, is his opinion. The Tiers do not forbid a fighter and wizard being in the same party. The Tiers do not say the druid will dominate the game every time all the time, and if he's not the player is playing it wrong. The Tiers do not say monks fail at everything, play a swordsage instead. The Tiers only describe the on paper theoretical potential of versatility of a class given everything ever published exists in a game. In actual practice, the experiences of a gaming group will differ from another. There is no universal truth as to how the game will play based upon what players are playing. The players are not playing the game wrong if expected outcome of potentiality does not occur, such as the fighter gets to Trip a lot while making his Will saves and not being bothered at all the wildshaped druid just casted Animal Growth on his bear. Reminds me of quantum physics. :smallyuk:

Answerer

2012-05-25, 11:50 PM

What I object to are people claiming said Tier System tells you how you should play the game. It does not.
Then who are you arguing with? No one who understands the Tier system claims any such thing.

The only time I hear that is in strawman arguments made by those who oppose the tiers overall.

BlueEyes

2012-05-26, 12:01 AM

It is not, you even went as far as directly offending me in your last post. I already made my point. I'm sorry if you disagree and really wish we could discuss without offenses. I see we can't, so I won't be discussing with you anymore.
I'll take that as lack of counter-arguments.

Actually, I find your post rude, at least 9/10th of it.
Uh... me too actually.

I think an increasing amount of the traffic is addressing points that noone has actually made.
Report it.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-26, 12:21 AM

Then who are you arguing with? No one who understands the Tier system claims any such thing.

The only time I hear that is in strawman arguments made by those who oppose the tiers overall.

I (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12484323&postcount=12) have (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12163774&postcount=14) to (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12905481&postcount=1) disagree, sir. It's very common around here - someone says "I want to play a monk!" and is showered by "play a swordsage instead". It's very common with ninja as well. Sometimes people don't even ask about party composition.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-26, 12:25 AM

Well, all of these can be optimized into being quite useful, but I understand your point, it's quite hard to do. It's specially absurd with the Truenamer, where you have to optimize heavily to function halfway decently. Someone people manage to do amazint stuff with the Truenamer, though. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11664034&postcount=132)
Please note I'm not trying to say Truenamer is not weak or anything. It is the one truly broken class in D&D, since it can't use it's ability without optimization.
What I'm trying to say, basically, is that there are many times when balance problems will not arise. They are right there in the system, but in a casual stroll through D&D, you might just miss it.

I agree with the fact that these can all be optimized to be useful, but even then, the tier system is useful for letting you know your starting point--a Truenamer needs to work its way up to the level of the Ranger, for example--even when that might not be obvious. The Monk gets class features at all 20 levels, for example, and the Sorcerer doesn't get any beyond a familiar, which might seem like a bum deal for a lot of people.

I need to explain through anecdote:
My first game, I played a Wizard. At level 1. After having a number of character concepts shot down (Planeswalker doesn't work because of world history, Blood Magus doesn't work because That's Evil), I went with an analogue for Ged (Earthsea). I made poor spell decisions (like Ice Dagger and Ventriloquism), and I was a generalist, but had a good INT, so I wasn't THAT bad off. Only I felt useless for the whole first two levels--even with the "casting from spellbook" houserule, I usually burned through my spells early and spent several straight encounters plinking with a crossbow (because an adventuring day could last over a dozen encounters at times). I became the running joke of the party, and was pigeonholed into being a failure.

So I began book-diving.

I know now that Wizards are absurdly good, but I became the best-optimized player with the strongest class in the group before I knew about actual class balance. If I had known about the tier list (or equivalent), I would have known that I really didn't need to optimize down--just sit tight and I'll be sitting pretty once I learn to shoot laser beams from my eyes in no time.

You are absolutely correct. That's the best way to use the tier system, to ensure your players have fun. Heck, it was even created for that.

Of course. :smallsmile:

This comment may be a bit out of place, but have you read an article by the Giant (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) that mentions RPing while in combat? That's something I think we kind of lose when we think too much about our character being effective. I could go on about it, but the Giant explains it a lot better than I ever could. I'm not against optimization - far from it, I'm kind of an optimizer myself, I just think sometimes we can go a little overboard.

Yes, but you've brought it to mind; I linked it to the rest of my group for their reference. Thanks!

I see your point. I was even going to say Rage doesn't fit Bruce Lee, but it kinda does, specially in a tranquil fury (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TranquilFury), Hokuto no Ken style, rage.

This is also true for samurai. When I want to play Miyamoto Musashi, I don't play the CW Samurai (which is obviously built around the Musashi concept more than any standard Samurai concept, but also fails on every front); I play a Tiger Claw-based Warblade with a Ferocity variant Barbarian dip early in life, who becomes Diamond Mind/White Raven-focused later in life. Or a Ferocity Barbarian/TWF Ranger, or even straight Ferocity Barbarian, depending on access. If I'm going a different route (Kenshin, for example), I will probably go with a different build (charge-focused? It's been too long), but I'll definitely have at least one level in Ferocity Barbarian. Does the default fluff match? No, but the crunch does, and the fluff is easy to pair with the concept.

You live in Hawaii? How awesome is that? Cool.
I used to study Japanese at college, but I had to stop. It's been... two years? Something like that.

Not as awesome as you think. I live on one of the less-populated islands where nothing exciting happens, ever, and also there are two 3.5 DMs, one of which is me (and the other is the person whose game I rage-quit). But, you know... Hawaii. So I guess I can't complain. :smallwink:

Since noone is, or has ever in this entire thread, argued against the existance of the Tier system, or even made a point about the existance or non-existance of anything else, this is an irrelevence.

Worse than that, it's a strawman arguement. Could you possibly address the point I was making rather than inserting your own?

. . .

Since noone is, or has ever in this entire thread, argued against the idea that the Tier system is sometimes useful, this is an irrelevence.

It was argued by both Malachei and navar (at least within my understanding of their posts at the time) not that tiers don't exist, but that they aren't ever important to know, or were actively burdensome; not that the problem of tiers was overstated, but that it was completely artificial. This appears to be a false conclusion at least on the topic of navar (gauging by the post he made just before I started this).

And why would I address your point? I agree with your conclusion; I never didn't and I never said I didn't. I think the assumptions about my argument on which you based yours are wrong, so I tried to clarify them.

Actually, let's talk about that.

So now there's the topic of where we stand:

I concluded that navar was arguing that tiers are never useful and never manifest themselves in a game, and argued that tiers sometimes manifest themselves in a game.
You concluded that I was arguing that tiers always manifest themselves or make themselves important in every game, and argued (on navar's behalf) that tiers sometimes don't manifest themselves in a game.
Our arguments, in truth, are compatible. Moreover, they never weren't; only our understandings of them were.
I think we have both spent a lot of time and effort working off of misunderstandings of the other.
Therefore, if we've clarified that both of us are working off of some form of misunderstanding (mine, that navar meant to say tiers are NEVER useful in an actual game, and yours, that I meant to say that tiers are UNIVERSALLY useful in an actual game, neither of which, it turns out, are true), and don't actually have any disagreement or quarrel, can we stop this?

I mean, I love discussion and dispute, I'm not going to lie, but if we're to continue, it'd probably be best to figure out exactly what, if anything, we disagree on, and resolve that.

Also, you appear to be quite annoyed at the fact that my argument was based off false assumptions about what someone else said (although what you have done with my argument is exactly the same), so it'll probably save you a headache or two down the line.

Also, I post most of these monstrosities from a phone, so this is kind of too time-intensive on my part to really be going in circles if there's no need to. I mean, I could dictate everything I write, but that doesn't make it *that* much quicker. Might save me a headache or two of the migraine variety as well.

EDIT:

Perhaps I need to rephrase.

Let it be known that I do acknowledge and accept the definitions of what it means to be in the various Tiers. I do acknowledge and accept that the plethora of 3E classes can be divided among these Tiers even if people disagree on the placement of some classes.

What I object to are people claiming said Tier System tells you how you should play the game. It does not. The closest it comes to that is JaronK recommending a gaming group play with classes that are at most one level apart, though high-end Tier 3 with Tier 1 could work. That, however, is his opinion. The Tiers do not forbid a fighter and wizard being in the same party. The Tiers do not say the druid will dominate the game every time all the time, and if he's not the player is playing it wrong. The Tiers do not say monks fail at everything, play a swordsage instead. The Tiers only describe the on paper theoretical potential of versatility of a class given everything ever published exists in a game. In actual practice, the experiences of a gaming group will differ from another. There is no universal truth as to how the game will play based upon what players are playing. The players are not playing the game wrong if expected outcome of potentiality does not occur, such as the fighter gets to Trip a lot while making his Will saves and not being bothered at all the wildshaped druid just casted Animal Growth on his bear. Reminds me of quantum physics. :smallyuk:

See, this I get. Tiers are a tool to optimize fun, and to understand how to get the most fun out of your options; it is not a tool to limit your options. :smallbiggrin:

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-26, 12:38 AM

I agree with the fact that these can all be optimized to be useful, but even then, the tier system is useful for letting you know your starting point--a Truenamer needs to work its way up to the level of the Ranger, for example--even when that might not be obvious. The Monk gets class features at all 20 levels, for example, and the Sorcerer doesn't get any beyond a familiar, which might seem like a bum deal for a lot of people.
Agreed completely.

I need to explain through anecdote:
My first game, I played a Wizard. At level 1. After having a number of character concepts shot down (Planeswalker doesn't work because of world history, Blood Magus doesn't work because That's Evil), I went with an analogue for Ged (Earthsea). I made poor spell decisions (like Ice Dagger and Ventriloquism), and I was a generalist, but had a good INT, so I wasn't THAT bad off. Only I felt useless for the whole first two levels--even with the "casting from spellbook" houserule, I usually burned through my spells early and spent several straight encounters plinking with a crossbow (because an adventuring day could last over a dozen encounters at times). I became the running joke of the party, and was pigeonholed into being a failure.
I understand that, I had a player who constantly played a wizard in our low level games and felt useless from time to time. When I started a new campaign, in the mid-levels, I told him "Why don't you try the artificer? It will take a lot of reading, but you'll probably get what you want." It was funny because his character sheet was more like a character book. It was like 20 pages long or somesuch.

This is also true for samurai. When I want to play Miyamoto Musashi, I don't play the CW Samurai (which is obviously built around the Musashi concept more than any standard Samurai concept, but also fails on every front); I play a Tiger Claw-based Warblade with a Ferocity variant Barbarian dip early in life, who becomes Diamond Mind/White Raven-focused later in life. Or a Ferocity Barbarian/TWF Ranger, or even straight Ferocity Barbarian, depending on access.
That makes a lot of sense.

If I'm going a different route (Kenshin, for example), I will probably go with a different build (charge-focused? It's been too long), but I'll definitely have at least one level in Ferocity Barbarian. Does the default fluff match? No, but the crunch does, and the fluff is easy to pair with the concept.
For Kenshin we need ridiculous Jump (so Warblade), unarmored (Battle Dancer?), high speed (Blade Dancer?) and of course Iaijutsu Master. I really wish you could get Exotic Weapon Flurry with the katana, because that's exactly what the ryusousen is.
I like Kenshin a lot :smalltongue:

Not as awesome as you think. I live on one of the less-populated islands where nothing exciting happens, ever, and also there are two 3.5 DMs, one of which is me (and the other is the person whose game I rage-quit). But, you know... Hawaii. So I guess I can't complain. :smallwink:
From the way tourist's talk, Brazil is a poor man's Hawaii, so I guess you really can't complain. :smallcool:

McStabbington

2012-05-26, 12:56 AM

Tiers are useful in two respects. First, they're useful to gauge what kind of game is possible. If your team wants to go take over the Nine Hells, a party consisting of druids, wizards and clerics at high level are a good way to pull it off. Rokugan ninjas and CW samurai? Not so much.

Second, they help you figure out how to play a character so that everyone has a good time. There's nothing stopping you from playing a wizard in a team full of Tier 4 and 5 characters and having a very fun time. It's just that you might want to pick spells that are optimized for something other than tearing the multiverse apart. Specialize in enchantment or transmutation spells; something like that. You can still contribute immensely to the group without stealing the spotlight all the time.

To this day the funnest campaign I ever ran was a standard LotR destroy-the-evil-artifact campaign with a cleric, a wizard/sorceror, a hexblade, a rokugan ninja/monk, and my fighter/rogue. The wizard was community property, and because he was a) one level below us anyway, and b) had 3 levels of sorceror, we played him mostly as combat support. He threw lots of hastes and an occasional fireball before sniping with a bevy of magic missiles and acid arrows. And we found ways to buff the other characters when their power started sagging. The fighter/rogue got a ridiculously powerful moonblade for a quest, and the hexblade both held the evil artifact (it had a will-based dominate power, so he was really the best to hold it) and had a tweaked improved familiar feat which let him get a quillboar. In short, everyone had the chance to do one or two things that campaign that really impressed, because we all tried to have fun and give everyone a chance to succeed.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-26, 12:57 AM

I understand that, I had a player who constantly played a wizard in our low level games and felt useless from time to time. When I started a new campaign, in the mid-levels, I told him "Why don't you try the artificer? It will take a lot of reading, but you'll probably get what you want." It was funny because his character sheet was more like a character book. It was like 20 pages long or somesuch.

Yeah, I hear that! Mine ended up being 17 pages long when I quit (and went up to 4th-level spells, of which there are few, because I quit just after level 7). The best/worst part? I only used 2-3 lines of any sheet of line paper to list a spell.

For Kenshin we need ridiculous Jump (so Warblade), unarmored (Battle Dancer?), high speed (Blade Dancer?) and of course Iaijutsu Master. I really wish you could get Exotic Weapon Flurry with the katana, because that's exactly what the ryusousen is.
I like Kenshin a lot :smalltongue:

Yeah, the Tiger Claw and White Raven maneuvers pretty much embody the Battosai's abilities (though not fluff-wise). Diamond Mind gives you the Ryusousen as a capstone, though.

I mean, a leap attacking charger captures both of the two main elements of his sword fighting maneuvers, but not quite as well as Warblade, which does it all the way up to actually naming the maneuvers. (It's also T3! :smalltongue:)

From the way tourist's talk, Brazil is a poor man's Hawaii, so I guess you really can't complain. :smallcool:

We actually get a lot of people who come to live here from Brazil, strangely! Most of them come here for college. I never did figure out why; my island only has a community college (I had to transfer to online to pursue my BA), and not an amazingly good one at that. I guess the pace of the island doesn't bother the people who move here?

Marlowe

2012-05-26, 01:09 AM

A gigantic continental country that you could drop mine smack in the middle of and do everyone a favour is "a poor man's Hawaii?":smallbiggrin:

I'm still waiting to find out what one earth Pelor or Heironymous have to do with basic Cleric class features. Are some people under the misapprehension you have to worship those gods in order to heal?

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-26, 01:17 AM

Yeah, I hear that! Mine ended up being 17 pages long when I quit (and went up to 4th-level spells, of which there are few, because I quit just after level 7). The best/worst part? I only used 2-3 lines of any sheet of line paper to list a spell.
Now I'm curious, why did you quit?

We actually get a lot of people who come to live here from Brazil, strangely! Most of them come here for college. I never did figure out why; my island only has a community college (I had to transfer to online to pursue my BA), and not an amazingly good one at that. I guess the pace of the island doesn't bother the people who move here?
For college? :smallconfused: That's really weird. Our educational system is very different from the US, so I keep asking myself how the hell does that even work. I mean, we have some pretty good universities here. Like where I studied. Lots of hot exchange students. Plenty good teachers.

A gigantic continental country that you could drop mine smack in the middle of and do everyone a favour is "a poor man's Hawaii?":smallbiggrin:

When it comes to beaches and hotels, yeah, apparently. I don't really know, I've never been to Hawaii myself.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-26, 01:18 AM

I'm still waiting to find out what one earth Pelor or Heironymous have to do with basic Cleric class features. Are some people under the misapprehension you have to worship those gods in order to heal?

"Arbitrarily chosen Core, newbie-friendly, Good gods X and Y". Every worshiper of a Good god (even the Neutral ones) channels positive energy as opposed to negative (a fact that isn't true of Evil Clerics or Neutral Clerics of Evil deities).

Answerer

2012-05-26, 01:22 AM

I (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12484323&postcount=12) have (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12163774&postcount=14) to (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12905481&postcount=1) disagree, sir. It's very common around here - someone says "I want to play a monk!" and is showered by "play a swordsage instead". It's very common with ninja as well. Sometimes people don't even ask about party composition.
That's because when someone asks how to do something well, one presumes that they want to be competent.

Tier 5 classes are not competent at anything.

Even if you feel like debating that point, the long and short of it is this: my personal opinion is that they are unfun to play. Moreover, my advice, when asked for (as in, in any such thread), is to not play such classes. My reasoning for this is because they are bad at what they are supposed to be good at. I furthermore reason that someone wanting to play one, really wants to play something good at what the class is supposedly good at. I therefore recommend he plays a class that does so.

Now, I'll grant you that not every time is a full explanation of exactly where the recommendation is coming from being given, but that's what's going on. That is not the same as saying that the tier system dictates how people should play.

Marlowe

2012-05-26, 01:31 AM

"Arbitrarily chosen Core, newbie-friendly, Good gods X and Y". Every worshiper of a Good god (even the Neutral ones) channels positive energy as opposed to negative (a fact that isn't true of Evil Clerics or Neutral Clerics of Evil deities).

Yes. I play Clerics. I'm familiar with the rules. It just seems weird you'd just mention something so basic with so arbitrary an example. How about the fact that if you play a positive-energy Neutral Cleric of certain Neutral God you can get Travel Domain without worshiping the Goddess of Femininism, and you can still use a feat to convert spells into Inflicts as well as heals? Something that might not be immediately obvious?

I mean, this was so basic it was confusing.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-26, 01:47 AM

Yes. I play Clerics. I'm familiar with the rules. It just seems weird you'd just mention something so basic with so arbitrary an example. How about the fact that if you play a positive-energy Neutral Cleric of certain Neutral God you can get Travel Domain without worshiping the Goddess of Femininism, and you can still use a feat to convert spells into Inflicts as well as heals? Something that might not be immediately obvious?

I mean, this was so basic it was confusing.

That was the point: every single example I listed was so basic, so obvious, so innate to the workings of the class, and with resources so widely accepted in every game (Core classes with Core options) that almost everybody who picks up the class eventually comes to understand this, if not immediately.

Marlowe

2012-05-26, 02:00 AM

Sorry mate, when you mentioned specific gods it muddied the issue. It's like if you'd said "Rangers find their bows are more useful when used to fire green-feathered arrows rather than as clubs" it would make people wonder if you thought there was something special about green feathers.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-26, 02:06 AM

Marlowe

2012-05-26, 02:10 AM

There isn't, but if you paint racing stripes on them, they fly faster. :smallbiggrin:

Only if you're British.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-26, 02:17 AM

That's because when someone asks how to do something well, one presumes that they want to be competent.
When someone asks to play a Monk, one presumes they want to play a Monk. :smallamused:

Tier 5 classes are not competent at anything.
Competence is relative. Also, according to the tier system, T5 classes can be in mixed games with T4 classes.

Even if you feel like debating that point, the long and short of it is this: my personal opinion is that they are unfun to play. Moreover, my advice, when asked for (as in, in any such thread), is to not play such classes. My reasoning for this is because they are bad at what they are supposed to be good at. I furthermore reason that someone wanting to play one, really wants to play something good at what the class is supposedly good at. I therefore recommend he plays a class that does so.
But sincerely, that's not the point. When someone wants to play a Monk, asks for help for playing a Monk and gets told to not play a Monk... that's not helpful advice. If you ask if they are aware of the tier system or swardsage and then suggest something else, that is one thing. But blanket statements just as 'play a swordsage instead' are borderline offensive, because you are considering someone else ignorant. You're imposing your opinion on someone, even. So you don't think anyone should play Monks? Stay away from Monk threads, then.
Even if not liking Monks you want to post in a Monk thread, saying "I don't find Monks very fun, maybe you could try a Swordsage, I like them a lot more" is very different from "Monks suck, play a Swordsage".

Now, I'll grant you that not every time is a full explanation of exactly where the recommendation is coming from being given, but that's what's going on. That is not the same as saying that the tier system dictates how people should play.
And that's not what I said. I'm fine with the tier system.
I'm not fine with people who misuse it, like you just did. "No one should play tier 5" is simply wrong. If you don't like tier 5,well, that's your personal opinion. I don't like Erudites very much, but I'm not going to show up in Totemist threads and say "Play a Spellthief instead". Do you understand my point? People can (and will) play tier 5 when they want. The tier system exists so we can know who should be in a party with a Monk, not to ban Monks from tables everywhere.

Malachei

2012-05-26, 02:42 AM

Tier 5 classes are not competent at anything.

Jack B. Quick (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19869062/6_hits_to_1:_Jack_B._Quick) is not competent at anything?

BlueEyes

2012-05-26, 02:46 AM

When someone asks to play a Monk, one presumes they want to play a Monk.
And others presume they want to play a monk. You can play a monk much better by choosing Swordsage.

Jack B. Quick is not competent at anything?
Put him in a group with higher tiers with similar high optimization and see how competent he will be against encounters that are supposed to challenge them.

LordBlades

2012-05-26, 03:05 AM

When someone asks to play a Monk, one presumes they want to play a Monk. :smallamused:

If somebody says 'I want to play a Monk' and that's it, there isn't enough information to really know what exactly they're looking for. Are they interested in the Monk flavor? Certain mechanical abilities that the Monk class has? Or they just want Monk on their character sheet because their game treats classes as in-game constructs? All these different situations need different types of advice.

When this information is missing, most people default to the assumption you want something that feels like a Monk, and unarmed Swordsage fits the bill quite well, unless you count incompetence as part of the 'monk feeling'

Malachei

2012-05-26, 03:18 AM

And others presume they want to play a monk. You can play a monk much better by choosing Swordsage.

Put him in a group with higher tiers with similar high optimization and see how competent he will be against encounters that are supposed to challenge them.

That has nothing to do with the statement I replied to. Answerer claimed they are not competent at anything. This sounds like it is badwrongfun to play a "tier 5" character, and this is exactly the attitude the tier "system" fosters.

Also, I've seen quite a few Fighters, adventuring in a party of "tier 1" and "tier 2" characters, and they still had fun.

BlueEyes

2012-05-26, 03:48 AM

Also, I've seen quite a few Fighters, adventuring in a party of "tier 1" and "tier 2" characters, and they still had fun.
"Had fun" doesn't mean "were competent".

Suddo

2012-05-26, 04:10 AM

Got a couple of pages in sorry its late I'd read more but not right now.

Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Which isn't to say it's not real. In general, with players of equal skill, a Tier 1 class will get far more opportunities to dominate play and trivialize an encounter than a tier 5 class. It's a simple fact. I do believe that the difference is often overstated, however. At average levels of system mastery and optimization, the differences in power and versatility are still there, but they are far less pronounced and completely manageable - if the DM has a greater than average level of system mastery, anyway.

Actually I don't think its possible for a fighter to have a ah-ha moment. I mean what could they think of? I mean they could think that the Wizard could use Undead Command but that's not really the point.

I'd also like to point out that on occasion people say something to the extent of people RPing NPCs to get more information a good deal or any one of a number of things and although this sometimes is well within the character's abilities the character should often have to roll a diplomacy check which many low tier people are lacking on.

Malachei

2012-05-26, 04:15 AM

"Had fun" doesn't mean "were competent".

Well, in Answerer's above statement, he pretty much assumed you would not have fun if you weren't competent at anything. I think he's actually right here for once, as it should be extremely hard to find a player having fun playing a character not competent at anything.

The so-called tier "system" includes disclaimers, but really advertises playing at "tier 3", and suggests including one "tier" above, and one below. Hence, no more fighters in D&D games, so Jack B. Quick can't play.

I think the "tier system" is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing. After the courtesy disclaimers, what the "tier system" does is support a particular play preference. I think Gitp as a community specifically aims towards diversity, and against dismissing particular play preferences as meaning badwrongfun or not competent at anything.

Suddo

2012-05-26, 04:39 AM

Actually I think Jack B Quick sits in Tier 4, and most people are fine with someone playing Tier 4-5 in their Tier 3 campaign.

BlueEyes

2012-05-26, 04:47 AM

Ceaon

2012-05-26, 04:50 AM

The so-called tier "system" includes disclaimers, but really advertises playing at "tier 3", and suggests including one "tier" above, and one below. Hence, no more fighters in D&D games, so Jack B. Quick can't play.

I think the "tier system" is actually a wolf in sheep's clothing. After the courtesy disclaimers, what the "tier system" does is support a particular play preference. I think Gitp as a community specifically aims towards diversity, and against dismissing particular play preferences as meaning badwrongfun or not competent at anything.

The tier list is not called a system by JaronK. And even though the creator says he prefers tier 3, if you read his Q&A section carefully, you'll see he agrees with you.

Found here (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658).
Q: So, which is the best Tier?

A: In the end, the best Tier is the Tier that matches the rest of your party and appeals to you. If your party is Fighter, Rogue, Healer, Barbarian, then Tier 4 or 5 is going to be the best. If your party is Sorcerer, Beguiler, Crusader, Swordsage, then Tier 2-3 will be best. Really, if you're having fun and no one in the party feels either useless or overpowered, then you're doing it right. Personally, I prefer Tier 3, but I still match to whatever party I'm in if I join after other characters are created.

That said, here's something that might help some DMs decide which tier is best for their campaigns:

(Emphasis added)

Some people may advocate that you should all play characters of the same tier. They are interpreting the tier list differently from its creator.

LordBlades

2012-05-26, 05:23 AM

I think so many people advocate tier 3 because it's easiest, so to speak. You can usually throw any level appropriate stuff straight from the monster books and it works. On the other hand, tier 1-2 require aome serious encounter optimization to be challenged, whereas tier 5-y faces significant risk of death vs. much if what should be 'level appropriate'

Togo

2012-05-26, 06:27 AM

The last time I played a monk, I was asked by the DM to tone down my character because I was dominating play. One of the other characters was a wizard. It was a low level game, my character was mechancially optimised, and other people's weren't.

I can see no reason why we should be worrying about Tiers in that game.

Malachei

2012-05-26, 06:37 AM

Actually I think Jack B Quick sits in Tier 4, and most people are fine with someone playing Tier 4-5 in their Tier 3 campaign.

Is there a source, or is this your assumption?

willpell

2012-05-26, 06:42 AM

I've had plenty of games where Knockback Fighters leave Druid players feeling useless, or Swashbucklers upstage Clerics and Wizards - the Tier list does state that it assumes comparable optimization levels, but that assumption never valid.

I would be very interested in knowing what it takes for a Swashbuckler to upstage a Cleric of any level or a Wizard of more than level 4 or so.

Part of the root of the Tier system is not just that high-tier characters are extremely good at what they do (level 10 fighter can Cleave through two foes with a sword for Power Attack damage, and still has to use his move action getting to them; level 10 wizard can drop a Widened Fireball that encompasses both those foes plus probably their buddy a couple more squares back and deals 10d6 damage instead of the 1d10+10 or so that the fighter was dealing). Rather, it is that higher tiers just plain give more options. A Wizard would be tier 5 if he only ever had three spells, but with a spellbook being able to hold as many spells as you can find, probably a good hundred or more by the time you reach the high levels, and with Clerics and Druids getting EVERY spell on their list, plus a ton of other class features....the Swashbuckler just doesn't have much of anything to do other than poke things with a rapier while swinging from a chandelier, or maybe UMDing a wand on occasion.

Wizard and Cleric and Psion and so forth all contain multiple character archetypes and can switch between them, per day or possibly even per encounter; martial adepts without Tome of Battle or various other strange options just aren't ever going to be that interesting, let alone that powerful.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-26, 07:34 AM

Is there a source, or is this your assumption?

JaronK says optimization can make you go up a tier. Jack B. Quick is a highly optimized tier 5, therefore it should be tier 4.

If somebody says 'I want to play a Monk' and that's it, there isn't enough information to really know what exactly they're looking for. Are they interested in the Monk flavor? Certain mechanical abilities that the Monk class has? Or they just want Monk on their character sheet because their game treats classes as in-game constructs? All these different situations need different types of advice.

When this information is missing, most people default to the assumption you want something that feels like a Monk, and unarmed Swordsage fits the bill quite well, unless you count incompetence as part of the 'monk feeling'
I completely disagree with this. For starters, Unarmed Swordsage is not even an actual class. It's in the adaptation section, it's a suggestion for a houserule. And Swordsage has two things in common with a Monk - unarmed damage progression and a Wis bonus to AC. That's it. Does unarmed swordsage get the Monk's immunities? Does it get all good saves? Does it get a speed bonus? Does it get Flurry of Blows? Does it get Stunning Fist? Does it get Quivering Palm? No, it doesn't. I'll give you Swordsage has a few maneuver debuffs (though that comes nowhere close to what optimized Stunning Fist can do. Have you seen how many feats are related to this? It can get quite good.) or extra attacks (not as reliable as flurry of blows, since Swordsage has such a sucky recovery method) and FIVE SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE which is basically Quivering Palm in bankai form, but it's still not Quivering Palm (even though I love 5SCIES, I think it's even worse than Quivering Palm, since the effect is random). Can you see my point? Yeah, Monk is tier 5. Big deal. It still has it's strenghts, it's specific tricks, it's good class features. People may actually want to play a Monk. Just because Poster X wouldn't (because he read somewhere that Monks are tier 5), he dismisses them and says "play an unarmed swordsage". I bet you ten bucks at least half of those people have not played either a Monk or a Swordsage. Heck, we get those "play a swordsage instead" suggestions even when the OP says "no ToB".
Also, what is Monk flavor? You speak as if it was completely obvious. I mean, that's making a lot of assumptions. "I want to play a Monk" becomes "I want to play something with Poster X's idea of Monk's flavor".
I don't know, wouldn't it be safer and more polite to consider that when someone says "I want to play a Monk" they actually want to play a Monk, for whatever reason? :smallconfused:

I would be very interested in knowing what it takes for a Swashbuckler to upstage a Cleric of any level or a Wizard of more than level 4 or so.

Lots of things. I'm currently playing a Swashbuckler in a party with a (cloistered) cleric and a wizard, actually. We're level 7.
I'm contributing just fine. The wizard avoids combat like the plague, he usually buffs up and goes invisible. The cleric likes to play the healer role, she is optmized enough in it that in-combat healing is relevant. My thing is dealing damage and mobility (Dimensional Agility tree, I love you), the wizard's thing is utility, the cleric is a skillmonkey and healer.
As a sidenote, did you know a Fighter can be an utility caster in e6? (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=ebcs6eapno461dkh2bbe9mg943&topic=5111.msg73075)

Malachei

2012-05-26, 07:39 AM

JaronK says optimization can make you go up a tier. Jack B. Quick is a highly optimized tier 5, therefore it should be tier 4.

Ah. So you can play a fighter, as long as he's Jack B. Quick :smallbiggrin: ( or another optimized build ). How sad.

willpell

2012-05-26, 07:57 AM

JaronK says optimization can make you go up a tier.

Does that mean a highly optimized Wizard could be "Tier 0"? The mind boggles....

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-26, 08:12 AM

Does that mean a highly optimized Wizard could be "Tier 0"? The mind boggles....

Google "pun pun tier" to have your mind further boggled.

Answerer

2012-05-26, 08:55 AM

When someone asks to play a Monk, one presumes they want to play a Monk. :smallamused:
No, I don't.

Because it is far more common for people to want to play something that is good at what the Monk is supposed to be good at, and falls for WotC's lies that the Monk is good at those things, than there are people who know all about how bad the Monk is but want to play it anyway.

But sincerely, that's not the point. When someone wants to play a Monk, asks for help for playing a Monk and gets told to not play a Monk... that's not helpful advice.
I disagree. I think it is; elsewise, I would not offer it. They are welcome to ignore if they wish; if so, then they get a free bump and have no reason to complain.

If those are the only suggestions they get at all, well, then maybe all of those people are on to something. And if they hadn't posted, what would have happened instead? No response at all. Great.

I have no advice for someone who actually wants to play Monk, the class. I can think of no reason for doing so, no compelling advantage that it gets that you might want to work with, etc. etc.

Answerer claimed they are not competent at anything. This sounds like it is badwrongfun to play a "tier 5" character, and this is exactly the attitude the tier "system" fosters.
"Had fun" doesn't mean "were competent".
Well, in Answerer's above statement, he pretty much assumed you would not have fun if you weren't competent at anything.
Thank you, once again, for putting words in my mouth. You are definitely competent at that.

No, this is not what I said, nor was there any implication thereof. As I already stated, my assumption is that when someone asks how to do something well, then they are seeking competence. I don't assume that everyone requires competence to have fun. I do assume that those looking to be better at the game do want or require competence to have fun. This does not strike me as unreasonable.

And Swordsage has two things in common with a Monk - unarmed damage progression and a Wis bonus to AC.
And all the fluff, which is nigh-on identical if you want it to be. They are very much the same archetype of character.

Does unarmed swordsage get the Monk's immunities?
Meaningless.

Does it get all good saves?
Moment of Perfect Mind et al. says it does better.

Does it get a speed bonus? Does it get Flurry of Blows?
Flashing Sun.

Does it get Stunning Fist?
Shadow Noose, Swooping Dragon Strike. Moreover, the concept of "hitting a guy so hard that he gets X condition" describes like half of the Swordsage's maneuvers. Stun comes somewhat later but then the Swordsage can actually use his maneuvers, unlike a Monk whose uses of Stunning Fist are horribly limited.

Does it get Quivering Palm?
Which is useless, but any of the 9th-level maneuvers amount to the same thing. Feral Death Blow for an actual [Death] effect. The as-noted Five Creeping Shadow Ice Evervation Strike for the same fluff.

Does that mean a highly optimized Wizard could be "Tier 0"? The mind boggles....
Tier 0 classes... sort of exist, yes. Well, Tier 0 builds, though Spell-to-Power Erudite or as-written Arcane Swordsage make a strong argument for being Tier 0 simply for being those classes. If you use the somewhat-related Test of Spite Tier List (which ranks builds rather than classes), there's a few Tier -1 and Tier -2 builds IIRC.

There's also a Tier list for Prestige Classes that ranks them with modifiers: i.e. a Tier -1 PrC causes the base class to move up a tier, while a Tier +1 PrC causes the base class to move down a tier. Those are a lot less standardized and agreed-upon, particularly when you consider how different base classes can react differently to the same PrC. But it's pretty well accepted that a Wizard who has taken Incantatrix or Iot7V or Dweormerkeeper has substantially increased his power over the already-ridiculous power of the Wizard class. To say nothing of Beholder Mage, Cancer Mage, Illithid Savant, or Tainted Scholar.

willpell

2012-05-26, 09:03 AM

Because it is far more common for people to want to play something that is good at what the Monk is supposed to be good at, and falls for WotC's lies that the Monk is good at those things, than there are people who know all about how bad the Monk is but want to play it anyway.

The Monk is good at those things, just not good enough for the other character classes or for monsters at close to its CR. A monk is perfectly playable in a campaign that accounts for its failings, gives it enemies of lower CR, and provides more experience per enemy defeated because of the difference. The only problem is that you have to come up with some quantification of exactly how much weaker a Monk X is than an Anything X should be. You might eyeball the difference as being, say, 3 levels, and have a Monk 7 played in an ECL 4 campaign and earning experience as if it were a level 4 character, and it'd be fairly good in that game; it's just extra work to correct for its failings compared to other classes at the same class levels.

Malachei

2012-05-26, 09:15 AM

Thank you, once again, for putting words in my mouth. You are definitely competent at that.

Now, Answerer, this was the first time I actually agreed with you, and you... well. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. :smallbiggrin:

Now let's compare what you've said, and what I've said:

Après vous...

Tier 5 classes are not competent at anything.

This is the part I don't agree with.

My reasoning for this is because they are bad at what they are supposed to be good at. I furthermore reason that someone wanting to play one, really wants to play something good at what the class is supposedly good at. I therefore recommend he plays a class that does so.
(bolded for emphasis)

And in all humility, I repost my comment:

Well, in Answerer's above statement, he pretty much assumed you would not have fun if you weren't competent at anything. I think he's actually right here for once, as it should be extremely hard to find a player having fun playing a character not competent at anything.

But you, Answerer, will probably be willing to explain the huge, meaningful difference in both statements, even though I will fondly remember the short moment when I assumed I was in agreement with you.

willpell

2012-05-26, 09:28 AM

Amphetryon

2012-05-26, 10:35 AM

It is actually extremely easy to enjoy playing a character who's not competent at anything. Roleplaying a bumbling buffoon who constantly blunders his way through situations that he's horribly unprepared for, and only survives through some combination of luck and the pity of those around him who put up with him without quite knowing why, can be a laugh riot or a deep characterization experience where you explore a persona defined by fear and self-delusion. Think of Stanley Tweedle from "Lexx" as a perfect example. He's intermittently got a planet-destroying weapon and seizes every opportunity he can to try and be a big shot with it, but he spends the vast amount of his time making a fool of himself while assuming that he's awesome, and it's tons of fun to watch Kai and Xev having to save his butt over and over (because he's the only one who can drive their ship, though he's not really even especially good at that), all while 790 insults him and advises that they leave him to die or just finish him off themselves to be sure. I could totally see playing a Tier 5 or 6 character with a persona like that; making him good at anything would actively reduce the appeal.
This presumes he survives, which, as you posited, presumes luck and/or pity from the others playing at your table. What is fun to read about is not always fun to play, as literary constructs have the Power of Plot to aid in their survival, whereas a Character in a D&D game has to either rely on his own competence, the luck of the Dice Gawds, or the kindness of his fellow Players/DM. Particularly in a game like D&D, which is predicated at its core on violent hobos killing monsters, taking their stuff, and shopping, the inability to do the first thing on that list will most often (note I do not say "always") lead to either a frustrating experience or a desire to find a different sort of RPG to fit the play experience desired.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-26, 10:40 AM

No, I don't.

Because it is far more common for people to want to play something that is good at what the Monk is supposed to be good at, and falls for WotC's lies that the Monk is good at those things, than there are people who know all about how bad the Monk is but want to play it anyway.
Please explain to me how you know that is "far more common". I linked you to many threads in which namedropping Swordsage was simply unwanted.

I disagree. I think it is; elsewise, I would not offer it. They are welcome to ignore if they wish; if so, then they get a free bump and have no reason to complain.

If those are the only suggestions they get at all, well, then maybe all of those people are on to something. And if they hadn't posted, what would have happened instead? No response at all. Great.

I have no advice for someone who actually wants to play Monk, the class. I can think of no reason for doing so, no compelling advantage that it gets that you might want to work with, etc. etc.
Maybe because you want to play a Monk. Maybe it's for the hell of it. Maybe you want to use Sun School (a very good feat). Maybe you want to try Pharaoh's Fist. There are plenty of reasons for playing a Monk. If you have no advice and want to suggest Swordsage instead, that's fine. But my point is that no one is wrong for wanting to play a Monk, and it looks like you're saying the opposite.

And all the fluff, which is nigh-on identical if you want it to be. They are very much the same archetype of character.
Again, what dou you mean by Monk fluff?

Meaningless.
First of all, you completely missed my point. I'm not saying these abilities are powerful, must-have or anything. I'm just saying they are stuff Monk has, while Swordsage does not have. Those abilities might make someone play a Monk over a Swordsage because they want those abilities. And for some people, wanting to do something or getting the character they want is more important than being powerful.
And immunities are not meaningless at all, specially immunity to poison.

Moment of Perfect Mind et al. says it does better.
It simply doesn't, no. They are limited to once per encounter each, waste your immediate action and Swordsage has a horrendous recoveyr mechanic. Monks are better at staying alive than Sworsage's are. It is known. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foqUPiwMiOM)

Flashing Sun.
I even acknowledged the existence of this... and it's inferior to flurry in any way, ever. It does not improve with levels and it's only once a encounter. There are better maneuvers out there for extra attacks (the Mangoose line, Time Stands Still) but they can even be combined with flurry of blows for greater effect.

Shadow Noose, Swooping Dragon Strike. Moreover, the concept of "hitting a guy so hard that he gets X condition" describes like half of the Swordsage's maneuvers. Stun comes somewhat later but then the Swordsage can actually use his maneuvers, unlike a Monk whose uses of Stunning Fist are horribly limited.
Sorry, but I think you are completely mistaken here. A Swordsage can get more uses out of his maneuvers during the day (more 'encounter endurance', so to speak) but the Monk has a lot more freedom to use Stunning Fist inside an encounter than the Swordsage does. You can use it more than once a single encounter and if you get the right feats, you can hit more than one target per attack and deal crippling after effects.

Which is useless, but any of the 9th-level maneuvers amount to the same thing.
Damage is not a death effect, sorry.

Feral Death Blow for an actual [Death] effect. The as-noted Five Creeping Shadow Ice Evervation Strike for the same fluff.
This is a point I'll concede.
However, you really don't seem to be familiar with Monk at all. It's not a very powerful class, but it does have a few good class features. You keep dismissing them as crap and I don't think you're even evaluating it correctly. It is very possible to build outright devastating Monk builds. It's entiringly possible for a Monk build to outdamage a Swordsage, really. Of course, with Tashalatora around taking actual Monk levels really does become a weaker alternative, unless you really want those immunities.
I don't to make this into even more of a monk thread. My point is simply that people play Monks and have no problem with that. From time to time some of them come to the playground asking which level they should take next level and get told to reroll a Swordsage. That is not helpful at all.

Tier 0 classes... sort of exist, yes. Well, Tier 0 builds, though Spell-to-Power Erudite or as-written Arcane Swordsage make a strong argument for being Tier 0 simply for being those classes.
Nitpick: as written arcane swordsages are unplayable.

willpell

2012-05-26, 11:07 AM

I'm tempted to ask what an Arcane Swordsage is but since I haven't read ToB (and intentionally am not going to for a while) I should probably refrain for now.

Amphetryon

2012-05-26, 11:09 AM

I'm tempted to ask what an Arcane Swordsage is but since I haven't read ToB (and intentionally am not going to for a while) I should probably refrain for now.

Short answer: it's an undeveloped side-note given regarding the potential adaptation of one of the base Classes, with hilariously broken implications in play.

Togo

2012-05-26, 11:20 AM

Part of the root of the Tier system is not just that high-tier characters are extremely good at what they do (level 10 fighter can Cleave through two foes with a sword for Power Attack damage, and still has to use his move action getting to them; level 10 wizard can drop a Widened Fireball that encompasses both those foes plus probably their buddy a couple more squares back and deals 10d6 damage instead of the 1d10+10 or so that the fighter was dealing).

That damage seems awfully low for a level 10 fighter, even an unoptimised sword-and-board build. And why doesn't he just shoot them?

And you're comparing that to one of the wizard's few 5th level spells of the day, that require favourable conditions?

Togo

2012-05-26, 12:38 PM

I concluded that navar was arguing that tiers are never useful and never manifest themselves in a game, and argued that tiers sometimes manifest themselves in a game.

Yes, you later agreed that this wasn't his position, but continued to reject my posts on the basis that they didn't address the idea that Tiers are never useful.

You concluded that I was arguing that tiers always manifest themselves or make themselves important in every game, and argued (on navar's behalf) that tiers sometimes don't manifest themselves in a game.

No, I didn't. I posted the opposite in my posts. E.g.:

Furthermore, by doing so, you're ignoring the content of navar's position, and what has actually been said by a thread full of people acknowledging the existance of Tiers but rejecting their overwheening importance.

There you go. We actually agree on most of this issue. We agree on the existance of the Tier problem and on some of the steps you can take to mitigate them.

Our arguments, in truth, are compatible. Moreover, they never weren't; only our understandings of them were.

I understood you just fine, which is why I kept on saying we agreed with eachother. I got some of the shading wrong, and we discussed that in a civil and understanding fashion.

I just object to the fact that you kept on dismissing my posts by saying they don't support positions that I haven't taken. I'm not the only person who's made this complaint. I suspect it's because you're working on a tiny phone screen and have to try and work out what people said from memory, but that's just a guess really.

It's not a huge issue, I just couldn't see any way to shake you of your misaprehension other than to make of point of it. Simply writing about it didn't seem to help.

... and don't actually have any disagreement or quarrel, can we stop this?

Stop what? Every time you put up a post claiming I hold a position that I don't hold, I'm going to object. What else can I do?

Also, I post most of these monstrosities from a phone, so this is kind of too time-intensive on my part to really be going in circles...

That's probably the root of the problem. You seem reasonable enough

See, this I get. Tiers are a tool to optimize fun, and to understand how to get the most fun out of your options; it is not a tool to limit your options. :smallbiggrin:

Precisely, which is why everyone agrees that it is useful. It's when you start getting into absolutist statements about what must be true on table and in games that we've never seen, that we start loosing a handle on Tiers as tool, and starting using it as a stick to beat people with. I don't think you go there, but the sentiment is certainly out there.

Togo

2012-05-26, 12:46 PM

Amphetryon

2012-05-26, 12:53 PM

Just as a thought, is part of the problem stat inflation?

It strikes me that many of the balance issues we see, versality of primary spellcasters, power of save or die/save or suck spells, lack of a clear gap between the skill points availalbe to skilled characters as opposed to high int characters, and even the hit point difference, are all symptoms of a system design that assumes far lower stats that are played with in practice.

If you have bad stat rolls, so low con, a primary stat of 15 or so, and int as a low or dump stat, then the skill points and hp dice become more of a factor, all save DCs become lower, and a primary caster has fewer spells, and particularly fewer higher level spells.

Would the tiers be close together on a table where stats were lower, such as in games that use something closer to the elite array, rather than 32 point build. Thoughts?

I've played in 22 point games, and in a game with the default array; in both cases the disparity between Tier 1 (a Wizard, a Cleric, and a Druid, though not all in the same game) and Tier 4/5 (Rogue, Ranger, and Fighter) was greater than what I saw in 32 point/higher stat generation games. Fighters et al wanted good STR, DEX, CON, INT, and WIS in order to do most of the things the players generally valued, leading to either lower CON than they probably needed or entirely avoiding useful Feats and Skills reliant on STR, DEX, INT, or WIS (varied by build and Class) while the Tier 1s were fine with a 15 in their primary stat and a 14 in CON.

Answerer

2012-05-26, 12:53 PM

No, because no matter what you do, the Wizard will be able to have his highest stat in Int, and you get the same problem. The Fighter still needs to max Str and Con, and can't afford to outright dump Dex, Int, or Wis. You'll have lower DCs, but also lower HP, lower saves, and most importantly, lower attack and damage modifiers.

Doug Lampert

2012-05-26, 01:22 PM

Just as a thought, is part of the problem stat inflation?

It strikes me that many of the balance issues we see, versality of primary spellcasters, power of save or die/save or suck spells, lack of a clear gap between the skill points availalbe to skilled characters as opposed to high int characters, and even the hit point difference, are all symptoms of a system design that assumes far lower stats that are played with in practice.

If you have bad stat rolls, so low con, a primary stat of 15 or so, and int as a low or dump stat, then the skill points and hp dice become more of a factor, all save DCs become lower, and a primary caster has fewer spells, and particularly fewer higher level spells.

As others have pointed out, the caster needs ONE ability to boost all his save DCs, the non-caster needs three abilities to improve his saves.

Go the other way. All abilities are 18 helps the non-casters, and hardly helps the casters at all. The monk actually gets a decent AC, the fighter can take any feats he likes, everyone's saves are much higher while the DCs stay the same, AC is much more likely to be a viable option, ext....

The "worst case" for the mundane classes is at about a 22 point point buy or less. At 22 a wizard gets 18 Int and 14 Con and barely notices the reduced point buy. The fighter? 16 Str, 14 Dex, 14 Con, 8 Int, 8 Wis, 8 Cha. He can't take half the melee feets in the game, abilities are too low, his poor skills are crippled, his will save is abysal.

DougL

Fyermind

2012-05-26, 02:13 PM

Tiers give a rough gauge of how careful a player needs to be relative to his team mates in making them feel useful. This might involve pulling punches in the build, or playing Dumbledore (a powerful character who generally is unhelpful and let's people make their own decisions and win their own battles), or for lower tier characters going all out in the build and grabbing every challenge that you think you can handle.

Tiers effect play when two players are not actively sensitive of the other's enjoyment (such as when a player doesn't talk about how much fun they are or aren't having) and are of different tiers.

As stated in PHB2 there is a spotlight on who the adventure is currently focussed on. If more than one character tries to be in the spotlight at once, it will more likely gravitate to the higher tier character. Very low tier characters may find themselves unable to take the spotlight even when it is left for them. This is a non issue when the issue does not involve rules (most conversations and NPC interactions not involving killing in my games).

Tiers have effect in versatility and raw power (also RAW power), and DMs should generally know the tier and OP of party they are attempting to challenge as well as the level. I have less experience with tiers from a DMs perspective, but feel the above is most accurate for the effects and when's of tiers from the players side of the screen.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-26, 04:11 PM

Spoilers for Togo! Per request, I'll move this to a PM instead, but I feel this is nothing that is made better by privacy.

No, I didn't. I posted the opposite in my posts. E.g.:

:smallannoyed:

OK. Let's go back over your last post, then:

Since noone is, or has ever in this entire thread, argued against the existance of the Tier system, or even made a point about the existance or non-existance of anything else, this is an irrelevence.

I never said that anybody said tiers don't exist. This is a misrepresentation of my opinion.

The point is still the same. Tables where Tier problems don't crop up do exist.

I also never said they didn't. It was never a part of my argument.

Ok, so you're agreeing with what I said. Depending on the game, Tier-related problems may not crop up at all.

I also never disagreed with this fact.

Furthermore, you actually agree with my position - that Tier-related problems may not come up in a particular game.

Again, I never disagreed with this.

Sorry, let's just be clear here. When you say 'taken at face value', you're referring to this idea that navar was somehow claiming that tiers didn't exist at all.

Wrong again! I was referring to this idea that navar was claiming they weren't at all useful. Something can exist, and not serve a useful function. I thought this was his opinion. Navar's "let me restate" convinced me otherwise, and no sooner.

Noone on this thread is of the opinion that Tiers don't exist.

Nor was I ever claiming the contrary.

I appreciate that you don't have malicious intent, but you've systematically gone through my entire post attempting to rebutt what I say on the basis that it doesn't support the idea that Tiers don't exist, a position that noone on this thread has ever argued for.

And I have not argued against.

As far as I can tell you actually agree with my position, and you're just arguing against me because I'm not treating the Tier system as the universal tool you feel it should be. Is this broadly accurate? Do you feel the Tier system is a fundamental checkpoint for all games, and if so, could you say why?

And here we get to the crux of the matter: you have built this post, and others, on the false assumption that I think tiers are a universal tool (all games, not some), that I am upset that people out there don't use it, and that I think it is a fundamental thing for every player in every game to know.

To answer your question: this is not broadly accurate. It also never was.

You say I have been talking past you this whole time. I disagree, at least on some level. When I say that "if this happens in 1 in 3 tables, or even 1 in 300, my argument remains no less true", it addresses your point: I don't disagree and never claimed to, but your argument does nothing to diminish the validity of mine.

I just object to the fact that you kept on dismissing my posts by saying they don't support positions that I haven't taken.

I don't dismiss them because they don't support positions you haven't taken; if I dismiss them at all, it's because they oppose positions I haven't taken. To set up a defense against them would be stupid, not only because I would be arguing a position I don't and never did hold, but because it would be lending credence to the false claim that I hold that position.

Let me restate, for clarity's sake: I never opposed the idea that, in some games, power imbalances never become a problem. I never said tiers were absolute, and that every game should know them out of necessity. I never said that anyone here made the claim that tiers don't exist, period. I only said that tiers ARE useful in some games, whether or not the players are aware of the tier system, because the tiers aren't a thing that exist to create this phenomenon of class imbalance; the tiers exist to explain, and possibly correct, a class imbalance that was already happening.

I'm not the only person who's made this complaint.

If you're talking about Thiago, maybe you should read our posts again: the misunderstanding was borne from the fact that I began quoting Talya halfway through (and the post was tagged to Talya), but he responded to the whole post, thinking my response was addressed to him from top to bottom. When I pointed it out, he realized his mistake.

Stop what? Every time you put up a post claiming I hold a position that I don't hold, I'm going to object. What else can I do?

If I held this position as well, we'd be stuck in infinite loop mode, talking past each other for eternity, because you have done no less.

We have both been working off misunderstandings about what was said. But at least I'm copping to it.

Precisely, which is why everyone agrees that it is useful. It's when you start getting into absolutist statements about what must be true on table and in games that we've never seen, that we start loosing a handle on Tiers as tool, and starting using it as a stick to beat people with. I don't think you go there, but the sentiment is certainly out there.

:smallannoyed:

See, I've stated in a previous post that nothing in my argument was absolutist (except the claim that I was arguing against, and that claim was erroneous), and that your thinking that my claims are meant to represent an absolute are themselves false, and yet you never correct.

It seems hardly fair that I have to defend against the claim that I am talking past you, when you're talking past me in order to repeat it.

If you think any of this is wrong, state for me, in no uncertain terms, what you believe my position to be. I suspect that you will either present a position that is wildly inaccurate, but consistent with what you have been arguing against this whole time, or a position that is accurate, but wildly inconsistent with that which you have been arguing against. Until or unless you prove me wrong, then you, sir, have been misrepresenting me, in what I have accepted is a mutual misunderstanding (but you haven't).

I have no reason to argue against a position I don't disagree with. Now that I am certain my disagreement was a misunderstanding, I wish to get off this ride. Will you allow me to?

navar100

2012-05-26, 05:26 PM

{Scrubbed}

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-26, 05:58 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I'm sorry for not bluetexting all of the sarcasm.

Gavinfoxx

2012-05-26, 06:04 PM

The Tier 3 Monk!

Be a Human Monk of Ilmater (a Forgotten Realms Deity with the Unarmed Strike as his favored weapon), who focuses on Unarmed Attacks and Wild Shape.

Use Wild Monk in Dragon Magazine #324.

Use Raging Monk, from Dragon Magazine #310. (Get permission for Wild Monk and Raging Monk to combine, they normally don't, but the issues are fairly minor)

Trade Rage for Whirling Frenzy from the SRD, it is a barbarian ACF.

Use Sacred Strike from Dragon Magazine 346. Choose Ilmater, and Fight with Unarmed Strike. Get permission from the DM for it to work on Natural Attacks as well.

Use the lvl3 Monk Substitution level from Champions of Valor. (Note how that particular substitution does not specifically say it replaces Still Mind, which you already traded out, unlike some other stuff in that book -- it is just a substitution level.)

Use Invisible Fist option from Exemplars of Evil.

Use Resistant Body from Planar Handbook. Choose something that lots of monsters use, like Fire.

Consider trading Resist Nature's Lure with some things taken from the Planar Druid substitution level in Planar Handbook, or the Iron Constitution option in the Cityscape Web Enhancement.

Make sure to pick up the Extra Rage feat from Complete Warrior, for more Whirling Frenzies! Maybe even Extra Smiting from Complete Warrior for more Sacred Strikes.

Make sure to pick up some of the Wild Shape improving feats, like Dragon Wild Shape (Draconomicon), Exalted Wild Shape (Book of Exalted Deeds), Frozen Wild Shape (Frostburn), or even Assume Supernatural Ability (Savage Species), and Multiattack (SRD/Monster Manual).

For the times where you don't have Pounce or lots of attacks on a standard action (cough Cryohydra) via Wild Shape, you might want to consider the Lion Tribe Warrior feat from the book Shining South. This lets you do a full attack after a charge with one of your weapons -- perhaps Unarmed Strike or Claw or Bite? It depends what form you will be in where you don't have Pounce...

BlueEyes

2012-05-26, 07:04 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Having balance is more fun than not having balance.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Firstly, I'd like to ask you to stop with these type of comments. We aren't a cult and insinuating such, even as sarcasm, is simply insulting.
Secondly, that's not what he's saying. Don't strawman his posts.

sonofzeal

2012-05-26, 07:50 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}
Rather: your character is likely to be disadvantaged if you play T5.

That's not a value statement. If, for some reason, you don't mind your character being largely incompetent, then T5 is fine. And if you optimize way harder than your peers, you can compensate for that somewhat. I like to think of it almost like difficulty settings - once you know the system well, T1/T2 is "Easy Mode", T3 is "Normal", T4/T6 is "Hard Mode", and T6 is "Impossible Mode".

If you've ever played a computer game on a harder difficulty setting than was required, that should make sense to you. People who play low-Tier aren't having badwrongfun. But, if they don't realize they're playing low-Tier and what that implies, they may find it frustrating and not understand why. And since most average players don't have encyclopedic knowledge of the relative merits of every class ever printed, a centralized listing is useful, especially since JaronK took a lot of feedback when he created it, and a number of specific rankings were adjusted as various arguments were made. It's still not perfect, but it's usually pretty darn close. And that makes it a useful tool when dealing with classes you aren't intimately familiar with.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-26, 10:11 PM

Answerer

2012-05-26, 10:16 PM

Do you know the relevance of anecdotes?

sonofzeal

2012-05-26, 10:46 PM

Do you know the relevance of anecdotes?
You know, as much as I agree with your central point, the categorical denial of anything anecdotal is getting annoying

Everything is an anecdote. The sum total of all gaming experiences on the planet are just a series of anecdotes. If we discard anecdotes as irrelevant, we discard the only part of the discussion that has real meaning. If the Tier System isn't describing people's actual experiences in the game, then what is it describing?

Rather than just dismissing any actual examples out of hand, let's pry a little deeper. Was the Monk player more experienced or more skilled at optimization? Were the other characters disadvantaged in some way? Did the DM set things up to help favour the Monk?

Monks are legitimately good at moving around. They never have to worry about ACP, they've got a good skill list covered with acrobatics, stealth, and perception. And they've got class features that make it easier to get around, notably Fast Movement which also gives a subtantial bonus on jump checks. If the ability to be stealthy and acrobatic was of high value that session, and it sounds like it was, then the Monk would have performed well. It also sounds like the Monk was being creative and tactical in combat by using their acrobatics to stack situational modifiers, which can also help significantly.

The lesson is not that anecdotes are worthless, it's that even though a Monk is low-Tier, they still have things they do well and can occasionally be effective and productive members of the team in the right circumstances and if played well. An Unarmed Swordsage or Tashalatora PsiWar probably would have done even better, but favourable circumstances and smart play can make almost any class shine from time to time.

In short, the gap between Tiers is not huge, nor do Tiers tell the whole story. I think that's a valuable lesson, even if I do think the Tier listing is generally useful.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-26, 11:00 PM

You know, as much as I agree with your central point, the categorical denial of anything anecdotal is getting annoying

Everything is an anecdote. The sum total of all gaming experiences on the planet are just a series of anecdotes. If we discard anecdotes as irrelevant, we discard the only part of the discussion that has real meaning. If the Tier System isn't describing people's actual experiences in the game, then what is it describing?
I was just about to write exactly that. I guess great minds think alike. :smallwink:

Rather than just dismissing any actual examples out of hand, let's pry a little deeper. Was the Monk player more experienced or more skilled at optimization? Were the other characters disadvantaged in some way? Did the DM set things up to help favour the Monk?
She was the elast experienced character at the table, but her boyfriend and I helped her build her character. When it came to me, my help was probably nto very helpful, actually - she had yet to choose feats and I really wanted to start playing, so I just told her to take Dodge, Power Attack, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization on unarmed strike (Martial Artist Monk counts as a Fighter of his level when it comes to unarmed strike (or monk weapon) feats).

Monks are legitimately good at moving around. They never have to worry about ACP, they've got a good skill list covered with acrobatics, stealth, and perception. And they've got class features that make it easier to get around, notably Fast Movement which also gives a subtantial bonus on jump checks. If the ability to be stealthy and acrobatic was of high value that session, and it sounds like it was, then the Monk would have performed well. It also sounds like the Monk was being creative and tactical in combat by using their acrobatics to stack situational modifiers, which can also help significantly.
She just darted around whenever someone asked "hey, help me flank!". But yeah, I guess an outdoor encounter with lots of enemies (including some that force Reflex saves) really plays to the Monk's strenghts.

The lesson is not that anecdotes are worthless, it's that even though a Monk is low-Tier, they still have things they do well and can occasionally be effective and productive members of the team in the right circumstances and if played well. An Unarmed Swordsage or Tashalatora PsiWar probably would have done even better, but favourable circumstances and smart play can make almost any class shine from time to time.
I'm sure they would have done way better. The Magus had a few problems basically because he needs to roll a lot of d20s... and casting defensively is a bitch in Pathfinder.

In short, the gap between Tiers is not huge, nor do Tiers tell the whole story. I think that's a valuable lesson, even if I do think the Tier listing is generally useful.
Yeah, the tiers are generally useful.

Answerer

2012-05-26, 11:44 PM

You know, as much as I agree with your central point, the categorical denial of anything anecdotal is getting annoying
Honestly, you've misunderstood what I'm categorically denying, but that's OK.

Yes, everything is anecdotal, but any one anecdote is not really adding anything to the conversation. Do you want me to bust out stories of a druid's wolf completely overshadowing two fighters and a ranger? Seen that happen; the fighters and ranger were new (and the ranger was a Drow at ECL 3), and the Wolf's trip ability was better than anything they had. New though they were, it took all of three combats for them to realize that the wolf was doing more than they were, and that wasn't even counting what the druid was doing. The Drow player, in particular, seemed to regret his choices.

Does that have any relevance in this discussion? I didn't think so, and I didn't bring it up. I apply that same standard to Thiago's anecdote.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-27, 12:28 AM

Yes, everything is anecdotal, but any one anecdote is not really adding anything to the conversation.
I think you are the one who misunderstood what sonofzeal said, actually. If you keep denying all anecdotes because 'any one anecdote is not really adding anything to the conversation', we end up with no anecdotal evidence at all. Without anecdotal evidence, the tier system can't exist. Without the tier system, there is no discussion.

Does that have any relevance in this discussion? I didn't think so, and I didn't bring it up. I apply that same standard to Thiago's anecdote.
Of course it does. That's how the tier system was built.

LordBlades

2012-05-27, 12:42 AM

And Swordsage has two things in common with a Monk - unarmed damage progression and a Wis bonus to AC. That's it.

The way I see it, at the core the Monk aims to be an unarmed, unarmored warrior with high mobility. Swordsage does all of that better.

Does unarmed swordsage get the Monk's immunities? Does it get all good saves? Does it get a speed bonus? Does it get Flurry of Blows? Does it get Stunning Fist? Does it get Quivering Palm? No, it doesn't. I'll give you Swordsage has a few maneuver debuffs (though that comes nowhere close to what optimized Stunning Fist can do. Have you seen how many feats are related to this? It can get quite good.) or extra attacks (not as reliable as flurry of blows, since Swordsage has such a sucky recovery method) and FIVE SHADOW CREEPING ICE ENERVATION STRIKE which is basically Quivering Palm in bankai form, but it's still not Quivering Palm (even though I love 5SCIES, I think it's even worse than Quivering Palm, since the effect is random).

Now you're suggesting that somebody might want to play a Monk due to specific class features, which, as I said in my post is one (but not the only) interpretations of 'I want to play a Monk'.

First of all, many of those are either situational (like immunity to being aged magically) or can be reasonably replicated with an unarmed swrodsage: Snap Kick(and various other extra attack boosts/strikes) replicate Flurry of Blows, teleporting maneuvers are more useful than fast movement, rolling a Concetration check instead of a save is 9/10 cases at least as effective as all good saves (and swordsage also has 2 good saves), Stunning Fist is a feat that anyone can take (that monk has an easier task getting and using, I give you that), and while 5SCIES may be worse than quivering palm, you can use it about 30 times more often (at 4 encounters./day, you get 28 encounters/week).

Secondly, most of what you listed can be traded away. Is a Monk that trades Flurry of Blows of Decisive Strike, selects Imp. Grapple instead of Stunning Fist, drops Fast Movement and AC Bonus for Durable, and loses Still Mind for one of the various things you can get instead not a Monk?

an you see my point? Yeah, Monk is tier 5. Big deal.

It sometimes is a big deal, especially when there's some much higher tiers in the party.

It still has it's strenghts, it's specific tricks, it's good class features. People may actually want to play a Monk.

And those people might actually expect to get what it says on the tin, aka the Monk being good at what the fluff hints it's good at. Playing a monk while being aware of how good it actually is is all right, playing a monk and expecting it to be a good unarmed combatant or skirmisher usually leads to disappointment.

I don't know, wouldn't it be safer and more polite to consider that when someone says "I want to play a Monk" they actually want to play a Monk, for whatever reason? :smallconfused:

Usually, when somebody comes asking for optimization advice, is because they want to have their character do things better. And usually the best way of doing most of the thing a Monk does better is picking another class.

sonofzeal

2012-05-27, 12:46 AM

Honestly, you've misunderstood what I'm categorically denying, but that's OK.

Yes, everything is anecdotal, but any one anecdote is not really adding anything to the conversation. Do you want me to bust out stories of a druid's wolf completely overshadowing two fighters and a ranger? Seen that happen; the fighters and ranger were new (and the ranger was a Drow at ECL 3), and the Wolf's trip ability was better than anything they had. New though they were, it took all of three combats for them to realize that the wolf was doing more than they were, and that wasn't even counting what the druid was doing. The Drow player, in particular, seemed to regret his choices.

Does that have any relevance in this discussion? I didn't think so, and I didn't bring it up. I apply that same standard to Thiago's anecdote.
You'll noticed that I looked through that particular anecdote and found a few useful aspects of it. It serves to illustrate some oft-neglected points in this discussion. Your anecdote didn't, and you were wise not to share it.

Not all anecdotes are the same. Post it if it illustrates some point you're trying to make, or refrain if it's superfluous. But don't just categorically strike all anecdotes from the discussion, or you've lost track of the real world and the very games we're supposedly discussing.

Togo

2012-05-27, 06:50 AM

I moved the entire discussion with Tylenol into spoilers.

You concluded that I was arguing that tiers always manifest themselves or make themselves important in every game,

No, I didn't. I posted the opposite in my posts.

OK. Let's go back over your last post, then:

So here we go back over my post - remember we're looking for signs that I've drawn a false conclusion about you...

I don't know if "YMMV" is a valid counterargument to a "there exists" statement,

Since noone is, or has ever in this entire thread, argued against the existance of the Tier system, or even made a point about the existance or non-existance of anything else, this is an irrelevence.

I never said that anybody said tiers don't exist. This is a misrepresentation of my opinion.

If you read the actual exchange, you'll notice that I didn't talk about your opinion at all. You said that what I said wasn't a valid arguement because it didn't counter a 'there exists' statement. I said that wasn't relevent, because noone (noone includes you!) has made a point about the existance or otherwise of Tiers.

Unless the 'there exists' statement was a reference to something else, other than Tiers?

The point is still the same. Tables where Tier problems don't crop up do exist.

I also never said they didn't. It was never a part of my argument.

Haven't claimed it was. Just repeating my earlier point, since your reply hadn't seemed to address it, and you seemed to be talking past me.

Ok, so you're agreeing with what I said. Depending on the game, Tier-related problems may not crop up at all.

I also never disagreed with this fact.

So what? You claimed that I held false beliefs about your position. This post was quoted to show that I was writing the exact opposite of what you still claim I believed. It still shows that.

I was. The negation of "all are X" is "there exists a ~X". Navar's rejection of Answerer's statement (taken at face value) equates to "all allusions to tier imbalance are theoretical/don't happen in games", to which my rebuttal was...

Sorry, let's just be clear here. When you say 'taken at face value', you're referring to this idea that navar was somehow claiming that tiers didn't exist at all.

Wrong again! I was referring to this idea that navar was claiming they weren't at all useful. Something can exist, and not serve a useful function. I thought this was his opinion. Navar's "let me restate" convinced me otherwise, and no sooner.

Ok, so you were talking, not about the existance of tiers, but about the existance of practical applications for the understanding of Tiers. Why does this distinction matter? It still doesn't refer to a position that anyone holds. What's the point you're trying to make here?

I appreciate that you don't have malicious intent, but you've systematically gone through my entire post attempting to rebutt what I say on the basis that it doesn't support the idea that Tiers don't exist, a position that noone on this thread has ever argued for.

And I have not argued against.

Great. So if none of us are arguing this point, or the closely related point as to whether applications of Tier theory exist in practice, why are you referring to it as a response to my post?

As far as I can tell you actually agree with my position, and you're just arguing against me because I'm not treating the Tier system as the universal tool you feel it should be. Is this broadly accurate? Do you feel the Tier system is a fundamental checkpoint for all games, and if so, could you say why?

And here we get to the crux of the matter: you have built this post, and others, on the false assumption that I think tiers are a universal tool (all games, not some), that I am upset that people out there don't use it, and that I think it is a fundamental thing for every player in every game to know.

Rubbish. Read the post again.

I start off by saying that we agree. Since I believe that tiers are sometimes useful, and sometimes not, this can only mean that I'm claiming you believe Tiers are sometimes useful and sometimes not.

From there I make a wild stab in the dark as to why there is still some disagreement, by trying to guess what the actual point of contention is. The guess is marked with 'as far as I can tell' and I immediately ask you to confirm or deny.

I don't know where you get the idea that it's an assumption, or that anything else I wrote was based on it.

Now I can see how you might get confused by the phrase 'universal tool'. I'm shooting for the idea of a universally respected and understood tool, rather than one that is used at each table. You seemed annoyed that people were downplaying the usefulness of something you thought was valuable.

You say I have been talking past you this whole time. I disagree, at least on some level. When I say that "if this happens in 1 in 3 tables, or even 1 in 300, my argument remains no less true", it addresses your point: I don't disagree and never claimed to, but your argument does nothing to diminish the validity of mine.

Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. A statement quotes mine, doesn't disagree with mine, and then goes off to affirm it's own idea which mine doesn't touch, is doing nothing to address my point. It's pretty much the definition of talking past someone.

I quoted the post to show that, contrary to what you had claimed, I wasn't assuming that you held a position you didn't hold. I had written the exact opposite. You 'go through the post' but do nothing to refute what I said - that I had written several times the opposite of what you are still claiming I believed.

I just object to the fact that you kept on dismissing my posts by saying they don't support positions that I haven't taken.

I don't dismiss them because they don't support positions you haven't taken; if I dismiss them at all, it's because they oppose positions I haven't taken.

This is a distinction without a difference. You're still dismissing the arguement based on the fact that it's not aligned with position/opposition pair that noone in fact holds.

lending credence to the false claim that I hold that position.

The claim that I never made, and that is incompatible with what I actually wrote. That claim?

Stop what? Every time you put up a post claiming I hold a position that I don't hold, I'm going to object. What else can I do?

If I held this position as well, we'd be stuck in infinite loop mode, talking past each other for eternity, because you have done no less.

We have both been working off misunderstandings about what was said. But at least I'm copping to it.

Dude, you're the one disagreeing with me about my own beliefs and positions. I'm not doing the same to you. I'm not going over your posts and quoting them back to you trying to make out that your position is or was something different from what you say it is. The only 'loop' we have going here is where you decide I mean something I didn't, and then apparently ignore both past and present posts that say otherwise.

AS long as you keep attributing beliefs to me that I don't in fact hold, I'm going to keep on objecting. What else can I do?

Would it help if I pointed out that misunderstandings are common currency on a message forum like this one, and that arguing about who misunderstood whom is largely irrelevent, since it's inevitable that they will occur, even if we're all very careful?

The only other way I can usefully put an end to this is to accept your rather generous offer (and yes, it was a generous and well-meant offer) to conclude that we both did the same thing. That would be the fair and equitable. I'm not willing to do that, because I don't want to lie. Awkward, but there you go. That doesn't make me the better man, or you the worse one. It's just that this particular thing you want me to say I've done isn't in fact something I have done on this occasion.

Precisely, which is why everyone agrees that it is useful. It's when you start getting into absolutist statements about what must be true on table and in games that we've never seen, that we start loosing a handle on Tiers as tool, and starting using it as a stick to beat people with. I don't think you go there, but the sentiment is certainly out there.
:smallannoyed:

See, I've stated in a previous post that nothing in my argument was absolutist

Yes, and I agree with you.

Maybe this would be clearer?

Precisely, which is why everyone agrees that it is useful. It's when one starts getting into absolutist statements about what must be true on table and in games that we've never seen, that we start loosing a handle on Tiers as tool, and starting using it as a stick to beat people with. I don't think you go there, but the sentiment is certainly out there.

But that's awfully formal for a message board, so I used 'you' instead.

I'm happy to state that any implication that you personally make absolutist statements was entirely unintended. I should have phrased things better.

If you think any of this is wrong, state for me, in no uncertain terms, what you believe my position to be.

The same as mine. I've stated that on almost every post, and you keep on ignoring it. You believe that Tiers are a useful tool that many, but not all, tables would benefit from.

I suspect that you will either present a position that is wildly inaccurate, but consistent with what you have been arguing against this whole time, or a position that is accurate, but wildly inconsistent with that which you have been arguing against.

In other words, you've misinterpreted my position, and feel that this is my fault. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm not really interested. This is a message board, and these kind of misunderstandings are commonplace. I just want you stop attributing beliefs to me that I don't hold.

Until or unless you prove me wrong, then you, sir, have been misrepresenting me, in what I have accepted is a mutual misunderstanding (but you haven't).

No, the burden of proof is still yours, I'm afraid. You're still making statements about me, I'm not making statements about you.

Now that I am certain my disagreement was a misunderstanding, I wish to get off this ride. Will you allow me to?

If you want to 'get off the ride', why are you attributing false beliefs to me as the price for your departure?

I don't care about fault, blame, or a close textual analysis of the last three pages of posts. I just want you to stop saying things about me that aren't true.

Togo

2012-05-27, 07:20 AM

As others have pointed out, the caster needs ONE ability to boost all his save DCs, the non-caster needs three abilities to improve his saves.

Sure, but it's not about improving saves, since the PCs fight monsters, not eachother, and even monsters with class leves are supposed to use standard or elite array, not point buy.

Go the other way. All abilities are 18 helps the non-casters, and hardly helps the casters at all. The monk actually gets a decent AC, the fighter can take any feats he likes, everyone's saves are much higher while the DCs stay the same, AC is much more likely to be a viable option, ext....

Sure, but very few games end up with all 18s. Most point buy systems (the ones in the book) allow for one very high stat, which for a character that depends on a single stat, is optimum. Compare what happens when you just roll 3d6 for stats, which used to be (before 3.X) a standard approach. Characters don't get a single high stat, but a bunch of mediocre stats, which benefits the lower tiers more.

And of course, it's not just about the primary casters, but the entire Tier system. One of the most often repeated problems with monks is that they're MAD (dependent on many different stats). Certainly if the monk had everything coming off one stat, then I'd raise them a tier.

It's just that reasonable point buy benefits characters who only need one stat, above those who need a bunch of ok stats, because that's a rarer outcome when rolling.

Togo

2012-05-27, 07:40 AM

The way I see it, at the core the Monk aims to be an unarmed, unarmored warrior with high mobility. Swordsage does all of that better.

He's a rogue with fewer skill tricks and more combat and athletics tricks. Play him as a melee specialist and you'll be disappointed, yeah.

The point of a monk is that you're fast, highly mobile, and insert yourself into situations to mess up the enemy battle plan. You block off the mooks, gank the archer or wizard, stun the heavy hitter, and if you can get into full attack range with a low AC target, you can do a lot of damage. He's a harassment fighter. That's why he has reasonably high AC, high saves, lots of immunities, and access to a golf bag of exotic weapons.

Sure he's low Tier for a reason. He needs too many high stats, two-weapon fighting has its disadvantages, some of his powers (like feats) simply aren't that great.

But he fits the same slot as the rogue, and has the same problem as the rogue - he needs the party to support him in combat as part of an overall strategy, or else he just gets flattened. Play him as a just a barbarian who didn't bring his sword and armour, and of course you're going to get into trouble.

Amphetryon

2012-05-27, 08:16 AM

He's a rogue with fewer skill tricks and more combat and athletics tricks. Play him as a melee specialist and you'll be disappointed, yeah.

The point of a monk is that you're fast, highly mobile, and insert yourself into situations to mess up the enemy battle plan. You block off the mooks, gank the archer or wizard, stun the heavy hitter, and if you can get into full attack range with a low AC target, you can do a lot of damage. He's a harassment fighter. That's why he has reasonably high AC, high saves, lots of immunities, and access to a golf bag of exotic weapons.

Sure he's low Tier for a reason. He needs too many high stats, two-weapon fighting has its disadvantages, some of his powers (like feats) simply aren't that great.

But he fits the same slot as the rogue, and has the same problem as the rogue - he needs the party to support him in combat as part of an overall strategy, or else he just gets flattened. Play him as a just a barbarian who didn't bring his sword and armour, and of course you're going to get into trouble.
I've never seen a Monk play in the way that you describe (harassment fighter), where a Swordsage would not be a better fit in games where both were available. If you play a Monk in the way you just described the Swordsage's role (melee specialist), he'll have a harder time at it than the Swordsage will.

LordBlades

2012-05-27, 08:43 AM

He's a rogue with fewer skill tricks and more combat and athletics tricks. Play him as a melee specialist and you'll be disappointed, yeah.

Except the monk can't trapfind, can't do social skills and usually doesn't have too much of an int score. I can't really see a Monk 'competing' for the rogue's place in a party.

highly mobile
No flight, no teleportation, no way to bypass difficult terrain, the Monk's mobility is largely dependent on being on a flat plane with opponents sitting on the ground.

gank the retarded wizard
Ftfy, any wizard played with even half his Int score and you won't be able to get anywhere near him.

stun the heavy hitter
Good fort saves are half HD+2+Con, your Stunning Fist DC is 10+half HD+Wis. Given the fact that most heavy hitters have usually more HD than you, and more Con than you have Wisdom, they have over 50% chance to pass your save, and you need to hit them first.

he has reasonably high AC

Between needing Str, Con, Dex and Wis, only way you're gonna get a reasonable AC is if you dump attack bonus and/or damage.

Marlowe

2012-05-27, 08:46 AM

Sure, but very few games end up with all 18s. Most point buy systems (the ones in the book) allow for one very high stat, which for a character that depends on a single stat, is optimum. Compare what happens when you just roll 3d6 for stats, which used to be (before 3.X) a standard approach. Characters don't get a single high stat, but a bunch of mediocre stats, which benefits the lower tiers more.

It's just that reasonable point buy benefits characters who only need one stat, above those who need a bunch of ok stats, because that's a rarer outcome when rolling.

My own experience is completely the reverse of this. I've seen a lot more randomly-rolled arrays with one (or two) very high stats than point-buy arrays. I've also seen a single bad roll completely destroy an arrays viability for MAD classes many times. I would say that SAD classes are actually helped by the randomness inherent in rolling. At least they're not handicapped as much as the MAD classes can be.

Not to mention point-buy would never have produced this monstrosity. (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=403369)

sonofzeal

2012-05-27, 09:35 AM

Not to mention point-buy would never have produced this monstrosity. (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=403369)
Heh. I once rolled a character (4d6b3) whose not only had multiple 18's, his lowest stat was a 16. It was kind of terrifying actually.

navar100

2012-05-27, 10:28 AM

LordBlades

2012-05-27, 10:57 AM

It is irrelevant if a swordsage would be "better". If a player is playing a monk and having fun with it, why should it bother you? If a player asks for advice on how to improve playing said monk, why should it bother you?

Maybe he doesn't know the monk doesn't perform as advertised? Also, usually people asking for mechanical advice do so because they're not satisfied with their char's current perfirmance. Nobody (sane) comes with simething like 'I'm utterly destroying rvery encounter, help me get stronger'

Amphetryon

2012-05-27, 11:01 AM

It is irrelevant if a swordsage would be "better". If a player is playing a monk and having fun with it, why should it bother you? If a player asks for advice on how to improve playing said monk, why should it bother you?
Who said anything about bothering? If a player asks for advice on how to improve a monk, finding out if swordsage is available and has been considered is viable advice, as it is a generally (I didn't say "unanimously") agreed-upon improvement of the monk archetype. If the player SPECIFIES that when they say "monk" they really mean the monk CLASS and not the monk ARCHETYPE, that's one thing, but most who want improvement on the monk aren't making that specification immediately clear, and again, the swordsage is an improvement on the ARCHETYPE, so "have you considered a swordsage?" is viable. It's no certainly no less viable than "is Tashalatora available to you", as that's another "improvement" for the monk that's not *technically* taking more monk levels.

Answerer

2012-05-27, 11:02 AM

If a player is playing a monk and having fun with it, why should it bother you?
It doesn't.

If a player asks for advice on how to improve playing said monk, why should it bother you?
It still doesn't. I just give the best advice I can.

That advice is to never, ever play the Monk (for more than 2, maybe 6, levels), but instead to play a class that does what the Monk is supposed to, but fails to, do. That is my honest advice to every player ever interested in a monk character.

I furthermore do not recognize any good reason that "Monk" has to be written on one's character sheet. I am strongly in favor of refluffing whenever it is convenient, and classes are purely metagame constructs in my mind. You are not going to convince me otherwise, and I don't particularly care if you disagree.

People are making characters, and those characters have certain abilities: whatever combination of metagame mechanical abilities gets those abilities with the fewest headaches and the most competence will always be my recommendation. If that happens to be a few levels of Monk, so be it, but that happens very, very rarely.

I will continue to dispense advice as I see fit and as I deem to be most beneficial to the poster in question. If he does not want or like my advice, he is welcome to ignore it. It is very certainly none of your business whether or not I do so.

sonofzeal

2012-05-27, 11:44 AM

It is irrelevant if a swordsage would be "better". If a player is playing a monk and having fun with it, why should it bother you? If a player asks for advice on how to improve playing said monk, why should it bother you?
If a player is asking for advice then, almost by necessity, there is something they aren't having fun with, or where they think they could be having more fun. And, in bridging that gap, it's always useful to consider alternative ways of meeting the objectives.

Is there anything there you disagree with?

Togo

2012-05-27, 12:03 PM

Maybe he doesn't know the monk doesn't perform as advertised? Also, usually people asking for mechanical advice do so because they're not satisfied with their char's current perfirmance. Nobody (sane) comes with simething like 'I'm utterly destroying rvery encounter, help me get stronger'

In that case there are a large number of insane people about. :smallwink:

Malachei

2012-05-27, 01:02 PM

Depends on the point-buy. Standard 25 points point-buy, the caster can always get an 18 in the primary spellcasting attribute, while still having a 14 Con and a 10 Dex, or a 12 Con and a 12 Dex.

The chance a 4d6b3 roll gives you an 18 is about 1.6% on each roll. So the chance of having at least one 18 is about 9.7%.

I'd say if you look at how players distribute standard 25 point buy on their spellcasters, more than 10% will have an 18 in their primary spellcasting attribute.

I'd say yes, point-buy favors casters / SAD builds.

Amphetryon

2012-05-27, 01:29 PM

BlueEyes

2012-05-27, 02:16 PM

In that case there are a large number of insane people about. :smallwink:
Links please.

Doug Lampert

2012-05-27, 02:27 PM

Sure, but it's not about improving saves, since the PCs fight monsters, not eachother, and even monsters with class leves are supposed to use standard or elite array, not point buy.

Alright, but a caster with a 14 can still cast every spell in the game by the level it's available if he bothers to boost his abilities as he can.
(He doesn't even need to buy a 4,000GP item of +foo till he hits level 15). Random rolling allows rerolls if you don't have a 14. Everyone can build a perfectly good caster. Now build a perfectly good melee with a 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 array.

What does a mailman need ability scores for? She's not ever granting anyone a save, she'll still totally obsolete melee damage dealers. What does a summoner druid who buffs his AC need high abilities for?

Note: CASTER FEATS DON'T have ability prereqs. Melee feats do. Caster's can be playable with the mininum array you don't throw out as unusuable even when rolling. Mundanes are screwed.

Higher ability scores help mundanes more than casters, the mundanes need abilities, the caster's mostly don't. All 18 array doesn't happen, but if it did it would help mundane characters a LOT more than casters.

Stat inflation is not the problem here.

A rolled 18 is rare, but a rolled 16+ happens more than half the time, even not taking into account arrays thrown out for being too low (which will improve the odds). Do you really think dropping the teir 1's from an 18 to a 16 or 17 matters to what makes them tier 1?

LordBlades

2012-05-27, 02:28 PM

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-27, 02:33 PM

The way I see it, at the core the Monk aims to be an unarmed, unarmored warrior with high mobility. Swordsage does all of that better.
That's your idea of what the Monk is. Also, nitpick: Swordsage, unarmored? Not by RAW, surely. You would lose Wis to AC.

Now you're suggesting that somebody might want to play a Monk due to specific class features, which, as I said in my post is one (but not the only) interpretations of 'I want to play a Monk'.
Yeah, it's one interpretation. That's all I wanted to point out.

First of all, many of those are either situational (like immunity to being aged magically) or can be reasonably replicated with an unarmed swrodsage: Snap Kick(and various other extra attack boosts/strikes) replicate Flurry of Blows, teleporting maneuvers are more useful than fast movement, rolling a Concetration check instead of a save is 9/10 cases at least as effective as all good saves (and swordsage also has 2 good saves), Stunning Fist is a feat that anyone can take (that monk has an easier task getting and using, I give you that), and while 5SCIES may be worse than quivering palm, you can use it about 30 times more often (at 4 encounters./day, you get 28 encounters/week).
Snap Kick is also better on a Monk than on a Swordsage, specially since it stacks with flurry. It does not replicate flurry of blows, though - at level 11, flurry is two extra attacks for no penalty whatsover. Pathfinder Flurry is even better.
The Shadow Jaunt line, except for the swift action one (for action economy purposes) is way overrated. You need both line of sight and line of effect and the distance covered is inferior to a monk's move action. The Diamond Mind save subs are also way overrated. They are usually mentioned as 'covering your bases', as in, you don't need a good save if you have those maneuvers... and that's just palin wrong. They are once an encounter, unless you're a Warblade or a very lucky Crusader (or the Idiot Crusader build). Even for a Warblade there's trouble, because you need an immediate acion, meaning you won't have a swift action the following round, meaning you won't be able to refresh maneuvers, meaning you can't rely on it twice in a row. There are plenty of situations where it might come up (fighting in a burning building, fighting multiple creatures that force saves (gaze attacks are specially nasty) and so on). Saving throws are arguably the best defense you can have (aside from immunity). Yeah, monks suck, but they have good saving throws.
I'll concede the point on 5SCIES.

Secondly, most of what you listed can be traded away. Is a Monk that trades Flurry of Blows of Decisive Strike, selects Imp. Grapple instead of Stunning Fist, drops Fast Movement and AC Bonus for Durable, and loses Still Mind for one of the various things you can get instead not a Monk?
I was just listing the iconic abilities and claiming someone might want to take them. The fact they might be traded away hardly makes any difference, IMHO.

It sometimes is a big deal, especially when there's some much higher tiers in the party.
And sometimes it isn't. I'm just saying the 'tier 5 is unplayable and unfun' stance is not a reflection of what the tier system was supposed to accomplish.

And those people might actually expect to get what it says on the tin, aka the Monk being good at what the fluff hints it's good at. Playing a monk while being aware of how good it actually is is all right, playing a monk and expecting it to be a good unarmed combatant or skirmisher usually leads to disappointment.
Except when it doesn't. See my anecdote.

Usually, when somebody comes asking for optimization advice, is because they want to have their character do things better. And usually the best way of doing most of the thing a Monk does better is picking another class.
But there are plenty of times when people are just fine with playing a Monk, asks for help with their next feat or comment something that happened on their next session and get told not to play a Monk.
If someone says 'pimp my monk' and Swordsage fits, that's helpful advice, I agree.
If someone says 'I need help with my next level feat, I'm a Monk' and gets told 'reroll a Swordsage' that's not helpful advice. If someone says 'I need help fighting X, my party is Y, I'm a monk' and gets told 'reroll a Swordsage', that's not helpful advice as well. If someone says 'I love flurry of blows, help me pimp my Monk' and gets told to 'reroll a Swordsage' that's not helpful advice as well (though 'rebuild as a Tashalatora PsyWarrior' is). Can you understand my point?

No flight, no teleportation, no way to bypass difficult terrain, the Monk's mobility is largely dependent on being on a flat plane with opponents sitting on the ground.

Monk does get teleportation (abundant step) and there's a monk feat for attacking as soon as you teleport (sun school). Also, Tumble and Jump as class skills. Monk does get mobility. This is a lot better on Pathfinder Monk, though (I think Abundant Step is just once a day on 3.5 Monk or such, but he does get it).

If a player is asking for advice then, almost by necessity, there is something they aren't having fun with, or where they think they could be having more fun. And, in bridging that gap, it's always useful to consider alternative ways of meeting the objectives.

Is there anything there you disagree with?
To be fair, most of the active threads on this very forum right now are just optimization for optimization's sake.

BlueEyes

2012-05-27, 02:40 PM

But there are plenty of times when people are just fine with playing a Monk, as for help with their next feat or comment something that happened on their next session and get told not to play a Monk.
If someone says 'pimp my monk' and Swordsage fits, that's helpful advice, I agree.
If someone says 'I need help with my next level feat, I'm a Monk' and gets told 'reroll a Swordsage' that's not helpful advice. If someone says 'I need help fighting X, my party is Y, I'm a monk' and gets told 'reroll a Swordsage', that's not helpful advice as well. If someone says 'I love flurry of blows, help me pimp my Monk' and gets told to 'reroll a Swordsage' that's not helpful advice as well (though 'rebuild as a Tashalatora PsyWarrior' is). Can you understand my point?
You won't mind posting some links, would you?

Malachei

2012-05-27, 04:54 PM

"More than 10% will have an 18 [perhaps with racial bonus]," so, "nearly 90% don't start with an 18 in their primary spellcasting stat." Sounds about right.

I'd say no, IMO, significantly more than 10% of the players would assign their human spellcaster character an 18 primary spellcasting stat in a 25 point buy.

For wizards, I've seen more starting with an 18 score on point buy than without an 18.

I think this is because Save-or-Lose spells are so important, and therefore DCs matter so much, and a caster's chance of affecting a target does not rise linear, but disproportionate. Hence, an 18 Int for a wizard is relatively more beneficial than an 18 Str for a melee character.

Amphetryon

2012-05-27, 07:47 PM

I'd say no, IMO, significantly more than 10% of the players would assign their human spellcaster character an 18 primary spellcasting stat in a 25 point buy.

For wizards, I've seen more starting with an 18 score on point buy than without an 18.

I think this is because Save-or-Lose spells are so important, and therefore DCs matter so much, and a caster's chance of affecting a target does not rise linear, but disproportionate. Hence, an 18 Int for a wizard is relatively more beneficial than an 18 Str for a melee character.Those numbers don't mesh with my own anecdotal experience, for one.

For another, a Wizard can afford to spend disproportionately on his INT (or a Sorcerer on his CHA, come to that) relative to the melee characters because they don't need the other stats as badly as a melee type does. If your shtick is some variety of spellcasting, you need to be good at spellcasting, and can use that ability to increase your other stats, if desired - though some CON is always recommended for Characters that aren't undead. On the other hand, if your shtick is some variety of sticking bits of metal or wood into (or fiercely against) the enemy until they cease moving, you need STR, at least as much CON as the casters, at least some DEX (often more than "some"), WIS for perception and WILL, and quite often some INT, both for Feats and just so you can afford the Skill points to gain timely access to whatever PrC you may want. After all, PrCs are nice bonuses for Wizards and Clerics (and all but superfluous for Druids), but they're practically required for the combat-focused or skill-focused Classes.

Marlowe

2012-05-28, 12:46 AM

LordBlades

2012-05-28, 12:56 AM

That's your idea of what the Monk is. Also, nitpick: Swordsage, unarmored? Not by RAW, surely. You would lose Wis to AC.
The unarmed swordsage loses light armor proficiency, so enforcing RAW Wis to AC in light armor only would definitely go against RAI for the class variant IMO. And if you're going to enforce RAW on swordsage like this, it seems only fair to do the same for monk regarding their non-proficiency with unarmed strikes.

Snap Kick is also better on a Monk than on a Swordsage, specially since it stacks with flurry. It does not replicate flurry of blows, though - at level 11, flurry is two extra attacks for no penalty whatsover. Pathfinder Flurry is even better.

High level yu make a fair point, low level it's probably one or the other. You can't really afford a -4 to attack (cumulative Flurry and Snap Kick) on a medium BAB class without a great Str (due to being so MAD) and expect to be hitting too much.

The Shadow Jaunt line, except for the swift action one (for action economy purposes) is way overrated. You need both line of sight and line of effect and the distance covered is inferior to a monk's move action.

First of all, the maneuvers have a 50 ft. range. In order for that to be 'less than a monk's move action', the Monk needs to be level 9 at least. And that's assuming the Monk can walk wherever the swordsage can teleport.
Swordsage can teleport 50 ft. once per encounter as a standard action at level 3, move at 9 and swift at 13. Monk can teleport (although a much greater distance) once per day at level 12 as a standard action, but needs to end his turn afterward.

The Diamond Mind save subs are also way overrated. They are usually mentioned as 'covering your bases', as in, you don't need a good save if you have those maneuvers... and that's just palin wrong. They are once an encounter, unless you're a Warblade or a very lucky Crusader (or the Idiot Crusader build). Even for a Warblade there's trouble, because you need an immediate acion, meaning you won't have a swift action the following round, meaning you won't be able to refresh maneuvers, meaning you can't rely on it twice in a row. There are plenty of situations where it might come up (fighting in a burning building, fighting multiple creatures that force saves (gaze attacks are specially nasty) and so on). Saving throws are arguably the best defense you can have (aside from immunity). Yeah, monks suck, but they have good saving throws.
I'll concede the point on 5SCIES.

Swordsage has 2 good saving throws (Ref and Will), and past level 8 a +2 untyped bonus to saves from Discipline Focus. This means that even at level 20 and assuming equal stats, his Ref and Will are 2 higher than Monk's, while Fort is 4 lower. On Fort however he can prepare the counter and autopass one save per encounter (it's not very hard to optimize your concentration to those levels). I wouldn't call a monk clearly superior in the save department.

And sometimes it isn't. I'm just saying the 'tier 5 is unplayable and unfun' stance is not a reflection of what the tier system was supposed to accomplish.

In the end only you and your group are the judges of what's 'unplayable' and 'unfun'. Tier 5 are usually achieving less than advertised, and that needs pointing out IMO. 'Tier 5 sucks, go play wizard you noob' is counterproductive and useless advice. 'Tier 5 classes might not deliver all that they promise, and you might find that your character is not good at doing whatever the fluff says it should be good at. If you're looking for competence you might need a higher tier' however is.

But there are plenty of times when people are just fine with playing a Monk, asks for help with their next feat or comment something that happened on their next session and get told not to play a Monk.
If someone says 'pimp my monk' and Swordsage fits, that's helpful advice, I agree.
If someone says 'I need help with my next level feat, I'm a Monk' and gets told 'reroll a Swordsage' that's not helpful advice. If someone says 'I need help fighting X, my party is Y, I'm a monk' and gets told 'reroll a Swordsage', that's not helpful advice as well. If someone says 'I love flurry of blows, help me pimp my Monk' and gets told to 'reroll a Swordsage' that's not helpful advice as well (though 'rebuild as a Tashalatora PsyWarrior' is). Can you understand my point?

Point taken.

Monk does get teleportation (abundant step) and there's a monk feat for attacking as soon as you teleport (sun school). Also, Tumble and Jump as class skills. Monk does get mobility. This is a lot better on Pathfinder Monk, though (I think Abundant Step is just once a day on 3.5 Monk or such, but he does get it).

Monk gets teleportation as a standard action once per day at level 12. Swordsage's been doing that (although only 50 ft.) once per encounter since level 3, is doing it as a move action since level 9 and is also one level away from doing it as a swift action. Meanwhile, casters have been having an identical ability (the actual Dimension Door spell) since level 7-8.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-28, 01:17 AM

The unarmed swordsage loses light armor proficiency, so enforcing RAW Wis to AC in light armor only would definitely go against RAI for the class variant IMO. And if you're going to enforce RAW on swordsage like this, it seems only fair to do the same for monk regarding their non-proficiency with unarmed strikes.
Well, unarmed swordsage is not exactly a class variant, it's a suggestion for a houserule. But I was just being nitpicky, your point cleraly stands.

High level yu make a fair point, low level it's probably one or the other. You can't really afford a -4 to attack (cumulative Flurry and Snap Kick) on a medium BAB class without a great Str (due to being so MAD) and expect to be hitting too much.
Agreed completely. Another thing the Pathfinder Monk does better, btw - they have full bab for flurry purposes and can get extra attacks through ki points.

First of all, the maneuvers have a 50 ft. range. In order for that to be 'less than a monk's move action', the Monk needs to be level 9 at least.
Of course, the Monk can get some Speed increasing magical item, as well.

And that's assuming the Monk can walk wherever the swordsage can teleport.
You need both line of sight and line of effect. You can't teleport through corners and mist. You'll have trouble teleporting during the night, unless you have darkvision. As I said, they are overrated.

Swordsage can teleport 50 ft. once per encounter as a standard action at level 3, move at 9 and swift at 13. Monk can teleport (although a much greater distance) once per day at level 12 as a standard action, but needs to end his turn afterward.
Yes, you need to end your turn, but there's Sun School (and Dimensional Agility, in Pathfinder) to mitigate that. And it's an actual teleport, no line of sight or effect is required.

Swordsage has 2 good saving throws (Ref and Will), and past level 8 a +2 untyped bonus to saves from Discipline Focus. This means that even at level 20 and assuming equal stats, his Ref and Will are 2 higher than Monk's, while Fort is 4 lower. On Fort however he can prepare the counter and autopass one save per encounter (it's not very hard to optimize your concentration to those levels). I wouldn't call a monk clearly superior in the save department.
Hm, forgot about Discipline Focus. But I still think immunity to disease and poison and a better Fortitude save is a lot better than Concentration instead of a Fortitude save once an encounter.

In the end only you and your group are the judges of what's 'unplayable' and 'unfun'. Tier 5 are usually achieving less than advertised, and that needs pointing out IMO. 'Tier 5 sucks, go play wizard you noob' is counterproductive and useless advice. 'Tier 5 classes might not deliver all that they promise, and you might find that your character is not good at doing whatever the fluff says it should be good at. If you're looking for competence you might need a higher tier' however is.
I agree completely. That's what I've been trying to say the whole time.

Monk gets teleportation as a standard action once per day at level 12. Swordsage's been doing that (although only 50 ft.) once per encounter since level 3, is doing it as a move action since level 9 and is also one level away from doing it as a swift action. Meanwhile, casters have been having an identical ability (the actual Dimension Door spell) since level 7-8.
Yeah, but the Monk gets true teleportation, Swordsage gets shunpo (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FlashStep). It being once a day sucks, but Pathfinder gets you extra uses.
Yeah, casters do it better. Casters do everything better.

Hecuba

2012-05-28, 02:25 AM

Why I personally think rolling favors SAD classes: being SAD you only need one good roll. 18 is ideal, but a 15-16 works as well. What happens to the other 5 is a bonus.

A MAD class on the other hand needs several good rolls on the other hand. Want to play a monk/paladin but you haven't rolled 3-4 decent stats? Tough luck, you're ****ed.

Depends how you're rolling. The game can be a lot different when, for example, you're rolling 3d6 in order (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3z58&page=1?Roll-3d6-in-order).

Marlowe

2012-05-28, 02:28 AM

Depends how you're rolling. The game can be a lot different when, for example, you're rolling 3d6 in order (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3z58&page=1?Roll-3d6-in-order).

I think it's safe to leave that approach to the hardcore masochists. I don't know what I could do with str 15, dex 7, con 4, int 6, wis 9, and chr 12.

Killer Angel

2012-05-28, 04:28 AM

I don't know what I could do with str 15, dex 7, con 4, int 6, wis 9, and chr 12.

Die with dignity and reroll? :smalltongue:

Marlowe

2012-05-28, 04:38 AM

Just for kicks and comic relief from this Monk/Swordsage discussion that's of no personal relevance to me (I don't think I'll ever get to play a ToB class, and I'd rather play a Commoner than a Monk. Least then I'd have my self-respect.) let's see what happens:

Str:(3d6)[9]
Dex:(3d6)[8]
Con:(3d6)[11]
Int:(3d6)[4]
Wis:(3d6)[9]
Chr:(3d6)[9]

Hardcore masochists go wild.

Malachei

2012-05-28, 04:57 AM

Just looking at my own character sheets, all the rolled-stat characters have at least one stat above 16. And a few have one below 8. NONE of the point-buy characters have either.

It's certainly not unlikely to get a single high-stat with rolling. Maybe not 18, but nobody said it was required. 17 int on a wizard is fine. 16 is good enough. 15 is workable. Rolling never guarantees a high stat, but it never makes you pay for your good fortune either.

I think that was not the point. The issue of stat inflation with regards to casters means a caster has a lot of incentives to maximize his primary spellcasting attribute at (nearly) all cost -- because the caster's effectiveness rises disproportionately with stat increases. It is similar to AC: There is a mid range in which an increase does not dramatically affect the chances to get hit, then, at the end of the scale, investing to achieve another two points reaps disproportionately high results (i.e. halving the chances to get hit). Additionally, having a bonus spell at your highest spell level is an outstanding gain. Another strong incentive to maximize your spellcasting attribute by all means.

So, yes, I think in 25 point-buy, it is entirely reasonable for each and every wizard to put an 18 into INT.

and one that will be very obvious at low levels when his Save or Lose spells are rare and not very powerful anyway.

At low levels, there are very powerful save-or-lose spells. Sleep, Color Spray, Charm Person, to name just three.

LordBlades

2012-05-28, 05:15 AM

Depends how you're rolling. The game can be a lot different when, for example, you're rolling 3d6 in order (http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz3z58&page=1?Roll-3d6-in-order).

That's something I'd never consider doing for a real game. I like deciding what kind of character I want (both fluff and crunch-wise) and then assign the stats accordingly. I'd hate having to do things the other way around.

Marlowe

2012-05-28, 05:16 AM

I think that was not the point. The issue of stat inflation with regards to casters means a caster has a lot of incentives to maximize his primary spellcasting attribute at (nearly) all cost -- because the caster's effectiveness rises disproportionately with stat increases. It is similar to AC: There is a mid range in which an increase does not dramatically affect the chances to get hit, then, at the end of the scale, investing to achieve another two points reaps disproportionately high results (i.e. halving the chances to get hit). Additionally, having a bonus spell at your highest spell level is an outstanding gain. Another strong incentive to maximize your spellcasting attribute by all means.

So, yes, I think in 25 point-buy, it is entirely reasonable for each and every wizard to put an 18 into INT.

You are looking entirely at spellcasters benefiting from a single high stat. Nobody has even contested this. You are entirely ignoring the relative securitythat point-buy gives to the MAD classes, and the crippling disadvantages that the die-roll spread can give them.

The issue is not that casters are benefited by a good casting stat, this is undisputed. the bone of contention is whether point-buy favours SAD (most casters) or MAD casters when compared to rolling dice.

Sleep, Color Spray, Charm Person,[/I] to name just three.
Sleep=full round casting time. Caster is very vulnerable while getting it off. Obsolete quickly, and many possible foes immune. In 3.0 sure. In 3.5 I wouldn't take this on a Bard.
Colour Spray=short range (bad) effects many targets (good). If I'm using this spell then I'd rather have good AC and Hp than +1 to the save DC. It effects many targets. Most will fail, a few will pass.
Charm Person=I'm sure it's a good spell. I've never seen it work. EVER. There's too many things immune to it, and something about single-target spells seem to inspire the DM (thats every DM I've ever had) to start rolling natural 20s on the save.

Malachei

2012-05-28, 05:36 AM

You are looking entirely at spellcasters benefiting from a single high stat. Nobody has even contested this. You are entirely ignoring the relative securitythat point-buy gives to the MAD classes, and the crippling disadvantages that the die-roll spread can give them.

I think it is vice versa: The point buy gives security to the SAD caster, because you can be sure to maximize your single most important stat.

The issue is not that casters are benefited by a good casting stat, this is undisputed. the bone of contention is whether point-buy favours SAD (most casters) or MAD casters when compared to rolling dice.

I think the statistics are really clear on that. As I said, with standard point-buy, you can take an 18 INT, and still have DEX and CON 12, or CON 14 and Dex 10. This is perfectly fine to play a caster. The chance to roll an 18 on 4d6b3 is below 10%.

Sleep=full round casting time. Caster is very vulnerable while getting it off. Obsolete quickly, and many possible foes immune. In 3.0 sure. In 3.5 I wouldn't take this on a Bard.
Colour Spray=short range (bad) effects many targets (good). If I'm using this spell then I'd rather have good AC and Hp than +1 to the save DC. It effects many targets. Most will fail, a few will pass.
Charm Person=I'm sure it's a good spell. I've never seen it work. EVER. There's too many things immune to it, and something about single-target spells seem to inspire the DM (thats every DM I've ever had) to start rolling natural 20s on the save.

Note this was just one example for first level. I don't think we should go off discussing individual spells now. You can look at higher-level scenarios, if you want. Save-or-dies have a huge impact on whether you win or lose. If you dislike the examples, just think about Glitterdust, or Stinking Cloud.

Just a comment regarding sleep etc.:

At 1st level, caster is very vulnerable all the time. You need protection anyway. I very much agree with the Logicninja's guide (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104002) here:

Sleep is the low-level "win spell"; even a cleric with 18 WIS only has a +6 will save at level 1, and with 18 INT you can have a DC 15 Sleep, 16 with focuses. That's a pretty solid chance of a failed save. With a 10-WIS fighter or rogue, it's a great chance. Color Spray: Save-or-Lose. Similar to sleep, but it keeps being good for a lot longer. At levels 1-3ish Sleep is better because Color Spray is short-range and thus more likely to get you poked with a pointy stick.

LordBlades

2012-05-28, 05:47 AM

I think the statistics are really clear on that. As I said, with standard point-buy, you can take an 18 INT, and still have DEX and CON 12, or CON 14 and Dex 10. This is perfectly fine to play a caster. The chance to roll an 18 on 4d6b3 is below 10%.

O the other hand, with 28 PB you can make a melee character wth 2 16's for Str and Con and 2 12s for dex and wis. The odds of getting 2 rolls of 16+ on 4d6 six times is quite small as well.

Marlowe

2012-05-28, 05:54 AM

I think it is vice versa: The point buy gives security to the SAD caster, because you can be sure to maximize your single most important stat.

Again, you are focusing entirely on an advantage the point-buy system gives to the SAD class and utterly ignoring the advantages it gives to a MAD class. You are consistently ignoring the argument against you in favour of restating one aspect of the discussion over and over again.

With the random rolls, it is very easy to get an array that makes many MAD classes almost unplayable or, at least horribly crippled. You're assuming that die rolls always, or even usually, will give a pretty average array. Not so. Dice are fickle and perverse, can produce very extreme arrays, and a single bad stat can cripple many classes.

I've seen a lot more extreme arrays with rolled stats than with point buy, and I don't get my heart set on playing a MAD class if point-buy is disallowed.

Wizards are always pretty safe, whether you use point-buy or 3d6b4. Being reliant on only one stat is an advantage, yes. It is an advantage to the class either way.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-28, 06:11 AM

Just for kicks and comic relief from this Monk/Swordsage discussion that's of no personal relevance to me (I don't think I'll ever get to play a ToB class, and I'd rather play a Commoner than a Monk. Least then I'd have my self-respect.) let's see what happens:

Hardcore masochists go wild.

Dragonborn Mongrelfolk Dragonfire Adept. New ability scores:

STR 9
DEX 6
CON 17
INT 3 (the minimum)
WIS 9
CHA 5

A 17 CON is... Something.

My turn:

STR 3 (1+1+1). STARTING OFF WITH A BANG HERE.
DEX 9 (1+3+5). It's an... Improvement?
CON 17 (5+6+6). OK, NOW we're getting somewhere.
INT 8 (1+5+2). Looking like another Dragonborn DFA here.
WIS 12 (6+2+4). Or maybe a Cleric?...
CHA 11 (4+1+6). Decent. Would rather it was my INT or my STR score (!).

What could I play with this? The best answer is of course Dragonborn Mongrelfolk DFA or Dragon Shaman, which have at-will attacks with CON-based saves. Warlock could work too, but... I could play a Cleric or Druid with this.

If I put my ability scores into WIS every four levels and grabbed a Periapt of Wisdom +2 at level 8 (the level it suggests it can be made, even if this was errata'd out), I'd miss 4th level spells at level 7 (and then get them at 8th when I grab +3 WIS), 8th level spells at 15 (and then grab them again at 16, when I get +1 WIS), and 9ths entirely, assuming nothing else is done. Sure, it's a soft Cleric (not even grabbing all of one of its only class features), but it's still a Cleric. Not being able to wear armor due to encumbrance limits is hilarious though. Lesser Aasimar circumvents the problem of WIS (but not STR).

Druids fare even better: past 5th level, a Druid is essentially always in Wild Shape, which means they care less for their pitiful STR and DEX scores (and can still grab a better CON score to boot).

A Sorceror could also work. With a CHA-boosting race (Lesser Aasimar is the standard, but if you wanted some SUPER ETHICAL FUNTIME you could play a Gruwaar, have a total of 1 STR!!! as a small Fey, and be so weak that you have to decide between a few basic items and wearing clothes) and a Cloak of Charisma at level 8, you'd have everything you need at the level you need it. At level 20, you have 20 CHA with no improvements on this model; nothing impressive, but enough to be a full caster with survivability, which is usually enough. I guess the same could be said of every CHA- and WIS-based caster, though.

What level we're starting out at is another matter that needs to be addressed. A Fighter of any color or shape is going to have a lot of bad days for the first several levels, but a Zhentarim Sneak Attack Fighter at 9th level or higher does all right in a duel--provided they take Imperious Command, of course. In Pathfinder, such a character would care more for CHA over STR anyway, as Dastardly Finish eliminates the need for a to-hit modifier.

As for the Monk? The object of this exercise? Wouldn't play one. I could play a Swordsage with this, but only because a high CON score shores up my weak save, and because the entire Diamond Mind line replaces trivial things like "saving throws" and "attack rolls" with Concentration checks--Concentration being, of course, the only skill keyed off my only good stat. I'd probably borrow heavily from Shadow Hand and Setting Sun where necessary, though (Baffling Defense to replace my AC with a Sense Motive check 1/encounter, for instance).

Best part? Because of the pitiful encumbrance limits, my Swordsage may as well be Unarmed, because he would be better off without armor anyway.

Marlowe

2012-05-28, 06:15 AM

LordBlades

2012-05-28, 06:32 AM

You actually made me try that:smallbiggrin: What I got was almost perfectly average:

3d6 → [4,6,2] = (12)
3d6 → [3,6,4] = (13)
3d6 → [1,5,4] = (10)
3d6 → [3,2,6] = (11)
3d6 → [2,4,4] = (10)
3d6 → [3,3,3] = (9)

I'd probably go for something like dragonborn lesser aasimar (making my stats 12 11 12 13 10 11) either Druid or DMM Persist Cleric.

Scots Dragon

2012-05-28, 06:33 AM

Well played.

I all I have to do his buy the books to find out what all those races and templates actually do.

If nothing else, you're now a stupid, smelly, clumsy flying dog-man who breathes fire. It's now your team-mates that are suffering.

Mongrelfolk are actually a 'bit of everything' race. You're a mongrelfolk when your ancestry requires several Monster Manuals, the Fiend Folio and at least three third party sourcebooks just to explain one parent.

Marlowe

2012-05-28, 06:41 AM

Mongrelfolk aren't actually dogs? There go my plans for threatening the peace of the setting with an army of vintage cartoon extras.:smalleek:

And again:
str:(3d6)[6]
dex:(3d6)[7]
con:(3d6)[14]
int:(3d6)[8]
wis:(3d6)[18]
chr: (3d6)[7]

Um. Druid?

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-28, 06:59 AM

Well played.

I all I have to do his buy the books to find out what all those races and templates actually do.

If nothing else, you're now a stupid, smelly, clumsy flying dog-man who breathes fire. It's now your team-mates that are suffering.

Of course.

The Dragonborn template (-2 DEX, +2 CON, your choice of breath, wings, or darkvision) is from Races of the Dragon.
The Mongrelfolk race (+4 CON, -2 INT, -4 CHA, loses all its other features because of Dragonborn template) is from Races of Destiny.

My Swordsage, above, would in all likelihood be both (or a Dragonborn Water Orc [SRD], which would have adjustments of +4 STR, -2 DEX, +4 CON, -2 INT, -2 WIS, -2 CHA, eats more of the mental stats with less CON to show, but can actually *wear* something). That would net me a +5 or +6 CON modifier out of the starting gate, depending on choice, and although I'd have a lot of problems hitting things, I'd also have a lot of ways around those problems (at 1st level, Wolf Fang Strike lets me attack twice at no penalty to attack roll or action economy; Creeping Shadow Strike lets me roll twice and take the better of two rolls; Sapphire Nightmare Blade lets me make a Concentration check, at +9 or +10 at level 1, to treat the enemy as flat-footed; the stance Island of Blades allows me to treat things as flanked more easily; at 3rd level, Emerald Razor lets me make a Concentration check [which is now at least +12, though I should be looking into a skill boosting item or masterwork tool or something] to make touch attacks; as for defenses, by 5th level, Concentratiom can replace any save, at least at a +14 bonus, and Baffling Defense can replace my AC, which is abysmal).

MORE IMPORTANTLY, if you have rolled at least 11 in ANY MENTAL STAT and a good CON ("good" being "whatever you're comfortable with in order to not die"), you can be a passable full caster keyed to that stat from 1 to 20. Great? Probably not. But passable. With intelligent race selection (Lesser Tiefling for INT, Lesser Aasimar for WIS or CHA), and the promise of a +2 item before 10th level, you'll even reach 9ths on time without skipping a beat. They are THAT SAD.

Now, who wants to calculate the odds that you'll roll at least an 11 in one of three 3d6 rolls? (The average is 10.5.) How about 4d6b3? (The average is something like 12.3.) What about the odds of getting at least one in six, and you get to choose where it goes? :smallwink:

TL;DR, caster > non-caster, SAD > MAD, and the sun will rise in Hawaii in about four hours. But all of these things remain true no matter how restrictive (or un-) the stat generation system you choose.

Malachei

2012-05-28, 07:46 AM

O the other hand, with 28 PB you can make a melee character wth 2 16's for Str and Con and 2 12s for dex and wis. The odds of getting 2 rolls of 16+ on 4d6 six times is quite small as well.

Yes, and with 32 point-buy, you can ... and with rolling 5d6 six times... you could ...

I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to keep this to the standard method of character generation, i.e. standard point-buy (25 pts.) vs. 4d6b3 rolled once.

With a standard point-buy, I can get 16 STR, 14 DEX, 14 CON, and 11 INT (not enough to get Combat Expertise). Or 14 in STR, DEX, CON, 13 INT and 10 WIS.

Wizards are always pretty safe, whether you use point-buy or 3d6b4.

Absolutely not, because a rolled set of (14, 14, 14, 13, 10, 8), while being on par with point-buy, will not make a wizard happy. He'll be much more happy if he can take (18, 12, 12, 9, 8, 8), also on par with point-buy. When rolling, because of the bell curve, it is much more likely to have a larger number of stats that are distributed around the average (and hence, have smaller bonuses each), than rolling extremes. But extremes extremely favor the wizard. Therefore, if you're set to play a wizard, it is a very reasonable choice to choose 25 point-buy over rolling 4d6b3.

In contrast, the chance of getting one poor stat that messes up your whole array is much higher with rolling. Doesn't matter a lot to a wizard, matters a lot to a social rogue. Or any MAD class.

Most MAD classes can live with one poor stat, and because of the bell curve, it is really not very likely to roll a very low stat.

You're assuming that die rolls always, or even usually, will give a pretty average array. Not so. Dice are fickle and perverse, can produce very extreme arrays, and a single bad stat can cripple many classes.

I'm not assuming die rolls "always, or even usually", do something. Please don't state what I am assuming, as you have a lot less information on what I am assuming than I do. My argument is based on statistics. For ease of calculation, let us look at the 3d6 bell curve:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uQ-xkyCedHg/TcMsC4OstTI/AAAAAAAAAHk/uotNMCe3lJs/s1600/3-dice-charts.gif

In fact, statistics is telling us that on a roll of (3d6), for instance, there is a 1/216 (or 0.46%) chance of rolling a 3, while there is a 27/216 (or 12.5%) chance of having an 11. Yes, the odds are 27:1.

Dice are not fickle and perverse, unless you prefer to believe that objects are sentient. In which case, of course, talking about statistics in a discussion with you is entirely pointless.

sonofzeal

2012-05-28, 08:01 AM

Dice are not fickle and perverse, unless you prefer to believe that objects are sentient. In which case, of course, talking about statistics in a discussion with you is entirely pointless.
I've got a degree in mathematics, with a focus on Statistics and Simulation Design, and I'm fully convinced dice are perverse. Specifically, every time I've logged my rolls, I'm always far enough below the mean that I can comfortably reject the null hypothesis that my rolls are averaging around the mean.

"The perversity of the universe tends to a maximum." Don't assume that just because someone doesn't trust dice, that it somehow means they're ignorant or worse.

LordBlades

2012-05-28, 08:05 AM

I hope you don't mind, but I'd like to keep this to the standard method of character generation, i.e. standard point-buy (25 pts.) vs. 4d6b3 rolled once.

My bad, I forgot 4d6 was average PB 25 not 28 (I usually play 32 PB and no rolling)

[/quote] Absolutely not, because a rolled set of (14, 14, 14, 13, 10, 8), while being on par with point-buy, will not make a wizard happy. He'll be much more happy if he can take (18, 12, 12, 9, 8, 8), also on par with point-buy. When rolling, because of the bell curve, it is much more likely to have a larger number of stats that are distributed around the average (and hence, have smaller bonuses each), than rolling extremes. But extremes extremely favor the wizard. Therefore, if you're set to play a wizard, it is a very reasonable choice to choose 25 point-buy over rolling 4d6b3. [quote]

Having an 18 is preferable, but not necessary for a wizard. A Dragonborn Gray Elf wizard with those stats can have 6 Str, 14 Dex, 16 Con, 16 Int 13 Wis, 10 Cha and be perfectly playable. A caster whose highest roll is a 14 can do just fine, doubly so if he picks a race with a +2 to that stat.

Now try making a decent let's say paladin or monk with 18, 12, 12, 9, 8, 8, since it's perfectly possible to roll something like that.

Marlowe

2012-05-28, 08:13 AM

Absolutely not, because a rolled set of (14, 14, 14, 13, 10, 8), while being on par with point-buy, will not make a wizard happy. He'll be much more happy if he can take (18, 12, 12, 9, 8, 8), also on par with point-buy. When rolling, because of the bell curve, it is much more likely to have a larger number of stats that are distributed around the average (and hence, have smaller bonuses each), than rolling extremes. But extremes extremely favor the wizard. Therefore, if you're set to play a wizard, it is a very reasonable choice to choose 25 point-buy over rolling 4d6b3.

I would quite happily deal with that three-14 array, thank you. I'd honestly rather have that than the other. Especially in a campaign that starts at low-levels. And yes, extremes favour the wizard. Rolling the dice quite often produces extremes as we have just seen.

Most MAD classes can live with one poor stat, and because of the bell curve, it is really not very likely to roll a very low stat.

I'm not assuming die rolls "always, or even usually", do something. Please don't state what I am assuming, as you have a lot less information on what I am assuming than I do. My argument is based on statistics. For ease of calculation, let us look at the 3d6 bell curve:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uQ-xkyCedHg/TcMsC4OstTI/AAAAAAAAAHk/uotNMCe3lJs/s1600/3-dice-charts.gif

In fact, statistics is telling us that on a roll of (3d6), for instance, there is a 1/216 (or 0.46%) chance of rolling a 3, while there is a 27/216 (or 12.5%) chance of having an 11. Yes, the odds are 27:1.

You are assuming. I am familiar with probability distribution. You are assuming that out of a small number of samples there will be NO outliers. The bell-curve is a wonderful thing. It is no comfort to the guy who wants to play a social rogue and has to fit a 5 into one of his stats. Outliers happen, they can happen quite easily within a set of six random samples, and just one can mess up a MAD build.

Dice are not fickle and perverse, unless you prefer to believe that objects are sentient. In which case, of course, talking about statistics in a discussion with you is entirely pointless.

I prefer to believe that most people I talk to are familiar with fairly basic rhetorical conceits. If you're going to insult me, please don't do so while pretending to be inhumanly obtuse at the same time.

Malachei

2012-05-28, 08:14 AM

Specifically, every time I've logged my rolls, I'm always far enough below the mean that I can comfortably reject the null hypothesis that my rolls are averaging around the mean.

And you'd like to generalize from your personal experience?

"The perversity of the universe tends to a maximum." Don't assume that just because someone doesn't trust dice, that it somehow means they're ignorant or worse.

Finagle's Law. Well. If you seriously believe that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong, at the worst possible moment, I must say I find this a sad and pessimistic attitude to life.

I don't assume anybody to be ignorant or worse. And just because somebody does not share my opinion, does not automatically make them wrong. But before you see me agreeing to anybody who seriously claims dice are perverse, we'll have to see aliens in the streets, shouting "42!" in chorus.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-28, 02:45 PM

Absolutely not, because a rolled set of (14, 14, 14, 13, 10, 8), while being on par with point-buy, will not make a wizard happy. He'll be much more happy if he can take (18, 12, 12, 9, 8, 8), also on par with point-buy. When rolling, because of the bell curve, it is much more likely to have a larger number of stats that are distributed around the average (and hence, have smaller bonuses each), than rolling extremes. But extremes extremely favor the wizard. Therefore, if you're set to play a wizard, it is a very reasonable choice to choose 25 point-buy over rolling 4d6b3.

Counterpoint:
With the following 3d6 stats, which I just rolled (in order):
STR 10 (1+6+3)
DEX 11 (5+2+4)
CON 11 (3+6+2)
INT 10 (4+3+3)
WIS 7 (3+2+2)
CHA 11 (6+4+1)

I would have difficulty building a Fighter worth anything. With a STR-loaded race (out of Core, this is a Half-Orc, but better options exist), I might be able to one day grab Power Attack (without one, I wait until level 9, assuming I get a Belt of Giant's Strength at 8), but my to-hit bonus with it would be meaningless unless I also built around it to grab Shock Trooper (much later than most builds intend), in which case I'd have negligible AC in combat with only hit points rolled from my Hit Dice. Water Orc is your saving grace, with the 14 STR and 13 CON it gives you.

I could, however, make a Sorcerer who makes it to 9ths on time; although survivability in the lower levels would be difficult (11 DEX and no armor proficiency, 11 CON), I'm also in a position where I can run fast and far if need be, and if I chose any single +CHA race or template (Lesser Aasimar and Gruwaar both work, as does the Magic-Blooded Template) and grab a single +CHA item by, say, level 13 (Cloak of Charisma +2 works), I still get all my spell levels on time. I may have a commoner's physical statistics, and be nothing special otherwise, but I can still fly, shoot laser beams from my eyes, and turn into Charizard with the right spell selection.

Even with the Commoner's Array (three 10s and three 11s, the average of 3d6 with no tendency toward extremes, which is a 15 Point Buy equivalent), or even worse as I happened to roll, I can make a spellcaster which can break the game, as long as I pump the one stat that matters from that point onward. I am secure in the knowledge that no matter what I roll for physical stats, if I have at least one mental stat that I can turn into a positive nonzero modifier after races or templates, I can be a more powerful character by the time spell levels start to matter than a 32 PB or arranged 5d6b3 Fighter ever could be, as is the convention for full casters.

So spellcasters are safe with pretty much every conceivable method of stat generation, even if they aren't happy.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-28, 02:53 PM

Killer Angel

2012-05-28, 02:57 PM

Malachei

2012-05-28, 03:01 PM

I know you're serious, but you called for it (http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0099.html).

Hilarious!

Counterpoint:
With the following 3d6 stats, which I just rolled (in order):

And you, too, would like to generalize from your single sample?

Note we've been comparing 4d6b3 vs. standard point-buy (25 pts.) I had used 3d6 just as an example of a bell curve.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-28, 03:04 PM

3d6
3d6
3d6
3d6
3d6
3d6

I'm going to try this too :smalltongue:
EDIT: Wtf, rolling code does not work here? :smallconfused:
Ok, I'll use the d20 Dice Bag, then.
Str 10
Dex 7
Con 13
Int 9
Wis 9
Cha 10
Man, that's horrendous. I don't remember my AD&D characters getting stats like those. I could be... a Warlock, I think? A Binder? Maybe an Incanate?

Looks like either a full plate-wearing Water Orc Barbarian (which trades Fast Movement out for something) or a Dragonborn Mongrelfolk... Somethingsomethingsomething (the above mentioned work). Or a Magic-Blooded and/or Lesser Aasimar Sorcerer, to make a redundant point of redundancy.

I'd actually play those. And that's terrible. :smallbiggrin:

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-28, 03:15 PM

Looks like either a full plate-wearing Water Orc Barbarian (which trades Fast Movement out for something) or a Dragonborn Mongrelfolk... Somethingsomethingsomething (the above mentioned work). Or a Magic-Blooded and/or Lesser Aasimar Sorcerer, to make a redundant point of redundancy.

I'd actually play those. And that's terrible. :smallbiggrin:

I would be a venerable grey elf wizard (int 14, wis 12, cha 13, don't even want to think about the physical stats), sell my spellbook and pay for a reincarnate spell =p
I rolled here and I'd end up as a gnome. Str 8, Dex 7, Con 15, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 13. Bad, but not that bad. Now I just have to retrain my class to Archivist (kinda hard with that sucky Wis and dual stat casting) or Wu Jen to get a new book. :smallamused:

Malachei

2012-05-28, 03:18 PM

Binder always works.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-28, 03:33 PM

Hilarious!

And you, too, would like to generalize from your single sample?

Do you know the odds of rolling an 11 or higher in one of three 3d6 rolls?

I was too lazy to do the math last night, but turns out after a few hours' rest, common sense and intuition tell me correctly that it's exactly 50% on a single roll. A perfect coin flop. From there, simple probability (of coin flips) dictates that I'll land heads on AT LEAST one in three coin flips roughly 7 in 8 times (87.5%). The odds of rolling AT LEAST 11 in AT LEAST 1 in 3 mental stats is just that, which means that (on average) a Wizard player is 50% likely to get serviceable Wizard stats, a Druid player is 50% likely to get serviceable Druid stats, and a Sorceror is 50% likely to get serviceable Sorceror stats. Somebody content with playing any of the three is 87.5% likely to get a serviceable caster stat to carry to 9ths.

If you consider that a base 10 with a +2 race or template works pretty much all the way up through 7th-level spells with only a +2 item, the odds on each roll individually yielding a serviceable stat increase to 62.5%, or 94.8% if I don't care which type of caster I play. This isn't counting race/template stacking, the Germlaine, or the Anthromorphic races; only a net +2 is being considered.

Is that general enough for you?

Note we've been comparing 4d6b3 vs. standard point-buy (25 pts.) I had used 3d6 just as an example of a bell curve.

Right, and any caster who is safe with 3d6 in order is definitely safe with the above mentioned methods (both of which favor the player MORE).

Odds of rolling an 11 or higher with 4d6b3: 73.072%
Odds of rolling AT LEAST ONE 11 or higher stat in 4d6b3: 99.962%

Which means you can play a caster to 9ths with certainty, assuming a +2 race, +2 item, and the ability to select your stat placement, 99,962 times out of 100,000. If you rolled in order, your odds drop to 98.048% certainty, meaning that about 98 times out of 100, you'll get a working base caster stat out of 4d6b3 in order.

And these are the options that, you argue, DON'T favor a working spellcaster, because they are random.

Malachei

2012-05-28, 04:31 PM

Odds of rolling an 11 or higher with 4d6b3: 73.072%
Odds of rolling AT LEAST ONE 11 or higher stat in 4d6b3: 99.962%

Odds of having an 18 spellcasting attribute with 25-point-buy: 100%

Only if you want to, of course.

Which means you can play a caster to 9ths with certainty, assuming a +2 race, +2 item

I've never, ever seen a wizard with a starting INT of 11 (or 14) before racial adjustments.

Actually, IMO, casters use race and items to get further along on the curve. They start with an 18 INT (if they can, i.e. all of them if they have point-buy or if they are among the lucky <10% who've rolled it), and then improve it to 20 by going Elven Generalist Wizard, and go to 22 as early as they can get a Headband of Intellect +2.

You're comparing a caster with a DC of 12 + Spell Level to a caster with a DC of 16 + Spell Level. The difference in DC is 4 points, and it will stay that way for the caster's career. It also affects bonus spells, chances to succeed on skill checks, skill points, etc. Maximizing your spellcasting stat at (almost) all cost is reasonable, because it reaps disproportionately good rewards: Eventually, an enemy will have an extremely hard time saving against your spell. Especially the last steps are very important: Facing somebody with a Will +2, and throwing a fourth-level spell with an INT of 14 will mean the enemy has a 35% chance to save. If your INT is 22, his chance to save is only 15%. If you add Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus (or another way to boost DC by another 2), the chance to save is only 5%. The last two increases have tripled the effectiveness.

Therefore, an increase is better than the last one. Taking Spell Focus makes more sense for a caster with an already high stat, because he benefits more than the caster with a lower stat. In fact, any additional point is worth more than the last, so starting with the absolute maximum you can get is the most reasonable thing to do.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-28, 04:55 PM

Odds of having an 18 spellcasting attribute with 25-point-buy: 100%

Only if you want to, of course.

Right. So the Point Buy also favors full casters, as does every other stat generation method, ever.

I've never, ever seen a wizard with a starting INT of 11 (or 14) before racial adjustments.

Actually, IMO, casters use race and items to get further along on the curve. They start with an 18 INT (if they can, i.e. all of them if they have point-buy or if they are among the lucky >10% who've rolled it), and then improve it to 20 by going Elven Generalist Wizard, and go to 22 as early as they can get a Headband of Intellect +2.

You're comparing a caster with a DC of 12 + Spell Level to a caster with a DC of 16 + Spell Level. The difference in DC is 4 points, and it will stay that way for the caster's career. It also affects bonus spells, chances to succeed on skill checks, skill points, etc. Maximizing your spellcasting stat at (almost) all cost is reasonable, because it reaps disproportionately good rewards: Eventually, an average will have an extremely hard time saving against your spell. Especially the last steps are very important: Facing somebody with a Will +2, and throwing a fourth-level spell with an INT of 14 will mean the enemy has a 35% chance to save. If your INT is 22, his chance to save is only 15%. If you add Spell Focus and Greater Spell Focus (or another way to boost DC by another 2), the chance to save is only 5%. The last two increases have tripled the effectiveness.

Therefore, an increase is better than the last one. Taking Spell Focus makes more sense for a caster with an already high stat, because he benefits more than the caster with a lower stat.

"Optimized" and "happy" =/= "safe".

Is a Wizard with 22 INT better than one with 14? A Cleric with 22 WIS better than one with 14? Sorcerer, CHA 22 or CHA 14? Of course. This is all axiomatic.

But the Wizard with 14 INT is still "safe". They'll get to 9ths on time, and beat the world over the head in too many ways to count.

Saves? Bah! I have fourth-level spells. Solid Fog offers no save. Black Tentacles offers no save. Enervation offers no save. Summon Monster offers no save. Polymorph, Invisibility (and Greater), Stoneskin, Lesser Globe of Invulnerability, Fly, Enlarge Person (and Mass), and their ilk don't affect the enemy, but are nevertheless useful.

Sure, saves would be pitiful. But Wizards have options. Prepare Grease or Enlarge Person with some form of panic button at level 1, and work up from there. With a starting stat of even 13 after racials, a Wizard is safe.

An INT 20 Wizard from 1 is going to have a better time of it than an INT 13 Wizard, all other things equal. But there is NO stat generation method that makes playing a caster (and then breaking thr game with it) impossible unless you manage to roll negatives for every stat, in which case you have a character that is pathetic in all regards, and the only fitting path is a fist-fight with a housecat (or maybe be a Warlock).

Togo

2012-05-28, 06:45 PM

An INT 20 Wizard from 1 is going to have a better time of it than an INT 13 Wizard, all other things equal. But there is NO stat generation method that makes playing a caster (and then breaking thr game with it)

What if you're not trying to break the game, say because you don't find it fun? Then you're stuck with less broken options, and save DCs and spells per day starts to become a more pressing issue.

I'm also not sure why we've gone from whether low stats advantages lower tiers more than higher tiers, to whether you can build a workable caster from a low set of stats? I mean, it's right that casters are easy to build. They're also quite easy to play. I don't see how either claim is related?

The point isn't complicated. Rolling 3d6 is more likely to give you a set of medium stats than one high one. Lower tier characters benefit more from having a set of medium stats than one high one. Therefore, point buy benefits high tier characters.

You could argue that once you get to really high point buy, the pendulum starts to swing back again. Once the high tier spellcaster has maxed his casting stat, increasing the points more starts to benefit the lower Tiers again, with their dependence on multiple stats. But the advantage gained from a high casting stat (high save DCs, always having multiple castings of your highest levels of spell throughout your career) remain greater than the equivalent advantages gained by lower tiers.

I've never, ever seen a wizard with a starting INT of 11 (or 14) before racial adjustments.
I've played one. It's ok, although there's nothing particularly to recommend it. The biggest headache was that a single disarm, or dispel magic, can make you lose your headband, and with it most of your high level spells. I ended up wearing a tradional wizard's high pointy hat, just to sheild my vital stat booster from attack.

Amphetryon

2012-05-28, 07:01 PM

What if you're not trying to break the game, say because you don't find it fun? Then you're stuck with less broken options, and save DCs and spells per day starts to become a more pressing issue.

I'm also not sure why we've gone from whether low stats advantages lower tiers more than higher tiers, to whether you can build a workable caster from a low set of stats? I mean, it's right that casters are easy to build. They're also quite easy to play. I don't see how either claim is related?

The point isn't complicated. Rolling 3d6 is more likely to give you a set of medium stats than one high one. Lower tier characters benefit more from having a set of medium stats than one high one. Therefore, point buy benefits high tier characters.

You could argue that once you get to really high point buy, the pendulum starts to swing back again. Once the high tier spellcaster has maxed his casting stat, increasing the points more starts to benefit the lower Tiers again, with their dependence on multiple stats. But the advantage gained from a high casting stat (high save DCs, always having multiple castings of your highest levels of spell throughout your career) remain greater than the equivalent advantages gained by lower tiers.

Low tier characters are, almost without exception, more prone to MADness than high tier characters. This means they'll benefit more from a higher SET of stats than high tier characters. This also means that if they're looking at a hypothetical 14 13 12 11 10 9, they'll have a harder time working with that set than a high tier would, because the high tier characters would only need their casting stat at 14, 13 or 12 in CON (13 may instead go toward a stat that needs a 13 for feats - which often require a 13 or higher - the player covets), and arrange the rest to taste. The low tier, MAD characters would be stuck trying to decide which of their necessary stats wasn't AS necessary to their particular concept.

I've never, ever seen a wizard with a starting INT of 11 (or 14) before racial adjustments.
I've played one. It's ok, although there's nothing particularly to recommend it. The biggest headache was that a single disarm, or dispel magic, can make you lose your headband, and with it most of your high level spells. I ended up wearing a tradional wizard's high pointy hat, just to sheild my vital stat booster from attack.
You've never seen it, yet you've played it? That's a difficult contradiction, there.

Doug Lampert

2012-05-28, 07:35 PM

{scrubbed}

LordBlades

2012-05-28, 10:31 PM

Consider this: you can build a functional full caster from any set of 4d6 rolls. Can you build a functional<insert lower tier MAD class> from any set of rolls?

sonofzeal

2012-05-28, 10:54 PM

The universe isn't perverse, but dice can be biased, and it doesn't take much bias for the null hypothesis of fair dice to be rejected at a reasonable level of certainty if you record rolls.
The strange part is it doesn't matter which dice I use. Heck, it even happens with the forum dice roller! The last one I tracked involved about a hundred d6 rolls on the forum, which came out with an average value of a little under 3, when it should be very close to 3.5. That's not a huge bias, but big enough that it's implausible after a hundred rolls. You can double-check my calculations; it was a while ago, but I remember solidly passing an alpha value of 0.05.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-05-28, 11:33 PM

Togo, Malachei: I have little time on hand right now, so I'm going to let the guy with a PhD in this stuff explain my argument:

No, we're comparing various ways of rolling abilities and noticing that your hypothesis that point buy advantages casters is a bad joke.

Have you noticed how many people rolling 3d6 in order are looking at the result, and saying "Druid".

The rolled method in the PHB has a minimum, IT CAN NOT produce a character unable to be a viable druid or caster. It can easily produce crippled melee characters.

Point buy is GOOD for the mundane classes, high point total point buy is BETTER for the mundane classes.

LordBlades also put it well:

Consider this: you can build a functional full caster from any set of 4d6 rolls. Can you build a functional<insert lower tier MAD class> from any set of rolls?

If your highest stat, pre-race and template, is 11, and your job is to hit things with things, you have no hope. You are literally more pathetic than the level 1 Warrior stat blocks at hitting things, avoiding getting hit, avoiding falling over dead when you do get hit... Etc. You aren't even good at combat maneuvers (and can't grab most of the feats that let you be average at them without Monk levels). That's problematic; you are behind the curve when it comes to the one thing you're supposed to do, and you also don't have the capacity to do anything else.

If your highest stat is 11 pre-race and template, and that stat is your casting stat, you are behind the curve for full casters, but still a competent full caster.

The mean of 3d6 is 10.5. When one says that 3d6 tends toward a set of medium stats, that means stats with a +0 modifier, +1. You can NOT build a competent Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Fighter, etc. off those stats. You can build a competent full caster class.

Malachei

2012-05-29, 02:05 AM

Togo, Malachei: I have little time on hand right now, so I'm going to let the guy with a PhD in this stuff explain my argument:

That's what I usually do as well, when I have little time[/kidding]

If your highest stat, pre-race and template, is 11, and your job is to hit things with things, you have no hope. You are literally more pathetic than the level 1 Warrior stat blocks at hitting things, avoiding getting hit, avoiding falling over dead when you do get hit... Etc. You aren't even good at combat maneuvers (and can't grab most of the feats that let you be average at them without Monk levels). That's problematic; you are behind the curve when it comes to the one thing you're supposed to do, and you also don't have the capacity to do anything else.

If your highest stat is 11 pre-race and template, and that stat is your casting stat, you are behind the curve for full casters, but still a competent full caster.

Yes, and I did not in any way argue that is is easier to build a SAD class, than an MAD class. But this is a tautology, actually.

The mean of 3d6 is 10.5. When one says that 3d6 tends toward a set of medium stats, that means stats with a +0 modifier, +1.

3d6 is a really bad example, also because it is not the standard method. I really think we are arguing different things here, and perhaps, we're not even that much in disagreement: I agree that MAD classes have a hard time, and SAD classes need only one good stat, but 3d6 is leading us in another direction. It delivers low results and is not the standard character creation method of 3.5. If you prefer to roll 3d6, you can, of course, but that has nothing to do with my argument.

My argument refers to standard methods for character creation: 4d6b3 vs. point-buy.

What I was pointing out:
As a caster, you will want to maximize your casting stat Chance for maximization at point-buy is 100%, chance for maximization on rolls is <10% on a full set of 4d6b3 Hence, it is reasonable for a caster to choose point-buy over 4d6b3

Regarding non-casters / MAD: Note that on 4d6b3, the most likely result is 13 (coming up more than 13% of the time) - note this significantly differs from your 3d6 example.

I think this makes it obvious:

Your chance to roll a 12 or higher on a single roll of 4d6b3 is ~60%, your chance to roll an 18 is ~1.6%

On 4d6b3, a 15 is still more likely than a 10, and even a 16 is more likely than a 9.

Thus, on 4d6b3, you'll see a lot of arrays that have a lot of 12s, 13s, 14s, 15s, something well-suited to support an MAD class.

Yes, you could build a caster from that, as well, but as a caster you'd want more: you'll want to maximize. A caster is not happy with a <10% chance to get an 18, if he can get a 100% chance to get an 18. There are many reasons (DCs, skill points, skill bonuses, etc.), but also consider bonus spells:

If you can start with a 20 INT (in addition to getting a 5th level bonus spell later in your career) you get an additional first level bonus spell right now. That is a very powerful advantage: at first level, you get a better benefit than a specialist wizard without the cost. A 22 INT gives you an additional second-level bonus spell (as well as a 6th level bonus spell).

Let's look at the potential value of starting with a high INT:

Having bonus spells on all spell levels requires a score of 28, and equals a value of 570,000 GP, which is more than a 17th level character's wealth by level.

As a wizard, I'd say of course you take the fail-safe method to maximize your INT.

LordBlades

2012-05-29, 02:22 AM

What I was pointing out:
As a caster, you will want to maximize your casting stat Chance for maximization at point-buy is 100%, chance for maximization on rolls is <10% on a full set of 4d6b3 Hence, it is reasonable for a caster to choose point-buy over 4d6b3

Regarding non-casters / MAD: Note that on 4d6b3, the most likely result is 13 (coming up more than 13% of the time) - note this significantly differs from your 3d6 example.

I think this makes it obvious:

Your chance to roll a 12 or higher on a single roll of 4d6b3 is ~60%, your chance to roll an 18 is ~1.6%

On 4d6b3, a 15 is still more likely than a 10, and even a 16 is more likely than a 9.

Thus, on 4d6b3, you'll see a lot of arrays that have a lot of 12s, 13s, 14s, 15s, something well-suited to support an MAD class.

Yes, you could build a caster from that, as well, but as a caster you'd want more: you'll want to maximize. A caster is not happy with a <10% chance to get an 18, if he can get a 100% chance to get an 18. There are many reasons (DCs, skill points, skill bonuses, etc.), but also consider bonus spells:

Don't think anyone is debating that point-buy is better than rolling for making a caster. What me and the other people are trying to get at, is that for a MAD character rolling is worse than point-buy by a larger margin.

Let's say I want to play a wizard, and I need to roll my stats. No matter what I roll I'm guaranteed at least a 14, which means that with the right racial choice I'm guaranteed a casting stat of minimum 16. A 16 main stat caster is worse than a 18 or 20 main stat caster, but it's still perfectly functional (and still tier 1). Bottom line is that no matter what my rolls will be, I'll still be able to play a non-gimped wizard.

Now let's say I want to play a monk, and need to roll my stats. I'm forced to accept there's a chance (albeit not too big) that I won't be able to play the character that I want. I can roll something like 18 10 10 8 8 8. There's really no way to make a non-gimped monk with that array.

Malachei

2012-05-29, 02:37 AM

I'll simply state: anyone arguing that 4d6 drop low six times is a large enough statistical universe that they can expect fairly consistent results is a moron. That's far too few rolls to expect things to average out in any meaningful way. Roll up a dozen characters and you'll get drastically different point totals.

I dislike the use of the term moron in general. I think it is insulting. Perhaps, as a math PhD, you think you're entitled to talk of morons. In my department, we refrain from using such language. I don't refer to anybody as a moron. IMO, this term is never appropriate when referring to another individual. From a fellow scientist, I find that embarrassing.

No, we're comparing various ways of rolling abilities and noticing that your hypothesis that point buy advantages casters is a bad joke.

Please note that my claims were for standard method of character creation, i.e. 4d6b3 versus 25 point-buy. If you want to refute my claims, you'll have to deal with that.

Talking about other, "various ways of rolling", and using 3d6 for an example that specifically differs from what 4d6b3 is likely to deliver does not refute my claim.

Please also note that the issue of variance has little to do with my point. I've never argued that MAD classes would not have a harder time than SAD classes in general (see above).

My point is that as a wizard, you'll want to make sure you get the best casting stat you can get. You'll not rely on the dice.

I think the WBL example in my last post illustrates the disproportionately high results you receive with each step of ability improvement. It is just one example, DCs being another.

To me, anyone given the opportunity to acquire 1th-9th level bonus spells whose value exceeds WBL, while still having a 14 CON is very reasonable to do so.

Marlowe

2012-05-29, 02:57 AM

Malachei

2012-05-29, 05:27 AM

Well, here we go.

(4d6b3)[7]
(4d6b3)[17]
(4d6b3)[8]
(4d6b3)[13]
(4d6b3)[16]
(4d6b3)[14]

I could do a stupid, clumsy paladin, a half-blind Rogue sans social abilities, a dim-witted Ranger....or a very decent Wizard.

Funny how this happens.

And of course you would like to generalize from your single sample?

Well, then: Your roll equals a 33 point buy. This is above the maximum the DMG recommends for a high-powered campaign (32 pts.). It is 8 points above standard point-buy, and you are telling me you cannot build a decent MAD character from it? Since when do Paladins, Rogues or Rangers need six above-average stats?

The only point you are supporting with this roll is that MAD classes need more good scores than SAD classes. I don't question this point, it is a tautology.

But still, before the roll, your chance that this roll would turn up a flat 18 was <10%. And it didn't -- does that prove my point? No, because it is a single sample. It tested and confirmed my point... but only once.

It also confirms your point, if your point is that you can make an SAD easily. That is an argument I don't contest at all, and it is also not in conflict with my point (that for the wizard, the point-buy is better, because he can ensure an 18 stat 100% of the time).

But is this a dice-rolling thread? Is the objective to use single samples to argue against statistics theory?

A close look at the points I'm making will tell you that I'm not only providing evidence for them, but also limit them to what I can provide evidence for. If you want to refute my argument that it is better for a wizard to roll 4d6b3, than choose standard point buy, then we are in disagreement.

If you don't feel you can build a Ranger, Rogue or Paladin from 17, 16, 14, 13, 8, 7, that's fine with me.

Marlowe

2012-05-29, 05:50 AM

And of course you would like to generalize from your single sample?
Your roll equals a 33 point buy.

I could post every character I have ever rolled, but I know that you would just ignore information that doesn't fit your pet theory of the moment. .
Just as you are ignoring everything but your wizard obsession. Just as you are ignoring the professionals that are telling you you are misunderstanding probability distribution. YOU are the one with hypothesis here. YOU should be coming up with the samples

Yup, it is over 32 points. And it is still a poor array for a MAD class. This is what you get with rolling the dice. A Paladin, Monk, or Rogue has serious issues with this array. A Ranger, Bard, or Cleric also has problem. A Fighter or Barbarian would be fine. And of course, so would the Wizard. And Sorceror.

Now feel free to get back to insulting those that don't agree with you. There will be many, so take a deep breath.

Malachei

2012-05-29, 06:06 AM

I could post every character I have ever rolled, but I know that you would just ignore information that doesn't fit your pet theory of the moment.

Marlowe, I've come up with so much evidence why standard point-buy is better for a wizard than rolling 4d6b3.

I don't care if you ignore it.

But please don't take this too personal. If you call another poster's contribution a "pet theory", I fear this debate will just leave you frustrated in the end.

Just as you are ignoring everything but your wizard obsession.

What's that supposed to mean? I don't have any obsession. You claimed the wizard should roll, and I brought evidence that he should go point-buy.

Just as you are ignoring the professionals that are telling you you are misunderstanding probability distribution. YOU are the one with hypothesis here.

Actually, I answered and addressed the points, explaining why that is not a refutation of my argument. And by the way, last time I read the forum rules, we didn't have special rules for "professionals". Note that at least I present evidence for my claims, rather than turning this into a dice-rolling thread or basing my argument on my professional background, etc.

YOU should be coming up with the samples

Then why have you come with a single set of samples and build your point from there?

Yup, it is over 32 points. And it is still a poor array for a MAD class.

For a risk-averse player who hates dice, yes, probably I'd agree. Well, life's imperfect. You can't always get what you want. Except if you're a wizard on a standard point-buy, of course :smallbiggrin:

This is what you get with rolling the dice. A Paladin, Monk, or Rogue has serious issues with this array.

You have issues with this array. Others may not.

Now feel free to get back to insulting those that don't agree with you. There will be many, so take a deep breath.

The insult, Marlowe, is coming from you, calling my contribution a "pet theory" and claiming I have a "wizard obsession". Probably not the worst obsession to have in D&D, but I'd still prefer you'd just skip comments like that.

I advise you to cool down a bit.

Ceaon

2012-05-29, 06:09 AM

Your roll equals a 33 point buy. This is above the maximum the DMG recommends for a high-powered campaign (32 pts.). It is 8 points above standard point-buy, and you are telling me you cannot build a decent MAD character from it?

So... the roll equals a 33 point buy, but because of the randomness of rolling, a proper, MAD-class character STILL can't be build. Doesn't that, you know, refute your point instead of defend it?

Marlowe

2012-05-29, 06:16 AM

Malachei

2012-05-29, 06:35 AM

So... the roll equals a 33 point buy, but because of the randomness of rolling, a proper, MAD-class character STILL can't be build. Doesn't that, you know, refute your point instead of defend it?

That's a good point, actually.

Now we'll have to define exactly what MAD is. Multiple-Ability-Dependency does not exactly say six-above-average stats. I'd say requiring four above-average stats is pretty MAD, and the roll does support that. If you really want six above average stats, your best bonus will be +1 even with point-buy --- and the advantage very limited, i.e. usually exactly 5% on whatever your attribute affects. I would not choose a set of 13, 12, 12, 12, 12 for a Rogue, Ranger or Paladin, for instance. It will also limit the Ranger and Paladin's spellcasting, unless you start putting stat increases into the spellcasting attribute (then you end up with a low STR or DEX).

I'd prefer the rolled set of 17, 16, 14, 13, 8, 7 to a standard point-buy of 14, 14, 12, 12, 11, 10 on a:

Ranger. I'd put the low stats into CHA and INT. Potentially one into STR, if you focus on ranged (crossbows). Yes, it hurts, but at level 4, I'll have an 18 DEX, which is my most important stat. I can also put the 17 into STR and by level 4, have an 18 STR for a more melee ranger.
Rogue. I'd put the low stats into CHA and WIS, or CHA and STR for a ranged (crossbow) rogue. Again, at 4th level I'll have an 18 DEX, which will affect my AC, to hit (Weapon Finesse), and most of my skills. I still can have a great CON, a good INT... what's not to like?
Paladin. This one is more tricky. I want a good STR, CON, WIS and CHA. That leaves INT and DEX. I'll focus on melee, working with the ranged Rogue or Ranger, and buy heavy armor, which would limit the use of DEX anyway. For skill points, I'll be human.

The differences in the good scores are affecting my character much more than the differences between the bad scores and the average score I'd get from point-buy.

We're talking about a single -1 stat, and a -2 stat. What's so bad about that?

If you can't live with -2, you can put the 4th level stat increase into it, so you have two -1 stats. But with two +3 stats, one of which can easily be increased to +4, you're much better at your core tasks. On the point-buy, you'll have two +0 stats anyway, so it's not like you come out all shiny.

But I think the impact of a malus is exaggerated.

IMO, it's like they say in life: Focus on your strengths.

TL;DR: A decent MAD character can be built from this stat array. The point-buy does not solve the issue. Small ability score penalties are exaggerated. The difference between a small malus and an average score does not justify giving up the good scores.

Togo

2012-05-29, 07:13 AM

You are assuming. I am familiar with probability distribution. You are assuming that out of a small number of samples there will be NO outliers.

I don't think so. He's stating that there will less availability of high outlier results if you have point buy, than if you roll. Since there is 100% availability if you point buy, this is a pretty straightforward point. If you roll, you won't always get a high stat.

The bell-curve is a wonderful thing. It is no comfort to the guy who wants to play a social rogue and has to fit a 5 into one of his stats. Outliers happen, they can happen quite easily within a set of six random samples, and just one can mess up a MAD build.

I can see why a rogue would prefer not to have a 5 is wisdom. I'm not sure that such character qualifies as 'messed up'. Similarly, a single outlier low stat doesn't mess up a monk, a ranger, a fighter, a barbarian, or a bard.

Having an 18 is preferable, but not necessary for a wizard. A Dragonborn Gray Elf wizard with those stats can have 6 Str, 14 Dex, 16 Con, 16 Int 13 Wis, 10 Cha and be perfectly playable. A caster whose highest roll is a 14 can do just fine, doubly so if he picks a race with a +2 to that stat.

Now try making a decent let's say paladin or monk with 18, 12, 12, 9, 8, 8, since it's perfectly possible to roll something like that.

I think it's a mistake to assume that something like dragonborn would be available. Assuming just Grey Elf, then you have a wizard with Str 6, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 16, Wis 13 and Chr 10. This is perfectly playable, but I suspect that most players would consider a 20 in INT to better optimised. The difference is -2 to all save DCs, 2 skill points per level, and the loss of several bonus spells.

Making a monk with the stats you gave... Let's go wood elf, for a total of Str 20, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 6, Wis 9, Chr 8. Not great, but still perfectly playable. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Marlowe

2012-05-29, 07:31 AM

I don't think so. He's stating that there will less availability of high outlier results if you have point buy, than if you roll. Since there is 100% availability if you point buy, this is a pretty straightforward point. If you roll, you won't always get a high stat. If so, my mistake. I read it as referring to the bell curve from rolling stats.

I can see why a rogue would prefer not to have a 5 is wisdom. I'm not sure that such character qualifies as 'messed up'. Similarly, a single outlier low stat doesn't mess up a monk, a ranger, a fighter, a barbarian, or a bard. It messes up a build, which was the wording I used. It's annoying being expected to be the eyes and ears of the party with a -3 to spot and listen. To say nothing of will saves. If that's what you wanted to do..well tough luck. Shouldn't bought the points.

Making a monk with the stats you gave... Let's go wood elf, for a total of Str 20, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 6, Wis 9, Chr 8. Not great, but still perfectly playable. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here.

That's not "perfectly playable". That's a suicide waiting to happen. You have no Wisdom bonus to armour and only average (this means poor) con. You are scarcely harder to hit and kill than some of my spellcasters. And you're meant to be a combat character. You could try it but wouldn't it be making your life a lot easier to play a different class? A SAD class?

You can try to compensate for these arrays all you like. Fact of the matter is the rolling the dice cuts a lot of the viability out of the MAD classes. Resources will have to be used to shore up weaknesses that would have been pure gain if a SAD class had been chosen instead. Point-buy is advantageous to both MAD and SAD classes, but the relative benefit is higher to the former, since it allows to player to guarantee a character that is viable from the start.

LordBlades

2012-05-29, 07:52 AM

I think it's a mistake to assume that something like dragonborn would be available. Assuming just Grey Elf, then you have a wizard with Str 6, Dex 16, Con 12, Int 16, Wis 13 and Chr 10. This is perfectly playable, but I suspect that most players would consider a 20 in INT to better optimised. The difference is -2 to all save DCs, 2 skill points per level, and the loss of several bonus spells.
And I think it's a mistake assuming dragonborn would not be available in a discussion that was never about limiting sources.

Making a monk with the stats you gave... Let's go wood elf, for a total of Str 20, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 6, Wis 9, Chr 8. Not great, but still perfectly playable. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here.

So a monk with 10 con, 2 sp per level and negative wisdom modifier is 'perfectly playable' for you? Sorry, but for me that doesn't qualify as neither 'playable' nor 'a monk' . A fighter with Imp. Unarmed Strike, Snap Kick and Power Attack is more monk-ish than your Monk

Malachei

2012-05-29, 07:59 AM

Marlowe

2012-05-29, 08:22 AM

Amphetryon

2012-05-29, 08:29 AM

Again, you give no evidence. And IMO, the opposite is true: Most MAD classes, (like the Rogue, Ranger and Paladin) can be built from the set of rolls you gave. You don't even have to work around weaknesses, you focus on your strengths. For a Paladin, STR is so much more important than INT and DEX.

The chance to roll a 5 on 4d6b3 is less than 1%.
The question is "Can they be built to perform well," nor "Can they be built." I can BUILD a Character with 8s in all the stats. I'm capable of it. The Character will SUCK at any job that an adventurer is expected to perform, and rely on sheer luck and tactical savvy (until he gets to Master of Many Forms), but he can be made.

Paladins who use Ranged Smite - which is actually a Feat - don't care about STR nearly as much as they do about DEX. An Elven Paladin aiming for Champion of Correlon Larethian - to take the example a step further - cares about INT as well, because of the prerequisites of the PrC and the abilities it grants. DEX is also at least AS useful for a Paladin who center their concept around Mounted Combat (the aforementioned Elven Paladin, for example). Given that the Paladin's Warhorse is cited as a potential reason to consider playing said Paladin, I'd say it's a common concern even when you're NOT building toward CoCL.

That, of course, sets aside the basic functions of DEX in a build: Initiative, Ranged Combat, adding a bonus to Armor Class, and REF Saves (which are less scary "on paper" but are often more deadly than WILL or FORT Saves, because you take damage on most made REF Saves, whereas most WILL/FORT Saves are binary).

Malachei

2012-05-29, 08:52 AM

Perhaps this wasn't actually you?

This is what I get for taking you seriously: All you've stated to support your position was your opinion, and I brought my opinion and some statistical evidence. You're free to ignore the evidence by stating "dice are fickle and perverse". But if you do state this, please don't get mad at me for taking you seriously.

Please, calm down, Marlowe. If you stop attacking me personally, we can have a civil debate and actually focus on our opinions, the evidence we bring and so on.

I'm not trying to convince you. You've presented a 33-point-buy roll and say it creates only crippled MAD characters. I've presented why I can work with this just fine.

For another source of evidence Rogue Handbook (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8711233) gives the following stat array for 25-point-buy:

Sample 25 PB: Str 9, Dex 16, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 8, Cha 10

Note this has two below average stats, for a (+3) and two (+2) stats, very similar to your roll. But you'd probably say this character is crippled?

Paladins who use Ranged Smite - which is actually a Feat - don't care about STR nearly as much as they do about DEX. An Elven Paladin aiming for Champion of Correlon Larethian - to take the example a step further - cares about INT as well, because of the prerequisites of the PrC and the abilities it grants. DEX is also at least AS useful for a Paladin who center their concept around Mounted Combat (the aforementioned Elven Paladin, for example). Given that the Paladin's Warhorse is cited as a potential reason to consider playing said Paladin, I'd say it's a common concern even when you're NOT building toward CoCL.

You're now evading to specific builds. Of course, almost any class can be built in a way to have different priorities regarding their stats. With the discussed set of rolls, IMO, you can perform as a Rogue/Ranger/Paladin. I've not claimed you can work as well with each and every Prestige Class.

Do you say mean an MAD class needs six above-average stats?

As you're bringing feats etc. into the discussion, I'd say a look at the X to Y stat bonus thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=125732) is fine, as well, and actually helpful, because we find we now need less stats to function.

Amphetryon

2012-05-29, 09:18 AM

I'm moving to specific builds because they are legitimate responses to blanket statements that SAD Classes need better stats than MAD Classes.

Do you say mean an MAD class needs six above-average statsIs that what I said? Nope, I've said something different than that, repeatedly; please respond to what I said, rather than inserting words into my mouth for your refutation, thank you. MAD Classes need three or more above average stats, practically by the very definition of Multiple Attribute Dependency. In addition, MAD Classes, which almost without exception do not have the ability to a. use Spells to emulate abilities and must rely on Skills and raw Attributes, b. self-buff before more than 1/3 of the pre-Epic game is done* or c. otherwise alter their own stats on the fly, will always have to choose which abilities are going to suck *most of the time.* High-Tier, SAD Classes (these are all but synonymous) can choose to dispense with many Skill checks, Saves, and Ability "deficiencies" by using magic to solve the problem.

*Please don't default to "they can UMD a Scroll" or similar. That's contingent upon someone else creating the Scroll to begin with, AND on getting their hands on said Scroll as needed, before even worrying about the UMD check. It's a specious argument.

Marlowe

2012-05-29, 09:40 AM

Malachei

2012-05-29, 10:20 AM

Marlowe

2012-05-29, 10:45 AM

That, in fact, is an insult against me. Again. Please refrain from attacking me personally any longer and get back on topic. No, that's a judgement on your words and behaviour in the thread. You questioned my rationality for using a rhetorical device. You have told a professor of applied mathematics that he can't apply mathematics. Because he disagreed with you. While you were committing a very basic fallacy. What.

Which is totally irrelevant, because we're comparing standard character creation methods, i.e. 4d6b3 vs. 25 point-buy. Your roll of 4d6b3 has delivered the equivalent of a 33 point-buy. That is superior to a 25 point-buy. Never used 25 point buy. I'm not enrolled in any games using 25-point buy. I don't know how you can claim it as standard. You seem to be making all the rules here.

It's Sorcerer. Also, I forgot Poland.

Perhaps because somebody wants to play a Rogue or Ranger? And does not want to play a full caster? For actual roleplaying reasons, perhaps? Like, preferring the archetype of Aragorn over Gandalf's? Well, if so, Aragorn's got a much harder road.

You're saying having a (-1) and a (-2) stat is crippling a MAD character, and that is something completely different than having a (-1) stat and a (-1) stat? I think it is really nitpicking by stating two (!) points in a point-buy, is actually making a character rock or fall apart.
The two -1s can be fixed by a stat increase and an 8000gp item if so desired. That 7 is going to be a headache for a while. And in a nutshell that is a problem with MAD classes. Small penalties hurt a lot. Also, you've ignored how I would adjust the stats slightly.

Malachei

2012-05-29, 11:02 AM

Marlowe, you're not a moderator. Please stop your personal attacks.

Never used 25 point buy. I'm not enrolled in any games using 25-point buy. I don't know how you can claim it as standard. You seem to be making all the rules here.

It is in the DMG. It is called: Standard Point Buy.

The two -1s can be fixed by a stat increase and an 8000gp item if so desired. That 7 is going to be a headache for a while. And in a nutshell that is a problem with MAD classes. Small penalties hurt a lot. Also, you've ignored how I would adjust the stats slightly.

I think you're setting wrong priorities.

I'd spend my stat increases to increase my most important stat. This would also be the highest one.

I don't think it makes sense to focus on getting (-1) penalties to (+0), but it's a free world.

Marlowe

2012-05-29, 11:10 AM

Please take some responsibility for your words.

Ideally, I would use the stat increase to increase my highest stat too. However in the example you have given, an increase from 16 to 17 does nothing. Improving a -1 to a +0 makes a degree of sense when it's an important stat for combat or for class skills and abilities which, for a Rogue, is pretty much all of them.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-29, 12:17 PM

So I started a Pathfinder game tonight (Red Hand of Doom! In Eberron! yay). I ended up with four players - a gnome alchemist (with guns), an elf fighter (with a griffon), a human martial artist monk (she didn't buy any equipment) and a human magus. After a few walking around, getting used to Elsir Vale and such, we had a single combat encounter - 8 hobgoblins, 1 hobgoblin bladebearer (Fighter 4), 1 hobgoblin cleric and 2 hellhounds.
Do you want to guess who was the most relevant character throughout the whole encounter, dealing the most damage, managing to move through difficult terrain, tumbling through threatened areas and decimating the opposition when surrounded?

I've run RHoD twice. It's a kind of low powered module. Also, the initial encounter is especially low powered as it's just there for setting the scene and what not. Do not expect this to last.

That said, the fighter on a griffon shouldn't be giving a care about difficult terrain, nor should the gunfighter be much bothered by it. The mage? Also not bothered by it.

My experience with this has indicated that significant portions of the module are just not designed for effective casters. Dragons tend to go down rapidly, and the horde itself is remarkably vulnerable to aoes(as are many of the actual encounters). Difficult terrain is not especially common. Many encounters can be initiated at long range, which is kind of an advantage for ranged/casters.

While mobility is of some value, this particular example does not really make your case.

Additionally, the plural of anecdote is not statistics. I can run actual stats if you like for some of the encounters in RHoD, but there are a few I can think of that will initiate far enough apart that melee will not happen in round one unless you do something very unfortunate(like charging a hydra solo where your buddies can't help you effectively). In these, ranged combatants tend to shine, and at decent op levels, tend to crush the target before melee does much of anything.

Edit: Additionally, on the topic of scores, the odds of getting an 18 on a single roll of 3d6 are 1/216. Getting a 16 on that roll? 4.7%

So, even when rolling 3d6 for stats(a fairly unforgiving method), you'll get a score of 16+ over 25% of the time. So, you can expect basically any party of randomly generated chars to have at least one char with a great stat. If it's a caster, it'll almost certainly end up in the casting stat. So yes, we can conclude that low point buy/harsh rolling systems are more likely to penalize lower tier chars, as they are more MAD, and we see a significant variation in scores quite frequently.(I can calc exact stats for other creations methods if desired, but this holds quite true for the usual methods).

Now, who wants to calculate the odds that you'll roll at least an 11 in one of three 3d6 rolls? (The average is 10.5.) How about 4d6b3? (The average is something like 12.3.) What about the odds of getting at least one in six, and you get to choose where it goes? :smallwink:

TL;DR, caster > non-caster, SAD > MAD, and the sun will rise in Hawaii in about four hours. But all of these things remain true no matter how restrictive (or un-) the stat generation system you choose.

The odds of getting an 11+ on one of three 3d6 rolls is 7/8ths. It's a strictly 50/50 shot on each roll, so 87.5% of the time, you'll get at least one 11+.

The odds of an 11+ on any mental stat on 4d6b3 are 99.598%

Strictly speaking, if you're following the rules, any roll that fails to get any 11+s in all mental stats is highly likely to be eligible for rerolling, so actual final stats are rather more likely to have a positive mental stat prior to racial adjustments.

Malachei

2012-05-29, 12:37 PM

Please take some responsibility for your words.

I am. Please stop attacking me as a person. Deal with my points, my evidence, my argument, but STOP flaming me NOW!

Ideally, I would use the stat increase to increase my highest stat too.

Finally, in a part of an argument, a hint of an agreement.

However in the example you have given, an increase from 16 to 17 does nothing.

The actual example was the set of rolls you presented. It has a 17. In fact, I've posted here before that is one of the reasons I'd favor this roll over the 25 point-buy for several reasons, one being the availability of an 18 through a stat increase. The example from the Rogue Handbook was only to specifically address a point of yours, which was that on a 25 point-buy, you'd have no stats below average (See? I'm actually still addressing your points).

Thus, my point was that is actual advice to leave stats below 10 on a 25 point-buy.

Improving a -1 to a +0 makes a degree of sense when it's an important stat for combat or for class skills and abilities which, for a Rogue, is pretty much all of them.

This is a very bad strategy. Unless you absolutely have to raise the stat, because you can't otherwise get the highest spell level as a partial caster, or you don't qualify for the feat you really need. In which case you should have put a better value into the stat in the first place.

I've run RHoD twice. It's a kind of low powered module.
My experience with this has indicated that significant portions of the module are just not designed for effective casters. Dragons tend to go down rapidly, and the horde itself is remarkably vulnerable to aoes(as are many of the actual encounters). (...) Many encounters can be initiated at long range, which is kind of an advantage for ranged/casters. (...) I can run actual stats if you like for some of the encounters in RHoD (...)

I'd be very interested in this. I'm currently running RHOD here on these forums (see my sig, if interested), and I'd love to hear from your experiences almost as much as I'd love to have statistics.

I've found the enemies pretty weak for a strong, but not much optimized party. Therefore, I used no encounter straight from the book, but adapted each to present a more appropriate challenge.

I think as written, RHOD is a party for all classes. Casters especially shine, because many enemies have little or no immunities, and low Will saves. But ranged attackers have a great time as well, and there is still plenty to do for melee builds.

ThiagoMartell

2012-05-29, 12:39 PM

I've run RHoD twice. It's a kind of low powered module. Also, the initial encounter is especially low powered as it's just there for setting the scene and what not. Do not expect this to last.
I can't remember any written module that is not low powered, actually.
This first encounter is specifically mentioned as a tough one in the book, though, 'because the characters will rest afterwards'.

That said, the fighter on a griffon shouldn't be giving a care about difficult terrain, nor should the gunfighter be much bothered by it. The mage? Also not bothered by it.
The fighter wasn't on a griffon, the Fighter had a griffon (he was circling above and only came down once). Guns in Pathfinder only get their special effect (ignoring armor) when you're close to the target. Magus are gishes, so I don't see your point.

My experience with this has indicated that significant portions of the module are just not designed for effective casters.
That's true for any written module. D&D as a whole does not take effective (as in, optimized) casters into account.

Dragons tend to go down rapidly, and the horde itself is remarkably vulnerable to aoes(as are many of the actual encounters). Difficult terrain is not especially common. Many encounters can be initiated at long range, which is kind of an advantage for ranged/casters.
Difficult terrain seems very common in the first part of the module, actually. I think you might be misremembering.

While mobility is of some value, this particular example does not really make your case.
I'm... not making a case. :smallconfused: I'm just saying this happened in my game.

Additionally, the plural of anecdote is not statistics. I can run actual stats if you like for some of the encounters in RHoD, but there are a few I can think of that will initiate far enough apart that melee will not happen in round one unless you do something very unfortunate(like charging a hydra solo where your buddies can't help you effectively). In these, ranged combatants tend to shine, and at decent op levels, tend to crush the target before melee does much of anything.
You're missing the point. The tier system is not built on statiscs, it's built on anecdotal evidence.

Tyndmyr

2012-05-29, 01:14 PM

*Note: RHoD spoilers follow* Not bothering to use actual spoiler tags since it's a classic mod that many have done.

I can't remember any written module that is not low powered, actually.
This first encounter is specifically mentioned as a tough one in the book, though, 'because the characters will rest afterwards'.

It says that, yes. It's wrong. This is not particularly uncommon for advice bits in books and modules.

The fighter wasn't on a griffon, the Fighter had a griffon (he was circling above and only came down once). Guns in Pathfinder only get their special effect (ignoring armor) when you're close to the target. Magus are gishes, so I don't see your point.

If the fighter only utilized the griffon once, and not as a mount, then his effectiveness is probably lower than it could be due to tactics.

As for the gunfighter...that's "first range increment". Now, I obviously don't know what guns he used, but most of the two handers have a range increment of at least 30 ft. I'm away from book right now, but I don't recall that map as being particularly large. Even with difficult terrain, getting within 30' should be pretty straightforward.

The magus has spells, and as mentioned, it's the only encounter of the day. So, he isn't running low yet. He has plenty of ranged spells on his list. Ignoring optimization heavy stuff, even kicking out Magic Missile's should be pretty easy. And gish need not mean not packing a ranged weapon. Backup weapons are not particularly high op stuff.

That's true for any written module. D&D as a whole does not take effective (as in, optimized) casters into account.

Not highly optimized, merely effective. The ability to toss out a fireball, purely as listed in the book, will frequently level most of an encounter.

Difficult terrain seems very common in the first part of the module, actually. I think you might be misremembering.

Not at all. Most of the big fights do not list difficult terrain as an issue. The bridge fight? Certainly has terrain hazards, but none of which are actually difficult terrain. Issues are more along the lines of "well, that's a chasm, and if I go on the bridge alone, I'll probably take all the fire". Those are movement limitations that monk features don't do a lot to mitigate.

The hydra encounter, while yes, it has difficult terrain, also means charging a hydra. This is quite likely to end up with a splattered monk. However, since the hydra moves to slow to get to the bridge in round 1, it tends to get novaed before it does much.

The castle battle is a stealth fight. You want to avoid alerting everyone right off. The monk is not particularly advantaged here. In addition, the manticore is basically inaccessible to him, he needs to rely on the ranged/casters to deal with it unless his strategy is "absorb all the hits till he runs out of ranged attacks". Lastly, the boss is a caster who is not particularly vulnerable to grappling, and who has minions to screen for him. This also does not favor the monk. Also, no terrain of importance is listed as difficult here, either.

The ford battle? They come from ridiculously far away and take forever to cross the river. All the real threats are either casters or flying. Monks are basically useless here. Fireball is hilarious at this point, though. Provoking attacks from the ranged attackers is pretty easy to deal with, given the range penalties they take, and since you'll be bailing once the casters run low on spells, the monk remains basically useless the entire fight.

You're missing the point. The tier system is not built on statiscs, it's built on anecdotal evidence.

It's built on mechanics, as well. It's something developed from analysis of the various classes involved. It isn't purely from anecdotes, which are often conflicted.

Togo

2012-05-29, 01:36 PM

It messes up a build, which was the wording I used. It's annoying being expected to be the eyes and ears of the party with a -3 to spot and listen. To say nothing of will saves. If that's what you wanted to do..well tough luck. Shouldn't bought the points.

Stats put restrictions on the number of roles you can fill. Rogues are sometimes considered the eyes and ears of the party because they can hide, and thus are used to scout ahead. However, apart from getting the skill, there's nothing in the class design that makes them particularly good at spotting. Compare this to druids, monks and rangers, all of whom are more likely to have a high wisdom skill.

It's also a question of whether you really want the rogue to act as a lone scout. I find this is mechanically not worth it, since the distance the rogue has to be be from the rest of the party is too great for the party to support the rogue, or for the rogue to communicate with the party. Thus it really only works with static site encounters, where, since by definition you know where you are going, spot isn't as useful in any case.

But it's a question of choosing priorities and playstyle.

That's not "perfectly playable". That's a suicide waiting to happen. You have no Wisdom bonus to armour and only average (this means poor) con. You are scarcely harder to hit and kill than some of my spellcasters. And you're meant to be a combat character. You could try it....

Well precisely. You can play it. It's not the perfect character - it's a low stat Tier 5 build. But I've played a monk character only marginly better and they work just fine. 3 points down on AC and no con bonus is tough to play, but it still works for the game.

but wouldn't it be making your life a lot easier to play a different class? A SAD class?

Possibly. I'd make my life even easier if we just handwaved the fights and assumed we win. I don't go killing dragons for the easy life. I do it for the challenge. Part of that challenge is what you go up against, part is what you go up against it with.

There's a section in the PHB on low stats. It points out that some players prefer high stats, and regard a character with even a single poor stat as unplayable. Others don't. It's a playstyle thing, and about what you enjoy in the game.

(I'd also suggest that the challenges in the game will be geared towards the capabilities of the party, and that a party that optimises their characters as far as they can are actually reducing their survival chances quite sharply. But that's an entirely different arguement.)

You can try to compensate for these arrays all you like. Fact of the matter is the rolling the dice cuts a lot of the viability out of the MAD classes. Resources will have to be used to shore up weaknesses that would have been pure gain if a SAD class had been chosen instead. Point-buy is advantageous to both MAD and SAD classes, but the relative benefit is higher to the former, since it allows to player to guarantee a character that is viable from the start.

I disagree. MAD classes are viable from the start, even with poor dice rolls. They aren't always as good as some of the high Tier classes, but that's a seperate problem. The ability to have a single high stat, always possible under point buy, and only possible part of the time under random rolling, is more advantageous for classes that concentrate on a single stat.

And I think it's a mistake assuming dragonborn would not be available in a discussion that was never about limiting sources.

Hm.. Not the point. You're introducing a template that gives a substantial net gain to stats, at zero cost, and then stacking that with a race to customise the gain to your advantage. The problem is that you're introducing a practice that makes starting stats less relevent overall. If I can stack templates to get the stats I need, why would it matter what my starting stats were? I'd rather not add in stat-boosting templates, as it benefits all characters equally and thus obscures the issue.

If you're arguing that starting stats are irrelevent, or that minimum spell and feat requirements are irrelevent, because there's always a way to boost stats if you look hard enough, then fair enough.

So a monk with 10 con, 2 sp per level and negative wisdom modifier is 'perfectly playable' for you? Sorry, but for me that doesn't qualify as neither 'playable' nor 'a monk' . A fighter with Imp. Unarmed Strike, Snap Kick and Power Attack is more monk-ish than your Monk .

Well that's your perogative. However, that seems more a criticism of the monk class and the way it has been implemented in the game, rather than a comment on the viability of MAD characters with low stats.

Togo

2012-05-29, 02:03 PM

It says that, yes. It's wrong. This is not particularly uncommon for advice bits in books and modules.

Most advice from unfamiliar sources is.

Not at all. Most of the big fights do not list difficult terrain as an issue. The bridge fight? Certainly has terrain hazards, but none of which are actually difficult terrain. Issues are more along the lines of "well, that's a chasm, and if I go on the bridge alone, I'll probably take all the fire". Those are movement limitations that monk features don't do a lot to mitigate.

That's interesting. I remember a marsh, sneaking up on a defended obstacle, a bridge fight, several instances of sheer walls, a complex of passageways where we had to get through to the ranged damage dealers at the back. Our monk did pretty well.

The hydra encounter, while yes, it has difficult terrain, also means charging a hydra. This is quite likely to end up with a splattered monk. However, since the hydra moves to slow to get to the bridge in round 1, it tends to get novaed before it does much..

Depends on the encounter distance and how the encounter is run. In our run, the monk heroically rushed the hydra and grappled it. She got pretty torn up doing so, so we spent the rest of the encounter healing and buffing her, so she could keep the hydra busy, so the rest of the party could kill it. She was probably the most valuable character there.

The castle battle is a stealth fight. You want to avoid alerting everyone right off. The monk is not particularly advantaged here...

Monks aren't stealthy?

Our monk was really valuable here, bouncing around the mooks to get at the ranged attackers. (particularly that bard)

In addition, the manticore is basically inaccessible to him, he needs to rely on the ranged/casters to deal with it unless his strategy is "absorb all the hits till he runs out of ranged attacks". .

Does your monk not have ranged attacks? :smallconfused:

The ford battle? They come from ridiculously far away and take forever to cross the river. All the real threats are either casters or flying. Monks are basically useless here. Fireball is hilarious at this point, though. Provoking attacks from the ranged attackers is pretty easy to deal with, given the range penalties they take, and since you'll be bailing once the casters run low on spells, the monk remains basically useless the entire fight. .

Sorry, can I just clarify here? The monk is useless because you run away as soon as your spellcasters have run out of spells? Are you serious?

We owned that ford. Spellcasters were useful, for smoothing the flow, but this is a classic longevity fight.

It's built on mechanics, as well. It's something developed from analysis of the various classes involved. It isn't purely from anecdotes, which are often conflicted.

Sure, but any analysis of mechanics, in order to turn into a practical recommnedation, has to rest on assumptions. You try and keep them as reasonable as possible, but ultimately, they're not all going to be true all of the time. So the question then becomes, for the tables that I play at, are the assumptions the Tier system makes accurate enough for me to make useful predictions and estimations? I find they aren't. That doesn't mean it won't work for you though. It depends in part on how much of the original analysis and it's assumptions holds true the games you play in.

One of the reasons why the Tier system is so often quoted is that JaronK included many of his largest assumptions, allowing people to alter and tweak the system if their own tables only differ slightly from his.