My group drives me insane

[Immabozo]

My group makes me sad. They referenced the teir system this weekend and none of them understand it in the slightest.

According to them, the tier system goes: 3, 2, 1, 4, 5, 6. A decently optimized fighter-type is "the most broken thing in the world" and my barely optimized psion is far more broken than a wizard could ever hope to be

One friend's super optimized archivist throwing around DC 31 save-or-die like they are going out of style and opting for PVP every time someone tried to role play and then insulted a god and got the whole party struck down by a god out of spite, and everyone was more okay and said nothing about how broken it was, than my psion that only occasionally threw out two DC save-or-suck spells every once in a while that got above DC 20 (everything else was below DC 20).

Their definition of power drives me insane.

Sorry, needed to vent.

[Vrock_Summoner]

It's okay. You're among friends here, ones who understand your pain.

Incidentally, tell that Artificer to quit disrupting the game.

[Haldir]

The Wizard is difficult for some players to understand, because its power lies in versatility. Even some people on this forum- where optimization is widely accepted- still talk about melee and damage like it's a worthwhile strategy. It's confusing for me, but I am beginning to believe that people who play this game have a fetish for archaic tactics which blinds them to some pretty obvious truths. A paladin vrs ranger conversation the other day had me feeling the same way. "BUT HIS DAMAGE IS SO AWESOME!" Pretty much just like being with your party.

[HaikenEdge]

Direct them to the tiers for classes and why each class is in its tier threads?

[BrokenChord]

The Wizard is difficult for some players to understand, because its power lies in versatility. Even some people on this forum- where optimization is widely accepted- still talk about melee and damage like it's a worthwhile strategy. It's confusing for me, but I am beginning to believe that people who play this game have a fetish for archaic tactics which blinds them to some pretty obvious truths. A paladin vrs ranger conversation the other day had me feeling the same way. "BUT HIS DAMAGE IS SO AWESOME!" Pretty much just like being with your party.

In the words of a hero of mine: "The most effective condition in terms of battlefield control is Dead." Damage isn't completely worthless, it's just not utilized properly.

That said, low-op is a legitimate gaming style, and dealing damage in basic melee is just a lot of fun for a lot of people.

[Haldir]

Damage is the least effective and most high-risk way of causing dead. Your point can stand without invalidating mine.

[Sir Chuckles]

I've actually explained to my players why and how the Tier system works.

Only one of them even cared, and he's now a Sorcerer 10/Some kinda elemental thing/Archmage.

They're very much in the "hit thing with bigger stick to do more damage" phase. And have been for more than 4 years.

[JimboG]

I think this is a symptom of many DnD games being stereotyped into being combat-oriented smash-fests with RP being thrown in as an afterthought. I can remember back in high school (2004-2007) my first several experiences with table-top games was go here, kill this, get that special thing, go somewhere else, kill another thing, and so on. It wasn't until I met a friend who campaigned a session with me that was all puzzle oriented with zero direct combat did I realize the utilitarian possibilities and challenges possible in a more well-rounded setting.

[HaikenEdge]

In the words of a hero of mine: "The most effective condition in terms of battlefield control is Dead." Damage isn't completely worthless, it's just not utilized properly.

I get that this is a quote, but I have to dispute it, partially as a nod to The Art of War and Sun Tzu; in fact, I believe the most effective condition in terms of battlefield control is "Not in open conflict". That is to say, the battle begins before Initiative is even rolled, and if you can end the battle before that, then you've succeeded in overcoming your enemies without having put yourself in any danger.

[eggynack]

Wow. Thinking that the tier system is somehow organized in a non-linear manner, obviously without any sort of information telling them that it is, that's gotta be some new level of silly. Just, I dunno, for me, ask them why. Not why fighters are the best, because that'd take some real brain rewiring, but just why they would ever think that the tier system would be arranged out of order like that. Cause it hurts my brain a little. Are you just assigning their assertions numbers, like they say, "Fighters are best" and you take that to mean "tier 5's are best", or do they actually list the numbers like that? I'm honestly not sure which would be worse, because the former would actually imply that they think warriors and commoners are better than a fighter.

Actually, I'm not really sure how they think this works. You have 2 to the left of 1, so if psions are better than wizards, then left is the best. However, if they also assert that fighters are at the upper echelons of the system, then right is the best, because fighters are all the way on the right. You should probably run away. You should probably run very far away. Just... ask them what the hell they're talking about first. Do that first, and then you can run away with my blessing.

[Windstorm]

I think the problem a lot of people have understanding the tier system is the issue of invisible power. By that I mean that while a BC wizard has lots of power, it's often invisible in that the effects are not as readily noticeable because he operates on avoiding or neutralizing combat instead of a much more visible and dramatic approach.

Fighters playing shock trooper rocket tag might not be T1, but they have more immeadiate visceral impact in a single action, and so seem far worse than they really are.

[Coidzor]

Wow. Thinking that the tier system is somehow organized in a non-linear manner, obviously without any sort of information telling them that it is, that's gotta be some new level of silly. Just, I dunno, for me, ask them why. Not why fighters are the best, because that'd take some real brain rewiring, but just why they would ever think that the tier system would be arranged out of order like that. Cause it hurts my brain a little. Are you just assigning their assertions numbers, like they say, "Fighters are best" and you take that to mean "tier 5's are best", or do they actually list the numbers like that? I'm honestly not sure which would be worse, because the former would actually imply that they think warriors and commoners are better than a fighter.

Actually, I'm not really sure how they think this works. You have 2 to the left of 1, so if psions are better than wizards, then left is the best. However, if they also assert that fighters are at the upper echelons of the system, then right is the best, because fighters are all the way on the right. You should probably run away. You should probably run very far away. Just... ask them what the hell they're talking about first. Do that first, and then you can run away with my blessing.

That basically sums up my third reaction after blinking and re-reading the OP.

[NoACWarrior]

There will be a time where you can show their "builds" will never be able to do things you can do (even without optimizing).

They must also think infinite healing OoC is broken too... or that lockdown/battle field control builds are broken (since most LD/BFC builds stop chargers in their tracks).

Other than that - how does your DM challange your party? Is it conventional big monster with huge HD?
Or a bunch of bane wraiths in the crowd slowly saping the party's charisma?

[CIDE]

Oh, that's silly!

I know you didn't really ask for a solution after your venting but it seems you need to educate them somehow. Essentially, by showing them that they're wrong on virtually every level. they think a fighter is the beginning and end and whatever? Find another melee class they think is inferior to the fighter and optimize it in a way that the DM can't fight without outright banning stuff and proving them otherwise. They think a Psion without any optimization beats a wizard? Play an optimized wizard.

Hell, find out how they view the other T0, T1, or T2 classes. Find one that they think is weak compared to the other stuff they're using (like something they think is weaker than a fighter) and playing it.

I know this is generally frowned upon in a lot of games. The problem is most of these people sound like they won't learn otherwise. They aren't actually looking at the tier list directly and they aren't listening to words. And apparently optimization is allowed and even welcome in your group; even if they are optimizing wrnog.

[CrazyYanmega]

What books are allowed, and what level are you? I would recommend playing a Druid, or perhaps even a Planar Shepherd, if you want to try opening their eyes.

I suppose it would be important to know what types of enemies you typically face.

[ddude987]

I get that this is a quote, but I have to dispute it, partially as a nod to The Art of War and Sun Tzu; in fact, I believe the most effective condition in terms of battlefield control is "Not in open conflict". That is to say, the battle begins before Initiative is even rolled, and if you can end the battle before that, then you've succeeded in overcoming your enemies without having put yourself in any danger.

I'd go out on a limb and say Sun Tzu is right on this one. I will mention that the first time I heard the aforementioned quote (not the Sun Tzu one, the other) it wasn't the most effective battlefield control is dead but "the most effective status condition is dead."

Also, IIRC, the tier system cares not for a level of optimization. Taking a decently optimized fighter and a barley optimized psion is not an accurate display of tiers. Optimization should be the same throughout.

[AdamantlyD20]

I share your pain, my DM thinks that a fighter using thrown weapons that deal 1500-3000 damage total per round is the most overpowered character ever. I've made theoretical sorcerer builds that by level 18 can deal 25,000,000 damage in one round to everything within 5000 miles.

(Assuming damage is the way to fight enemies) Knowing his fear of numbers with more than three digits, i toned down the numbers when i showed him, only 2500 damage to all within 500 feet and they get 2 saving throws to negate most of it.

his response: "this is why 3.5 and pathfinder are known as 'caster edition'..."

[RustyArmor]

I always feel it highly depends on the group and what the DM throws at you. If you fight almost non stop in a dungeon and your wizard is just playing a blaster caster with limit utility (we have one player that has fly as the only non evocation spell he ever casts on his wizard) and the fighter goes default power attacking two handed weapon. Then sure the fighter is going to look much better and kick much more butt once that blast wizard is standing around doing nothing since he is out of spells. This will be more so if there is no real social or traveling/getting around aspect of the game (In our game we do travel, the same wizard even has access to teleport now, and never took it) and yet the group complains how long/hard traveling the mountains is. :smallbiggrin:

The same can be said for DMing. When I play a wizard I love diversity and tactics. But my players go APE S%$# when I use one as a DM. To the point I have to make low optimized blast wizards that stand there like a stone while the players beat the tar out of them. Which, oddly enough is how some players see wizards.

To the point, that once again, players don't understand the tier system itself. "How can a wizard be tier one if it got d4 HP, a fighter of 1st level can one shot a 10th level wizard." They don't understand they aint going to be hitting a 10th level wizard if they are even played half right.

[Immabozo]

First, they complain that I am never in danger of dying, then I point out that the DM rolled a grand total of 4 or 5 attacks at me in our last session (we go to a friend's house in the mountains for a whole weekend, once a month) and then we circle back in the discussion to how I am never in danger of dying. There is also that I use tactics to run away (stun, de ja vu, time hop, mixed with running the hell away) to try to not be hit. Everyone else stands mostly still.

And then I respected the opt-fu of one player until he told me that the only thing that could kill a level 12 wizard, was a straight level 12 monk, no multi-classing, no fusing with the monk. Happy monk-day!


Wow. Thinking that the tier system is somehow organized in a non-linear manner, obviously without any sort of information telling them that it is, that's gotta be some new level of silly. Just, I dunno, for me, ask them why. Not why fighters are the best, because that'd take some real brain rewiring, but just why they would ever think that the tier system would be arranged out of order like that. Cause it hurts my brain a little. Are you just assigning their assertions numbers, like they say, "Fighters are best" and you take that to mean "tier 5's are best", or do they actually list the numbers like that? I'm honestly not sure which would be worse, because the former would actually imply that they think warriors and commoners are better than a fighter.

Actually, I'm not really sure how they think this works. You have 2 to the left of 1, so if psions are better than wizards, then left is the best. However, if they also assert that fighters are at the upper echelons of the system, then right is the best, because fighters are all the way on the right. You should probably run away. You should probably run very far away. Just... ask them what the hell they're talking about first. Do that first, and then you can run away with my blessing.

I assigned numbers. I am no expert on the teir system, so perhaps I made a mistake on assigning numbers,, but I also didn't think too much about it as I vented. But they think psions are better than sorcerers because I get more manifestations per day than a sorcerer has spells and bith are better than the wizard because both can cast more times per day. And then a player who plays fighters with the half dragon template is such an optimizer that he would break our campaign over his knee.

Also, taking a high LA is totally broken because the stats are so high, HP are through the roof! No way that is balanced! I wanted to build "Beary Ursine" the werebear bear totem bearbearian, bear warrior, unarmed fighting for your right to bear arms, VoP because he only needed the bear essentials, with a bear mount (who did not fight) and took a level of cleric for the bear (animal) domain.

It was hit with the DM banhammer because "yeah, you do low damage, but 250 hp at level 12 is so utterly broken. Who cares your damage is low? low damage for a longer period of time, you will destroy everything.

now I am playing a psychic warrior/unarmed swordsage/shadow sun ninja with monastic training and I hit super hard, with huge DR and good hp, able to do infinit healing (yes, they thought infinite OoC healing was broken, then thought IN combat healing for around 30 every other round was stupid broken because it was infinite) and I have to just roleplay it the same.


There will be a time where you can show their "builds" will never be able to do things you can do (even without optimizing).

They must also think infinite healing OoC is broken too... or that lockdown/battle field control builds are broken (since most LD/BFC builds stop chargers in their tracks).

Other than that - how does your DM challange your party? Is it conventional big monster with huge HD?
Or a bunch of bane wraiths in the crowd slowly saping the party's charisma?

as I said above, not only did they think OoC healing infinite was broken, in combat healing for worse than a Cleric was broken because it was infinite.

The DM throws us against 2-3 encounters per day, only 1 more often than 4, hardly uses tactics and then usually throws 1 or 2 opponents and then complains that stun locking 1 of them trivializes the encounter and just because I know how to budget power points to last for a 4 encounter day and he never throws one at us so I never run out of power points, he complains. So does everyone.


Oh, that's silly!

I know you didn't really ask for a solution after your venting but it seems you need to educate them somehow. Essentially, by showing them that they're wrong on virtually every level. they think a fighter is the beginning and end and whatever? Find another melee class they think is inferior to the fighter and optimize it in a way that the DM can't fight without outright banning stuff and proving them otherwise. They think a Psion without any optimization beats a wizard? Play an optimized wizard.

Hell, find out how they view the other T0, T1, or T2 classes. Find one that they think is weak compared to the other stuff they're using (like something they think is weaker than a fighter) and playing it.

I know this is generally frowned upon in a lot of games. The problem is most of these people sound like they won't learn otherwise. They aren't actually looking at the tier list directly and they aren't listening to words. And apparently optimization is allowed and even welcome in your group; even if they are optimizing wrnog.

I dont think I will play it, but I might do it and show them. Although the DM is used to me showing him the cheese that D&D is capable of, like a character I created with amazing stats and the ability to go... mach 12 I think it was?