PDA

View Full Version : A Closer Look At the Tier 3 Ideal (Theory)



Realms of Chaos
2013-01-14, 08:25 PM
Warning: The below was written at a time of morning when I really have no business operating a keyboard. While I personally find it to be interesting even with a clear mind, it's also a bit... un-me.


A Closer Look At the Tier 3 Ideal

For as long as there has been a tier system in 3e, it seems as though many of us have intuitively viewed the sweet spot of power as being tier 3. We have sought to nerf casters down to tier 3, pump everything else up to tier 3 with every fix (and most homebrew) we create, and at times seem to regard not reaching tier 3 as somewhat subpar design. With that said, I have never really seen any criticism or analysis of this tier 3 ideal and, perhaps more importantly, the consequences of expecting everything to be tier 3. While I lack the cleverness and mental energy to fully explore this problem, I do plan on dipping my toes into the water here and getting people to think critically about the matter.

First of all, allow me to say that the “idea” of tier 3 in play is certainly noble and there’s a decent line of logic as to why we’ve pursued it. While lower tiers theoretically lead to long stretches of uselessness at the table (the healer only being useful in the aftermath of a tough combat, for example), higher tiers have infinite loops, insane power tricks, and can generally do whatever they want with a campaign at any time (assuming high enough of a level). Tier 3, at least in theory, has enough versatility and power to constantly feel like you’re always participating without turning you into a one-man show. This, from a game perspective, is indeed a very nice place to be. The degree to which we should stick to this tier, however, is completely open for question.


The Meaning of Tier 3: Power, Versatility, and a New Approach

One thing that I’ve always felt has prevented too much in the way of discussion on the topic of tiers is that everyone seems to have a slightly different idea of what tiers are. On the one hand, we all know intuitively that giving +1,000,000 to attack and damage rolls at level 1 doesn’t pump you past tier 3 all by itself (or possibly even past tier 4, depending on who you ask) because tiers are, at least to some extent, a measurement of versatility. The class would be insanely broken, most certainly, but it wouldn’t reach high tiers. On the other hand, the truenamer wasn’t demoted to the worst of tiers because it is so narrowly focused (indeed, the class seems relatively broad when you take time to read through) but because the class simply doesn’t work mechanically. Similarly, if versatility was all that it took to reach high-tiers, the presence of UMD on a skill list would automatically punch anything up to tier 2 because that’s all it really takes to use a scroll of wish and start a candle of invocation chain. No, it would seem that tiers represent an odd combination of versatility and power in most cases. To this list, I would like to add a new line of thought.

In my mind, what sets class in their tiers is (1) the ease with which a spotlight can be shined on the class AND (2) the ease with which a DM can remove some of the power away from the class without totally hosing it. To reach the sweet spot of tier 3 (where a DM can easily cast a spotlight on certain players while others still have the ability to contribute), both of these capabilities are needed.

Taking things one at a time, the ease with which a DM can make a player relevant is pretty intuitive. If it requires very little or no effort on the DM’s part, you have a high tier class like Erudites (tier 1 if it possesses the tools to force itself into relevance regardless of circumstances). If an incredibly high amount of effort is needed to make a character relevant, you have a low-tier class like truenamers. Combining mechanical soundness and versatility in most cases, this is pretty much what we’re already using for most purposes.

The second measurement, however, is a bit less intuitive but that deserves no less attention. Put simply, to reach the sweet gooey core of tier 3, it must be possible to temporarily marginalize your character while still allowing that class to meaningfully contribute. If a class is exceptionally difficult to power down without turning it off entirely, that class is either above tier 3 if such conditions are viewed as vindictive (robbing a wizard of his/her spellbook, for example) or below tier 3 if such conditions are viewed as more natural (hosing fighters by running a diplomatic campaign, for example).


The Wizard, The Beguiler, and The Healer: A Look at What I Mean

With the wizard (or a well-built one, in any case), it is almost impossible to tone things down without shutting them down entirely. You can steal spellbooks, put them in a gauntlet until they lose all of their spell slots, subject them to other spells that simply turn all of their useful magic off, or put them against foes that are simply immune to magic (the closest to a successful tactic with the presence of buff spells, though such opponents are rare outside of golems) but almost everything about wizards is perfectly binary. Either you go out of your way to turn off the wizard or it is ready for just about anything. While Spell Resistance would seem to be a good countermeasure, giving all spells a chance of failure, Spell Penetration boosting spells give such large bonuses that spell resistance might as well be binary (auto-success or auto-failure, in this case) in most cases.

Beguilers, at first glance, would seem to be a lot like wizards. Magic as a mechanic in 3.5 is a pretty binary thing and this class gets 9th-level spells. The spell list, however, is what keeps things balanced in this case. Beguilers are definitely made as tricky illusionists and enchanters as that’s what most of their spells do. If a DM throws a beguiler against mindless opponents or those immune to mind-affecting effects, however, the beguiler instantly slows to a crawl. Incapable of using phantasms, patterns, and offensive enchantments, most of the beguiler’s skill set is turned off. Even so, the beguiler still has a good amount of skills along with certain gems like grease, invisibility and glitterdust that can still be used in such a situation, allowing the beguiler to continue contributing in a more limited way. To me, when people talk about tier 3 classes being able to contribute in areas outside of their specialty, this type of thing is exactly what I think of.

Healers, like the two classes above, deal with the binaries of magic and has access to 9th-level spells. Unlike the classes above, however, the healer is a very weak class. Putting aside the reactive nature of the class, the healer’s main task is to clean up after (or in the middle of) combat. Without that, the healer does absolutely nothing. Beguilers and Wizards can both assume quite sizeable roles outside of combat and outside of their supposed roles (yes, a wizard can act against its “role”: pumping itself with buffs and letting loose with tensor’s transformation or body of war before invisibly pummeling foes on the front lines goes against most wizard tropes). If you aren’t in combat at the moment with a healer, however, playing a healer simply isn’t fun for most (outside of fluff or character reasons). While it’s technically possible for a DM to make things “harder” for a healer (putting enemies or difficult terrain between the healer and a player in need of healing, for example), actively marginalizing the class ends up turning it off entirely most of the time.


A Note on “Fixes”, Homebrew, and Skill Points:

If anything in this post gets me a bit of flak, it would be this section. In advance, allow me to say that I’m not pointing any fingers anywhere and that I’m speaking in general terms, often referring just as much to my own past work as anyone else’s. With that said, here I go.

Using the guidelines above, I don’t consider something like 75% of attempted tier 3 classes on the boards (either fixes or originals, mine or yours) to truly be tier 3. This is not an insult (and I don’t mean that in the “it’s not an insult, it’s a fact” sense but in the “I actually support tier 4” sense, as you’ll see below).

Looking through several things that I’ve done and thinking back on what I’ve seen, it seems that most people making combat-oriented base classes use something of a shopping list method. In order to make something tier 3, it must be able to (1) deal with flying opponents, (2) have defense against mind-affecting effects, (3) be capable of abusing action economy, etc. I have a nagging suspicion that most of this probably comes from the ToB (and I don’t personally consider the duskblade or ToB classes to be tier 3, which may disqualify this view entirely) and, at least from what I’ve seen, 90% of the shopping list is about getting to combat, dealing with different types of combat, overcoming a laundry list of defenses in combat, doing more in combat and having more combat options, or being immune to things you’ll most likely see in combat (or maaaaaybe in traps).

Yes, D&D is a traditionally combat-focused game, coming from a long line of war games. Yes, most of the time in most campaigns is spent in the middle of combat and having nothing to do but swing your sword in repetitive full attacks is boring as hell. Yes, combat options are good and ensure that you’ll always have something to do on the battlefield. I support homebrew that offers rich options on the battlefield, something I think 3.5 mostly messed up on. At the end of the day, however, I don’t feel that combat options can bump someone up past tier 4 any more than a +1,000,000 bonus to attack and damage rolls. More powerful, certainly, but these options only make you marginally more flexible at the end of the day and when the time comes to turn the attention to someone else or when the combat naturally comes to an end and the space between combats starts, around 75% of attempted tier 3 classes cease being mechanically fun. Every time a new fighter fix pops up and someone, like clockwork, chimes in that “it needs more to do out of combat”, this is what occurs to me every single time.

But wait, you may say, there are skill points. Yes, there are most certainly skill points. Going into the topic of fighter fixes in particular (since we’ve had so many and they all kind of blur together in my head), one of the biggest things that people give fighters (or other remixed classes, actually) to help them with “downtime” are more class skills and skill points. In my mind, these skills do mountains more to aid the tier of the class than the much-vaunted combat options. Perhaps, then, a class with a solid combat plan and skills for downtime would make for a solid tier 3. Seeing as high skill points haven’t saved the (non-wildshape) ranger, however, I’m still not entirely sold. My complaints against using skills as a stop-gap measure in this way are the following:

As even commoners can purchase any skill cross-class, the effects of most skills (save some like UMD/IF/Diplomacy) are relatively tame and many abilities famously negate their need (knock, anyone?).
The incredibly static nature of skill points doesn’t even begin to compare to the fluid nature of spell slots unless you get a lot of them. Probably 6/8 + Int (or maybe 4 + Int for Int-based classes). Quite a few classes I’ve seen in the past have pulled this off for a good tier 3 class but it seems a bit overwhelming to expect it of every single non-magical class in existence.
Skills aren’t personal. A bard with 5 ranks in diplomacy is indistinguishable from a fighter with 5 ranks in diplomacy when making the check. Giving more skill points doesn’t make a character special or unique but lets them competently do things that any old Joe could try (at least in most cases).
Because skills aren’t personal, they can easily lead to a sense of redundancy. If your party bard, beguiler, or factotum already has ranks in bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, and gather information and has higher Charisma than the party fighter, the party fighter lacks any means (beyond maybe an aid another check or counting on a luckier dice roll) to aid social encounters that isn’t already taken and thus might as well not have those skills at all (making the fighter completely useless in social situations, which is the problem those skills would be added to solve in the first place).



Supporting Tier 4 and a Word On Fighter Fixes

Well, that’s my basic analysis, for the most part. I think that what it means to be tier 3 means having something meaningful to do outside of your assigned role (not outside of your “combat role” but outside of your role, which may well be “combat”), allowing others to take the spotlight but making you feel as though you’re still contributing. I might be perfectly off-base with this (as I’ve noted, tiers seem to mean something slightly different to everybody) and I’ve probably made at least one huge assumption somewhere along the way, not to mention my tendency to ramble. Even so, I don’t feel as though I quite lived up to the goals I set up at the start of this post so I might as well go a bit further.

Up until now, both in this post and in general, tier 3 has been assumed to be the sweet spot. While it may seem optimal in some settings, I personally question whether the “sweet spot” should really be that narrow. To start with, there is the matter of redundancy. For this, there was a quote I had seen in someone’s signature (either here or on the old wizards boards) that I can’t find for the life of me. As it should provide the perfect illustration of what I’m trying to say, however, I will do my best to recreate it word by word below.


Monk: Hmmm, a locked door. Good thing I finally picked up EAGLE CLAW!”
Rogue: I have ranks in open lock.
Wizard: I could just cast knock.
Fighter: I have an adamantine axe.
Bard: I just talked to the goblins on the other side of the door and they agreed to open it for us.
Monk: Do they have a corner I can cry in?
Bard: Sure, I'll ask. Did I mention they've made me their king.
Fighter: Stupid overpowered bards.

Aside from personally amusing me, this kind of example helps to show that giving all classes a way to do most tasks, though allowing them to take part in most campaigns, also leads to a good deal of redundancy. Even the tier 3 dream of having everyone able to contribute but having one person best set to deal with any situation doesn’t really make any difference unless more than one person is needed to participate, as with combat. The person best able to handle each challenge simply handles it and the party moves on, often involving 1 roll or less and/or a period of role-play or puzzle-solving that anyone could do for each roadblock put in the way until you reach the next combat section. I’m simplifying things to bare-bones, sure, but that’s pretty much how I’ve observed things to work outside of combat and the skill challenges of 4e.

I’m not saying that a bit of redundancy is bad (having your one healer or trap-disarmer killed would suck in a dungeon) but rather that having lots of things to do outside of combat, a common critique with all manners of fixes, is quite a bit overrated (especially the way people talk about it). At the end of the day, you only need one person to be really good at any given task out of combat and being good at any such task doesn’t really mean too much most of the time unless you become the best at it (and even then, it just amounts to you being able to take a turn saying “I handle the problem” instead of someone else every now and then). The only multi-round event involving strategy and multiple party members in the base mechanics of D&D is combat and, as mentioned above, this game is all about combat. I guess what I’m saying is that If a class provides a solid and fulfilling combat experience with little to nothing else about it (a tier 4 class in my books, regardless of power), that class is perfectly fine and nothing is wrong with it. I’m not trying to say that a DM can rule 0 the imbalance away (a fallacy as we all know) but that most campaigns naturally allow tier 4 classes to work unless a DM is purposefully sets the story up so your powers never come into question. While I can certainly see the appeal of being able to make a character and knowing that it will have some use regardless of what campaign you’re in, I can’t see tier 4 as being a bad thing. In fact, I’d qualify a few of what we currently consider “tier 3” classes to be really powerful tier 4 classes (Except for the inclusion of diplomacy, for example, a Warblade doesn’t have too many tricks for a politics game beyond a fighter). Put another way, fighters shouldn’t be treated as a terrible class because political games exist any more than wizards would deserve to be called a terrible class if no-magic games were more of a popular thing in the system (though there are much better reasons to hate and want to remake the fighter).

So… tier 4 is acceptable but a bit of what we consider tier 3 is (according to me) truly tier 4 and I’m not telling people they should settle for less power. With all of that in mind, does anything really change? Was there any point in writing this huge thing?

Well, there is one point. Most of the time, when people produce their own homebrew labeled at tier 3, it doesn’t matter in the slightest if it’s actually tier 4. It will still perform just as well and fit in with all of the same parties. The single exception to this rule, however, are fixes. For as long as tier 3 has been the ideal, people have been providing fixes for every class of lower tier aiming for the mythical tier 3. For those classes dealing with magic sources, this has proven pretty easy and it’s pretty easy to get some degree of consensus (maybe one of the reasons why there aren’t more soulborn and truenamer fixes around, along with the amount of work needed for such a fix). For other classes, however, tier 3 is a wall that gets bashed into repeatedly. We’ll submit our “tier 3” monk or fighter fix (both of which I am guilty of) only for others to point out that they don’t really have anything to do out of combat beyond skills and maybe a couple of tricks in the class features. Not quite satisfied that we or the people we’ve seen have reached tier 3, another “tier 3” fix is made… and another… and another… you get the idea. To summarize, the crux of the problem, as I’ve heard it in fighter threads over and over again, is this:


I want a tier 3 fighter.
A tier 3 class does more than fight.
A Fighter is all about fighting.

To be fair, I have seen tier 3 fighters... kind of. I have seen fighters with tons of skill points and fighters with entire lists of abilities useful for more than combat. Hell, I nearly created a fighter with something bordering on a magic system. In all of those cases, however, simply giving the class the capabilities that it needed to be tier 3 seemed to detract from its fighter-dom. If you combine good and flexible combat, the ability to accomplish most mundane tasks outside of combat (whether through skills or abilities), and the general generic nature that we’ve attributed to the fighter, it just isn’t a fighter (at least to me) any more. In my mind, it becomes a super-mundane, the paragon of non-magical might in general. Fun and awesome, maybe, but often without more than a name to denote it as a “fighter”. Again, though, this is a very much YMMV matter.

Right now, trying to keep everything in the realm of tier 3, we seem bound to keep ramming into the wall of this paradox until one or more people finally do discover a perfect fighter fix after who knows how many attempts. If, on the other hand, we finally accept that tier 4 is okay, the same fighter/monk/soulknife/marshal/etc. fixes that have been and are being churned out, many of which are more than capable of doing the job they are determined to do, can finally be accepted for what they are (perfectly functional classes capable of working in most campaigns) instead of being forcefully compared to a somewhat unrealistic ideal for those classes to follow. Obviously, I don’t have control over what people produce, claim, or think, but I personally believe that it would make more sense to receive a stream of good tier 4 fixes until someone stumbles across a tier 3 fix by accident rather than wading through a river of ho-hum attempts at tier 3 fixes, even if it is only a difference of perception.


Wrapping Up (And Apologizing)

Well, it would seem that I’ve made a fine mess of things here and this entire paper has pretty much taught me never to attempt introspection early in the morning ever again. I realize now that I’ve probably made false assumptions here and there, that the entire last part of this harangue kind of dissolves into a weird perceptual agenda, and that the entire thing kind of comes across as defeatist. I realize that tier 4 probably isn’t all that maligned (though the amount of attention tier 3 gets by contrast is still incredibly stark) and that my generalizations regarding the boards are only through what I remember observing in the past (subjected to my own selective memory). For those of you who have long made it a mission to produce a high-tier fighter or similar class, know that it wasn’t my intention at all to tear you down or mock your goal. Likewise, I doubt that anything ever will stop the stream of fighter fixes as there are multiple reasons to keep making them. I really had half of a mind not to post this at all but I don’t think that I could have rested until I did as I don't think I've seen anything remotely like it elsewhere (and because it took me several hours :smallsigh:).

As very little theory discussion actually seems to go on around here, I honestly don’t know if people will or won’t react to my questioning of one of the few creation yardsticks everyone seems to use. If anyone has read all of this, I hope that you might have gained some small insight from it but I really hope you don’t take it too seriously.


:smallredface:

Yitzi
2013-01-14, 08:48 PM
I think you make a very good point. The ideal should not be "tier 3", but rather "tier 3 or strong tier 4" (those two actually can work together fairly well), and a fighter should be aimed at the "strong tier 4" position. If you want a game where everyone has a role to play in every encounter and obstacle, D&D is probably the wrong game to play. (No idea what the right one would be, as pretty much any game with a faint resemblance to D&D which isn't 100% combat is going to involve obstacles where only one person can meaningfully contribute.) I figure that as long as each character has a chance to contribute in each adventure, that's good (and that probably will happen; even a diplomatic campaign will involve some fighting, and even a dungeon crawl will involve some opportunities for subtler skills.)

Amnoriath
2013-01-14, 11:23 PM
I have waited a long time for someone finally to say it outright. One of the reasons why I don't reply much is because I often feel like people need to bloat their concept into fitting this "ideal state" and I would say too much while labeled the naysayer. The fact is the reason why we play or make stuff for 3.X or lower is because we don't like 4e. Not only is it not modular but it fully represents this tier 3 dream seeking making interchangeable roles with each character ending up not being able to be that unique from another.

Sypher667
2013-01-15, 12:37 AM
I....This...*sigh*

I will need to read this when I have had some rest. Quite the essay, but I am intrigued. I shall report back once I am not about to rest my head on the keyboard.

LordErebus12
2013-01-15, 12:45 AM
i do not take much stock in Tiers, i believe it closes our eyes to the possibilities of a well designed and well built class.

ArcturusV
2013-01-15, 12:48 AM
Then good news for you as I design the Elemental Paladin... I have no real idea of Tiers and I'm new to the whole online community as a whole so my kitbashing and home brewing is more based on just my personal game experiences instead of the DnD version of "Net Decking".

Meaning I design something that will seem fun, interesting, and useable based on my experiences around the table instead of abstract metrics that I know nothing about. :smallbiggrin:

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-01-15, 01:06 AM
Agreed almost completely.

I think the Tier system is badly in need of a revision, and I'd suggest one along the lines of a graph, with an axis for each of Power and Versatility.

The model I'm working on requires a base point for the intersection though, and I'm not sure what a good example of a relative "neutral" class is. Once that it set, however, I think it's a very good way to represent the differences between the power of the Wizard (high power, high versatility) and the min-maxed +1,000 to everything Fighter (high power, low versatility).

Ideally you'd had yet ANOTHER axis representing in-combat vs. out-of-combat (which would explain why the Warblade is well designed, although possibly to combat-focused), but that gets harder to visually represent.

toapat
2013-01-15, 01:20 AM
i do not take much stock in Tiers, i believe it closes our eyes to the possibilities of a well designed and well built class.

Part of the problem with Tiers is not that they create biases, but so much that we allow the system to have Inconsistencies where you have classes like Warblade, Crusader, and Duskblade (All of which are very powerful in combat classes) who do not fit the definitions the system defines itself by. the number of rules, sanctions, handicaps, and double standards on the tier system are almost as significant as a comprehensive and standardized rulebook for 3.5 would be. Its a good idea to have a knowledge of what the filing system for Tiers is, but to take it as presented is probably the largest fallacy the playground commits.


Agreed almost completely.

I think the Tier system is badly in need of a revision, and I'd suggest one along the lines of a graph, with an axis for each of Power and Versatility.

3 things:

1: You are missing Options. A Stick with which to measure the potential of the class. Paladin for instance would have a high Option score, while a monk would have a low one. Versatility is simply to say how good a class is in general application, while Power is exclusively a measure of the class in combat.

2: Rogue. Rogue is supposed to be the most versatile class in the PHB, and they fit the written definition of T3, if maybe not the power level.

3: I find the largest issue ive been having beginning a revision of the Tier System into the VOP system is that by all standards, a single digit will always be more easily remembered and compared then 2 or 3.

LordErebus12
2013-01-15, 01:22 AM
the min-maxed +1,000 to everything Fighter (high power, low versatility).

And when did high power not add considerable versatility? :smallbiggrin: "Ive survived through brute combat with the biggest enemies, that would shred any lesser combatant."

:smallsmile: Id call that Versatile.

instead of revising the tier system, simply ignore it and build to a final theme.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-01-15, 01:26 AM
And when did high power not add considerable versatility? :smallbiggrin: "Ive survived through brute combat with the biggest enemies, that would shred any lesser combatant."

:smallsmile: Id call that Versatile.

Because a +1,000 to hit bonus is still ineffective in social situations, skill challenges, against opponents you can't effectively land attacks on (flying enemies, incorporeal, magically protected...there are numbers of ways around this) or in a thousand varieties of other encounters that could be envisioned. It only helps if the solution is "smack it until it stops moving."

Versatility means that you have numerous options, and that you're capable of handling a wide variety of encounters effectively. Versatility is NOT equal to raw power.

LordErebus12
2013-01-15, 01:36 AM
Because a +1,000 to hit bonus is still ineffective in social situations, skill challenges, against opponents you can't effectively land attacks on (flying enemies, incorporeal, magically protected...there are numbers of ways around this) or in a thousand varieties of other encounters that could be envisioned. It only helps if the solution is "smack it until it stops moving."

Versatility means that you have numerous options, and that you're capable of handling a wide variety of encounters effectively. Versatility is NOT equal to raw power.

agreed, but it does make things get a lot better when the conversation turns sour. A strong uppercut can do wonders for the conversation, assuming they do not wish to be gutted by that half-orc with armor spikes who already was glaring in intimidation. but this is moot.

I feel we should lean towards party balance and leave tiers by the wayside.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-01-15, 01:44 AM
I feel we should lean towards party balance and leave tiers by the wayside.

Tiers are a metric for party balance.

Otherwise, one could say that a party is balanced because a party of a Wizard/Cleric/Rogue/Fighter is balanced against that of a Sorcerer/Druid/Bard/Knight. Is that true? Roughly, yes.

Do the party members have anything close to equal ability to take the spotlight, contribute in all situations, and generally have something to do? Not a chance.

Tiers are a very good rough estimate of a class's ability to contribute in the average campaign, and, given that it's a classification and not a hard-and-fast ruling, we don't actually suffer from having them.

I'm curious to see how you'd attempt to "balance" a party internally without creating a metric to judge such balance on.

T.G. Oskar
2013-01-15, 03:24 AM
While others claim this is a pretty big "essay", you'll have to forgive me if I say this is a "light read".

That, or I read stuff really fast. But, it was easy to understand, since the crux of the post was as follows (and actually, one I seek to aim at): people equate the versatility of tier 3 as combat versatility, rather than overall versatility, and grant boosts to combat power and combat versatility while leaving skills and skill points, more often than not, as the sole ways to handle out-of-combat versatility.

For starters, before mentioning anything else: what if you collapse the tiers into a similar system? One of the things I noticed when delving somewhere else (the Good and Proper D&D Wiki, just in case you're curious), is that their classification goes into four classifications, and they have a standardized system to define them as such. They define a class' effectiveness into Low, Moderate, High and Very High, using the Same Game Test as the standard upon which they define each balance point (the term they use). The actual consideration of using "balance point" (a more "neutral" term) than "tier" (which normally evokes the idea of competition) helps a lot. The old comparisons (Low equates to the potential of a Monk, Moderate equates to the potential of a Fighter, High equates to the potential of a Rogue, Very High equates to the potential of a Wizard) also give a good idea on where you can estimate a class or PrC to stand in comparison to others. I'd like to place this as a comparison to the better-known, but more controversial concept of tiers.

The second thing to consider is that most people aim for Tier 3-4, and everything in between, or so I can perceive most of the times. Most people, IMO, also err on the side of Tier 3 for security: it's better to aim at Tier 3 and end up in Tier 4 (but usable, nonetheless) than aim for Tier 4 and land on Tier 5, which is considered non-good. The other bit is that, aside from power, Tier 3 and Tier 4 are almost indistinguishable from each other: a Ranger's skills and spellcasting abilities manage to handle a good variety of situations, but they're not higher in terms of Tier because their power is not as high. Basically, you can collapse the tiers into three or four, and you'd do fine: the main difference between Tier 1 and Tier 2 is versatility (both have the same amount of power, but the Tier 1s can prepare for a larger amount of situations than Tier 2s), the main difference between Tier 3 and Tier 4 is largely the power of their options (the ways that Tier 3 classes handle problems has a usually higher chance of success than Tier 4 ones), and the difference between Tier 5 and Tier 6 is usually power (the trick that Tier 5 can do is better than the trick that Tier 6 does).

Even then, there's a multitude of interpretations that can stem from attempting to grok the differences between Tiers. Tier 1 characters are versatile but Tier 2 characters master the concept of utility (Wizards have one spell for each of their problems; Sorcerers have one spell to solve many of their problems), and understanding this concept is what allows a character to contribute properly, at least for the higher tiers. I can say this, and give some proof of why this is a reasonable way to see the differences between Tier 1 and Tier 2, but that doesn't mean anyone will agree with me because that might imply the rest of the tiers have to follow the same notion. It's one of the reasons why I placed the alternative of "balance points"; it's better defined and less ambiguous as it stands. That doesn't mean it *should* be the system to use, but it's appropriate for the discussion as any re-envisioning of the Tiers should aim towards this goal (better defined, less ambiguous; I can also add less dependent on the perception of "same level of optimization" which plagues every discussion about Tiers).

I find the post misses other equally valuable concepts. For example: where elegance lands in this? Elegance is ambiguous as heck, but it's easier to understand innately: if the solution looks and feels like it can be understood easily and handles the problem the best way, then it's elegant. Where, then, many of the fixes and 'brews land on the side of elegance? Granting a +1000 to attack rolls and +4000 to damage rolls is completely inelegant: it solves only a portion of the problem, doesn't even deal with the rest, and introduces new ones (how can you handle something that can one-shot everything, particularly if it's against you?). A +1000 bonus to Strength is likewise inelegant, but in comparison, is far more elegant than the previous solution: increasing Strength increases your Strength modifier, which thus increases melee attack rolls, melee damage rolls, grapple checks, successful disarms and trips, longer distance with bull rushes, better chances to open locks and doors, dead-lifting obstacles, dealing enough damage to items to bypass their hardness and bursting them, AND lifting capacity. Thus, if you gauge how much of a Strength bonus you should grant (and how: a bonus to Strength checks applies to pretty much everything sans attack and damage, but still applies to the difficult default checks you have to do nonetheless), you can provide a solution that's elegant, and thus solves a great deal of the problems better. It might strain credibility a bit, but by expanding willing suspension of disbelief, you can make mundane characters achieve extraordinary goals without having to resort to magic, and thus allows people to act better. I find sometimes that fixes don't aim for elegance, thus they feel clogged; however, given that elegance is an acquired taste and something that has to be developed, it's not something you should expect naturally (but something you can help with).

Another thing to point out is that, no matter what, the game IS pretty much focused into combat. The rules are tighter in this regard, in that they're much better detailed. Thus, it's natural that a larger proportion of the character's power and versatility are handled in how they deal with combat. Never expect that a class should be 50% focused on combat and 50% focused on out-of-combat ability. I suspect a 66% combat/34% out-of-combat effort for each class, with a boundary based on the concept (Fighters might focus a bit more on combat and thus aim towards 70-75%, while Rogues may aim for 40-45% out-of-combat versatility). Likewise, fixes and 'brews could focus on those proportions, so that they remain true to their concepts and still contribute on both sides.

It's a good read and a good start, but the problem with Tiers is a bit more complex. Definitely it's great advice, but that doesn't mean people will now actually aim for Tier 4, or that there'll be less fixes. It's great to allow people to aim for better fixes and refine their 'brews better.

Morph Bark
2013-01-15, 04:35 AM
All the times I've looked at Fixes of classes that were made to fill a gap and join the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer as Tier 3 "specialist sorcerers", a great many of them turned out to be still only Tier 4, and a few Tier 2. It's harder to make a Tier 3 Fix, it seems, than making a Tier 3 original class. When I recently dug through a lot of Fighter Fixes, indeed many of them were simply Tier 4, and that's okay. I also agree with you in that making a Fighter better at non-fighting things is a good thing, but the way in which people go about it often seems to turn the Fighter into something less generic, and it's the generic-ness of the Fighter that makes it the Fighter.

On the subject of ToB though, this is something a lot more complex. Yes, disciplines are made primarily for combat. However, many of them have applications out of combat. Shadow Hand, for instance, has its teleportation maneuvers. Diamond Mind has its save-replacers. Stone Dragon has Mountain Hammer. In most cases it's pretty minor, but it's still there and still adds up. Due to the variability of disciplines, especially when Homebrew disciplines are concerned (many people make their disciplines try to do a lot of things and the discipline ends up losing focus, which is a sad, sad thing; others have a fine focus, but the maneuvers are either way too strong or much too weak), judging Homebrewed martial adept classes is hard, unless you were to judge all the disciplines they can have first. And considering that with time and training many disciplines can be acquired as extras, the variability increases immensely and the class can choose from a great many maneuvers. Many of these maneuvers suck, just like with how a lot of ToB maneuvers hardly see play, whereas some are nearly always picked (IHS, WRT, MH, I'm looking at you).

If you ditch disciplines from your analysis of a class and just assume that they alone make it Tier 4, then go on to look at the rest of the class, many of them have other stuff as well, especially skills, because ToB is somewhat skill-focused (though perhaps not as much as it should be). Of the official classes, Swordsage then comes along with Use Magic Device and sneaky skills, while the Warblade and Crusader have Diplomacy, among others, though the Crusader is obviously better due to Cha-focus, though Bards are likely still better than them since they need other ability scores less. The thing to remember though, is that there isn't always a [member of X class] in your party who might take one of your possible roles instead of you. And if there is, then sure, you might not be a full Tier 3 in that party anymore, but it doesn't take away that the class still can do that. Still, in some measure I have to agree with you, and that is on the subject of classes who have no other reason to pump an ability score associated with a very good skill, because the rest of the class doesn't need that particular ability score at all.

Does this mean ToB classes are always Tier 3? Most definitely not! It just means that because they have such a strong baseline it is much easier to make them Tier 3 than other classes and they need much less optimization to become Tier 3 than other classes do.

...also, I'm kind of ashamed I aided the Fighter with this problem (http://xkcd.com/927/), since a handful of Fighter Fixes sprung up immediately after I went over a bunch in the HTC thread.


While others claim this is a pretty big "essay", you'll have to forgive me if I say this is a "light read".

Forgive me, Oskar, but you seem like the kind of man for whom the Iliad would be a "light read" over the course of finishing a cup of tea.

Realms of Chaos
2013-01-15, 11:07 AM
T.G. Oskar: Yes, by the standards of some of your posts, I suppose that this would be a pretty light read for you. :smalltongue:

Having balance points is certainly a grokable alternative mechanic, though it might result in the loss of relevant information from the tier system. I'd personally just bunch our current tier system into 3 groups with tiers 1&2 being high power, tiers 3&4 being Average power, and tiers 5&6 being low-power. For most of these groupings (except maybe 5&6), the functional distinctions between the two groups seem relatively minimal and lots of headaches and arguments could be eliminated by their grouping (It's a lot easier to make a high-power class than a tier 1 class or and average power class than a tier 3 class, for example). Unfortunately, one hurdle that this method can't overcome is showing how... um... reverse-compatible classes are (wizards could potentially play nicely with a low power group but warblades can't unless you really try, for example). Perhaps having a low-range and high range for each class would help but that might be too complicated in the long run.

As far as missing a tier and ending up with a lesser one, I'm not saying that people should make more barbarians and rangers but rather that they should shoot for combat-focused "tier 3" classes but label it as tier 4. I just suspect that a strong class with a correct label would get a warmer response than a strong class that fails to live up to its own standards. Again, though, I can't really see the future.

As far as elegance, I didn't go into talking about it because... it seemed completely unrelated from the main topic? :smallconfused:

I'm not saying that elegance isn't good. It's awesome. Even so, in a discussion of tiers (which was the entire original point of the topic), I don't see how elegance fits into anything or how anything lost or gained tiers (other than in really general ways such as the elegant way in which spellcasters fit thousands of abilities within a single mechanic) through elegance. If someone homebrews a class tomorrow that requires a player (not the character) to do logarithms and dance the hokey pokey with their tongues out to gain bonuses, I personally wouldn't rate the class any lower on most forms of power spectrums available. It wouldn't be too usable, sure, but more for practical reasons than anything else (limited space and lack of graphing calculators at most gaming tables, for example).

If you want to talk about elegance, however, it sounds like a good part of what you are searching for is parsimony (at least as it applies to text). Namely, you want to fit as good of a solution in as small of a space (at least on the class table) as possible. Granting bonuses that apply in multiple ways, granting abilities from menus instead of granting each and every single one of the options at set levels, or using mechanics such as spellcasting to include hundreds of options all using a single unified framework. Of course, comprehensibility and matters of breadth and effectiveness also play some part.

And, of course, as I allude to (twice) in the OP, I'm well-aware that combat is the per-eminent presence in most games (Which is precisely the justification I used for why high-powered combat-focused tier-4 classes should generally be as "celebrated" as tier 3 classes). Again, the "change" I'm proposing is one of perception and labeling, not one of what is actually produced (though I believe it could have positive effects even so).

Morph Bark: Thank you for raising up the topic of ToB classes once more. You are certainly right that I have likely underestimated the non-combat potentials of those classes and of what disciplines can do (especially when homebrew discipline shenanigans are brought up).

LordErebus12: Yeah, while I'd consider a tremendous attack/damage bonus to make that character highly effective, I wouldn't count it as versatile. As far as abandoning tiers altogether, that may be hard in relation to homebrew because (1) it's one of the most descriptive measures we currently have to say how powerful we have intended something to be and (2) it provides DMs with a heuristic to let them check if a class would be balanced in a party (assuming that it seems correctly labeled), which becomes quite vital when talking about homebrew classes as there's a good chance that the DM has never seen that class in a campaign before. The only problem with the tier system is that (to me) it seemed to have become a bit prescriptive (telling people what to do) instead of descriptive (describing what has been done). With that said, using different reference points of power (as mentioned both above and in T.G. Oskar's post) may provide a nice alternative.

Djinn_in_Tonic/Toapat: Options, Power, and Versatility are all important axes to consider. As far as the combat/non-combat distinction, you could probably reduce things into the following four stats:
Combat Options high/medium/low
Non-Combat Options high/medium/low
Combat Power high/medium/low
Non-Combat Power high/medium/low
It would result in two separate graphs, unfortunately, though it remains relatively easy to list (though admittedly not as precisely as a graph could).

toapat
2013-01-15, 12:02 PM
Djinn_in_Tonic/Toapat: Options, Power, and Versatility are all important axes to consider. As far as the combat/non-combat distinction, you could probably reduce things into the following four stats:
Combat Options high/medium/low
Non-Combat Options high/medium/low
Combat Power high/medium/low
Non-Combat Power high/medium/low
It would result in two separate graphs, unfortunately, though it remains relatively easy to list (though admittedly not as precisely as a graph could).

I think you missed the point, Versatility is to be a measure of non-combat options and power (but you wont score a 0 if you arent a monk. Even Commoners and Truenamers have something redeeming to them.), while Power was to be a measure of Combat ability. Options is actually chosen because you cant have the word Potential in with Power. Actually i should have called it Opportunity, as it is a measure of how much actual room for growth does the class have, for instance Monk vs Paladin: You can not really make monk better then they are other then with Wild Monk, while paladins were handed alot of potential for growth over time with 3.5

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-01-15, 12:16 PM
I think you missed the point, Versatility is to be a measure of non-combat options and power (but you wont score a 0 if you arent a monk. Even Commoners and Truenamers have something redeeming to them.), while Power was to be a measure of Combat ability. Options is actually chosen because you cant have the word Potential in with Power. Actually i should have called it Opportunity, as it is a measure of how much actual room for growth does the class have, for instance Monk vs Paladin: You can not really make monk better then they are other then with Wild Monk, while paladins were handed alot of potential for growth over time with 3.5

Nope. You missed the point. At least if you were talking about my re-imagining of the Tier system.

Versatility is a measure of the number of different options, whether in-combat or out-of-combat. Power is the STRENGTH of those options, whether in combat or out of combat.

The Combat axis would be the determinant for whether the class was combat-skewed or non-combat skewed. The Warblade, for example, is fairly powerful, fairly versatile, but heavily combat-skewed. While he has a number of options, MOST of them are useful only in-combat, and those that are useful elsewhere are still largely combat-utility as well.

Without Combat as an axis, versatility has to pick up double duty as both number of options AND flexibility of approaches. Flexibility might actually be a better name for such an axis.

That's why it's awkward. Options within a narrow confine should be able to be represented differently from options OUTSIDE of said narrow confine.

Realms of Chaos
2013-01-15, 12:17 PM
I think you missed the point, Versatility is to be a measure of non-combat options and power (but you wont score a 0 if you arent a monk. Even Commoners and Truenamers have something redeeming to them.), while Power was to be a measure of Combat ability. Options is actually chosen because you cant have the word Potential in with Power. Actually i should have called it Opportunity, as it is a measure of how much actual room for growth does the class have, for instance Monk vs Paladin: You can not really make monk better then they are other then with Wild Monk, while paladins were handed alot of potential for growth over time with 3.5

Ah, it seems that I have indeed misread things. When I saw the word options, I immediately thought you meant options as far as ability to do different things (For example, having more to do in combat that make powerful full attacks each round and more to do outside of it than just skills). Perhaps the word you are looking for is Potential, then?

toapat
2013-01-15, 12:19 PM
Ah, it seems that I have indeed misread things. When I saw the word options, I immediately thought you meant options as far as ability to do different things (For example, having more to do in combat that make powerful full attacks each round and more to do outside of it than just skills). Perhaps the word you are looking for is Potential, then?

I said Opportunity fits better, Potential screws the entire naming up because then you have VPP instead of VOP


Nope. You missed the point. At least if you were talking about my re-imagining of the Tier system.

Versatility is a measure of the number of different options, whether in-combat or out-of-combat. Power is the STRENGTH of those options, whether in combat or out of combat.

I think you are Underestimating how simplistic it is to have Versatility measure number and Power of the number of things a class can do, Power is best left as a measure more similar to the Same Game Test because then you can measuere if the Class erases enemies from existance in multiple creative ways, can do so with a single trick, can reasonably contribute in combat, and is a monk

Realms of Chaos
2013-01-15, 12:32 PM
So, to get at the power/usefulness of a class, we have to consider the possible ranges of versatility and power that members of that class can have both in and out of combat depending on what builds they use.

This is starting to get complicated, not to mention a tad off-topic. Perhaps this reimagining needs a thread of its own. :smallconfused:

toapat
2013-01-15, 12:46 PM
This is starting to get complicated, not to mention a tad off-topic. Perhaps this reimagining needs a thread of its own. :smallconfused:

It needs a dedicated University of its own.

Morph Bark
2013-01-15, 01:02 PM
It needs a dedicated University of its own.

Where di' y'all thunk Ida gotten ma qualumvacations t' Tiershizzle up in 'is nizzle, ay?

*cough* Sorry. Acquired an accent during my stay there.

At any rate, I got some things to say about that subject as well, but I think I'll put that up in the HTC or in a seperate thread if that'll get put up.

In the meantime, I'll say that I prefer party members to all be within the 3-4 spectrum. Yes, spectrum. Within Tier 3 there are classes that are higher-powered than the others, bordering on Tier 2, whereas with others it's hard to judge if they're Tier 3 or Tier 4, such as with the incarnum classes. High-powered Tier 4s (such as the Races of War classes) though? That's bad, and I much prefer having Tier 2s rather than those.

toapat
2013-01-15, 01:43 PM
Where di' y'all thunk Ida gotten ma qualumvacations t' Tiershizzle up in 'is nizzle, ay?

High-powered Tier 4s (such as the Races of War classes) though?

I mean like a dedicated Thinking body consisting of 400-500 separate people.

What classes are those?

Amechra
2013-01-15, 03:34 PM
Nice light read, Realms of Chaos.

I've always thought that areas other than combat need a little more in the area of "hooks" where you can hang mechanics; I'm currently working on a much more mechnically-defined rehash of the d20 Modern Allegiances mechanic (partially because I always look so longingly at the concept of "Intimacies" that Exalted has going.)

Once that's done, I think that, along with a little more "fleshing out" for social rules, you could have a great deal more "cool ****" for people to do outside of combat.

I mean, I like to think of how given classes should be approaching communications, and it makes me smile. Lots. (Barbarians use Intimidate for damn near everything.)

I might end up rewriting a bunch of skill replacers with just plain skill boosters (so it's better to cast them on the expert in that field than on yourself.)

But, more on topic; I've always felt that the "tier" system is more a grid, where Tier 1 and Tier 3 share a slot (both theoretically have a high level of options) and Tier 2 and Tier 4 share a slot (more restricted in their options, just at different scopes), and Tier 5 and Tier 6 kinda cry in the corner without optimization tricks.

I also intensely agree that people, when fixing the Fighter, try to remove some of its generic nature. I've recently been considering stuff that, you know, makes the options that they do get (feats, obviously) a bit more worth the effort and easier to get your hands on.

But, to get back on topic... you do realize that Tier University in Walla Walla, Washington is my alma mater? My reunion's next month.

Deepbluediver
2013-01-15, 04:29 PM
@ RoC
Narrowly avoided getting critted by that wall of text. :smalltongue:
I agree with nearly everything you said. One thing that might be worth more discussion is how to rate the power level of something that merely has the potential to be powerful (sorcerer) vs things that can be powerful in any build (wizard) and things that are powerful because they have access to ALL their tools ALL the time (cleric, druid)

Reading that has actually made me feel a lot better about my fighter fix, because frankly I was wracking my brains over that exact problem- how to increase it's versatility without diminishing it's iconic feel and flavor.


i do not take much stock in Tiers, i believe it closes our eyes to the possibilities of a well designed and well built class.

I would ask, how then do you judge if something is "well built"?
If Power is basically how you keep score in this game, and you decide to say "I don't care about score!", what determines if your 'brew plays nicely with everyone else?


Agreed almost completely.

I think the Tier system is badly in need of a revision, and I'd suggest one along the lines of a graph, with an axis for each of Power and Versatility.

That's an interesting concept, but the problem with D&D is that most time power and versatility are directly corelated. For example, a magic spell that turns you into a dragon could be counted as powerful in combat terms, but it also gives you energy attacks, flight, maybe boosts to social skills like intimdate, etc.

I think that if you tried to measure things on a 2-way axis, you'd find very few classes that where powerful but not versatile, and even fewer classes that where versatile but weak.

SamBurke
2013-01-15, 05:03 PM
So, to get at the power/usefulness of a class, we have to consider the possible ranges of versatility and power that members of that class can have both in and out of combat depending on what builds they use.

This is starting to get complicated, not to mention a tad off-topic. Perhaps this reimagining needs a thread of its own. :smallconfused:

Uh... I thought that was the way that everyone looked at it.

Huh.

I do agree that it can be summed up nicely, though. In light of that, do you think it's too early to look at a general test to determine the general tiers?

toapat
2013-01-15, 05:23 PM
I do agree that it can be summed up nicely, though. In light of that, do you think it's too early to look at a general test to determine the general tiers?

there already is one, its here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Same_Game_Test_(DnD_Guideline)).

Deepbluediver
2013-01-15, 05:58 PM
there already is one, its here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Same_Game_Test_(DnD_Guideline)).

Is this meant to be a joke or taken seriously? Because some of this stuff just seems hilarious.

Specifically:
A forest made out of lava and infested with hostile fire-element dire badgers.


Long story, but I have a soft spot for dire badgers. The fact that these are fire-dire-badgers is just icing on the cake. :smallbiggrin:

Yitzi
2013-01-15, 06:01 PM
there already is one, its here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Same_Game_Test_(DnD_Guideline)).

The results you get from that are very dependent on which challenges you use, though.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-15, 06:21 PM
The results you get from that are very dependent on which challenges you use, though.

You're not supposed to pick some challenges from the list, you're supposed to put a class through all the listed challenges, and maybe a few more of similar CR, to get as many data points as possible.

Yitzi
2013-01-15, 06:24 PM
You're not supposed to pick some challenges from the list, you're supposed to put a class through all the listed challenges, and maybe a few more of similar CR, to get as many data points as possible.

And the result will depend a lot on which challenges are on the list, and on which others you add. Differing classes have different strengths, and that is how it should be, so you'll get a very different sense of a class's power if the list is mostly combat than you will if the list has a large noncombat component (and of course it also depends how that noncombat component is distributed.)

toapat
2013-01-15, 07:08 PM
Long story, but I have a soft spot for dire badgers. The fact that these are fire-dire-badgers is just icing on the cake. :smallbiggrin:

how did i never see that before?

That is the greatest encounter ever, of all time.

T.G. Oskar
2013-01-15, 08:18 PM
T.G. Oskar: Yes, by the standards of some of your posts, I suppose that this would be a pretty light read for you. :smalltongue:

Having balance points is certainly a grokable alternative mechanic, though it might result in the loss of relevant information from the tier system. I'd personally just bunch our current tier system into 3 groups with tiers 1&2 being high power, tiers 3&4 being Average power, and tiers 5&6 being low-power. For most of these groupings (except maybe 5&6), the functional distinctions between the two groups seem relatively minimal and lots of headaches and arguments could be eliminated by their grouping (It's a lot easier to make a high-power class than a tier 1 class or and average power class than a tier 3 class, for example). Unfortunately, one hurdle that this method can't overcome is showing how... um... reverse-compatible classes are (wizards could potentially play nicely with a low power group but warblades can't unless you really try, for example). Perhaps having a low-range and high range for each class would help but that might be too complicated in the long run.

I'd say Tiers can't achieve this either, at least considering how the system currently works.

The Tier system assumes an equal degree of optimization: given the degree of optimization being exactly equal, each class will observe the same behavior. Because of this, the Tier system in its original incarnation didn't evaluate upper and lower boundaries of optimization, which is shown when a Wizard and a Warblade are compared: the Wizard has both a very high and very low optimization boundary (i.e. it can be broken on one side or on the other), whereas the Warblade has a high optimization boundary but an almost inexistent lower boundary (it's pretty easy to make it good, but it requires a lot of effort to blow it; it's possible, but not as easy). The system DOES assume something, and that is the notion that some tiers can play well with others (Tier 2 can play well on a predominantly Tier 1/Tier 3 build environment), but because of the existence of upper/lower optimization boundaries, it doesn't explain exactly HOW (and because the system relies on an equal degree of optimization, it's not viable). It only explains that, after two or more steps, classes have too many differences in terms of power and versatility to cooperate, causing one class to take up the slack for the rest.

The system of balance points likewise doesn't mention this, but it takes into consideration its potential, as it disregards the concept of "equal degree of optimization" that binds the Tier system. The reason why it takes it into consideration is because, since it doesn't rely on this concept and instead measures the class as a whole (power, versatility, utility, elegance, potential), it allows unhindered discussion about the matter of having someone who optimizes better and can add more versatility or power, find greater utility in one or two class features, and in essence, exploits its potential than the Tier system can.

I can agree on one thing, though: both systems require an auxiliary system that takes into consideration the actual potential, probably from the opposite side.


As far as missing a tier and ending up with a lesser one, I'm not saying that people should make more barbarians and rangers but rather that they should shoot for combat-focused "tier 3" classes but label it as tier 4. I just suspect that a strong class with a correct label would get a warmer response than a strong class that fails to live up to its own standards. Again, though, I can't really see the future.

I agree on you with that, but that doesn't mean people will agree with it the same way. It's a very good start, because the idea behind it is a change in perception, but it's a very strong, ingrained opinion: people aim for Tier 3 as the golden mean of homebrewing, because people insist that Tier 3 is fun to play and solves a lot of potential troubles.


As far as elegance, I didn't go into talking about it because... it seemed completely unrelated from the main topic? :smallconfused:

I'm not saying that elegance isn't good. It's awesome. Even so, in a discussion of tiers (which was the entire original point of the topic), I don't see how elegance fits into anything or how anything lost or gained tiers (other than in really general ways such as the elegant way in which spellcasters fit thousands of abilities within a single mechanic) through elegance. If someone homebrews a class tomorrow that requires a player (not the character) to do logarithms and dance the hokey pokey with their tongues out to gain bonuses, I personally wouldn't rate the class any lower on most forms of power spectrums available. It wouldn't be too usable, sure, but more for practical reasons than anything else (limited space and lack of graphing calculators at most gaming tables, for example).

If you want to talk about elegance, however, it sounds like a good part of what you are searching for is parsimony (at least as it applies to text). Namely, you want to fit as good of a solution in as small of a space (at least on the class table) as possible. Granting bonuses that apply in multiple ways, granting abilities from menus instead of granting each and every single one of the options at set levels, or using mechanics such as spellcasting to include hundreds of options all using a single unified framework. Of course, comprehensibility and matters of breadth and effectiveness also play some part.

I find it's the opposite. Elegance is a viable point of discussion.

Elegance isn't just parsimony: it's only a way in which a solution can be elegant. The moment in which said ability is placed also implies elegance. For example, using Paladin homebrews: most people that make fixes to the Paladin add Divine Grace at 2nd level out of tradition, giving a pretty strong boost to all saving throws very early on. You can shift Divine Grace to 6th level, where saving throws become a bit more relevant, and the ability would still be very useful, though not as much as before. Any later (such as, say, 12th level) and the ability stops being elegant, because it solves a problem too late (it still solves the solution, and solves it well, and solves a good amount of problems, but by that level saving throws are extremely numerous).

Another application of Elegance is how the ability progresses. The example of a direct boost to Strength is a good one: while it'd be an elegant solution (by solving a lot of troubles), applied all at once makes it inelegant (it creates another problem). Spreading that boost out can help: should it be spread in two steps? Four? Five? Should it progress equally (start by granting a +2 bonus, and at higher levels grant a +4 bonus)? That application of Elegance influences directly into Power, because granting a +1000 bonus at once is both inelegant and overpowered, a +200 bonus every four levels is still inelegant and still overpowered, but less than getting it all at once, and a +2 bonus every 4 levels is pretty fair in terms of Elegance, and not overpowered at all.

Hopefully, this can show what I mean when speaking about Elegance.


And, of course, as I allude to (twice) in the OP, I'm well-aware that combat is the per-eminent presence in most games (Which is precisely the justification I used for why high-powered combat-focused tier-4 classes should generally be as "celebrated" as tier 3 classes). Again, the "change" I'm proposing is one of perception and labeling, not one of what is actually produced (though I believe it could have positive effects even so).

I did mention I could have probably read really fast, though I recall having read this. I interpreted it, though, as if you had trouble with 'brewing foci with too much combat power and lack of combat versatility, and that aiming for Tier 4 would allow classes to focus less on their combat power and build up a bit more general.

Realms of Chaos
2013-01-15, 11:28 PM
Amechra: I look forward to seeing how you develop social encounters. :smallsmile:
Until then, however, it would seem that we are left with a ruleset that occupies itself with combat most of the time.

Deepbluediver: The encounters (even that one) are a real thing and the need to differentiate power from versatility might best be seen in melee tricks and builds that either deal TONS of damage (uberchargers/hulking hurlers) or that have one super-duper trick that is easily thwarted (spike chain trippers and samurai intimidation locks).

SamBurke: It might be how everyone looks at it but when you actually reduce it to such terms (and add additional consideration such as the "learning curve of optimization" for the class, which may well make "equal optimization" a pretty useless assumption for most), it becomes harder to graph the classes or come up with any simple and neat pattern that fits everyone's needs and doesn't lose data while being easily memorized and communicated.

T.G. Oskar: I'm still not quite sure that using levels of power helps you escape universalized levels of optimization as you hope it would, though that may simply be from a lack of saying it in play.

If I make a low-power class, what does that mean? I believe you've said that it's about the equivalent of a monk. How optimized of a monk? How optimized of a *NEW CLASS X*? Is the worst possible monk grouped with the most optimized monk in one category? Is it expected that classes bridge multiple levels of power? If not, how would you treat a class that can range from far worse than a monk to being far better than a monk? I don't quite get how this system really works for that at the moment, I guess.

Also, I think that I might be catching onto your idea of elegance. If I'm understanding things properly, elegance means solving problems while minimizing the problems that might be presented in the manner and timing of this problem-solving. Put another way, elegance is kind of the effectiveness of your effectiveness. Elegance may be a bit of a tricky term, though, as it also calls to mind certain aesthetic qualities that need not necessarily fit in with your elegance (having one class feature at every class level except for having 3 at 13th level, for example, might be an example where the most "elegant" option could be used [delaying or pulling back any of those class features may cause other problems] and the result would remain aesthetically odd), unless including aesthetic matters was your intention.

tarkisflux
2013-01-17, 03:10 PM
T.G. Oskar: I'm still not quite sure that using levels of power helps you escape universalized levels of optimization as you hope it would, though that may simply be from a lack of saying it in play.

If I make a low-power class, what does that mean? I believe you've said that it's about the equivalent of a monk. How optimized of a monk? How optimized of a *NEW CLASS X*? Is the worst possible monk grouped with the most optimized monk in one category? Is it expected that classes bridge multiple levels of power? If not, how would you treat a class that can range from far worse than a monk to being far better than a monk? I don't quite get how this system really works for that at the moment, I guess.

I'll ninja Mr. Oskar here, since I think something rather important is being missed in the discussion. The wiki's balance points (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:Balance_Points) and the tiers are often used interchangeably, but they're really trying to do different things. The SGT (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Same_Game_Test) is intended to measure a particular builds ability to keep up with a wide and (hopefully) representative range of combat encounters built out of published monsters. And then based on those results, determine if the class is performing at, above, or under their level at that point in the game so that they can be grouped with other classes and options performing at a similar point. The balance points correspond to SGT result groupings, rather than the definitions used as a starting point by the tiers.

Now, there are arguments about that setup just like there are about the tiers, but that's not really important right now (I can summarize them and suggest best practices if anyone cares). What is important is that it's measuring different things from the Tier system. A "Low" balance class starts underperforming against published monsters around level 4, while a "Moderate" balance class starts around level 8. A "High" balance class is pretty reasonable all the way up to 20 (maybe, the game is weird in that range anyway), but a "Very High" class could start to overperform against opposition at some point (generally between 5 and 9) and never really come back down. If you just look at the numbers there, you'll see that the balance points give an idea of what level the class stops being able to play the same game as someone in a different balance class. It doesn't actually say that you can't or shouldn't mix them, it gives a level range where that mixing is likely to be workable.

If that sounds weird, consider the level that a monk player starts to feel really bad about their character. Can a monk contribute with a fighter and a warblade at level 1? I'd say yes pretty strongly because life is cheap at level 1 and the differences are pretty small. But by level 4 or 5 the warblade has a lot more options and is a lot more effective. You can get similar parity between a warblade and a wizard for a while as well (assuming you don't fall into the workday traps), but that starts to break down too eventually when the wizard has tons of spells and his backup spells are sufficiently awesome. And that seems like a pretty different set of conclusions and uses from the system than you get from the tier setup.

It also sets up classes like the Races of War thugs (here's the link to them (http://www.dnd-wiki.org/wiki/Races_of_War_%283.5e_Sourcebook%29/Warriors_with_Class#Base_Classes) toapat, in case you still wanted it), which can meet or exceed equivalent CR combat challenges from 1-20, but don't have a great deal of non-combat versatility. They are not everyone's cup of tea. As Morph suggests above, there isn't really a tier equivalent for these classes.

---

I've got stuff to add for the general topic, but it'll have to wait for more time I guess :smallsigh:

Lix Lorn
2013-01-18, 03:18 PM
This WAS pretty interesting, and I agree that Tier 4 is a decent sweet spot (Although I stick with a preference for 3...)

What it made me realise is that all my experience with homebrew and playing it tells me that the important part of a class isn't how strong it is, but how fun it is to use.
My own fighter fixes tried to be better by being stronger. And yeah, six attacks a round, four of which would hit, was fun. For about two rounds.

In the future, I shall be trying to give classes one thing they are very good at. Then I shall give them /options./ Options in what to do when you make the character, and options in what to do in play. The variety of things to do outside their speciality area should probably come in with the options. I dunno! It's an adventure. I'll see what happens.

Realms of Chaos
2013-01-18, 08:26 PM
Thanks for the explanation on balance levels, Lix Lorn. Now that I've read the article for myself, I think that my misunderstanding came from the fact that is is very hard to summarize how things are put in different categories. I have a basic idea after reading the whole thing but I would be in a pickle if I was forced to condense it further.

And there's no harm in still liking tier 3 best. I'm just pointing out that combat can be more than enough in most games if anyone is hesitant to spend time reading through an openly tier 4 class or anything like that.

Gideon Falcon
2013-01-18, 08:29 PM
Thank you, RotC. This thread plainly and eloquently expresses my philosophy with my (unfinished and unpublished) attempts at fixing the melee classes; They don't need to be able to do everything wizards can do. Fighters, in particular, have no conceivable reason why they need to be good at more than killing things. It's what they do. The Barbarian doesn't need to be able to simulate enchantment or divination effects, because it's not their job. The point of game balance isn't to make everyone the same, it's to make sure everyone has fun. If you chose to play a fighter, it's because you think it'll be fun to hit things with your weapon. If you go with a fighter because you want to make enemies into your loyal puppets, then you need to rethink your playstyle.

tarkisflux
2013-01-18, 10:05 PM
Thanks for the explanation on balance levels, Lix Lorn. Now that I've read the article for myself, I think that my misunderstanding came from the fact that is is very hard to summarize how things are put in different categories. I have a basic idea after reading the whole thing but I would be in a pickle if I was forced to condense it further.

And there's no harm in still liking tier 3 best. I'm just pointing out that combat can be more than enough in most games if anyone is hesitant to spend time reading through an openly tier 4 class or anything like that.

I'm not Lix Lorn, silly RoC :smallwink: Anyway, I don't think it's that hard to summarize, but I've been working with it for a few years now so I'm probably a bit biased (though it did always make more sense to me than the Tier setup). It's mostly a measure of when the DM has to stop playing monsters intelligently or start throwing additional bones at PCs, and I find that information more useful than what the tiers provide.

Anyway, I support the Tier 4 / Tier 3 proposal. I don't happen to like Tier 4 very much, but that's a preference thing and not a functional one. There are plenty of players who just want to hit things in combat and don't want to do the rest of it, and having classes for them is important. The tier 4 classes can pretty much keep up in combat, and that's the important thing. So the fact that I wouldn't use them is pretty inconsequential.

But I think you're discounting the skills thing a bit. Well, sorta, because they mostly suck, but the idea of skill packages is still an important one I think. You're right that it doesn't really matter which class brings diplomacy to the table and that they don't do much to differentiate a class, but it's not really different than saying it doesn't really matter which class brings charm person to the table. There's a lot of overlap in both spell availability and skill availability, but they can both be used to do important baseline things (get people to do what you want, get people to not see you, etc.). The wizard problem is as much that they get all the skills via their spells as anything else, but the beguiler doesn't get all of those tricks via spells and gets a pass from you. Having a limited but focused skill set is a useful thing I think, even if they're not as strong as spells and classes that get them depend strongly on class features for differentiation.

Realms of Chaos
2013-01-19, 01:05 AM
I'm not Lix Lorn, silly RoC :smallwink:

Somehow, I think I combined those two posts in my head (or thought LL had double-posted). How embarrassing. :smallredface:


Anyway, I don't think it's that hard to summarize, but I've been working with it for a few years now so I'm probably a bit biased (though it did always make more sense to me than the Tier setup).

How you get at it seems simple enough but what it actually means to get there involves several factors including the breadth of your abilities, how soon you get your abilities relative to when you need them, how well your abilities synergize with one another, the potentials of the class, and so forth. Add to the fact that the relevant tests only exist at certain levels and you get an additional level of weirdness that needs to be worked out manually (with no tests between levels 1 and 5, for example, gaining flying at level 2 is functionally the same as getting it at level 5 when you use the traditional tests if I'm understanding things right. Then again, I'm only remembering tests at levels 1, 5, 10, 15, and 20 so I might be wrong there). Plus, I feel that the frequent options built into classes and vastly different builds resulting push a good deal of things into the indeterminate category (though you can probably find an accurate RANGE, balance points don't quite tell you what to do with that range and imbalances with the optimization difficulty of reaching higher balance points or in the number of builds with such balance points would make even plain ranges misleading for most). So, yeah, I guess that my problems with balance points are that they are also imperfect.:smalltongue:



But I think you're discounting the skills thing a bit. Well, sorta, because they mostly suck, but the idea of skill packages is still an important one I think. You're right that it doesn't really matter which class brings diplomacy to the table and that they don't do much to differentiate a class, but it's not really different than saying it doesn't really matter which class brings charm person to the table. There's a lot of overlap in both spell availability and skill availability, but they can both be used to do important baseline things (get people to do what you want, get people to not see you, etc.). The wizard problem is as much that they get all the skills via their spells as anything else, but the beguiler doesn't get all of those tricks via spells and gets a pass from you. Having a limited but focused skill set is a useful thing I think, even if they're not as strong as spells and classes that get them depend strongly on class features for differentiation.

I have to admit that you have a bit of a point here, though I should probably explain what I mean. Yes, it is equally true that only one person needs to bring diplomacy to the table as it is that only one person needs to bring charm person to the table. Having too much redundancy anywhere is bad. I guess my point is that if you want a class to make friends with others, there are dozens of ways that you could mechanically implement such an ability that might make yours preferable over the options of others at times. If you rely on diplomacy, though, there's no real chance (short of homebrew skill tricks) that you have anything that nobody else could have and I feel that's a bit of a loss. Not as bad as I let on, perhaps, but still a bit of a letdown.

Gnorman
2013-01-19, 05:12 AM
Thank you, RotC. This thread plainly and eloquently expresses my philosophy with my (unfinished and unpublished) attempts at fixing the melee classes; They don't need to be able to do everything wizards can do. Fighters, in particular, have no conceivable reason why they need to be good at more than killing things. It's what they do. The Barbarian doesn't need to be able to simulate enchantment or divination effects, because it's not their job. The point of game balance isn't to make everyone the same, it's to make sure everyone has fun. If you chose to play a fighter, it's because you think it'll be fun to hit things with your weapon. If you go with a fighter because you want to make enemies into your loyal puppets, then you need to rethink your playstyle.

The problem with this is that generally, if you're not contributing, you're less likely to enjoy yourself. It's not fun to be the wizard's butler. We're okay with making fighters good at "killing things," because, as you said we think that's what they do. The problem is that wizards are good at "killing things" and also "everything else." A barbarian's job is "kill things," but a wizard's job is "be magic." The design space implied by one is infinitely greater than the other. The wizard gets to break the laws of physics on a regular basis; whenever the fighter does something unrealistic people take up arms and protest. That's not a good equation for class balance.

We don't have to make fighters into wizards (or vice-versa), and we definitely don't need to make everyone the same (the 4E approach). There are ways to solve the wizard's glut of versatility and the fighter's lack thereof. But I think that a two-pronged approach is the only one likely to succeed: we objectively have to make fighters better, and wizards worse. The moment you limit the fighter's role to "hitting things with his weapon" you fundamentally restrict him from contributing in a multitude of scenarios. And the moment you say the wizard's role is to "cast spells," well, there's a spell for every problem. Giving one the wherewithal to participate in (and often outright solve) any situation and limiting the other to "combat only" is, I think, bad design.

If I could make one recommendation for solving the vast majority of issues with class balance, it would be this: fixed-list spontaneous casters. Each one can contribute to a variety of situations, but they can't dominate every single one.

nonsi
2013-01-19, 11:21 AM
...all my experience with homebrew and playing it tells me that the important part of a class isn't how strong it is, but how fun it is to use.
My own fighter fixes tried to be better by being stronger. And yeah, six attacks a round, four of which would hit, was fun. For about two rounds.

QFT.




In the future, I shall be trying to give classes one thing they are very good at. Then I shall give them /options./ Options in what to do when you make the character, and options in what to do in play. The variety of things to do outside their speciality area should probably come in with the options. I dunno! It's an adventure. I'll see what happens.

This is always where I aim when homebrewing a base class.
Unfortunately, as far as my experience goes, the lack of numerical explosion makes them usually not so attractive to the public.
Oh well, slowly but surely, realization eventually comes to all.

ArcturusV
2013-01-19, 11:46 AM
Yeah. Like when I was cookin' up the champion of flame. I wanted it to be something other than "Firebolts, Fireballs, EXPLOSIONS!" and give them an array of things they could do. From some slight visual illusions to weird wonky utility powers I thought were nifty like being able to talk to Fires or see through a Fire's perspective.

All the big numbers and doom buttons don't mean a thing if you aren't going to have fun swinging it around.

Realms of Chaos
2013-01-19, 12:18 PM
Gnorman: Thank you for being the first one to present that view within the thread (I'm surprised it has taken even this long, really). I for one support the idea of fixed list casters, though I'm a bit curious at how you'd make fighters more powerful.

Also, your response to Gideon Falcon has kind of made me notice something. When we work on fixes in D&D, we kind of have to balance player expectations (people would go to a fighter class expecting nothing more than someone who fights) and gaming realities (just fighting might not be enough in your views to make something fun). Because they're both very-much ingrained, going against either is going to have mechanical or perceptual fallout for some. For example, taking either of those two steps would likely make wizards less wizard-y or fighters less fighter-y in the eyes of some and thus, though they would be very good for the game, they might not get the play they deserve.

Gnorman
2013-01-19, 03:12 PM
It is entirely possible to have fun with a fighter. It is entirely possible to have fun playing with a wizard. The problem is that the disparity between the classes naturally lends itself to one, at a certain point, outshining the other. I can't say how endemic the problem is or how many groups it affects (the evidence is all anecdotal, after all), but we've become inured to Quadratic Wizards for so long that changing them almost seems wrong. You're absolutely right; philosophical entrenchment and inertia present significant obstacles.

If you're the kind of player who can get enjoyment and mileage out of full attacking every round, more power to you. I'm not. I want to play a fighter with options, tactics, strategy, and I want those things to have mechanical expression within the game.

Now, keep in mind that D&D for me is generally a six-level game, so my balance point is easier to correct for. I don't have to drastically overpower fighters or underpower wizards. The gap is much narrower before level 7, but even in an E6 environment, casters are king.

Lix Lorn
2013-01-19, 04:08 PM
QFT.

This is always where I aim when homebrewing a base class.
Unfortunately, as far as my experience goes, the lack of numerical explosion makes them usually not so attractive to the public.
Oh well, slowly but surely, realization eventually comes to all.
Numbers are nice too. :smalltongue:
They're just not everything.

Amnoriath
2013-01-19, 05:47 PM
The problem with this is that generally, if you're not contributing, you're less likely to enjoy yourself. It's not fun to be the wizard's butler. We're okay with making fighters good at "killing things," because, as you said we think that's what they do. The problem is that wizards are good at "killing things" and also "everything else." A barbarian's job is "kill things," but a wizard's job is "be magic." The design space implied by one is infinitely greater than the other. The wizard gets to break the laws of physics on a regular basis; whenever the fighter does something unrealistic people take up arms and protest. That's not a good equation for class balance.

We don't have to make fighters into wizards (or vice-versa), and we definitely don't need to make everyone the same (the 4E approach). There are ways to solve the wizard's glut of versatility and the fighter's lack thereof. But I think that a two-pronged approach is the only one likely to succeed: we objectively have to make fighters better, and wizards worse. The moment you limit the fighter's role to "hitting things with his weapon" you fundamentally restrict him from contributing in a multitude of scenarios. And the moment you say the wizard's role is to "cast spells," well, there's a spell for every problem. Giving one the wherewithal to participate in (and often outright solve) any situation and limiting the other to "combat only" is, I think, bad design.

If I could make one recommendation for solving the vast majority of issues with class balance, it would be this: fixed-list spontaneous casters. Each one can contribute to a variety of situations, but they can't dominate every single one.

While I do agree with the idea of "be magic" allows more than "combat only" I think there is a bit of underestimation in "combat only" in what is being said. At the beginning Realms of Chaos talked about how ironically Tome of Battle classes don't necessarily fit in the tier 3 ideology because a lot of the disciplines only have combat options however I think we we can all agree the way White Raven can lend is vastly different from Tiger Claw so on and so forth. A lot of tier 4's though can only really replicate what usually one discipline or just what a couple of maneuvers do so the Tome of Battle classes are tier 3 because they provide multiple combat options in which tier 4's don't all have access to.
I guess what I am trying to say here in response to you is similar to what Realms of Chaos started with saying except I am adding that a tier 3 class doesn't have to specks of everything else to be tier 3.

Yitzi
2013-01-19, 07:20 PM
There are ways to solve the wizard's glut of versatility and the fighter's lack thereof.

I'm not sure that we should. As the OP argued, the fighter's lack of versatility is not a problem, so long as they can contribute effectively to combat situations. They should get some versatility boost in terms of being able to handle ranged, melee, tanking, etc. and be good at all of them, but the class should still be focused solely on combat.
Conversely, I think wizards should be versatile, and that's not a problem; they just shouldn't be particularly powerful in addition to that. A wizard should be the swiss army knife of adventurers: Somewhat capable of nearly everything, but generally not as good as a specialist.

Gnorman
2013-01-19, 08:00 PM
I'm not sure that we should. As the OP argued, the fighter's lack of versatility is not a problem, so long as they can contribute effectively to combat situations. They should get some versatility boost in terms of being able to handle ranged, melee, tanking, etc. and be good at all of them, but the class should still be focused solely on combat.
Conversely, I think wizards should be versatile, and that's not a problem; they just shouldn't be particularly powerful in addition to that. A wizard should be the swiss army knife of adventurers: Somewhat capable of nearly everything, but generally not as good as a specialist.

But the wizard (or any other full caster) is a specialist - he specializes in "being magic." And that's a large enough design space that we feel comfortable giving him the vast array of tools he gets. He's not a Swiss army knife - he's an industrial tool kit. The fighter is a hammer. Often, he's not even a very good one. He's a gavel, or that thing you use to tenderize meat. What you're describing is more the bard's role - contribute a moderate amount in all situations. The wizard's role is "solve problems/encounters singlehandedly because I am friggin' magic."

Your assessment of the fighter SHOULD be able to do is in the right direction, I think, but needs to go a bit further. The fighter should be able to handle a variety of things in-combat. But what happens when a non-combat encounter comes up? Say, "Hey, sorry buddy, but you're the combat guy, so why don't you let the rogue or cleric or wizard solve this one." Whereas in the opposite scenario, the other classes are not told that they're supposed to sit this one out. Combat is the heart of D&D but let's not neglect the rest of the body. The fighter should be able to do things outside of combat just as much as the utility caster should be able to do things in combat. But there's just this entrenched position that all the fighter is good for is fighting. But every class fights. Why can't we handle the reverse? Why can't he be an expert tracker or hunter? Why can't he a be an inspiring commander? We're so reluctant to let him do these things that we partition those abilities into separate classes. It just kind of makes me sad. There's more to a fighter than just swinging a sword or drawing a bow. A fighter could manipulate the action economy, could target multiple saves, could gain the mobility required to compete once Fly come on board, and we could find ways to justify them to even the most resistant grognards. Would it fundamentally change the nature of the game? Yes, probably. But I don't think that's a bad thing.

Deepbluediver
2013-01-19, 08:05 PM
A wizard should be the swiss army knife of adventurers: Somewhat capable of nearly everything, but generally not as good as a specialist.

The problem with that philosophy (for any class) is that most encounters are intended to be dealt with by specialists, and the rest of your party will likely be specialists in their chosen field. In most games, playing the understudy means you don't get to do much.

I agree that a wizard should have the potential for lots of differ options when it comes to magic, but not all at once.
If I was going to be playing in a game, and the DM said I could make one and only one houserule style change, it would be to reduce the number of schools of magic spells that a wizard has access to. That way any wizard could still specailize in any magic, but any PARTICULAR wizard could only be one thing.

Amnoriath
2013-01-19, 11:11 PM
But the wizard (or any other full caster) is a specialist - he specializes in "being magic." And that's a large enough design space that we feel comfortable giving him the vast array of tools he gets. He's not a Swiss army knife - he's an industrial tool kit. The fighter is a hammer. Often, he's not even a very good one. He's a gavel, or that thing you use to tenderize meat. What you're describing is more the bard's role - contribute a moderate amount in all situations. The wizard's role is "solve problems/encounters singlehandedly because I am friggin' magic."



The problem isn't that we are comfortable with him being a "universal problem solver and world shaper". We and people all across the internet talk about tier 1 and wizard problems, saying this is just a constructing a straw man (especially assuming that nobody else homebrews or restrains this away in a homebrew forum of all things:smallannoyed:). The problem is because of what is already is in existence of arcane casters and how a wizard is suppose to be different. A wizard's spellbook and his academic approach is what makes him different than other spontaneous casters. The sorcerer, technically, was the first stab at a specialist because he could recast any spell he knew, had more uses, and could apply metamagic as needed but of course this doesn't beat knowledge of more spells+spell items. Instead the sorcerer is just an easier playing mini-wizard.
The reason why people don't want something like the fighter to do what you are asking is because they don't want the potential of another wizard that has a fighting chasis. Now, of course this previous statement is meant to be absurd but it goes back to what was said before that in the broad theme that is a fighter does it actually warrant being the face, scout,...etc over others that have the actual theme? No, it shouldn't which is the problem with tier 1's in the first place. Yes, everyone fights but not in the same way as I alluded to my previous response.

Realms of Chaos
2013-01-20, 01:41 AM
Wait a moment...

In the OP, I argued that using tier 3 as the single point to shoot for (as opposed to broken tier 1-2 classes or weak tier 4+ classes) is a bit limiting and that tier 4 is acceptable for most purposes tier 3 would be. It now seems that people are saying that tier 4 doesn't do enough... compared to a tier 1-2 class (whose brokenness I made no effort to deny).

Yes, the conceptual space of "I'm magic" is overwhelming when compared to "I kill people with swords". I have never debated that in any form. If you want to truly "balance" all forms of encounters together, tier 3 is probably the lowest you can go. All that I've been saying is that in an average (combat-based) game, the difference between tier 3 and tier 4 is so minor that failing to reach tier 3 shouldn't be classified as failure.

Also, I'm not saying (by any stretch of the imagination) that the fighter should be left as is or that more fighter fixes shouldn't be made. I classify tier 4 as including the ToB classes (in most cases) and the duskblade and forming new classes and fixes for tier 4 can easily involve as much variety and power.

Finally, I am not opposed to the idea of non-combat utility. What I oppose (if anything) is the compulsion to add abilities specifically to deal with a set laundry list of noncombat encounters to a rather explicitly combat-based class unless time and care is taken to marry the mechanics to the expectations of the player who would choose that class in the first place (For example, I have no problems with barbarians possessing spirit animals that reveal the true nature of the world to them as with true seeing but giving every single barbarian true seeing without real justification beyond "barbarians need true sight" kind of bugs me). In the particular case of fighter fixes, I also personally find using only a subset of this list (making all fighters just trackers or all fighters just marshals with auras) removes the signature generic nature of the class, which to me is part of what makes that class so difficult in the first place.

Amnoriath
2013-01-20, 07:07 AM
Wait a moment...

In the OP, I argued that using tier 3 as the single point to shoot for (as opposed to broken tier 1-2 classes or weak tier 4+ classes) is a bit limiting and that tier 4 is acceptable for most purposes tier 3 would be. It now seems that people are saying that tier 4 doesn't do enough... compared to a tier 1-2 class (whose brokenness I made no effort to deny).

Yes, the conceptual space of "I'm magic" is overwhelming when compared to "I kill people with swords". I have never debated that in any form. If you want to truly "balance" all forms of encounters together, tier 3 is probably the lowest you can go. All that I've been saying is that in an average (combat-based) game, the difference between tier 3 and tier 4 is so minor that failing to reach tier 3 shouldn't be classified as failure.

Also, I'm not saying (by any stretch of the imagination) that the fighter should be left as is or that more fighter fixes shouldn't be made. I classify tier 4 as including the ToB classes (in most cases) and the duskblade and forming new classes and fixes for tier 4 can easily involve as much variety and power.

Finally, I am not opposed to the idea of non-combat utility. What I oppose (if anything) is the compulsion to add abilities specifically to deal with a set laundry list of noncombat encounters to a rather explicitly combat-based class unless time and care is taken to marry the mechanics to the expectations of the player who would choose that class in the first place (For example, I have no problems with barbarians possessing spirit animals that reveal the true nature of the world to them as with true seeing but giving every single barbarian true seeing without real justification beyond "barbarians need true sight" kind of bugs me). In the particular case of fighter fixes, I also personally find using only a subset of this list (making all fighters just trackers or all fighters just marshals with auras) removes the signature generic nature of the class, which to me is part of what makes that class so difficult in the first place.

I was talking to Gnorman. I know you aren't arguing this.

Yitzi
2013-01-20, 10:39 AM
But the wizard (or any other full caster) is a specialist - he specializes in "being magic."

"Being magic" is not a party role.


And that's a large enough design space that we feel comfortable giving him the vast array of tools he gets. He's not a Swiss army knife - he's an industrial tool kit. The fighter is a hammer. Often, he's not even a very good one. He's a gavel, or that thing you use to tenderize meat. What you're describing is more the bard's role - contribute a moderate amount in all situations. The wizard's role is "solve problems/encounters singlehandedly because I am friggin' magic."

You are describing how things are, which we all agree is broken. I'm describing what I think the best modification is.


But what happens when a non-combat encounter comes up? Say, "Hey, sorry buddy, but you're the combat guy, so why don't you let the rogue or cleric or wizard solve this one."

Well, you could use a "background" system to give him non-class abilities, but yeah he's not going to shine in noncombat.


Whereas in the opposite scenario, the other classes are not told that they're supposed to sit this one out.

But they are (or should be) second-place to the fighter there.


Combat is the heart of D&D

No, "getting what you set out to get" is the heart of D&D; combat is merely the most common way of accomplishing that goal.


A fighter could manipulate the action economy

I'm wary of action-economy manipulation in general, but he certainly should be at least as good at it as a wizard (I favor doing that by nerfing wizards, but if you don't then he needs to be better at that).


could target multiple saves

An option, though I'd rather reduce the saves targeted by casters instead. But he certainly should have at least as much choice of what to target in combat as casters do.


could gain the mobility required to compete once Fly come on board

I'd rather give him boosts that let him beat a flyer even when he personally can't fly, but fighter vs. flying wizard in direct combat should go to the fighter.

Oh, and you forgot to mention giving the fighter good Reflex and Will saves.


The problem with that philosophy (for any class) is that most encounters are intended to be dealt with by specialists, and the rest of your party will likely be specialists in their chosen field. In most games, playing the understudy means you don't get to do much.

You get to do the stuff that has no specialist in your party; the party will of course attempt to avoid those situations as much as possible, but sometimes it can't.
You get to contribute somewhat even if you're not the primary contributor. The party rogue might be the most important when it comes to a locked door, but by casting manipulate lock you can help him out somewhat. The fighter is of course more important to combat than you are, but you can still use combat spells to contribute. Etc.

Gnorman
2013-01-20, 04:03 PM
"Being magic" is not a party role.

I beg to differ on this one. A wizard's role is so poorly defined due to his large number of options that "being magic" is the only way to properly describe it. How would you describe it differently?


You are describing how things are, which we all agree is broken. I'm describing what I think the best modification is.

And I was telling you what my issue with your modification was - that I didn't think it did enough to close the magic/not magic gap. In my mind, wizards should not be able to do everything, even if they aren't very powerful while doing so. I think a necromancer should be fundamentally different from an illusionist, and they should not be able to accomplish the same things using the same tools. As it stands, they pretty much can.


Well, you could use a "background" system to give him non-class abilities, but yeah he's not going to shine in noncombat.

There is a difference between "not shining" and "not being able to participate." Depending on how you build it, the latter could hold sway.


But they are (or should be) second-place to the fighter there.

I agree with you there. But I just don't like the setup where one class is good at something and bad at everything else, while the other classes are good at something and still okay at other things. You could make them Tier 4 (not being able to contribute outside of their niche), or you could try and make the fighter Tier 3 (letting him contribute outside of his niche). I prefer the latter, even if it just means a few more skill points and class skills (though that, as mentioned, usually is not enough). He's not going to be a better negotiator than the bard, or a better sneak than the rogue, but being able to do something out of combat would be nice.


No, "getting what you set out to get" is the heart of D&D; combat is merely the most common way of accomplishing that goal.

This is semantics.


I'm wary of action-economy manipulation in general, but he certainly should be at least as good at it as a wizard (I favor doing that by nerfing wizards, but if you don't then he needs to be better at that).

If anyone should be manipulating the action economy, it should be the fighter. Combat hinges on actions. The combat specialist should shine there.


An option, though I'd rather reduce the saves targeted by casters instead. But he certainly should have at least as much choice of what to target in combat as casters do.

Agreed on both counts.


I'd rather give him boosts that let him beat a flyer even when he personally can't fly, but fighter vs. flying wizard in direct combat should go to the fighter.

What kind of boosts would those be? Flying wizards aren't going to be in direct combat with a fighter - the whole point of flying is to NOT be in direct combat. How does a 5th-level fighter deal with a wizard raining fireballs on him from 600' above? For that matter, how does he reach the flying citadel in which that wizard dwells?

Perhaps the fighter's new design space can be "monster-wrangling." There's a lot of mythological foundation for that, and it could be interesting. He gets the abilities of monsters he defeats in combat, or perhaps he's just so good at taming/riding them. There's an issue of this turning D&D into Pokemon, but I'm just throwing stuff at walls here.


Oh, and you forgot to mention giving the fighter good Reflex and Will saves.

Always an option, but numerical bonuses alone will not suffice.

I think what you're going for here is a defense of the Tier 4 ideal, which I don't necessarily have a problem with. The fighter needs improvement on that grounds, badly. But here's where the tension (and the bringing it back to the OP) comes in - I think the fighter should have abilities outside of combat. Does that mean Tier 3? I don't know, and to be honest I agree that the difference is slight enough to not warrant a huge discussion.

Deepbluediver
2013-01-20, 07:27 PM
You get to do the stuff that has no specialist in your party; the party will of course attempt to avoid those situations as much as possible, but sometimes it can't.
You get to contribute somewhat even if you're not the primary contributor. The party rogue might be the most important when it comes to a locked door, but by casting manipulate lock you can help him out somewhat. The fighter is of course more important to combat than you are, but you can still use combat spells to contribute. Etc.

Unless the other three people in your party are all the same non-wizard class for some reason, there will be very few situations that some one else can't handle just as well as a non-specialist, unless the DM is specifically catering to everyone else's weaknesses, which is kinda the definition of a tier 4 or 5 class.

I'm not convinced that "party sidekick" is a sufficiently exciting role to sustain any class.

What is the problem with the wizard being able to specialize to fulfill some function, provided they can't be all specialties all the time?


What kind of boosts would those be? Flying wizards aren't going to be in direct combat with a fighter - the whole point of flying is to NOT be in direct combat. How does a 5th-level fighter deal with a wizard raining fireballs on him from 600' above? For that matter, how does he reach the flying citadel in which that wizard dwells?

This is an example of how a balance fix cannot totally depend on just changing classes. There are plenty of other frustrating rules in 3.5, and this is actually 2 of them.

The two problems here are spell-ranges, and how difficult archery is for non Dex-stacking feat-abundant classes.
Its a problem for many melee-centric builds, not just Fighters.


I think what you're going for here is a defense of the Tier 4 ideal, which I don't necessarily have a problem with. The fighter needs improvement on that grounds, badly. But here's where the tension (and the bringing it back to the OP) comes in - I think the fighter should have abilities outside of combat. Does that mean Tier 3? I don't know, and to be honest I agree that the difference is slight enough to not warrant a huge discussion.

First, you need to get people to stop thinking "fighter". By definition, the Fighter fights, and so that's where most people's thought processe's end. I renamed my fix'ed Fighter the "Warrior" as one poster suggested, so that I could claim it was anyone "trained in the practice of war". That is intentionally vague and variable enough that you could attach any number of versatile options relating to buffing, unusual tactics, synergy with other classes, battlefield command, etc, and still fall within my stated boundary.

Yitzi
2013-01-20, 10:57 PM
I beg to differ on this one. A wizard's role is so poorly defined due to his large number of options that "being magic" is the only way to properly describe it. How would you describe it differently?

His role is "everything". Now, as it stands that's horribly game-breaking, so you can either restrict it (which IMO is the less interesting aspect, though for clerics it may be the right approach), or keep his role at "everything" but lower his effectiveness at it.


And I was telling you what my issue with your modification was - that I didn't think it did enough to close the magic/not magic gap.

I don't see why not.


In my mind, wizards should not be able to do everything, even if they aren't very powerful while doing so. I think a necromancer should be fundamentally different from an illusionist, and they should not be able to accomplish the same things using the same tools.

I think it should be more a spectrum than a discrete set of choices. Someone who focuses purely on necromancy should not be able to do illusion (though he'll be better at necromancy than someone less specialized), and vice versa, but you should also be able to have someone whose primary focus is necromancy but has some capability in other schools as well.

What you're proposing is essentially requiring every wizard to specialize and have seven banned schools (or N-1 if you change the number of schools); I'd rather allow them to choose how much to specialize.


There is a difference between "not shining" and "not being able to participate." Depending on how you build it, the latter could hold sway.

And if that does turn out to be the case, so what? I could try to make an eloquent argument that it's ok if not every character participates in every encounter...but it's easier just to refer you to the OP of this very thread.


I agree with you there. But I just don't like the setup where one class is good at something and bad at everything else, while the other classes are good at something and still okay at other things.

Definitely. If the other classes are good at their specialty and okay at other things, then a class that is bad at everything else needs to be superb at its specialty.


You could make them Tier 4 (not being able to contribute outside of their niche), or you could try and make the fighter Tier 3 (letting him contribute outside of his niche). I prefer the latter, even if it just means a few more skill points and class skills (though that, as mentioned, usually is not enough). He's not going to be a better negotiator than the bard, or a better sneak than the rogue, but being able to do something out of combat would be nice.

To me, that's not a fighter.


This is semantics.

Not really. It's emphasizing a very important point that many people forget: Combat is the most detailed part of the D&D rules because it's the most complicated; it does not have to be the most common unless the party decides it should be. Tricking a band of orcs into getting out of your way is worth just as much XP as killing them (assuming that the mission wasn't to kill the orcs, of course.)


If anyone should be manipulating the action economy, it should be the fighter.

Definitely. Although I'd be open to the rogue, and maybe even monk and ranger, being as good as the fighter (but not better, except by virtue of ability scores) at that, since they're also very mobility/reaction focused classes.


What kind of boosts would those be? Flying wizards aren't going to be in direct combat with a fighter - the whole point of flying is to NOT be in direct combat.

No, it's to not be in melee combat.


How does a 5th-level fighter deal with a wizard raining fireballs on him from 600' above?

He dodges the fireballs while shooting the wizard (and hitting fairly often at that distance) with his bow.


For that matter, how does he reach the flying citadel in which that wizard dwells?

For that, he might need help from another caster or a flying mount; he's a specialist in fighting, not in getting to the fight.


Always an option, but numerical bonuses alone will not suffice.

They won't suffice due to not being interesting, but they should help a lot in terms of balance. The key, though, is to have defensive numerical bonuses as well as offensive ones. The fighter doesn't need help hitting or doing damage (well, except against concealment and so on), but he definitely could use the ability to tank a wizard's entire daily repertoire (though that actually might be a bit much).


I think what you're going for here is a defense of the Tier 4 ideal

I actually feel that the ideal is tier 3 or 4, with some classes being better suited to tier 3 and some suited to tier 4.


But here's where the tension (and the bringing it back to the OP) comes in - I think the fighter should have abilities outside of combat. Does that mean Tier 3?

I think the best way is to allow him to have abilities outside of combat, but not have those abilities come from his class.


Unless the other three people in your party are all the same non-wizard class for some reason, there will be very few situations that some one else can't handle just as well as a non-specialist

Not likely. Say the other three are a fighter, a social-focused rogue, and a cleric of Fharlanghn (great for getting places.) Now you're in the dungeon and come to a locked door. How do you get past? The rogue has a few ranks in Open Lock but not enough to pick it. The fighter could bash it down but that would alert the enemies on the other side. The cleric could try to Dimension Door the party across, but you'd have no idea what you're teleporting into.
But you're a wizard. So you could use Manipulate Lock (a weakened form of Knock) to help the rogue pick it. You could cast Silence so that the fighter can bash it down without losing the element of surprise. You could scry the next room so that everyone knows what you're going to be teleporting into. Of the four, you are the only indispensable one for this challenge.

And that's an example that's fairly good at covering stuff. What if the rogue were stealth-focused and the cleric were a cleric of a battle deity? Then there's huge areas where the wizard is the most effective. (Of course, the party will try to avoid those encounters as much as possible, but sometimes can't.)


I'm not convinced that "party sidekick" is a sufficiently exciting role to sustain any class.

I think it depends on the player. Some will like having a minor role often; others will prefer to specialize.


What is the problem with the wizard being able to specialize to fulfill some function, provided they can't be all specialties all the time?

Because:
(1) Then who's going to be the "does the stuff no one else can" person?
(2) That's just not how magic seems to me that it should work. A magic-user should have access to more than one or two spells. (And let's face it; to limit a wizard to a single function, you will have to limit him to a handful of spells; a wizard with access to a whole school has a lot of options.)


This is an example of how a balance fix cannot totally depend on just changing classes. There are plenty of other frustrating rules in 3.5, and this is actually 2 of them.

The two problems here are spell-ranges, and how difficult archery is for non Dex-stacking feat-abundant classes.

Spell-ranges is really just a question of a certain class feature (or can be dealt with by allowing archers to handle even greater ranges), and difficult archery is very much fixable by changing classes.

So actually most if not all of a balance fix can be based on changing classes; it just has to change classes in a way that affects the relevant rules issues.


First, you need to get people to stop thinking "fighter". By definition, the Fighter fights, and so that's where most people's thought processe's end. I renamed my fix'ed Fighter the "Warrior" as one poster suggested, so that I could claim it was anyone "trained in the practice of war". That is intentionally vague and variable enough that you could attach any number of versatile options relating to buffing, unusual tactics, synergy with other classes, battlefield command, etc, and still fall within my stated boundary.

Clearly, if you want to make something that's not a fighter but rather more of a warlord, then that can be quite a bit more versatile. I still think there's room for the fighter, though.

TuggyNE
2013-01-20, 11:23 PM
I think it should be more a spectrum than a discrete set of choices. Someone who focuses purely on necromancy should not be able to do illusion (though he'll be better at necromancy than someone less specialized), and vice versa, but you should also be able to have someone whose primary focus is necromancy but has some capability in other schools as well.

What you're proposing is essentially requiring every wizard to specialize and have seven banned schools (or N-1 if you change the number of schools); I'd rather allow them to choose how much to specialize.

I'm not sure why so few people use the psionic method specializing: make most powers available to any caster, but the school-defining powers available only to specialists, and then make everyone a specialist.


He dodges the fireballs while shooting the wizard (and hitting fairly often at that distance) with his bow.

By "dodge", do you mean "make Reflex saves some of the time for half damage" or something more impressive?

Gnorman
2013-01-20, 11:59 PM
My point is that the fighter is (or perhaps just should be) conceptually capable of more than fighting. If you believe that makes him "not a fighter," then we will never see eye to eye on this.


What you're proposing is essentially requiring every wizard to specialize and have seven banned schools (or N-1 if you change the number of schools); I'd rather allow them to choose how much to specialize.

No; you're strawmanning me here. I said that a necromancer and an illusionist should play differently. I didn't say that they should only be able to cast necromancy or illusion spells. Compare the Dread Necromancer to the Beguiler and you'll have the distinction I was aiming at. Each one has access to spells outside of their respective schools of specialty and yet play fundamentally differently. Splitting the wizard up into those two classes (+ Warmage) and you get a surprisingly good method of dealing with the wizard's issues.


I could try to make an eloquent argument that it's ok if not every character participates in every encounter

Every time you do this, you're cutting off someone at the table from playing the game you've agreed to play together. I don't think that's wise.

I do not want to play a sidekick or a minion or a second stringer. I know of few players who do. Rotating out the sidekick position does not make me feel better for whatever percentage of time I am forced into the role. Classes should be able to contribute to all situations; perhaps not equally in all, but at least in a way that prevents one player from feeling as if they have to spend the next ten minutes watching everyone else have fun.

Realms of Chaos
2013-01-21, 01:33 AM
I do not want to play a sidekick or a minion or a second stringer. I know of few players who do. Rotating out the sidekick position does not make me feel better for whatever percentage of time I am forced into the role. Classes should be able to contribute to all situations; perhaps not equally in all, but at least in a way that prevents one player from feeling as if they have to spend the next ten minutes watching everyone else have fun.

The thing is... this is how the game plays. Outside of combat, at least.

If you run into a locked door, one party member does something about it while the other 3 sit around being sidekicks (even if all of them have full ranks in open lock). If you need to track someone down, one person does that work while the rest just sit there even if they all have the track feat. If someone is being unpleasant, only one person needs to intimidate/bluff/diplomacy/charm them into being nicer. Outside of combat, which lasts multiple rounds and benefits from having multiple people participating, there is often only 1 person actively working towards something while the rest are acting the sidekicks.

Mind you, I may be overstating things a bit. Having multiple people with similar strengths, while not meaning much on a good day, gives the parties more chances at success and needing everyone to have good skills is all-but-necessary for certain tasks (stealth or swimming, for example). In general, however, the vast majority of non-combat tasks out there involve one person simply succeeding while everyone else watches.

That said, I certainly do understand your complaints now that I've thought things over a bit more. While everyone has a turn to act in combat, noncombat gameplay consists of roughly taking turns solving problems... except that the dedicated warrior character doesn't get any (or many) such turns (while high tiers get a few too many turns) and it's difficult/impossible to "compensate" the player by making them more powerful than spellcasters in combat to really highlight them in their chosen arena. Of course, even if you'd accomplish that, sitting out for non-combat periods still wouldn't necessarily be fun.

With that said, I do wonder if that design (though ill-conceived) may have been intentioned. One of my early impressions of the game (using the healer/blaster/fighter/skill-monkey model that only exists in theory) was that fighters weren't supposed to do much and that skill-monkeys, possessing far more skills but less capable in combat, were supposed to compensate for this.

Gnorman
2013-01-21, 03:18 AM
The thing is... this is how the game plays. Outside of combat, at least.

If you run into a locked door, one party member does something about it while the other 3 sit around being sidekicks (even if all of them have full ranks in open lock). If you need to track someone down, one person does that work while the rest just sit there even if they all have the track feat. If someone is being unpleasant, only one person needs to intimidate/bluff/diplomacy/charm them into being nicer. Outside of combat, which lasts multiple rounds and benefits from having multiple people participating, there is often only 1 person actively working towards something while the rest are acting the sidekicks.

Mind you, I may be overstating things a bit. Having multiple people with similar strengths, while not meaning much on a good day, gives the parties more chances at success and needing everyone to have good skills is all-but-necessary for certain tasks (stealth or swimming, for example). In general, however, the vast majority of non-combat tasks out there involve one person simply succeeding while everyone else watches.

That is a totally valid point, and I will admit it slipped my mind entirely. It'd be nice to construct these challenges in a way that would allow for the uses of multiple skills, so that different characters could solve the problem in slightly different ways, but yeah - only one person is going to be using that skill at any given moment, unlike in combat. Otherwise, things start to resemble 4E's skill challenges.


That said, I certainly do understand your complaints now that I've thought things over a bit more. While everyone has a turn to act in combat, noncombat gameplay consists of roughly taking turns solving problems... except that the dedicated warrior character doesn't get any (or many) such turns (while high tiers get a few too many turns) and it's difficult/impossible to "compensate" the player by making them more powerful than spellcasters in combat to really highlight them in their chosen arena. Of course, even if you'd accomplish that, sitting out for non-combat periods still wouldn't necessarily be fun.

There are probably ways to make non-combat encounters cooperative, rather than singular. If the party is trying to get information about an elusive wizard, perhaps the fighter can use Intimidate to shake down one of the wizard's known associates, while the cleric uses Sense Motive to see through the lies and the rogue uses Bluff to play good cop. The wizard might be able to use Spellcraft or Knowledge skills to determine if the minion's description of the wizard's hideout is magically viable, or whatever.

Or maybe you have the classic enclosed-space-filling-up-with-water trap. The rogue Searches for hidden levers, the wizard Flys to the ceiling and sees if there is a way out, the cleric uses Control Water to buy some time, and the fighter bashes down the weak point in the mortar to diver the water elsewhere.


With that said, I do wonder if that design (though ill-conceived) may have been intentioned. One of my early impressions of the game (using the healer/blaster/fighter/skill-monkey model that only exists in theory) was that fighters weren't supposed to do much and that skill-monkeys, possessing far more skills but less capable in combat, were supposed to compensate for this.

Played as intended by the designers, yeah, they kind of had their niche. And even now, if played as healers/blasters, casters are much less likely to offend our sensibilities and dominate everything. But when the cleric fights better than the fighter and the wizard solves problems better than the rogue, we totally have an issue to deal with.

ArcturusV
2013-01-21, 03:20 AM
Well, not only that, when the Rogues COULD do something in combat it was the result of well execution of Non-Combative stealth skills, distractions, etc. You could get that juicy backstab damage, once really. Resulting in you waiting until you had the perfect moment mid-combat to strike while they were distracted and not noticing you due to stealth skills.

The fact that "Backstab" damage is so easy now that you can do it safely from range and every turn is really a shame. Least to me. And again has stepped on the toes of the Fighter as the primary weapon damage dealer. Least in most games I've been a part of lately.

chrisrawr
2013-01-21, 09:20 AM
I like this. Updating homebrew to reflect the subtle but less-wrong change.

Yitzi
2013-01-21, 11:25 AM
I'm not sure why so few people use the psionic method specializing: make most powers available to any caster, but the school-defining powers available only to specialists, and then make everyone a specialist.

Maybe just because it doesn't say "wizard" to us. It may be a more promising approach for clerics, though.

Although even so, I feel that what a specialist can do at level 5, a nonspecialist should be able to do by level 20 (probably a lot earlier.)


By "dodge", do you mean "make Reflex saves some of the time for half damage" or something more impressive?

I was thinking more "reliably take his move action on the other guy's turn to get out of the area of the fireball", but anything that lets him reliably take no damage would work.


My point is that the fighter is (or perhaps just should be) conceptually capable of more than fighting. If you believe that makes him "not a fighter," then we will never see eye to eye on this.

Perhaps so.


No; you're strawmanning me here.

My apologies; it was unintentional.


I said that a necromancer and an illusionist should play differently. I didn't say that they should only be able to cast necromancy or illusion spells. Compare the Dread Necromancer to the Beguiler and you'll have the distinction I was aiming at. Each one has access to spells outside of their respective schools of specialty and yet play fundamentally differently. Splitting the wizard up into those two classes (+ Warmage) and you get a surprisingly good method of dealing with the wizard's issues.

Ah, so have each one primarily use their school (and be best at it) but still have a sprinkling of other schools*? That could work, but I still don't think it should be mandatory.

*I presume this is what you mean; I've never actually played the Beguiler or Dread Necromancer, and don't even know what they're capable of, not having the relevant splatbooks.


Every time you do this, you're cutting off someone at the table from playing the game you've agreed to play together. I don't think that's wise.

I do not want to play a sidekick or a minion or a second stringer. I know of few players who do. Rotating out the sidekick position does not make me feel better for whatever percentage of time I am forced into the role. Classes should be able to contribute to all situations; perhaps not equally in all, but at least in a way that prevents one player from feeling as if they have to spend the next ten minutes watching everyone else have fun.

I think Realms of Chaos responded well to this one; everyone has jobs they're good at and jobs they're not, though even when they can't help mechanically they may be able to contribute ideas. (And let's face it, a good game is defined a lot more by the ability to contribute strategically than the ability to roll high numbers.)


There are probably ways to make non-combat encounters cooperative, rather than singular. If the party is trying to get information about an elusive wizard, perhaps the fighter can use Intimidate to shake down one of the wizard's known associates, while the cleric uses Sense Motive to see through the lies and the rogue uses Bluff to play good cop. The wizard might be able to use Spellcraft or Knowledge skills to determine if the minion's description of the wizard's hideout is magically viable, or whatever.

And that sort of thing works well even without fixes. (Well, except that Sense Motive isn't actually a class skill for clerics...) Of course, that's if the fighter has bothered to put ranks in Intimidate; he might not, in which case he's made the decision to focus purely on combat (of course, if the wizard's other associates come to assassinate the informer, he might need to go hold them off single-handedly.)


Or maybe you have the classic enclosed-space-filling-up-with-water trap. The rogue Searches for hidden levers, the wizard Flys to the ceiling and sees if there is a way out, the cleric uses Control Water to buy some time, and the fighter bashes down the weak point in the mortar to diver the water elsewhere.

Water Breathing would be more useful (and lower-level) than Control Water in that case...


Played as intended by the designers, yeah, they kind of had their niche. And even now, if played as healers/blasters, casters are much less likely to offend our sensibilities and dominate everything. But when the cleric fights better than the fighter and the wizard solves problems better than the rogue, we totally have an issue to deal with.

Yeah, but rather than make the cleric completely unable to fight and the wizard completely unable to solve problems, I'd rather make the cleric have to specialize (a cleric of a battle god will be a fairly good fighter, though not as good as the actual fighter class, and will have good buffing ability on top of it; a cleric of a healing god won't be a good fighter at all, but will be a great healer, etc.), and the wizard have a wider range of problems he can solve, but not as effectively as a rogue.


Well, not only that, when the Rogues COULD do something in combat it was the result of well execution of Non-Combative stealth skills, distractions, etc. You could get that juicy backstab damage, once really. Resulting in you waiting until you had the perfect moment mid-combat to strike while they were distracted and not noticing you due to stealth skills.

The fact that "Backstab" damage is so easy now that you can do it safely from range and every turn is really a shame. Least to me. And again has stepped on the toes of the Fighter as the primary weapon damage dealer. Least in most games I've been a part of lately.

Definitely. Rogues' sneak attack should be more comparable to an assassin's death attack in terms of both difficulty of getting it and effectiveness.

Realms of Chaos
2013-01-21, 11:55 AM
There are probably ways to make non-combat encounters cooperative, rather than singular. If the party is trying to get information about an elusive wizard, perhaps the fighter can use Intimidate to shake down one of the wizard's known associates, while the cleric uses Sense Motive to see through the lies and the rogue uses Bluff to play good cop. The wizard might be able to use Spellcraft or Knowledge skills to determine if the minion's description of the wizard's hideout is magically viable, or whatever.

Or maybe you have the classic enclosed-space-filling-up-with-water trap. The rogue Searches for hidden levers, the wizard Flys to the ceiling and sees if there is a way out, the cleric uses Control Water to buy some time, and the fighter bashes down the weak point in the mortar to diver the water elsewhere.

Hmmmm... I think that I know how to rephrase your earlier complaint to make more sense but it requires a bit of clarification on my end. When you referred to non-combat encounters, I realized that non-combat encounters are exceedingly rare in most games. Instead, most games incorporate a long series of non-combat speed-bumps easily overcome with a single spell or skill check that, collectively with combat, makes up adventures. A locked door hardly makes for an encounter, for example. Even with the entire procedure around one, I doubt that most traps (other than maybe encounter traps from dungeonomicon) would really feel like one either.

Mind you, your examples above are of non-combat encounters, which could likely be divided into intrigue encounters and puzzle encounters (as opposed to combat encounters). The 3 big things about these fully-fledged non-combat encounters (at least from my perspective) would seem to be the following:

They aren't automatic or built into the game system. Much of the D&D mechanics seem to assume that speed bumps are the norm and non-combat encounters would thus have to be crafted from scratch by DMs, taking more work and planning than the skill challenges of 4e or simply facing the party against a monster of the appropriate CR (as horrible as CR can be at times).
Most players are used to the traditional speed-bump system, to the point where I've had encounters go on with only one person trying anything while everyone else, though capable of helping in other ways, just watched like with any other challenge.
Inside a non-combat encounter, it would likely be appropriate to say that everyone except a tier 4 class would have something to do in most circumstances (unless the DM specifically plans for them, as with the mortar in the flooding room). This is where the problem would be, though intrigue encounters allow for role-playing and puzzle-solving encounters allow for critical thinking (letting the fighter solve the problem even if he or she needs others to implement it).


So... yeah. In an average game with little other than speed bumps, I doubt that tier 4 classes would have too many difficulties.

If the DM wants to includes other forms of encounters but specifically plans them so that the tier 4 class still has something to do (seeing as the encounter had to be made from scratch anyways), the tier 4 class is still golden.

If a DM wanted to focus on types of encounters other than combat encounters (or just wanted to de-emphasize combat), most tier 4 classes would have a problem with that.

As far as I can tell, not having much outside of your main specialty only A) limits the types of non-combat encounters a DM can include you in without effort and B) means that you shouldn't be playing in campaigns ill-suited for the class in the first place.

T.G. Oskar
2013-01-21, 01:42 PM
If you run into a locked door, one party member does something about it while the other 3 sit around being sidekicks (even if all of them have full ranks in open lock). If you need to track someone down, one person does that work while the rest just sit there even if they all have the track feat. If someone is being unpleasant, only one person needs to intimidate/bluff/diplomacy/charm them into being nicer. Outside of combat, which lasts multiple rounds and benefits from having multiple people participating, there is often only 1 person actively working towards something while the rest are acting the sidekicks.

Mind you, I may be overstating things a bit. Having multiple people with similar strengths, while not meaning much on a good day, gives the parties more chances at success and needing everyone to have good skills is all-but-necessary for certain tasks (stealth or swimming, for example). In general, however, the vast majority of non-combat tasks out there involve one person simply succeeding while everyone else watches.

I presume you consider using aid another "being [a] sidekick". Sure, it's a meager +2 to the skill bonus (granted: it's an untyped bonus, so it stacks) to the roll of someone else, but only one person does the roll, instead of focusing on making multiple rolls, take the highest one, and then all others become bonuses.

Then again, it makes people focus on different skills, so it breeds specialization over versatility.

That said: the wizard has the unfortunate baggage of mages other than Tolkien, as proper Tolkien Wizards (i.e. the Maiar) don't show the incredible power D&D Wizards show. This is a baggage from other books of fantasy, where mages hold absolute power, but that warriors are capable of winning through magical artifacts alone as the wizard always looks for more power and inevitably needs a ritual to summon a more powerful entity. That, and how 3.x streamlined spellcasting to be faster, which made Wizards kings. You can expect, say, Conan viziers to share this degree of power.

4e hinted at a good direction to take Wizards, but exaggerated way too much. The notion of rituals for some of the out-of-combat spells and limiting most effects to a single encounter (at most) allows reining some of the Wizard's power, but keeps its capacity almost intact. A lot of the spells have very long durations (including permanent spells), others have extremely long casting times (am I really gonna waste a spell slot to prepare Hallow, or Unhallow, which takes an entire day to cast?); both are prime suspects for rituals (or better yet, the incantations from Unearthed Arcana, which can be used by anyone with the right abilities). Any spell that has a casting time any longer than, say, 3 full rounds (though I approve that all full spellcasters cast their spells as full-round actions), or that have permanent durations, or that essentially modify an area (Teleportation Circle, for example; but specifically, GATE).

Sorry if this derails the thread, but I find interesting that notion about Tier 1 classes. It's an almost contradictory concept: everyone agrees that they need to be nerfed, but the power they bring is essentially limitless (or perceived as such), while mundane classes need to be buffed, but mundane ways are essentially limited. It's important because trying to speak about how to buff mundane classes (or nerf magical classes) out of combat requires defining and altering the boundaries between mundane and magical, that one (not necessarily everyone: that's only important for purposes of creating a game) can be comfortable with.

Yitzi
2013-01-21, 03:46 PM
As far as I can tell, not having much outside of your main specialty only A) limits the types of non-combat encounters a DM can include you in without effort and B) means that you shouldn't be playing in campaigns ill-suited for the class in the first place.

Of course, it's worth noting that someone with twice the combat capability as everyone else and no noncombat ability is still worth it in a campaign where a full 50% of the serious encounters are noncombat.