D&D 3.5 Tier System

[lytokk]

This seems to be something everyone on the forum accepts, and maybe I'm missing something, but I just can't figure out the whole system. I've read the posting outlining the tiers on another forum, and it just seems off to me. So can anyone explain to me why things like Fighter are so low and Wizard is at the top? This may start some sort of war, and I've tried to see if I can find a better explanation for it, but I just can't.
The whole thing I'm understanding from this is that wizard is better than fighter at everything, but that just doesn't make sense to me. If so many people have regarded this list as truth, then I have to be completely off on my understanding of classes.

[Karnith]

Have you read JaronK's Tier System for Classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266559), or the explanations for Why Each Class Is In Its Tier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269440)? I can't really tell by your post if you have, and those are pretty good starting points for these kinds of discussions.

[lytokk]

the first one yes, but I hadn't found the second one. Darn google.

[fishyfishyfishy]

Well I was going to link you to the "why each class is in it's tier" thread, but I was beaten to the punch by the rescuer of that thread.

[Flickerdart]

The whole thing I'm understanding from this is that wizard is better than fighter at everything, but that just doesn't make sense to me. If so many people have regarded this list as truth, then I have to be completely off on my understanding of classes.
A wizard can do everything (there's a spell for every situation, and wizards can learn basically any wizard spells they want - and many spells deal with a wide range of situations) very well (various save or X spells or straight up direct damage pumping solve many problems with a single casting, and since wizards can pick spells that target one of three saves or even offer no save at all, they can aim at a target's weak point). The wizard can change his spells day to day (and use scrolls to supplement his daily spells) to adapt to new areas and challenges.

A fighter can do one thing (hit things) poorly (feats just don't match up against class features). He cannot change his feat selection without tons of retraining downtime.

Look up the Same Game Test - a list of general challenges that a character of a particular level should be able to contribute to effectively. Then think about how many of those a wizard can contribute to, and how many a fighter can contribute to.

[Saidoro]

It's important to remember that the tier system assumes the players are making fairly good use of their resources, and that players at a lot of tables(maybe even most tables) don't. A wizard making good use of their resources can summon monsters that fight better than the fighter or buff some random commoner(or themselves) to fight better than the fighter or raise undead that fight better than the fighter and the fighter can't really do much besides fight competently even when well built.

[lunar2]

the wizard is better than the fighter at everything, even melee combat.

social interaction:
wizard: charm person, dominate person etc.

fighter: intimidate (probably with a low charisma mod)

scouting:

wizard: summons a high speed monster with good senses, sends it off to scout.

fighter: cross class ranks in listen and spot

traps:

wizard: summons a bunch of weak monsters to run ahead and trigger all the traps before he gets there. detect magic to spot any magic traps that are still active. dispel magic suppresses the magic traps long enough for the wizard to get by.

fighter: walks into the traps and triggers them all himself

travel:

wizard: teleport, flight, summon mounts, etc.

fighter: walk

ranged combat

wizard: blasting if he wants, save or dies if he doesn't.

fighter: a bow that's dealing hardly any damage unless the fighter specialized in ranged combat.

melee combat:

wizard: polymorph into something big. bash skulls

fighter: charge once. bash one skull.

anything else:

wizard: at least a half dozen spells in the PHB alone.

fighter: cross class skill ranks with very few skill points.

[lytokk]

I suppose that's what I can't see behind the tiers, the players playing them. I've had a paladin that outperformed the psion, and a ninja that went far above the wizard. Both of these at above level 15. That could be why I can't see any class as really being blanketly labeled as better.

[Big Fau]

I suppose that's what I can't see behind the tiers, the players playing them. I've had a paladin that outperformed the psion, and a ninja that went far above the wizard. Both of these at above level 15. That could be why I can't see any class as really being blanketly labeled as better.

The Tiers system does not account for individual player experience, which can vary drastically. If a Paladin is outperforming a Psion, it's likely in the damage department (which, while Psions excel at it, isn't the main focus of the Psion class).

For example, the Fighter can't create a demiplane without a spellcaster being involved (his only method is CCed UMD ranks and a scroll). A Wizard can, multiple times if desired. A Fighter can't cross a battlefield with a Standard action, but the Wizard can do it with impunity (and bring friends).

In short, the Tiers don't care about combat nearly as much as it cares about a class' ability to solve problems (combat being only one of a few of those problems).

[eggynack]

I suppose that's what I can't see behind the tiers, the players playing them. I've had a paladin that outperformed the psion, and a ninja that went far above the wizard. Both of these at above level 15. That could be why I can't see any class as really being blanketly labeled as better.
Well, it's right there in the tier system itself. If you have a really good player with a paladin, against someone who doesn't know what they're doing playing a psion, the paladin might do better. However, if you have a wizard who has even moderate optimization capabilities, he won't really be overtaken by a ninja or paladin at any optimization level.

[Kioras]

Player skill affects things a lot. All class's have a ceiling and a floor. The ceiling is how high optimization can bring a class, and the floor is how low a class can be played or built.

For example, the Tome of Battle classes are generally considered to have a high floor, low ceiling. It is hard and takes actual effert to build one badly as there are very few truely bad manuever choices and all the optimization in the world will not really get them to go too much higher.

Wizards are especially a low floor, high ceiling. You can make a pure blaster wizard badly, but an optimized wizard once they hit mid levels can break the game on a turn by turn basis.

[johnbragg]

I suppose that's what I can't see behind the tiers, the players playing them. I've had a paladin that outperformed the psion, and a ninja that went far above the wizard. Both of these at above level 15. That could be why I can't see any class as really being blanketly labeled as better.

That probably means that if you played a psion or a wizard, and they played a paladin or a ninja, then they would have been about as useful as an animated scarecrow relative to your character, who would solve all the party's problems.

I don't know if I 100% buy "Why Each Class Is In Its Tier", or the specific 5 (or 6 counting the hopeless NPC Class tier) tiers, but I think that an overwhelming majority of people who've played multiple campaigns have had the experience where at high levels, the party wizard or the party cleric with a good command of his spell list, was playing Diana Ross and everybody else was playing the Supremes. (Or to use examples that aren't from before I was born, Justin Timberlake and NSYNC, or Beyonce and TLC. I'm old, I don't care if those examples are wrong. You know what I mean.)

[Harrow]

First off, the tier system is only talks about classes and openly states that player skill and build specifics are more important. It assumes an even level of optimization.

Basically, I've always viewed it as a ranking of "When is my character relevant?". The 'good' tiers that most people are shooting for are tier 3 or 4. 4 Tends to be the character who's good at something in specific, 3 tends to be ok at a lot of things so they can always help. If you come across a locked door, your tier 4 rogue will unlock while your tier 3 bard plays a song to help. If there are zombies on the other side of that door, the rogue's player sits him in a corner and goes to make a sandwich while the bard plays a different song to help the rest of the party.

Tiers 5 and 6, on the other hand, aren't ever good enough at anything to effectively contribute. Fighters get a decent chassis, but enemies tend to get HD faster than you and while Fighter levels are superior to Monstrous Humonoid HD, they seem pretty lack-luster compared to the Outsider and Dragon HD that you'll be fighting against at later levels. They get feats, but these rarely are enough to make up the difference. Outside of combat, you get a crappy skill list, 2 skill points per level, MAD, and no class features. Monks similarly are covered in class features, but none of them actually do anything. In order to use Flurry of Blows, they have to stand still next to an enemy, hoping for a kill before they have to worry about their d8 HD and lack of armor. If they don't want to use flurry of blows, what do they do? Seriously, for how many class features Monks have, they don't actually have a lot of options, and those options they have start to look pretty terrible when compared to so much as a bear's full attack routine.

Finally, you have the Tier 1 and 2 characters. The entire conversation about relevance gets reversed here. A Wizard does not worry about whether he is relevant to the current circumstances, but whether the current circumstances are relevant to him. If they aren't, he changes them to fit his needs. If a wizard is almost out of spells for the day, he enters an impenetrable extra-dimensional space and waits. If he needs to be somewhere, he teleports. If there's something he needs, he either scries it out and teleports to it or summons/calls it to him. Wizards in specific aren't phenomenal all the time even all the way up to 4th level. But at level 5,and then moreso every level after, what the rest of the party is doing just stops mattering. Druids are worse. Their animal companion may not be as strong as a Fighter, but between it, the actual druid, and his spells, a 1st level Druid is unarguably better at combat than a Fighter and still gets to do things out of combat. The disparity only becomes bigger as the Druid gains more spells and animal forms while the Fighter asks if he can re-roll as a Dragonwrought Kobold and take Racial HD in place of levels.

[ddude987]

As a general rule of thumb, the more versatility a class brings to any sort of encounter the higher it is on the tier list. The tome of battle classes are good examples of making martial characters more versatile. There are short range teleports, iron heart surge, and other things that make them do more than poke things. That isn't to say you can't have a good fighter relative to the rest of the party, just as a whole one class could out perform the other. Also, if you are open to homebrew, there are tons of fighter and other low tier class fixes out there that can bring them up and actually give fighter class features such as the one in my sig.

[Asrrin]

The Tier System is less about who is the most "powerful" in combat and more who is the most versatile overall. Every single character, even a commoner, can, with wealth by level, be stated out to deal obscene amounts of damage. Some classes easier than others. However, not every class can solve every out of combat encounter.

Traps, puzzles, social interaction, transportation, crafting, ect. all widely different fields. a Fighter can't meaningfully contribute to most of these "out of combat" encounters. A Tier three class, like a bard, could contribute either very well to one of these, or well enough to several. A tier two class can break one of these wide open, or contribute very well to any of them. A tier one class, can break the game in every one of these situations, often in multiple ways.

[SethoMarkus]

It is also important to remember that the Tier system isn't saying that any of the classes are "bad" or that they should be avoided. It is merely a tool used to measure the utility of a class within a party of moderately optimized characters played by similarly "skilled" players.

It is entirely possible for a Monk to outshine a Cleric in a specific campaign with certain players. It just isn't going to be the normal experience, and isn't the result of the class's strengths and weaknesses but is a result of the challenges encountered in the campaign and the play-styles of those involved.

[navar100]

I don't accept it as gospel on how to play the game.

I don't resent 3E magic. I don't resent warriors needing equipment. I don't resent the druid's pet. The people I play with don't resent these things either.

Fighters and wizards play in the same party. We all have fun. We all contribute. We all have our moments to shine. Warriors appreciate the times a spell saves the day. Spellcasters appreciate the warriors taking a beating and will even buff them up.

Monsters attack warriors because the warriors are in their faces with pointy sticks and the DM doesn't metagame ignoring them because there's no particular game mechanic at that particular moment the warrior is using forcing the monster to stay where he is and fight. Spellcasters do not have access to every spell ever published at the exact moment they need it. Bad guys do make their saving throws from time to time. PC warriors do make their saving throws from time to time, including Will.

I do give the Tier System credit in describing the differences of versatility of the classes. It is a handy reminder for a DM to watch out for where to look on PCs "winning" or "losing" D&D. I acknowledge as originally intended when it was written that it was not a bible on how the game should be played. It was not and never meant to be to tell people they are playing wrong. What I do resent is people citing the Tier System as justification on how the game should be played or else you're doing it wrong.

[Squark]

Alright, let me try to break it down for you.

Compare an 8th level Fighter to an 8th level Wizard or sorcerer

The Fighter has Base attack bonus that's four points higher, more hit points, a better fortitude save, and three more feats (five more than the sorceror).

Let's see...

-Improved Invisibility and Mirror Image makes up for the hit points
-Haste+Rage makes up for the BaB and fortitude save
-Polymorph fixes the stats issue and provides weapons

And now the Wizard/Sorcerer is out-fighting the fighter. But the thing is, tomorrow, the wizard can prepare teleport, summon monster IV, Phantasmal Killer, or do any number of other things.


To clarify, though, the Tier system is not saying you're wrong for playing any particular class (except maybe the Complete Warrior Samurai). What it does do is describe potential problems that can arise- Namely, what DM's have to be aware of when planning for what players can do (A fighter can try to browbeat a witness to a murder to get a suspect to talk in a mystery adventure. The Wizard casts contact other plane three times and then confronts the killer), and potential problems that can arise between players, even accidentally (The realization that two players are playing Batman with his utility belt and Superman, and the other two guys are playing Bilbo Baggins without the ring and Rocky Balboa).

[johnbragg]

I acknowledge as originally intended when it was written that it was not a bible on how the game should be played. It was not and never meant to be to tell people they are playing wrong. What I do resent is people citing the Tier System as justification on how the game should be played or else you're doing it wrong.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean there, so I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with you.

I played in a level 10+ campaign (10 was where I started, they had been playing longer), as the party Sorcerer and teleport specialist. The party Wizard was inconsistent about coming to games, and it was a huge difference in gameplay when he was and wasn't there. When he was there, talk and thought focused on how he could use his spell list and his polymorphing to solve whatever the problem was after my character Teleported us there. When he wasn't there, we had to use the rest of the party's resources, which were usually second best options. There was a sorcerer, a paladin, a ranger, a bard, a cleric, a cleric-rogue, a proto-artificer (I forget his build, probably rogue and cleric, but he made things that he then used.) So we had plenty of options. But when the wizard's player was there, his spell book was the best option for almost every challenge (except for "get there and back", which was my job.)

Some of that was just the wide range of things you can do with Polymorph. But part of it is inside the balance of the game. The Wizard's player wasn't a guy who studied the Monster Manual for creatures to use, or bought supplements so he could ask for new spells.

If you're saying you resent people who say "So don't play a Tier 4", then I agree, because that bugs me too. I don't think the real answer is to give fighter-types magic and just not call it spells--what I'd like to happen is for spellcasters to be nerfed at the high end and buffed a little at the low end.

I figure that a warrior-type should be more useful on average in combat than a spellcaster. On the other hand, a spellcaster should never have "use a crossbow" as their best option in combat.

[eggynack]

Monsters attack warriors because the warriors are in their faces with pointy sticks and the DM doesn't metagame ignoring them because there's no particular game mechanic at that particular moment the warrior is using forcing the monster to stay where he is and fight. Spellcasters do not have access to every spell ever published at the exact moment they need it. Bad guys do make their saving throws from time to time. PC warriors do make their saving throws from time to time, including Will.
I don't really understand a few of your arguments here. Why wouldn't a monster prioritize killing a wizard over a fighter? Even in the game as the creators likely envisioned it, the fighter is a highly durable steel box trying to keep the wizard from harm, and the wizard is a glass cannon who will die under any pressure. Why wouldn't the monster try to hit the wizard, if the monster knows it's a wizard? This gets multiplied if we start talking about the game as it actually is, where the wizard could end the encounter in a round if left unchecked.

What does it mean when you say that casters lack access to every spell ever published when they need it? That doesn't seem to be a thing assumed by anyone, even if arguments might get unfortunately Schrodingery when you go deep enough into it. If you're talking about being able to purchase spells when out of combat, there are ways around that issue for wizards, and clerics and druids actually can access all spells all the time. This one is less a rhetorical, "I don't know what you're saying," and more of an actual one, because the argument represents one of several smaller arguments that mean different things.

As for monsters and fighters making their saves, that's why you have spells without saves. They're pretty sweet in general. That could mean anything from summons to buffs to BFC's. I suppose that folks sometimes assume an unnaturally high rate of success on the part of save having spells, but I don't think that's an assumption of the tier system.

[nedz]

It's not about how you play the game. It's about how the game is structured.

[Harrow]

The biggest thing to take away from this thread is that the Tier system isn't a set of rules or laws. It is simply an analysis, a tool. Use it as such. For example, In a campaign a while back there were going to be a few new players. I'm a bit of a powergamer, so I chose to play a Truenamer so I could spend as much time as I wanted optimizing without without overshadowing the new people. I spent some time not contributing as much as I would have liked and a little while genuinely overshadowing other people, but most of the game contributed in a meaningful way and the party was glad to have me.

If I had one critique about the tier system, it would be that it doesn't account for level nor optimization. I understand it wasn't supposed to account for those, but some classes are better at different levels and some classes have wildly different optimization floors and ceilings, which I think should be taken into account. There would probably be a lot fewer complaints about the tier system if instead of saying "wizards are tier 1, fighters are tier 5" it said "At low levels poorly optimized wizards are tier 4, but even when left unoptimized are tier 2 once they get 9th level spells. Both poorly and moderately optimized Fighters are tier 5 at all levels. Good optimization can bring them up to tier 4 and some builds arguably get up to tier 2, but they are constantly fighting to remain in those higher tiers with every level they gain". But then, any attempt to make the tier system more precise has always caused exponentially more arguing than the original tier system, so maybe it's a better idea to just say "it's speaking in general terms and not absolute" and call it a day.

[Red Fel]

I think one of the worst things anyone can do with the Tier System is try to make it predictive, rather than descriptive. The Tier System is a descriptive system. It explains that, for a reasonable level of optimization, these classes have this degree of versatility, and those classes have that degree of versatility. It does not describe power, although versatility can be a measure of power.

The problem is that many people see it as a predictive system, rather than descriptive. In other words, they see the Tiers as how things should be, rather than how things are.

Here's an example. Say you're in a game with a well-optimized fighter and rogue, and a poorly-optimized wizard. The wizard prepares poor spell choices, the fighter has solid feats, the rogue has good weapons and excellent skill choices. The fighter does well in combat, the rogue does a solid job on skill checks and sneak attack, and the wizard does his best to stay alive. Somebody complains, "But that's not right! A wizard is Tier 1, he's supposed to be better at things than the fighter and rogue!" And so different home rules get implemented, or different classes or books get banned, because the wizard is supposed to be better - why else play the wizard?

And that's wrong. The wizard is not, at all times and via all players, supposed to outperform the fighter and rogue. A wizard can be played badly. Miserably, in fact. Rather, if played to a similar level of optimization, a wizard would be able to exceed the fighter and rogue in versatility. But this doesn't always happen, nor is it mandated to be so.

That, I think, throws a lot of people. That's why, for example, a Warblade may wow a Wizard, or a Paladin outperform a Psion. A descriptive system must assume uniform application; but when the human element varies, it cannot predict the outcome.

[lytokk]

Is the tier system only taking into account base abilities of a class, not the fact that at level 20, a fighter is going to be loaded with wondrous items that can duplicate much of what a wizard can do?

[eggynack]

Is the tier system only taking into account base abilities of a class, not the fact that at level 20, a fighter is going to be loaded with wondrous items that can duplicate much of what a wizard can do?
Yes, or at least mostly. Wizards get 20th level wealth by level too, and he can use it to do things that the fighter can't, because the fighter is busy playing catch up. My understanding is that there're exceptions wherein a class can use wealth in a particularly powerful way, like artificers and warlocks, but a fighter is not one of those classes. Besides, by 20th level, a fighter can't get anywhere close to a 20th level wizard with items. How's a fighter replicating astral projection, shapechange, gate, wish, ice assassin, time stop, disjunction, mindrape, and foresight? However, it's worth note that the tier system barely takes 20th level play into account at all, because it represents a small fraction of total play experience for most folks. For example, the healer is tier 5, despite getting gate at 9th's, and the truenamer is only a tier 4 when optimized, despite getting conjunctive gate at level 20.

[lytokk]

I think I'm starting to get this. The tier system also doesn't take things like alignment into account right? Example, a LG Wizard wouldn't constantly be attempting to resolve every situation with Charm/Dominate spells, as changing peoples minds for them is more of a chaotic or evil act?

[Shining Wrath]

The simple answer is Magic is Overpowered relative to non-magic.

Every ability a non-spell-casting class has can be emulated or outright duplicated by a spell.

The more magic you have access to, the more things you can do that other classes consider to be their special class feature.

[nedz]

Is the tier system only taking into account base abilities of a class, not the fact that at level 20, a fighter is going to be loaded with wondrous items that can duplicate much of what a wizard can do?

Yes, one thing which the current analysis doesn't tell you is the floor and ceiling of the optimisation available to each class. I'm not sure how useful that would be given the existence of cheese: e.g. Pun-Pun can be built from a variety of classes, Paladin being the most well known.

It doesn't really cover PrCs very well either, e.g.

Warmage < Wizard (usually) but Warmage/Rainbow Servant 10 > Wizard.

It can never account for individual players or tables either since it is analysing the game system not any specific game.

[Red Fel]

I think I'm starting to get this. The tier system also doesn't take things like alignment into account right? Example, a LG Wizard wouldn't constantly be attempting to resolve every situation with Charm/Dominate spells, as changing peoples minds for them is more of a chaotic or evil act?

First, you're correct, the tier system does not take alignment into account.

But second, I'm not sure that effects like Dominate are technically Chaotic. They might not comport with a Lawful person's personal code, but I could just as easily see a Lawful character using such effects to "ensure your conduct adheres to established standards."

The Tier System focuses, very simply, on one thing: Versatility. How many options does this class have for this scenario? Are they good at doing many things? Only one thing? Nothing? The "Why classes are in their tiers" post is a very good explanation of this. It's a lot like the Same Game Test: In a given scenario, would this class have the tools to overcome the challenge? Note, however, that the SGT is limited primarily to dungeon-type scenarios - it doesn't consider non-combat applications of a given class. The Tier System takes those into account as well. (Consider the ever-popular "How would this class help a town prepare for a siege?" test.)

[Thanatosia]

The Tier System is less about who is the most "powerful" in combat and more who is the most versatile overall. Every single character, even a commoner, can, with wealth by level, be stated out to deal obscene amounts of damage. Some classes easier than others. However, not every class can solve every out of combat encounter.

Traps, puzzles, social interaction, transportation, crafting, ect. all widely different fields. a Fighter can't meaningfully contribute to most of these "out of combat" encounters. A Tier three class, like a bard, could contribute either very well to one of these, or well enough to several. A tier two class can break one of these wide open, or contribute very well to any of them. A tier one class, can break the game in every one of these situations, often in multiple ways.
I think this summerizes nicely why the Tier System is overemphasized....in that it overemphasizes out of combat situations.

Lets face it, D&D is essentially all about the combat system. Virtualy every stat and attribute is about how well your character performs in combat. There are a few skills and systems for jumping and social interaction, but at it's core, most D&D sessions revolve around the combat.

I know there are exceptions, and many people do have D&D campaigns that don't emphasize combat so heavily.... but IMO, these people are probably playing the wrong game, there are other systems out there that are much better at delivering RP heavy gameplay, D&D is optimized for combat-heavy dungeoncrawling gameplay.

And quite frankly, in almost every campaign i've played in, Fighters do just fine when you accept that combat is the central core of the game. If you build your fighter even semi-compitently, you'll be dishing out 25+ damage every turn while having much higher ac and way more hp then any caster. And the minions a caster can bring up with summon monster will never match this, neither will the caster himself with all the buffs he can cast.... with one exception.

That exception is Polymorph (and similar spells like shapechange), and I think it is the core reason for Casters overshooting fighters in most campaigns..... Adding haste and enlarge person to most casters won't make him fight as well as a Fighter with high BAB, 20+ strength, weapon specialization and focus, etc.... but turn that caster into a 12 headed hydra who suddenly also has high str and ac and 12 attacks per turn that hit harder then a greatsword.... and yeah, you've just broken the game and became a way better melee then the melee.

Compaire Polymorph to evocation (the intended method of directly contributing to combat as a caster), and it's clear to see where the designers throught caster game balance should be. A Fireball barely does more damage then a fighters attack at equal level in my experience (often considerably less if the targets can make their reflex save), but the fighter can let loose every single turn while a fireball is a significant resource used.

Fix Polymorph and I think you've gone a long way to fixing the game as a whole. No one really cares who casts the teleport to get the party from point A to point B, people do care if someone steps in and clears the entire enemy team from the table before you get to unsheath your sword.

[Carth]

Lets face it, D&D is essentially all about the combat system. Virtualy every stat and attribute is about how well your character performs in combat. There are a few skills and systems for jumping and social interaction, but at it's core, most D&D sessions revolve around the combat.

Count me among the first to be flabbergasted by this statement. :smalleek:

[Tvtyrant]

Count me among the first to be flabbergasted by this statement. :smalleek:
I think it is a fairly reasonable assumption honestly. 4E was based entirely around that assumption, as was the original game. The simulationist aspect is a way to play (and my preference) but the focus has been on combat from the beginning. Just compare how many spells there are for combat compared to everything else.

[SowZ]

Count me among the first to be flabbergasted by this statement. :smalleek:

Most people do play this way, yeah. However, even in a combat heavy campaign, the wizard still has tons of ways to circumvent combat encounters and kill the enemies without directly fighting them.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Count me among the first to be flabbergasted by this statement. :smalleek:Look at the volume of rules for combat, and then look at the volume (and depth) of the rules for non-combat, especially social encounters.

You have basically 4 different actions for social encounters:
- Make them like you more (personally) so that they will do what you want (not actually convince them to do what you want, mind you).
- Lie to them.
- Make them scared of you so that they'll do what you want.
- Figure out that they're lying to you.

Hell, in 3.5, the diplomacy DC isn't even modified by charisma or any of the target's ability scores.

[Der_DWSage]

I think it is a fairly reasonable assumption honestly. 4E was based entirely around that assumption, as was the original game. The simulationist aspect is a way to play (and my preference) but the focus has been on combat from the beginning. Just compare how many spells there are for combat compared to everything else.

...While true, isn't that also one of the major reasons 4E is considered a base-breaker of those that love D&D?

[Carth]

I'm not disputing that rules pertaining to combat dominate in terms of breadth. But the 'little' bit of non-combat rules are all that's needed, and they do less with more, in terms of their place in the overall game. It's mostly the last hunk of the quote that I object to:


at it's core, most D&D sessions revolve around the combat.

[ryu]

Let me put it to you this way OP:

The tier system is a measure of the tools a class gives you to approach problems. The wizard has more and better of these than fighters or other similarly low tiers.

How much more and better?

I just came from a thread wherein a wizard and a barbarian were to fight to the death.

The best the barb could do to the wizard was buy a few defensive items, mitigating utility, mobility, and attack equipments. All this to hope he'd win initiative to approach and attack the wizard.

The wizard side came up with any number of solutions including summoning an army of 100 succubi, working together with seven simalcrums to overwhelm the barb in raw actions and negative levels, Forcing the barb into another plane and leaving him there, bringing the barb to the moon to suffocate him before THROWING THE CORPSE DIRECTLY INTO THE CORE OF THE SUN, binding an epic level monster to end the barbs existence on an almost basic level, rendering the barb unconscious before doing any of the above, or simply plastering the barb with no less than sixty magic missiles in the first round of combat.

Look at what one side could do. Now look at what the other could do. Now tell me which you think has the higher potential for applicable power.

[Story]

Monsters attack warriors because the warriors are in their faces with pointy sticks and the DM doesn't metagame ignoring them because there's no particular game mechanic at that particular moment the warrior is using forcing the monster to stay where he is and fight.

That's all fine until you fight a monster with 14 int and at-will Greater Teleport. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm) If your DM is intentionally ignoring monsters intelligence and abilities, that's nerfing things so you can contribute.




It doesn't really cover PrCs very well either, e.g.

Warmage < Wizard (usually) but Warmage/Rainbow Servant 10 > Wizard.


If you're including Prcs, you should make the Wizard an Incantrix for fairness.

[Tvtyrant]

...While true, isn't that also one of the major reasons 4E is considered a base-breaker of those that love D&D?

Yeah, because a sizable chunk like the simulationist system (myself included.) It doesn't nullify the fact that the game focuses on combat, always has and likely always will. As such I just don't think that sentiment it is out there or flabbergasting.

[Shining Wrath]

Count me among the first to be flabbergasted by this statement. :smalleek:

I'd say that over 75% of time spent at the table is spent in combat.

[CombatOwl]

So can anyone explain to me why things like Fighter are so low

Mechanically, doing hit point damage is one of the least efficient things you can do in a fight. Fighters have very limited alternatives, whereas casters have many alternatives.


and Wizard is at the top?

Uhh, for normal 3.5, druids are usually higher than wizards, as are clerics. Basically the problem boils down to this; if you're a fighter, you can fight pretty well. If you're a wizard or a druid or a cleric... you can do everything well. Literally, a cleric can be a better fighter than a fighter, while still being a cleric too. A wizard can literally kill stuff better than the fighter can--either through CC/Save-Or-Suffers or just doing hit point damage. Hell, if he picks the right spells and a few choice feats, he can be a better melee combatant than a fighter. Wizards can out-rogue rogues, out-fighter fighters, etc. Seriously, the entire rogue class gets negated by high damage spells and the second level knock spell. Got some traps? Well, too bad, I have spider climb, or levitate, or fly, or polymorph. Need to unlock a door? Why take 20 levels in rogue when a second level wizard spell can do it? You can even put it on a wand. You can literally build a rogue-in-a-box as a wizard. Or pick a familiar that can do those skills for you. Or summon something.

It's a matter of non-casters kind of sucking when compared with role-shattering casters who can break the game on a whim.

To put this another way... I'm playing a crowd control sorcerer in a pathfinder game. I can reliably shut down encounters--completely--in a round or two. The fighters in the party, as powerful as they are, can still only drop one target a round. And this is in Pathfinder, where arcane casters got kind of nerfed, and fighters got a buff.


The whole thing I'm understanding from this is that wizard is better than fighter at everything,

Depends on the level of the game. At low levels, fighters are better in the party than wizards. Around level 5 or level 7 (depending on the wizard's specialty) the wizard turns that around. By 11 or 13, the wizard is just so far beyond the fighter that the fighter is really just there to applaud as the wizard solos the encounter.

[PersonMan]

I think I'm starting to get this. The tier system also doesn't take things like alignment into account right? Example, a LG Wizard wouldn't constantly be attempting to resolve every situation with Charm/Dominate spells, as changing peoples minds for them is more of a chaotic or evil act?

Sure, but even then, they choose not to, but they can.

The Fighter can't say 'well, if worst comes to worst I can always make them obey me and get the Item Of Ultimate Good we need'. The Wizard can.

Besides, there are also skill-boosting spells, Guidance of the Avatar comes to mind, which just give you a big boost to skills like Diplomacy.

EDIT: @CombatOwl: Where did you get Druids>Clerics>Wizards thing? They're all Tier 1.

[lunar2]

I think this summerizes nicely why the Tier System is overemphasized....in that it overemphasizes out of combat situations.

Lets face it, D&D is essentially all about the combat system. Virtualy every stat and attribute is about how well your character performs in combat. There are a few skills and systems for jumping and social interaction, but at it's core, most D&D sessions revolve around the combat.

I know there are exceptions, and many people do have D&D campaigns that don't emphasize combat so heavily.... but IMO, these people are probably playing the wrong game, there are other systems out there that are much better at delivering RP heavy gameplay, D&D is optimized for combat-heavy dungeoncrawling gameplay.

And quite frankly, in almost every campaign i've played in, Fighters do just fine when you accept that combat is the central core of the game. If you build your fighter even semi-compitently, you'll be dishing out 25+ damage every turn while having much higher ac and way more hp then any caster. And the minions a caster can bring up with summon monster will never match this, neither will the caster himself with all the buffs he can cast.... with one exception.

That exception is Polymorph (and similar spells like shapechange), and I think it is the core reason for Casters overshooting fighters in most campaigns..... Adding haste and enlarge person to most casters won't make him fight as well as a Fighter with high BAB, 20+ strength, weapon specialization and focus, etc.... but turn that caster into a 12 headed hydra who suddenly also has high str and ac and 12 attacks per turn that hit harder then a greatsword.... and yeah, you've just broken the game and became a way better melee then the melee.

Compaire Polymorph to evocation (the intended method of directly contributing to combat as a caster), and it's clear to see where the designers throught caster game balance should be. A Fireball barely does more damage then a fighters attack at equal level in my experience (often considerably less if the targets can make their reflex save), but the fighter can let loose every single turn while a fireball is a significant resource used.

Fix Polymorph and I think you've gone a long way to fixing the game as a whole. No one really cares who casts the teleport to get the party from point A to point B, people do care if someone steps in and clears the entire enemy team from the table before you get to unsheath your sword.

there are a lot of assumptions in there. not the least of which is polymorph being the only way casters can outshine melee in combat. which certainly isn't true.

level 1: sleep. encounter over, that simple. no fighter can just drop up to 4 creatures in a single action at level 1.

level 9 (cleric): divine power + righteous might. that combo alone puts the cleric well over the fighter in terms of melee capability. no cheese, no bookdiving, just 2 spells from right there in the players' handbook.

or, while your fighter is doing a measly 25 damage per round, the wizard, starting as early as level 7, is simply making things die. no hp damage, no ac, just save or die.

[Hiro Protagonest]

...While true, isn't that also one of the major reasons 4E is considered a base-breaker of those that love D&D?

Erm, actually, I think 4e did a pretty good job at the skill challenges. The problem is, the combat is wayyyy different from 3.5 (just read SS&DTs), focused entirely on small-scale, short-range tactical combat, much like video games such as Fire Emblem, FFT, or even Jagged Alliance and X-COM (yes, the combat map is bigger in those games. But it's still really small for modern combat). 3.5, meanwhile, allowed for much more creativity while still thinking inside the rules. 4e tactics are about power and feat synergy between characters (4e optimization is about the synergy within a single character), 3.5 tactics are much more haphazard but also broader. It was much more simulationist.

There's also the fact that until Monster Vault came around, combat did, in fact, take too long. Monsters were made of really tough meat. Including their claws. And that meant combat was dragged out.

I do love 4e though... all the bright pictures and cool descriptions make me want to play it far more than 3.5 (barring the Warriors and Wuxia setting, see my sig).

Anyway, I think what we need is an optimization spectrum for classes. A visual aid for new people, to understand why ToB is well-balanced and yet appears overpowered. To understand why wizards can be so weak, and yet so strong. It would still use tiers, but it would show the range of tiers each class could be in.

[Harrow]

Another thing that's wildly variable to keep in mind : the 15 minute adventuring day. D&D was balanced for around, what, 4-5 encounters a day? Well, if your wizard blows through a bunch of his spells and the druid sacrifices his animal companion in the first fight, as early as level 3 (Rope Trick) the party can just rest until everyone's at full strength. This means the Fighter's ability to swing his sword an unlimited amount of times per day doesn't mean nearly as much, because the Wizards get a limited rate of spells, not a limited number of spells.*

"But wait!", the faceless crowds call out, "That can be mitigated! Just set up a ticking clock and you're good." There are a couple problems with this. First of all, if you have to go out of your way to force the 'expected' amount of encounters in a day then the system doesn't how it was intended. Second, all plots can't be ticking clocks all the time. Sure, you can use them often, but they tend to feel contrived after about the 3rd one or so, it really hurts the parties ability to make gear for themselves, and because of those things your players are going to start making "Choo choo" noises every time you walk past. Then, as Wizards level they get more and more scrying and teleporting, and things become even more contrived to stop them from solving what was supposed to be a year-and-a-half long, plane-spanning epic into the Wizard equivalent of taking out the trash.

Again, yes, all of these problems can be fixed, but the tier system isn't crying out 'Doom on all of you, as Wizards win everything once they hit xth level!' but instead pointing out that you need these kind of fixes to accommodate them and you don't for other classes, and other classes still need a little help from time to time.


*I would actually love to see a 'fix' for spellcasters where, instead of spells per-day, they just got a lump of spell slots when they leveled up and didn't get any more until the next level. Ride the wave!

[eggynack]

EDIT: @CombatOwl: Where did you get Druids>Clerics>Wizards thing? They're all Tier 1.
There are definitely differences in power level. It's just not nearly as cut and dry as druids>clerics>wizards. Druids are certainly the best at early levels, when the animal companion counts for a lot, and at mid-early levels, when wild shape comes into play. Wizards, however, are significantly better at later levels, because the wizard spell list is much better than the druid spell list. I know it's not tier indicative, but just look at the comparison between their 9th's. Wizards get shapechange, time stop, ice assassin, astral projection, wish, mindrape, gate, and a pile of others. Druids basically get shapechange. They have other stuff, sure, but it's not nearly on that game breaking scale. My estimate of when the crossover happens is at around level 10, so it's a pretty even split in terms of relative power level. I can't make nearly as good a judgement of clerics, because I'm less familiar with them, but my estimate would have their power straddling the mid-levels, particularly when DMM persist really comes into play.

[Red Fel]

I think this summerizes nicely why the Tier System is overemphasized....in that it overemphasizes out of combat situations.

Lets face it, D&D is essentially all about the combat system. Virtualy every stat and attribute is about how well your character performs in combat. There are a few skills and systems for jumping and social interaction, but at it's core, most D&D sessions revolve around the combat.

I know there are exceptions, and many people do have D&D campaigns that don't emphasize combat so heavily.... but IMO, these people are probably playing the wrong game, there are other systems out there that are much better at delivering RP heavy gameplay, D&D is optimized for combat-heavy dungeoncrawling gameplay.

Perfectly valid. While there is some non-combat material, and it varies from game to game, the mechanics are there, for the most part, to streamline combat. Out-of-combat stuff doesn't require nearly as much dice-rolling, and thus requires substantially less emphasis. There's not much difference between Wizard-as-party-face and Fighter-as-party-face, given the same skill ranks.

But there is some difference, and it cannot be overlooked.


And quite frankly, in almost every campaign i've played in, Fighters do just fine when you accept that combat is the central core of the game. If you build your fighter even semi-compitently, you'll be dishing out 25+ damage every turn while having much higher ac and way more hp then any caster. And the minions a caster can bring up with summon monster will never match this, neither will the caster himself with all the buffs he can cast.... with one exception.

Exsqueeze me? Baking powder?

Fighters do just fine in the first six levels or so. A thoroughly optimized fighter can continue to do "fine" into the later game. But above level 10, you're not looking for "fine." You're looking for quality performance. At level 20, you want epic level antics. Instead, you get a guy who's gotten particularly good at hitting things with his stick.

Dishing out 25+ damage per turn does not compare with a save-or-die spell.

Having a higher AC becomes irrelevant when enemies use touch attacks.

Individual monsters summoned by Summon Monster may be less than a match for a fighter, but you can summon an army while he's still just one guy.


That exception is Polymorph (and similar spells like shapechange), and I think it is the core reason for Casters overshooting fighters in most campaigns..... Adding haste and enlarge person to most casters won't make him fight as well as a Fighter with high BAB, 20+ strength, weapon specialization and focus, etc.... but turn that caster into a 12 headed hydra who suddenly also has high str and ac and 12 attacks per turn that hit harder then a greatsword.... and yeah, you've just broken the game and became a way better melee then the melee.

That's one exception, but an extremely valid one. When a caster can melee better than a core melee cast can, the caster by definition has more versatility.

And that's what the Tier System measures. Versatility.


Compaire Polymorph to evocation (the intended method of directly contributing to combat as a caster), and it's clear to see where the designers throught caster game balance should be. A Fireball barely does more damage then a fighters attack at equal level in my experience (often considerably less if the targets can make their reflex save), but the fighter can let loose every single turn while a fireball is a significant resource used.

Tell the casters who specialize in abjuration, conjuration, or one of those "unintended" schools this. I think they'll laugh.

Then they'll overpower a fighter.


Fix Polymorph and I think you've gone a long way to fixing the game as a whole. No one really cares who casts the teleport to get the party from point A to point B, people do care if someone steps in and clears the entire enemy team from the table before you get to unsheath your sword.

I care who casts teleport. It beats walking.

I care who clears the entire enemy team from the table before I unsheath my sword. Because it renders my fighter irrelevant.

[Squark]

I think one of the flaws in how people explain the tier system is that people use the wizard as the Tier 1 example. And, admittedly, a well played wizard can outdo all the mundane classes at what they do, easily. But the thing is, it's there's a good bit more thought that goes into playing a wizard or psion at higher plays. The Cleric and the Druid, on the other hand... All someone has to do is start casting buff spells on themselves/ really look at Summon Nature's Ally and the animal companion, and the "Fighters can fight just as well as anyone else" starts to break down. The cleric, even at low levels, isn't far behind the fighter in a fight, especially if he's worshipping a martial deity (or just took martial domains). But they're also full spellcasters, so they can easily make themselves a far better warrior than the fighter. And then the next day, do something completely different.

The only thing the fighter can do that a cleric can't do are feat-intensive tricks (In core, the only example worth mentioning is tripping). Unless the cleric is consciously limiting himself in spells*, it's very difficult not to outplay the fighter.
*Even if it's just under the belief that he needs to cast healing spells, as opposed to just investing in a wand of CLW/Lesser Vigor and a couple of renewable magic items.

And on the wizard front, it's not just polymorph that lets them outfight the fighter. Polymorph is just a lazy excuse and an easy example that every wizard can use. 6-7 Buffing spells, many of which will be long lasting so you can just cast them in the morning and have them on the whole day, can produce the same effect, while the wizard still has all the rest of his spells to do other things if hit it with a sword isn't what's required.

[Big Fau]

No one really cares who casts the teleport to get the party from point A to point B, people do care if someone steps in and clears the entire enemy team from the table before you get to unsheath your sword.

I think it's the other way around actually. Teleport, Speak with the Dead, Commune/A huge number of Divination spells all ruin campaigns. I'm personally fine with someone being able to shut down a single encounter, I'm not so fine with a party completely bypassing the plot of a campaign.

[eggynack]

I think one of the flaws in how people explain the tier system is that people use the wizard as the Tier 1 example.
I agree on this one. The thing about wizards is that a lot of their best tricks are effectively incomparables. It's easy to compare a fighter's stabbing ability to that of a barbarian, but how do you compare either to flight? Is flight worth more or less than invisibility, and how does anything compare to silent image? It's practically impossible to tell, and that makes wizard power difficult to comprehend. It's also what makes wizard power so great, but that's a somewhat different topic.

By contrast, druids are incredibly direct. How do you compare summoning a giant crocodile to stabbing an enemy? It's easy. Not super easy, but I can imagine the comparison. Similarly, a spell like sleet storm (which I contend is actually the best 3rd level druid fog, even with arctic haze and haboob in the running) just has simple and direct combat effects. Everyone takes on a very specific penalty for a very specific period of time, and it's all very easy to understand. Druids don't break the action economy the psion way, by compounding their own actions through combos. They break the action economy by just having a bunch of summons, and an animal companion, and backing those up with spells. It's far easier to understand how powerful entangle is than it is to understand how powerful teleport is.

[Icewraith]

People often don't realize how low the optimization floor is on caster classes compared to mundanes.

Regular mundane types can suck at being regular mundane types. Maybe they have trouble dealing respectable damage or hitting fairly low armor classes. Maybe they took skill focus six times as a fighter. Maybe their social skills are nonexistant.

Spellcasters can accidentally kill themselves via teleport, plane shift into the nine hells and be captured and tortured or enslaved for eternity, screw up a planar binding or gate and get attacked by an outsider and his buddies, disjoin an artifact and permanently lose their spellcasting abilities, become forever lost on the astral plane due to shenanigans (mainly involving githyanki), incur the wrath of gods, annoy extraplanar entities with divination spells to the point the entities start sending out hit squads, suffocate themselves via bad use of rock to mud and mud to rock, cause all manner of horrible things to happen via ill-worded Wish spells, polymorph themselves into a creature with a weakness to the encounter they're about to have, be consumed by their own undead legions via mismanagement of the command undead spell or an enemy cleric, screw up magic jar, disintegrate load-bearing areas of the dungeon they're in, dominate themselves (archmage counterspell or careless reaving dispel), arbitrarily run out of power (antimagic field or dead magic zone), blow themselves up (wild magic zone, explosive runes), there's all manner of hilarity with badly-worded commands to dominated or controlled minions...

[navar100]

That's all fine until you fight a monster with 14 int and at-will Greater Teleport. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm) If your DM is intentionally ignoring monsters intelligence and abilities, that's nerfing things so you can contribute.



In other words you're playing the game wrong.

Naturally intelligent monsters play intelligently. That doesn't forbid them from attacking the warriors.

[ryu]

In other words you're playing the game wrong.

Naturally intelligent monsters play intelligently. That doesn't forbid them from attacking the warriors.

Except the fact that that's not playing intelligently.

[Red Fel]

Except the fact that that's not playing intelligently.

Inclined to agree. A smart, high-level monster, is likely to see the fighter swinging a pointed stick at it as a distraction. The caster lobbing fireballs is a threat. The distraction can be handled later. The threat has to be eliminated quickly.

That's just smart combat.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Inclined to agree. A smart, high-level monster, is likely to see the fighter swinging a pointed stick at it as a distraction. The caster lobbing fireballs is a threat. The distraction can be handled later. The threat has to be eliminated quickly.

Don't just limit it to smart animals. Why would a 'dumb' animal attack the fighter? The fighter is going to be a big strong guy in heavy armor who is swinging a really big sword. Why would a lion attack, that?

The lion is going to attack the skinny elf with the cloth robes, or the tiny halfling with daggers and in leather armor.

[lunar2]

actually, the lion is probably going to attack whatever's closest, which would be the fighter.

[eggynack]

In other words you're playing the game wrong.

Naturally intelligent monsters play intelligently. That doesn't forbid them from attacking the warriors.
It doesn't forbid them from attacking the warriors. Monsters can have their own wacky motivations, like a fighter killed their family once, or magic gave them a cunning hat. However, you indicated that running around a fighter to attack the wizard is metagaming, and that's just absolutely not true. It is smarter to attack a wizard than to attack a fighter, so the smarter a monster is, the more often they'll do just that. It doesn't even take a great tactical mind to figure this stuff out.

"Hey, goblin friend. This guy really wants me to hit him, so he's standing in my path. Maybe I shouldn't hit him. Meanwhile, that other guy really doesn't want me to hit him, so he's standing a ways back. Maybe it'd be smart to hit him instead."

"But wait a moment, my goblin compatriot. Surely this fighter has a way to stop us from hitting the wizard. Otherwise, why would the wizard have a fighter companion at all?"

"I do not know, goblin friend. I will attempt to attack the wizard, who even as we speak is changing the battlefield in ridiculously powerful ways. Wish me luck in my endeavor."

"Good luck, goblin compatriot. Good luck."

I mean, the goblins don't have to be unnecessarily verbose about their battle plan, but it'd probably be a memorable encounter. In any case, there are perfectly good reasons why enemies would attack wizards preferentially, and the only generic reason I'd see for enemies attacking fighters preferentially is because they're convenient.

Edit:
actually, the lion is probably going to attack whatever's closest, which would be the fighter.
Double actually, the lion is probably going to attack whatever's the most apparently edible, which would be the wizard. Maybe we should actually test this one out, by seeing whether a lion will attack an armored sword wielding guy, or the robe wearing guy standing behind him.

[johnbragg]

In any case, there are perfectly good reasons why enemies would attack wizards preferentially, and the only generic reason I'd see for enemies attacking fighters preferentially is because they're convenient.

The same 's reasons the PCs tend to target enemy spellcasters?

As for the lion, it's a pretty good point that the steel-skinned guy with the three-foot-long single claw that's sharp all the way down isn't the lions first choice of meals. On the other hand, unless the lion has a clear shot at the wizard, his options are mostly "try to eat the guy in front of me" and "back away from the things that are too well armed and armored to be easily edible."

[JaronK]

One thing I find hilarious: in the Shadowrun game system, they've actually got a thing about "geek the mage". Mages tend to be bigger threats, so enemies explicitly try to shoot them and take them out of the fight first.

Of course, that's also a far more balanced game where a fireball doesn't hold a candle to a rocket launcher and tech based invisibility works as well as (and sometimes better than) magic invisibility.

Still, the idea of "kill the mage" makes sense. You take out the biggest threat that's also the most vulnerable... that's how you survive. You mop up the minions later.

This is one of the reasons I like Crusaders a lot... they're much harder to just go around when they're granting AC to nearby allies and healing them.

JaronK

[Zelkon]

...While true, isn't that also one of the major reasons 4E is considered a base-breaker of those that love D&D?

It's also one of my only complaints about 4e. Else, it'd be my go to system for everything.

On the tier system, just look around a bit. There was a recent thread (that's still on page 1 I think) about a barbarian taking on a wizard. Just look at all the options the wizard had to totally annihilate the barbarian, from straight damage to contingency teleporting away and launching a few SoDs from far away while they cook dinner.

[lytokk]

Alright, in reading the threads, the one big point has become clear about the tier system, its not meant to measure expected power. It's meant to measure potential versatility. Am I getting this right? Its also not a perfect system.

I enjoy playing the martial classes, they're just simpler for me than the spellcaster classes. Being in the front lines holding back the enemy is where I like to be, while I suppose the more versatile classes will be further back. Of course, thats when I'm playing, when I'm DMing, casters are the best way to make a villain. I think I'm getting this tier system down now. Not a perfect system, just a categorical system not intended to say that one class is better to play. I mean, why play a tier 5 when you can play a tier 1? Just categories. Makes more sense now.

[Icewraith]

I think the lion is going to go for the rogue or the fighter. The fighter traditionally is big, loud, brightly and heavily armored, violating the lion's personal space, and trying to hit it with a shiny stick. The traditional cleric falls under a similar category.

The rogue is traditionally covered in stuff that doesn't look like hard inedible rock, looks smaller and weaker than the fighter, and smells like perfume or cologne and possibly the clap or similar from that brothel stay the other night. In other words, the rogue looks and smells more like a weakened, diseased animal and therefore is likely to be filed under the "lunch" category in the lion's animal brain.

The wizard is traditionally dressed in the bright sort of colors that poisonous animals use to signal to other animals they are poisonous, has a big pointy hat and voluminous robes that increases his apparent height and size to the lion, and smells like bat poop, sulfur, and the gods know what other spell components he has handy. The wizard is traditionally unlikely to be in melee.

Result? The typical predator should probably try to kill the rogue if hungry and run off with his corpse while evading the loud, noisy, painful fighter and bad-smelling probably poisonous wizard. If loud flashy magic starts happening in the predator's vicinity or it takes sufficient damage, it should probably try to flee. Predators don't really want fair fights, they usually try to avoid taking damage whenever possible.

[eggynack]

The same 's reasons the PCs tend to target enemy spellcasters?
I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to with this comment. PC's tend to target casters first, because they're high powered, and maybe because they have low defenses. At higher levels of optimization, the defenses increase by a lot, possibly more than that had by a fighter, but the power increases so much that an enemy fighter isn't much of a threat by comparison. NPC's would generally target party wizards for the same reason, and it doesn't touch metagaming much, if at all. People know what magic can do, even within the universe, and the more you hold wizards to the classic glass cannon image the more things swing towards normal high power and low defense.


As for the lion, it's a pretty good point that the steel-skinned guy with the three-foot-long single claw that's sharp all the way down isn't the lions first choice of meals. On the other hand, unless the lion has a clear shot at the wizard, his options are mostly "try to eat the guy in front of me" and "back away from the things that are too well armed and armored to be easily edible."
Sure. If the lion has a clear shot, he'll go after the wizard. Unfortunately for fighters, it's rather rare that the lion won't have a clear shot. The fighter just has very few ways to force the lion to target him over the wizard, and that goes back to the original problem.

[Red Fel]

Alright, in reading the threads, the one big point has become clear about the tier system, its not meant to measure expected power. It's meant to measure potential versatility. Am I getting this right? Its also not a perfect system.

I enjoy playing the martial classes, they're just simpler for me than the spellcaster classes. Being in the front lines holding back the enemy is where I like to be, while I suppose the more versatile classes will be further back. Of course, thats when I'm playing, when I'm DMing, casters are the best way to make a villain. I think I'm getting this tier system down now. Not a perfect system, just a categorical system not intended to say that one class is better to play. I mean, why play a tier 5 when you can play a tier 1? Just categories. Makes more sense now.

This is correct. The Tier System measures one class' ability to do multiple things. As described, a Tier 1 class can do virtually any task with minimal preparation, to the point of breaking the game; a Tier 2 class has slightly less gamebreaking ability, but is still able to do just about anything; a Tier 3 class can do one thing very well, or multiple things somewhat adequately, but can't do everything; a Tier 4 class can do one thing moderately well; a Tier 5 class can't even do its main trick well, let alone anything else; and a Tier 6 class has Truespeech as a class skill.

Or something like that.

It's not about which class is better to play. Most melee classes fall into Tier 3-4 or lower, but they can still be plenty of fun, and very satisfying.

Also, as a DM, you may consider using the Tier System as a guideline for your comfort, as well as your players; if you run a Tier 3-4 game, you have a pretty good idea of your players' abilities, and can tailor your campaign accordingly. But throw a Tier 1 in there, and there's really no way to predict what they'll do; if you're not adaptable, it may be best to put those limitations upfront. Similarly, suggesting that your players take Tiers close together - suggesting that they play classes from T2-4, or T3-5, or such - ensures that rarely will one player constantly overshadow others.

Using it as a guideline is a great way to guarantee that everyone's expectations of play are satisfied.

[Karnith]

Alright, in reading the threads, the one big point has become clear about the tier system, its not meant to measure expected power. It's meant to measure potential versatility. Am I getting this right?Well, potential power and efficacy factor into it, in addition to versatility: tier 6 is pretty much defined by ineffectiveness, for example, while power level is the big dividing line between tier 2 and tier 3. JaronK summed it up best here, I think:

The Tier System is not specifically ranking Power or Versitility (though those are what ends up being the big factors). It's ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in any given situation. Highly versitile classes will be more likely to efficiently apply what power they have to the situation, while very powerful classes will be able to REALLY help in specific situations. Classes that are both versitile and powerful will very easily get what they want by being very likely to have a very powerful solution to the current problem. This is what matters most for balance.

The big thing to take away from the tier system (that a lot of people somehow miss) is that it's not normative. It doesn't say "you should play this class because it's in this tier." It is also not meant to be predictive in the sense of "If you let a wizard into your game HE WILL BREAK IT IN HALF." It is merely meant to inform about the capabilities of the classes.

[J]ust a categorical system not intended to say that one class is better to play.
Yep, that's pretty much it.

[lsfreak]

Alright, in reading the threads, the one big point has become clear about the tier system, its not meant to measure expected power. It's meant to measure potential versatility. Am I getting this right? Its also not a perfect system.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that higher-tier characters tend to be better at consistency. That's part of the versatility that the tiers measure. Even just in combat - fighters and barbarians are poorly equipped to deal with enemies that are up a 10 or 20 foot ledge, for example, while swordsages, totemists and psywarriors likely have ways of getting themselves into the fray, and wizards and sorcerers may not even care in the first place. Rough terrain is similar. Flight is similar. If you don't want to kill your opponents, it's similar. Dealing with battlefield control spells like entangle or solid fog? Yea, similar.

Barbarians and paladins are pretty much always better at raw damage than the higher-tier warblades and swordsages, which are better at it than the higher-tier psions and sorcerers*. The difference is that the T5 and T4 characters may only be able to put out superior damage half the time, because they suck at dealing with less-than-ideal circumstances. T3 characters, despite lower raw output, are far more reliable in what they can do, and in general the T2 and T1 even moreso.

*With possible exceptions for builds that are at either extreme of optimization.

[ryu]

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that higher-tier characters tend to be better at consistency. That's part of the versatility that the tiers measure. Even just in combat - fighters and barbarians are poorly equipped to deal with enemies that are up a 10 or 20 foot ledge, for example, while swordsages, totemists and psywarriors likely have ways of getting themselves into the fray, and wizards and sorcerers may not even care in the first place. Rough terrain is similar. Flight is similar. If you don't want to kill your opponents, it's similar. Dealing with battlefield control spells like entangle or solid fog? Yea, similar.

Barbarians and paladins are pretty much always better at raw damage than the higher-tier warblades and swordsages, which are better at it than the higher-tier psions and sorcerers*. The difference is that the T5 and T4 characters may only be able to put out superior damage half the time, because they suck at dealing with less-than-ideal circumstances. T3 characters, despite lower raw output, are far more reliable in what they can do, and in general the T2 and T1 even moreso.

*With possible exceptions for builds that are at either extreme of optimization.

Also keep in mind that tiers 1 and 2 often can just change the rules of engagement on a basic level. My favorite example of this is to quite literally have hundreds of of contingent spells crafted on ice assassin dragon pets on my person. Any spell that I or someone else in the party can use? It's available at immediate action speed, and if you somehow render me unable to activate them manually you trigger the other clauses I built in for exactly those situations. All financed with essentially free ambrosia and owning a large, magic enhanced brothel franchise throughout the kingdom of course. Can anyone from the low tiers just say no to literally anything the enemy is capable of any number of ways when it's not even their turn?

[Flickerdart]

Alright, in reading the threads, the one big point has become clear about the tier system, its not meant to measure expected power. It's meant to measure potential versatility. Am I getting this right? Its also not a perfect system.

I enjoy playing the martial classes, they're just simpler for me than the spellcaster classes. Being in the front lines holding back the enemy is where I like to be, while I suppose the more versatile classes will be further back. Of course, thats when I'm playing, when I'm DMing, casters are the best way to make a villain. I think I'm getting this tier system down now. Not a perfect system, just a categorical system not intended to say that one class is better to play. I mean, why play a tier 5 when you can play a tier 1? Just categories. Makes more sense now.
Power is a major part of it - it separates a T3 from a T1, or a T2 from a T4 from a T5. If you can do something, but not very well, it's almost the same as not being able to do it at all. For instance, can Paladins heal? Yes, but not very well. Compare them to, say, a Cleric, who is slinging +250 HP Mass Heals around, and you can see why power is important.

The best use of the Tier System is predicting intra-party and PvE balance issues. When you have a party of Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Samurai, the Tier System says "the Samurai is going to be out of place - he's too weak. He could be a Warblade instead". When you have a party of Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Artificer, the Tier System says "the Artificer is going to be out of place - he's too strong. He could be a Warlock instead" and also "the party will have difficulty facing diverse CR-appropriate challenges".

[GreenETC]

I have always viewed the Tier System as being a measure of the possibility of "It's All About Me."

Take a Fighter or Paladin or Rogue about to face a group of necromancers. They decide that it would be good to get Holy/Undead Bane weapons, so they head to the local shop. The shopkeeper tells them "Sorry, I don't have any of those in stock, but I could order them and have them delivered by the end of the week." With this news, they decide to head back to fight anyway, as they don't have much time to waste for an armory to walk up to them.

Now take a Wizard or Cleric or Druid about to face a group of necromancers. The Wizard decides he should get some counter spell/anti-undead spells. The Cleric decides he should get a Disruption Mace. The Druid wants something, though I can't imagine what. They go to the local shop, and the shopkeeper tells them "Sorry, I don't have that weapon/those scrolls/that gear, but I could order them and have them delivered by the end of the week." With this news, the Cleric Plane Shifts to a Planar Metropolis on the astral plane he visited once, the Wizard Teleports to the big city they were at 4 levels ago, and the Druid turns into what is essentially a jet and flies to another town in under 4 hours. If the DM says "No, they don't have it either," they can just keep going.

Higher tiered characters are able to demand things from the DM and then continually seek them out until they get them. The Wizard can craft, while the Fighter has to buy. The Wizard can travel off a deserted island with a standard action, while the Fighter has to swim. This disparity allows higher tiered characters to shape the game to what they want.

[SciChronic]

The best use of the Tier System is predicting intra-party and PvE balance issues. When you have a party of Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and Samurai, the Tier System says "the Samurai is going to be out of place - he's too weak. He could be a Warblade instead". When you have a party of Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Artificer, the Tier System says "the Artificer is going to be out of place - he's too strong. He could be a Warlock instead" and also "the party will have difficulty facing diverse CR-appropriate challenges".

how much your players optimize can also make the tier system completely irrelevant. a group of low-op can essentially play whatever class they want and everyone will feel at around the power level, its when mid-high optimization play that a 2 or more difference in tier will become apparent.

[ryu]

how much your players optimize can also make the tier system completely irrelevant. a group of low-op can essentially play whatever class they want and everyone will feel at around the power level, its when mid-high optimization play that a 2 or more difference in tier will become apparent.

Not quite. Low OP players have this tendency of finding at least one of the good options by total accident and then just doing that repeatedly. Do we need a show of hands for people who broke things accidentally with druid in their earlier time with the game to prove the point?

[Rubik]

how much your players optimize can also make the tier system completely irrelevant. a group of low-op can essentially play whatever class they want and everyone will feel at around the power level, its when mid-high optimization play that a 2 or more difference in tier will become apparent.Note that all it takes to turn a "bad" T1 class character into a "break-the-campaign" T1 class character is a change of spells, and they can all change their entire spell loadout in 24 hours or less.

[Harrow]

Thankfully, the tier system is a tool to help fix the problem that it reveals. Awareness is key.

See, you can have a party of characters from all over the tier system. As long as you and your players are cognizant of what's going on, you can work around the problem. Have players in higher tier pick sub-optimal choices because they can get away with it.

Who doesn't want to play a wizard that's a cackling pyromaniac? Sure, direct damage isn't great, and wizards aren't the best at is, and fire damage is the most commonly resisted, but with scrolls of important spells so he doesn't get too weak and by grabbing up lots of fire spells instead of focusing on just one so he doesn't get too strong, he's a flavorful, effective member of the party that doesn't overshadow other party members.

In the same vein, if someone is playing a Ninja or Truenamer, they know they have to work to keep up with the rest of the party. The tier system in no way tells them they can't play those classes, just that they're going to have trouble keeping up. If everyone optimizes the same, and optimizes moderately well, wizards and druids and clerics show up fighters and monks and paladins all the time. But, knowing the tier system, why would everyone optimize equally instead of optimizing just enough to hit the party middle ground?

[Story]

See, you can have a party of characters from all over the tier system. As long as you and your players are cognizant of what's going on, you can work around the problem. Have players in higher tier pick sub-optimal choices because they can get away with it.


Or use their power in ways that are less conspicuous, i.e. the classic God wizard.

[Amphetryon]

how much your players optimize can also make the tier system completely irrelevant. a group of low-op can essentially play whatever class they want and everyone will feel at around the power level, its when mid-high optimization play that a 2 or more difference in tier will become apparent.

I believe this is generally incorrect; the Tier System, as explained originally, assumes that the group is optimizing at roughly the same level, relative to each other, not that a particular level of optimization is in play. If you're dealing with a Healbot-oriented Cleric Player, the Tier System assumes you'll also have a Blaster Wizard and a Sword + Board, Weapon Specialization Fighter. . . or Characters making similar optimization choices, relative to their Character Class.

Where things get murkier is when you've got a very strong optimizer playing a fairly low-Tier Class in the same group as, for example, a Healbot-oriented Cleric Player. In this case, generally, you're either dealing with a Player who is intentionally allowing the others at the table to shine (rather than going all Clericzilla on them and hogging the spotlight), or the Player with the least op-fu is the one who grabbed the highest Tier Class. If he did so expecting to automatically dominate due to knowing of the Tier Sytem while simultaneously not understanding the relative optimization level at his table, it's very likely we wind up reading a post on a 3.X D&D forum about the supposed flaws in the Tier System as presented.

Of course, at this point, it also appears that Tier System discussions are just certain posters' Berserk Buttons. Some have even taken to advising folks in their signatures not to discuss it with them.

[eggynack]

If you're dealing with a Healbot-oriented Cleric Player, the Tier System assumes you'll also have a Blaster Wizard and a Sword + Board, Weapon Specialization Fighter. . . or Characters making similar optimization choices, relative to their Character Class.
Aren't all of those options at around the same power level though? The wizard will probably do better than the fighters, but the cleric might even do worse, just because of the inefficiencies of in combat healing. These characters are certainly closer together than the tier system would indicate, particularly because they're all offering one solution. The classes are still in the same tiers, because the wizard and the cleric, the cleric in particular, still have the same potential power, but the play experience doesn't reflect that all that well.

[Lans]

Inclined to agree. A smart, high-level monster, is likely to see the fighter swinging a pointed stick at it as a distraction. The caster lobbing fireballs is a threat. The distraction can be handled later. The threat has to be eliminated quickly.

That's just smart combat.

Unless the smart monster wants to get a quick kill in and then skeddadle

[ryu]

Unless the smart monster wants to get a quick kill in and then skeddadle

You don't skeddadle from wizards. You can skeddadle from mundanes, but if a wizard wants you he will find you. This is why you kill the wizard first. Even when he's no longer near you at all he's a constant threat from the moment you made his **** list.

[eggynack]

Unless the smart monster wants to get a quick kill in and then skeddadle
But that's the thing. The wizard looks relatively easy to kill quickly, but the fighter is a burly monster coated in metal. If the monster recognizes how hard wizards are to kill, it'll also recognize how capable the wizard is of killing it. There isn't really much in the way of intelligence levels where you'd go after the fighter. It's like the degree of understanding that a monster has of the wizard's defensive prowess is proportional to the monster's understanding of how big of a threat the wizard is.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

As far as low-op groups are concerned, there's going to be a lot higher variance in power when everyone is essentially picking things randomly. Sometimes you see the Druid who never wildshapes, has a gerbil animal companion, and forgets that he can convert his prepared spells into summon nature's ally during combat.

The Druid's mean, and ceiling, are still much higher.

[navar100]

The big thing to take away from the tier system (that a lot of people somehow miss) is that it's not normative. It doesn't say "you should play this class because it's in this tier." It is also not meant to be predictive in the sense of "If you let a wizard into your game HE WILL BREAK IT IN HALF." It is merely meant to inform about the capabilities of the classes.



Exactly. The trouble is the people who are missing the point.

[eggynack]

Exactly. The trouble is the people who are missing the point.
Were people missing the point? The tier system isn't normative, but people can and do use it for a normative purpose. I don't think that anyone indicated that the tier system is inherently normative, and if they did it probably wasn't much.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The idea is that forums are populated by endless posters (made of straw) who say that playing a T4 or lower class is TEH SUX0rZ and that T3 is the only level anyone should ever play.

[137beth]

The main issue I see is people who wrongly claim
a)"the tier system is based around level 20, which no one ever plays"
(actually, it is mainly focused on levels 6-15...if it assumed level 20 then the truenamer would be tier 1.)
b)"the tier system assumes you are using extreme cheese and highest levels of optimization"
(actually, it assumes mid-op--the descriptions of what each tier is capable of are inaccurate for high-op. In particular, high-op tier 5 classes make very good one-trick ponies. High-op tier 4 classes make good one-trick ponies who can also do other stuff. High-op sorcerers have the most versatile spells and items making them effectively 'tier 1'. In general high-op characters will have the capabilities of a mid-op class 1-2 tiers higher. Exceptions exist, most notably that a high-op commoner is tier 2 with Dragon stuff).
c)"the tier system is all about extreme 100d100 damage killing combat, and says nothing about out of combat!"
(when actually, the classes that just deal damage are tier 4-6)

It's less common from what I've seen that people say that 'you absolutely must love tier 3 more than other tiers and tier 4 sucks. '
In fact, I can't think of anyone who's said that:smallconfused:

[Gwendol]

The idea is that forums are populated by endless posters (made of straw) who say that playing a T4 or lower class is TEH SUX0rZ and that T3 is the only level anyone should ever play.

You don't have to look far to find posters like that: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305953

In this case the OP repeatedly stated what kind of advice he wanted, yet several posters continued to harp about the intended build.

[Pickford]

It's important to remember that the tier system assumes the players are making fairly good use of their resources, and that players at a lot of tables(maybe even most tables) don't. A wizard making good use of their resources can summon monsters that fight better than the fighter or buff some random commoner(or themselves) to fight better than the fighter or raise undead that fight better than the fighter and the fighter can't really do much besides fight competently even when well built.

The tier system also assumes a Wizard 'can' do everything, when they can actually only do ~4 things per level at 20th. Oh...and it assumes Wizards have all spells, even though that would make them ~age 50 from the time it takes to learn and copy said spells. cough cough.

Take it with a small cavern of salt.

[olentu]

The tier system also assumes a Wizard 'can' do everything, when they can actually only do ~4 things per level at 20th. Oh...and it assumes Wizards have all spells, even though that would make them ~age 50 from the time it takes to learn and copy said spells. cough cough.

Take it with a small cavern of salt.

Then use all that salt to buy a scroll of ice assassin.

[Pickford]

Then use all that salt to buy a scroll of ice assassin.

Good thing it only takes what, 8 hours to cast?

[eggynack]

The tier system also assumes a Wizard 'can' do everything, when they can actually only do ~4 things per level at 20th. Oh...and it assumes Wizards have all spells, even though that would make them ~age 50 from the time it takes to learn and copy said spells. cough cough.

Take it with a small cavern of salt.
That's a hell of a lot of things that they can do. The more powerful 9th's are individually more powerful than most classes, and in conjunction they make a well played wizard basically unbeatable. Also, you really really don't need every spell in the game. You just need the top few percent. It's a reasonably well kept secret, but most spells are bad. There're massive piles of spells that I'd never cast or take, unless I were just trying to collect them all. Being able to do everything doesn't require knowing every spell, because the few spells that are really good are really really good.

[Pickford]

That's a hell of a lot of things that they can do. The more powerful 9th's are individually more powerful than most classes, and in conjunction they make a well played wizard basically unbeatable. Also, you really really don't need every spell in the game. You just need the top few percent. It's a reasonably well kept secret, but most spells are bad. There're massive piles of spells that I'd never cast or take, unless I were just trying to collect them all. Being able to do everything doesn't require knowing every spell, because the few spells that are really good are really really good.

Suffice to say, it vastly overstates how flexible wizards are at any given moment.

[eggynack]

Suffice to say, it vastly overstates how flexible wizards are at any given moment.
Where, exactly? It seems like the wizard qualifies as fitting within tier one's description, even in some of the more rigid games out there. It doesn't even look like anything in the "Why Each Class is in its Tier" thread assumes the kind of broad spell knowledge you're indicating. It says you can learn "Any of the hundreds of spells", but that doesn't mean that you have to learn all of them. It feels like you're constructing a bit of a straw man here.

[olentu]

Good thing it only takes what, 8 hours to cast?

Ah, there's your problem. If all your wizards are trying super long casting time spells in combat rather then during downtime it is no wonder you find the class to not be very good.

[137beth]

Oh, right, I left off "it assumes wizards can cast every possible spell all the time" of my list of common inaccurate criticisms of the tier system. Thanks for reminding me!

[Gwendol]

I think the key word is "potential" versatility. In practice, experiences will vary.

That said, the middle tiers aren't that well separated (upper T5-T3) and especially the T4-T3 divide is rather muddled (or even meaningful).

[Amphetryon]

Aren't all of those options at around the same power level though? The wizard will probably do better than the fighters, might the cleric might even do worse, just because of the inefficiencies of in combat healing. These characters are certainly closer together than the tier system would indicate, particularly because they're all offering one solution. The classes are still in the same tiers, because the wizard and the cleric, the cleric in particular, still have the same potential power, but the play experience doesn't reflect that all that well.

At the low levels of optimization? No, not really. The S&B, Weapon Specialization Fighter still has one thing he CAN do well (enough), which is hit the thing with the other thing. The Blaster Wizard is still doing crowd control by using mook-clearer spells, or doing damage that compares reasonably with the Fighter's (but doesn't necessarily exceed it on a per-target basis), and in almost every case, still has at least a couple of out of combat utility Spells, plus the larger Skill list that is a function of his higher INT; assuming the Fighter's INT matches or exceeds the Wizard's in this scenario would be assuming a lower amount of op-fu for the Wizard Player than for the Fighter Player, frankly. Similarly, the Cleric will most likely choose at least a couple of spells that do something besides allow him to be a bandage, and will be an adequate secondary bruiser, merely by dint of armor proficiency, decent HP and Attack Bonus progression (not to mention Turn Undead), and the occasional non-healing spell, while likely being halfway decent in social situations because of the CHA used for Turn Undead.

Add to the above the fact, already stated by several in this thread and others, that the Blaster Wizard and the Healbot Cleric can both simply choose different Spells tomorrow and take on entirely new roles, while the S&B Fighter is still stuck hitting the thing with the other thing, and it's pretty clear to me that the Wizard and Cleric are more useful in more situations than the Fighter, even when none of them are particularly optimized, provided that all employ similar levels of optimization.

[Gwendol]

This is especially true for the divine T1 casters who know all spells of their level. Wizards are more in the hands of the DM, or need to spend time researching, to reach full potential.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Suffice to say, it vastly overstates how flexible wizards are at any given moment.My only critique is really with this statement. I agree that the flexibility is somewhat overstated because achieving it requires the wizard to take up lots of party and play time to do things out of combat. As compared to some of the other classes (Divine casters) where that isn't so necessary. The tier class isn't designed to measure these things, but it is something that should be remembered for actual play.

The only problem is that while wizards (and most of the T1 classes) aren't really that flexible at a given moment, they rarely have any given moment where they have to act. If a situation is going poorly and if they were being properly preemptive in dealing with the problem, they can just teleport away and come back later with new tools.

[nedz]

Suffice to say, it vastly overstates how flexible wizards are at any given moment.
My only critique is really with this statement. I agree that the flexibility is somewhat overstated because achieving it requires the wizard to take up lots of party and play time to do things out of combat. As compared to some of the other classes (Divine casters) where that isn't so necessary. The tier class isn't designed to measure these things, but it is something that should be remembered for actual play.

The only problem is that while wizards (and most of the T1 classes) aren't really that flexible at a given moment, they rarely have any given moment where they have to act. If a situation is going poorly and if they were being properly preemptive in dealing with the problem, they can just teleport away and come back later with new tools.

Yes exactly. A Wizard's flexibility is strategic — same for any prepared caster.

This is a very common trope in my games.

I run a very hard encounter which defeats the party
The Wizard (or Cleric) teleports the party out
They take a couple of days off to raise the dead etc.
They teleport back in with the correct set of spells selected, face off against the same opponents, and win quite easily


Now if the party ever learned to utilise divination spells effectively then they could just jump to the last step.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Yes exactly. A Wizard's flexibility is strategic — same for any prepared caster.

This is a very common trope in my games.

I run a very hard encounter which defeats the party
The Wizard (or Cleric) teleports the party out
They take a couple of days off to raise the dead etc.
They teleport back in with the correct set of spells selected, face off against the same opponents, and win quite easily


Now if the party ever learned to utilise divination spells effectively then they could just jump to the last step.I actually played in a 20th level PF game, and this was the exact pattern of every combat. I was playing the wizard.

That exact pattern of nearly every combat we played, with a little bit of scrying and occasional victories on the first attempt. Hell, even with proper information, 20th level combat can be a pain simply because extreme specialization makes the numbers go crazy in weird directions.

Also made a red dragon ravager run in fear. That was fun.

[nedz]

Well I do run a variety of encounters, it's just the major ones which go often down like this. It doesn't have to be 20th level either, I see this from about 5th level onwards.

The other common trope is rocket tag, but you seem to get that when everyone optimises for offence and every encounter is an ambush etc.

It's principally for this reason that I'm intending to remove Tier 1s from my next campaign; the other reason being encounter trivialisation.

[Person_Man]

There is an even easier way of thinking about the Tier system that's often overlooked.

Does the class have a diverse set of fully scaled (1st through 9th level or a similar equivalent) abilities (spells, powers, maneuvers, vestiges, soulmelds, or some other equivalent system) which it can choose from at least once per day?

If so, then the class is probably Tier 3 or higher. And any player who uses the class will eventually, through trial and error, figure out what it does well, be useful to the party, and have fun with it.

If not, then the class is probably Tier 4 or lower. And any player who uses it will probably be locked into a small set of options which they will use repeatedly (move, make a melee attack modified by Feats and maybe a class ability, repeat, every round of every combat), and will only be useful if they're lucky and/or if they optimize those options when they create their build.

There are a few exceptions - Factotum is Tier 3 even though it doesn't have access to fully scaled abilities because it's abilities are so diverse and open ended. Truenamer is Tier 5 because it's base mechanic is so poorly written. But the overall point is fairly strait forward - well written classes have a list of useful options you can change out each day - poorly written classes don't.

[Boci]

I think the key word is "potential" versatility. In practice, experiences will vary.

That said, the middle tiers aren't that well separated (upper T5-T3) and especially the T4-T3 divide is rather muddled (or even meaningful).

Tier 3 classes are mechanically solid. Tier 4 are often solid for the most part, but often have a big floor (and on top of that, they also have a mechanical flaw) (too many things are immune to SA, spellthieves really on fighting enemies with magic to steal, but such enemies can often protect themselve very well), barbarian just lacks versatility (even more so than a duskblade, who at least has some utility spells), ect. The one exception is the marshal, who is solid mechanically, but just not that potent.

[Togo]

The Tier system is intended to describe the differences between various character classes, in terms of the abilities they provide.

In doing so it relies on a vast stack of assumptions about the game is to be played. That isn't as bad as it sounds, it has to draw a line in the sand somewhere, and the assumptions are probably fairly reasonable. But opinion varies as to how accurate and valid the Tiers are, and much of that variation comes down to how much your own experience of the game matches the assumptions of the Tiers.

For example, several posters have commented on how the party can always 'teleport away and come back later to face the same challenge'. In some games that goes without saying, in others that would be true only in truely remarkable circumstances. Others have mentioned that wizards can a wide variety of spells, a claim that relies heavily on a plentiful variety of such being available in game. Even the discussion on what an intelligent teleporting demon would attack shows the problem - different assumptions apply on different tables. There is nothing particularly horrible about the assumptions made as part of the Tier system, but they won't apply to everyone, and there are an awful lot of them, precisely because you're dealing with almost every aspect of the game using every possible build.

The problem comes with people who take the Tier system as definitive, and talk about 'fighters being weak' or 'druids being overpowered', or make predictive statements such as 'if the druid isn't dominating the table, the player must be playing it wrong'. These aren't aspects of the design of the game, they're aspects of the rules applied to create a particular game. Under a different set of assumptions, or a different style of play, they won't necessarily hold true.

[johnbragg]

Yes exactly. A Wizard's flexibility is strategic — same for any prepared caster.

This is a very common trope in my games.

1. I run a very hard encounter which defeats the party
2. The Wizard (or Cleric) teleports the party out
3. They take a couple of days off to raise the dead etc.

This is the point where the Bad Guys(TM), with their own wizards and clerics, show up at the party's base and raise havoc, then teleport out.


4. They teleport back in with the correct set of spells selected, face off against the same opponents, and win quite easily


Alternate solution: Replace the Teleport spell with Word of Recall. Steps 1, 2, 3 run as normal. But Step 4 is a lot trickier.

If you want to shut down Step 4 completely, or as completely as a wizard can be shut down, require an expensive material component and a time-consuming process for creating the "sanctuary." That way, if they try to set up a "save point" somewhere inappropriate--time for Wandering Monsters to come in and wreck everything.

[lytokk]

With all of the day to day flexibility, how does a wizard deal with time sensitive objectives. Teleporting away to wait a day til he has the proper spells prepared isn't exactly going to work.

I thought I had the tier system figured out and I just keep thinking wizards aren't as flexible as everyones saying.

[nedz]

There are many solutions, I've tried them all :smallsmile:

They just get a bit old after a while.

[johnbragg]

If not, then the class is probably Tier 4 or lower. And any player who uses it will probably be locked into a small set of options which they will use repeatedly (move, make a melee attack modified by Feats and maybe a class ability, repeat, every round of every combat), and will only be useful if they're lucky and/or if they optimize those options when they create their build.


I don't think that's the right way to look at it. That phrasing heavily implies that the fighter sucks and deservedly so, because all he does (no matter how well he does it) is hit things with his beatstick.

That's a terrible approach to take when thinking about a fantasy roleplaying game which is still largely centered around killing monsters.

The problem is that "hit it with my beatstick" is rarely the easiest or best way to kill monsters in the game, after a few levels. No matter how optimized and specialized and equipped, a Fighter 12 (BAB +12/+7/+1) is probably not going to kill the thing faster than two Disintegrates from a Wizard 12.

The challenge is to figure out a design that "feels like D&D", but has Conan dishing out the majority of the damage instead of Merlin. The best idea I can come up with is hamsting spellcasters access to high level spells, and balance it by giving them constant or semi-constant access to low-level magic.

Basically, a wizard should always be more effective with a cantrip than a crossbow. A fighter should only be less effective at killing things than a wizard once or twice a day.

[LordBlades]

With all of the day to day flexibility, how does a wizard deal with time sensitive objectives. Teleporting away to wait a day til he has the proper spells prepared isn't exactly going to work.

I thought I had the tier system figured out and I just keep thinking wizards aren't as flexible as everyones saying.

Heward's Fortifying Bedroll for example. Change spells after 1 hour of rest.

[lytokk]

As a day drags on, wizards run low on spells. On the other hand, fighters can swing their sword as many times per day as they want.

Maybe that's why I've often outperformed casters, bad spell rationing. At least in the combat aspect that is.

But the tier system is a guideline for potential ability, not a roadmap to power.

[johnbragg]

With all of the day to day flexibility, how does a wizard deal with time sensitive objectives. Teleporting away to wait a day til he has the proper spells prepared isn't exactly going to work.

I thought I had the tier system figured out and I just keep thinking wizards aren't as flexible as everyones saying.

That's the DM doing a good job at challenging the players, which doesn't always happen. And even then, "The Clock Is Ticking" gets old as a mechanism, especially if the DM has to keep coming up with different reasons that the clock is ticking down.

A good system is one that can function while being run by average managers. Conversely, a system that needs an above-average manager to function acceptably is a bad system.


As a day drags on, wizards run low on spells. On the other hand, fighters can swing their sword as many times per day as they want.

Maybe that's why I've often outperformed casters, bad spell rationing. At least in the combat aspect that is.

You've had a good DM. A lot of campaigns let the players get away with one combat per day, then safely resting. (Boo! If resting safely were an option, there wouldn't be a need for murderhobos to go out and clear the monsters out of the forests and ruined cities etc etc!)

[eggynack]

With all of the day to day flexibility, how does a wizard deal with time sensitive objectives. Teleporting away to wait a day til he has the proper spells prepared isn't exactly going to work.

I thought I had the tier system figured out and I just keep thinking wizards aren't as flexible as everyones saying.
You don't necessarily have to teleport away to have good spells for the job. It's just good to have that option. The best wizard spells are, by and large, incredibly versatile. Wizards have spells that are probably more broadly applicable than anything a given fighter can produce. Retreating and coming back with more applicable options is quite possibly necessary for a wizard to have the perfect solution to a problem. Fortunately, the good enough solution is usually good enough. Seriously, just consider a spell like silent image, alter self, or stone shape, and then start thinking up ways that you could use each of those spells to either help with a problem, or otherwise completely solve that problem. The amount of tactical versatility that a wizard has at their beck and call on a constant basis is staggering.

Edit:
As a day drags on, wizards run low on spells. On the other hand, fighters can swing their sword as many times per day as they want.

Maybe that's why I've often outperformed casters, bad spell rationing. At least in the combat aspect that is.

But the tier system is a guideline for potential ability, not a roadmap to power.
It's rather misleading to think of fighters as having the ability to operate all day, because they generally use their HP as a resource. In any case, while a well played wizard will often be able to effectively win an encounter with only a couple of spells, a poorly played wizard may be unable to do so.

[Karnith]

As a day drags on, wizards run low on spells. On the other hand, fighters can swing their sword as many times per day as they want.
There are numerous ways for wizards (and other tier 1 classes) to go all day, if they so choose. At extreme levels of cheese there's Mage's Lucubration/Sanctum Spell/Repeat Spell-type of combos that can give you effectively unlimited spell slots, at more normal levels of optimization there's Persisting buffs to last all-day, there's Animate Dead/Dominate/Planar Binding/Simulacrum/etc. to get long-lasting minions who will do whatever you want, there are reserve feats that let you do stuff at will, and so on and so forth.

[lytokk]

Well, I guess the one thing I'm noticing with all of this, is that the tier system isn't 100% agreed upon by everyone as I thought. Everyone knows wizards can be much more powerful than a fighter, but the operative word is CAN, not are.

The ceilings/floors analogy really helped me along with this. Kinda wish I had been able to find that explanation earlier.

[Flickerdart]

As a day drags on, wizards run low on spells. On the other hand, fighters can swing their sword as many times per day as they want.

Maybe that's why I've often outperformed casters, bad spell rationing. At least in the combat aspect that is.

But the tier system is a guideline for potential ability, not a roadmap to power.
Fighters run out of HP before wizards run out of spells.

[ryu]

Well, I guess the one thing I'm noticing with all of this, is that the tier system isn't 100% agreed upon by everyone as I thought. Everyone knows wizards can be much more powerful than a fighter, but the operative word is CAN, not are.

The ceilings/floors analogy really helped me along with this. Kinda wish I had been able to find that explanation earlier.

Lets put it this way. An intelligent wizard player can do literally anything with good planning and the dm not going far out of their way to inconvenience said wizard. They can still do almost anything on a whim if built right though.

By contrast the fighter has a very limited set of tricks. He hits things, grabs things, trips things, charges things, or looks at things all squinty hoping to intimidate them. The fighter can do considerably less even played to maximum potential but is also easy for a newbie to grasp.

[Tvtyrant]

As a day drags on, wizards run low on spells. On the other hand, fighters can swing their sword as many times per day as they want.

Maybe that's why I've often outperformed casters, bad spell rationing. At least in the combat aspect that is.

But the tier system is a guideline for potential ability, not a roadmap to power.

Except that Polymorph lets the Wizard compete in combat, and it auto-heals him a whole nights rest. A wizard can hydra-bite the enemy for as many rounds as he wants, and cast spells.

[Boci]

Well, I guess the one thing I'm noticing with all of this, is that the tier system isn't 100% agreed upon by everyone as I thought.

Out of idle curiosity and on a unrelated note, can you think of a topic that is 100% agreed on by everyone?

[LordBlades]

Lets put it this way. An intelligent wizard player can do literally anything with good planning and the dm not going far out of their way to inconvenience said wizard. They can still do almost anything on a whim if built right though.

By contrast the fighter has a very limited set of tricks. He hits things, grabs things, trips things, charges things, or looks at things all squinty hoping to intimidate them. The fighter can do considerably less even played to maximum potential but is also easy for a newbie to grasp.

The fighter may br easier to play (it only uses the basic rules common to all classes, no fancy subsystems/class specific rules) but is certainly not easiest to build (IMO at least) because all choices are permanent. You play a wizard and midway through the campaign you discover Fireball sucks? No problem, you can prepare Lightning Bolt tomorrow. You play a fighter and discover Weapon Finesse sucks? Tough luck. Maybe you can put that knowledge to use on your next character.

[lytokk]

Not really, but I just somehow got that impression from forum posters. Granted, I only joined the place a month ago, and spent several years without playing D&D, but it just seemed like something everyone accepted as truth.

[eggynack]

Not really, but I just somehow got that impression from forum posters. Granted, I only joined the place a month ago, and spent several years without playing D&D, but it just seemed like something everyone accepted as truth.
It'd certainly be a nice thing were that the case, but there's a contingent of folks opposed to any widely held belief hereabouts. It can sometimes get a bit repetitive, but it's nice to sometimes reevaluate the logic that lead you to a conclusion, even if you're pretty definite that your conclusion was correct. We can often fail to come to a consensus on things as concrete and objective as RAW, so it'd be rather illogical if we had a single unified opinion on something as divisive and complicated as the tier system.

[ryu]

The fighter may br easier to play (it only uses the basic rules common to all classes, no fancy subsystems/class specific rules) but is certainly not easiest to build (IMO at least) because all choices are permanent. You play a wizard and midway through the campaign you discover Fireball sucks? No problem, you can prepare Lightning Bolt tomorrow. You play a fighter and discover Weapon Finesse sucks? Tough luck. Maybe you can put that knowledge to use on your next character.

Thing is by halfway through the campaign even low op groups tend to not rely on the fighter much because the wizard and cleric just discovered the world of high level magic. This happens by dint of the fact that the good spells just keep getting more obviously tasty as the higher spell levels are reached.

[shaddy_24]

I've found through DMing that the tier system is most starkly visible when planning your Big Bad. If you want a viable long term NPC opponent for a moderately optimized party at high (12+) levels, they need to be tier 1 or 2. Anything else, and they need a bunch of tier 1 or 2 companions to protect themselves or the party just hits them with scrying, teleports, insta-kills and everything else that it's much more difficult to protect the mundanes from. What's that fighter warlord going to do against constant scry and die attempts that doesn't rely entirely on his fortress being warded against it (and never leaving) or his high level wizard companion casting Mind Blank on him every day?

Unless you give them arbitrarily large amounts of money for personal equipment, you need figure out if you want them to be able to attack people or resist Dominate Person, Cloudkill, Slay Living and every other instant encounter ending spell in the game. Do you buy that powerful magic weapon, or a headband that simulates Mind Blank? The arch-lich protects his lair with Anticipate Teleport, the high priest of Vecna with Forbiddance, the master of the thieves guild by spending obscene amounts of money to get someone else to do one of the above for him.

This isn't a universal thing obviously, just like the tier system as a whole is only descriptive and general. But it's something I've experienced. It's a lot more difficult to protect a high level fighter from the party than a high level spellcaster.

[Der_DWSage]

Well, I guess the one thing I'm noticing with all of this, is that the tier system isn't 100% agreed upon by everyone as I thought. Everyone knows wizards can be much more powerful than a fighter, but the operative word is CAN, not are.

The ceilings/floors analogy really helped me along with this. Kinda wish I had been able to find that explanation earlier.

Oh, lord no. The tier system has been under pretty heavy debate for quite some time. (Personally, I agree with 90% of it, though I think one or two things need to be adjusted.)

Seriously, people have objected to it ever since they discovered that THEIR favorite class wasn't a Tier 1, which is obviously the best because it's #1.

(Though you do have a point about Wizards and their flexibility. V actually put it best in this comic. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html))

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

You don't have to look far to find posters like that: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=305953

In this case the OP repeatedly stated what kind of advice he wanted, yet several posters continued to harp about the intended build.So, I see one poster that fits the description and a few more who point out it's not the most powerful option but then go on to give advice. Not so bad. And even then it's less about the Fighter's tier and more about the system's limitations on a TWFing fighter in full plate.

[navar100]

Oh, lord no. The tier system has been under pretty heavy debate for quite some time. (Personally, I agree with 90% of it, though I think one or two things need to be adjusted.)

Seriously, people have objected to it ever since they discovered that THEIR favorite class wasn't a Tier 1, which is obviously the best because it's #1.

(Though you do have a point about Wizards and their flexibility. V actually put it best in this comic. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html))

My favorite class, cleric, is Tier 1. My second favorite class, crusader, is in beloved Tier 3. My Pathfinder-specific favorite class, oracle, is tier 2. Their tier placement is irrelevant to me as reasons for objecting to the Tier System.

[Gnaeus]

Oh, lord no. The tier system has been under pretty heavy debate for quite some time. (Personally, I agree with 90% of it, though I think one or two things need to be adjusted.)

Seriously, people have objected to it ever since they discovered that THEIR favorite class wasn't a Tier 1, which is obviously the best because it's #1.


It is and it isn't.

People can and have debated endlessly about whether a certain class is Tier X or Tier X+1. The boundaries are fuzzy. The Tier system assumes roughly equal optimization, but that concept itself is fuzzy. Is a core sorcerer with a very well chosen core spell list lower or higher op than a beguiler with a feat? I have an opinion, but that is all it is.

On the other hand, there is very little debate among the board that the powers available to a Tier 1 or 2 are far, far more powerful in terms of strength or flexibility than are the powers available to a Fighter or Monk. It can be proven in duels (although that is not a good test). It can be proven in same game type challenges. Virtually no one who understands the game argues that Monk is as powerful a class as Wizard. An individual monk, well built, well played, with good gear, may be better than an individual wizard, poorly built and played. But the class Wizard has more and better tools than the class Monk. What one chooses to do with that information is also highly debatable, but the disparity in versatility that is the core of the Tier system is widely recognized.

[JaronK]

Lots of people, however, have picked one class that they're totally sure is supposed to be in a stronger tier, and it's generally their favorite class. That's just because people tend to play their favorite classes better than other classes (because they know them so well) and don't generally understand why some of the classes they've not really seen in action (or only seen played by people who didn't do much with them) should be considered as versatile or powerful or whatever as their favorite.

Not everyone does this of course, and the more classes you've played or played with, the less this occurs.

I will say, by the way, that in the case of the Full Plate TWF Fighter recommendations it wasn't a case of "Fighters are weak, don't play them." It was more "Fighters aren't that strong, and also that combat style is extra weak, so you won't be able to function". That's actually pretty accurate, as the build in question would have a seriously hard time fighting even CR'd opponents as it leveled up. And let's face it, it's not very fun if you had visions of a mighty warrior cleaving enemies in half and instead just sit there flailing around not really doing anything. But that's not about tiers there, that's about a very weak build that people warned the person against. Some builds really are so weak that it's a problem.

JaronK

[johnbragg]

Lots of people, however, have picked one class that they're totally sure is supposed to be in a stronger tier, and it's generally their favorite class. That's just because people tend to play their favorite classes better than other classes (because they know them so well) and don't generally understand why some of the classes they've not really seen in action (or only seen played by people who didn't do much with them) should be considered as versatile or powerful or whatever as their favorite.

But even then, is anyone arguing that their favored/hated class is more than +/-1 Tier? Is anyone arguing that a Fighter is really a Tier 2, or that a Cleric is only a Tier 3, anything like that?

(Set aside people arguing against the whole Tier concept.)

[lytokk]

Granted, I think that full plate twf fighter was slightly flawed, medium armor may have worked better for that build. But I agree with what most of the people on that thread said, let him play what he wants.

I do think fighter belongs higher up on the tier list due to how much faster it can get any of the martial classes into PRC requirements. Skill points come ever level, feats, only every third. But that's not the point of the tier system, especially since PRCs aren't even on there, though those do focus more into specialties than flexibility, for the most part.

[johnbragg]

I do think fighter belongs higher up on the tier list due to how much faster it can get any of the martial classes into PRC requirements.

That sounds vaguely like "Fighter plus Good PrC's = Tier 3-4." Which may be true.

[Lord_Gareth]

Granted, I think that full plate twf fighter was slightly flawed, medium armor may have worked better for that build. But I agree with what most of the people on that thread said, let him play what he wants.

I do think fighter belongs higher up on the tier list due to how much faster it can get any of the martial classes into PRC requirements. Skill points come ever level, feats, only every third. But that's not the point of the tier system, especially since PRCs aren't even on there, though those do focus more into specialties than flexibility, for the most part.

PrCs are deliberately not included in a class's Tier because of how hard they are to predict and evaluate with regards to a specific build or even class features. It's like, okay, there's a million Wizard PrCs, right? But a lot of them are REALLY BAD. So how does access to them get measured, tier-wise? It can't.

[Harrow]

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0

Meet the Tier System for PrCs, which attempts to discern how prestige classes affect the tier of a build based on a particular entry.

Also something to take into account about the Tier System for Classes is that it's talking about single classes characters. This isn't necessarily a flaw, it's just not what the system was designed for. For example, how good two levels of fighter are for a barbarian build, especially when trying to qualify for PrCs, is not taken in to account, and deliberately so. Fighter levels are part of plenty of builds that are in tiers high above 5, the Fighter class on its own just has trouble reaching those levels of versatility.

[lytokk]

ok, wow... that's a big list of Prestige classes. Haven' read through the whole thing yet, but I hav to agree with what I found, Cavalier bumping Paladin up a tier makes a good deal of sense, and arcan archer down two tiers. No matter how hard I try, I've never gotten an Arcane Archer to actually work, which sucks cause that was the Prestige Class I got into D&D in order to play. Seriously, is an extra spellcasting level every other level too much to ask for...

[nedz]

I do think fighter belongs higher up on the tier list due to how much faster it can get any of the martial classes into PRC requirements. Skill points come ever level, feats, only every third. But that's not the point of the tier system, especially since PRCs aren't even on there, though those do focus more into specialities than flexibility, for the most part.

Fighter is a Solid 2 level dip, but only because you get two feats. It's skill points and, more importantly, it's class skills are poor. It doesn't get any other class features and it has no spells. Would you ever take Fighter beyond 2nd ?

[Lans]

But that's the thing. The wizard looks relatively easy to kill quickly, but the fighter is a burly monster coated in metal. If the monster recognizes how hard wizards are to kill, it'll also recognize how capable the wizard is of killing it. There isn't really much in the way of intelligence levels where you'd go after the fighter. It's like the degree of understanding that a monster has of the wizard's defensive prowess is proportional to the monster's understanding of how big of a threat the wizard is.

Yes, but the wizard can easily have perfect defense, making attacking him a lot like attacking the fighter, just less squishy

[eggynack]

Yes, but the wizard can easily have perfect defense, making attacking him a lot like attacking the fighter, just less squishy
That's where the second half of it comes in. For any enemy aware of the wizard's amazing defenses, they'd likely also be aware of the wizard's ridiculous offensive power, so they would still attack the wizard first. They'd also be unlikely to do a hit and run on the fighter, because they'd similarly be aware of the wizard's information gathering capability. If the enemy is just physically incapable of attacking the wizard in an efficient manner, then sure, he'll probably attack the fighter. However, if the enemy has the ability to attack the wizard, I think it's fair to assume that they will prioritize doing so.

[ryu]

Yes, but the wizard can easily have perfect defense, making attacking him a lot like attacking the fighter, just less squishy

And the monster that understands the threat of the wizard either doesn't attack the party in the first place, desperately attacks the most threatening thing hoping to get lucky, or runs at first opportunity.

[SciChronic]

also, fighters are in the front line, and monster X would have to risk AoO to reach the wizard, unless the monster has a ranged/reach method to attack the backline wizard, the fighter is the immediate threat. This ignores the possibility of a suprise attack, in which case, attacking the "weakest looking opponent" for a quick pick off would be the better decision, thus you would attack the wizard.

[Lans]

I will say, by the way, that in the case of the Full Plate TWF Fighter recommendations it wasn't a case of "Fighters are weak, don't play them." It was more "Fighters aren't that strong, and also that combat style is extra weak, so you won't be able to function". That's actually pretty accurate, as the build in question would have a seriously hard time fighting even CR'd opponents as it leveled up.


Could it work though? Exoticist fighter dual wielding the d12 warmaces, with knowledge devotion, and the weapon specialization line. Getting +14/16 to attack and damage is pretty solid. Then add in more feats and equipment.


Fighter is a Solid 2 level dip, but only because you get two feats. It's skill points and, more importantly, it's class skills are poor. It doesn't get any other class features and it has no spells. Would you ever take Fighter beyond 2nd ?

Honestly, a Fighter 12/barbarian 8 is probably better than a barbarian 12 fighter 8. If your going to dip a bunch of melee classes and look at what comes next fighter levels look about as good as any others after 2 levels.


That's where the second half of it comes in. For any enemy aware of the wizard's amazing defenses, they'd likely also be aware of the wizard's ridiculous offensive power, so they would still attack the wizard first. They'd also be unlikely to do a hit and run on the fighter, because they'd similarly be aware of the wizard's information gathering capability. If the enemy is just physically incapable of attacking the wizard in an efficient manner, then sure, he'll probably attack the fighter. However, if the enemy has the ability to attack the wizard, I think it's fair to assume that they will prioritize doing so.
Think of it as superman and captain america or flash and the monster is a guy with a gun. Shooting Superman is pointless even if he has an offense way off the charts, because of his defense

[Amphetryon]

Fighter is a Solid 2 level dip, but only because you get two feats. It's skill points and, more importantly, it's class skills are poor. It doesn't get any other class features and it has no spells. Would you ever take Fighter beyond 2nd ?

Depends on which ACFs were available.

[eggynack]

also, fighters are in the front line, and monster X would have to risk AoO to reach the wizard, unless the monster has a ranged/reach method to attack the backline wizard, the fighter is the immediate threat. This ignores the possibility of a suprise attack, in which case, attacking the "weakest looking opponent" for a quick pick off would be the better decision, thus you would attack the wizard.
Sure, AoO's are a factor. They're also just about the only factor, and they're not the hardest thing to avoid. The original question was whether a given enemy prioritizing wizard fighting over fighter fighting is metagaming, particularly if the fighter is closer, and whether the fighter needs some sort of method of forcing enemies to attack him. My answer is that it is not metagaming to attack the wizard, even if it would be somewhat more difficult to do so, and that the fighter thus does need some way to incentivize folks to attack him.



Think of it as superman and captain america or flash and the monster is a guy with a gun. Shooting Superman is pointless even if he has an offense way off the charts, because of his defense
If an enemy actually has no way of penetrating a wizard's defenses at all, which I honestly find a bit doubtful, then he should just not engage the party at all. Running in, killing the fighter, and running away just seems stupid.

[Lans]

Depends on which ACFs were available.
Honestly it also depends on what classes are available for your concept, for all the talk about feats < class features, they are about on par with what most mundane classes get after the first 2 levels.

[nedz]

Depends on which ACFs were available.

This is true but only applies to something like 2 builds.


Honestly it also depends on what classes are available for your concept, for all the talk about feats < class features, they are about on par with what most mundane classes get after the first 2 levels.

Fighter Feats < Feats because there is less choice.

[Squirrel_Dude]

also, fighters are in the front line, and monster X would have to risk AoO to reach the wizard, unless the monster has a ranged/reach method to attack the backline wizard, the fighter is the immediate threat. This ignores the possibility of a suprise attack, in which case, attacking the "weakest looking opponent" for a quick pick off would be the better decision, thus you would attack the wizard.Speaking purely in mechanics, as long as the lion goes first it wouldn't have to worry about an AOO by the fighter. Until the fighter acts it would be flat-footed in the combat, and wouldn't be able to take an AOO.

I'm assuming a relatively small area. With a relatively large area, the lion may be able to simply use it's speed (compared to heavy armor guy) to maneuver around the fighter and attack the wizard.


But yeah, in a surprise attack the fighter is probably not going to be attacked by much of anything.

[Amphetryon]

This is true but only applies to something like 2 builds.

True, but - as the ongoing Iron Chef Challenge in the Playground may be seen to demonstrate - there aren't really all that many different available builds. There are tons of variations on a theme, but that's not the same thing.

[nedz]

True, but - as the ongoing Iron Chef Challenge in the Playground may be seen to demonstrate - there aren't really all that many different available builds. There are tons of variations on a theme, but that's not the same thing.

Well, since I'm working on an entry I can't really comment.

Besides half of them are going to be counter vizzini paladins.

[Story]

(Though you do have a point about Wizards and their flexibility. V actually put it best in this comic. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0800.html))

People say wizards lack flexibility, but I haven't really experienced that. In cases where I can't do anything, it's more often due to forgetting to prepare OOC.



But even then, is anyone arguing that their favored/hated class is more than +/-1 Tier? Is anyone arguing that a Fighter is really a Tier 2, or that a Cleric is only a Tier 3, anything like that?

(Set aside people arguing against the whole Tier concept.)

Well there's always one or two people arguing that Monks are better than Wizards. But nothing good ever comes of getting drawn into arguments like that.

[JaronK]

Could it work though? Exoticist fighter dual wielding the d12 warmaces, with knowledge devotion, and the weapon specialization line. Getting +14/16 to attack and damage is pretty solid. Then add in more feats and equipment.

You'd have a tough time getting the skill points to make Knowledge Devotion worthwhile, and in the end would be a bad Warblade. Inability to attack and move in the same turn (effectively) would hurt a lot too. It would take a LOT of work... work that kind of player usually doesn't want to do. And pumping Dex (for TWF) only to ignore it due to Full Plate hurts.

Might be doable. Maybe. But it makes sense to say "hey, there are better ways to make the character you want."


Think of it as superman and captain america or flash and the monster is a guy with a gun. Shooting Superman is pointless even if he has an offense way off the charts, because of his defense

If it's at that level, the monster just surrenders anyway. So, we have to assume the monster thinks there's some chance of hurting that Wizard, or he'd have given up already.

JaronK

[Amphetryon]

You'd have a tough time getting the skill points to make Knowledge Devotion worthwhile, and in the end would be a bad Warblade. Inability to attack and move in the same turn (effectively) would hurt a lot too. It would take a LOT of work... work that kind of player usually doesn't want to do. And pumping Dex (for TWF) only to ignore it due to Full Plate hurts.

Might be doable. Maybe. But it makes sense to say "hey, there are better ways to make the character you want."
JaronK
Dump CON and get INT to HP (we both know there are ways) until you can take Necropolitan and make your Full Plate Mithral ASAP, and focus on Tiger Claw maneuvers to get something pretty close to two-weapon fighting, but yeah, that's a lot of work.

[Flickerdart]

Dump CON and get INT to HP (we both know there are ways) until you can take Necropolitan and make your Full Plate Mithral ASAP, and focus on Tiger Claw maneuvers to get something pretty close to two-weapon fighting, but yeah, that's a lot of work.
And if you apply the same amount of effort to building a Warblade, you will slay foes with a skewed glance.

[Amphetryon]

And if you apply the same amount of effort to building a Warblade, you will slay foes with a skewed glance.

I never said otherwise. Incidentally, the "amount of effort" was about 30 seconds thought about how to make the concept function, plus the time to type. . . so I've no doubt there are other glaring holes in the idea for which someone is about to eagerly deride me.

[JaronK]

Dump CON and get INT to HP (we both know there are ways) until you can take Necropolitan and make your Full Plate Mithral ASAP, and focus on Tiger Claw maneuvers to get something pretty close to two-weapon fighting, but yeah, that's a lot of work.

Can a Necropolitan really sleep with a Fey? Because last time I checked that was how you got Int to HP. I'm not sure that mechanically works... let's just go with something like "Get turned into a Necropolitan by a Dread Necromancer in a Desecrated area near an Evil Altar for D12+4 HP/HD" or something.

Not sure the Tiger Claw stuff quite works though, and you'd need the Educated feat for the Knowledge skills, plus a very high Int... I dunno. This is definitely weird.

JaronK

[eggynack]

Can a Necropolitan really sleep with a Fey? Because last time I checked that was how you got Int to HP.
Can you do the opposite? Having sex with a fey and then going necropolitan seems feasible.

[Rubik]

Can a Necropolitan really sleep with a Fey? Because last time I checked that was how you got Int to HP. I'm not sure that mechanically works... let's just go with something like "Get turned into a Necropolitan by a Dread Necromancer in a Desecrated area near an Evil Altar for D12+4 HP/HD" or something.

Not sure the Tiger Claw stuff quite works though, and you'd need the Educated feat for the Knowledge skills, plus a very high Int... I dunno. This is definitely weird.

JaronKThe necropolitan gets Faerie Mysteries Initiate, and the fey gets Lich-Loved.

[Red Fel]

The necropolitan gets Faerie Mysteries Initiate, and the fey gets Lich-Loved.

The Seven-Year Lich?

[DR27]

See, when I see a guy post on these forums asking for help building a concept, it never makes sense to me that they are so focused on a metagame construct like classes that they dismiss good ideas that would help them achieve their goal. Sure, tell us that you want help playing a two weapon fighter in full plate. That part is your character concept. Why get all mad at posters who offer up ways to give you mechanical crunch to go with your fluff?

[TheIronGolem]

Can you do the opposite? Having sex with a fey and then going necropolitan seems feasible.

Only if you need to get fey'd so hard that you could just die.

[ryu]

Only if you need to get fey'd so hard that you could just die.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YMPAH67f4o

Congratulations good sir.

[georgie_leech]

Jokes aside, it's possible to be intimate with out certain... parts. After all, most Necropolitans still have hands, no?

[ryu]

Jokes aside, it's possible to be intimate with out certain... parts. After all, most Necropolitans still have hands, no?

Who needs hands? I can't imagine he'd have problems keeping stiff.

[Rubik]

There's nothing saying the fleshy bits would rot off, or whatever. Necropolitans aren't rotting undead, after all. They're more like vampires, but without the need for blood.

[navar100]

There's nothing saying the fleshy bits would rot off, or whatever. Necropolitans aren't rotting undead, after all. They're more like vampires, but without the need for blood.

To be intimate with fey they actually do need blood someplace.

[Grod_The_Giant]

To be intimate with fey they actually do need blood someplace.
What, never heard of rigor mortis? :smallamused:

(Ok, it wouldn't actually work because rigor mortis is muscles and your trouser titan depends on blood flow, but let it never by said that I let biological knowledge get in the way of a good bad joke.

[13_CBS]

*Ahem* Getting away from the subject of necrophilia...


Fighter is a Solid 2 level dip, but only because you get two feats. It's skill points and, more importantly, it's class skills are poor. It doesn't get any other class features and it has no spells. Would you ever take Fighter beyond 2nd ?

But...but I like the upgraded version of Dungeoncrasher. :smallfrown:

[DR27]

What, never heard of rigor mortis? :smallamused:

(Ok, it wouldn't actually work because rigor mortis is muscles and your trouser titan depends on blood flow, but let it never by said that I let biological knowledge get in the way of a good bad joke.Back on the subject of necrophilia - well, I don't know how it would work for a Necropolitan, but coroners call it "angel lust." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_erection)

[Rubik]

<Snip>I probably could've lived my entire life without knowing that, honestly.

The more you know!

*Scarred!*

[13_CBS]

I probably could've lived my entire life without knowing that, honestly.

The more you know!

*Scarred!*

Knowing is half the battle, but I feel like I lost this one.

ANYWAYS, BACK TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND

Erm...so, yeah. I actually kind of like sticking with Fighter long enough for that upgraded version of Dungeoncrasher to unlock, if only because the Flaming Homer tricks and such don't really fly at my table.

Also, clever uses of Bull Rush + Shocktrooper = ways for Fighters to contribute at my table that isn't just "hit thing with stick".

[nedz]

See, when I see a guy post on these forums asking for help building a concept, it never makes sense to me that they are so focused on a metagame construct like classes that they dismiss good ideas that would help them achieve their goal. Sure, tell us that you want help playing a two weapon fighter in full plate. That part is your character concept. Why get all mad at posters who offer up ways to give you mechanical crunch to go with your fluff?

Yeah, that sort of thing annoys me. OK my suggestion may not be what you want, but it may lead someone else to come up with a creative idea which is what you are looking for. How will you ever be able to think outside of the box if you are focussed strongly on there being a box ?

[Harrow]

Another reason to take the tier system with a grain of salt is that 'common knowledge' has been wrong before. Sometimes very wrong. Not necessarily on this board (I wasn't here at the time, so I wouldn't know how widespread it was), but very much across several boards and through the D&D community, magic item crafting, particularly of consumables, was seen as a terrible idea. Then, a couple of refutations came along.

The early ones pointed out that being under the party average level by one but with over-inflated wealth doesn't necessarily make you significantly weaker and the bonus xp for this helps you keep close, often maintaining party average level while still crafting. Someone later pointed out that an Artificer can survive and thrive using wands for blasting as long as they carefully manage both how much wealth they get each combat and their craft XP reserve.

In another specific instance of this, it has been brought up many times before and a couple times in this thread that melee characters run out of HP before casters run out of spell slots. I don't think that's true.

At first I did. Have you seen the natural healing rate? 1 HP per character level. Without access to healing spells, that's how much you can lose throughout all of a day's encounters without having to take time off from the adventure for extra rest. Everything was very much built with the intention that everyone drag a healbot around. But then you have opportunity cost to think about. If the Cleric's spells are doing more than the Fighter and the Fighter can only lose a couple of hitpoints a day before packing up, why do you even have the Fighter?

But, there's another factor I had been leaving out. There's a discrepancy between the total expected loot gain and WBL between levels. It is often assumed this extra loot is intended to go into consumables and the like. Based on some back-of-the-napkin calculations of mine, a level 1 Fighter should get about 20 gold per encounter.

As long as the Fighter can get more healing for 20 gold than he loses in hitpoints per encounter, he can keep going indefinitely. The first thing that comes to my mind is potions. Potions of Lesser Vigor cost 50 gold each and heal 11 HP. That's 22 HP over 5 fights, which is not very great, but a lot better than the 1 HP you get naturally.

Better still is the controversial partially charged wand. Those are still controversial, right? Assuming some way to pay per charge of a Wand of Lesser Vigor and being able to convince someone to use the wand on you without gold cost (pretty big assumptions, but not impossible. ), you're up to 55 HP over 4 encounters. That's good enough you could probably spend a bit of extra gold now and again.

Continuing down the line, as long as you stay near a decent sized city and do city-adventure things, you can pay spellcasters to cast Lesser Vigor on you. That's 10 gold for 11 HP, or 22 gold per fight, or more than you actually need. This option is, however, rather limiting. It is especially hard to combine with the Ticking Clock you need to stop your spellcasters from being able to replenish spell slots between every encounter. However, the two can be combined, and the method is efficient enough you could probably afford to go in with your group for a Wand of Lesser Vigor from time to time and have expeditions away from cities for a few days, assuming you have a cleric, druid, or archivist in your group, and you still get to contribute without leeching spells.

This is not all set in stone of course. These were, again, a few quick calculations, and even then just for level 1. But then, healing gets much easier as you level. A resetting trap of Lesser Vigor should have a market value of 1,000 gold, which should be easy for any second level party assuming everyone chips in. If that's too cheesy for you, as you level up you get more and more gold per lost HP, so Wands of Lesser Vigor just get better as you level. Even without someone that can use wands, by mid level you can get a fine stack of Healing Belts that, because you can only find so many encounters in a day, should be able to last you pretty much indefinitely, or at least allow a stack of *shudder* potions to last you for several days outside of a town.

So there you have it. If a melee character runs out of HP before a caster runs out of spells, it's not because he lost HP faster but because he didn't make decisions that would lead to the recovery of those XP. For what it's worth, Fighter can indeed be a Fighter all day long, where a Wizard gets to be a Commoner after a couple encounters if long periods of time go by where he can't rest.

[nedz]

Another reason to take the tier system with a grain of salt is that 'common knowledge' has been wrong before. Sometimes very wrong. Not necessarily on this board (I wasn't here at the time, so I wouldn't know how widespread it was), but very much across several boards and through the D&D community, magic item crafting, particularly of consumables, was seen as a terrible idea. Then, a couple of refutations came along.

The early ones pointed out that being under the party average level by one but with over-inflated wealth doesn't necessarily make you significantly weaker and the bonus xp for this helps you keep close, often maintaining party average level while still crafting. Someone later pointed out that an Artificer can survive and thrive using wands for blasting as long as they carefully manage both how much wealth they get each combat and their craft XP reserve.

In another specific instance of this, it has been brought up many times before and a couple times in this thread that melee characters run out of HP before casters run out of spell slots. I don't think that's true.

At first I did. Have you seen the natural healing rate? 1 HP per character level. Without access to healing spells, that's how much you can lose throughout all of a day's encounters without having to take time off from the adventure for extra rest. Everything was very much built with the intention that everyone drag a healbot around. But then you have opportunity cost to think about. If the Cleric's spells are doing more than the Fighter and the Fighter can only lose a couple of hitpoints a day before packing up, why do you even have the Fighter?

But, there's another factor I had been leaving out. There's a discrepancy between the total expected loot gain and WBL between levels. It is often assumed this extra loot is intended to go into consumables and the like. Based on some back-of-the-napkin calculations of mine, a level 1 Fighter should get about 20 gold per encounter.

As long as the Fighter can get more healing for 20 gold than he loses in hitpoints per encounter, he can keep going indefinitely. The first thing that comes to my mind is potions. Potions of Lesser Vigor cost 50 gold each and heal 11 HP. That's 22 HP over 5 fights, which is not very great, but a lot better than the 1 HP you get naturally.

Better still is the controversial partially charged wand. Those are still controversial, right? Assuming some way to pay per charge of a Wand of Lesser Vigor and being able to convince someone to use the wand on you without gold cost (pretty big assumptions, but not impossible. ), you're up to 55 HP over 4 encounters. That's good enough you could probably spend a bit of extra gold now and again.

Continuing down the line, as long as you stay near a decent sized city and do city-adventure things, you can pay spellcasters to cast Lesser Vigor on you. That's 10 gold for 11 HP, or 22 gold per fight, or more than you actually need. This option is, however, rather limiting. It is especially hard to combine with the Ticking Clock you need to stop your spellcasters from being able to replenish spell slots between every encounter. However, the two can be combined, and the method is efficient enough you could probably afford to go in with your group for a Wand of Lesser Vigor from time to time and have expeditions away from cities for a few days, assuming you have a cleric, druid, or archivist in your group, and you still get to contribute without leeching spells.

This is not all set in stone of course. These were, again, a few quick calculations, and even then just for level 1. But then, healing gets much easier as you level. A resetting trap of Lesser Vigor should have a market value of 1,000 gold, which should be easy for any second level party assuming everyone chips in. If that's too cheesy for you, as you level up you get more and more gold per lost HP, so Wands of Lesser Vigor just get better as you level. Even without someone that can use wands, by mid level you can get a fine stack of Healing Belts that, because you can only find so many encounters in a day, should be able to last you pretty much indefinitely, or at least allow a stack of *shudder* potions to last you for several days outside of a town.

So there you have it. If a melee character runs out of HP before a caster runs out of spells, it's not because he lost HP faster but because he didn't make decisions that would lead to the recovery of those XP. For what it's worth, Fighter can indeed be a Fighter all day long, where a Wizard gets to be a Commoner after a couple encounters if long periods of time go by where he can't rest.

If your fighter is spending his WBL on healing, how is he buying that +10 Hackmaster, Magical Armour and, heaven forfend, Magical Shield; Let alone a means of Flying, Teleporting, Planeshifting, etc which he might also need ?

[lytokk]

Ya know, with all the power wizards have, I've thought of something, they're not completely self sufficient. From level 1-20 I mean. A level 1 wizard is going to need help. Only a few classes come to mind that could be 100% self sustaining classes, from 1-20. Thinking from everything from combat to actual daily life.

Fighters aren't self sufficient either, so I'm not saying fighter is better that wizard. But the thought is a wizard needs a fighter as much as a fighter needs a wizard, using the entire level range that is, 1-20.

[LordBlades]

Ya know, with all the power wizards have, I've thought of something, they're not completely self sufficient. From level 1-20 I mean. A level 1 wizard is going to need help. Only a few classes come to mind that could be 100% self sustaining classes, from 1-20. Thinking from everything from combat to actual daily life.

Fighters aren't self sufficient either, so I'm not saying fighter is better that wizard. But the thought is a wizard needs a fighter as much as a fighter needs a wizard, using the entire level range that is, 1-20.

You can build a wizard to be self-sufficient though. A fighter not really.

[lytokk]

build yes, but over the entire leveling from 1-20, the wizard is going to need his meat shield for the first, I'd think its safe to say 8 levels. That is unless he's locked in as a wizards apprentice gaining his levels through nothing but study.
The idea is, except for a handful of classes, including but not limited to druid, every single class is going to need help from other classes.

[Amphetryon]

build yes, but over the entire leveling from 1-20, the wizard is going to need his meat shield for the first, I'd think its safe to say 8 levels. That is unless he's locked in as a wizards apprentice gaining his levels through nothing but study.
The idea is, except for a handful of classes, including but not limited to druid, every single class is going to need help from other classes.

In your experience, the above may very well be true. In my experience - and, I'd wager, the experience of some others here - a Wizard can do without a constant melee companion (Fighter, Barbarian, Warblade, whatever) from 1st level just fine, assuming the Wizard actually has and uses INT as his primary stat.

[Harrow]

If your fighter is spending his WBL on healing, how is he buying that +10 Hackmaster, Magical Armour and, heaven forfend, Magical Shield; Let alone a means of Flying, Teleporting, Planeshifting, etc which he might also need ?

As I stated in my post, expected wealth gain per encounter multiplied by encounters needed to level puts you over WBL. If the Fighter spends 20 gold per encounter from level 1, he'll actually be over WBL by the time he hits level 2.

[Story]

Fighters aren't self sufficient either, so I'm not saying fighter is better that wizard. But the thought is a wizard needs a fighter as much as a fighter needs a wizard, using the entire level range that is, 1-20.

The fact that level 1 all Wizard parties have been successful refutes this.

But even if it were true, why a Fighter of all things? Why not get a Druid, who can actually contribute to fights both now and later on, and comes with a free Fighter as a class feature that won't demand a share of the loot?

[navar100]

Back on the subject of necrophilia - well, I don't know how it would work for a Necropolitan, but coroners call it "angel lust." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_erection)

Perhaps this is the true reason zombies multiply rapidly. Biting is just for fun.

[lytokk]

I would say a smart wizard could do just fine, but spot and listen are wisdom based skills. Unless a smart wizard does nothing but stay in the library until level 5. Otherwise a d4 hit die and no armor spells death by a level appropriate encounter of a single kobold.

[Flickerdart]

I would say a smart wizard could do just fine, but spot and listen are wisdom based skills. Unless a smart wizard does nothing but stay in the library until level 5. Otherwise a d4 hit die and no armor spells death by a level appropriate encounter of a single kobold.
Wizards get Awareness free from their familiars, who also get to make Spot and Listen checks. They are much better off than many classes when it comes to detecting ambushes.

[lytokk]

And this whole time I've only really been using fighter vs wizard as a comparison, since I think they're the iconic classes of D&D.

[Gwendol]

Ah, but Schrödinger's wizard always has an answer to everything!

[lytokk]

a wizards starting gold is 3d4x10 gp. Level 1. A familiar costs 100 gold to summon. The average level 1 wizard isn't going to have enough money to summon a familiar, using WBL

[Flickerdart]

a wizards starting gold is 3d4x10 gp. Level 1. A familiar costs 100 gold to summon. The average level 1 wizard isn't going to have enough money to summon a familiar, using WBL
He can sell his services as a spellcaster (1st level spell at CL1 sells for 10gp) or sell access to his spellbook to other wizards (copying a 1st level spell has a 50gp cost). Between the two options it will take a determined wizard about a day to get the startup capital he needs.

[Squirrel_Dude]

a wizards starting gold is 3d4x10 gp. Level 1. A familiar costs 100 gold to summon. The average level 1 wizard isn't going to have enough money to summon a familiar, using WBLAt the first combat? No.

You don't magically gain 1000 gold when you reach level 2. You're normally gaining money as you go through encounters. A wizard can reasonably be expected to have a familiar before level 2, as a fighter can reasonable expect to get full-plate before level 3.

[Rubik]

Don't forget, mules costs 8 gp, and training them isn't hard.

[Harrow]

There's a feat, Wild Cohort. Perfect for solo Wizards trying to make it at level 1. Can be retrained later. Alternatively, a party of 4 wizards can all take Wild cohort at level 1, which is hilarious.

[Story]

There's also Keen Intellect which gives Int to spot checks if you really want it. But at level 1, it's mostly up to the d20 anyway.

Anyone think we should actually run a playtest with all wizards just to settle this once and for all? Unfortunately I don't have much time, and no experience with Pbp.

[LordBlades]

I would say a smart wizard could do just fine, but spot and listen are wisdom based skills. Unless a smart wizard does nothing but stay in the library until level 5. Otherwise a d4 hit die and no armor spells death by a level appropriate encounter of a single kobold.

Also Abrupt Jaunt. You get to say 'LOL NOPE' to 3+Int attacks per day (that's between 6 and 8 attacks for most 1st level wizards. Most level 1 fighters can't really survive 6 to 8 attacks from level appropriate foes without healing.

A 1st level wizard with Abrupt Jaunt and Wild Cohort (which has already been mentioned) is probably more self-sufficient than anything but a druid.

[lytokk]

I'm really only being contrary to get specific explanations. I do believe the squishy nature of wizards at low levels really hampers them without a fighter to defend them, basically a level 1 wizard is much easier to kill than a level 1 fighter. Talking these things out like this is really helping me get a firmer grasp on the flexibility wizards have that for some reason I never thought they did.

I've always been more opt to play sorcerers instead of wizards. Smaller spell selection, but more flexibility in a casting day.

[Harrow]

Another thing, how exactly does a Fighter protect a Wizard? There's no way to pull aggro. Especially at first level, a Wizard is going to be much more vulnerable to attack, so why attack someone else? If the Wizard/Fighter team ambush an encounter, that's great, but even if a Fighter somehow ends up threatening a foe, the foe can always 5fs then go after the Wizard. No, 2 Wizards working together, especially from 1st level and being built to go 1-20 are going to be much better off than a Fighter and a Wizard or, god forbid, two Fighters.

[georgie_leech]

Also Abrupt Jaunt. You get to say 'LOL NOPE' to 3+Int attacks per day (that's between 6 and 8 attacks for most 1st level wizards. Most level 1 fighters can't really survive 6 to 8 attacks from level appropriate foes without healing.

A 1st level wizard with Abrupt Jaunt and Wild Cohort (which has already been mentioned) is probably more self-sufficient than anything but a druid.

Away from book, but last I checked it only worked once per round. A couple of spread out kobolds slinging stones at the unlucky wizard might pose a bit of a problem.

[DR27]

Another thing, how exactly does a Fighter protect a Wizard? There's no way to pull aggro.Level 1? Combat Reflexes + Stand Still, reach weapon. It's not great, but with proper positioning really helps keep enemies out of melee with the squishies. Crusader or Knight do it better at mid levels, but yeah.

[lytokk]

they hypothetical situation I was giving was a single kobold, cr 1/3. Any more than that and it wouldn't be a level appropriate encounter for a single character of any class. Granted I could say 6 kobolds, at which point any single character of any level 1 class may have some problems, unless you're a human fighter and can get off a great cleave attempt, afer getting surrounded, and being lucky enough to not get hit 3 times (the average kobold is going to hit for about 4 damage per attack, fighter d10 hit die, +2 con modifier)

[LordBlades]

Away from book, but last I checked it only worked once per round. A couple of spread out kobolds slinging stones at the unlucky wizard might pose a bit of a problem.

It does, since it's an immediate action. Still, it's a much better defensive measure than most (if not all) classes get at level 1.

[Boci]

they hypothetical situation I was giving was a single kobold, cr 1/3. Any more than that and it wouldn't be a level appropriate encounter for a single character of any class. Granted I could say 6 kobolds, at which point any single character of any level 1 class may have some problems, unless you're a human fighter and can get off a great cleave attempt, afer getting surrounded, and being lucky enough to not get hit 3 times (the average kobold is going to hit for about 4 damage per attack, fighter d10 hit die, +2 con modifier)

By the time you have great cleave, you do not have d10 hitpints.

[lytokk]

ahh, forgot about the BA+4 requirement. so yeah, 6 kobolds against a level 1 character, pretty much makes a dead character, though I guess anyone without hampered movement could outrun them.

[ryu]

ahh, forgot about the BA+4 requirement. so yeah, 6 kobolds against a level 1 character, pretty much makes a dead character, though I guess anyone without hampered movement could outrun them.

Depends. How spread out are they? If too close together the wizard has a decent chance of neutralizing them in a round with a simple spell. If they're far enough apart to take two rounds chances are still likely with initiative boosters to go first followed by abrupt jaunt to ensure he lives through the attacks of the blighters left.

[Boci]

Depends. How spread out are they? If too close together the wizard has a decent chance of neutralizing them in a round with a simple spell. If they're far enough apart to take two rounds chances are still likely with initiative boosters to go first followed by abrupt jaunt to ensure he lives through the attacks of the blighters left.

Not really. Colour spray is good at catching two, maybe three enemies if you are lucky, not 6. Its entire area is 6 squares. Even then, assuming 18 intelligence, each kobold still has a 25% chance of passing their save, so even if 4 are caught, one will pass its save statistically (I think).

[ryu]

Not really. Colour spray is good at catching two, maybe three enemies if you are lucky, not 6. Its entire area is 6 squares. Even then, assuming 18 intelligence, each kobold still has a 25% chance of passing their save, so even if 4 are caught, one will pass its save statistically (I think).

This would be why I pointed out the strategy attempting to live into second round to do things. With round survived in this case victory becomes exponentially more likely. It's no sure thing mind, but it's no sure loss either.

[Harrow]

ahh, forgot about the BA+4 requirement. so yeah, 6 kobolds against a level 1 character, pretty much makes a dead character, though I guess anyone without hampered movement could outrun them.

Well, Wizard's get Sleep, so that's almost certainly 3 of them down in one action, and 4 wouldn't be surprising. The Wizard is far from certain victory, but things are looking pretty good for him.

But Wizards don't get all the fun!

An Azurin Incarnate could have both Astral Vambraces and Dissolving Spittle shaped, giving him Dr 4/magic and a once per round 2d6 acid damage touch attack at level 1. He's looking pretty good against... pretty much everything a level 1 character could reasonably face. And that's before feat selection.

Besides that, Crusaders get Crusader's strike which they can use every few turns to heal d6+1 hitpoints, which is a big deal at level 1. They also get Martial Spirit, which is always active and gives them 2 hitpoints every time they hit something. He can also take Shape Soulmeld : Astral Vambraces as a feat for Dr 2/magic, 4 if he's an Azurin.

Speaking of class features as feats, other characters can take Martial Study and Martial Stance to get Crusader's Strike once per combat and Martial Spirit all the time, which means Fighter, Barbarian, and Warblade are all looking pretty nice. Oh, and it's kinda cheesy without Psychic Reformation, but the Wizard's Wild Cohort can take Shape Soulmeld, Martial Study, and, if it has at least 3 HD, Martial Stance as well.

IIRC, there's also an ACF to trade a Wizard's Familiar for an Animal Companion. Why drag around a Fighter that needs to be rezzed when killed and demands part of the loot when for a feat and an ACF you can get two that you can replace in a day and you only give loot that you deem they need?

[Boci]

This would be why I pointed out the strategy attempting to live into second round to do things. With round survived in this case victory becomes exponentially more likely. It's no sure thing mind, but it's no sure loss either.

Even then, kobolds aren't stupid. If they see you break out a colourspray, those left will scatter, at which point you are going to be lucky to even hit 2, and that's a assuming you even have a second colour spray, since one of your spells must be a conjuration (they are a specialist) that statistically leaves the wizards fighter 3 kobolds on round 1 (who act after him), and 2 kobolds on round 2, when he has only a 1st level conjurations spell and some cantrips left. Possibly sure, but still unlikely, and I have been very generous with the assumed circumstance.


Well, Wizard's get Sleep, so that's almost certainly 3 of them down in one action, and 4 wouldn't be surprising. The Wizard is far from certain victory, but things are looking pretty good for him.

Full round action to cast, so that's 5 chances to be disrupted.

[ryu]

They scatter? Hello opportunity to escape combat after only having used one spell on an encounter that was supposed to be basically impossible to survive. Not only that I come out LESS SCATHED than the kobolds did.

[Boci]

They scatter? Hello opportunity to escape combat after only having used one spell on an encounter that was supposed to be basically impossible to survive.

Scatter could just mean they move apart whilst still fighting. And even if they do properly scatter, they still have slings.



Not only that I come out LESS SCATHED than the kobolds did.

No, kobolds lost no one. I doubt the fleeing wizard is gona coup de grace the unconscious kobolds. What is it, 5 minutes and they're up?

[Harrow]

Full round action to cast, so that's 5 chances to be disrupted.

One round casting time actually, but it is how you described it. Honestly, about the only way I can see a level 1 Wizard getting out of this is if he ran for it. But, that holds true for most classes. With really good feat selection, a few of the martial classes could probably pull it off, and a Druid with Entangle and Produce Flame and an Animal Companion and possibly a Wild Cohort has a decent chance, but I also see a lot of Fighters, Paladins, Rogues, Bards, and Clerics not having a lot of options.

[Boci]

One round casting time actually, but it is how you described it. Honestly, about the only way I can see a level 1 Wizard getting out of this is if he ran for it. But, that holds true for most classes. With really good feat selection, a few of the martial classes could probably pull it off, and a Druid with Entangle and Produce Flame and an Animal Companion and possibly a Wild Cohort has a decent chance, but I also see a lot of Fighters, Paladins, Rogues, Bards, and Clerics not having a lot of options.

Rogue could win at a game of hide and seek hit and run, it depends on location and light source. But yeah, those other classes are just as screwed as the wizard.

[ryu]

With 18 int as you said earlier and increasingly large range increments those slings aren't likely to hit. Further doesn't an 18 in a stat mean these things were using PC creation rules rather than NPC elite array? Pretty sure that's more CR for the encounter.

[Boci]

With 18 int as you said earlier and increasingly large range increments those slings aren't likely to hit.

How does intelligence reduce your chance of being hit?


Further doesn't an 18 in a stat mean these things were using PC creation rules rather than NPC elite array? Pretty sure that's more CR for the encounter.

I don't get what you mean.

[ryu]

Every point you put into a stat is a point you aren't putting into the relevant accuracy stat. 18s are expensive by PC creation rules let alone NPC elite array. Also last I check slings have a crummy short range increment.

Most monsters and NPCs not using class levels are generally assumed to be using elite array stats rather than actually competently done PC stats. If every Kobold is playing with PC stats I'm pretty sure they've higher stats than is expected in their base entry. That almost has to modify CR considering each one was well below CR 1 to start with.

[Boci]

Every point you put into a stat is a point you aren't putting into the relevant accuracy stat. 18s are expensive by PC creation rules let alone NPC elite array. Also last I check slings have a crummy short range increment.

Most monsters and NPCs not using class levels are generally assumed to be using elite array stats rather than actually competently done PC stats. If every Kobold is playing with PC stats I'm pretty sure they've higher stats than is expected in their base entry. That almost has to modify CR considering each one was well below CR 1 to start with.

Its the wizard that has 18 int. I was being kind and assuming they had a high save DC to their spells.

[ryu]

Actually wizard is a gray elf. Int 20. Also focused specialist also increases spell DCs if I use any conjuration BFC.

[Gnaeus]

they hypothetical situation I was giving was a single kobold, cr 1/3.


I'm really only being contrary to get specific explanations. I do believe the squishy nature of wizards at low levels really hampers them without a fighter to defend them, basically a level 1 wizard is much easier to kill than a level 1 fighter.

OK, so 6 Kobolds, a CR 2-3 encounter, is (arguably) more likely to kill a level 1 wizard than a fighter. Ignoring arguments about sleep or color spray etc, there are lots of encounters that are easier for the low level wizard than the fighter, or certain death for the fighter.

For example, a single Shadow CR3 will kill a first or second level fighter. Lacking a magic weapon, the fighter cannot harm the incorporeal. In medium or heavy armor, he can never escape its fly 40 perfect. He's dead. A wizard 1 or 2 may not be able to beat the shadow, but is much more likely to survive the encounter, since with Expeditious Retreat or Mount he actually has a chance to escape, and his AC vs incorporeal touch is likely much higher than the fighter.

Or a L1 fighter or wizard vs. a L2 Orc subchief fighter. With more hit points, higher BAB and higher strength, he is more than equal to our human fighter. Wielding a greatsword or greataxe, he is very likely to drop either PC in one hit (although an abrupt jaunt wizard will certainly survive). Since the level 2 orc has 16-18 HP, our fighter probably needs a crit or 2 solid hits to kill him. On the other hand, with his -2 will save, the wizard's color spray has an excellent chance to take him out of the fight, waiting for a coup de grace. This fight is a loss for fighter 1, clear win for abrupt jaunt wizard, probably comes down to initiative for non abrupt jaunt wizard.

Or instead of 6 kobolds, a single kobold sorcerer 1 who wins init and casts color spray. At this level, it is a save or die, but the wizard has a better will save than the fighter. Either one can kill the kobold sorc if their turn ever comes up. Advantage wizard. Again, if Abrupt Jaunt is in play, significant advantage wizard.

So, no, the 6 kobold encounter does not prove that wizard is squishier than fighter. There are lots of equal CR encounters where the wizard has the advantage. And this does not really prove anything about the Tier system. What it proves is that level 1 combats are swingy and level 1 characters are unlikely to have developed well rounded defenses. By level 3, the wizard looks much better. By level 5, vastly better.

And if you read the Tier system, you will note that it puts the heaviest emphasis on Mid level play, followed by low levels, and the least emphasis on high level play. The reason that E6 is a thing is that the power disparities that make the tier system meaningful have not made the melee characters really obsolete until about level 7.

[Boci]

Actually wizard is a gray elf. Int 20. Also focused specialist also increases spell DCs if I use any conjuration BFC.

Not necessarily. You may have limited point buy or have to roll. 18 is to me erring on the side of generous. Yes you could have more, but then the DM could also swap alertness for iron will or give them the immunity to mind affecting spells feat through flaws. Let's call it 18 intelligence, no other boosters (especially since you would need to be a specialist in conjuration, so the DC for colourspray remains the same) against untampered kobolds.

[ryu]

Not necessarily. You may have limited point buy or have to roll. 18 is to me erring on the side of generous. Yes you could have more, but then the DM could also swap alertness for iron will or give them the immunity to mind affecting spells feat through flaws. Let's call it 18 intelligence, no other boosters (especially since you would need to be a specialist in conjuration, so the DC for colourspray remains the same) against untampered kobolds.

You want to play that game? Precocious apprentice into early level 2 spells and thus web. Have fun with that kobolds built to take down a basic level optimization wizard.

[Boci]

You want to play that game? Precocious apprentice into early level 2 spells and thus web. Have fun with that kobolds built to take down a basic level optimization wizard.

Really? You want to play that game against the DM?

1. Doesn't work that way, you make the character then the DM designs the encounter.

2. CL level 8 check or spell fails.

3. Point buy 15. What's the DC of your spells again?

I think assuming that a grey elf wizard had 18 intelligence was fair, bending towards generous. You seem to think that is a horrible injustice to the player. I'm not seeing why. And do you really think I'm going to use standard kobolds against someone uses that much optimization.

[ryu]

Really? You want to play that game against the DM?

1. Doesn't work that way, you make the character then the DM designs the encounter.

2. CL level 8 check or spell fails.

3. Point buy 15. What's the DC of your spells again?

I think assuming that a grey elf wizard had 18 intelligence was fair, bending towards generous. You seem to think that is a horrible injustice to the player. I'm not seeing why. And do you really think I'm going to use standard kobolds against someone uses that much optimization.

The assumptions of the game as played assume the basic, standard rules. The fact that you have to go this far out of your way to make the wizard not win demonstrates the point I was making. A well made wizard breaks six kobolds.

[Boci]

The assumptions of the game as played assume the basic, standard rules.

The basic, standard rules does that mean you get to pull all the crazy tricks you want and the DM has to use monsters as written. Tweaking them is permitted under the rules. You can hardly be playing a well optimized wizard and claim you are using basic, standard rules. I gave the wizard a generous intelligence and unnerfed abjurant jump, those aren't exactly given.

[nedz]

I'm not sure that a level 1 comparison is terribly useful. The normal claim is that Fighters improve linearly as they level up, but Wizards improve quadratically. So even if a level 1 Wizard is weaker than a level 1 Fighter, by mid levels even: the Wizard will be ahead.

[ryu]

The basic, standard rules does that mean you get to pull all the crazy tricks you want and the DM has to use monsters as written. Tweaking them is permitted under the rules. You can hardly be playing a well optimized wizard and claim you are using basic, standard rules. I gave the wizard a generous intelligence and unnerfed abjurant jump, those aren't exactly given.

They are basic options all of which within the base rules until the DM disallows them. Oh a basic 18 into a stat with a modifier race is SO unusual. Right. Same thing with ACFs and other such trades blatantly listed as things you can do that aren't mutually exclusive.

Now you can say the wizard as the base game presents him is more powerful than most even at level one and you aren't okay with that. That proves my point.

[Boci]

They are basic options all of which within the base rules until the DM disallows them.

So is re-tweaking monsters.


Oh a basic 18 into a stat with a modifier race is SO unusual. Right.

If you are rolling its fairly lucky, and assuming point will allow for an 18 isn't the best strategy. You have to assume some things won't work out ideally.


Same thing with ACFs and other such trades blatantly listed as things you can do that aren't mutually exclusive.

Really? You're taking offense at the implication that it is a generous Dm that will allow unnerfed abrupt jaunt?


Now you can say the wizard as the base game presents him is more powerful than most even at level one and you aren't okay with that. That proves my point.

I'm not debating that wizards are overpowered. They're tier 1, its a given. I just think you shouldn't assume every options will work out favoruable. And really if wizards are that powerful (and they are) they shouldn't need to really one such tricks. And as others have said, there are classes better suited for taking on this challenge than the wizard. And yes, that includes a DM retweaking the kobolds. Is the the part where you pretend giving the kobolds 8 racial hitdie with no change to CR is totally equivalent to my retweaking?

[ryu]

It isn't exactly normal for the DM to go out of their way to nerf players while applying optimization to encounters. It's orders of magnitude more cutthroat than the system assumes. Further not every option works out favorably. A specialist wizard banning conjuration and transfiguration is a bad life choice. Doing what I just pointed out is basic system competence.

Anyway OP see what I was talking about? Five seconds optimizing is enough to manhandle the base encounter you gave with a level one wizard. Another five was enough to deal with improved versions of those kobolds and anger a hypothetical DM. He even agrees to the point I was making that wizards are OP at all levels.

[Boci]

It isn't exactly normal for the DM to go out of their way to nerf players while applying optimization to encounters.

Good luck find a DM who feels bad about nerfing/banning abrupt jaunt whilst swapping out a monster's +2 to XY skill feats for something more useful.


It's orders of magnitude more cutthroat than the system assumes.

How's your blaster wizard, since system assumption now seems to apply?


A specialist wizard banning conjuration and transfiguration is a bad life choice. Doing what I just pointed out is basic system competence.

No, a 20 intelligence abrupt jaunt conjuration specialist grey elf wizard is not basic system competence. And no I'm not insisting you ban any schools other than evocation, necromancery and enchantment.


Anyway OP see what I was talking about? Five seconds optimizing is enough to manhandle the base encounter you gave with a level one wizard.

No. PA has the CL 8 check, so it is out, so you still have the origional grey elf caster who now has a 85% chance of neutralizing a kobold. Same problems, its not a guaranteed victory, and other classes are better suited for the challenge.


Another five was enough to deal with improved versions of those kobolds and anger a hypothetical DM.

No, acting entitled and complaining at the implication that maybe you should try doing it without abrupt jaunt and maxed intelligence was enough to anger the hypothetical DM.


He even agrees to the point I was making that wizards are OP at all levels.

Just to confirm that yes I do.

[Story]

Allowing PB isn't guaranteed, but it isn't exactly rare either.

Besides, so what if the DC is 15 instead of 16? You seem to be veering into Oberoni fallacy territory here.

[ryu]

My blaster wizard looks at six kobolds and says that the best way of solving the problem with damage was to sell his spellbook, buy a new one, only replace the first level and a few good zero level spells, and buy some trained riding dogs to sic on the kobolds that will still have to deal with magic missiles to the face. Blaster wizard is inefficient, but you can still beat things like this with damage if you're so prone to it.

The important thing here B is that we agree that wizard is more powerful than most at all levels even if you take that with different connotations than I do. Everything I just did was in service to a demonstration of that undeniable fact of this game.

[Boci]

Allowing PB isn't guaranteed, but it isn't exactly rare either.

No, but PB that allows for 18 in int before racial modifiers might be.


Besides, so what if the DC is 15 instead of 16? You seem to be veering into Oberoni fallacy territory here.

Because I feel to properly show what a wizard can do in game its important to assume some things won't work for the best, rather than showing what they can do in near ideal circumstances (book availability, stat generation method and DM leniency). Assume 16 casting stat before racial modifiers and don't use anything off the ToS ban list. Think that's heavy handed? Built a bridge and get over it.


The important thing here B is that we agree that wizard is more powerful than most at all levels even if you take that with different connotations than I do. Everything I just did was in service to a demonstration of that undeniable fact of this game.

Okay, but I really do feel it demonstrates the wizard's power better if you show what it can do with some pretty shallow restrictions. Otherwise people may think abrupt jaunt, focused specialist and grey elf are what make the wizard awesome, rather than just being gravy.

And if you really want to overcome that encounter, silent image may have a better chance than any offensive spell.

[ryu]

Elven generalist domain wizard is also a thing. There are several easy ways of doing this. I just used the most comfortable method of wizard making that is basically my usual plan.

[Boci]

Elven generalist domain wizard is also a thing. There are several easy ways of doing this. I just used the most comfortable method of wizard making that is basically my usual plan.

As I said though, you shouldn't need to stick to something. I get that your the most familiar with it so its easiest to use, but defending the right of the wizard player to use abrupt jaunt is just misplaced in my opinion. On a side note domain wizard also made the ToS bannlist.

[ryu]

As I said though, you shouldn't need to stick to something. I get that your the most familiar with it so its easiest to use, but defending the right of the wizard player to use abrupt jaunt is just misplaced in my opinion. On a side note domain wizard also made the ToS bannlist.

Ask yourself for a moment WHY so many wizard options made the ban list. Anyone saying wizards aren't overpowered while even mentioning the ban list in the discussion is experiencing some heavy denial silliness.

[Boci]

Ask yourself for a moment WHY so many wizard options made the ban list. Anyone saying wizards aren't overpowered while even mentioning the ban list in the discussion is experiencing some heavy denial silliness.

Certain, that was never my point. My point is, "Wizards are overpowered,, Show that with the average to good wizard options and not the overpowered ones"

[ryu]

Certain, that was never my point. My point is, "Wizards are overpowered,, Show that with the average to good wizard options and not the overpowered ones"

That would be fine if I was trying to show the wizard was merely ''too good'' at all levels. Showing overpowered means showing overpowered options. That's a basic tautology built into the premise of the goal.

[Boci]

That would be fine if I was trying to show the wizard was merely ''too good'' at all levels. Showing overpowered means showing overpowered options. That's a basic tautology built into the premise of the goal.

But those options can be fixed (if anyone says oberoni to this you will be wrong because by saying "can be fixed" I am acknowledging they are broken to begin with). All you are really showing is that wizards got a lot of love with some splat options. The DM can ban them. Show someone how powerful a wizard is without with just the average to good options and then they will understand that the class itself is overpowered (compared to the lower tiers), not some of the extra options it gets.

And ToS doesn't seem to actually ban abrupt jaunt (which I thought it did), although it does ban focused specialist (which I thought it didn't). Oh well, I'll revise that to "ToS list + abrupt jaunt (and maybe - focused specialist to make up for that)". Still the same basic principle.

[ryu]

But those options can be fixed (if anyone says oberoni to this you will be wrong because by saying "can be fixed" I am acknowledging they are broken to begin with). All you are really showing is that wizards got a lot of love with some splat options. The DM can ban them. Show someone how powerful a wizard is without with just the average to good options and then they will understand that the class itself is overpowered (compared to the lower tiers), not some of the extra options it gets.

And ToS doesn't seem to actually ban abrupt jaunt (which I thought it did), although it does ban focused specialist (which I thought it didn't). Oh well, I'll revise that to "ToS list + abrupt jaunt (and maybe - focused specialist to make up for that)". Still the same basic principle.

You and I have very different definitions of overpowered. Base wizard is merely too good by the standards of normal people.

[Boci]

You and I have very different definitions of overpowered. Base wizard is merely too good by the standards of normal people.

But then by your own yard stick, downgrading wizard from overpowered to just too good is easy. Just ban the things you admitted to needing to make them overpowered. Yes the fact that they need to be banned shows that the wizard is overpowered, but that's an academic point once they are banned and the wizard player cannot take them.

I think its more meaningful to show how little a fighter and rogue can contribute to the efforts of a well made conjurer and cleric. No abrupt jaunt, domain wizard, initiative of mystra, just the solid options.

[ryu]

But then by your own yard stick, downgrading wizard from overpowered to just too good is easy. Just ban the things you admitted to needing to make them overpowered. Yes the fact that they need to be banned shows that the wizard is overpowered, but that's an academic point once they are banned and the wizard player cannot take them.

I think its more meaningful to show how little a fighter and rogue can contribute to the efforts of a well made conjurer and cleric. No abrupt jaunt, domain wizard, initiative of mystra, just the solid options.

Those aren't standard. They're decidedly and demonstrably below average. Anyone who sees those as standard would call base wizard used properly overpowered even from level one.

[Boci]

Those aren't standard. They're decidedly and demonstrably below average. Anyone who sees those as standard would call base wizard used properly overpowered even from level one.

The details you have of the build are "a conjurer without abrupt jaunt or domain wizard" and that's enough for you to know that is enough for you to know that they will be underpowered?

We agree that wizards are an awesome class, but you seem to like jumping to extremes too much. You insist on using the most powerful options that the wizard does not need to shine and call well built conjurers underpowered. I don't see the need.

[ryu]

The details you have of the build are "a conjurer without abrupt jaunt or domain wizard" and that's enough for you to know that is enough for you to know that they will be underpowered?

We agree that wizards are an awesome class, but you seem to like jumping to extremes too much. You insist on using the most powerful options that the wizard does not need to shine and call well built conjurers underpowered. I don't see the need.

No dude I was referring to FIGHTERS AND ROGUES as you mentioned as points of comparison in your post. Are you deliberately misinterpreting for humor?

[Boci]

No dude I was referring to FIGHTERS AND ROGUES as you mentioned as points of comparison in your post. Are you deliberately misinterpreting for humor?

Not deliberately, and its not even that late here.

As for not being standard, they are both core classes (so the ones used the most) and the rogue is tier 4. Isn't standard assumed to be tier 3-4 (I forgot the fighter was tier 5, assume its a dungeon crasher, or a well built paladin).

If you want you can replace them with a factotum and a warblade. The point is, I think showing how a wizard avoiding the best options can still easily outshine tier 3-4 is far more beneficial than showing the best toys available to the wizard that can easily be removed with little consequence.

[Story]

No, but PB that allows for 18 in int before racial modifiers might be.


In the last three campaigns I played, I got 18 before racial in two of them. The third one used rolling for stats. Anyway, low PB just shafts classic mundanes even more.


No dude I was referring to FIGHTERS AND ROGUES as you mentioned as points of comparison in your post. Are you deliberately misinterpreting for humor?

To be fair, it took me a little while to figure out what you meant too.

[Augmental]

No, but PB that allows for 18 in int before racial modifiers might be.

An intelligence of 18 before racial modifiers costs 16 points. The most common point buy is 28-32.

[Boci]

In the last three campaigns I played, I got 18 before racial in two of them. The third one used rolling for stats. Anyway, low PB just shafts classic mundanes even more.

Its a relatively minor point compared to the more important one of avoid the vest options when demoing the wizards potential, but I still think its relevant. There are some people who think low pointbuy can help rain in a wizards power, and going on about 20 intelligence at level one probably doesn't help this (not to mention some DMs do provide proportionately less PB to lower tier classes). And if you really think 18 before racial modifiers can be expected, its won't hurt to assume 16, because then your theoretical character will only be better in practice.


An intelligence of 18 before racial modifiers costs 16 points. The most common point buy is 28-32.

Sorry, but answering Story's comment was the last I was going to say about this topic.

[ryu]

Not deliberately, and its not even that late here.

As for not being standard, they are both core classes (so the ones used the most) and the rogue is tier 4. Isn't standard assumed to be tier 3-4 (I forgot the fighter was tier 5, assume its a dungeon crasher, or a well built paladin).

If you want you can replace them with a factotum and a warblade. The point is, I think showing how a wizard avoiding the best options can still easily outshine tier 3-4 is far more beneficial than showing the best toys available to the wizard that can easily be removed with little consequence.

Calling those two standard puts us where we were before where wizard is merely too good in comparison at low levels rather than straight overpowered.

[Boci]

Calling those two standard puts us where we were before where wizard is merely too good in comparison at low levels rather than straight overpowered.

Even if that is true, you're still left with the problem that in order to show wizard to be overpowered, you are reliant on a rather narrow list of options that can easily be banned. Its not that useful compared to showing how well a optimized wizard functions in a way that cannot easily be negated through a single digit ban list.

[ryu]

At low levels that's merely too good rather than overpowered. At high levels the wizard spell list is the wizard spell list, and any moderately intelligent person looking at it for too long begins to see the difference between wizards and tier 3s on an undeniable level.

[Boci]

I wouldn't say that, or at least imply what you do there. There are some people on this forum that do not agree with that, and whilst I think they are wrong and will happily debate their opinion, claiming that they are not "moderately intelligent" seems a bit excessive.

Other than that, you just said I've been saying. Its all about the wizard spell list. So why insist on including abrupt jaunt and domain wizard?

[ryu]

I wouldn't say that, or at least imply what you do there. There are some people on this forum that do not agree with that, and whilst I think they are wrong and will happily debate their opinion, claiming that they are not "moderately intelligent" seems a bit excessive.

Other than that, you just said I've been saying. Its all about the wizard spell list. So why insist on including abrupt jaunt and domain wizard?

How do you look at the entirety of level nine spells from all schools and not immediately find them ridiculous as compared to the other classes? Seriously someone come here and tell me about it and why you think so and we'll debate for a while. I'll even apologize for that comment if you can somehow prove the point made wrong.

Why insist on those options? I enjoy the high OP environment and the power and options it brings to combat. I also enjoy fighting people no more constricted than myself and seeing who can come up with better battle plans. Also the silly factor is amazing. I enjoy throwing defeated enemies directly into the sun to add insult to injury.

[Boci]

How do you look at the entirety of level nine spells from all schools and not immediately find them ridiculous as compared to the other classes? Seriously someone come here and tell me about it and why you think so and we'll debate for a while. I'll even apologize for that comment if you can somehow prove the point made wrong.

I can only proxy argue to a limited extent, but I think that one goes something like "Sure 9th level spells are broken, but they only come into play for the last 15-20% of the game. My group doesn't play that high level, so they don't mean much to us".


Why insist on those options? I enjoy the high OP environment and the power and options it brings to combat. I also enjoy fighting people no more constricted than myself and seeing who can come up with better battle plans. Also the silly factor is amazing. I enjoy throwing defeated enemies directly into the sun to add insult to injury.

Fair enough, there's nothing wrong with that playstyle. But the tier system assumes only moderate optimization, not optimization with no restraints, as it attempts to cater to a broader audience. As such, I find it more useful to limit your optimization preference when trying to make a point on the wizards potential when discussing its tier 1 status.

[Lord_Gareth]

Fair enough, there's nothing wrong with that playstyle. But the tier system assumes only moderate optimization, not optimization with no restraints, as it attempts to cater to a broader audience. As such, I find it more useful to limit your optimization preference when trying to make a point on the wizards potential when discussing its tier 1 status.

Noooot strictly true. What the Tier System assumes is that everyone at the table is displaying equal optimization. In my experience it tends to break down at bizzarely low levels of op (see: my players) but holds together at low-op all the way up through Tippy Is Running This Game so long as everyone in general is within the same op level.

[georgie_leech]

Fair enough, there's nothing wrong with that playstyle. But the tier system assumes only moderate optimization, not optimization with no restraints, as it attempts to cater to a broader audience. As such, I find it more useful to limit your optimization preference when trying to make a point on the wizards potential when discussing its tier 1 status.

Indeed, if we're judging tiers on the extremes of optimisation, we must conclude that Paladin is the highest tier possible because it has one the simplest early routes to Pun-Pun.

[ryu]

I can only proxy argue to a limited extent, but I think that one goes something like "Sure 9th level spells are broken, but they only come into play for the last 15-20% of the game. My group doesn't play that high level, so they don't mean much to us".



Fair enough, there's nothing wrong with that playstyle. But the tier system assumes only moderate optimization, not optimization with no restraints, as it attempts to cater to a broader audience. As such, I find it more useful to limit your optimization preference when trying to make a point on the wizards potential when discussing its tier 1 status.

So the point that wizards aren't automatically overpowered at high levels is that they don't experience high levels often? And while admitting that spells there are hilariously more powerful than tier 3 regardless? That sounds like saying the sun isn't warm because you've never been there despite admitting it provides most of the heat and thus weather effects for the surface of our planet.

Also as pointed out the tier system assumes equal optimization within a group rather than a particular level.

George: Things like Pun-pun and candles of invocation and other similar nonsense aren't counted in the tier lists because they aren't class features. They're just things you can do as almost anyone if not anyone.

[Boci]

So the point that wizards aren't automatically overpowered at high levels is that they don't experience high levels often?

No maybe they are, I just don't care because its not relevant to my game.


And while admitting that spells there are hilariously more powerful than tier 3 regardless?

I don't agree. A wizard may be able to severely hinder an opponent, but they will still need others to take out the weakened foe, unless they want to waste valuable spell slots on doing so. I don't buy that wizards don't need party members. They can make allies, but none of them are as reliable as a fighter.


Also as pointed out the tier system assumes equal optimization within a group rather than a particular level.

But who has the system mastery to optimism without restraint, yet still needs the tier system? What good does the tier system do for you and the people who play this way?

[georgie_leech]

George: Things like Pun-pun and candles of invocation and other similar nonsense aren't counted in the tier lists because they aren't class features. They're just things you can do as almost anyone if not anyone.

Much as Artificer is ranked highly due to ease of crafting and WBL abuse, despite WBLmancy and crafting being something other classes can do, so to must a Paladin at extreme optimisation be ranked for Pazuzu's inability to refuse him a Candle of Invocation at level 1.