Abandon All Hope: Yet More Tier System Discussion

[eggynack]

So, there was a tier based thread hereabouts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=308097), which somehow managed to survive for 54 pages of random arguing. The general discussion, such as it is, currently covers such diverse topics as: whether verbal conditions work for contingencies, how a first level fighter matches up against a first level druid, some randomness about spotting rules, and much much more. Come one, and come all, to view the wonders of the tier system thread.

[ryu]

And various things pointing out all the ways in which mounted combat just isn't a thing that works well. Can't forget that.

[lytokk]

I think at some point we actually talked about the tier system too.

[Kazyan]

54 pages. I'm so proud of you guys. :smalltongue:

[ryu]

I think at some point we actually talked about the tier system too.

Yeah, but ya gotta admit that kinda stopped early on relatively speaking.

[demigodus]

When I saw the thread title, I was hoping someone had found a completely new and different way to set up class tiers. Might have made for an interesting read too.

[eggynack]

And various things pointing out all the ways in which mounted combat just isn't a thing that works well. Can't forget that.
Never can we forget that. The fair mistress that is mounted archery has led many a good man astray. What is it about her siren call that draws people to the rocky shores of ill conceived mundane builds? Perhaps we will never know.


I think at some point we actually talked about the tier system too.
Did we? If such a conversation ever existed, it is thrust so far back in the annals of time so as to be lost to us now. Perhaps, one day, a seeker of things forgotten by time, he himself lost in the miasma of ancient conversation, will discover such a text. This too is something I fear we will never learn the answer to.

[limejuicepowder]

Never can we forget that. The fair mistress that is mounted archery has led many a good man astray. What is it about her siren call that draws people to its rocky shores? Perhaps we will never know.


Probably because people think a historically supported strategy might actually be good in a game that models medieval combat. Or maybe they just like Mongols.

Anyways, there is a way to do this...right? I know there is a halfling supermount build, so it seems reasonable to take some archery feats on said build and kite everything to death (that isn't in tight, enclosed spaces).

[ryu]

Probably because people think a historically supported strategy might actually be good in a game that models medieval combat. Or maybe they just like Mongols.

Anyways, there is a way to do this...right? I know there is a halfling supermount build, so it seems reasonable to take some archery feats on said build and kite everything to death (that isn't in tight, enclosed spaces).

You mean that one type of combat place that isn't where the vast majority of combat takes place? This is DUNGEONS and dragons after all.

[eggynack]

Anyways, there is a way to do this...right? I know there is a halfling supermount build, so it seems reasonable to take some archery feats on said build and kite everything to death (that isn't in tight, enclosed spaces).
I don't really see it. There are just too many problems. Sure, for a couple of levels a minor speed advantage will let you kite efficiently, but it doesn't take long for that speed advantage to be pretty useless. Such a build would be incredibly feat dense, requiring the mounted feats, the archery feats, and the mounted archery feats. It's a lot, and what are you getting out of it? I can't think of much. Sure, there could exist such a build, but I don't see much of an advantage compared to other plans.

[limejuicepowder]

I don't really see it. There are just too many problems. Sure, for a couple of levels a minor speed advantage will let you kite efficiently, but it doesn't take long for that speed advantage to be pretty useless. Such a build would be incredibly feat dense, requiring the mounted feats, the archery feats, and the mounted archery feats. It's a lot, and what are you getting out of it? I can't think of much. Sure, there could exist such a build, but I don't see much of an advantage compared to other plans.

The advantage I see is essentially having the travel devotion feat active at all times. Moving and full attacking becomes a trivial thing, and that's pretty nifty.

Maybe I just like the flavor.

[eggynack]

The advantage I see is essentially having the travel devotion feat active at all times. Moving and full attacking becomes a trivial thing, and that's pretty nifty.

Maybe I just like the flavor.
The real problem is, that's practically already what you're trying to do through archery. In the wide outdoors scenario you've constructed, you'll ideally start out at a distance where you can just spend your time full attacking, because that's what archery does. Mounted archery combines all of the fragility and situationality inherent in relying on a mount, with all of the relatively low end damage and lack of non-damage effects of archery. It's definitely flavorful though. There's no taking that away from it.

[Talya]

THere's a few caveats here to the idea of mounted archery being a bad idea.

IF...
(1) You're playing a small-sized (or smaller) character AND...
(2) Your medium-sized (or smaller) mount can fly and hover AND...
(3) You can still fight effectively in melee and on the ground AND...
(4) You have some way of improving your mount (Leadership, Wild Cohort) THEN...

It might be okay.

[eggynack]

It might be okay.
Maybe a little, but okay is about as good as it's going to get, and only if you're using other combat paths as the measuring stick, which is a pretty low bar. You still have mount fragility, and you're still just dealing damage, and that damage is still lower than what you'd be doing otherwise, and there's still a lot of feats being tossed out. I suppose mount fragility is being dealt with by having other stuff available, but the amount of investment needed to make mounted archery and some sort of grounded melee plan work at the same time seems pretty crazy. It feels like you could get a far better trick for a far lower cost.

[Talya]

Maybe a little, but okay is about as good as it's going to get, and only if you're using other combat paths as the measuring stick, which is a pretty low bar. You still have mount fragility, and you're still just dealing damage, and that damage is still lower than what you'd be doing otherwise, and there's still a lot of feats being tossed out. I suppose mount fragility is being dealt with by having other stuff available, but the amount of investment needed to make mounted archery and some sort of grounded melee plan work at the same time seems pretty crazy. It feels like you could get a far better trick for a far lower cost.

The mount fragility is handled by advancement of the mount.

Ooooh.

Wait.

Play a druid. Be the mount. Your cohort is the archer...

[ryu]

The mount fragility is handled by advancement of the mount.

Ooooh.

Wait.

Play a druid. Be the mount. Your cohort is the archer...

Better still: The archer is your awakened animal companion the party wizard polymorph any objected into a species of its choice.

[eggynack]

The mount fragility is handled by advancement of the mount.
It helps quite a bit, but you're still looking at a point of vulnerability for various plans. If most of your abilities involve riding some animal around, and that animal is killed somehow, you're losing a whole lot of stuff. Actually, you might lose very little stuff, because the mount never really added much to the equation. I may be wrong on this one, but if I am it's just because I'm doubly right about something else. Fwee hee hee.


Ooooh.

Wait.

Play a druid. Be the mount. Your cohort is the archer...
That does sound pretty amazing, though it seems like less of a druid thing than a leadership thing. It'd be cool if there were some way to pull this off with sheer druidishness, or slightly augmented druidishness, rather than through busting out one of the optimization nuclear options. Bariaur defenders of Ysgard, which come free with any casting of cry of Ysgard (BoED, 95), have some archery skills. You need to be huge to serve as a mount for one of them, and it's kinda pointless to do so, but it's a method, and it's cool.

[Talya]

Better still: The archer is your awakened animal companion the party wizard polymorph any objected into a species of its choice.

Or... it's just your animal companion...

You have Natural Bond and Exalted Companion.
Your Celestial http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ape.htm took the Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Greatbow (which, large, is 2d8. Composite, to take advantage of the ape's strength). You wildshape into a huge flying beast, your companion does the archery.

[Scow2]

Real mounted fighter/archers abuse Handle Animal to bring in bestial "Big Guns" far in excess of their own firepower.

[eggynack]

Or... it's just your animal companion...

You have Natural Bond and Exalted Companion.
Your Celestial http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ape.htm took the Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Greatbow (which, large, is 2d8. Composite, to take advantage of the ape's strength). You wildshape into a huge flying beast, your companion does the archery.
That is likely a more elegant way to pull this off than my crazy bariaur calling plan. There should still be some bariaur calling though, because that spell is awesome.

[Talya]

The problem, Eggy, is on a flat, featureless, two dimensional world with houseruled visibility that ignores spot rules for starting an encounter, my flying mount is useless against a fighter with farshot and a composite greatbow 1950 feet away.

[Pickford]

Or... it's just your animal companion...

You have Natural Bond and Exalted Companion.
Your Celestial http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/ape.htm took the Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Greatbow (which, large, is 2d8. Composite, to take advantage of the ape's strength). You wildshape into a huge flying beast, your companion does the archery.

This shouldn't surprise me at this point, but there are no composite greatbows.

[tyckspoon]

This shouldn't surprise me at this point, but there are no composite greatbows.

It's in Complete Warrior, right next to the basic Greatbow. What's your source for it?

Edit: Or, if you're spending a feat on proficiency for the bow anyway, you could use a Bone Bow from Frostburn. Still can be adjusted for Strength, basically the same stats as a Greatbow (10 feet less range increment. Will almost never matter) and doesn't charge you double for having it built up for a high Strength score.

[Pickford]

It's in Complete Warrior, right next to the basic Greatbow. What's your source for it?

Gadzooks! I never noticed that.

[Mithril Leaf]

Real mounted fighter/archers abuse Handle Animal to bring in bestial "Big Guns" far in excess of their own firepower.

Old Primordial Unseelie Fey Magic Blooded Lesser Half Giant Marshal 1
Max charisma and handle animal, get a masterwork tool with starting wealth, and use the motivate charisma aura. Feats are Skill Focus (Handle Animal), Animal Affinity, and Shape Soulmeld (Riding Bracers). The final result is:
10 (Taking Ten) + 4 (Skill Ranks) + 9 (Charisma bonus) + 9 (Motivate Charisma) + 2 (Masterwork Tool) + 3 (Skill Focus) + 2 (Animal Affinity) +4 (Riding Bracers) = 41
This is enough to from level 1 rear any animal with 26 or fewer hit dice and any magical beast with 11 or fewer hit dice. So yeah, that's fun.

[Tvtyrant]

There is a second tier system?

Personally the only mounts I think are worth it are Druid animal companions (and even then usually only with a level of Beastmaster) and Supermount types (I like Paladin 5 + Beast Master 1 + Halfling Outrider 8 + Wild Plains Outrider 2 + Valadis Beastkeeper 5.) It gets pretty cool with a young gold dragon mount that has full special mount and animal companion progression.

[Pickford]

There is a second tier system?

Eggynack, I do not think your title will do well in consumer testing.

[eggynack]

Eggynack, I do not think your title will do well in consumer testing.
I dunno. Maybe it's a good thing to give people hope, if only for a moment. Anyways, I'm going to have to think a bit on how to indicate that this is the second thread about the tier system, without simultaneously indicating that this isn't about the second tier system (which is, I dunno, probably the test of spite version, or the tier system for PrC's).

Edit: That, maybe?

[Tvtyrant]

I dunno. Maybe it's a good thing to give people hope, if only for a moment. Anyways, I'm going to have to think a bit on how to indicate that this is the second thread about the tier system, without simultaneously indicating that this isn't about the second tier system (which is, I dunno, probably the test of spite version, or the tier system for PrC's).

Edit: That, maybe?

Now I am disappointed. Oh well, thread title makes more sense now.

I still think the 28 HD young gold dragon mount makes mounted combat plausible, as it is likely sturdier than the rider is.

[eggynack]

Now I am disappointed. Oh well, thread title makes more sense now.
Huzzah! Disappointment and understanding. The two primary goals of the thread, walking hand in hand.


I still think the 28 HD young gold dragon mount makes mounted combat plausible, as it is likely sturdier than the rider is.
It may make that one aspect of mounted combat plausible, but you're still doing mounted archery, and that has issues of its own. Mostly, those issues are that you're mounted, and that you're using archery. That's really enough, for the most part.

[Angelalex242]

Well, the best rider of a gold dragon is a tier 2 or tier 1 class, raining magical doom from the dragon's back. Push comes to shove, you could stick a warlock dragonback and he'd do alright.

Though I think it'd help the Paladin a little if he could automatically upshift to a very young gold dragon at level 16, and a young at level 20.

[eggynack]

Well, the best rider of a gold dragon is a tier 2 or tier 1 class, raining magical doom from the dragon's back.

Well, sure. The best anything of anything is a tier 2 or tier 1 class, raining magical doom. The problem only arises when the magical doom being rained down comes in the form of magical arrows. Such is the nature of the game.

[Tvtyrant]

Well, the best rider of a gold dragon is a tier 2 or tier 1 class, raining magical doom from the dragon's back. Push comes to shove, you could stick a warlock dragonback and he'd do alright.

Though I think it'd help the Paladin a little if he could automatically upshift to a very young gold dragon at level 16, and a young at level 20.

It only takes the one feat to do it (dragon steed.) The young dragon is pretty squishy if you do not supermount it though.

[Angelalex242]

Well, as a Paladin Mount, it does get the supermount abilities of being a Paladin Mount. (which is probably why the Gold Dragon consented to do this in the first place. He or she figures it's safe with the Paladin then in the big scary world!)

Maybe, as it gains Paladin Mount HD, it functions as an older dragon for so long as it's bonded?

At level 20, the Paladin's mount gets +8 HD.

But if they counted as DRAGON HD...

Then the young, 14HD Gold Dragon gets boosted to 22HD. Ya know what size dragon has 22HD? Young Adult (Minimum 20 HD).

At that point, though, the Dragon, as a Teir 1 being, probably outshines his or her rider considerably.

[Aharon]

Are we talking about the Test of Spite Tier System?



Here's the ToS Tier System as I remember it:

Tier -2: Pun Pun

Tier -1: An unbeatable build.

Tier 0: An effectively unbeatable build, though it can actually be beaten by the higher Tiers.

Tier .5: A build that can probably only be beaten if you have specifically prepared for it. Example: Sofawall's Cube build.

Tier 1: A build that has many effective tricks, insanely high defenses, and can end most encounters in a round. Example: A very effectively played Batman wizard.

Tier 2: Multiple great tricks and great defenses. Where I usually build for. Example: A CoDzilla or a Warmarked.

Tier 3: A build that either has one great trick or a lot of moderately good ones, while still having stellar defenses. Example: A well made Warblade, a good tripper, or a buff focused Sorcerer.

Tier 4: A build that, while still having a trick or two, has fallen very short on the defensive side of the line or has great defenses without being able to defeat an opponent on its own very easily. Example: A Charging Fighter or a VoP Monkadin.

Tier 5: A build that, while attempting to be optimized, still has neither good defenses nor a worthwile trick. Example: A typical fighter.

Tier 6: A build that *twitch* chooses feats for flavor reasons *twitch*

[eggynack]

Are we talking about the Test of Spite Tier System?
Na, just the regular one (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293). Honestly, we're only barely talking about that. There's like 54 pages of arbitrary and random arguments preceding this thread, though the break from the old thread seems to have quieted down whatever we were discussing when we switched over. Now it's all about mounted archery, I guess. I kinda liked the discussion of contingencies and druid v. fighter more, but what're ya gonna do?

[lytokk]

When was mounted archery even mentioned in the last thread? And we are just talking about mounted archery, not all mounted combat right? Cause a halfling paladin/cavalier on a clawfoot mount can really run the battlefield.

[TuggyNE]

When was mounted archery even mentioned in the last thread?

FOR PAGES AND PAGES. (Mostly around I wanna say 35-45.)

Not even kidding, sadly.

[eggynack]

FOR PAGES AND PAGES. (Mostly around I wanna say 35-45.)

Not even kidding, sadly.
I don't think we ever discussed its viability in a direct manner though. At least not extensively. That might be new.

[Talderas]

I dunno. Maybe it's a good thing to give people hope, if only for a moment.

So you're telling us that the cake is a lie?

[ryu]

So you're telling us that the cake is a lie?

http://thepunchlineismachismo.com/archives/comic/and-then-jared-became-a-man

Most tasteful version of that joke I've ever seen.

[Icewraith]

If you've got something else to attract the bad guys' attention while you fly around and shoot them, mounted archery can be a great build for a player who likes rolling lots of dice and having a cool mount. Unsupported archery or archery lacking spellcasting tends to be weak and vulnerable. Archery in the context of a large party, while not usually capable of ubercharger levels of damage, will severely inconvenience a BBEG even with a lot of minions to occupy the party in a lower op game.

Mounted archery tends to be vulnerable to things like surprise, chargers, damage reduction, grappling, and giants (or other large or larger beatsticks) using dragon mounts or flight spells. Also other archers.

[eggynack]

Mounted archery tends to be vulnerable to things like surprise, chargers, damage reduction, grappling, and giants (or other large or larger beatsticks) using dragon mounts or flight spells. Also other archers.
Don't forget wind spells. There's a good number of them, and they can generally shut down an archer. Also, regular spells, because those often work at a range.

[Icewraith]

Mounted archers, especially mounted flying archers, usually have the wherewithal to get around wind spells. If it's a matter of positioning you're usually still fighting in about a 90' cylinder or small portion of the actual map, so getting somewhere you can get shots off is usually trivial.

[eggynack]

Mounted archers, especially mounted flying archers, usually have the wherewithal to get around wind spells. If it's a matter of positioning you're usually still fighting in about a 90' cylinder or small portion of the actual map, so getting somewhere you can get shots off is usually trivial.
Is there always a getting around it? Any spell that creates windstorm level wind is going to shut off archery in its area. Stronger winds shut down things above that. Control winds, for example, is able to define where a shot is possible pretty well, especially if you make the eye of the storm a small one. There's other stuff, too, like eye of the hurricane (SpC, 86), which can block of shots pretty well. There's spells that do this stuff besides wind wall, is what I'm saying, and many of them are actually quite good.

Edit: By "quite good", I mean that these spells may actually be worth casting, even if you're not facing archers. Control winds is sweet.

[JaronK]

Serious wind spells shut down melees too, though. Boreal Wind, for example, never quite defines the speed but it's at least above gale force (51mph+) winds, and that stops most melees from even advancing.

JaronK

[Icewraith]

Remember, there's also tactical teleportation and the fact that the best archers are often casters/manifesters when it comes to worrying about wind spells. You can't rely on dispelling as a defense but it IS a thing. So is the ring of countersells/spell-battle.

You can also probably raise barriers to obstruct line of effect from some winds effects, but that may be straying into killing catgirls and not RAW.

Also, air elementals are probably an archery issue with their tornado thing.

[Zombulian]

The mount fragility is handled by advancement of the mount.

Ooooh.

Wait.

Play a druid. Be the mount. Your cohort is the archer...

Zhentarim Skymage/Arcane Archer?

[eggynack]

Serious wind spells shut down melees too, though. Boreal Wind, for example, never quite defines the speed but it's at least above gale force (51mph+) winds, and that stops most melees from even advancing.

JaronK
I think boreal wind just has the explicit effects described in the text. It's described as a gust of wind, so even though it's also described as being stronger, it seems fair to assume that the wind speed is at 50, with the additional effects as noted. Anyways, you're correct that wind hurts melee too, but it's not nearly as unconditional. A wind based barrier is just a big fat no to any sort of archery, while it's usually just a regularly sized no to fighters. Additionally, it's a doubly sized no to someone on a flying mount, because of the particular effects that wind has of flying creatures. Anyways, I think that the one thing we can all agree on is that these wind spells are awesome. It is a true thing.

[ryu]

I think boreal wind just has the explicit effects described in the text. It's described as a gust of wind, so even though it's also described as being stronger, it seems fair to assume that the wind speed is at 50, with the additional effects as noted. Anyways, you're correct that wind hurts melee too, but it's not nearly as unconditional. A wind based barrier is just a big fat no to any sort of archery, while it's usually just a regularly sized no to fighters. Additionally, it's a doubly sized no to someone on a flying mount, because of the particular effects that wind has of flying creatures. Anyways, I think that the one thing we can all agree on is that these wind spells are awesome. It is a true thing.

Yeah. It's one of those things I always make sure the party druid is packing at least one of at all times, even at relatively low levels.

[Pickford]

eggynack:

It may make that one aspect of mounted combat plausible, but you're still doing mounted archery, and that has issues of its own. Mostly, those issues are that you're mounted, and that you're using archery. That's really enough, for the most part.

I guess I just don't understand your distaste for mounted archery. You move faster (than not mounted) and you can attack people from far away (than not archery). What's not to like?

[Zombulian]

eggynack:


I guess I just don't understand your distaste for mounted archery. You move faster (than not mounted) and you can attack people from far away (than not archery). What's not to like?

I think his point isn't that the two put together is bad. But that neither of the forms of combat are of the highest optimization, and putting them together simply compounds the problem.

[eggynack]

eggynack:
I guess I just don't understand your distaste for mounted archery. You move faster (than not mounted) and you can attack people from far away (than not archery). What's not to like?
I've listed a massive amount of issues. It's feat heavy, only does damage, has damage that's worse than you can get otherwise, is somewhat fragile, and it doesn't fit in all environments. Sure, some of those issues can be mitigated, but they're still issues, and some of them can't be mitigated. You're investing a ton of resources into a plan that has no net effect on combat unless it kills its target, unlike some of the melee plans, which can have good non-damage effects. Also, the entire strategy can be stopped by a number of spells, some of which are actually worth casting when you're not dealing with archery. It's just a lot of things, acting together. You have a lot of the issues of archery, which are plentiful, and a lot of the issues of mounted combat, which are also plentiful, and you mash them up into a style that adds its own issues, and solves few of the ones that existed before.

[ryu]

eggynack:


I guess I just don't understand your distaste for mounted archery. You move faster (than not mounted) and you can attack people from far away (than not archery). What's not to like?

The fact that you're now fragile, do less damage than straight melee, can't fit in most dungeons, and are still a worse archer than most at actually taking things on long range? What IS to like again?

Edit: Swordsaged

[Phelix-Mu]

I just wanted to say that I popped in many pages ago in the original thread and realized that nothing relevant to tiers was being discussed.

Which was actually nice, because tiers have really been talked so far into the ground that they emerged from the other side of the planet and went hurtling toward the sun.

As to my topic du jour for this thread about another thread that wasn't actually about what it said it was about, I will raise the following issue:

- Around how many spells does a limited-list caster that is tier 3 migrate into tier 2?

I know that "a number" of spells isn't the cutoff, but is there some kind of rubric by which we can demarcate the change from "that's a well-balanced, focused tier 3 caster" to "that's a tier 2 monstrosity with a list of hundreds and hundreds of spells/powers to choose from?"

That's just a thought. Feel free to ignore it and return to the mounted archery. *takes popcorn out of the microwave*:smallwink:

[eggynack]

- Around how many spells does a limited-list caster that is tier 3 migrate into tier 2?

I know that "a number" of spells isn't the cutoff, but is there some kind of rubric by which we can demarcate the change from "that's a well-balanced, focused tier 3 caster" to "that's a tier 2 monstrosity with a list of hundreds and hundreds of spells/powers to choose from?"

That's just a thought. Feel free to ignore it and return to the mounted archery. *takes popcorn out of the microwave*:smallwink:
Well, theoretically I'd say that the amount of spells a limited list caster would have to have on their list is the exact same amount as what a sorcerer would have at any given level. As long as their list is the same as some optimized sorcerer, things should work out. That is to say, the thing keeping a beguiler back from tier 2 isn't that it's pulling from a limited list. It's that the list is all illusion and enchantment. If it were all conjuration or transmutation or something, that'd probably be enough to justify a tier bump.

[JoshuaZ]

I just wanted to say that I popped in many pages ago in the original thread and realized that nothing relevant to tiers was being discussed.

Which was actually nice, because tiers have really been talked so far into the ground that they emerged from the other side of the planet and went hurtling toward the sun.

As to my topic du jour for this thread about another thread that wasn't actually about what it said it was about, I will raise the following issue:

- Around how many spells does a limited-list caster that is tier 3 migrate into tier 2?

I know that "a number" of spells isn't the cutoff, but is there some kind of rubric by which we can demarcate the change from "that's a well-balanced, focused tier 3 caster" to "that's a tier 2 monstrosity with a list of hundreds and hundreds of spells/powers to choose from?"

That's just a thought. Feel free to ignore it and return to the mounted archery. *takes popcorn out of the microwave*:smallwink:


It really depends a lot on the spell list. If you took the warmage and added another 30 direct damage spells, it still wouldn't go up a tier. A slightly more well-formulated version of the question might be to phrase it sort of in the reverse: how many spells known could you knock out of the sorcerer class before it became T3 or lower? In this case, I'm not sure, but I'd guess that as long as you get at least one per a level (so always pick the highest level one you'd get at any given level) you'd still be T2 because very few ways of breaking the game with spells require more than 3 or 4 specific spells, and one hallmark of T2 is the ability to easily break the game any single way you want as long as you make your build around that. That said, this might not be a very fun T2 to play, and will run into serious playability issues at the lowest levels. Note that if you are in PF rather than 3.5 then the blood line may also enter into this.

[JaronK]

I think boreal wind just has the explicit effects described in the text. It's described as a gust of wind, so even though it's also described as being stronger, it seems fair to assume that the wind speed is at 50, with the additional effects as noted.

Boreal Wind does say it has additional effect as normal based on the wind, so it's going to have the DMG wind effects. In addition, it says it's a stronger wind than Gust of Wind, which is 50mph, so at minimum it's 51mph.


Anyways, you're correct that wind hurts melee too, but it's not nearly as unconditional. A wind based barrier is just a big fat no to any sort of archery, while it's usually just a regularly sized no to fighters. Additionally, it's a doubly sized no to someone on a flying mount, because of the particular effects that wind has of flying creatures. Anyways, I think that the one thing we can all agree on is that these wind spells are awesome. It is a true thing.

..Wind spells are indeed nasty. Though I don't think it's fair to criticize any mundane build on the grounds that there's a spell that counters it. Let's face it, Fly counters a lot of melee builds.

JaronK

[eggynack]

Boreal Wind does say it has additional effect as normal based on the wind, so it's going to have the DMG wind effects. In addition, it says it's a stronger wind than Gust of Wind, which is 50mph, so at minimum it's 51mph.
It says it's a stronger version, but that would be true even if it were at the same wind speed, because of the additional effects. Notably, the incidental wind effects that seem different from those of gust of wind all involve putting out fires, which could easily be attributed to the spell's cold nature. The spell has the clause that says that it has additional effects based on the wind, but those effects seem incredibly similar to those of gust of wind. Most notably, the line, "A boreal wind can do anything a sudden blast of wind would be expected to do," is consistent with the line, "A gust of wind can do anything that a sudden blast of wind would be expected to do." The examples given each time have subtle differences, but I don't think it's enough to justify the upgrade.


..Wind spells are indeed nasty. Though I don't think it's fair to criticize any mundane build on the grounds that there's a spell that counters it. Let's face it, Fly counters a lot of melee builds.
Quite true. It is a factor though, even if it's one that may remain consistent across several melee builds. Notably, I think that wind spells are harder for an archer to deal with than several anti-melee spells are for a melee guy to deal with. Several of the answers also hold true across both attack types, like miss chances of various kinds.

[bekeleven]

When I saw the thread title, I was hoping someone had found a completely new and different way to set up class tiers. Might have made for an interesting read too.

ok, I'll give it a shot. This isn't a formal writeup, just a sketch. It assumes the reader knows JaronK's System.

In this, we represent a class's overall usability with 2 values: Power and flexibility. A person can also specify 4 values - for flexibility at 2 different power levels - but that's generally overcomplicating things.

As an addition, it is based around the flexibilty of any build, and makes no comment on the flexibility of the class. This eliminates the issue with, for instance, binders and the "while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes" sentence.

Here's the table:

{table=head]Power|A (High) Flexibility|B (Medium) Flexibility|C (Low) Flexibility
1 (Broken)|"Tier 1" (Wizard)|??? (Wu Jen)|"Tier 2" (Sorcerer)
2 (High)|"Tier 3" (Factotum)|"Tier 3" (Swordsage)|"Tier 4" (Warmage)
3 (Moderate)|"Tier 3" (Bard)|"Tier 4" (Marshal)|"Tier 5" (Fighter)
4 (Low)|"Tier 5" (CA Ninja)|"Tier 5" (Healer)|"Tier 6" (Commoner)[/table]

This gives us 12 values, assuming we only go 1 layer deep.

So, for instance, a wizard or a druid are 1A - the highest "tier" in both categories. A fighter can be of middling effectiveness, but only at one thing at a time. Generally, if optimized to the same level as the group, a fighter build ends up 3C.

As for the 2-layer modification I was talking about - Take the binder. It has 1 really broken trick (summon all the things) and is otherwise maybe 3A. So it could be presented as 1C-3A. As I said, this gives a bit more information to the reader, but it's a situation with diminishing returns. That doesn't really communicate too much more given the extra thought taken to decode it.

There's some wiggle room between "high" and "moderate" here. Feel free to chime in.

[Tryxx]

I have an actual tier question:

Assume a game world is using Psionics Transparency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#psionicsMagicTransparenc y) and the Craft Points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/craftPoints.htm#) variant.


Can the Psion use craft points to fuel their Independent Research (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#independentResearch)?
If so, is the Psion Power List considered strong enough to move the class to Tier 1 after expanding their Power List beyond a certain point?

I assume since Independent Research does not list any values for learning a new Spell in GP that one cannot use Craft Points to reduce the XP cost or amount of downtime required to research a new power.

I also assume a Psion could use Independent Research to create a power that duplicates a spell - "duplicating an existing power or creating an entirely new one" doesn't seem to suggest against it. Any insight there?

I understand that even if using Craft Points for Independent Research worked for a Psion they'd still fall behind a Wizard getting new spells from Scrolls and Spellbooks or a STP-Erudite. The threshold between Tier 2 and Tier 1 seems larger than I ever originally assumed...

[Amphetryon]

I have an actual tier question:

Assume a game world is using Psionics Transparency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#psionicsMagicTransparenc y) and the Craft Points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/craftPoints.htm#) variant.


Can the Psion use craft points to fuel their Independent Research (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#independentResearch)?
If so, is the Psion Power List considered strong enough to move the class to Tier 1 after expanding their Power List beyond a certain point?

I assume since Independent Research does not list any values for learning a new Spell in GP that one cannot use Craft Points to reduce the XP cost or amount of downtime required to research a new power.

I also assume a Psion could use Independent Research to create a power that duplicates a spell - "duplicating an existing power or creating an entirely new one" doesn't seem to suggest against it. Any insight there?

I understand that even if using Craft Points for Independent Research worked for a Psion they'd still fall behind a Wizard getting new spells from Scrolls and Spellbooks or a STP-Erudite. The threshold between Tier 2 and Tier 1 seems larger than I ever originally assumed...

Using Craft Points for Independent Research appears to be beyond the intent of either alternate rule's original design intent, so we're in "houserules of a houserule" territory, which may well be indicative of other houserules in play that further muddy the waters of Tier placement. As such, it's a very slippery slope argument here, one way or the other.

JaronK is also on record as saying that Tier 2 is sort of unusual in that it's both limited scope AND game-breaking power. If you're using Independent Research to puncture the "limited scope" qualifier for T2, it would seem to me that you've broken past the T2 barrier. I am in no way presenting my opinion as authoritative.

[lytokk]

Finally been reading the Tome Of Battle book, and in looking at the combat maneuvers, I'm curious as how those classes are Tier 3? It really looks like swordsage has the most variety of abilities, being able to take on stealth, speed, and encounter running abilities. Are these classes tier 3 mostly due to lack of complete gamebreaking abilities, such as the druid, cleric and wizard have?

[Elderand]

Finally been reading the Tome Of Battle book, and in looking at the combat maneuvers, I'm curious as how those classes are Tier 3? It really looks like swordsage has the most variety of abilities, being able to take on stealth, speed, and encounter running abilities. Are these classes tier 3 mostly due to lack of complete gamebreaking abilities, such as the druid, cleric and wizard have?

tier 1 and 2 are defined by their gamebreakingness. A class could have every single options in the world, as long as none of it break the game it wouldn't get higher than tier 3.

It's even possible to be tier 2 and be less versatile than tier 3.

[lytokk]

Alright, thanks. Just wanted to make sure that was the case.

[Amphetryon]

Alright, thanks. Just wanted to make sure that was the case.

Tier 2 has been described by JaronK as a "sort of special case," in that they have a few potential tricks to break the game, and not much for general utility. He's on record at least once as indicating it's entirely likely for a hypothetical versatile T3 Class to vault straight to T1, if given access to game-breaking options, because the built-in versatility of the chassis would preclude the T2 label (as I understood the argument).

[Zombulian]

Indeed. Factotums can do EVERYTHING by default. Still pretty sure they're tier 3.

[Talya]

Let's not pretend that the sorcerer (the only Tier 2 in core) is often in a situation where they don't have options.

It actually has enough spells known that there are very few situations you could put a sorcerer in where they don't have the ability to single-handedly win an encounter without effort. Oh, you could contrive a convoluted scenario if you tried hard enough *cough*, and unlike some others attempted recently, it might even be both RAW and potentially something you'd run into in actual gameplay, but most of the time, the sorcerer is still that powerful AND versatile.

However, it only has, at best, 3-5 spells known per spell level. In its top two spell levels known at any given time, chances are some of its spells are going to be able to "break the game." But those are the only options they have. The wizard gets to sit down every morning, and over coffee, decide how he's going to break the game today, and gets to choose from potentially hundreds of ways.

[Amphetryon]

Let's not pretend that the sorcerer (the only Tier 2 in core) is often in a situation where they don't have options.

It actually has enough spells known that there are very few situations you could put a sorcerer in where they don't have the ability to single-handedly win an encounter without effort. Oh, you could contrive a convoluted scenario if you tried hard enough *cough*, and unlike some others attempted recently, it might even be both RAW and potentially something you'd run into in actual gameplay, but most of the time, the sorcerer is still that powerful AND versatile.

However, it only has, at best, 3-5 spells known per spell level. In its top two spell levels known at any given time, chances are some of its spells are going to be able to "break the game." But those are the only options they have. The wizard gets to sit down every morning, and over coffee, decide how he's going to break the game today, and gets to choose from potentially hundreds of ways.

If you don't see your last paragraph as describing "limited options" (within the "game-breaking power" paradigm) then I don't know what your definition of "limited" is within that paradigm.

[Talya]

If you don't see your last paragraph as describing "limited options" (within the "game-breaking power" paradigm) then I don't know what your definition of "limited" is within that paradigm.

I'm not saying they aren't limited.

I'm saying that the sorcerer only has a few all-purpose complete solutions to almost every possible scenario, while the wizard has hundreds.

I'm just clarifying that the sorcerer isn't in a situation where "oh, sometimes they can break they game with phenomenal cosmic power, but other times they're useless." that's not the case. They still have the versatility to always have a solution (if they pick their spells right, anyway). They just don't have as many different solutions to the same problems.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Tier 2 has been described by JaronK as a "sort of special case," in that they have a few potential tricks to break the game, and not much for general utility. He's on record at least once as indicating it's entirely likely for a hypothetical versatile T3 Class to vault straight to T1, if given access to game-breaking options, because the built-in versatility of the chassis would preclude the T2 label (as I understood the argument).

Indeed. T2s can generally handle lots of different kinds of encounters passably well because their handful of powerful tricks are broadly applicable, but it's not a smooth slope from "T3 has a bunch of moderate options" > "T2 has a bunch of powerful options" > "T1 has a bunch of really powerful options."

In fact, as I noted in another thread on tiers in homebrew, the tiers can be paired to some degree:

It's all dependent on the number and power of the capabilities a class has. More power and more capabilities -> higher tiers, less power and fewer capabilities -> lower tiers. In broad strokes, the tiers can be boiled down to the following rules of thumb:

Tiers 1 and 2 have excellent power and versatility. Both win the game with their primary foci or are very good in many areas; on top of that, T1s can win in any other area given time.

Tiers 3 and 4 have excellent power or versatility. Both are very good at their primary foci or are okay in many areas; on top of that, T3s can at least contribute in pretty much any area regardless of main focus.

Tiers 5 and 6 have neither power nor versatility. Both kinda suck in all areas, but T5s can at least do one thing passably well.

Or in other words:
{table]|Broad|Narrow
Overpowered|Tier 1|Tier 2
Moderate|Tier 3|Tier 4
Underpowered|Tier 5|Tier 6[/table]

Now, that oversimplified summary isn't completely accurate (T5s are only "broader" than T6s in the sense that "can do one thing" is broader than "can do nothing," for instance), but it does help to show that there's a definite breakpoint between T2 and T3 and that T1 and T2 aren't both "the same as T3, but more so."


I'm just clarifying that the sorcerer isn't in a situation where "oh, sometimes they can break they game with phenomenal cosmic power, but other times they're useless." that's not the case.

No one's claiming that. "Can break the game in one case and is useless otherwise" is T4, like the Ubercharger, not T2. T2 is "can break the game in a few cases and be competent in pretty much any other case."


I'm saying that the sorcerer only has a few all-purpose complete solutions to almost every possible scenario, while the wizard has hundreds.
[...]
They still have the versatility to always have a solution (if they pick their spells right, anyway).

That's kind of a big "if." A sorcerer with at least a fairly decent spell selection is pretty much guaranteed to contribute in pretty much any circumstance, but not guaranteed to be able to solve every encounter; sometimes curbstomping an encounter requires more specialized spell loadouts than just spamming polymorphs, SoDs, or other game-changers/-breakers, hence T1.

[Elderand]

I'm not saying they aren't limited.

I'm saying that the sorcerer only has a few all-purpose complete solutions to almost every possible scenario, while the wizard has hundreds.

I'm just clarifying that the sorcerer isn't in a situation where "oh, sometimes they can break they game with phenomenal cosmic power, but other times they're useless." that's not the case. They still have the versatility to always have a solution (if they pick their spells right, anyway). They just don't have as many different solutions to the same problems.

I don't see anyone pretending that they are. But what makes tier 2 isn't versatility but game breakingness. The fact that a sorcerer can be versatile if he chose his spell well is irrelevant.

If you removed the game breaking spells from a sorcerer list you'd get a tier 3 class.

[MukkTB]

My understanding about mounted combat was that is was a fools game to think about being some guy on a mount. The mount is what requires the attention. You could be the most badass mounted guy ever right up until your standard 19 HP horse gets blown out from under you by a fireball.


The winning strategy is being a pet master. Mundanes can do it with handle animal. In fact a mundane can hit way above his weight class with the right handled animal. Magic brings in animal companions, familiars, summoned monsters, enchanted things, and undead. You get the nastiest monster or set of monsters you can control. You buff it/them up. Then as an afterthought its kind of cool to ride around on your monstrosity, maybe shoot some arrows from up there or stab people with a spear. If you feel special you could rain fiery death while the T-Rex bites peoples heads off.

In this as in everything else, the magic users get to be the real powerhouses. However this strategy is one that is accessible to mundanes, which is kind of cool. Its a real power boost in any event, and if you're convincing enough, you can drive your pet in front of you in a dungeon while you walk behind it. (You'll have to downgrade from T-Rex to Velociraptor for the tighter dungeons.) I wouldn't even dump that many feats in to the riding part. Focus on the nasty monster part first and foremost.

[Talya]

I don't see anyone pretending that they are. But what makes tier 2 isn't versatility but game breakingness. The fact that a sorcerer can be versatile if he chose his spell well is irrelevant.

If you removed the game breaking spells from a sorcerer list you'd get a tier 3 class.

I guess I'm replying to what you said here:


It's even possible to be tier 2 and be less versatile than tier 3.

And you're right, yes it's possible. However, I'm clarifying that just because it's possible, doesn't mean that's how it is. I love the bard class, I really do - probably my favorite class in the game. I consider it the very pinnacle of Tier 3, and the perfect balance point to aspire to. However, I've played a sorcerer longer than any other class in the game, and she was more versatile than any bard I've made.

A lot would depend on your build and spell selection, though.

[Pickford]

I have an actual tier question:

Assume a game world is using Psionics Transparency (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#psionicsMagicTransparenc y) and the Craft Points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/craftPoints.htm#) variant.


Can the Psion use craft points to fuel their Independent Research (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#independentResearch)?
If so, is the Psion Power List considered strong enough to move the class to Tier 1 after expanding their Power List beyond a certain point?

I assume since Independent Research does not list any values for learning a new Spell in GP that one cannot use Craft Points to reduce the XP cost or amount of downtime required to research a new power.

I also assume a Psion could use Independent Research to create a power that duplicates a spell - "duplicating an existing power or creating an entirely new one" doesn't seem to suggest against it. Any insight there?

I understand that even if using Craft Points for Independent Research worked for a Psion they'd still fall behind a Wizard getting new spells from Scrolls and Spellbooks or a STP-Erudite. The threshold between Tier 2 and Tier 1 seems larger than I ever originally assumed...

Psicraft is the psionic equivalent of Spellcraft and therefore not actually used in crafting, so the answer is no.

[Elderand]

I guess I'm replying to what you said here:



And you're right, yes it's possible. However, I'm clarifying that just because it's possible, doesn't mean that's how it is. I love the bard class, I really do - probably my favorite class in the game. I consider it the very pinnacle of Tier 3, and the perfect balance point to aspire to. However, I've played a sorcerer longer than any other class in the game, and she was more versatile than any bard I've made.

A lot would depend on your build and spell selection, though.

My point was entirely hypothetical based on the distinction between the tiers.

Tier 2 being game breaking power (but only a few) and tier 3 being versatility, it is not inconceivable to have a class with just a couple game breaking options and not much else who is less versatile than a non game breaking one who can always do something.

If I had wanted to give a specific example I would have. I didn't because there is no real intrinseque exemple of classes being like that in the game. It all depends on spell selection.

With homebrew however, who knows what sort of classes are out there.

The point was to give a somewhat exagerated (or rather pushed to the extreme) example to well and truly show the point of difference between tier 2 and 3 so as to enable Lytokk to clearly understand why the ToB classes are "only" tier 3.