Spitballing a Tier tweak idea [3.5/PF]

[Tanuki Tales]

So, I had an idea in the shower this morning and wanted to know if anyone has attempted a more complex rendering of it:

Stratify the leveling system based on the Tier of a class, either by changing the required EXP totals to go up a level or by how much "one level" is worth.

In the first thought process, it's similar to older editions of DnD as I've heard of it. A Tier 1 class would have a much higher amount of EXP required and would lower significantly slower than a Tier 5 class.

In the second thought process, a character would have "Level slots" that run from 1 to 20 and a class' Tier would determine how it fills that "Level slot". 1 normal level of a Tier 1 class would fill it for example, while multiple levels of a Tier 5 would fill the same slot. Classes would still have a maximum of 20 levels, meaning eventually characters with lower tier classes would need to multiclass.


This is just a rough idea and isn't meant to be the god-send fix to class balance, nor is it ready to hit the table as I mentioned it here. It's just a rough concept that I felt might be fun in practice.

I also am not terribly sure whether this belonged here, in the d20 subforum, or in the Homebrew subforum. If it's the latter, then I apologize for the misplacement and will contact a mod to move it.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Making wizards and clerics lag a few levels behind everyone else won't help. The Tier problem is about versatility, not power. Remember, this is a "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" problem. Eventually wizards will outpace warriors no matter how much you scale them back.

The D&D classes are fundamentally broken. If you want to fix it, you have to remove the concept of D&D spellcasting entirely, and replace it with something like 4e did. There is no easy fix to 3.5 D&D unless you ban the wizard, cleric, and druid.

[Tanuki Tales]

Making wizards and clerics lag a few levels behind everyone else won't help. The Tier problem is about versatility, not power. Remember, this is a "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" problem. Eventually wizards will outpace warriors no matter how much you scale them back.

The D&D classes are fundamentally broken. If you want to fix it, you have to remove the concept of D&D spellcasting entirely, and replace it with something like 4e did. There is no easy fix to 3.5 D&D unless you ban the wizard, cleric, and druid.

Sorry, I guess my wording was a little vague.

This isn't meant to fix Tier imbalance or to fix class imbalance. I'm not looking to do that at all since I know you have to gut the system and I already have 40 pages of house rules to that end. I'm doing this for some new players I'm introducing to the game and which may bleed over to my other games.

It's meant to give lower tier classes a little more of a leg up, though looking at it, only my second part of the idea does anything about that by giving more "levels" to lower Tier characters.

Which you didn't actually make any comments on. Thoughts?

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Which you didn't actually make any comments on. Thoughts?

Would you be using the UA Gestalt rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm) for lower-tier classes? Those rules do make for slightly more versatile characters, but as soon as you add rules about which class can gestalt with which it might get needlessly complex. I think it's simplest to just run a gestalt campaign and encourage people to play martial/caster hybrids.

[Tanuki Tales]

Would you be using the UA Gestalt rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm) for lower-tier classes? Those rules do make for slightly more versatile characters, but as soon as you add rules about which class can gestalt with which it might get needlessly complex. I think it's simplest to just run a gestalt campaign and encourage people to play martial/caster hybrids.

I guess it's superficially like gestalt.

For example, let's say it goes like this:

{table]Tier|Levels per Level Slot
1|1
2|1
3|2
4|2
5|3
6|4[/table]

The game starts off at "Level 1". You have someone playing a Wizard, a Bard and a Warrior. The Wizard would be a first level wizard, the Bard would be a second level bard and the Warrior would be a fourth level Warrior. They're all considered "Level 1", but since Wizard levels are weighted heavier than Warrior levels, the Warrior has more to make up the difference.

Looking at them again at level 10, you'd have a Wizard 10, a Bard 20 and a Warrior 20 (which was reached at "5th level" so he would have multiclassed out).

That's just a crude example to illustrate the idea. That's not necessarily the ratios in mind and you'd need to take a look at Base Attack Bonus, Save Progression and maybe Hit points using this concept.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Okay, a major downside I see here is the way that save DCs and to-hit modifiers scale. If your wizard is level 10-15 and your warrior is a fighter 10/ranger 10, then you're gonna have issues. Anything strong enough to challenge the warrior will be able to one-shot the wizard with anything. Most monsters at that level have AOEs that can hit the entire party, and anything that is a threat to the warrior will insta-kill the wizard. If you use that system, you will also need to overhaul monster design, or overhaul warrior design so that they can effectively protect other party members.

[Tanuki Tales]

Okay, a major downside I see here is the way that save DCs and to-hit modifiers scale. If your wizard is level 10-15 and your warrior is a fighter 10/ranger 10, then you're gonna have issues. Anything strong enough to challenge the warrior will be able to one-shot the wizard with anything. Most monsters at that level have AOEs that can hit the entire party, and anything that is a threat to the warrior will insta-kill the wizard. If you use that system, you will also need to overhaul monster design, or overhaul warrior design so that they can effectively protect other party members.

Which is why I'm spitballing it.

Some kind of multi-gestalting may be the better option, but I'm not sure how to do that out. I like the idea of a system where lower tiered classes and higher tiered classes are treated like a monetary system. You get 25 cents worth of currency; a Tier 1 class is a quarter, while lower tiered classes are dimes, nickles and pennies respectively.

I don't want to have to impose Melee/Magic (or any other supernatural subsystem) gestalts.

[Flickerdart]

Giving extra levels to a non-versatile class is not going to make it more versatile. A fighter deals some damage at level 1, and still deals some damage at level 20. But whether he's level 1 or level 20, that's still all he can do.

[Snowbluff]

The D&D classes are fundamentally broken. That would imply they do not function. We know this is not the case.


If you want to fix it, you have to remove the concept of D&D spellcasting entirely, and replace it with something like 4e did. There is no easy fix to 3.5 D&D unless you ban the wizard, cleric, and druid.

This can be arranged, however. Not that it's a fix, but I encourage the use of Tier 3 for my players.

I would do the lower tier gestalt thing, but it's simply too complex for my players as well

[Tanuki Tales]

What about this as a quick and dirty lower tier gestalting method:

Tier 1 and 2 classes can't be part of a gestalt.
Tier 3 classes can gestalt with any one class of equal Tier or lower.
Tier 4 and lower classes can gestalt with any two classes of equal Tier or lower.

For example, let's say a level 3 character show casing all of the above stipulations plays out like this:
1st level is a tri-gestalt of Warrior/Rogue/Soul Knife
2nd level is a normal gestalt of Binder/Psychic Warrior
3rd level is one level of Wizard

[Fyermind]

I could actually play a Knight/Marshal/Dragon Shaman. I could be a real leader :D

[Snowbluff]

Tier 3 classes can gestalt with any one class of equal Tier or lower.

2nd level is a normal gestalt of Binder/Psychic Warrior


Seems like a bit much. T3 are already pretty competent. Maybe just give them a gestalt of a lower tier?

I mean, think of the Warblade/Factotum!

[Tanuki Tales]

Seems like a bit much. T3 are already pretty competent. Maybe just give them a gestalt of a lower tier?

I mean, think of the Warblade/Factotum!

Point, but would a straight Tier 3 + Tier 4 or lower be able to keep up with a straight Tier 2?

[Snowbluff]

Point, but would a straight Tier 3 + Tier 4 or lower be able to keep up with a straight Tier 2?

Well, the thing about T2 is it can easily be played as a T3 depending on how it is specialized. I don't think a combination of Sub-T3 classes would be enough to match a good T2. I think the better objective would be able to provide more interesting and complex characters who want to mess around with the lesser classes, rather than attempting to balance the entire system.

I mean, a 'Tier 3' can include a Rainbow Warsnake, which we know does not demonstrate the abilities of a T3 despite it's lower tier. Optimization level is a very important factor when considering tiers.

[Larkas]

You're over thinking things if you want to go gestalt. Also, the work has already been done for you. I personally like the option presented by JaronK: T1-2 are normal, T3-4 can gestalt with NPC classes (but Adept), T5-6 can gestalt with any other T5-6 class.

This mainly take care of options, as presented by Snowbluff. I personally like the ideas of Fighter//Expert, Monk//Samurai and Rogue//Warrior.

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

You're over thinking things if you want to go gestalt. Also, the work has already been done for you. I personally like the option presented by JaronK: T1-2 are normal, T3-4 can gestalt with NPC classes (but Adept), T5-6 can gestalt with any other T5-6 class.

This mainly take care of options, as presented by Snowbluff. I personally like the ideas of Fighter//Expert, Monk//Samurai and Rogue//Warrior.

Just bear in mind that doing low-tier gestalt like this will not be able compensate for the raw versatility of tiers 1 and 2.

[Tanuki Tales]

Just bear in mind that doing low-tier gestalt like this will not be able compensate for the raw versatility of tiers 1 and 2.

Are you saying that in reference to mine, Snowball's and Larkas' concepts or just Larkas'?

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Are you saying that in reference to mine, Snowball's and Larkas' concepts or just Larkas'?

All of the above. The only way to give martial classes the versatility of prepared spellcasting is to give them something that's as versatile as prepared spellcasting. Tiers are not about raw power, they're about power across multiple categories (or, in the case of Tier 1, power across all categories).

For example, a warrior class with the special ability, "all melee attacks are automatic hits and do infinity damage" is merely a tier 4.

[Tanuki Tales]

All of the above. The only way to give martial classes the versatility of prepared spellcasting is to give them something that's as versatile as prepared spellcasting. Tiers are not about raw power, they're about power across multiple categories (or, in the case of Tier 1, power across all categories).

For example, a warrior class with the special ability, "all melee attacks are automatic hits and do infinity damage" is merely a tier 4.

We're well aware of that. :smallconfused:

Edit: And yes, I'm a little offended that you assumed three people in a Tier based thread didn't know what the Tier system is about.

[Snowbluff]

Are you saying that in reference to mine, Snowball's and Larkas' concepts or just Larkas'?


We're well aware of that. :smallconfused:

Edit: And yes, I'm a little offended that you assumed three people in a Tier based thread didn't know what the Tier system is about.

You understand the Tier system but don't know my name?

Anyway, I think a gestalt of Warmage/Beguiler would blow most Sorcerers out of the water. Eclectic and Advanced Learning would grant many of the better spells available to the already larger list. Add in other options for a larger list, and better skills point, the Sorcerer is not doing so hot.

[Emmerask]

And then its not even completely correct, tiers are not about power across multiple categories they are about potential.

[Tanuki Tales]

You understand the Tier system but don't know my name?

Ooops, sorry. I was multitasking making a pizza when typing that post. No offense meant. :smallredface:

[Snowbluff]

Ooops, sorry. I was multitasking making a pizza when typing that post. No offense meant. :smallredface:

:') *sniffle* *hugs it out*

Okay.

Anyway, tiers are weird. T3 casters are easily capable of doing most things a sorcerer can.

NPC gestalt sounds interesting. I might try it out soon.

[Tanuki Tales]

Anyway, tiers are weird. T3 casters are easily capable of doing most things a sorcerer can.

Well, that may be because, just looking at 3.5, there's only 2 casters in Tier 2 and one Manifester. It's a relatively sparse Tier, even after you added in the Summoning Binder.

Edit:

What I mean is that Tier 2 is more like a buffer zone than an actual tier. Just a little too much on the broken side/versatile side to be Tier 3 but not broken/versatile enough to be Tier 1.

[Snowbluff]

Well, that may be because, just looking at 3.5, there's only 2 casters in Tier 2 and one Manifester. It's a relatively sparse Tier, even after you added in the Summoning Binder.

Edit:

What I mean is that Tier 2 is more like a buffer zone than an actual tier. Just a little too much on the broken side/versatile side to be Tier 3 but not broken/versatile enough to be Tier 1.

I agree with the second statement. There is nothing a T1 can do that a T2 cannot... but a T1 can do everything!

[Thomar_of_Uointer]

Well, that may be because, just looking at 3.5, there's only 2 casters in Tier 2 and one Manifester. It's a relatively sparse Tier, even after you added in the Summoning Binder.

Edit:

What I mean is that Tier 2 is more like a buffer zone than an actual tier. Just a little too much on the broken side/versatile side to be Tier 3 but not broken/versatile enough to be Tier 1.

As far as I can tell, the only thing that distinguishes Tier 2 from Tier 1 is whether or not you can swap out your entire spell list with 9 hours of rest. A sorcerer can be strong, but the GM can get familiar with his finite bag of tricks and plan encounters accordingly. A wizard, on the other hand, has a different bag of tricks every morning.

[Deepbluediver]

I'm doing this for some new players I'm introducing to the game and which may bleed over to my other games.

How experienced are the players with RPGs in general?

The thing about new players is, they are not usually the ones to min-max it out and break the game on the first try. At the very least, its rare in my experience.
By the same token, they ARE likely to be the ones to make a bad class/feat/skill selection, and inadvertently push themselves down a few tier or 2. Depending on the game, not all classes can hit the Tier 1 peak anyhow; wizards without downtime to research extra spells are usually worse off than sorcerers, and druids only get Wildshape at level 5.

I've always taken the position that the GM should check over everyone's potential build prior to the start of the game and approve or reject as necessary. This is doubly-true for brand new players.
I think you should be able to keep things reasonable with just a moderate amount of effort, and without needing to much drastic house-ruling.


Two of the major problems with delaying the higher tier classes is that it doesn't always address the issues with spells and it makes the game very VERY rocket-tag-ish. If you where worried, I would do something simpler, like allowing all Tier 3's to gestalt with a tier 6 (for better skill points or BAB) and allowing tiers 4 and 5 to gestalt freely. This gives players more options and better stats, without letting HD, BAB, and saves get out of control.

[Just to Browse]

While flexibility is a problem, so is power. Monks are a crap class, because they're both weak and inflexible. Sorcerers get real ultimate power but are shorted in flexibility. Factotums have to pick good options in order to be strong, but get plenty of flexibility. Wizards are a god class because they are both strong and flexible.

In gestalting or multiclassing based on tiers, you don't solve the flexibility issue but you can fix the power issue (sort of). So right from the get-go, you need to understand that we're making concessions to the system here: Power balance is our goal, and flexibility is just an unfortunate casualty.

Gestalting lets players pick up two disparate classes and get the best out of both, which means power levels tend to go up, but if a player picks up two similar classes they end up still being crappy. If a player gets more levels, their numbers tend to go up but they're generally encouraged to focus on one target (like HP, or dealing damage) so that they go off the RNG in a single aspect while remaining boring elsewhere. Neither is a pretty solution, but we're spitballing here, so gestalt is probably the best way to go.

JaronK's old and strange suggestion of T3//NPC isn't all that helpful because the only useful NPC classes are warrior (full BAB), expert (high skill points), and maybe aristocrat (starting gold?). So you either pick a T3 class with 3/4 or 1/2 BAB and gestalt warrior or you get a class with few to no skill points and pick up expert. Neither is going to bring you psychic warrior up to par with the sorcerer. Heck, neither will bring your factotum up to par with a beguiler, which is in the same category!

Tiers of Power
S: Fullcasters (except where mentioned below), Artificer, full manifesters (except where mentioned below)
A: Warblade, Rogue, Ninja, Warmage, Totemist(?), Ardent, Crusader, Duskblade
B: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Factotum, Scout, Swashbuckler, Warlock, Incarnate, Dragon Shaman, Barbarian, Swordsage, Dragonfire Adept
C: Samurai, Marshal, Hexblade, Soulborn, Divine Mind, Lurk, Adept(?)
D: Monk, Healer, Expert, Warrior, Soulknife
Invalid: Commoner, Aristocrat, Truenamer

God that's a lot of classes. Note that the usually T4 rogue and ninja are Class A here. This is because they do one thing, and that is lots of damage. We're looking at gestalt in this scenario, so the key thing to consider is whether a class can do something well, because the class they pair up with can just counterbalance weaknesses. If you gestalt ninja//barbarian, you have a raging invisible tank that pounces and hits your flat-footed AC for what is effectively a double power attack. That is crazy strong, and while it doesn't make for a very good out-of-combat class, it's power is much closer to that of a sorcerer, favored soul, mystic, or what have you.

Now before we get to balancing recommendations, I'm going to add another thought: A great way to help class scaling in terms of power is faster access to feats: Namely, 1/2 levels (1,3,5,7...) instead of 1/3 levels (1,3,6,9...) Note that the difference doesn't kick in till level 5, because that's when you start to see the greater power disparity. This will let classes that are obviously weak get a leg up without another gestalt, and also helps better classes exponentially. If your class is strong, you will benefit more from giving feats to make that class stronger. I'll represent this with //Feats
If your goal is Class D:
D, no gestalt.

If your goal is Class C:
C, no gestalt.
D//Feats

If your goal is Class B:
B, no gestalt.
C//D
C//Feats
D//D//Feats

If your goal is Class A:
A, no gestalt.
B//D
B//Feats
C//C
C//D//Feats
C//D//D(?)
D//D//D//D//Feats (<--you will probably still suck)

If your goal is Class S:
S, no gestalt
A//B
A//C//Feats
A//D//D//Feats
B//B
B//C//C
B//C//D//Feats(?)
C//C//C//C//Feats 4C//Feats (<--you will probably still suck)
C//C//C//D//D//Feats 3C//2D//Feats (<--you will probably still suck)
C//C//D//D//D//D//D//Feats 2C//5D//Feats (<--you will probably still suck)

That turned into an awful lot of writing.

[Suddo]

I didn't read the whole thread but I've seen something like this before.

Reverse the tier number (Wizards are 6, Monks are 1) then you can gesalt any character to the point where he adds up to 6. So you can do things like Tier 5/5/5 or 2/6 or 3/5 or 3/6/6 or 4/5/6.

Its not perfect and overall not very functional especially if you ever want to PrC.

[Tanuki Tales]

I like your idea Browse, and maybe I'm just hitting a streak of stupid, but could you explain why you placed what in which Tier?

@Suddo: I don't think I understand your suggestion. 5/5/5 is 6?