View Full Version : Tier System
vrigar
2012-07-30, 01:51 AM
Just went over the tier system again (wizard top, fighter bottom) and every time it looks like complete bull**** to me. Complete and utter bull****. In the example for the list in which the black dragon is involved the wizard can simply kill the dragon while the fighter would be struggling at best.
Really???
I get the other examples but this? At level 7 where with not too powerful feats and magical items the fighter can cause high end 2 digit damage in a single round and the wizard will barely be able to hurt the dragon.
According to the tier system you can't really have the classic group of wizard, cleric, fighter and rogue because pretty soon the fighter and rogue will become useless. Anyone who played a campaign or two knows that this is bull**** as well. Granted they are more versatile but the occasions in which they are outmatched are not all that rare.
Except for spell caster worship, is there something I'm missing?
I am not going to defend the tier system, but the Archivist/Artificer/Cleric/Wizards' class abilities are hundreds of pages long, and those abilities are available to all of them. If they know they're going to have a particular problem, odds are with enough splatbook-diving, they'll come up with an easy solution that the Monk & co. just don't have.
In the case of a dragon, the stock answer is Shivering touch, but other effects like Rays of Dizziness or Exhaustion can also shut the encounter down without a save.
Tvtyrant
2012-07-30, 02:20 AM
Mate, I think you are putting more emotional energy into this than it deserves. It is a way of looking at a pen and paper RPG from a standpoint of power and versatility, it isn't meant to be an insult.
ThiagoMartell
2012-07-30, 02:27 AM
Mate, I think you are putting more emotional energy into this than it deserves. It is a way of looking at a pen and paper RPG from a standpoint of power and versatility, it isn't meant to be an insult.
QFT.
Don't like the tier system? Don't use it.
The-Mage-King
2012-07-30, 02:38 AM
QFT.
Don't like the tier system? Don't use it.
You can't not use it. It's a simple rating of maximum potential. Sure, you may not pay attention to it, but it's still there.
@OP: What you're missing is this.
The tier system isn't a rating of sheer damage dealing. It's about how many options each class has. The wizard has more options to deal with (note that it's not "kill") the dragon. The thing is, if they plan out a set up to deal with a dragon, and then need to deal with a mystery the next day, they can change their focus with 9 hours (8 for rest, 1 for spells).
The fighter, though? He can't. He's stuck being preped for dealing with the dragon, and doesn't even have the skill points to do anything other than stand around like Beef McHugechunk during the mystery, unless fighting occurs.
Furthermore, as I mentioned above, the tier system is potential, assuming equal optimization, not automatic strength. A poorly made and played (in mechanical terms) wizard can be far weaker than a well built and played (again, mechanically) fighter. The same is true of any class, though some have lower optimization floors than others.
ThiagoMartell
2012-07-30, 02:46 AM
You can't not use it. It's a simple rating of maximum potential. Sure, you may not pay attention to it, but it's still there.
Why does it "being there" matter? :smallconfused: There is a phone at my side. I'm not using it. There is a PSP behing my laptop. I'm not using it. There is a water bottle on the shelf above my head. I'm also not using it. All that stuff are "there".
If you don't use the tier system (as in, balance your games according to premises therein) it makes no difference, does it? It's still there, but you're not using it, so why should it bother you?
The Random NPC
2012-07-30, 03:33 AM
Because it's a list, it isn't something you use, so much as it's something that's just there. Like a listing of yogurt flavors.
DoughGuy
2012-07-30, 03:35 AM
Wizards arent about dealing damage though. Dealing damage is bad. Save or suck/lose spells are better. The wizard cant damage the dragon but it can lock thre dragon down in numerous ways.
It depends what level of optimisation you play at that determines whether clases become useless or not. At lower levels of optimisation it doesnt matter what teir everyone is. But at high end optimising you wont see anything below tier 3 really able to contribute.
The tiers are a useful tool, but not everyone needs or uses them.
ThiagoMartell
2012-07-30, 03:53 AM
Because it's a list, it isn't something you use, so much as it's something that's just there. Like a listing of yogurt flavors.
The tier system is not just a list. It's a tool. Yes, it is something you use. That's whole point of it - being used.
Also, does a list of yogurt flavors bother you? :smallconfused:
The Random NPC
2012-07-30, 03:58 AM
No, I was merely attempting to explain his position.
Ceaon
2012-07-30, 03:59 AM
... I get the other examples... At level 7... the wizard will barely be able to hurt the dragon... the fighter and rogue will become useless. Anyone who played a campaign or two knows that this is bull**** as well.
These snips to me show that, while you are quite able to grasp the full potential of lower-tier classes, you do not grasp the full potential of spell casters. (Quick example: Shivering Touch.)
Oddly, when casters are not played to their potential, balance is often at its best in D&D.
It is quite easy to build a useless low-tier class. It is also quite easy to build a useless high-tier class. It is however much harder to fully optimize a low-tier class, and it is extremely hard to fully optimize a high-tier class.
In short, the tier system list does not measure the power of characters, it measures the maximum power and versatility of classes.
Edit: It's a list, not a system, which means that it is always potentially there, even though you may not see it in your current game. The tool-part of it comes when you read all the secondary stuff JaronK wrote, but the list part is the essential part.
Edit 2: Regarding rogues and fighters becoming useless: if a DM builds his encounters to match a well-optimized high-tier character, then yes, low-tier characters are in over their heads. But, as you rightly claim, a DM can also build his encounters to match the low-tier characters, and in that case, they will not be useless, although potentially still outshone by higher-tier characters. The problem is that some low-tier characters have problems with dealing with by-the-book-appropriate-CR monsters, which for me is when a character feels "too weak".
Killer Angel
2012-07-30, 04:18 AM
Why does it "being there" matter? :smallconfused: There is a phone at my side. I'm not using it. There is a PSP behing my laptop. I'm not using it. There is a water bottle on the shelf above my head. I'm also not using it. All that stuff are "there".
If you don't use the tier system (as in, balance your games according to premises therein) it makes no difference, does it? It's still there, but you're not using it, so why should it bother you?
The phone is a PC class. If you're not using it, you're not playing.
The tier system tells you that a cell phone with a camera is more versatile than an old telephone tied to the wall.
It can be wrong to let your gamestyle be influenced by the TS, but facts are facts, and spells give you more versatility than sword and shield.
This is why "you may not pay attention to it, but it's still there".
That said, you can certainly choose to not use it as a guidance for the group's composition, and so on.
Keneth
2012-07-30, 04:22 AM
Also, does a list of yogurt flavors bother you? :smallconfused:
Yes, how dare they tell me which one is more healthy for me in the long run! :smallbiggrin:
The tier "system" is fine, who or what can kill certain creatures at certain levels is mostly irrelevant in grand scope of things.
You're missing a few things, yes. The most obvious is that the Tier list does not reflect typical members of their class (is there such a thing in a diverse hobby?) but rather what the author believes ends up being the case after all classes are optimised to the hilt. The problem with such heavy optimisation is that it doesn't necessarily reflect what would be allowed in a particular game, assumes a fairly generous reading and application of the rules, and largely ignores practical difficulties that might reasonably crop up during an actual game. For people who run their games like this, and there are a few, it's fairly accurate. For people who don't, it's a fairly useful list of which classes may need attention to make sure they fit into a balanced game.
That said, I find it hard to disagree with much of what you say. Certainly I've never seen such problems cropping up in my own games, or those run by most people I know and/or play with. I can see how such a problem would arise though.
Killer Angel
2012-07-30, 04:27 AM
You're missing a few things, yes. The most obvious is that the Tier list does not reflect typical members of their class (is there such a thing in a diverse hobby?) but rather what the author believes ends up being the case after all classes are optimised to the hilt. The problem with such heavy optimisation is that it doesn't necessarily reflect what would be allowed in a particular game,
Nope.
The tier system works assuming an equal level of optimization. Even a poor optimization. Because an unoptimized wizard with invisibility, fireball, fly and teleport, will be far more versatile than an unoptimized fighter with Weapon Specialization, a +2 sword and armor and no magic tools for flying.
Dusk Eclipse
2012-07-30, 04:31 AM
Togo the tier system explicity mentions that it doesn't expect heavy optimization, it expects people are optimizing to the same degree be it low optimization (a full Bab class putting strength as hisnhighest stat, selecting oower attack, a spellcaster focusing on his casting stat, a skillmonkey focusing on skills which he will use regularly, etc. or high optimization with tricks like DMM, shock trooper, SA+Craven+ huge amount of hits, etc.
Besides it doesn't say A wizard will always tear up your game and dominate everything, it says a wizard can do that while a fighter can't.
LordBlades
2012-07-30, 04:35 AM
Nope.
The tier system works assuming an equal level of optimization. Even a poor optimization. Because an unoptimized wizard with invisibility, fireball, fly and teleport, will be far more versatile than an unoptimized fighter with Weapon Specialization, a +2 sword and armor and no magic tools for flying.
+1. Why these things don't show up on many low powered games is because optimizing a caster is harder than optimizing a martial class. For starters, in order to get the full potential of a wizard or cleric you need to ignore what the book hints you should be doing (blasting and healing respectively) and that's not something most people would do.
Serafina
2012-07-30, 04:36 AM
You're looking at the one situation the Fighter is good at (dealing damage).
You are ignoring all the other situations that will come up in a game.
And the Tier System is a definition of "how many situations can i effectively deal with", not "how much damage can i dish out".
Examples:
- what if you have to gather information to find out where the dragon has his hoard? The Wizard has a variety of tools for that (starting with Charm Person, and going into Divination), the Fighter has - well, Intimidation maybe.
- the dragons hoard is in difficult terrain - since its a black dragon, a swamp or underwater. The Wizard has spells for that, the Fighter has no way to deal with it outside of magic items (which everyone can use).
- obviously the hoard can have traps for defense. The Wizard can deal with them (detect them via divination, or Summon Monster I to trigger them). The Fighter can at best trigger them and hope he makes his save/has enough hitpoints.
- the dragon can fly. So can the Wizard beyond a certain level - the fighter can't without magic items (which again, everyone can use and the fighter is not better at it then everyone else). Worse yet the Wizards spells are inherently ranged, while the Fighters fighting most likely isn't.
- The Wizard can protect against the Dragons attacks better - protection against energy against the breath weapon, mirror image or blink against melee. The Fighter has AC and hitpoints, but thats it.
- The Wizard can simply summon a monster to serve as a meatshield and dish out damage.
- without metagaming, the Wizard has a very good chance to know the dragons capabilities (thanks to Knowledge (Arcane)), while the Fighters doesn't.
That's all just for dealing with your example - a black dragon. Even if the Fighter is better at actually killing that thing than the Wizard (which is questionable), he can't do anything else that involves dragon-hunting.
A Wizard with the right spellbook can deal with every single challenge (that is not overpowered for the level) you can throw at him.
A Fighter can deal with certain combat encounters, but nothing else.
Dusk Eclipse
2012-07-30, 04:42 AM
As for killing the dragon I 'd say the Wizard can be much more efficient than the fighter.
He (the fighter) will likely trade tons of full attack against the Dragon endangering himself, hoping he can drop the beast before he is killed. The huge Ac of dragons prevent Power attacking effectively, a dragon will most likely have bigger reach than the fighter so charging is also risky, never mind other defences like magic the dragon has access to.
The wizard on the other hand can simply use Shivering Touch to paralize the dragon witn Dex damage and then coup d'grace him. Two to three rounds maximum (he can use spectral hand or reach spell or a familiar to deliver the Shivering touch from a safe distance). And if the dragon is protected by spell he alsonhas access to Dispel magic.
Killer Angel
2012-07-30, 05:15 AM
Ah, yes, let's focus on the OP's examples...
At level 7 where with not too powerful feats and magical items the fighter can cause high end 2 digit damage in a single round and the wizard will barely be able to hurt the dragon.
Going in melee with a dragon, taking AoO and exchanging full routines with someone stronger than you, is usually a quick way to die.
Granted they are more versatile but the occasions in which they are outmatched are not all that rare.
"Argh! My 7th lev. wizard is outmatched! Dimension door... see you later."
We're not saying it cannot be difficult, but casters have many options.
Nope.
The tier system works assuming an equal level of optimization. Even a poor optimization. Because an unoptimized wizard with invisibility, fireball, fly and teleport, will be far more versatile than an unoptimized fighter with Weapon Specialization, a +2 sword and armor and no magic tools for flying.
I disagree with your assessment.
He may well be, but the wizard is not a Tier 1 character because he has invisibility, fireball, fly and teleport. He's a Tier 1 character because he can replace other character's roles in the party and can break the game in a number of ways.
I also don't agree that you've optimised those characters to the same extent, but that's a side point.
Why these things don't show up on many low powered games is because optimizing a caster is harder than optimizing a martial class.
hm... You're still confusing terms here. A low-op game is a game where characters are not optimised. This could be because people don't know how to optimise, as you are assuming, or it could be because optimisation options are either discouraged or simply unavailable. You seem to be equating low-op with ignorance, which suggests you don't really understand these styles of play.
You might equally well argue that the reason why the Tier system is so popular amongst high-op players is that keeping a game balanced is hard and requires understanding how the rules fit together. For those who can do it, there is a range of styles of play. For those who can't, high-op is really the only option, and Tiers represent an inescapable fact that dominate the game. I think both arguements are flawed, but each arguement is a mirror of the other. If you don't like one, you need to reconsider both.
ThiagoMartell
2012-07-30, 05:42 AM
The phone is a PC class. If you're not using it, you're not playing.
This is objectively wrong. If you apply the statement to a player, there are plenty of classes he is not using it. If you apply the statement to a group, there are still plenty of classes the group is not using.
The tier system tells you that a cell phone with a camera is more versatile than an old telephone tied to the wall.
It can be wrong to let your gamestyle be influenced by the TS, but facts are facts, and spells give you more versatility than sword and shield.
This is why "you may not pay attention to it, but it's still there".
And why do you care about it, then?
There are tier lists for every fighting game out there. Most people that play fighting games... don't use them. And don't care about them. And don't even know they exist. Why is it any different with the tier system for D&D 3.5 classes? Why do we get someone every week enraged about how other people see class balance in 3.5?
That said, you can certainly choose to not use it as a guidance for the group's composition, and so on.
Which means not using it.
ahenobarbi
2012-07-30, 05:48 AM
The wizard can do everything fighter can and better (and some stuff besides that). Wizard could kick dragons ass in melee better than fighter - cast solid fog to get some time for buffing, cast resist energy, polymorph into hydra, haste, mirror image and fly. And the wizard could still do a lot of other things after that (other than fighting).
The wizard on the other hand can simply use Shivering Touch to paralize the dragon witn Dex damage and then coup d'grace him. Two to three rounds maximum (he can use spectral hand or reach spell or a familiar to deliver the Shivering touch from a safe distance). And if the dragon is protected by spell he alsonhas access to Dispel magic.
As does the dragon?
Shivering touch, if available, is an excellent method for taking out very tough opponents, because it bypasses the dragon's usual defenses (high AC and hp). It doesn't mitigate the dragon's attacks in the same way as a fighter though, nor does it combine well with the rest of the party. You need to consider all the options when planning your tactics, and an approach that ignores the rest of the party, although effective from a personal point of view, may not be your best option. Same deal as save-or-die versus debuff.
Simply dealing hp damage is not always the best way for a single character to take out an opponent. It's a way that combines very nicely with the efforts of the rest of the party though. Getting an entire team of characters that can gang up doing attribute damage is harder, but effective if you can manage it.
Keneth
2012-07-30, 05:58 AM
It doesn't mitigate the dragon's attacks in the same way as a fighter though, nor does it combine well with the rest of the party.
I'm pretty sure paralyzing the dragon for an extended period of time combines well with any type of party. :smallbiggrin:
Serafina
2012-07-30, 06:10 AM
Well, you could say that if the wizard does that he simply overshadows the party too much.
In which case the wizard simply enters GOD-mode and buffs the party instead - which is again yet something the Fighter simply can not do.
Indeed i can't think of a single thing that the Fighter does better than the Wizard other than having more HP and better fortitude-saves. Both of which aren't even "doing something" and are of no utility whatsoever to the party. Yes, that includes melee (polymorph and summons), not getting hit (there are several ways to buff AC, and miss chances are better anyway) and protecting others (battlefield control is superior to being a meatshield, summoning can replicate being a meatshield and gives better AoOs).
He can't necessarily do all of that at the same time - but for a Wizard switching out spells is a trivial affair.
ThiagoMartell
2012-07-30, 06:18 AM
I'm pretty sure paralyzing the dragon for an extended period of time combines well with any type of party. :smallbiggrin:
What Togo means is that Shivering Touch means the wizard wins the fight by himself. If you fight by hp damage, then everyone chips in, one way or another. It's a common problem with save-or-lose techniques or just-lose techniques - the other players feel useless.
ahenobarbi
2012-07-30, 06:21 AM
What Togo means is that Shivering Touch means the wizard wins the fight by himself. If you fight by hp damage, then everyone chips in, one way or another. It's a common problem with save-or-lose techniques or just-lose techniques - the other players feel useless.
And that's one of reasons the tiers were described :smallbiggrin:
ThiagoMartell
2012-07-30, 06:27 AM
And that's one of reasons the tiers were described :smallbiggrin:
Actually, the tiers do absolutely nothing to counter this problem. You have potentials save-or-lose vs hp damage in all tiers. In fact, in high tiers, you're going to potentially find a bunch of characters racing to see who will be the one to cast the just-lose spell to end the encounter.
Killer Angel
2012-07-30, 06:28 AM
This is objectively wrong. If you apply the statement to a player, there are plenty of classes he is not using it. If you apply the statement to a group, there are still plenty of classes the group is not using.
Of course many kind of phones won't be used, but still are you using a phone? Yes. The tier system simply resumes how good is the phone you're using.
He may well be, but the wizard is not a Tier 1 character because he has invisibility, fireball, fly and teleport. He's a Tier 1 character because he can replace other character's roles in the party and can break the game in a number of ways.
If the adventure is settled for a group of characters made by a basic wizard, a sword and board fighter and a healer, run by a unimaginative DM, then a single teleport can bypass a whole piece of adventure. Aka T1.
Call it what you will, but it's undeniable.
I also don't agree that you've optimised those characters to the same extent, but that's a side point.
Well, it's an anecdote, but I've never saw (in our group) a wizard without a way of flying, neither without at least a "teleport-kind of" spell, but i've seen many fighter with boots of speed and no way of flying. And I'm talking bout different characters played by the same player, who favor playing melee types.
Actually, the tiers do absolutely nothing to counter this problem.
Well, of course. A car magazine can tell me what vehicle has better performances, but doesn't fix the problems the other cars have.
Togo the tier system explicity mentions that it doesn't expect heavy optimization,
True, but it also says that the Tier ratings are based on the maximum possible capabilties of the characters. This is only sensible, since anything less than 'anything goes' runs into a much larger amount of variation in terms of what is allowed and what isn't.
You can argue that if everyone optimises to the same extent then the Tier structure is preserved, but that's kinda begging the question. I've played many games where the Tier structure proved relatively accurate, and many where it hasn't. If the OP plays a game where it doesn't work, that doesn't surprise me. That also doesn't change the usefulness of the system to people playing games where it does work. I use it or don't use it, depending on the game and the people I'm playing with.
ahenobarbi
2012-07-30, 06:35 AM
Actually, the tiers do absolutely nothing to counter this problem.
They describe it. That's something. They can warn you about possible problems (like in my group we have Cleric, Wizard, Ranger/Rogue and a Fighter. I knew since the beginning there will be problems and... on last session Cleric and Wizard were unscratched, Ranger got saved by the Wizard and Fighter died in 2 rounds... would co-players acknowledge the problem (they won't) we could work to avoid it).
ThiagoMartell
2012-07-30, 06:40 AM
Of course many kind of phones won't be used, but still are you using a phone? Yes. The tier system simply resumes how good is the phone you're using.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with that concept that you don't "use" the tier system.
Well, of course. A car magazine can tell me what vehicle has better performances, but doesnt' fix the problems the other cars have.
This has nothing to do with the 'problems other cars have'. As I pointed out, save-or-lose abilities are a problem even if everyone has access to them. One way or another, someone solves a problem by himself and the rest simply sits there, watching. It's the same problem with trapfinding, really. Thankfully, D&D game design has swung away from that.
They describe it. That's something. They can warn you about possible problems (like in my group we have Cleric, Wizard, Ranger/Rogue and a Fighter. I knew since the beginning there will be problems and... on last session Cleric and Wizard were unscratched, Ranger got saved by the Wizard and Fighter died in 2 rounds... would co-players acknowledge the problem (they won't) we could work to avoid it).
Dude, the tier system never mentions save-or-lose as being disruptive of team play. It doesn't even point out which classes get save-or-lose abilities. The problems you are describing are not the problems I mentioned back in that first post you quoted. I'm not talking about options and balance. I'm talking about save-or-lose disrupting team play because one person does all the work alone. This happens across all tiers and as mentioned in that very post you quoted, even in a full t1 party. It's a problem that cannot be solved, even. It's ismply integral to 3.5 design.
Killer Angel
2012-07-30, 06:55 AM
As I pointed out, save-or-lose abilities are a problem even if everyone has access to them. One way or another, someone solves a problem by himself and the rest simply sits there, watching. It's the same problem with trapfinding, really. Thankfully, D&D game design has swung away from that.
I cannot disagree with this.
Now, the problem I have when I read declarations as “tier system is bulls…”, is that, to me, it’s kinda reading “3.5 is perfectly balanced”. The TS is a compendium of the imbalances between the various classes, and dismissing the TS, is like dismissing also the imbalances (a thing that, btw, it’s been somehow done also in the OP).
LordBlades
2012-07-30, 07:06 AM
I disagree with your assessment.
He may well be, but the wizard is not a Tier 1 character because he has invisibility, fireball, fly and teleport. He's a Tier 1 character because he can replace other character's roles in the party and can break the game in a number of ways.
I also don't agree that you've optimised those characters to the same extent, but that's a side point.
hm... You're still confusing terms here. A low-op game is a game where characters are not optimised. This could be because people don't know how to optimise, as you are assuming, or it could be because optimisation options are either discouraged or simply unavailable. You seem to be equating low-op with ignorance, which suggests you don't really understand these styles of play.
You might equally well argue that the reason why the Tier system is so popular amongst high-op players is that keeping a game balanced is hard and requires understanding how the rules fit together. For those who can do it, there is a range of styles of play. For those who can't, high-op is really the only option, and Tiers represent an inescapable fact that dominate the game. I think both arguements are flawed, but each arguement is a mirror of the other. If you don't like one, you need to reconsider both.
The way I see it is that, as you said, there's mainly 2 categories of low-op games:
a) low-op where people don't know how to optimize, and that is what I was referring to. And in these groups casters tend to be optimized less IMO because the book sends you off in the 'wrong' direction and most people would assume, lacking proof of the contrary, that the game designers have a good understanding of how theur game works.
b) deliberate low-op, where people may have optimization knowledge but for whatever reason they decide to 'keep it down'. These games don't prove the tier system invalid, because here casters are also less optimized than martial classes as you.can usually see in the low-op games enforced by the DM, where the 'ban list' for casters is usually a fair bit longer than the one for non-casters. At least this has been my experience with most low-op games bans and houserules I've seen. If you need to restrict class A harder than class B, doesnt that imply class A is stronger and also that after restriction you.can optimize class A less than you can class B?
ThiagoMartell
2012-07-30, 07:08 AM
I cannot disagree with this.
Now, the problem I have when I read declarations as “tier system is bulls…”, is that, to me, it’s kinda reading “3.5 is perfectly balanced”. The TS is a compendium of the imbalances between the various classes, and dismissing the TS, is like dismissing also the imbalances (a thing that, btw, it’s been somehow done also in the OP).
But I'm not dismissing it. :smallconfused:
Maybe you're not alking about me, but you quoted me, so I kinda needed to say that.
Killer Angel
2012-07-30, 07:14 AM
But I'm not dismissing it. :smallconfused:
Maybe you're not alking about me, but you quoted me, so I kinda needed to say that.
Well, i was debating with you and quoting you about some of your positions, but I was also elaborating the concept of the OP I was disagreeing with, hence (probably) the confusion. My fault.
I cannot disagree with this.
Now, the problem I have when I read declarations as “tier system is bulls…”, is that, to me, it’s kinda reading “3.5 is perfectly balanced”. The TS is a compendium of the imbalances between the various classes, and dismissing the TS, is like dismissing also the imbalances (a thing that, btw, it’s been somehow done also in the OP).
In some games, those imbalances are not present. In other games, they appear as in the Tier system. In yet more, an entirely different set of imbalances arise. The Tier system documents some problems that occur in a subset of games, and is popular or unpopular depending in part on how typical that subset is regarded as being.
The only way you can make a claim for the Tier system being a fundamental imbalance in 3.5 itself is either if you assume a 'default' game to which other games are house-ruled variations, or if you insist that all games everywhere, no matter how they are played, always turn up the same imbalances. I don't think either position is defensible.
The tier system is useful, but it's not true for every game. That's really not a terribly controvertial statement. The OP claimed that the Tier system is rubbish, and for the games he's used to playing he may well be right.
The way I see it is that, as you said, there's mainly 2 categories of low-op games:
Sure, you can divide into two categories in this way. I can see no good reason to assume the first rather than the second. Is there one?
I don't agree that casters are harder to optimise in the first category, since it's so easy to make a melee character that's fairly bad at fighting, monks that can't do anything very well, rogues with no way of using their class features most of the time, and so on. Casters, by contrast, are plug and play - most spells are useful at least part of the time and for most casters unfortunate choices can be rectified quite quickly.
And I don't agree that the second category is characterised by long banlists aimed at casters and not at non-casters. My experience may be different from yours. The OPs certainly appears different. I don't see why that would be a surprise to anyone, or why some special circumstances would need to be invoked to explain it.
Tyndmyr
2012-07-30, 09:36 AM
Just went over the tier system again (wizard top, fighter bottom) and every time it looks like complete bull**** to me. Complete and utter bull****. In the example for the list in which the black dragon is involved the wizard can simply kill the dragon while the fighter would be struggling at best.
Really???
I get the other examples but this? At level 7 where with not too powerful feats and magical items the fighter can cause high end 2 digit damage in a single round and the wizard will barely be able to hurt the dragon.
According to the tier system you can't really have the classic group of wizard, cleric, fighter and rogue because pretty soon the fighter and rogue will become useless. Anyone who played a campaign or two knows that this is bull**** as well. Granted they are more versatile but the occasions in which they are outmatched are not all that rare.
Except for spell caster worship, is there something I'm missing?
Yeah, you apparently have never played with optimizers.
At level 7, while a charger can do quite solid damage, dragons fly. So...unless the dragon opts to fight on the fighters terms, the fighter is reduced to using a backup ranged weapon for minor damage.
Wizards engage at range just fine.
GenghisDon
2012-07-30, 09:42 AM
Just went over the tier system again (wizard top, fighter bottom) and every time it looks like complete bull**** to me. Complete and utter bull****. In the example for the list in which the black dragon is involved the wizard can simply kill the dragon while the fighter would be struggling at best.
Really???
I get the other examples but this? At level 7 where with not too powerful feats and magical items the fighter can cause high end 2 digit damage in a single round and the wizard will barely be able to hurt the dragon.
According to the tier system you can't really have the classic group of wizard, cleric, fighter and rogue because pretty soon the fighter and rogue will become useless. Anyone who played a campaign or two knows that this is bull**** as well. Granted they are more versatile but the occasions in which they are outmatched are not all that rare.
Except for spell caster worship, is there something I'm missing?
There must be a great many ball-less DMs out there that meekly accept every broken spell they are force fed. No doubt stuffed in their faces by ruleslawyering munchkins.
There isn't much excuse to, past DMing one's first HL campaign anyway, not breaking the tier system. Tiers 1 & 2 are pretty much defined as game breakers. Game breaking characters are by definition, bad for the game, the epitome of "unfun". Any DM worth the name MUST deal with this problem, however they deem fit. Reduced to, by definition, Tier 3's, the game becomes a different animal. Tier 5 (& 6) classes could still use some work in the opposite direction, but that's somewhat less imperitive.
Killer Angel
2012-07-30, 09:51 AM
The tier system is useful, but it's not true for every game. That's really not a terribly controvertial statement. The OP claimed that the Tier system is rubbish, and for the games he's used to playing he may well be right.
For the sake of discussion, I'll concede it. Still, claiming that the Tier System is bulls..., only because in your game, you don't incur in balance problems, it's (to me) unacceptable.
It's negating balance problems and relative powers of the classes as written (a fact), only on an occasional anecdote. It's kinda saying "Core monks are the most powerful class. In my group, my monk rocks, so y'all should stop with this senseless declarations regardin casters' power".
kitcik
2012-07-30, 10:27 AM
First, let me say that I am a supporter of the "tier system" in that it provides a lot of useful and generaly accurate information about relative "power" under the conditions specified.
That said...
Building and playing a caster even somewhat optimally is harder than building and playing a melee type somewhat optimally - for the very reason given in the tier system, namely versatility. There are so many things they can do, it takes more work to build them and play them optimally.
Therefore, in my experience, casters are generally both built and played more suboptimally than melee types, thereby evening things up at the table to a large extent.
At high levels, where the BBEGs have an arsenal of special abilities of various types, the casters are forced to think more and their true strengths come through. This is the only place where I have really seen melee types falter at the table - say 15+ level (which is sad b/c I currently am playing a 14th level monkblade).
Tyndmyr
2012-07-30, 10:49 AM
There must be a great many ball-less DMs out there that meekly accept every broken spell they are force fed. No doubt stuffed in their faces by ruleslawyering munchkins.
Not in the slightest. Some of us simply enjoy optimizing and high-tier play. I allow Shivering Touch, and yeah, it IS pretty good. However, it's got some tradeoffs. Most notably, being a touch attack. Charging into range is frequently painful.
And it's not that wizards are broken because of one or two crazy spells...it's that there are literally thousands of spells, most of which are pretty useful, and a wizard can easily have dozens on tap.
There isn't much excuse to, past DMing one's first HL campaign anyway, not breaking the tier system. Tiers 1 & 2 are pretty much defined as game breakers. Game breaking characters are by definition, bad for the game, the epitome of "unfun". Any DM worth the name MUST deal with this problem, however they deem fit. Reduced to, by definition, Tier 3's, the game becomes a different animal. Tier 5 (& 6) classes could still use some work in the opposite direction, but that's somewhat less imperitive.
Nah. You can run a game with optimized T1s and T2s just fine. It is, however, a very different animal from the game designed for unoptimized tier 5s, and understanding those differences is essential to making the end result work.
For the sake of discussion, I'll concede it. Still, claiming that the Tier System is bulls..., only because in your game, you don't incur in balance problems, it's (to me) unacceptable.
<shrug> It's exactly as unacceptable as claiming that the imbalance is an absolute fact, and that anyone who doesn't encounter it must be missing something. In each case it sounds like someone ignoring what's true in other people's games and treating their own as standard.
It's negating balance problems and relative powers of the classes as written (a fact), only on an occasional anecdote. It's kinda saying "Core monks are the most powerful class. In my group, my monk rocks, so y'all should stop with this senseless declarations regardin casters' power".
All games are anecdotes. They're all individual instances of applications of the same ruleset. If you can't relate to someone else's game, that's not a problem with their game. If monks rock in their game, while your game follows the Tier structure, then what possible reason do you have to hold up your experience as more valid than theirs?
Urpriest
2012-07-30, 11:14 AM
One important point that people miss about the Tier system, mostly because JaronK isn't very good at explaining it: the Tier system isn't really describing what characters can do in play. It's a system that classifies classes, not characters. While the term gets slung around occasionally, there is no such thing as a Tier 3 character, or a Tier 1 playstyle.
Instead, the Tier system classifies the classes themselves by the resources they offer. The Fighter is low-tier not because Fighters in play behave any differently from Wizards, but because the Fighter class provides a stack of feats, and this is less versatile of a build resource than the spells of every book ever, which is what the Wizard class (not any specific Wizard's spellbook, but the class itself) provides. If you decide to build a Fighter, you do so because you believe the Fighter provides the best resources for you to accomplish whatever you are choosing to accomplish with your build. But often other classes provide a wider range of resources to let you achieve these goals. Thus those other classes are higher Tier, and you will generally choose them if you are rationally choosing the class that best lets you accomplish your desires.
Not in the slightest. Some of us simply enjoy optimizing and high-tier play.
Nah. You can run a game with optimized T1s and T2s just fine.
Despite the Nah and and the Not, I'm not sure you actually stated anything that's in disagreement with the person you were quoting. You easily could both be right.
Agincourt
2012-07-30, 11:21 AM
I'm not sure if we've lost the original poster, but if you're still reading the thread, I wouldn't take the tier system personally.
If you're playing fighter/tanks, having fun, and contributing to your party then you're playing the game right. Ignore anyone who implies you're having wrongbadfun. Someone in the party should be a tank, and if you enjoy it, it might as well be you. Playing the tank is not my cup-of-tea, so I'm delighted when someone else in my group wants to.
Where I think the tier system goes awry is when players use it as a prescription for what they must play. It's more of a tool for DMs to ensure everyone has fun and contributes. And lower tiers will contribute effectively if the higher tiers focus on buffing/debuffing. For DMs having trouble balancing their groups, the tiers are a helpful guide.
Killer Angel
2012-07-30, 11:26 AM
<shrug> It's exactly as unacceptable as claiming that the imbalance is an absolute fact, and that anyone who doesn't encounter it must be missing something. In each case it sounds like someone ignoring what's true in other people's games and treating their own as standard.
sigh...
at a certain point, fighters receive, as a class feature, a feat, monks receive a weak version of feather fall, while wizards gain the ability to cast time stop and clerics to cast miracle. They're not the same thing, they're not on the same power level.
That is the fact. The imbalance, is a fact.
How it can affect your game, it's an anecdote.
It doesn't affect your games? good, but don't tell me that there is not.
If monks rock in their game, while your game follows the Tier structure, then what possible reason do you have to hold up your experience as more valid than theirs?
That not the point, I'm not telling that their experience is not valid.
I'm pretty sure that in Aesop's campaign, the tortoise winned over the hare, and it was certainly a great adventure, but Aesop doesn't pretend that the tortoise is really quicker than the hare.
EDIT: sorry, but i must go... don't know if a can resume the discussion today. If not, I'll read it again tomorrow. See ya.
danzibr
2012-07-30, 11:27 AM
Hey uhh while we're at it...
Is the quick & dirty "let tiers 3 and 4 freely gestalt with NPC classes, tiers 5 and 6 gestalt with each other" fix any good?
Tyndmyr
2012-07-30, 11:41 AM
Despite the Nah and and the Not, I'm not sure you actually stated anything that's in disagreement with the person you were quoting. You easily could both be right.
He's positing that the reason here is "ball-less DMs accepting everything stuffed in their face by ruleslawyering munchkins".
I think that's an unnecessarily negative view of the game, and that most games don't look anything like that. Instead, groups tend to play at a level of power that most of the players feel comfortable at. Things significantly below that level are discouraged, and things significantly above that level are considered overpowered.
As the comfort level of the party rises, the odds that they recognize the tier system(or some rough approximation thereof) rise. No insulting at all is necessary to explain why some people recognize the tier system, and others do not. It's simply a natural outgrowth of differing playstyles.
sigh...
at a certain point, fighters receive, as a class feature, a feat, monks receive a weak version of feather fall, while wizards gain the ability to cast time stop and clerics to cast miracle. They're not the same thing, they're not on the same power level.
That is the fact.
Yes, that's the fact.
The imbalance, is a fact.
No, the imbalance is how the above fact changes your game. That's what 'balance' refers to. You're not arguing for everyone having the same powers (at least I hope not), you're arguing for everyone having an ability to contribute that's roughly similar, and that nebulous 'ability to contribute' thing varies wildly from game to game.
How it can affect your game, it's an anecdote.
No, how it can effect your game is balance, almost by definition. How it happened to effect your game that one time, that's anecdote
It doesn't affect your games? good, but don't tell me that there is not.
If it doesn't effect my games, time after time after time, then for the purposes of my games, it's not there. That's the point. Presumably that's also the OPs point.
That not the point, I'm not telling that their experience is not valid.
You're saying that your perceptions of balance are facts, and theirs are anecdotes. How would you prefer to describe it?
I'm pretty sure that in Aesop's campaign, the tortoise winned over the hare, and it was certainly a great adventure, but Aesop doesn't pretend that the tortoise is really quicker than the hare.
If the race was sufficiently long that the rabbit was unable to complete it without sleeping, then the tortoise is genuinely faster.
You might want to consider what happens to a wizard in a game where 10 or more encounters per day is the norm. It's not a bad analogy.
Eldan
2012-07-30, 12:34 PM
Hey uhh while we're at it...
Is the quick & dirty "let tiers 3 and 4 freely gestalt with NPC classes, tiers 5 and 6 gestalt with each other" fix any good?
I'd say it doesn't generally do much. Most of the NPC classes (adept excluded) don't really offer more options. The expert has skill points, the warrior has high base attack, that's about it. You will gain very little versatility from it, normally, unless you choose UMD as your expert skill. And versatility is the key to the tier system, not just power.
Prime32
2012-07-30, 12:35 PM
You might want to consider what happens to a wizard in a game where 10 or more encounters per day is the norm. It's not a bad analogy.Not only are you supposed to have 4/day...
The fighter has expendable resources too - his HP won't last for 10 encounters unless he has fast healing.
The wizard can retreat into an impenetrable fortress between encounters and regain all his spells. You can't force him to have 10 encounters in a day if he doesn't want to.
Hey uhh while we're at it...
Is the quick & dirty "let tiers 3 and 4 freely gestalt with NPC classes, tiers 5 and 6 gestalt with each other" fix any good?
I think its better to gestalt as follows: 6-1, 5-2, 4-3. Tier 3 and 4 won't be that improved by NPC classes. Its a fix, but more of the bandied kind then a bandage, though ultimately it depends on your group.
Axier
2012-07-30, 12:45 PM
First of all, as an avid fighter, I would like to point out the lack of ranged attack use by people fighting the dragon. If you are going to fight a dragon, I always appreciated the rogue-esque tactics and ranged fire.
Secondly, I disagree with OP, simply because the Tier System exists, does not make it "bull#@%$", and not agreeing with it does not mean you have to use it as a reference. However, there is certainly a tendancy, especially with modern, video-game centrique players to break Wizards, while "breaking" a Fighter is neigh impossible without at least some kind of cross-class, or pristege class; but even then are they limited in capability.
When it comes to Wizards in a relatively Low-OP Campagin, I look at the players themselves. Some people understand the concept of the "Gentlemen's Agreement", and make wizards more suited to supporting the other players, or placing their godly powers towards epic moments of survival. These dependable individuals sould actually be encouraged to be the Wizard, to best discourage other players from also being a Wizard. (Because most people would rather be a different class than one another.)
The players that you should watch are the ones whom fall into BOTH of these catagories:
1) Do not care about the others in the group's entertainment, or puts oneself forward as the "sole hero",
2) and Does all they can to be absolutely undefeatable.
(Especially noticable in people whom are REALLY excited for Halo 4, or think Call of Duty MW3 was the best game ever this year.)
These people should be guided towards non-pure spellcasters, or they will ruin the fun for other people.
As for balancing acts, Gestalting is interesting, but I prefer a combination of E6, which makes spellcasters have less resources to burn through later on; as well as the Bell Curve roll style, which makes rolls more average, making Full BAB more important, and natural Save bonuses more crucial.
kitcik
2012-07-30, 12:50 PM
I think its better to gestalt as follows: 6-1, 5-2, 4-3. Tier 3 and 4 won't be that improved by NPC classes. Its a fix, but more of the bandied kind then a bandage, though ultimately it depends on your group.
If I'm after power, I'm always playng Tier 6 in this game. Now I get full casting + full BAB? Seriously? This is the fix?
How about your limiting your maximum full-casting advancement to 1/2 your level, so that you don't get 9th level spells until 34th level? Anyway, casting needs nerfing to get balance. I have seen several suggestions along these lines (nerfing casting by various means) that at least offer the possibility of balance if they were fully thought out. I have never seen any suggestions to boost melee types that have had any possibility of working even slightly (other than giving them full casting, of course).
If I'm after power, I'm always playng Tier 6 in this game. Now I get full casting + full BAB? Seriously? This is the fix?
How many tier 1 classes are made significantly better by full BAB (the only one who really cares is the cleric and maybe the artificer)? You want a warrior mage, then a sorcerer would also be a valid choice, since they could choose from this list: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight rather than simply the CW samurai.
Orran
2012-07-30, 01:25 PM
How many tier 1 classes are made significantly better by full BAB (the only one who really cares is the cleric and maybe the artificer)? You want a warrior mage, then a sorcerer would also be a valid choice, since they could choose from this list: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight rather than simply the CW samurai.
At the least, prestige class entry would be easier, and who doesn't love free extra hit points?
vrigar
2012-07-30, 01:30 PM
Awesome discussion!
If there is any direction the posts here steered me toward is that there are spells which break the game balance (which book is "Shivering Touch" from anyway?) and I'm glad my DM won't allow them.
I'm happy to see the many points of view but I'm pretty sure I won't be taking part in optimizers' game.
At the least, prestige class entry would be easier, and who doesn't love free extra hit points?
But tiers 2 and 3 gain more. That's the point.
Awesome discussion!
If there is any direction the posts here steered me toward is that there are spells which break the game balance (which book is "Shivering Touch" from anyway?) and I'm glad my DM won't allow them.
I'm happy to see the many points of view but I'm pretty sure I won't be taking part in optimizers' game.
Shivering touch is from frostburn. In high op games it works okay, but in lower powered ones its best to make it a dex penalty rather than damage.
If our group doesn't optimize (which in itself can be difficult to determine since the term differs from person to person) or doesn't mind power discrepancy within the group then the tier system isn't worth as much, although some say it is still useful in alerting the DM to classes that can accidentally break the game (a wizard teleporting past part of the story, or learning something too early via divination magic. If they ever get adventurous and try out some of the more exotic core spells like evard's black tentacles then that can also catch Dms off guard).
lsfreak
2012-07-30, 01:42 PM
Awesome discussion!
If there is any direction the posts here steered me toward is that there are spells which break the game balance (which book is "Shivering Touch" from anyway?) and I'm glad my DM won't allow them.
I'm happy to see the many points of view but I'm pretty sure I won't be taking part in optimizers' game.
Most of the overpowered spells are Core. Gate, shapechange, polymorph are big ones. Invisibility, fly, and teleport are less-broken-still-broken ones that still mean wizards are playing a completely different game than fighters or rogues.
The fighter has expendable resources too - his HP won't last for 10 encounters unless he has fast healing.
Depends how you manage your resources. You're surely not arguing that a wizard can retreat to a distant fortress between encounters, but that a fighter can't arrange some form of healing ability?
The wizard can retreat into an impenetrable fortress between encounters and regain all his spells. You can't force him to have 10 encounters in a day if he doesn't want to.
Sure I can. I run games where there's a plot. One that doesn't accomodate 8 hour gaps.
ScionoftheVoid
2012-07-30, 01:45 PM
How many tier 1 classes are made significantly better by full BAB (the only one who really cares is the cleric and maybe the artificer)? You want a warrior mage, then a sorcerer would also be a valid choice, since they could choose from this list: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight rather than simply the CW samurai.
Rays almost always hit to begin with, full BAB takes that from "have to be pumping touch AC" to "hope for a natural one". Adding full BAB and larger hit dice to a tier one doesn't actually do much, but they're still tier one and therefore superior to everyone else by definition. None of a tier five's capabilities will raise a tier two anywhere near tier one, nor will any tier three be bumped up by adding a tier four class's abilities. The top two tiers are defined by their ability to break the game, and in the case of tier one to be able to do it in multiple ways on the same character. Gestalting will never help to breach that bubble - all this fix actually does is reduce the number of effective tiers, it doesn't actually move anything around significantly in the ones that matter the most to balance. The tier three-and-four gestalts would be largely balanced with one another, as would the tier two-and-fives with themselves and the tier one-and-sixes within that group.
Also, it pretty much invalidates having a tier five or six class if you're gestalting it with a tier one or two. If you're playing effectively the lower tier class is basically just acting as a passive bonus to your saves, hp and to-hit while the higher tier class does the legwork. You certainly could make a gish using this system, but it would probably be more effective to do it with a three-and-four combination unless you particularly need something limited to tiers two and up - in which case it's just mitigating the prevalence of multi-classing.
I think danzibr's "quick and dirty" fix might actually work fairly well if tiers one and two were simply not allowed - or using them with a gentleman's agreement to do the benevolent form of the god wizard playstyle and generally avoid things which would make the game unenjoyable for the other players (including the DM).
Shivering Touch is in Frostburn, however, most of the game-breaking spells are in Core (in all splatbooks put together there may be a few more game-breakers than there are in Core, particularly if you rule out powers which work almost exactly like Core spells). Many of the more subtle ones - more game-changers than -breakers - are actually staples of the game: Fly, Teleport, Scrying and the related things which almost flat-out remove portions of the game (passive terrain difficulties, travel and investigation, mostly). Then there's Polymorph, the more powerful Summon spells, almost any form of Calling effect and things like Wish when obtained from a cost-free source.
Edit:
Depends how you manage your resources. You're surely not arguing that a wizard can retreat to a distant fortress between encounters, but that a fighter can't arrange some form of healing ability?
Not using their own class abilities they can't. They have to rely on wealth, other people or otherwise a source that isn't the fighter class. The fortress is admittedly a bit more prepared than many player-character wizards would be, if using only their own spells to build and maintain it, but it is within their capabilities should they choose to spend that time. If we count items - which, to be fair, are an assumption of the game - then the fighter can extend his day with healing while the wizard can extend his with scrolls and/or wands and still be free to leave at any time; a feat still beyond the fighter.
Sure I can. I run games where there's a plot. One that doesn't accomodate 8 hour gaps.
I can't fault that as a way to keep a caster in check, but if it's a plot at all vulnerable to sequence-breaking it would probably be the tier ones and twos that would have the means to do it.
Rays almost always hit to begin with, full BAB takes that from "have to be pumping touch AC" to "hope for a natural one". Adding full BAB and larger hit dice to a tier one doesn't actually do much, but they're still tier one and therefore superior to everyone else by definition. None of a tier five's capabilities will raise a tier two anywhere near tier one, nor will any tier three be bumped up by adding a tier four class's abilities. The top two tiers are defined by their ability to break the game, and in the case of tier one to be able to do it in multiple ways on the same character. Gestalting will never help to breach that bubble - all this fix actually does is reduce the number of effective tiers, it doesn't actually move anything around significantly in the ones that matter the most to balance. The tier three-and-four gestalts would be largely balanced with one another, as would the tier two-and-fives with themselves and the tier one-and-sixes within that group.
Also, it pretty much invalidates having a tier five or six class if you're gestalting it with a tier one or two. If you're playing effectively the lower tier class is basically just acting as a passive bonus to your saves, hp and to-hit while the higher tier class does the legwork. You certainly could make a gish using this system, but it would probably be more effective to do it with a three-and-four combination unless you particularly need something limited to tiers two and up - in which case it's just mitigating the prevalence of multi-classing.
Its a quick and dirty fix, what do you expect? Short of mass banning, your not going to fix the problem with a couple of sentences.
Serafina
2012-07-30, 01:55 PM
See, its not really about spells like Shivering Touch.
Each character has a set of tools, and as with all tools there is variety. Some are only good for one task, some are made for one but can handle others and some are pretty universal but not exceptional at any one.
You can look at Tiers as a measure of what tools each class offers:
Tier 6: one or two shoddy specialized tools tools
Tier 5: One specialist tool
Tier 4: A set of one kind of tool, such as a set of hammers or screwdrivers
Tier 3: The tools to fulfill one job - such as car repair - and maybe a few others
Tier 2: Specialist tools fine-tuned for one job
Tier 1: You get a whole machine job and can make new tools if you need them.
Well, kinda like that.
A Wizard can solve social situations (Charm Person), stealth missions (invisibility, silence), subdue enemies (Hold Person), investigate clues (divination, knowledge skills), absorb enemy hits (summon monster), hinder enemies (fog spells), weaken enemies (bestow curse), strengthen allies (bulls strength etc.), disable traps (summon again) bypass terrain obstacles (fly, teleport) and so on and so forth.
He can do every sort of job
A Bard (the only core T3 class) can handle social situations (Charm Person, charisma skills) and strengthening his allies (Bardic Music, spells). He can also do some hindering (illusions) and maybe stealth (potentially skills, some spells).
Or take a Warblade (or Swordsage or Crusader). He has a variety of tools he can use in combat that allow not just damage but also control, protection and such.
He can do one job very well and offers some secondary tools.
A Rogue (T4) can handle traps (skills) and stealth (skills). In combat he needs alllies to support him (via flanking) and his main advantage (sneak attack) doesn't work against a lot of enemies. .
He does one job very well, but his secondary tools are only occasionally useful.
A Fighter (T5) can do one thing - fighting. Worse yet he can only do that one thing in one, maybe two, specific ways. He doesn't offer any substantial secondary skills.
He does one job, but without any variety within that job - so maybe he can't even do it in a given situation.
T6 is obviously bad, so no example needed.
The higher your classes tier, the more jobs it can do and the more variety it has within the job. Which matters because not every tool can be used all the time - melee is bad against flying enemies, undead are immune to sneak attacks, charging doesn't work in difficult terrain and so on.
ScionoftheVoid
2012-07-30, 01:59 PM
Its a quick and dirty fix, what do you expect? Short of mass banning, your not going to fix the problem with a couple of sentences.
I know, that's why I was open to danzibr's despite it probably having significant flaws as well. I just thought yours was less effective than the one you were presenting it as a replacement for.
maysarahs
2012-07-30, 02:07 PM
Awesome discussion!
If there is any direction the posts here steered me toward is that there are spells which break the game balance (which book is "Shivering Touch" from anyway?) and I'm glad my DM won't allow them.
I'm happy to see the many points of view but I'm pretty sure I won't be taking part in optimizers' game.
As much as I would like to spend a nice long hour responding with my opinion on everything that has been said (that shall have to wait) I think you missed the point where the tier system is independent of optimization.
A) Broken options exist in core too. Banning Frostburn doesn't help anything (there are a lot of cool options for lower tier characters in it). I would say that it is good knowledge of the tiers that would help a DM ban the right things.
i) As an offshoot of this, the system holds true regardless of the sources allowed. Assuming the same levels of optimization, you could have PHB, (wizard/fighter), and any completes that DON'T have wizard support in them, and the versatility of a shock trooper fighter still pales in contrast to a PHB only "intelligently prepared" (fly, invisibility, glitterdust, fogs) wizard. To bring the original scenario into the picture, a PHB only optimized wizard still has better ways to deal with a black dragon than an optimized to the teeth fighter (with all sources allowed)
B) The assertion that the tier system doesn't come into play in some peoples' games is not a valid basis to evaluate efficacy of the system on. Every DM plays different, I've seen some who don't use dice rolls for social interactions at all, and I've seen some who don't throw anything but combat encounters at their players. Thus the tier system exists in the vacuum of RAW. Keeping all else the same there are trends that exist. This is outlined in the tier system.
Tyndmyr
2012-07-30, 02:14 PM
Depends how you manage your resources. You're surely not arguing that a wizard can retreat to a distant fortress between encounters, but that a fighter can't arrange some form of healing ability?
He can, but doing so requires use of non-class resources. Doing this, while not a bad idea, means he's still resources behind.
Sure I can. I run games where there's a plot. One that doesn't accomodate 8 hour gaps.
Casters can deal with endurance situations fairly well at higher levels. Reserve feats, scrolls, wands, and of course, giant piles of spell slots mean that going over a standard four encounters is no big thing.
As an example of a decently optimized caster, I'll point to the one I'm playing currently (http://www.myth-weavers.com/sheetview.php?sheetid=428296). I don't list consumables or spells prepped on there, as it's an in-person game, and frequently changing things are scribbled on paper, but a level 6 wizard with a +11 int mod is not generally going to run dry on spells.
lunar2
2012-07-30, 02:17 PM
you want to fix the class imbalance? pick a limited number of classes that work in your campaign/setting.
example, in a setting i'm working on, the PC classes are:
adept (homebrew class, think cleric or wizard with bard spells per day and druid chassis), barbarian, beguiler, dread necromancer, upgraded fighter, upgraded healer, rogue, upgraded warmage.
the npc classes are: expert and magewright.
so, all the PC classes are T3-4, and both NPC classes are T5. There, all available classes are balanced, and all have something different to offer to the party.
I know, that's why I was open to danzibr's despite it probably having significant flaws as well. I just thought yours was less effective than the one you were presenting it as a replacement for.
Only unless you ban tiers 1 and 2 (or the gentleman's agreement works), then it doesn't do much to change the power imbalance. Mine may change the game more, but at least it reduces the disparity, if by nothing else than by reducing how many steps each build can be removed from each other.
Hiro Protagonest
2012-07-30, 02:41 PM
If there is any direction the posts here steered me toward is that there are spells which break the game balance (which book is "Shivering Touch" from anyway?) and I'm glad my DM won't allow them.
What do you mean your DM won't allow them? Do you play core-only?
Because core-only is the most broken system ever. Sure, wizards have to wait another couple levels and optimize more to be able to kill a dragon solo, but fighters can't kill a dragon at all. He doesn't have the damage output necessary ("double digit" isn't enough. Twentysome damage a round at level 7... isn't enough). The best he can do is be a half-decent tripper. Meanwhile, the wizard turns into a hydra and gets tons of attacks. At level 7. Then there's the spells that dictate how the battle plays out. Solid Fog, Wall of Force, Wall of Stone (which is an excellent spell to have during downtime in war or nation-building games, in addition to its combat use), Wall of Iron (which is also good to have for nation-building/war. You instantly trade 50 GP and a bit of iron for a lot of iron), Evard's Black Tentacles... at lower levels, Grease and Color Spray are at the top tier of power.
There's also even more powerful spells. Time Stop. Polymorph any Object. Shapechange. Teleportation in any form. Summon Monster/Nature's Ally (minionmancy is a worthwhile pursuit for core-only casters). Planar Ally/Binding. Gate. Astral Projection from a super safe secret fortress that you cast permanent warding spells on (not one of the fog ones, otherwise you get pesky adventurers falling into your hideout), then Plane Shift back to the material plane. Die, then Plane Shift back to the material plane (you are now ageless. Combine with Astral Projection to be effectively immortal).
maysarahs
2012-07-30, 02:45 PM
Depends how you manage your resources. You're surely not arguing that a wizard can retreat to a distant fortress between encounters, but that a fighter can't arrange some form of healing ability?
A) I'm sorry if I double post, but given that I was semi-ninjaed (this thread seems to be moving fast) I'll risk it.
B) While a distant fortress would take some optimization, (as mentioned by someone before me) for any wizard who saw rope trick and thought of it as a neat shelter to rest in would see magnificent mansion and reach the same conclusions (no optimization needed for this btw). Just because one encourages the lack of a 15 minute adventuring day through plot (see my previous point that the evaluation has to be independent of DM style (though I agree this is a good habit to practice)) doesn't mean that even perfectly "kosher" use of these spells doesn't totally invalidate the "midnight ambush" or "survival through the night" (be it ambushes or environmental) tropes that the DM might throw at the party.
C)
Stuff Jade Dragon said.
While I am inclined to agree with your statement, it might be wise to note that any of your suggestions could be seen as optimization (not many "non optimizers" see a hydra as the go to polymorph choice) which would perpetuate the "Okay I am glad I don't optimize this much! My group doesn't apply to tiers!" misconception. (my opinion, I don't mean to sound condescending)
QuickLyRaiNbow
2012-07-30, 02:45 PM
Core Wizard is nastier than a splatbook non-caster. And I really don't think that's a problem.
Water_Bear
2012-07-30, 02:53 PM
I'm a big fan of the Tier System as a model to explore potential strengths and weaknesses in the system.
For example, as a DM, I always want to make sure that the murderer in a murder mystery can duck Detect Thoughts/Evil/Lemons and has some means of negating Speak with Dead and Raise Dead used on their victims. I will also be wary of a party consisting of a Monk a Druid a Wizard and a Paladin, and make sure people understand the classes they're using (Druid/Wizard need to be mature enough not to go God Mode, Monk/Paladin need enough skill to play their classes well).
But it isn't a perfect model. Obviously. It assumes roughly equal optimization within the party. It assumes RAW with a small or insignificant amount of homebrew. It doesn't take setting or narrative restrictions into account. That is okay. You still have to use your own skill and judgement to create a challenging game which all of your players will enjoy. But it is a useful tool which can help you do those things better than if you didn't have it available.
TL;DR: People who treat Tier as inerrant Gospel are being foolish. People who believe using the Tier System damns you to BadWrongFun Hell are also being foolish. The people who think the Tier System has limited utility in their games and the people who think it is a useful tool in general, are both doing it right.
Flickerdart
2012-07-30, 02:55 PM
Core Wizard is also nastier than a non-Core Wizard, because while both will easily deal with almost any opposition, non-Core mundanes at least have things they can do to stop the Wizard if he's not trying very hard on that day. In Core, there are no relevant tools for mundanes defending against a Wizard as early as level 3. Using crappy non-MIC magic items to replicate the tools you need to stay relevant lags far behind the point where you need the stuff.
Prime32
2012-07-30, 03:17 PM
Think of "Fighter vs Wizard" as "Bear vs Human". A wizard who prepares only blasting spells is the equivalent of a human attacking a bear with his bare hands in the middle of an open field. An optimised wizard is the equivalent of a human who attacks a bear while it's asleep, from a stealth helicopter armed with heat-seeking missiles, while wearing powered armor designed to outfight bears, calls in some soldiers for assistance, has a tracking device already planted on the bear, and contaminates every source of food and water near the bear with a poison which affects only bears. Oh, and the helicopter is a drone that he's controlling from the other side of the planet.
If you bring in splatbooks then an optimised bear becomes twice as large and has acid claws, while an optimised human gets a laser gun mounted on his helicopter. It still doesn't change the odds.
A class with UMD as a class skill, by the way, is the equivalent of a bear with opposable thumbs.
Arundel
2012-07-30, 03:20 PM
I never really understand people who say you don't have to use the tier system. I have found the tier system is much akin to the periodic table in the real world. You can acknowledge it, use or ignore it. Nothing you do changes the fact that a system of classifying the basic tenants of the world exist.
The other thing is that most games are self balancing, or at least would good players should be. Personally I tend towards brutal optimization. I also like casters. As a player, I counter these tendencies by crippling my characters as a part of their characterization. Sorcerer afraid of magic, playing the same concept on a binder, cleric would is afraid brazen displays of power offend Pelor, simple concept changes.
GenghisDon
2012-07-30, 03:21 PM
Interesting that fortresses cost nothing, apparently. A fighter (or any non-tier 1-2 character) with an item of some kind of healing is all out of $, yet tier 1-2 characters apparently have a class feature: free sweet kip. No doubt guarded by great wyrms that grovel at the caster's feet while he's visiting home.
Again & again the same broken spells keep being mentioned. It's laughable. It's just SO easy to play the game WITHOUT shapechange, polymorph, ect.
If teleportation is undesirable, move them up spell levels, ban some (or all).
Silly, stupid cheese like free wishes via Efreeti "farming" is the worst of examples. Such a character would get away with such exactly twice; strike 3 resulting in a crushing (as in permanently fatal) retaliation. A gang of advanced &/or classed efreet & NPC mercs of EL+5 come to put an end to such shennanigans. If that fails, EL+6 arrives, EL+7, on up to the Efreet God/Sultan & a planet disintegrating force of allies, if need be. Not that that is every going to happen, the first group comes larded with as many wishes as it takes. Such a tactic simply means GAME OVER. Even the densest munchkin will catch on.
If you have idiot players that are going to try such bull****, a good game for them to play BEFORE they can try such themselves is a mission working for some Effreet Noble to take down just such a foolish spell chucker. Reward: 3 reasonable wishes! & some $. Huzza! (and object lesson implanted).
I'm not sure exactly how candy-ass all the published adventures are for d20, but NONE of the "invincible Tier 1" stuff would fly for any serious HL adventures. Teleport type magics? blocked from this spot. Divinations? Sorry, Screened vs that. Who the hell are these L18 characters going up against? Static Tombs & humanoid type warrior tribes? Dragons that are in hibernation in known locations? LOL. (Not that those shouldn't happen occassionaly...just to show how HL the characters actually are/show off/feel nice).
Ban Frostburn? why? ban the spell that offends (shivering touch & lesser ST). Or fix it (not hard there at all!). This is symptomatic of more bad DMing...BAN it all! No, the idea is to ban what doesn't work for your/the game. As some have pointed out, the splats actually bring a great deal to the "lesser" lights of the game. They are also quite suitable for a specific campaign. You need not include much (if anything) from Frostburn in your Oriental/Jungle based game, or FR stuff in Eberron. In fact, most of it you SHOULDN'T.
Flickerdart
2012-07-30, 03:27 PM
Interesting that fortresses cost nothing, apparently. A fighter (or any non-tier 1-2 character) with an item of some kind of healing is all out of $, yet tier 1-2 characters apparently have a class feature: free sweet kip. No doubt guarded by great wyrms that grovel at the caster's feet while he's visiting home.
When you can basically print money with Wall of Iron or Stone to Flesh/Flesh to Salt, AND bind/construct creatures to build stuff for you (and grovel for you while you're at it), then yes, fortresses are practically free. Healing items, on the other hand, are not - pretty much the only thing a Fighter can use to heal himself is a Healing Belt, which heals a tiny amount of damage before becoming useless for the day. Casters go with wands instead, which are much more cost-effective and versatile (since you can drop a ton of charges per day).
I'm not sure exactly how candy-ass all the published adventures are for d20, but NONE of the "invincible Tier 1" stuff would fly for any serious HL adventures. Teleport type magics? blocked from this spot. Divinations? Sorry, Screened vs that. Who the hell are these L18 characters going up against? Static Tombs & humanoid type warrior tribes? Dragons that are in hibernation in known locations? LOL. (Not that those shouldn't happen occassionaly...just to show how HL the characters actually are/show off/feel nice).
Blocking teleport and divinations requires, all together now, magic.
The-Mage-King
2012-07-30, 03:27 PM
Think of "Fighter vs Wizard" as "Bear vs Human". A wizard who prepares only blasting spells is the equivalent of a human attacking a bear with his bare hands in the middle of an open field. An optimised wizard is the equivalent of a human who attacks a bear while it's asleep, from a stealth helicopter armed with heat-seeking missiles, while wearing powered armor designed to outfight bears, calls in some soldiers for assistance, has a tracking device already planted on the bear, and contaminates every source of food and water near the bear with a poison which affects only bears.
If you bring in splatbooks then an optimised bear becomes twice as large and has acid claws, while an optimised human gets a laser gun mounted on his helicopter. It still doesn't change the odds.
This is why we need a "Like" button.
...If some classes have a bunch of abilities that force a DM to strictly regulate sources, throw severe mass bans around and crack down on players' potential hijinks with fiat, it does seem kind of safe to say that those classes have a bunch of ways to break the game.
Tvtyrant
2012-07-30, 03:30 PM
Rays almost always hit to begin with, full BAB takes that from "have to be pumping touch AC" to "hope for a natural one". Adding full BAB and larger hit dice to a tier one doesn't actually do much, but they're still tier one and therefore superior to everyone else by definition. None of a tier five's capabilities will raise a tier two anywhere near tier one, nor will any tier three be bumped up by adding a tier four class's abilities.
That last sentence is not strictly true. A Shadowcaster is often put into the tier 4 category due to its low castings per day and inflexible design, but if you add it to a more flexible tier 3 it actually cranks it into tier 2 range due to the Shadowcaster getting some quite potent spells at higher levels. Or at least that is MO.
Gavinfoxx
2012-07-30, 03:34 PM
Awesome discussion!
If there is any direction the posts here steered me toward is that there are spells which break the game balance (which book is "Shivering Touch" from anyway?) and I'm glad my DM won't allow them.
The problem is, the book with the densest amount of game breaking spells in it is the 'player's handbook'.
Tyndmyr
2012-07-30, 03:39 PM
Think of "Fighter vs Wizard" as "Bear vs Human". A wizard who prepares only blasting spells is the equivalent of a human attacking a bear with his bare hands in the middle of an open field. An optimised wizard is the equivalent of a human who attacks a bear while it's asleep, from a stealth helicopter armed with heat-seeking missiles, while wearing powered armor designed to outfight bears, calls in some soldiers for assistance, has a tracking device already planted on the bear, and contaminates every source of food and water near the bear with a poison which affects only bears. Oh, and the helicopter is a drone that he's controlling from the other side of the world.
If you bring in splatbooks then an optimised bear becomes twice as large and has acid claws, while an optimised human gets a laser gun mounted on his helicopter. It still doesn't change the odds.
Is it bad that I was confused as to if this was an example, or an actual game?
QuickLyRaiNbow
2012-07-30, 03:45 PM
Again & again the same broken spells keep being mentioned. It's laughable. It's just SO easy to play the game WITHOUT shapechange, polymorph, ect...
Silly, stupid cheese like free wishes via Efreeti "farming" is the worst of examples.
If you have idiot players that are going to try such bull****, a good game for them to play BEFORE they can try such themselves is a mission working for some Effreet Noble to take down just such a foolish spell chucker. Reward: 3 reasonable wishes! & some $. Huzza! (and object lesson implanted)...
I'm not sure exactly how candy-ass all the published adventures are for d20, but NONE of the "invincible Tier 1" stuff would fly for any serious HL adventures. Teleport type magics? blocked from this spot. Divinations? Sorry, Screened vs that...
Get off your high horse.
It's unbelievable how presumptuous this is. Who are you to say anyone's playing wrong?
Are your players making intelligent decisions? THEY'RE BAD PLAYERS AND SHOULD BE PUNISHED. Are they using their abilities to the fullest? MAKE THEM REGRET THE DAY THEY CROSSED YOU. Are they making you look like you put in insufficient work? POST HOC BANS AND RETRIBUTION ALL AROUND.
Come on, seriously? Saying 'no reasonable player would ever do this!' isn't an argument against the tier system; it's an argument for it! Banning teleportion magic or polymorph spells or Shivering Touch or Wish economies or whatever; fine, but you never hear about having to ban Improved Sunder and Improved Disarm. That by itself sorta demonstrates the gulf in power.
I'm not the kind of person to get offended by stuff about a game on a message board, or even the kind of person who gets offended at anything, really. But this attitude is actually kinda offensive.
Godskook
2012-07-30, 03:47 PM
QFT.
Don't like the tier system? Don't use it.'
The tier system didn't start as a tool, it started as an observation. Its like math that way, it doesn't care if you want to use it or not, when you want to know numbers, you're still using math to find them, and when you want to know why your party's wizard is out-classing the party's rogue despite all things being equal(including optimization), you're still using the tier system, even if you don't like it.
Admittedly, there's flaws in the observation(Was just talking to Djinn about one of those), but at its basic level, you really can't take it out of the system without simply playing a different system.
Depends how you manage your resources. You're surely not arguing that a wizard can retreat to a distant fortress between encounters, but that a fighter can't arrange some form of healing ability?
Option 1: Ropetrick (plus a 'door' for really clever critters)
Option 2: (Greater) Teleport
Option 3: Planeshift + Genesis(+Rapid time traits to negate issues of time requirements)
So yeah, the wizard can escape to a safe place between encounters using class features.
What class feature allows the fighter to heal?
Sure I can. I run games where there's a plot. One that doesn't accomodate 8 hour gaps.
This, on the other hand is a point, and one that helps weaken per-day classes. On the other hand, DMM Clericzilla.
Eldan
2012-07-30, 03:52 PM
Interesting that fortresses cost nothing, apparently. A fighter (or any non-tier 1-2 character) with an item of some kind of healing is all out of $, yet tier 1-2 characters apparently have a class feature: free sweet kip. No doubt guarded by great wyrms that grovel at the caster's feet while he's visiting home.
Mordenkainen's Magnificient Mansion et al. Genesis. Permanent wall spells. And so on, and so on.
Yes, wizards do have a class feature called "Awesome kip".
Eldariel
2012-07-30, 03:55 PM
I'm not sure exactly how candy-ass all the published adventures are for d20, but NONE of the "invincible Tier 1" stuff would fly for any serious HL adventures. Teleport type magics? blocked from this spot. Divinations? Sorry, Screened vs that. Who the hell are these L18 characters going up against? Static Tombs & humanoid type warrior tribes? Dragons that are in hibernation in known locations? LOL. (Not that those shouldn't happen occassionaly...just to show how HL the characters actually are/show off/feel nice).
Exactly. It's spellcasters vs. spellcasters. There's a few good Play-by-Posts going on in MinMax Boards currently for instance; a friend was telling me how his Ardent/Swiftblade is technically useless. However, he can still contribute since the rest of the party is also made of optimizers so they know they'd make him useless and thus instead play on his level and buff around him and debuff the enemies and let him do the HP damage. The rest of the party is full casters and they could replicate his ability to destroy beings without excessive damage fairly easily. As such, this is a tier 1 party where he, as a high tier 2, is underpowered. If he didn't have casting, he couldn't do anything with the foes they go up against.
They're all fine with that though since they're playing what they want and the campaign is going on. And the DM is challenging them with stuff appropriate for a Tier 1-2 game so the Ardent's power level is the minimum level on which that campaign is playable. But none of that changes the fact that far as powerlevel goes, Ardent/Swiftblade is way underpowered there.
All this pretty much should just show that there is a very real gap between what kinds of encounters parties composed of different tiers, or characters of different tiers can handle. You can simply throw much more varied, difficult, dire encounters and quests at a tier 1 party than you can at a tier 3, or a tier 5 party. Mixed parties generally go by the highest tier party member but the rest will feel left out if he has to go all-out and play to his limits.
All this assumes competent players with sufficient mechanical skills to play any class near the peak potential and decent mechanical grasp of the rules & character construction of course; basic veteran's skill set. It's fairly irrelevant what a character can do by the rules if a player does not know the rules in the first place, and it's fairly irrelevant what actions a player has available if he doesn't know their function well enough to use them intelligently.
EDIT: 3 posts on the next page that's not showing up. Did we break the forums or something?
Doug Lampert
2012-07-30, 03:55 PM
As does the dragon?
A black dragon needs to be CR 16 to cast Dispel Magic, this is explicitely a level 7 character example. A CR 7 black dragon can't cast any spells at all, and has no SR.
The Random NPC
2012-07-30, 03:58 PM
Interesting that fortresses cost nothing, apparently. A fighter (or any non-tier 1-2 character) with an item of some kind of healing is all out of $, yet tier 1-2 characters apparently have a class feature: free sweet kip. No doubt guarded by great wyrms that grovel at the caster's feet while he's visiting home.
Again & again the same broken spells keep being mentioned. It's laughable. It's just SO easy to play the game WITHOUT shapechange, polymorph, ect.
If teleportation is undesirable, move them up spell levels, ban some (or all).
Silly, stupid cheese like free wishes via Efreeti "farming" is the worst of examples. Such a character would get away with such exactly twice; strike 3 resulting in a crushing (as in permanently fatal) retaliation. A gang of advanced &/or classed efreet & NPC mercs of EL+5 come to put an end to such shennanigans. If that fails, EL+6 arrives, EL+7, on up to the Efreet God/Sultan & a planet disintegrating force of allies, if need be. Not that that is every going to happen, the first group comes larded with as many wishes as it takes. Such a tactic simply means GAME OVER. Even the densest munchkin will catch on.
If you have idiot players that are going to try such bull****, a good game for them to play BEFORE they can try such themselves is a mission working for some Effreet Noble to take down just such a foolish spell chucker. Reward: 3 reasonable wishes! & some $. Huzza! (and object lesson implanted).
I'm not sure exactly how candy-ass all the published adventures are for d20, but NONE of the "invincible Tier 1" stuff would fly for any serious HL adventures. Teleport type magics? blocked from this spot. Divinations? Sorry, Screened vs that. Who the hell are these L18 characters going up against? Static Tombs & humanoid type warrior tribes? Dragons that are in hibernation in known locations? LOL. (Not that those shouldn't happen occassionaly...just to show how HL the characters actually are/show off/feel nice).
Ban Frostburn? why? ban the spell that offends (shivering touch & lesser ST). Or fix it (not hard there at all!). This is symptomatic of more bad DMing...BAN it all! No, the idea is to ban what doesn't work for your/the game. As some have pointed out, the splats actually bring a great deal to the "lesser" lights of the game. They are also quite suitable for a specific campaign. You need not include much (if anything) from Frostburn in your Oriental/Jungle based game, or FR stuff in Eberron. In fact, most of it you SHOULDN'T.
Just because you can fix it, does not mean it wasn't broken in the first place.
GenghisDon
2012-07-30, 04:03 PM
When you can basically print money with Wall of Iron or Stone to Flesh/Flesh to Salt, AND bind/construct creatures to build stuff for you (and grovel for you while you're at it), then yes, fortresses are practically free. Healing items, on the other hand, are not - pretty much the only thing a Fighter can use to heal himself is a Healing Belt, which heals a tiny amount of damage before becoming useless for the day. Casters go with wands instead, which are much more cost-effective and versatile (since you can drop a ton of charges per day).
If it's simple item utility cleric 1 (or caster of choice 1) Tier 3-6 L19 ought be a fine build.
Even if the fortress were free (which they are not), maintaining them is anything but. D&D has perhaps too many "living in Mom's basement" types for the reality of expenses to sink in, and NONE of us has any conception of what running a large enterprise like a fortess is actually like. Costs are ENORMOUS & never ending.
And the most ignorant part of it all...printing money simply does not work. Dishonest people (mainly politicans) have & still to this day try that "fix" constantly in the real world. The result is disaster when/if people play along with it, but nobody would play along with a caster selling blocks of stone or iron, at least not to the degree it would take to supply more than a middle class (at best) income. Basic economic rules are going to prevail any & everywhere. Meanwhile, other casters snigger & ostrasize the chump (at least the ones that were not already in that "buisness" LONG before PC johnny shows up with a wall to sell).
Blocking teleport and divinations requires, all together now, magic.[/QUOTE]
No ****. Is there supposed to be a no magic ban when the players have "peak" magic or something? It is a VERY small niche of L18+ adventures that are going to be non-magical or low magic. The dungeon/tomb filled with anti magic or dead magic zone or the trip to a different plane/parallel universe where magic doesn't work or works extremely poorly. Other than such oddballs, where does one even come up with the idea that using magic AGAINST the players in a VHL D&D game is wrong/rare/difficult? Bizarro
Doug Lampert
2012-07-30, 04:04 PM
Casters can deal with endurance situations fairly well at higher levels. Reserve feats, scrolls, wands, and of course, giant piles of spell slots mean that going over a standard four encounters is no big thing.
A level 1 party of Druid/Cleric/Cleric/Wizard is VASTLY BETTER at endurance situations than Rogue/Fighter/Cleric/Wizard.
It's not even close.
Pure casters have MORE endurance at EVERY level, because the limiting factor on endurance is running out of spells, and more casters means more spells. Since the first party hasn't actually lost any non-magical melee strength compared to the second (heck, they have more since a level 1 rogue can't have weapon finesse and hence is nearly useless in combat) and since the first party has double the spells they have double the endurance.
This gets worse at higher level, but party one wins on endurance from day one on. The lack of endurance of casters comes from needing to carry the non-casters.
Eldariel
2012-07-30, 04:13 PM
Genghis, please consolidate what you're trying to argue to one sentence. Currently you're not making sense. It seems like you're jumping from "you need casters" to "tier system is irrelevant and everyone is equal because casters exist" or something and your posts aren't conveying a coherent thought.
Doug Lampert
2012-07-30, 04:16 PM
Mordenkainen's Magnificient Mansion et al. Genesis. Permanent wall spells. And so on, and so on.
Yes, wizards do have a class feature called "Awesome kip".
Which they don't need.
Druid/Melee or Archer Cleric/Melee Cleric/Wizard has VASTLY more endurance than
Rogue/Fighter/Cleric/Wizard from level 1 on.
It's not even close. The first party has about the same unbuffed melee strength, and double the spells.
This is at it's MOST TRUE at level 1 core only. Where the rogue's ability to spot is inferior to the cleric and the rogue can't have weapon finesse. Adding levels and adding books lets the fighter get stuff like uber-charge that the caster's can't easily duplicate.
Endurance is out when you run low on spells. Party 1 has double the spells, thus double the endurance. This is only untrue if lack of combat strength makes party 1 burn spells faster, but in fact party 1 is fine in melee so it doesn't burn any faster, and with more characters able to take craft skills and cooperate in crafting party 1 also ends up ahead in gear, which party 2 needs to make up the gap.
GenghisDon
2012-07-30, 04:44 PM
{Scrubbed}
QuickLyRaiNbow
2012-07-30, 04:58 PM
{Scrubbed}
A delicious combination of arrogance and the Stormwind Fallacy.
GenghisDon
2012-07-30, 04:58 PM
Genghis, please consolidate what you're trying to argue to one sentence. Currently you're not making sense. It seems like you're jumping from "you need casters" to "tier system is irrelevant and everyone is equal because casters exist" or something and your posts aren't conveying a coherent thought.
Argue where/with whom?
I'm not following your quotes of me Eldariel.
"you need casters"...from the player perspective is pretty much by design, so as to encourage variety & increase the fun factor.
From the DM perspective, they may or may not be required, as simply saying "wizard X did Y, Z & A in the past" may be enough. Personally, however, I enjoy challenging my players with caster enemies & recomend it to all.
"tier system is irrelevant and everyone is equal because casters exist"= I have no idea where this comes form. I think the tier system is a useful idea. The Tier system become less & less relevant, however, if the various classes' potential becomes closer to one another.
Tier 1 & 2 are DEFINED as being able to break the game, with T2 just being able to less often or easily than T1 does. Remove the ability to break the game & T1 & T2, by definition, cease to exist. The classes therein have effectively joined what is currently Tier 3. Pretty basic logic there.
GenghisDon
2012-07-30, 05:06 PM
A delicious combination of arrogance and the Stormwind Fallacy.
I confess you caught me in some ignorance on "stormwind fallacy", but upon reading it's premise...meh.
You assume that I am against ANY optimisation because I say that things that BREAK THE GAME ought be removed. You are mistaken.
maysarahs
2012-07-30, 05:17 PM
I hope people don't get tired of my admittedly less informed input, but wouldn't it be fair to argue that sans any optimization the tier system exists? I mean of course some intelligent character design is needed, but its fairly easy (and commonly) said that that higher optimization tricks of a wizard are better than those of a fighters, but people who link optimization with the tiers can just continue sitting on their position as long as people continue to use high op examples. If we were to describe how the discrepancy exists even with blaster wizards and (I don't know what the equivalent is for a fighter, weapon specialization with every weapon for every feat?) then people might be swayed?
QuickLyRaiNbow
2012-07-30, 05:19 PM
{Scrubbed}
This is the definition of the fallacy.
---
You assume that there's a level of optimization beyond which you're no longer playing Dungeons and Dragons, that you've committed some sort of sin against the game. Anyone using Shapechange, or any number of powerful options, is out to break the game. The rules require the intervention of some other figure, someone wiser and more prudent than the players, who can temper their immoderate inclinations towards power.
The simple truth is that that's not the case. This board contains a number of posts on the subject of realistic worldbuilding in a situation where the rules are followed without a father figure picking over them. The result, apparently, is a game of higher power level and more optimization than you're comfortable with. That's ok.
I feel like you've never had any experience with truly high-power games, but have had bad experiences with people trying to duplicate those tricks without understanding them.
QuickLyRaiNbow
2012-07-30, 05:21 PM
I hope people don't get tired of my admittedly less informed input, but wouldn't it be fair to argue that sans any optimization the tier system exists? I mean of course some intelligent character design is needed, but its fairly easy (and commonly) said that that higher optimization tricks of a wizard are better than those of a fighters, but people who link optimization with the tiers can just continue sitting on their position as long as people continue to use high op examples. If we were to describe how the discrepancy exists even with blaster wizards and (I don't know what the equivalent is for a fighter, weapon specialization with every weapon for every feat?) then people might be swayed?
I doubt that's the case, unfortunately.
ScionoftheVoid
2012-07-30, 05:36 PM
Only unless you ban tiers 1 and 2 (or the gentleman's agreement works), then it doesn't do much to change the power imbalance. Mine may change the game more, but at least it reduces the disparity, if by nothing else than by reducing how many steps each build can be removed from each other.
Well, I was assuming that, yes. Shouldn't have, or should have said it explicitly, sorry. I still feel that chopping off the higher tiers does more for game balance than removing the lower ones, but I wasn't really thinking my position through thoroughly and needn't have ranted in your direction.
That last sentence is not strictly true. A Shadowcaster is often put into the tier 4 category due to its low castings per day and inflexible design, but if you add it to a more flexible tier 3 it actually cranks it into tier 2 range due to the Shadowcaster getting some quite potent spells at higher levels. Or at least that is MO.
I, unfortunately, don't own the Tome of Magic and I'm not familiar with the Shadowcaster, so I'm happy to accept the word of someone who knows better. No generalisation is going to be completely accurate, of course.
I hope people don't get tired of my admittedly less informed input, but wouldn't it be fair to argue that sans any optimization the tier system exists? I mean of course some intelligent character design is needed, but its fairly easy (and commonly) said that that higher optimization tricks of a wizard are better than those of a fighters, but people who link optimization with the tiers can just continue sitting on their position as long as people continue to use high op examples. If we were to describe how the discrepancy exists even with blaster wizards and (I don't know what the equivalent is for a fighter, weapon specialization with every weapon for every feat?) then people might be swayed?
Well, the system was designed with equal levels of optimisation across all characters in mind, so it should work at lower optimisation. And it might be good to have a few lower-op standard answers for these inquiries.
So, for example, things like the fighter being stuck attacking as many enemies as his attacks allow, while casters get area-of-effect. Even in low-op games casters have access to flight from their own power some time before a fighting type can afford an item for it. And regardless of optimisation, it's hard to argue that a fighter (or other low-tier class) is as equipped to deal with (near-)bottomless chasms, aquatic travel, spying, staying hidden, avoiding tripwires and pressure plates, specific weaknesses of enemies (such as energy vulnerabilities, low mental ability scores, low saves, etc.), large groups of enemies, social and non-lethal situations, general information gathering and everything else that is only a spell away. Noting that a wizard can deal with quite a few of these in a single day, and needs only one day to prepare for anything they have at least a scroll for. How long does it take a fighter to alter their capabilities completely, exactly?
GenghisDon
2012-07-30, 05:42 PM
This is the definition of the fallacy.
---
You assume that there's a level of optimization beyond which you're no longer playing Dungeons and Dragons, that you've committed some sort of sin against the game. Anyone using Shapechange, or any number of powerful options, is out to break the game. The rules require the intervention of some other figure, someone wiser and more prudent than the players, who can temper their immoderate inclinations towards power.
The simple truth is that that's not the case. This board contains a number of posts on the subject of realistic worldbuilding in a situation where the rules are followed without a father figure picking over them. The result, apparently, is a game of higher power level and more optimization than you're comfortable with. That's ok.
I feel like you've never had any experience with truly high-power games, but have had bad experiences with people trying to duplicate those tricks without understanding them.
You would be mistaken again.
The game does require a DM however.
QuickLyRaiNbow
2012-07-30, 06:15 PM
It really doesn't, not especially. You need a guy willing to be the environment, but you don't need a gatekeeper.
danzibr
2012-07-30, 06:44 PM
Think of "Fighter vs Wizard" as "Bear vs Human". A wizard who prepares only blasting spells is the equivalent of a human attacking a bear with his bare hands in the middle of an open field. An optimised wizard is the equivalent of a human who attacks a bear while it's asleep, from a stealth helicopter armed with heat-seeking missiles, while wearing powered armor designed to outfight bears, calls in some soldiers for assistance, has a tracking device already planted on the bear, and contaminates every source of food and water near the bear with a poison which affects only bears. Oh, and the helicopter is a drone that he's controlling from the other side of the world.
If you bring in splatbooks then an optimised bear becomes twice as large and has acid claws, while an optimised human gets a laser gun mounted on his helicopter. It still doesn't change the odds.
lolz... going in my sig EDIT: if you don't mind (it's already there, but just lmk if you don't want it there)
This is why we need a "Like" button.
Agreed.
Flickerdart
2012-07-30, 07:13 PM
{Scrubbed}
What? I do not parse this sentence.
{Scrubbed}
Right. Because the 36 Intelligence being who can conjure food, energy and servants from thin air is going to have logistical problems. Keep dreaming.
{Scrubbed}.
None of them have the ability to conjure goods from thin air.
{Scrubbed}.
So which is it? Is it impossible to operate like that, or are there already people doing it? You can't have it both ways. Also, if you know any middle class worker who pumps out tons of finely worked iron in a matter of minutes, I'd love to be introduced.
{Scrubbed}.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. My point was that you need magic to deal with magic because mundanes are not powerful enough. You're kind of supporting my point here.
{Scrubbed}
These words you are putting in my mouth, they are delicious. Om nom nom.
All in all, your tone is extremely offensive, and your arguments are unsubstantiated. I'll give you 1/10 for effort, and even that's charitable.
ShneekeyTheLost
2012-07-30, 07:23 PM
Awesome discussion!
If there is any direction the posts here steered me toward is that there are spells which break the game balance (which book is "Shivering Touch" from anyway?) and I'm glad my DM won't allow them.
I'm happy to see the many points of view but I'm pretty sure I won't be taking part in optimizers' game.
Core is probably the worst offender for spells which break the game balance, to be honest.
Who needs a Rogue when you have the spell Find Traps, or failing that, the various Summon Monster x spells to just go up and trigger them for you from a safe distance?
Rope Trick is a fundamental game balance wrecker because it allows casters to 'nova', then go hide in their rope trick and come back fresh. From level 4.
Grease/Glitterdust/Stinking Cloud. There's a reason these three spells are very often used. Disallow SR, save or lose effects. And casters have all kinds of ways to jack their DC's, primarily with stat-stacking. That turns it into 'roll a nat 20 or lose'.
Enervation is a no save just lose spell as well, particularly with metamagic enhancement.
Mirror Image is an enormously powerful defense. You have a 12.5% chance of hitting 'me'. The question is... do ya feel lucky, punk? By way of comparison, invisibility is a 50% miss chance.
Flight gives casters a whole new dimension to move around in. They also have several ways of flying around.
Slow is another 'save or lose' to anything melee-oriented.
Black Tentacles... anything without a good grapple check is screwed.
DimDoor/Teleport/Teleport Without Error/Plane Shift. Various different ways of saying 'even if you have the potential to beat me, I'm still gone before you can hurt me'.
Contingency. Full stop.
Planar Binding. Astral Projection at level 9? Yes, I can do that. As a parlor trick.
Let's not even GET into Gate shenanigans.
Polymorph Any Object. "I can be a better yes than any other character, because I can be a spellcasting whatever I want to be that has the attributes of what I'm wanting to be better than".
These are all -Core- spells found in the PhB 3.5.
Flickerdart
2012-07-30, 07:34 PM
These are all -Core- spells found in the PhB 3.5.
Technically not all of them - Teleport Without Error got renamed to Greater Teleport in the update to 3.5. :smalltongue:
QuickLyRaiNbow
2012-07-30, 07:34 PM
Fantastic list.
To continue from Shneekey's list...
Wall of Iron and Flesh to Salt lead to money.
Contact Other Plane, and various other Divination spells like Commune.
Holy Word/Blasphemy. No Save Just Die.
Disjunction.
Animate Dead.
Genesis (though there are two schools of thought about this. I tend to think you can't alter the time trait; others think you can. YMMV on how good this is).
I don't think any of these things are broken per se, but they are definitely really, really good options.
The simple truth is that that's not the case. This board contains a number of posts on the subject of realistic worldbuilding in a situation where the rules are followed without a father figure picking over them. The result, apparently, is a game of higher power level and more optimization than you're comfortable with. That's ok.
No, it really isn't. It's actually quite an aggressive claim, and one that could easily cause offense.
Let's reason it through.
You, when you play the game and try and build a realistic world following the rules, end up with result A. Result A is a game where the Tier system holds true. It also sounds like it's a system dominated by magic.
I, when I play the game and try and build a realistic world following the rules, end up with result B. Result B is a game where the Tier system does not hold true. By which I mean that the observed results are sufficiently at variance with the predictions of the Tier system that the DM and players discard it as unuseful.
Now, we're both clearly playing the game in different ways or styles. I'm quite happy with the idea that both play styles are fine, acceptable, correct, and in accordance with the rules. Neither are 'wrong' in any meaningful sense.
So when asked about the Tier system, I say that it's useful for some styles of play, but not for others. It works in some games, and not in others. Whether you want to use it depends on the kinds of game you're in.
Now I'm getting contradicted here, by a lot of people. And they're not just saying that in their own games Tiers are useful. They're talking about Tiers somehow applying to all games, they're saying that different results could only come about as a result of a father figure picking over (the rules), and they're trying to link opinions different to their own with lack of competance, by saying things like this:
I feel like you've never had any experience with truly high-power games, but have had bad experiences with people trying to duplicate those tricks without understanding them.
So, here's the question, and I'm happy to hear an answer from anyone. I experience styles of game where the Tier system doesn't hold true. Is my style of play equally valid to yours, or is it 'wrong' in some way?
Now if you feel it is equally valid, then the Tier system can, logically, only be an occasional tool. It can only be useful some of the time, because we know there are perfectly valid styles of play where it doesn't fit.
If you don't feel it is equally valid, then we're into the realm of badwrongfun, and pushing for the universality of the tier system becomes just a way of lecturing other people on the 'correct' way to play the game.
So which is it?
ShneekeyTheLost
2012-07-30, 07:49 PM
No, it really isn't. It's actually quite an aggressive claim, and one that could easily cause offense.
Let's reason it through.
You, when you play the game and try and build a realistic world following the rules, end up with result A. Result A is a game where the Tier system holds true. It also sounds like it's a system dominated by magic.
I, when I play the game and try and build a realistic world following the rules, end up with result B. Result B is a game where the Tier system does not hold true. By which I mean that the observed results are sufficiently at variance with the predictions of the Tier system that the DM and players discard it as unuseful.
Now, we're both clearly playing the game in different ways or styles. I'm quite happy with the idea that both play styles are fine, acceptable, correct, and in accordance with the rules. Neither are 'wrong' in any meaningful sense.
So when asked about the Tier system, I say that it's useful for some styles of play, but not for others. It works in some games, and not in others. Whether you want to use it depends on the kinds of game you're in.
Now I'm getting contradicted here, by a lot of people. And they're not just saying that in their own games Tiers are useful. They're talking about Tiers somehow applying to all games, they're saying that different results could only come about as a result of a father figure picking over (the rules), and they're trying to link opinions different to their own with lack of competance, by saying things like this:
So, here's the question, and I'm happy to hear an answer from anyone. I experience styles of game where the Tier system doesn't hold true. Is my style of play equally valid to yours, or is it 'wrong' in some way?
Now if you feel it is equally valid, then the Tier system can, logically, only be an occasional tool. It can only be useful some of the time, because we know there are perfectly valid styles of play where it doesn't fit.
If you don't feel it is equally valid, then we're into the realm of badwrongfun, and pushing for the universality of the tier system becomes just a way of lecturing other people on the 'correct' way to play the game.
So which is it?
What are the rules of the system you play with in which the Tier system does not hold true? Homebrewers have been searching for this holy grail of game balance for years now. From which efforts sprung Pathfinder and Legend.
I'm not being scarcastic here, I'm behind honest. What house rules do you use in your games that makes Wizards not inherently more powerful than Fighters? I would be very interested in looking at such, with respect to including it in my homebrew campaign setting (which you can see in my sig).
I hope people don't get tired of my admittedly less informed input, but wouldn't it be fair to argue that sans any optimization the tier system exists? I mean of course some intelligent character design is needed, but its fairly easy (and commonly) said that that higher optimization tricks of a wizard are better than those of a fighters, but people who link optimization with the tiers can just continue sitting on their position as long as people continue to use high op examples. If we were to describe how the discrepancy exists even with blaster wizards and (I don't know what the equivalent is for a fighter, weapon specialization with every weapon for every feat?) then people might be swayed?
Certainly I don't see why, in games where the tier system works well, the system might not also hold true at lower levels of optimisation. The problem is that people tend to figure what high medium and low optimisation is, depending on what they already believe about the classes in question. So you're effectively asking people to assign different power levels to different classes and then measuring what they've assigned. It ends up as very much a question begging exercise.
This is why, despite JaronK's belief that the Tier system works across different levels of optimisation, the Tiers themselves are explicitly assigned based on the maximum possible benefit that you can squeeze out of each class. Because that's a standard that everyone can agree on. Once you start going for lower levels of optimisation/munchkinism, then you're in much more subjective territory.
QuickLyRaiNbow
2012-07-30, 07:53 PM
So, here's the question, and I'm happy to hear an answer from anyone. I experience styles of game where the Tier system doesn't hold true. Is my style of play equally valid to yours, or is it 'wrong' in some way?
...
So which is it?
Your style of play is equally valid. I have no objection to how you play the game. If, in your experience, the tier system doesn't seem to be correct, then that's fine.
However. In games where the rules as written are followed, and no limits are placed on the powers and actions of the characters other than what's written in the books, the tier system generally fits. There is no possible way to make a Fighter, Ranger, Expert, Monk or Warlock capable of being as powerful as a Wizard, Cleric, Archivist, StP Erudite or Druid, if those latter classes are used to their fullest extent.
In your game, that may not be true. I'm not saying you're wrong for having that experience. In general, though, that's not the case. The tier system is meant to address the general and not the specific play experience. Mutability is built into it from the very beginning.
Sucrose
2012-07-30, 08:00 PM
No, it really isn't. It's actually quite an aggressive claim, and one that could easily cause offense.
Let's reason it through.
You, when you play the game and try and build a realistic world following the rules, end up with result A. Result A is a game where the Tier system holds true. It also sounds like it's a system dominated by magic.
I, when I play the game and try and build a realistic world following the rules, end up with result B. Result B is a game where the Tier system does not hold true. By which I mean that the observed results are sufficiently at variance with the predictions of the Tier system that the DM and players discard it as unuseful.
Now, we're both clearly playing the game in different ways or styles. I'm quite happy with the idea that both play styles are fine, acceptable, correct, and in accordance with the rules. Neither are 'wrong' in any meaningful sense.
So when asked about the Tier system, I say that it's useful for some styles of play, but not for others. It works in some games, and not in others. Whether you want to use it depends on the kinds of game you're in.
Now I'm getting contradicted here, by a lot of people. And they're not just saying that in their own games Tiers are useful. They're talking about Tiers somehow applying to all games, they're saying that different results could only come about as a result of a father figure picking over (the rules), and they're trying to link opinions different to their own with lack of competance, by saying things like this:
So, here's the question, and I'm happy to hear an answer from anyone. I experience styles of game where the Tier system doesn't hold true. Is my style of play equally valid to yours, or is it 'wrong' in some way?
Now if you feel it is equally valid, then the Tier system can, logically, only be an occasional tool. It can only be useful some of the time, because we know there are perfectly valid styles of play where it doesn't fit.
If you don't feel it is equally valid, then we're into the realm of badwrongfun, and pushing for the universality of the tier system becomes just a way of lecturing other people on the 'correct' way to play the game.
So which is it?
Well, you said you'd take an answer from anyone, so here's an answer from a party outside of the present argument.
Your game is an equally valid form of entertainment. It is not an equally valid interpretation of the rules, unless your setting has powerful beings (mages specifically interested in the status quo, oppressive deities) or supplementary rules (lack of existing mid-level mages with any interest in the outside world, many areas where magic does not work as it does within the default rules) that somehow prevent superhumanly intelligent reality-warpers from warping reality to their benefit.
The Tier system mostly applies when the book rules (which are typically not the only rules of a Dungeons and Dragons group) are followed to the letter, and not hindered in some way. It requires equal, nonzero optimization to be observed, but a sufficiently low amount of optimization is required that many would see it as being essentially universal, particularly once large enough data sets can be drawn from to observe general trends.
The Tiers are always useful in RAW. The fact that RAW is not always followed means that the utility of tiers somewhat decrease (and the tier of a class can shift based upon the houserules of a given group), and the fact that optimization within a group is almost never of equal quality from one player to the next means that the tiers can be imprecise. But the tiers are always useful.
ShneekeyTheLost
2012-07-30, 08:01 PM
Certainly I don't see why, in games where the tier system works well, the system might not also hold true at lower levels of optimisation. The problem is that people tend to figure what high medium and low optimisation is, depending on what they already believe about the classes in question. So you're effectively asking people to assign different power levels to different classes and then measuring what they've assigned. It ends up as very much a question begging exercise.
This is why, despite JaronK's belief that the Tier system works across different levels of optimisation, the Tiers themselves are explicitly assigned based on the maximum possible benefit that you can squeeze out of each class. Because that's a standard that everyone can agree on. Once you start going for lower levels of optimisation/munchkinism, then you're in much more subjective territory.
Well then, let's propose an example, shall we?
The Wizard shall be fairly low optimization and the Fighter shall be a fairly high optimization, and see what the results are.
The Wizard will be primarily a blastomancer, using only core materials. He will explicitly not be using any metamagic reduction, or any spell which inflicts a condition which prevents his opponent from functioning.
The Fighter will be an Ubercharger with damage capability in the thousands per round.
Who will win? The wizard. Every time. Why? You can't kill what you can't reach. As low as level 3 (Level 1 with a well known early entry cheese feat, but we're sticking to Core here), the Wizard has Levitate to bring himself out of reach, and can then rain death and destruction down on the Fighter with impunity. By the time the Fighter gets access to magic items which grant flight, the Wizard has much faster flight as well as teleportation.
To balance the playing field, the wizard would literally have to not only not be 'optimized', but would have to deliberately refuse to use the most basic defenses accessible to him. Heck, even Mirror Image would give the Wizard a decisive advantage over the Fighter.
This is the fundamental dichotomy between casters and mundanes. Casters have access to entirely new dimensions of play which mundanes simply don't have.
Eldariel
2012-07-30, 08:03 PM
So, here's the question, and I'm happy to hear an answer from anyone. I experience styles of game where the Tier system doesn't hold true. Is my style of play equally valid to yours, or is it 'wrong' in some way?
First of all, the way of playing is of course valid. However, that in and of itself has nothing to do with the tier list. That particular post was about world building; if we build a world around the rules as presented in the core books of 3.5, the world will unavoidably become significantly more high magic than any of the published campaign settings and most homebrew campaign settings.
The fact that midlevel magic effectively makes money come out of thin air more or less invalidates currency in and of itself in the shape it currently takes in the core books; basically, coins (or objects you normally buy with coins) hold no value since they can be created with permanent Conjuration and Wish-based creation. Also, the fact that every mid- to high-level spellcaster has access to more or less infinite toolbox of Wishes shapes the world substantially.
A world can be built around the assumptions that account for what 5th+ level magic makes possible (and by the DMG guidelines, there are a lot of high level spellcasters around). That world will, however, unavoidably result in a high magic world of some sort.
Rules must either be altered (some extra limitations or bans can be created for instance) or high level magic not involved in the world creation for things like gold to retain their value. However, while this is what the post you were quoting was about, this does not seem to be what you intended to ask about.
I experience styles of game where the Tier system doesn't hold true. Is my style of play equally valid to yours, or is it 'wrong' in some way?
Probably not. This does not, however, really mean anything with regards to the potential of the classes. Rather than years of calculation and discussion having lead to erroneous conclusions, I think it's most logical to assume that one or more of the following is true:
- The players in question simply do not possess the skill, the knowledge or the will to play characters anywhere near the maximum potential of the concepts they've selected.
- There's heavy houseruling afoot that's skewing the numbers from the PHB values.
- A gentleman's agreement is in play. *
* This is common even in games with optimizers, like the Ardent/Swiftblade example I mentioned before. When everybody knows exactly what everybody is capable of, it's easy for everyone to limit themselves to options that stop them from overstepping their boundaries and provides everyone with an enjoyable game session with the whole party contributing and the DM having a target level to build the game for.
Whatever the case, it's probably fine. However, none of those would really disprove, or even mean anything with regards to the tier list simply because the games in question are not played with a set of assumptions where the tier list ultimately functions. It could for instance be a function of the players simply intentionally or unintentionally playing their characters without using the most powerful options available for the chassis they've created. This doesn't speak of the classes themselves at all as much as the choices that have been made.
QuickLyRaiNbow
2012-07-30, 08:09 PM
To follow Shneeky's post, I'll point people towards the various X v Fighter threads that have floated around since forever. Fighter versus Astral Construct, Fighter v Animal Companion, Core Wizard 20 v Splatbook Fighter... The only one I can think of that came out significantly in favor of the Fighter was the one on these boards between a Wizard and three mundanes. I want to say PhaedrusXY controlled the Wizard and voluntarily nerfed himself, giving up much of the well-known cheese like Foresight, Celerity and Shapechange. The mundanes were optimized to the nines and prevailed mostly due to superior action economy and some unforeseen tactics, usually countered by the aforementioned cheese. It was an interesting thread.
Your style of play is equally valid. I have no objection to how you play the game. If, in your experience, the tier system doesn't seem to be correct, then that's fine.
Sounds promising, although you've added a 'seems incorrect' in there for no reason, as if to imply I'm just mistaken, but even then the inevitable qualifications start coming in...
However. In games where the rules as written are followed, and no limits are placed on the powers and actions of the characters other than what's written in the books, the tier system generally fits.
So you've decided that I must be using house rules and placing arbitrary limits on my games...
There is no possible way to make a Fighter, Ranger, Expert, Monk or Warlock capable of being as powerful as a Wizard, Cleric, Archivist, StP Erudite or Druid, if those latter classes are used to their fullest extent.
...And in comes the optimisation, even though that wasn't part of the question at all....
In your game, that may not be true. I'm not saying you're wrong for having that experience. In general, though, that's not the case.
Ah.. So my game, because it contradicts your experience, is unusual!
The tier system is meant to address the general and not the specific play experience. Mutability is built into it from the very beginning.
...and we're back to the idea that your game is standard, default, RAW and general, while mine is modified, variant, unusual and a special case.
Presumably this is intended to box up my experience into the special and unusal cases corner so you can continue to universalise on your own experience. Can you see why this might seem a tad hypocritical? Or do you agree that, yes, the Tier system is not universal, and only works for certain styles of game, albiet ones you personally feel are very common?
QuickLyRaiNbow
2012-07-30, 08:24 PM
Presumably this is intended to box up my experience into the special and unusal cases corner so you can continue to universalise on your own experience. Can you see why this might seem a tad hypocritical? Or do you agree that, yes, the Tier system is not universal, and only works for certain styles of game, albiet ones you personally feel are very common?
I'm not talking about my game at all. Stop reading words that aren't there. I'm talking about the RAW itself. Unless you're playing with zero houserules or deviations from the printed text, then your game is unusual.
QuickLyRaiNbow
2012-07-30, 08:33 PM
All three posts say: "your game is fine, but the way you're interpreting the system is wrong."
How you're getting "my game is wrong" out of that I'll never know.
ShneekeyTheLost
2012-07-30, 08:34 PM
{Scrubbed}
How can anyone think your play style is wrong when you won't say what it is, other than saying that the Tier System doesn't apply to it?
Please, tell us what your play style is. List the rules and methods by which you play. Please include any house rules or homebrew or 'gentleman's agreements' which are included at your table.
Menteith
2012-07-30, 08:43 PM
{Scrubbed}
Well then, let's propose an example, shall we?
The Wizard shall be fairly low optimization and the Fighter shall be a fairly high optimization, and see what the results are.
The Wizard will be primarily a blastomancer, using only core materials. He will explicitly not be using any metamagic reduction, or any spell which inflicts a condition which prevents his opponent from functioning.
The Fighter will be an Ubercharger with damage capability in the thousands per round.
Who will win? The wizard. Every time. Why? You can't kill what you can't reach. As low as level 3 (Level 1 with a well known early entry cheese feat, but we're sticking to Core here), the Wizard has Levitate to bring himself out of reach, and can then rain death and destruction down on the Fighter with impunity.
Your 'optimised' 3rd level fighter doesn't even have a missle weapon?
The combat assumes a character driven by spells per day has no such limit?
And your measure of worth is whether two characters can kill eachother in an arena duel?
And you're aware that one can agree that wizards are more powerful than fighters without embracing the whole tier system? What point are you trying to make here?
Sucrose
2012-07-30, 08:44 PM
{Scrubbed}
I never said that your playstyle was wrong. I said that it required additional steps for it to possibly work within the rules as written. I take similar steps myself, since I don't particularly like massively high-magic settings, preferring at maximum something akin to Eberron. You are shockingly bothered by the implication that 3.5's rules might not work precisely as intended, given that it casts no particular aspersions on your character.
The Random NPC
2012-07-30, 08:52 PM
And you're aware that one can agree that wizards are more powerful than fighters without embracing the whole tier system? What point are you trying to make here?
How? That is literally all the tier system says.
ShneekeyTheLost
2012-07-30, 08:54 PM
Your 'optimised' 3rd level fighter doesn't even have a missle weapon?Here's the problem with a missile weapon... they suck.
An Ubercharger can easily deal thousands of damage... in melee. But you can't power attack stack with a bow. In which case the Fighter gets out DPR'd (Damage Per Round), and the Wizard either uses Entropic Warding or Wind Wall to shut him down.
The combat assumes a character driven by spells per day has no such limit?No, the combat assumes a character driven by spells per day has enough spells to end the combat decisively. Without using consumables like wands or scrolls. Easily.
And your measure of worth is whether two characters can kill eachother in an arena duel?I was trying to be fair to the Fighter. It's the one environment which caters to Fighter's every single strength and minimizes their disadvantages. In every other situation, a Fighter never gets a chance to even act. At least this way, he's got a chance of winning initiative and get one round to do something in.
And you're aware that one can agree that wizards are more powerful than fighters without embracing the whole tier system? What point are you trying to make here?You realize that the whole tier system amounts to 'wizards are more powerful than fighters'? Well... 'full casters are more powerful than mundane classes', anyways.
You still have yet to describe your play style which yields these results.
Madara
2012-07-30, 08:57 PM
Here's the problem with a missile weapon... they suck.
An Ubercharger can easily deal thousands of damage... in melee. But you can't power attack stack with a bow. In which case the Fighter gets out DPR'd (Damage Per Round), and the Wizard either uses Entropic Warding or Wind Wall to shut him down.
Not to mention the amount of feats to burn in order to be a viable archer. A normal fighter certainly could have a ranged weapon with them, but without the proper feats, you get a -4 penalty to hit. At most you could do like 11 damage. Plus, its not even working off of the fighter's primary stat, strength.
QuickLyRaiNbow
2012-07-30, 09:20 PM
What changes, if any, do you make to RAW?
What limits, if any, do you place on characters?
What role, if any, do you as the DM play in determining what a character does and does not have access to?
Menteith
2012-07-30, 09:21 PM
{Scrubbed}
GenghisDon
2012-07-30, 09:41 PM
What? I do not parse this sentence.
I believe you made the claim wands were so much more efficient that wondrous item X can't compete. So now character X can use wands et all.
[QUOTE=Flickerdart;13643976]Right. Because the 36 Intelligence being who can conjure food, energy and servants from thin air is going to have logistical problems. Keep dreaming.
Yep, although if your fortress is a big empty house with nothing but some magical constructs/undead/bound outsiders...well, I'm sure that's a grand ole place. We are obviously talking about apples vs oranges. I'm talking about a place of temporal power & influence hub, apparently you are speaking about a hiding place.
None of them have the ability to conjure goods from thin air.
So which is it? Is it impossible to operate like that, or are there already people doing it? You can't have it both ways. Also, if you know any middle class worker who pumps out tons of finely worked iron in a matter of minutes, I'd love to be introduced.
It's certainly not impossible per se, it's just going to be FAR less lucrative than you & many others believe. No doubt some spell chuckers will have attempted such meddling in commodities before. More fools are born every day. The laws of supply & demand aren't negotable however. If 1,000's of spell chuckers are hawking stone, iron or any other ware imaginable, in endless quantities, all that happens is the price of said commodity plummets to nil. Along with economic consequences great & small. Which the spell chuckers will correctly be blamed for.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. My point was that you need magic to deal with magic because mundanes are not powerful enough. You're kind of supporting my point here.
words in my mouth much? I never claimed mundanes were powerful, let alone powerful enough for (undefined action). Nor that magic shouldn't be part of the game. Magic that twists a campaign into utter nonsense needs be nipped, however.
These words you are putting in my mouth, they are delicious. Om nom nom.
All in all, your tone is extremely offensive, and your arguments are unsubstantiated. I'll give you 1/10 for effort, and even that's charitable.
whatever. Right back at ya
Gavinfoxx
2012-07-30, 09:44 PM
It is when every physical commodity becomes plentiful that an economy of scarcity breaks down entirely, and instead, an economy of plenty (with regards to commodities and goods, at least) takes it's place. Thus other things, like favors, certain types of work which can't be summoned magically, items which are created the old fashioned way, the acknowledgement of peers, etc. etc. becomes an economic resource.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aG4P3dU6WP3pq8mW9l1qztFeNfqQHyI22oJe09i8KWw/edit
Assume that any nonmagical item under 25k is too plentiful to be charged for, and any magical item under 15k is too plentiful to be charged for, and huge categories of work and labor are too plentiful to be charged for... how does that change the setting in question?
Flickerdart
2012-07-30, 09:46 PM
I believe you made the claim wands were so much more efficient that wondrous item X can't compete. So now character X can use wands et all.
Oh, I see, you're now arguing that if your Fighter dips Cleric, that makes Fighter and Cleric balanced. Seems legit.
Yep, although if your fortress is a big empty house with nothing but some magical constructs/undead/bound outsiders...well, I'm sure that's a grand ole place. We are obviously talking about apples vs oranges. I'm talking about a place of temporal power & influence hub, apparently you are speaking about a hiding place.
Uh, no. My visitors can be served by robots, nubile women and/or plain old invisible force while dining on the finest food they can imagine. All with spells.
It's certainly not impossible per se, it's just going to be FAR less lucrative than you & many others believe. No doubt some spell chuckers will have attempted such meddling in commodities before. More fools are born every day. The laws of supply & demand aren't negotable however. If 1,000's of spell chuckers are hawking stone, iron or any other ware imaginable, in endless quantities, all that happens is the price of said commodity plummets to nil. Along with economic consequences great & small. Which the spell chuckers will correctly be blamed for.
Ok, so skip the middle man and build your fortress out of iron or stone with free labour. Big deal.
words in my mouth much? I never claimed mundanes were powerful, let alone powerful enough for (undefined action). Nor that magic shouldn't be part of the game. Magic that twists a campaign into utter nonsense needs be nipped, however.
Your opinion of what is utter nonsense is passing strange, as are your quote-unquote "arguments" for why it is nonsense.
You are shockingly bothered by the implication that 3.5's rules might not work precisely as intended, given that it casts no particular aspersions on your character.
I haven't mentioned RAI at all.
Ok, I think people are getting a little overexcited.
I've made one fairly uncontrovertial point. That the Tier system does not apply to every game. Some people have gone to great lengths to explain to me that it applies to every game that follows the rules, and that if I don't have the same experience, I must not be following the rules.
I disagree.
The fact that I'm not able to disagree without attracting a great deal of criticism, accusations of ignorance, and lectures about what must and must not be true about my experience, is a bad thing. And it's not unique to this thread. Open up any thread about the inevitability of the Tippyverse, or about almost any topic that compares fighters to wizards, and you'll see the same pattern. It makes us, as a community, look bad. It makes it harder for us to learn new things.
I quite like the Tier system. It just doesn't work all the time, and not just when you change the rules. Change the assumptions around the setting, the availability of non-Core material, the mindset of the players, the tremendous variety of what different groups consider to be 'optimised' and/or 'broken', and you get a different set of results. There's plenty enough variation within that for the Tiers system to start creaking at the seams.
I'm aware that many people here feel, some quite strongly, that a literal interpretation of RAW produces a single gameworld and game experience. I disagree. I disagree because of the huge variation that can be enjoyed without touching the rules at all. But I don't deny the other guy his experience, I dont' try telling him that he was wrong about what happened on his table. I don't tell people they're incapable, or ignorant, or lying.
It's a varied hobby. We should be celebrating that. We should be able to appreciate someone's painstaking analysis of the logical consequences of RAW without trying to claim that the same rules should lead to the same result on every table. We should be able to enjoy differences without explaining them away. We should be able to use the Tier system without worrying about whether it's a rough guideline, an occasional tool, a revealed truth about the system or holy writ.
I'm tired, and I'm getting longwinded, and so I'll call it a night there.
Menteith
2012-07-30, 09:58 PM
Good Points
Fair enough. And I'm sorry for jumping down your throat earlier. I'm going to back off from the thread for awhile and let myself cool down.
GenghisDon
2012-07-30, 10:08 PM
Well then, let's propose an example, shall we?
The Wizard shall be fairly low optimization and the Fighter shall be a fairly high optimization, and see what the results are.
The Wizard will be primarily a blastomancer, using only core materials. He will explicitly not be using any metamagic reduction, or any spell which inflicts a condition which prevents his opponent from functioning.
The Fighter will be an Ubercharger with damage capability in the thousands per round.
Who will win? The wizard. Every time. Why? You can't kill what you can't reach. As low as level 3 (Level 1 with a well known early entry cheese feat, but we're sticking to Core here), the Wizard has Levitate to bring himself out of reach, and can then rain death and destruction down on the Fighter with impunity. By the time the Fighter gets access to magic items which grant flight, the Wizard has much faster flight as well as teleportation.
To balance the playing field, the wizard would literally have to not only not be 'optimized', but would have to deliberately refuse to use the most basic defenses accessible to him. Heck, even Mirror Image would give the Wizard a decisive advantage over the Fighter.
This is the fundamental dichotomy between casters and mundanes. Casters have access to entirely new dimensions of play which mundanes simply don't have.
The game isn't about fighter vs wizard at all, however. It's more like fighter & wizard vs dragon, vampire or demon.
regardless, you examples are highly biased & irrational (and I love me wizards!). At low level the wizard is often dead right off the intiative die roll. Give him that (slightly cheesey) feat at L1. Whoops, he has to roll to see if levitate works! Failure likely=death. Worse, what if the wizard tried that spell earleir in the day? I have no argument that casters EVENTUALLY dominate (most) games, but it's silly to say it's early in the game.
I also think you inadvertantly hit a problem "optimisers" have with non-casters. Lacking so much flexibility (that spells give), "optimising" a non-caster is actually counter-productive to a great deal of actual play. Apparently your charge monger is so fixated on charging he doesn't even have a bow, throwing weapon(s) or a potion. If you are playing a (non- caster) character up, and keep getting hosed by mobility or (insert tactic), you should adjust your character's responses acordingly, so as to not be a complete loser/waste of paper. That might mean a feat or 2 on missle combat, blind fighting, save enhancer, or spending some $ on gear to help mitigate the problem, rather than the rubbish feat tax for PRC X, the next feat in your line of doom, or the piece of gear that strengthens you where you are already strong. BLASPHEMY! I know.
GenghisDon
2012-07-30, 10:15 PM
I never said that your playstyle was wrong. I said that it required additional steps for it to possibly work within the rules as written. I take similar steps myself, since I don't particularly like massively high-magic settings, preferring at maximum something akin to Eberron. You are shockingly bothered by the implication that 3.5's rules might not work precisely as intended, given that it casts no particular aspersions on your character.
LOL, I'm shockingly bothered that anyone could possibly think RAW does work.
Regardless, I am pretty sure I'm with Togo on all this.
Arundel
2012-07-30, 10:29 PM
At low level the wizard is often dead right off the intiative die roll.
Why a wizard would be losing initiative is a important question. Dex is arguably the second most important stat for a wizard, so under standard point buys it should be a 14 at least.
Give him that (slightly cheesey) feat at L1. Whoops, he has to roll to see if levitate works! Failure likely=death.
Ignoring the fact that you just called what I believe is Improved Initiative cheesy, what roll are you making to see if levitate works? I don't see anything like that, and if you are first in order then its not a contested roll.
Reference:
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S, F
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal or close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: You or one willing creature or one object (total weight up to 100 lb./level)
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
Levitate allows you to move yourself, another creature, or an object up and down as you wish. A creature must be willing to be levitated, and an object must be unattended or possessed by a willing creature. You can mentally direct the recipient to move up or down as much as 20 feet each round; doing so is a move action. You cannot move the recipient horizontally, but the recipient could clamber along the face of a cliff, for example, or push against a ceiling to move laterally (generally at half its base land speed).
A levitating creature that attacks with a melee or ranged weapon finds itself increasingly unstable; the first attack has a -1 penalty on attack rolls, the second -2, and so on, to a maximum penalty of -5. A full round spent stabilizing allows the creature to begin again at -1.
Focus
Either a small leather loop or a piece of golden wire bent into a cup shape with a long shank on one end.
I also think you inadvertantly hit a problem "optimisers" have with non-casters. Lacking so much flexibility (that spells give), "optimising" a non-caster is actually counter-productive to a great deal of actual play. Apparently your charge monger is so fixated on charging he doesn't even have a bow, throwing weapon(s) or a potion. If you are playing a (non- caster) character up, and keep getting hosed by mobility or (insert tactic), you should adjust your character's responses acordingly, so as to not be a complete loser/waste of paper. That might mean a feat or 2 on missle combat, blind fighting, save enhancer, or spending some $ on gear to help mitigate the problem, rather than the rubbish feat tax for PRC X, the next feat in your line of doom, or the piece of gear that strengthens you where you are already strong. BLASPHEMY! I know.
I am really struggling with what you are trying to say here, but I think you're arguing against specializing low tier classes. The only reason a ubercharger is remotely competitive is because they have that entire feat train. This well rounded fighter you seem to be proposing simply sucks at everything as opposed to being good at even a single thing.
The Glyphstone
2012-07-30, 10:46 PM
Great Modthulhu: Locked for review.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.