Two questions about class/tier comparisons [a bit of a rant]

[TuggyNE]

1. Why do all threads devolve into an assumption of an arena duel format between the classes in question? Suppose one is comparing the druid spell list with the wizard's; it is largely irrelevant to mention the counters a wizard would have to a druid's best spells, because most of a druid's enemies are not wizards*! And yet nearly every thread will do this, some more than once.

2. How should this be prevented? Attempt to educate offending posters about the folly of the "arena fallacy", perhaps?


* The exceptions tend to be at high levels and/or high op, neither of which are as common as some might think.

[Endarire]

People get defensive over their favorite class.

The best way not to fuel the fire is to avoid presenting an opportunity for said fire.

[Gwendol]

For some classes an arena duel can be relevant: Fighter vs Barbarian for example.

[sonofzeal]

...because it's tremendously easier than any other standard of comparison. Even an Arena duel can be difficult to set up, with a lot of finagling on both sides. Any more complicated comparison would pretty much require running a whole quest series, far beyond the time and effort most forumgoers would even consider attempting just to settle a debate.

[TuggyNE]

People get defensive over their favorite class.

The best way not to fuel the fire is to avoid presenting an opportunity for said fire.

I suppose this is true. It's no less frustrating to see it in action through someone else's carelessness, though.


For some classes an arena duel can be relevant: Fighter vs Barbarian for example.

Well, true, but even there if the focus is on PvP, rather than PvM, it can skew things somewhat. For example, NPCs may lack certain equipment- or spell-backed strategies, because they don't have the resources of a PC. It's not as significant, though, because those two classes do not have as much to differentiate themselves anyway.


...because it's tremendously easier than any other standard of comparison. Even an Arena duel can be difficult to set up, with a lot of finagling on both sides. Any more complicated comparison would pretty much require running a whole quest series, far beyond the time and effort most forumgoers would even consider attempting just to settle a debate.

To clarify: I wasn't strictly speaking about a full-on mini-game to be run to settle things, although that is obviously an even more extreme example. But even when discussing a single spell or class feature, too often the discussion focuses on how it can directly be countered by the other class's spell or feature.

You're right, though, that it is easy to fall into the pattern, but that's just intellectual laziness, I think. Not that all disagreements should be settled by posting in PbP Recruiting for a full campaign, by any means, but that discussion should at least try to center around the more common roles in parties, or solo, acting against the broad range of enemies. (A little laziness is a good thing, but too much is very bad. :smallwink:)

[Gwendol]

The problem with keeping the arena out of the argument (especially with spellcasters) is the endless tirade of spells and counters that will ensue. The problem is that many arguments are low on specifics (=builds) and high on google-fu and WBL-mancy. Perhaps that is a way to steer arguments away from pure theory, while still keeping off the duels. With a specific build one can build specific challenges.

[navar100]

Because in any discussion of Tiers it is always assumed every spellcaster has every spell ever published all the time whenever they need the most perfect spell for any situation ever, always getting through spell resistance, the opponent always failing the saving throw, and having any feat ever published that facilitates overcoming whatever the situation is to justify their rant against Tier 1, rant against Tiers 4-, adoration of Tier 3, or bash 3E in general. Arena combat facilitates the bias. Such an occurrence only happens in theory on paper as an intellectual exercise, not actual practice of play.

[Gwendol]

Correct. By presenting actual builds, perhaps it would be easier compare classes since the forum can then pitch them against specific challenges.

[JoshuaZ]

Because in any discussion of Tiers it is always assumed every spellcaster has every spell ever published all the time whenever they need the most perfect spell for any situation ever, always getting through spell resistance, the opponent always failing the saving throw, and having any feat ever published that facilitates overcoming whatever the situation is to justify their rant against Tier 1, rant against Tiers 4-, adoration of Tier 3, or bash 3E in general. Arena combat facilitates the bias. Such an occurrence only happens in theory on paper as an intellectual exercise, not actual practice of play.

This just isn't accurate. Among other things, the many of the most broken or easily abused spells (e.g. Glitterdust, Grease, Color Spray, Gate, Timestop, Wish) are in core. The tier system is alive and well without any splatbooks. It is true that an arena does favor a wizard slightly more because they have time to prepare and preparation is important for wizards but that's a distinct claim.

[sonofzeal]

This just isn't accurate. Among other things, the many of the most broken or easily abused spells (e.g. Glitterdust, Grease, Color Spray, Gate, Timestop, Wish) are in core. The tier system is alive and well without any splatbooks. It is true that an arena does favor a wizard slightly more because they have time to prepare and preparation is important for wizards but that's a distinct claim.
Err... he didn't actually imply that splatbooks were the problem at any point there. What he's describing is known as "Shrodinger's Wizard", and it's a real phenomenon.

[Psyren]

Even so, there are "toolbox" spells (e.g. Polymorph and summons/Planar Binding) that most wizards can be assumed to have, which counter a great deal of their opposition. There are also very standard defenses like invisibility or flight, and very standard utility like Celerity/Time Stop. Assuming these basic spells is not Schrodinger in my opinion.

[Salanmander]

Even so, there are "toolbox" spells (e.g. Polymorph and summons/Planar Binding) that most wizards can be assumed to have, which counter a great deal of their opposition. There are also very standard defenses like invisibility or flight, and very standard utility like Celerity/Time Stop. Assuming these basic spells is not Schrodinger in my opinion.

The point that the OP is making is that, when talking about the utility of a druid, it shouldn't matter (much) whether a wizard can counter them.

I noticed the trend the OP is talking about in the other thread as well, and was also annoyed by it. The argument basically went like this: "A wizard can trump any of the druid's tricks, therefore a wizard is better than a druid."

I like the idea of an Arena Fallacy, and propose the following gist.

Arena Fallacy: The idea that the best way to compare the utility of two options in D&D is to have characters using them fight against each other.

The Arena Fallacy is a fallacy because most (or at least a lot of) D&D combat is a group of players against enemies which may or may not even have class levels.

Edit: As for *why* that trend exists, I think it's there for a few reasons. First and foremost, it's simply easier to think about than this nebulous idea of "the average of all encounters", or whatever other alternative is there. Second, there's a fair bit of human nature and societal norms built around direct confrontation. It's the same thing that leads to a fist fight over who's better at a sport.

[Engine]

I like the idea of an Arena Fallacy, and propose the following gist.

Arena Fallacy: The idea that the best way to compare the utility of two options in D&D is to have characters using them fight against each other.

The Arena Fallacy is a fallacy because most (or at least a lot of) D&D combat is a group of players against enemies which may or may not even have class levels.

I do not think is a fallacy at all: the simple fact that in a campaign you could face enemies with class levels means that you should be aware that a Wizard has many options against a Fighter, while the Fighter has few option against a Wizard. Of course this is just an example, no intention to start a debate Fighter vs. Wizard. I just want to point out that an arena fight could be a good way to see if a class could be a reasonable challenge to the party and if not, what kind of tweaks it requires to not utterly destroy it, or give it a good fight.
An example: if I want to put a Wizard against a mostly melee with low will saves party, I should be aware that throw a Glitterdust against it while airborne could result in a party wipe, especially if the Wizard has backup. An arena fight could tell you that without simulating every possible scenario.

[Psyren]

While I agree that a closed duel isn't the best way to compare tiers (I personally prefer a series of typical adventuring challenges, including non-combat encounters) - the use of Arena Fallacy doesn't necessarily invalidate the claim that the Wizard has greater utility than the Druid. Until both get access to Shapechange, the Wizard's spell list has a clear advantage even outside of a fight; greater facility with divinations, earlier access to astral/extraplanar travel, more social uses etc.

[Salanmander]

I do not think is a fallacy at all: the simple fact that in a campaign you could face enemies with class levels means that you should be aware that a Wizard has many options against a Fighter, while the Fighter has few option against a Wizard. Of course this is just an example, no intention to start a debate Fighter vs. Wizard. I just want to point out that an arena fight could be a good way to see if a class could be a reasonable challenge to the party and if not, what kind of tweaks it requires to not utterly destroy it, or give it a good fight.
An example: if I want to put a Wizard against a mostly melee with low will saves party, I should be aware that throw a Glitterdust against it while airborne could result in a party wipe, especially if the Wizard has backup. An arena fight could tell you that without simulating every possible scenario.

But the point is that we're trying to evaluate which will contribute more in a party. Let's take one wizard who focuses on scry-and-die tactics, contingency-teleports away when they take damage or are targeted by any non-harmless spell, and only knows single target spells because they always get their target alone. A second wizard focuses on battlefield control, keeps themselves safe-ish with a contingent mirror image, and has a mix of spells like Otto's Irresistable Dance and spells like solid fog.

The first wizard will flat out win in an arena with the second wizard, no questions asked. However, the second wizard will likely contribute more in a party.

Arena combat may be a relevant thing to think about when creating PCs, and it's *certainly* important when you're a DM creating challenges with class levels, but it's not the best way to compare how much two PCs will contribute in a party.

(Sure, the first wizard could take down any target given enough time (which he has), but the party may get bored and go "screw this, we're a druid, a different wizard, and a warblade, we can take it ourselves", or may be left in combat when the wizard contingency-teleports away.)


Edit:

While I agree that a closed duel isn't the best way to compare tiers (I personally prefer a series of typical adventuring challenges, including non-combat encounters) - the use of Arena Fallacy doesn't necessarily invalidate the claim that the Wizard has greater utility than the Druid. Until both get access to Shapechange, the Wizard's spell list has a clear advantage even outside of a fight; greater facility with divinations, earlier access to astral/extraplanar travel, more social uses etc.

True. It simply invalidates the particular argument of "Wizard beats up X, therefore X is not useful in a party".

[TuggyNE]

The point that the OP is making is that, when talking about the utility of a druid, it shouldn't matter (much) whether a wizard can counter them.

[...]

The Arena Fallacy is a fallacy because most (or at least a lot of) D&D combat is a group of players against enemies which may or may not even have class levels.

Yes, exactly. :smallsmile:


Edit: As for *why* that trend exists, I think it's there for a few reasons. First and foremost, it's simply easier to think about than this nebulous idea of "the average of all encounters", or whatever other alternative is there. Second, there's a fair bit of human nature and societal norms built around direct confrontation. It's the same thing that leads to a fist fight over who's better at a sport.

These are both fair points. I don't suppose there's much that can be done about the second one, except to try to discourage it where possible; the first, though, can perhaps be reduced by formalizing condensed "standard" encounter sets. E.g., a set of four-five widely differentiated encounters with which to compare the classes, either by running them through, or simply theorycrafting. (Essentially, the encounter series Psyren mentioned, standardized.)


I do not think is a fallacy at all: the simple fact that in a campaign you could face enemies with class levels means that you should be aware that a Wizard has many options against a Fighter, while the Fighter has few option against a Wizard. Of course this is just an example, no intention to start a debate Fighter vs. Wizard. I just want to point out that an arena fight could be a good way to see if a class could be a reasonable challenge to the party and if not, what kind of tweaks it requires to not utterly destroy it, or give it a good fight.

This is true, as far as it goes, but the fallacy lies in trying to use the comparison for more than it actually works for. Fighters are a fairly good stand-in for all kinds of mundane classes and monsters, but what about a comparison of Shadowcaster vs. Truenamer? There are very very few monsters that use either of those subsystems, and not too many NPCs for that matter, and a direct arena comparison is therefore next to useless for determining their respective value in a party.

[kardar233]

I just want to make a distinction here:

Arena Fallacy: Arguing the relative effectiveness of classes in standard PvM play by pitting two classes directly against each other in a PvP style.

This is distinct from:

The "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmoKhFJRUOk&feature=player_detailpage#t=52s) Argument: This is directly comparing competing class features, like comparing the Wizard's level 1 spell list to the Druid's. Done correctly, this isn't a fallacy, as you're comparing the capabilities of two classes.

Arena Fallacy: "In-game, a Psion is much better than a Wizard because the Psion can make Black Lotus Extract which kills Wizards easily."

Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better Argument: "Wizard 1 is a better control caster than Druid 1 as Grease and Colour Spray are better than Entangle."

[Gamer Girl]

The answer is simple enough. The people that play with the tier system and arena duels are playing their own special form of D&D: The 80's fight video game variant. Ye Old Mortal Combat is a great example-to foes would pop out of no where, stand face to face and the big words 'Fight' would come on the screen. This is the 80's fight video game variant of D&D. In this variant the world is simple a bunch of arena style duels.

And you can see that this variant is popular. Lots of people like video games, so they also like this variant. This variant stresses as little role play as possible, and is just all about the toe to toe fight.

[JoshuaZ]

Err... he didn't actually imply that splatbooks were the problem at any point there. What he's describing is known as "Shrodinger's Wizard", and it's a real phenomenon.

Really? Because "having any feat ever published" and "most perfect spell for any situation ever" sound like an issue of splatbooks. The comment being made wasn't about Schrodinger's Wizard- that's a problem that applies in these discussions whether or not one is in the arena situation.

[Mithril Leaf]

I just want to make a distinction here:

Arena Fallacy: Arguing the relative effectiveness of classes in standard PvM play by pitting two classes directly against each other in a PvP style.

This is distinct from:

The "Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmoKhFJRUOk&feature=player_detailpage#t=52s) Argument: This is directly comparing competing class features, like comparing the Wizard's level 1 spell list to the Druid's. Done correctly, this isn't a fallacy, as you're comparing the capabilities of two classes.

Arena Fallacy: "In-game, a Psion is much better than a Wizard because the Psion can make Black Lotus Extract which kills Wizards easily."

Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better Argument: "Wizard 1 is a better control caster than Druid 1 as Grease and Colour Spray are better than Entangle."

Hey, you stole my idea to kill that pesky wizard!

In all seriousness, this is important point. A lot of the time it is Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better when people talk about arenas. An example is the monk as a spellcaster slayer. I recall seeing someone saying how a monk could be built to kill a wizard, and another poster gave an example of how a wizard could counter each point and do the same but better.

[kardar233]

Hey, you stole my idea to kill that pesky wizard!

In all seriousness, this is important point. A lot of the time it is Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better when people talk about arenas. An example is the monk as a spellcaster slayer. I recall seeing someone saying how a monk could be built to kill a wizard, and another poster gave an example of how a wizard could counter each point and do the same but better.

I was going to PM you about it because I wanted to know, but then you posted it later. Elegant solution. Watch out for Necropolitans.

If you're specifically building a character to kill casters, then a PvP conflict is perfectly applicable, as a PC caster is fairly representative of a target of yours.

However, if you're building a character as part of a party (which I'd say most people are actually talking about) then you're comparing your effectiveness in your role versus any competing builds, which doesn't necessarily correspond to their effectiveness in an arena setting.

[navar100]

Really? Because "having any feat ever published" and "most perfect spell for any situation ever" sound like an issue of splatbooks. The comment being made wasn't about Schrodinger's Wizard- that's a problem that applies in these discussions whether or not one is in the arena situation.

I don't have a problem with splatbooks. I have a problem with people saying spellcasters have everything all the time any time to justify their biases when in actual game play that is not the case.

[Salanmander]

Hey, you stole my idea to kill that pesky wizard!

In all seriousness, this is important point. A lot of the time it is Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better when people talk about arenas. An example is the monk as a spellcaster slayer. I recall seeing someone saying how a monk could be built to kill a wizard, and another poster gave an example of how a wizard could counter each point and do the same but better.

Yeah, if it's Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better, that is a perfectly valid way of saying one class is superior to the other.

[ThiagoMartell]

The answer is simple enough. The people that play with the tier system and arena duels are playing their own special form of D&D: The 80's fight video game variant. Ye Old Mortal Combat is a great example-to foes would pop out of no where, stand face to face and the big words 'Fight' would come on the screen. This is the 80's fight video game variant of D&D. In this variant the world is simple a bunch of arena style duels.

And you can see that this variant is popular. Lots of people like video games, so they also like this variant. This variant stresses as little role play as possible, and is just all about the toe to toe fight.

I'm pretty sure Mortal Kombat is from the 90s.

[moritheil]

Correct. By presenting actual builds, perhaps it would be easier compare classes since the forum can then pitch them against specific challenges.

I've seen this happen, and it usually ends with disagreement over whether the challenges were fair (proportional to how much one side's pet class didn't do as well as hoped.)

[LordBlades]

I don't have a problem with splatbooks. I have a problem with people saying spellcasters have everything all the time any time to justify their biases when in actual game play that is not the case.

Whereas 'Schroedinger's wizard' is theoretical, it's not very far from the reality of practical gameplay (assuming smart play from the wizard).

First of all, full casters can be proactive. As a non-caster, you're more or less forced to follow the plot line. If you're in point A and want to get to point B, you have to follow the route the DM has built between points A and B. A caster is not bound by these restrictions. He can straight-line fly to point B, teleport there or even skip directly to C since he doesn't really need to pass by point B in order to get there. Often, the wizard isn't perfectly prepared to face situation X because he just happened to be, he's perfectly prepared because he went looking for situation X specifically.

Consider the following situation: a character arrives in town, and hears there's a hydra terrorizing the population in the swamps, about one week's walk from it. The fighter can wake up next morning, say to himself 'I'm going to slay the hydra' and buy whatever stuff he feel he'd need for that (he can't customize anything more than item). Even if he's well prepared to face a hydra, he still needs to walk for a week until he gets there, exposing himself to numerous more-or-less random encounters he has no prior idea about. What if the wizard wakes up saying to himself 'I'm going to slay a hydra'? He prepares as many divination&scrying spells as needed to get a good feeling for what he'll be op against, then next morning prepares his spell list accordingly. He teleports in, full of anti-hydra spells, slays the hydra and is back before lunch.

Secondly, casters have divinations. There's virtually no way for a non-caster to know the future, whereas a full caster, depending on what's acceptable at the table can get anything from general tips to fully customizable spell lists for tomorrow.

And third, it's very hard to make a wizard fight unprepared. Even if you somehow manage to inconvenience him, he can usually just leave, and come back for you when he's prepared (that might mean even as soon as a few minutes). Encounters that can both put the wizard at a disadvantage and stop him from leaving are few, and usually involve other wizards.

[crazyhedgewizrd]

I just like the treads that say, my friend thinks class X is awesome and i want to prove him wrong with class Y (usally wizard, cleric or druid). They ask for a build and people give suggestions that are always in the line of a one round combo, there is some aguments over it.
Then the person who wanted the build in the first place never says how the fight went.

[moritheil]

Then the person who wanted the build in the first place never says how the fight went.

Of course not. He got what he wanted. :smallsmile:

[TuggyNE]

The answer is simple enough. The people that play with the tier system and arena duels are playing their own special form of D&D: The 80's fight video game variant. Ye Old Mortal Combat is a great example-to foes would pop out of no where, stand face to face and the big words 'Fight' would come on the screen. This is the 80's fight video game variant of D&D. In this variant the world is simple a bunch of arena style duels.

Well, this sounds more like speculation, although there is certainly something to it. I don't think that's a universal explanation, though. (Also, did you just mix the tier system in with arena duel fallacies? If so, I am going to have to frown very hard in your direction.)


If you're specifically building a character to kill casters, then a PvP conflict is perfectly applicable, as a PC caster is fairly representative of a target of yours.

However, if you're building a character as part of a party (which I'd say most people are actually talking about) then you're comparing your effectiveness in your role versus any competing builds, which doesn't necessarily correspond to their effectiveness in an arena setting.

Another excellent rephrasing.


I've seen this happen, and it usually ends with disagreement over whether the challenges were fair (proportional to how much one side's pet class didn't do as well as hoped.)

Hmm, I should probably go back and reexamine Test of Spite, although that was too PvP-oriented, IIRC.


(stuff about fighters vs wizards)

While this is generally a good analysis, it's not meta enough for the main subject of this thread. :smallwink:

[killianh]

The way I see it is that Arena comparisons simply won't work. Even the "Anything you can do I can do better" doesn't seem to work all that well for comparing classes simply because of Optimization levels, play preferences, available character building materials, and character purpose. An "Anything you can do..." character shouldn't be used in most actual play groups because you have to be some kind of jerk to design a character that can outshine the rest of the party unless they play the same thing you do meaning outside of TO this argument is pointless. If its used to try and show how one class can excel at one particular thing over another class it will eventually escalate to "the wizard chain-gates" or some other well known trick. The Arena fight is useless too because going in the characters will be designed to specifically destroy the other character.

What does that leave as a possible measure of the classes then?

Versatility, hard control, and straight power seem to be the standards for how the tier system was put together, but I find that there are some indescrepencies depending on the character's level i.e a level 1 wizard is not as useful as a level 1 rogue, but at level 10 there's a big switch in power levels. So when comparing characters we also have to ask what level they are being compared at (especially considering how many ways there are to break the game by level 20). Another reason the tier system doesn't work as well as we would like is because it doesn't take optimization fully into account (but I won't waste the time posting build examples of some of my tier 3s and 4s that can and have kept the pace with 1s (for example I outshone a mailman build with a straight Dread Necromancer)

A big comparison that I've seen has been druid vs. cleric vs. wizard but it all depends on the focus of the build, both technically and [B]flavour wise[B] (which usually gets left out of class comparisons despite it being as important as class power for the purpose of fun play). Considering that the biggest power point for those three is versatility it would be pointless to try and limit them like that for comparison. So what are we left with?

My personal favourite way to compare classes is the gauntlet. A series of encounters decided entirely at random including a blend between skills, fighting, puzzles, and other types. 4 or so of those(since the game was designed on that thought) with a 4 man party of that one class (each built for a different purpose). See how you do, and detract points for crossclassing (since the test is if the class alone can handle the encounter).

This leads to one last problem. PrCs, and multiclassing is a big part of D&D, so is things like LA and ECL so how can that be judged? it can't. Plain as simple. There is simply too many things out there that can boost any of the existing base classes to accurately judge the potential of the class as a whole. What is probably the only important thing to compare classes on is if the class, for both power and flavour, fits the guy you feel like playing. If you only care about who is more powerful or useful then you've missed the point of the game. No one class will be the best for playing the type of character you want unless all you want is to simply outshine your party. The DM is the most powerful, you should only worry about enjoying the guy you have until he kills you.

[LordBlades]

An "Anything you can do..." character shouldn't be used in most actual play groups because you have to be some kind of jerk to design a character that can outshine the rest of the party unless they play the same thing you do meaning outside of TO this argument is pointless.

Except sometime it's the other way around. Sometimes the jerk is the person brings an uunderpowered character in a high optimization party and practically becomes dead weight, soaking up XP and treasure while not contributing at all because most likely everyone is better than him at what the underpowered character is supposed to be good at.

If you're planning to bring a fighter in a party that already has a melee CoDzilla, then it's worth noting that anything you can do the CoDzilla does better.

[Invader]

I think the biggest problem as some other people have mentioned isn't that it devolves into an arena match it's that most of the time the questions posed are so vague people have to go to a place where there's some semblance of common ground to try and determine something that has so many characteristics.

More often or not the question is something like who's spell list is better a druid or a cleric.

Honestly that question can't really be answered because no matter what you say the other class is going to have some way to counter that emphasis should be put on the OP to pose a question that provides a little bit of structure.

"I'm going to be playing in a campaign between levels 3-6 and I'd like to know if a cleric or a druid has more straight damage dealing spells and which of those spells are most effective at no allowing saving throws, hitting the most enemies, bypassing SR, etc".

"I really want to my character to focus on solely buffing the party in combat with everything else being secondary. Our party has a ranger, fighter, and a warlock. Between the cleric and the wizard who has better buffing spells that compliment those classes at around level 12".

IF OP's weren't so infuriatingly vague the playground wouldn't have to jump to so many conclusions to support their argument. :smallbiggrin:

[Engine]

Except sometime it's the other way around. Sometimes the jerk is the person brings an uunderpowered character in a high optimization party and practically becomes dead weight, soaking up XP and treasure while not contributing at all because most likely everyone is better than him at what the underpowered character is supposed to be good at.

If you're planning to bring a fighter in a party that already has a melee CoDzilla, then it's worth noting that anything you can do the CoDzilla does better.

That's another valid point I could agree upon.
My current group has an Oracle of Lore, a Barbarian and a Ranger. The Oracle provides the occasional healing spell, but mostly he uses crowd control & buffing spells, the Barbarian is pure damage and the Ranger drains the party resources. The group isn't optimized a lot (and we're facing mostly humans with levels in Rogue at the moment), yet the Ranger can't contribute in a meaningful way during fights. I'm not saying that this character should be put in an arena with a Cod-Zilla, but even with another Ranger with a slightly better build would point out that this character is just dead weight for the group.

[Salanmander]

An "Anything you can do..." character shouldn't be used in most actual play groups because you have to be some kind of jerk to design a character that can outshine the rest of the party unless they play the same thing you do meaning outside of TO this argument is pointless.

I think that the proposed argument wasn't about a specific character, but rather about classes in general. Take for example monk and unarmed swordsage. If, for EVERY thing that the monk can do, you could show that the unarmed swordsage can do the same thing, but BETTER, that pretty solidly shows that the swordsage is a better class than the monk.

(Note that this is different from an unarmed swordsage and a monk playing in the same party and one deliberately outshining the other, it's more like deciding which one to play as when you're creating a semimystic fistpuncher.)

[Gamer Girl]

I think that the proposed argument wasn't about a specific character, but rather about classes in general. Take for example monk and unarmed swordsage. If, for EVERY thing that the monk can do, you could show that the unarmed swordsage can do the same thing, but BETTER, that pretty solidly shows that the swordsage is a better class than the monk.

I always hate the 'better class' idea. It's bad enough that this mostly talks about pure combat, but it's bad enough in general. It comes from the idea that in order to use an ability to has to be automatically successful, or it's useless. This is the type of character that has like +20 in a skill so they don't even need to roll to do things.

Mostly this is about pure combat and pure numbers though. Oh a monk can 'only' do 16 points of damage on a hit, but a swordsage can do 20 points a damage and cast a spell(that they don't call a spell, wink,wink). So going by that: one character makes an attack, and one character makes an attack and casts a spell(but not a spell), then the second one is better.

And then you just get to nitpick things. One character can stun for 10 rounds. But the other character casts a 'fake spell' and does 1d8 damage and moves everyone 1d6 squares and disrupts time or something.

And it's odd that the better class idea never really takes into account game play, other then combat. "A dragon? I use my swordsage spell that is not a spell to do 100d10 cool ability spell effect'' But then take a normal game role playing problem, like the duke is disrupting the king's hunt, and that swordsage can't do anything "Oh, um, I can use a spell(wink, wink) to become an awesome dire bear and to 100d100 coolZ damage...um, but can't think of anything to do to the duke''.

[LordBlades]

Except the swordsage has, you know, less MAD and more skills, therefore being potentially able to contribute much more in the aforemetioned situation than the monk.

Player creativity has jack **** to do with what you're playing.

[ThiagoMartell]

Mostly this is about pure combat and pure numbers though. Oh a monk can 'only' do 16 points of damage on a hit, but a swordsage can do 20 points a damage and cast a spell(that they don't call a spell, wink,wink). So going by that: one character makes an attack, and one character makes an attack and casts a spell(but not a spell), then the second one is better.


My spidersense is tingling and I believe you don't like Swordsages;

[Engine]

And it's odd that the better class idea never really takes into account game play, other then combat. "A dragon? I use my swordsage spell that is not a spell to do 100d10 cool ability spell effect'' But then take a normal game role playing problem, like the duke is disrupting the king's hunt, and that swordsage can't do anything "Oh, um, I can use a spell(wink, wink) to become an awesome dire bear and to 100d100 coolZ damage...um, but can't think of anything to do to the duke''.

I'm trying to figure out what your point is.

[eggs]

But then take a normal game role playing problem, like the duke is disrupting the king's hunt, and that swordsage can't do anything "Oh, um, I can use a spell(wink, wink) to become an awesome dire bear and to 100d100 coolZ damage...um, but can't think of anything to do to the duke''.
As a heads-up, this is usually exactly the argument that establishes the Swordsage and Warblade as better classes than the Monk or Fighter. (The Fighter can be built to outdamage the Warblade; it's the Warblade's flexibility that really plays to its advantage.)

[Studoku]

I always hate the 'better class' idea. It's bad enough that this mostly talks about pure combat, but it's bad enough in general. It comes from the idea that in order to use an ability to has to be automatically successful, or it's useless. This is the type of character that has like +20 in a skill so they don't even need to roll to do things.

Mostly this is about pure combat and pure numbers though. Oh a monk can 'only' do 16 points of damage on a hit, but a swordsage can do 20 points a damage and cast a spell(that they don't call a spell, wink,wink). So going by that: one character makes an attack, and one character makes an attack and casts a spell(but not a spell), then the second one is better.

And then you just get to nitpick things. One character can stun for 10 rounds. But the other character casts a 'fake spell' and does 1d8 damage and moves everyone 1d6 squares and disrupts time or something.

And it's odd that the better class idea never really takes into account game play, other then combat. "A dragon? I use my swordsage spell that is not a spell to do 100d10 cool ability spell effect'' But then take a normal game role playing problem, like the duke is disrupting the king's hunt, and that swordsage can't do anything "Oh, um, I can use a spell(wink, wink) to become an awesome dire bear and to 100d100 coolZ damage...um, but can't think of anything to do to the duke''.
Were your parents killed by swordsages? You seem to have a grudge against them.

[navar100]

Whereas 'Schroedinger's wizard' is theoretical, it's not very far from the reality of practical gameplay (assuming smart play from the wizard).

First of all, full casters can be proactive. As a non-caster, you're more or less forced to follow the plot line. If you're in point A and want to get to point B, you have to follow the route the DM has built between points A and B. A caster is not bound by these restrictions. He can straight-line fly to point B, teleport there or even skip directly to C since he doesn't really need to pass by point B in order to get there. Often, the wizard isn't perfectly prepared to face situation X because he just happened to be, he's perfectly prepared because he went looking for situation X specifically.

Consider the following situation: a character arrives in town, and hears there's a hydra terrorizing the population in the swamps, about one week's walk from it. The fighter can wake up next morning, say to himself 'I'm going to slay the hydra' and buy whatever stuff he feel he'd need for that (he can't customize anything more than item). Even if he's well prepared to face a hydra, he still needs to walk for a week until he gets there, exposing himself to numerous more-or-less random encounters he has no prior idea about. What if the wizard wakes up saying to himself 'I'm going to slay a hydra'? He prepares as many divination&scrying spells as needed to get a good feeling for what he'll be op against, then next morning prepares his spell list accordingly. He teleports in, full of anti-hydra spells, slays the hydra and is back before lunch.

Secondly, casters have divinations. There's virtually no way for a non-caster to know the future, whereas a full caster, depending on what's acceptable at the table can get anything from general tips to fully customizable spell lists for tomorrow.

And third, it's very hard to make a wizard fight unprepared. Even if you somehow manage to inconvenience him, he can usually just leave, and come back for you when he's prepared (that might mean even as soon as a few minutes). Encounters that can both put the wizard at a disadvantage and stop him from leaving are few, and usually involve other wizards.

That's a question of versatility. It's not about versatility. On paper, spellcasters can do anything. I have not denied that. That's the point; it's only on paper. Given any problem, you can find some published work that provides the spells and feats to solve it. However, for an actual game, the spellcaster has a specific build. Still powerful and versatile, choosing a spell or feat means not choosing another spell or feat. The spellcaster cannot have everything.

[Eldariel]

Same Game Test is what most char ops veterans I know use for relevant class vs. class comparisons. The idea is to take a few break off points, generate a versatile array of challenges of appropriate CRs (5-10 challenges generally suffices) and see how the class fares against each of them.

[eggs]

That's a question of versatility. It's not about versatility. On paper, spellcasters can do anything. I have not denied that. That's the point; it's only on paper. Given any problem, you can find some published work that provides the spells and feats to solve it. However, for an actual game, the spellcaster has a specific build. Still powerful and versatile, choosing a spell or feat means not choosing another spell or feat. The spellcaster cannot have everything.
This conversation is lacking some context. Are we talking about the kinds of arena matches that crop up in threads like those that try to establish the Monk as a caster-killer?

Because in those cases, it does make sense to assume the Wizard is specifically prepared for a scenario. Not because every Wizard will be (or even because any Wizard will be), but because any Wizard can be. It establishes the worst-case scenario that the Monk (or Swordsage/Cleric/ Psi-gish/whatever) will need to be able to address in order to be reliably effective in its intended role.

[moritheil]

I always hate the 'better class' idea. It's bad enough that this mostly talks about pure combat, but it's bad enough in general. It comes from the idea that in order to use an ability to has to be automatically successful, or it's useless. This is the type of character that has like +20 in a skill so they don't even need to roll to do things.

I would say that arena combat and violence actually play to the strengths of the fighter (such as they are.)

The main advantage a primary caster like a druid, wizard, or psion has is player agency. With spells, they can shape the world around them. A fighter can maybe intimidate people outside of combat, but that's about it. The cleric can go cure the sick and heal the wounded, stop a famine, and raise the dead. The wizard can make permanent walls of fire, or raise an army of undead, or dominate/charm an obnoxious tyrant into doing the right thing. All of these things change history, and we're talking pre-level 10 here. The fighter just hits people harder, mostly affecting history by the inability of those he or she kills to continue to affect it.

The rogue, with lots of stealth and social skills, does also have some out of combat agency, but it tends to be limited. A rogue could probably do the tyrant-convincing detailed above, but not the rest (without recourse to Use Magic Device, which just basically means he/she is burning gold to pretend to be a wiz or cleric.)

To add to that, once the out of combat stuff is over, the cleric and smash heads in better than the fighter can. It's not like a wizard or cleric is prevented from interacting with hit point damage when it would be advantageous; they just don't have to. They have far more options.

[Fatebreaker]

I always hate the 'better class' idea. It's bad enough that this mostly talks about pure combat, but it's bad enough in general. It comes from the idea that in order to use an ability to has to be automatically successful, or it's useless. This is the type of character that has like +20 in a skill so they don't even need to roll to do things.

Mostly this is about pure combat and pure numbers though. Oh a monk can 'only' do 16 points of damage on a hit, but a swordsage can do 20 points a damage and cast a spell(that they don't call a spell, wink,wink). So going by that: one character makes an attack, and one character makes an attack and casts a spell(but not a spell), then the second one is better.

And then you just get to nitpick things. One character can stun for 10 rounds. But the other character casts a 'fake spell' and does 1d8 damage and moves everyone 1d6 squares and disrupts time or something.

And it's odd that the better class idea never really takes into account game play, other then combat. "A dragon? I use my swordsage spell that is not a spell to do 100d10 cool ability spell effect'' But then take a normal game role playing problem, like the duke is disrupting the king's hunt, and that swordsage can't do anything "Oh, um, I can use a spell(wink, wink) to become an awesome dire bear and to 100d100 coolZ damage...um, but can't think of anything to do to the duke''.

1) Whether the Swordsage abilities are spells or not is totally irrelevant to whether it is or is not better than another class.

2) If you have Class A and Class B, but Class B does everything Class A does and more and does it all better, or does everything just as well but by expending fewer resources, then yes, mechanically it is a better class.

[killianh]

1) Whether the Swordsage abilities are spells or not is totally irrelevant to whether it is or is not better than another class.

2) If you have Class A and Class B, but Class B does everything Class A does and more and does it all better, or does everything just as well but by expending fewer resources, then yes, mechanically it is a better class.

I think the general point she was trying to make was similar to mine in the sense of trying to say that when it comes down to actually playing the game comparing classes for power levels and usefulness is pointless because (like in the example) though a class might be better in damage, there are other components to play that one class isn't going to completely overshadow another in.

I also think that build style is more important that straight mechanics to the class, and optimization capabilities of the player make arguments over inherent class powers useless. Some would rule wizard better than druid, to them I say Planar Shepard. Hell I used an early entry trick with a human necropolitan Warmage to get into rainbow servant at level two. Using the generally excepted ruling that (because the table and the text differ) that it's a full progression casting class I ended up being level 11 with spontaneous access to the entire cleric spell list. No preparation, just any at any time I feel like. Hence I made a Warmage better than a cleric for casting.

Mechanics of a single class go out the window when you take everything else into account. Different level characters, different levels of optimization, even item selection and feats can completely change how one class stands against another. All of that makes any argument between the power of two classes pointless. For certain things like is the fighter of cleric a better healer that's easy, but I'm sure someone could build a fighter that could keep up.

[Salanmander]

I think the general point she was trying to make was similar to mine in the sense of trying to say that when it comes down to actually playing the game comparing classes for power levels and usefulness is pointless because (like in the example) though a class might be better in damage, there are other components to play that one class isn't going to completely overshadow another in.


I think you may have missed the definition of "anything". If class A can do ANYTHING that class B can do, but better, then class A IS BETTER than class B. Because that "anything" includes all components of play with mechanical backing. There may be situations in which whether you've chosen A or B is irrelevant (complete roleplay, no rolling of dice), but there is never a situation in which choosing B would have been more helpful than choosing A.

(Note: I think these strict comparisons are rare, and not even unarmed swordsage to monk really succeeds in this comparison because there are a few monk abilities that the swordsage can't replicate. In short, this is a very strict way of saying that some classes are better than others, and it can't say anything about a lot of comparisons.)

[LordBlades]

That's a question of versatility. It's not about versatility. On paper, spellcasters can do anything. I have not denied that. That's the point; it's only on paper. Given any problem, you can find some published work that provides the spells and feats to solve it. However, for an actual game, the spellcaster has a specific build. Still powerful and versatile, choosing a spell or feat means not choosing another spell or feat. The spellcaster cannot have everything.

That's true, however, between divinations and the ability to 'fast-forward' to the point of interest in an adventure, a well played wizard will be fighting stuff he's prepared to counter 90% of the time.

[TuggyNE]

IF OP's weren't so infuriatingly vague the playground wouldn't have to jump to so many conclusions to support their argument. :smallbiggrin:

A fair point. However, sometimes the OP really does want a very general comparison between two or more classes; it might be impossible to completely stem the inevitable flood of half-relevant responses, but any ability to better focus the discussion would be useful.


Same Game Test is what most char ops veterans I know use for relevant class vs. class comparisons. The idea is to take a few break off points, generate a versatile array of challenges of appropriate CRs (5-10 challenges generally suffices) and see how the class fares against each of them.

Ah, that's the term I was looking for. Duly noted, and bookmarked a reference to a standard I found (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:The_Same_Game_Test) (wiki yay...).


This conversation is lacking some context. Are we talking about the kinds of arena matches that crop up in threads like those that try to establish the Monk as a caster-killer?

Not for the most part, no; as previously mentioned, if you're building a caster-killer, a PC caster is a good trial opponent, but if you're building a more general character not so much.


I think the general point she was trying to make was similar to mine in the sense of trying to say that when it comes down to actually playing the game comparing classes for power levels and usefulness is pointless because (like in the example) though a class might be better in damage, there are other components to play that one class isn't going to completely overshadow another in.

To some extent this is true. However, to take an extreme case, a Druid can always outclass a Commoner in animal handling, even though a Commoner technically has a class feature relating to that (Handle Animal as a skill!). In fact, there's nothing class-specific that the Commoner can surpass the Druid in, with the possible exception of Dragon Mag flaws. Therefore, Druid is strictly superior to Commoner as a class; anyone roleplaying successfully as a Commoner could roleplay just as well as a Druid, unless the point was to appear dirt-poor and powerless.


Mechanics of a single class go out the window when you take everything else into account. Different level characters, different levels of optimization, even item selection and feats can completely change how one class stands against another. All of that makes any argument between the power of two classes pointless. For certain things like is the fighter of cleric a better healer that's easy, but I'm sure someone could build a fighter that could keep up.

Given the same resources and approximately equal optimization skill, no, that can't be done. Any items, feats, races, skills, or other resources a Fighter can make use of to heal, a Cleric could also use, and that's before the feats, items, races, skills, and spells that the Cleric would make better use of. I therefore disagree that comparisons are always useless.

[ThiagoMartell]

That's true, however, between divinations and the ability to 'fast-forward' to the point of interest in an adventure, a well played wizard will be fighting stuff he's prepared to counter 90% of the time as long as the DM plays along with his god complex.

Fixed that for you.

[Little Brother]

Re: Schrodinger's Wizard - Uncanny Forethought. A high-level wizard has 30+Int. He has 10+ slots he can leave open. He can cast whatever he really wants as a Full-Round action(Or less). He can tailor his feats at any given day. As in, ALL his feats. They can be totally different on any given day. He can divine(Or Bind/Simulacrum/Ice Assassin a Weird) ANYTHING. He has a faster demiplane, he has time for all this.

Basically, Schrodinger's Wizard isn't far-fetched at all. One really CAN do all of that, and then some.
nB4nohecantcuzdm

[Fatebreaker]

I think the general point she was trying to make was similar to mine in the sense of trying to say that when it comes down to actually playing the game comparing classes for power levels and usefulness is pointless because (like in the example) though a class might be better in damage, there are other components to play that one class isn't going to completely overshadow another in.

Her general point collapses fairly rapidly, because observing what capabilities a class has in any given scenario is fairly easy. Those capabilities are, after all, clearly labeled.

What options does a class have for combat? Damage? Healing? Buffing? Debuffing? Status restoration? Aggro and battlefield control? Terrain alteration? Movement? Summoning? How good is it at each these things? How often can it perform them? What does it cost for one action over another? What resources does it need to expend? Does another class do it better? How much better? If one trick isn't working, what other options are available?

What about non-combat? What skills do they have access to, and how many skill points? How can they resolve stealth scenarios? Social dilemmas? Puzzles? Traps? Travel? As above, each of these has a slew of sub-questions, which aren't too hard to answer if you're willing to sit down and think about it.

What oddball abilities does a class have, and how viable are they? Are they comparable to spells or skills or abilities possessed by other classes? If so, when does each class get their respective ability, and how? How often can it be used? Under what conditions? What challenge does it help the character overcome?

Most of those are fairly easy comparisons to make. Pick a scenario, look at your two classes, and based on their mechanics, rate which one is better able to successfully resolve that scenario. At some level, you're doing that when you decide on your wants and needs and pick a class which meets those. A little extra thought and effort can go a long way.


Mechanics of a single class go out the window when you take everything else into account. Different level characters, different levels of optimization, even item selection and feats can completely change how one class stands against another. All of that makes any argument between the power of two classes pointless. For certain things like is the fighter of cleric a better healer that's easy, but I'm sure someone could build a fighter that could keep up.

Sure, some players will do better or worse than others. But none of that changes what the class itself brings to the table. A Fighter does not gain the ability to fly as a class feature. Favored Soul does (wings), and so does Wizard (spells). The Fighter can buy things that let him fly, but now we're into the whole vibe of him spending gold to recreate class abilities, which is not a winning proposition. And a Wizard who doesn't take advantage of their ability to fly doesn't make the class worse at flying. It means that that individual didn't take flying, and honestly, if you're going to discount the potential abilities of a class based on the failure of an individual to use them, then you've moved from comparing classes to judging players, and that's an entirely different discussion.

At the end of the day, the behavior of the player is a variable, yes, but not to the point where any comparison between clearly printed and easily read mechanics is useless.


To some extent this is true. However, to take an extreme case, a Druid can always outclass a Commoner in animal handling, even though a Commoner technically has a class feature relating to that (Handle Animal as a skill!). In fact, there's nothing class-specific that the Commoner can surpass the Druid in, with the possible exception of Dragon Mag flaws. Therefore, Druid is strictly superior to Commoner as a class; anyone roleplaying successfully as a Commoner could roleplay just as well as a Druid, unless the point was to appear dirt-poor and powerless.

There's a funny other side to this. The Ranger class makes a better Commoner than the Commoner class. My friends and I were figuring out what a town would look like if all the farmers were Rangers and the townsfolk were Rogues, with the slight scattering of other classes to round out specific niches. You had all these NPCs taking PC classes just so they could be better NPCs.

"Welcome to Optimopolis, home of the fightin' Optimizers!"

[LordBlades]

Fixed that for you.

It's not so easy. Apart from other full casters, most things can't shield themseves from neither divinations nor scry&die tactics. Of course if the DM doesn't like or can't cope with this style of gaming he's perfectly justified to ask the player to tone it down (the aim of the game is fun after all), but that doesn't cjange the fact the wizard can mechanically do these things, and it's quite hard to stop him.

[ThiagoMartell]

It's not so easy. Apart from other full casters, most things can't shield themseves from neither divinations nor scry&die tactics. Of course if the DM doesn't like or can't cope with this style of gaming he's perfectly justified to ask the player to tone it down (the aim of the game is fun after all), but that doesn't cjange the fact the wizard can mechanically do these things, and it's quite hard to stop him.

At that level when that happens, every challenge is either another wizard or someone with a wizard sidekick. That's a pretty simple and easy solution. Always a bigger fish. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysABiggerFish)

[Eldariel]

At that level when that happens, every challenge is either another wizard or someone with a wizard sidekick. That's a pretty simple and easy solution. Always a bigger fish. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysABiggerFish)

So didn't you just conclusively prove what we set out to prove?

[ThiagoMartell]

So didn't you just conclusively prove what we set out to prove?

And so what? :smallconfused:
You seem to be taking me out of context. I care very little about whatever you're trying to prove, LordBlades just made a broad and incorrect statement and was pointing out why.

[BlueEyes]

At that level when that happens, every challenge is either another wizard or someone with a wizard sidekick. That's a pretty simple and easy solution. Always a bigger fish. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysABiggerFish)
When there's more Wizards than commoners in a campaign it becomes silly.

[Amphetryon]

When there's more Wizards than commoners in a campaign it becomes silly.

Only if the campaign is trying to accurately portray every single person in the world. In a campaign that focuses on the things that are currently important to the Characters, it's entirely viable that the Commoners are not the focal point, or even anything more than background. If the campaign is centered around Wizards, whether in a Wizards' College or an evil cabal set on world domination or whatever, there's no reason you wouldn't deal with more Wizards than Commoners. What would the Commoners provide that advanced the plot, after all?

[Answerer]

Especially between tiers, the arena set up tends to favor lower-tier classes. Higher-tier classes are such largely because of their versatility – which isn't quite as important when you know your job is going to be to bash one guy's face in.

You can optimize a barbarian to deal so much damage that scientific notation is insufficient to write out the number. This is meaningless when the challenge is to find and get to the BBEG, who is hidden away on some random plane that is not your current one, you have no leads, and the BBEG is three days from becoming a god. The wizard has options (even good options) in such a dire circumstance. The barbarian has no options, for all he'd overkill anything susceptible to HP damage.

[ThiagoMartell]

Only if the campaign is trying to accurately portray every single person in the world. In a campaign that focuses on the things that are currently important to the Characters, it's entirely viable that the Commoners are not the focal point, or even anything more than background. If the campaign is centered around Wizards, whether in a Wizards' College or an evil cabal set on world domination or whatever, there's no reason you wouldn't deal with more Wizards than Commoners. What would the Commoners provide that advanced the plot, after all?

This. Also, if players meet more commoners than wizards in a high level game, I think something is wrong.
You don't walk into small towns and get hired by peasants in high level games, you travel to other planes and get asked to help gods.

[LordBlades]

At that level when that happens, every challenge is either another wizard or someone with a wizard sidekick. That's a pretty simple and easy solution. Always a bigger fish. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlwaysABiggerFish)

I don't see how that invalidates anything of what I've said. If only wizards are a threat to a wizard, as soon as he kills one, he can go straight to plotting on how to face the next one. He doesn't need to worry about trivial stuff like traveling and bumping into random monsters and having to fight them.

Also, wizards don't fight because they just happened to bump into each other. They fight because one was actively trying to seek out and kill the other (and most likely the other was trying to prevent it). Either way, at least one is prepared.

[BlueEyes]

Only if the campaign is trying to accurately portray every single person in the world. In a campaign that focuses on the things that are currently important to the Characters, it's entirely viable that the Commoners are not the focal point, or even anything more than background. If the campaign is centered around Wizards, whether in a Wizards' College or an evil cabal set on world domination or whatever, there's no reason you wouldn't deal with more Wizards than Commoners. What would the Commoners provide that advanced the plot, after all?
You're missing the point. I said nothing about Wizards and commoners on-stage. Commoners don't vanish once the PCs reach a high level. Doesn't matter that the PCs are too important to visit the countryside. The commoners are still there. And if you'll have Wizards in every encounter then there will be, literally, more Wizards than commoners sooner or later. Also we are not talking about some special Wizards only campaign. We are talking about a general high level game.


This. Also, if players meet more commoners than wizards in a high level game, I think something is wrong.
You don't walk into small towns and get hired by peasants in high level games, you travel to other planes and get asked to help gods.
That's not what I'm talking about. But you probably know that, thus the strawman.
It's not about meeting more commoners than Wizards or vice versa. It's about suspension of disbelief. Outside of special campaigns, having a Wizard in every encounter, no matter what level the game is on, will screw with it. Actually if you think about it, the higher the level, the less Wizards there should be because they're becoming rarer and rarer. And those that are high enough level are less likely to engage the players, because they're somewhere else, minding their own business.


LordBlades just made a broad and incorrect statement and was pointing out why.
LordBlades wasn't incorrect. He was realistic.

[ryu]

Wait wait wait wait wait wait. Wait. Are you seriously attempting to say that there will EVER be more wizards in a campaign setting than the hundreds of thousands if not millions of commoners that will easy exist as background numbers in any campaign setting? Really?

[BlueEyes]

Wait wait wait wait wait wait. Wait. Are you seriously attempting to say that there will EVER be more wizards in a campaign setting than the hundreds of thousands if not millions of commoners that will easy exist as background numbers in any campaign setting? Really?
You don't really get hyperbole, do you?

[ryu]

There is no hyperbole on the internet what are you talking about. I just spent the last three minutes or so justifying a bag of holding in ones' pocket counting everything in the bag as on their person. Also the the bag is fifteen pounds and at least eight cubic feet in volume.

[Gamer Girl]

That's a question of versatility. It's not about versatility. On paper, spellcasters can do anything. I have not denied that. That's the point; it's only on paper. Given any problem, you can find some published work that provides the spells and feats to solve it. However, for an actual game, the spellcaster has a specific build. Still powerful and versatile, choosing a spell or feat means not choosing another spell or feat. The spellcaster cannot have everything.

This always comes down to theory vs a real game. Sure you can sit in your basement and come up with thousands of ways spellcasters are cool or whatever, but you still have to make the character. And at least half of the great builds railroad themselves and tie their hands. You can build a great fire mage, but all they can do is fire stuff. And in a normal game you can't recreate your character all the time. And I see this a lot, where for example, the fire mage takes enchantment spells to be effective in the city and just has to ignore the four or so fire only feats that don't do anything now.

[Eldariel]

This always comes down to theory vs a real game. Sure you can sit in your basement and come up with thousands of ways spellcasters are cool or whatever, but you still have to make the character. And at least half of the great builds railroad themselves and tie their hands. You can build a great fire mage, but all they can do is fire stuff. And in a normal game you can't recreate your character all the time. And I see this a lot, where for example, the fire mage takes enchantment spells to be effective in the city and just has to ignore the four or so fire only feats that don't do anything now.

But why is that a problem? A mage doesn't really need feats for anything but maybe doing damage if he's so inclined. Every good spell is fine on their own with just Int+Level+10 DC.

[Psyren]

It's possible to be both very versatile AND very powerful as well. This is due to toolbox spells - for example, the Polymorph line, the Summon X line, the Planar X line, the Image line, even the Shadow X line. T1/T2 classes always have at least a few of these, so saying that classes aren't versatile + powerful in practice doesn't wash with me. (For instance - as long as polymorph isn't banned, every wizard will do their best to learn it.)

Feats give me more toolboxes too. Energy Substitution or Searing Spell for instance turn my Orb of Fire into a toolbox, as now I can shoot down dragons of any color.

Now, that's the first kind of toolbox (spells that can be tailored to specific fights.) The second kind is spells that are useful for most or all fights without needing to be tailored. This is stuff like Dimension Door - no matter who you're fighting, being able to instantly jump hundreds of feet even when grappled is useful. Or Solid Fog - being able to reduce any attacker to 5 ft. movement regardless of original speed is useful. Or Forcecage/Irresistible Dance, which can be used to take almost any monster out of a fight instantly. Or False Life/Stoneskin/Mirror Image etc. - because the most common avenue of monster attack is hit point damage, preventing such damage is always a tactic the wizard wants to have a means of doing. Again, these are tools that all T1 classes have access to - though there are specific differences on the individual lists, in broad strokes these archetypes can be found on all of them.



TL;DR - I don't put stock in the notion that you need to "recreate your character all the time" or "tiers are based on theory vs. real games." High power and high versatility can be achieved with just a handful of spells, whose inclusion is both intuitive and rewarded by the game itself.

[137beth]

This always comes down to theory vs a real game. Sure you can sit in your basement and come up with thousands of ways spellcasters are cool or whatever, but you still have to make the character. And at least half of the great builds railroad themselves and tie their hands. You can build a great fire mage, but all they can do is fire stuff. And in a normal game you can't recreate your character all the time. And I see this a lot, where for example, the fire mage takes enchantment spells to be effective in the city and just has to ignore the four or so fire only feats that don't do anything now.

Fire mage? What do you think tier 1 is?

Just use polymorph and you can be every build. And yes, one wizard can have polymorph, and they can prepare it every day.

You might also notice that all of the "damage only" classes like fighters are considered weak. That's because in 3.5, damage is suboptimal. The wizard can do damage, but he can also do a lot of other stuff. The fighter can only do damage. And that applies in real games as well (though to a much lesser extend that on the forums.)

[Gamer Girl]

Just use polymorph and you can be every build. And yes, one wizard can have polymorph, and they can prepare it every day.


And the trick here is the other unsaid thing: the player needs to be an expert. First then need to spend a good amount of time searching for all the creatures to polymorph into and second, and even more important, they have to pick the right creature for the right time and task.

And the plolymorph trick just about only works with a Buddy DM that is in cahoots with the player and just up front tells them all the game information they want to know, or uses the Knowledge Cheat.

[Fatebreaker]

And the plolymorph trick just about only works with a Buddy DM that is in cahoots with the player and just up front tells them all the game information they want to know, or uses the Knowledge Cheat.

Can you expand on this a bit? There's a lot of assumptions packed into that sentence, and I'd like to know more before responding.

What do you mean by phrases like "Buddy DM" or "cahoots with the player" or "Knowledge Cheat," and how do they make polymorph any more or less viable, at least in your eyes?

[Eldariel]

And the plolymorph trick just about only works with a Buddy DM that is in cahoots with the player and just up front tells them all the game information they want to know, or uses the Knowledge Cheat.

By that you mean using Knowledge-skills as written? It's perfectly sufficient for this purpose on a Wizard.

[Psyren]

And the trick here is the other unsaid thing: the player needs to be an expert. First then need to spend a good amount of time searching for all the creatures to polymorph into and second, and even more important, they have to pick the right creature for the right time and task.

You say that like polymorph is this inscrutably complex utility belt. (It can be, but certainly doesn't have to.) For instance, Hydras and Trolls are both core, will get you through a lot of fights, and don't require much in the way of esoteric knowledge or intellectual gymnastics on either the player or the character's part. (Seriously, what wizard does not know that trolls and hydras are a thing.)

In other words - a player thinking "I need to win this fight" will turn into something good at fighting. A player thinking "I need to sneak past them" will turn into something small and sneaky. A player thinking "I need to get up there" will turn into something that can fly. There are well-known core options for each; lengthy research times, "buddy DMs" and expertise with the various monster manuals are not required.

[TuggyNE]

I don't see how that invalidates anything of what I've said. If only wizards are a threat to a wizard, as soon as he kills one, he can go straight to plotting on how to face the next one. He doesn't need to worry about trivial stuff like traveling and bumping into random monsters and having to fight them.

Also, wizards don't fight because they just happened to bump into each other. They fight because one was actively trying to seek out and kill the other (and most likely the other was trying to prevent it). Either way, at least one is prepared.

Or, in short: tier 1s can shape the world and/or story to their liking, rather than reacting all the time.


You can build a great fire mage, but all they can do is fire stuff. And in a normal game you can't recreate your character all the time. And I see this a lot, where for example, the fire mage takes enchantment spells to be effective in the city and just has to ignore the four or so fire only feats that don't do anything now.
As others have pointed out, building a wizard to be a "fire mage" is by no means playing to the class's actual strengths. In fact, the class that best typifies this is the Warmage, usually considered T4.

A wizard build that actually uses its own capabilities properly is likely to put effort into ensuring their spell list and feats are capable of solving various problems — often leaving the specific problem of "this creature needs to be dead, now" as a lower priority than others. For example:

It's possible to be both very versatile AND very powerful as well. This is due to toolbox spells - for example, the Polymorph line, the Summon X line, the Planar X line, the Image line, even the Shadow X line. T1/T2 classes always have at least a few of these, so saying that classes aren't versatile + powerful in practice doesn't wash with me. (For instance - as long as polymorph isn't banned, every wizard will do their best to learn it.)

Feats give me more toolboxes too. Energy Substitution or Searing Spell for instance turn my Orb of Fire into a toolbox, as now I can shoot down dragons of any color.

Now, that's the first kind of toolbox (spells that can be tailored to specific fights.) The second kind is spells that are useful for most or all fights without needing to be tailored. This is stuff like Dimension Door - no matter who you're fighting, being able to instantly jump hundreds of feet even when grappled is useful. Or Solid Fog - being able to reduce any attacker to 5 ft. movement regardless of original speed is useful. Or Forcecage/Irresistible Dance, which can be used to take almost any monster out of a fight instantly. Or False Life/Stoneskin/Mirror Image etc. - because the most common avenue of monster attack is hit point damage, preventing such damage is always a tactic the wizard wants to have a means of doing.


And the trick here is the other unsaid thing: the player needs to be an expert.
While in general it is true that playing a Wizard properly requires considerably more prep time than most other classes, you don't actually have to be an expert; often, just getting lucky and spotting something unexpectedly valuable in a spell or monster list will do just as much.

However, only certain personalities are likely to prefer this style; playing a wizard, and to a lesser extent any T1 or T2, to its full potential requires a lot of planning, and is very proactive.

To take another example: it's easy to stumble on a very powerful combination in the Druid, by combining an obvious choice of animal companion (wolf, say), an obvious choice of feat (Natural Spell; it's basically druid-only!), and a fairly simple idea (I want to avoid getting hit) and end up firing produce flame from a Tiny flying form while your buffed-up companion trashes things. And just like that you've made melee-only enemies incapable of harming you.


And the plolymorph trick just about only works with a Buddy DM that is in cahoots with the player and just up front tells them all the game information they want to know, or uses the Knowledge Cheat.
I have to second Fatebreaker's request for more information on this. While polymorph and friends don't specify any particular Knowledge checks to take on a given form, if any are required it's likely that an Int-based class is likely to be able to make them, with a small amount of up-front planning. (It's even in-character!)

[Gwendol]

Or combined with the collector of stories skill trick. That makes hitting the DC for ID'ing creatures even easier.

[137beth]

And the trick here is the other unsaid thing: the player needs to be an expert. First then need to spend a good amount of time searching for all the creatures to polymorph into and second, and even more important, they have to pick the right creature for the right time and task.

And the plolymorph trick just about only works with a Buddy DM that is in cahoots with the player and just up front tells them all the game information they want to know, or uses the Knowledge Cheat.

Well yea, because only a Buddy DM (or a completely incompetent one) would allow their player to use a wizard without banning polymorph. Because any competent DM knows wizards are more powerful than other classes.:smallsigh:

[ThiagoMartell]

Even Wizards of the Coast stealth-banned Polymorph. I don't blame anyone who does.
My players have banned Polymorph from my table. The polymorph subschool requires a lot less book-keeping.