High-Tier Mundane

[AvatarVecna]

Put simply, I'm wondering if high-Tier 3 and/or low-Tier 2 can be achieved by a hypothetical base class that has no ability to cast spells and doesn't depend on UMD or similar magic-replicating abilities. How many class features would we have to dump on to make such a class comparable to the higher, almost-but-not-yet-quite-broken tiers?

-d12 HD
-8 skill points/level
-Full BAB
-All good saves
-Tons of bonus feats
-Tons of attribute bonuses
-Bonus to all class skills they've put ranks in
-Bonus to damage equal to at least class level
-Can swap out attribute bonuses for others (takes some time, but not much)
-Can swap out feats for other feats (takes some time, but not much)
-Can swap out skills for other skills (takes some time, but not much)
-Trapfinding
-(Improved) Evasion
-(Improved) Uncanny Dodge
-Fast Movement
-(Ex) Flight
-Additional Senses (low-light vision, darkvision, scent, blindsense, blindsight, tremorsense, etc.)
-Extra attacks on full attack
-Extra attacks on standard action attacks
-Can use special attacks (trip, disarm, bull rush, etc.) in place of an iterative attack.

Any thoughts?

EDIT: To clarify, what non-magic/ability (or series of optional abilities) could be potentially game-breaking enough to let a mundane break into the low end of Tier 2? I'm talking like when DC retcon'd the universe by having Superman punch reality in the face.

[Necroticplague]

Most of the Mythos classes fall squarely into this area. Entirely possible to have nothing but (ex) abilities, and be a t2 unarmed fighter.

[OldTrees1]

I did not see a single ability that could break one of my campaigns. Therefore it does not break the Tier 3-Tier 1/Tier 2 barrier. So while Tier 2 non casters are possible, this is not it yet.

However they seem to have maxed competence in all relevant areas. So they are very high Tier 3.

[ZamielVanWeber]

It needs those sweet games bending options to break into T2. Aside from that maybe you could fake some of it? Give them the ability to use special maneuvers as part of full attacks, so they can trip (free attack from Improved Trip), attack, attack, attack. Or maybe do a bunch of bull rushes to get enemies off of a squishier target.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm speaking from experience here, having written the Myth (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?307285-The-Myth-Tier-1-quot-Mundane-quot-Challenge-Accepted!) for just such a purpose. One interesting thing I found was that you don't need a silly-good chassis. The basic attributes of the game-- hit points, BAB, feats, and so on-- really don't do much to lift you beyond T4. You can maybe squeak into low T3, especially if you can use rotating feats or something to turn yourself into a cut-rate initiator and/or meldshaper, but... to really break out of T4, you need special abilities. Look at the existing T3+ classes: all of them have access to some sort of subsystem. That's probably the defining mark of a high-tier class: the ability to pick individual powers from a longer list. The difference between T3 and T2, then, is generally in the power of that list-- the sorcerer is just a bard with a more powerful set of potential class abilities (spells, in this case).

What does that mean for a hypothetical high-tier martial? You're going to have to write a large number of individual abilities (spells, maneuvers, soulmelds, whatever). If you want T3, make (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?240943-The-Savage-one-part-barbarian-one-part-druid-one-part-Wolverine-3-5-PEACH-WIP)them (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?328113-Barbarian-now-with-150-more-beef-%283-5-PEACH%29)balanced (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276280-GitP-Fighter-Fix-18343-3-Ziegander-Grod-Tag-Team-Action!)(against other T3 abilities). If you want T2, you're going to need to balance them against spells-- good spells. The final version will look really, really goofy. And, unless you're really good at hiding the potential power of your abilities, it'll look overpowered as ****.

Take my Myth. He's got a pretty good chassis, with a d12 HD, 4+Int skill points, and good BAB, Fort, and Will. His class features are simple but solid-- Mettle, a few bonus feats, some AoO avoidance, and so on. By itself, it's probably, oh, high T4-- tanky, pretty decent at stabbing things, and possessed of a decent skill list. The real, world-breaking power comes in his Deeds, the abilities he picks from a list. Those were written to keep pace with spells. And they're goofy as anything. A 10th level Myth can:

Pin enemies to the material plane by stabbing them.
Gain extra actions.
Grapple a giant and win.
Shoot arrows that change direction mid-flight.
Create earthquakes by stomping.
Gain blindsense and see invisibility
Deflect anything from arrows to orbs of fire-- and re-direct them to a new target.
Jump ten miles.
Do that Sherlock Holmes trick where you look at a dude and deduce everything about him.
Cut through objects 5 feet thick with a single swing.
Forge magic weapons.
Punch people hard enough to destroy their memories.
Charm anyone around him, potentially all the way up to Fanatical.


By 20th level, you can

Control minds just by talking at people.
Read surface thoughts through sheer observational power
Mindrape people through blunt trauma
Cut portals between the planes
Rip limbs (including heads) off anyone he's grappling
Recruit (permanent) armies with a short speech
Predict what random creatures on the other side of the world are doing with a successful Knowledge check.
Jump into orbit and land anywhere on the plane.
Deflect a dragon's breath weapon or a wizard's finger of death.
Shoot targets on the other side of the world.
Complete massive engineering projects in an hour.
Do that Batman thing, where the camera pans away for a second and you're vanished.
Knock down buildings with a single punch.
Grab an enemy and throw them twenty miles away.


That's the kind of abilities you need to give a T1-T2 class-- stupidly powerful stuff, things so far outside the ream of the possible that they make you do a double-take. Things inspired by characters like the Hulk, Gilgamesh, and Sun Wu Kong, not Conan or Robin Hood.

[Demidos]

While Grod's suggestion is certainly high tier, I would flinch at calling jumping 10 miles or making earthquakes with your feet "mundane".

The easiest way to homebrew this (imho, obviously), is give them bonus actions galore and a way to use them. Why, you ask? Because if you can ready one of your three standard actions to do "something" against "anything that happens", or use one of your 5 immediate actions/turn to move 60 feet away from the center of the explosion or to deflect the attack, then you've already reached T2ish levels of power. Extending the threatened reach of a melee class is always a nice boost too ("he's so fast i've seen him AOO against a foe 20 feet away!").

Next, install some sort of special resistance mechanism -- This guy is a non-magical dude keeping up with all these casters slinging spells like there's no tomorrow. Mettle and Evasion sum up how ridiculous their reflexes must be rather nicely.

Next, give them abilities related to perception -- some sort of blindsight or something similar to reflect just how keen their senses are, and if they're a sneaky kind of class some bonus to their stealth skills.

Lastly, though optional, some extra options for combat would make their life more interesting than move then full attack*3. I would suggest some sort of reasonable short term debuffs that reflect things a mundane could ACTUALLY do -- e.g. instill a 3 round blindness by tossing dirt into an enemy's eyes, or dazing the foe for a round by hitting them in a vulnerable area.
-----------

I've put most of my ideas into my class the True Warrior (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?383292-My-Blade-will-Carve-a-Way-%283-5-Base-Class-PEACH%29), though you will probably note that its action-economy is rather limited (compared to the monstrosity above) and its missing some of the options to keep it in line with a mid tier three. Take a look if you'd like.

I wouldnt actually suggest 3+ rounds worth of actions, but 2 certainly fits the bill.

[Grod_The_Giant]

While Grod's suggestion is certainly high tier, I would flinch at calling jumping 10 miles or making earthquakes with your feet "mundane".
Nope. Stop. Stop right there.

That right there is a perfect example of the Guy at the Gym Fallacy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?303089-The-Guy-at-the-Gym-Fallacy), which is probably the single greatest contribution to the magic-mundane imbalance. If non-magic characters are limited to what a "normal" guy could do, and magic characters are only limited by the imagination of the guy writing the Spells chapter, you will never balance the game. Following that principle results in two entirely separate sets of design criteria, which results in, well, 3.5. In a game with weaker magic, you might be able to get away with limiting mundanes like that, but... this isn't that game. Casters in 3.5 have ludicrous amounts of world-changing power, and any non-magic character you try to balance against a mage needs the same sort of power. They need to be able to raise and slaughter armies, cross the setting in a matter of minutes, gather information on a moment's notice, and win encounters with a standard action because that's what mages do. Tier 1/2 classes have strategic power, not just tactical. Trying to match that without magic is hard enough; trying to match that while remaining within the bounds of some nebulous "what a real guy could do" is-- probably-- impossible. The closest thing to a "mundane" T3 we have is the Warblade, whose position in the tier is, honestly, debatable*. And while he can hold his own in a fight (mostly-- he's got all the usual melee problems with flying and insubstantial foes), he can't break the setting like a Sorcerer can. And all this is saying nothing of the fact that even a Warrior can easily exceed real-world limits for durability and athleticism by 6th level.

So what am I saying? Forget "mundane." "Mundane" is a self-limiting term. "Mundane" is an insult. We shouldn't be categorizing half the classes in the game as an insult. Call them "martial" or "non-magic" or "skill-based" or whatever you want. But don't force them to conform to the bounds of "realism," because casters sure as hell don't.



*Let's not debate it here, though.

[ben-zayb]

The laziest way to be a T2+ "mundane" is through Artifice, isn't it? If you want it to be more martial, I'm pretty sure I've seen a Fighter-Artificer homebrew class somewhere ITP (T1/2 mundanes are popular homebrew pursuits, after all).

Another way is to make it a mundane "nonspell"-caster using a T1/2 spell list, slapped with the (Ex) classifier. As long as you can justify it with fluff, then it can work nonmagically. Reality punch, right?

[LudicSavant]

I don't really see the "Guy at the Gym Fallacy" as the main problem facing Fighters and other "mundanes" in D&D 3.5e. It's a factor for certain, but I see many others as well. Lots of little things and core assumptions that come together in the bigger picture to give casters a crushing advantage.

Here are a couple examples of what I'm talking about:

1) Casters move really fast without breaking stride. So fast, in fact, that they put Rita Mordio (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bK4XKS7gL0) to shame. She can't run around while she's doing that!

Consider that you expect a mid-high level caster to be... moving 30 (or more) feet, precisely intoning sensitive incantations, performing elaborate and precise somatic components with such a small margin of error that the weight of light armor will totally mess it up, dashing and darting around so well that he's leaving no obvious openings while doing any of this, comparable to if he was readily defending himself with a sword (e.g. casting defensively), casting 2-4 spells, commanding some minions, and so forth. All in the span of 6 seconds. That seems like it requires some pretty serious physical exertion to keep up, and yet D&D casters seem to do it almost effortlessly.

Don't even get me started on things like Celerity, Contingency, Familiar stored actions, etc...

2) In D&D, fliers are extremely stable. A caster hurtling along at breakneck speeds has no penalty whatsoever to flinging her spells accurately at landbound opponents. Moreover, fliers are far more difficult to knock from the air that you'd expect. You can't ground a griffon by lighting its wings on fire with a flaming arrow, for instance. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWatmDmKGDA)

3) Many spells simply ignore any kinds of penalties for range, let alone the movements of the caster. In real life, if you had your eagle dropping boulders from high in the air, the chance of it actually hitting a single individual would be... low. Meanwhile, a wizard hurtling along at 200 feet in a round can drop a barrage of long range spell effects on a target 500 feet below looking through a murder hole with perfect accuracy... that reflex/will/fort save will be the same.

4) The world's phlebotinum has an insidious habit of being set up in such a way that mundane people can't interact with it at all. Sure, there are things like "lead can block a detect spell" but these details are few and far between. Far more often we get things like "Shields generally can't deflect rays or dragonbreath... even if the art shows this happening on a regular basis. Sorry."

Why can't you critical hit a construct? Many of them seem to have weak points that could be exploited, and there's a bloody divination spell that lets you realize that. Why can't you critical hit an undead? Can you not stab the zombie in the brain or stake the vampire through the heart? Why not? I could fill a book with this kind of stuff.

This is something that could have a massive impact if it was remedied, and examples of mundane interactions with magic are utterly ubiquitous throughout fantasy literature. They just aren't in D&D.

By contrast, the upper heights of mundane achievement are extremely accessible... and very low. A masterwork weapon can be casually crafted by any level 1 Wizard with the Magecraft spell, some artisan's tools, and taking 10 on the craft check. And the advantages are... small. Meanwhile, the Master Smith can never match the impact of a mere enchantment bonus. These kinds of differences in ability have nothing to do with the "guy at the gym" issue. It's just the way the universe is rigged against Fighters.

Being really good at taming, training, and riding things becomes more important when you can ride more fantastic things.

Being able to forge things really well matters more when you have better phlebotinum to forge things out of.

Having the power to wring the best performance out of a sword matters more if being able to swing a magic sword just right allows you to do more impressive magical shenanigans with it.

Being more adept at using a shield means more if your shield can deflect a ray back at a target of your choice... when the ray didn't even target you in the first place, since you could dive in front of the intended target from a good range.

Some of the other things I mention in this post could be considered extensions of this issue. For instance, point #3 is just a case of large swathes of magical targeting deciding that it doesn't care about things like cover or distance, even if it's something that would care about those things in most fiction such as "tossing a fireball or lightning bolt."

5) Fighters don't really play basketball defense well. Actually intercepting people's movement is hard if you don't have specific builds for it. Compare to... say, pretty much any real-time D&D videogame where players can move simultaneously, and you can see the difference here (you can also see the effect of forcing people to engage at close ranges and various other factors).

6) Casters are inscrutable. When you see a Fighter with a given type of weapon or armor, you have some sort of rational expectation as to what sort of guy you're fighting. Wizards have no real tells before they have actually already hit you with something. There's no reason that they couldn't or shouldn't, though, and once again examples throughout media are common.

7) Mundane classes tend to need to hyperspecialize to be good at things. If you could turn around and throw a javelin that could knock a guy out without making that a major investment of your entire character-building resources, that'd do a lot for mundanes. But even Tome of Battle doesn't offer this kind of functionality.

8) Mundanes tend to not even live up to things real people can do, or don't model some advantages that skilled people have at all Things like the concept of "yomi" (reading your opponent) have almost no representation in D&D, for instance.

Remember how fast I said casters were? Well, Rangers are struggling to even keep pace with the firing rate of real life archers. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g)

What about things like invisibility? If you go and play a videogame where you have characters that have invisibility as an ability, it's often the case that high-skill players can spin around, never see you, and pop a few accurate headshots off on you at a fair range. Heck, they may even be shooting through walls if the game allows for that. How are they doing this? Simple. Sound, environmental cues, situation, mind games, baits, reads and predictions... all sorts of little factors that come together.

Hell, a ton of awesome things you'd expect mundanes to be able to do just as well are listed as SPELLS in supplements, like "you use divination to gain knowledge of pressure points so that you can do something that no mundane Rogue can ever actually do." Wha?

The list goes on. Quite simply, there is a lot of room for upping the game of mundanes before you even get into the realm of things that would challenge immersion for some players. (This is not to say that mundanes should be within the realms of what "real" people can do. That's stupid... real people don't stand a chance against a dragon using just a sword.)

9) Itemization grossly favors mages. Again, this isn't something that would necessarily be true.

Imagine if, for instance, magic had some degree of toxicity (a la the Witcher) and this means that the fit can endure wearing more magic armor. Or perhaps there are powerful magic weapons that can't be fully utilized by someone without the proper skill (such as the Possible Sword from China Mieville's "The Scar." A less skilled fighter would have been shredded by simply trying to swing it). Hell, even something as simple as "your body can take only so much magic energy, so there's a limit on how many buffs you can stack based on your physical capabilities" would mean that fighters would have a role as targets for magical buffs even if they couldn't throw the buffs on themselves. Or if a magic item's effectiveness multiplied an effect based on a user's attribute ("If the mighty champion swings this magic hammer, it will magnify his swing exponentially and create a great earthquake." That sort of thing). Or any of a thousand other possibilities for giving fighters itemization advantages.

In D&D, there isn't anything like this... for mundanes. Wizards, on the other hand, have all kinds of itemization advantages. Not only can they make all of the nice items (including the best Masterwork items), but they also can use them better, too. Scrolls, Staves, Wands, you name it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Rz2ivHHCug Hey look at him saving money on Magic Item Identification.

10) Self-only buffs tend to be better than buffs you can throw on others (especially when it comes to mundane-power-boosting things, oddly enough) and this undermines the value of having a better "unbuffed chassis." Sure, the Cleric might start with slightly lower stats than the Paladin before she buffs, but hey, Righteous Might baby.

So, you don't get to compare "Crusader + Righteous Might" vs "Cleric + Righteous Might." Fighters don't even get to be a notably better base chassis to augment with magic.

____

This is far from a complete list, I am being quite brief here. The gist of what I'm getting at here is that on a basic level endemic to the system, lots of assumptions are made that fundamentally favor casters and disfavor fighters. If you made a devoted effort to target these kinds of things, you could markedly narrow the relevance-discrepancy between the mundanes and magicians without actually resorting to some of the more controversial Charles Atlas Superpowers.

[Flickerdart]

The one key thing you need to do to be high-tier is ignore the rules. Not rules like "here's how many times you can attack this round" but rules like "you can attack." The key thing to remember is that the rules are not synonymous with the laws of physics, and it's totally possible to break them while still not doing anything supernatural.

[Flickerdart]

Lack of long-range teleport or Plane shift could be a problem, I guess. But I believe only "hero class" which features long-range teleport as a main ability is Hero(Yuusha) from Dragon Quest series.
Western mythology can help here - it's a pretty well-established trope that a worthy hero can find his way to the the land of the dead or other such places just by walking/swimming. Hell, even Olympus was just a mountain you could climb. I guess in D&D terms this would be like a setting with coterminous planes, or something like that one ability from 4e where you can walk literally anywhere in 24 hours.

At least in Slavic myth, such heroes also often had the aid of powerful mounts (typically a talking wolf but there are also a bunch of really freakin' weird birds with lady heads) who could carry them where they needed to go with great speed, but would not actually stay and fight. Calling up such a creature would not be magical, exactly - he simply hears your call from wherever with super-hearing, runs over, then takes you to wherever you need to go.

[Eldan]

Planescape accounts for that with breaches, portals, pools, gates, doors, etc. They are everywhere, one just has to know where to look. A landscape feature, really, not one of the hero.

Though one could certainly make them demanding to climb.

[Flickerdart]

They are everywhere, one just has to know where to look. A landscape feature, really, not one of the hero.
Surely, knowing where to look is a feature of the hero? There's not much functional difference between calling up a planar breach and "knowing" there's one just around the corner under that rock, but only if you rub your nose the right way.

[Judge_Worm]

So, a Tier 2 class without spell-casting or supernatural abilities?
I ask because mundane is a bad term. A level 4 expert is about the limit of mundane, a level 6 fighter is not mundane. A level 6 fighter is superhuman, doing things no real person can do.
A warblade comes closest out of what already exists. Which could be improved simply by homebrewing more powerful maneuvers.

[NNescio]

I'm speaking from experience here, having written the Myth (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?307285-The-Myth-Tier-1-quot-Mundane-quot-Challenge-Accepted!) for just such a purpose. One interesting thing I found was that you don't need a silly-good chassis. The basic attributes of the game-- hit points, BAB, feats, and so on-- really don't do much to lift you beyond T4. You can maybe squeak into low T3, especially if you can use rotating feats or something to turn yourself into a cut-rate initiator and/or meldshaper, but... to really break out of T4, you need special abilities. Look at the existing T3+ classes: all of them have access to some sort of subsystem. That's probably the defining mark of a high-tier class: the ability to pick individual powers from a longer list. The difference between T3 and T2, then, is generally in the power of that list-- the sorcerer is just a bard with a more powerful set of potential class abilities (spells, in this case).

What does that mean for a hypothetical high-tier martial? You're going to have to write a large number of individual abilities (spells, maneuvers, soulmelds, whatever). If you want T3, make (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?240943-The-Savage-one-part-barbarian-one-part-druid-one-part-Wolverine-3-5-PEACH-WIP)them (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?328113-Barbarian-now-with-150-more-beef-%283-5-PEACH%29)balanced (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?276280-GitP-Fighter-Fix-18343-3-Ziegander-Grod-Tag-Team-Action!)(against other T3 abilities). If you want T2, you're going to need to balance them against spells-- good spells. The final version will look really, really goofy. And, unless you're really good at hiding the potential power of your abilities, it'll look overpowered as ****.

Take my Myth. He's got a pretty good chassis, with a d12 HD, 4+Int skill points, and good BAB, Fort, and Will. His class features are simple but solid-- Mettle, a few bonus feats, some AoO avoidance, and so on. By itself, it's probably, oh, high T4-- tanky, pretty decent at stabbing things, and possessed of a decent skill list. The real, world-breaking power comes in his Deeds, the abilities he picks from a list. Those were written to keep pace with spells. And they're goofy as anything. A 10th level Myth can:

Pin enemies to the material plane by stabbing them.
Gain extra actions.
Grapple a giant and win.
Shoot arrows that change direction mid-flight.
Create earthquakes by stomping.
Gain blindsense and see invisibility
Deflect anything from arrows to orbs of fire-- and re-direct them to a new target.
Jump ten miles.
Do that Sherlock Holmes trick where you look at a dude and deduce everything about him.
Cut through objects 5 feet thick with a single swing.
Forge magic weapons.
Punch people hard enough to destroy their memories.
Charm anyone around him, potentially all the way up to Fanatical.


By 20th level, you can

Control minds just by talking at people.
Read surface thoughts through sheer observational power
Mindrape people through blunt trauma
Cut portals between the planes
Rip limbs (including heads) off anyone he's grappling
Recruit (permanent) armies with a short speech
Predict what random creatures on the other side of the world are doing with a successful Knowledge check.
Jump into orbit and land anywhere on the plane.
Deflect a dragon's breath weapon or a wizard's finger of death.
Shoot targets on the other side of the world.
Complete massive engineering projects in an hour.
Do that Batman thing, where the camera pans away for a second and you're vanished.
Knock down buildings with a single punch.
Grab an enemy and throw them twenty miles away.


That's the kind of abilities you need to give a T1-T2 class-- stupidly powerful stuff, things so far outside the ream of the possible that they make you do a double-take. Things inspired by characters like the Hulk, Gilgamesh, and Sun Wu Kong, not Conan or Robin Hood.

So he's uh... Jack Rakan?

[Grod_The_Giant]

So he's uh... Jack Rakan?
My only knowledge of who that is comes from a brief Google just now, but... sure, why not. Tier 2 is broken. That's part of the definition of the tier. They have abilities that can smash encounters and campaigns into a thousand little pieces if used properly. They can change the entire course of a setting without once exceeding the rules. And, I mean, the Myth is still behind a wizard in most measurable categories.

[OldTrees1]

Tier 2 is broken. That's part of the definition of the tier. They have abilities that can smash encounters and campaigns into a thousand little pieces if used properly.

I am amazed at how often that part of the tier definition is overlooked.

[Just to Browse]

I am amazed at how often that part of the tier definition is overlooked.

Because it's not. That is a descriptive, not prescriptive, trait. It is totally possible to make contained T1 and T2 classes that do not shatter the game.

[OldTrees1]

Because it's not. That is a descriptive, not prescriptive, trait. It is totally possible to make contained T1 and T2 classes that do not shatter the game.

Examples happen after the definition because they are selected by the definition and not vice versa. The definition is a descriptive paragraph. In that descriptive paragraph is the trait "These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat". A character using a Tier 1-2 class to create a Tier 1-2 build is not forced to break campaigns (player > build > class), but a class that does not fit the definition of a tier is not in that tier.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Because it's not. That is a descriptive, not prescriptive, trait. It is totally possible to make contained T1 and T2 classes that do not shatter the game.
The definition of T1 is:

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.
What part of that makes you think that it's possible to have a balanced T1?

[Bucky]

8) Mundanes tend to not even live up to things real people can do, or don't model some advantages that skilled people have at all Things like the concept of "yomi" (reading your opponent) have almost no representation in D&D, for instance.

Ready action judo is how 'yomi' works in D&D. 'Shoot the wizard when he tries to cast a spell' is the canonical example.

[Just to Browse]

Examples happen after the definition because they are selected by the definition and not vice versa. The definition is a descriptive paragraph. In that descriptive paragraph is the trait "These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat". A character using a Tier 1-2 class to create a Tier 1-2 build is not forced to break campaigns (player > build > class), but a class that does not fit the definition of a tier is not in that tier.
We do not follow JaronK chapter and verse. He is human. He thinks and writes like a human. Since he obviously didn't include a "This is the definition > this is the list > these are the conclusions", you definitely can't say that the definition is prescriptive and not descriptive. The position that all T2's must be broken is sort of like saying all T2's must be spellcasters because the T2 list contains only spellcasters.


The definition of T1 is:
If one can contest that certain classes are not actually at their tiers, one can also contest that certain parts of the definition are descriptive instead of prescriptive.

[OldTrees1]

We do not follow JaronK chapter and verse. He is human. He thinks and writes like a human. Since he obviously didn't include a "This is the definition > this is the list > these are the conclusions", you definitely can't say that the definition is prescriptive and not descriptive. The position that all T2's must be broken is sort of like saying all T2's must be spellcasters because the T2 list contains only spellcasters.

You don't have to follow chapter and verse. But it is easier to communicate if there is something constant. Otherwise we could debate each word individually about whether it was part of the definition or not.

Just curious, for the sake of communication, what do you use as the definitions if not the descriptive paragraphs? Please list what you use as the definitions for Tier 1 and 2.

[Just to Browse]

You don't have to follow chapter and verse. But it is easier to communicate if there is something constant. Otherwise we could debate each word individually about whether it was part of the definition or not.

Just curious, for the sake of communication, what do you use as the definitions if not the descriptive paragraphs? Please list what you use as the definitions for Tier 1 and 2.

No one in this thread is debating what the definition is. What I am contesting is what parts of that definition are prescriptive (You cannot be Tier 2 unless X), or descriptive (All Tier 2 classes have X right now, but it's not necessary). You and Grod seem to believe that Tier 1 & 2 classes must be able to abuse the rules and ruin the game in order to be classified at their tier, but I think that's untrue. Heck, Grod's mundane* Myth doesn't actually break the game, and mundane mythos (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?286983-3-5-Base-Class-quot-I-want-to-live-inside-a-castle-built-of-your-agony!-quot)** classes don't either.

*For "mundane" = "no obvious magical or supernatural power source"

**I don't know if it's actually tier 2, but I trust other people

[OldTrees1]

No one in this thread is debating what the definition is. What I am contesting is what parts of that definition are prescriptive (You cannot be Tier 2 unless X), or descriptive (All Tier 2 classes have X right now, but it's not necessary). You and Grod seem to believe that Tier 1 & 2 classes must be able to abuse the rules and ruin the game in order to be classified at their tier, but I think that's untrue. Heck, Grod's mundane* Myth doesn't actually break the game, and mundane mythos (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?286983-3-5-Base-Class-quot-I-want-to-live-inside-a-castle-built-of-your-agony!-quot)** classes don't either.

*For "mundane" = "no obvious magical or supernatural power source"

**I don't know if it's actually tier 2, but I trust other people

Um. Definitions are made up of Necessary(what you call prescriptive) and Sufficient conditions. What you are calling descriptive would not be part of a definition. So, for the purposes of being able to communicate with you, would you please identify what you use as a definition?

[Just to Browse]

That is a very odd form of definition to take, especially considering the way the original tier document was written (it was not exhaustive, nor does it even discuss which traits are sufficient or necessary). I am not going to add my own material to complete it to your interesting standards, but I will bold the phrases I believe to be prescriptive from the original statement if it helps you. Brackets for context:


Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job [Than Tier 1 Classes]. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

And for reference, Tier 1 classes:


Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

[OldTrees1]

That is a very odd form of definition to take, especially considering the way the original tier document was written (it was not exhaustive, nor does it even discuss which traits are sufficient or necessary). I am not going to add my own material to complete it to your interesting standards, but I will bold the phrases I believe to be prescriptive from the original statement if it helps you. Brackets for context:



And for reference, Tier 1 classes:
The "definitions are formed of some number of necessary/sufficient conditions (usually just necessary conditions to be honest)" comes from discrete math. I may have phrased it awkwardly. You seem to have understood what I meant by what you provided.

Interesting: You cut it off as "Supremely skilled anyman" and drop off the "Strategic Power" sentences. A good place if any to cut since the second half is not implied by the first half. Honestly makes it a kinda weird non sequitur to include that second half if the first half was the sum of the definition.

Thank you for explaining your definition. I do not agree with it but I do not think I could convince you otherwise either.

[Just to Browse]

I see that use of definition in places that involve rigorous proofs, which is why it was weird to see it used here because there's a lot of grey area concerning class tiers.

One of the problems with writing my own tier statement is that I'd have to add more material to make it comprehensive (which is why I didn't want to use necessary/sufficient). I do believe T1/T2 classes need strategic power, in huge amounts, and I also believe that it's dangerous to put them in parties of T3 classes, but their world-changing powers do not need to come "at high levels", and the classes don't necessarily need "DM Fiat" to avoid being a problem if partied up with weaker classes. So I didn't highlight those.

But, going back to the original point, breaking the game is not necessary nor sufficient (as you'd put it) for being T1 or T2. You just need to be very good at a very large number of tasks.

[OldTrees1]

I see that use of definition in places that involve rigorous proofs, which is why it was weird to see it used here because there's a lot of grey area concerning class tiers.

One of the problems with writing my own tier statement is that I'd have to add more material to make it comprehensive (which is why I didn't want to use necessary/sufficient). I do believe T1/T2 classes need strategic power, in huge amounts, and I also believe that it's dangerous to put them in parties of T3 classes, but their world-changing powers do not need to come "at high levels", and the classes don't necessarily need "DM Fiat" to avoid being a problem if partied up with weaker classes. So I didn't highlight those.

But, going back to the original point, breaking the game is not necessary nor sufficient (as you'd put it) for being T1 or T2. You just need to be very good at a very large number of tasks.

Wait, so everything in the full paragraph would be included in your definition. Let me show why by listing your additional necessary conditions/qualifying clauses to necessary conditions.
1) "I do believe T1/T2 classes need strategic power, in huge amounts"
This is a stronger necessary condition than "Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign". So your condition includes this weaker one.

2) "I also believe that it's dangerous to put them in parties of T3 classes"
You are agreeing with something so I will skip this.

3) "but their world-changing powers do not need to come "at high levels""
This is a stronger necessary condition than "Has world changing powers at high levels.". So your condition includes this weaker one.

4) "and the classes don't necessarily need "DM Fiat" to avoid being a problem if partied up with weaker classes."
Notice "and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party." does not use absolute language so it does not contradict other results.


So back to the original tangent. Is the capacity for breaking a necessary condition? Under your definition, no. You require strategic(world changing) power as a necessary condition of being Tier 1, but also allow do not necessarily require DM fiat to challenge them. The only thing I think I would differ with you on is when the DM fiat is not necessary to challenge the Tier 1-2s.

So while I do think "having access to strategic power including some game breaking abilities" is still a necessary condition, I can easily see your interpretation that "having access to strategic power" is the condition instead(in addition to the other conditions that we agree on).

[Just to Browse]

1) Incorrect. You can have strategic power without breaking the game. You can have strategic power without being high-level.

2) Cool. I was cutting out sentences at a time, because highlighting half a statement felt like adding my own interpretations, but that's fine to include.

3) You are confusing a statement in English with a logical statement. If I told you "Go to the grocery store and buy a box of brownie mix. If there are eggs, buy 12." you would not buy 12 boxes of brownie mix if you saw eggs, because I was speaking in English and I wasn't writing a program. For similar reasons, "they have world-changing power at high levels" does not equate to "they have world changing power at [a set of levels including but possibly not limited to] high levels" because JaronK is writing in English and not C++. So while I agree that such classes need "world-changing powers" at high levels amongst other levels, the sentence doesn't read that way so I don't condone it for fear of endorsing something else accidentally.

4) When used prescriptively, "can be X" would have to apply to all classes. A Teramach or Tome Monk isn't going to need "extreme DM fiat" regardless of build. So while certain classes like the sorcerer can require DM fiat for certain tactics (such as chain-binding efreeti), the Tome Monk has no tools to get even remotely close. That's why the sentence isn't highlighted.

Moving past that, there is no need to require game-breaking abilities in a set of abilities that grants strategic power, for the same reason there is no need to require spellcasting in that same set of abilities.

[OldTrees1]

Edit: I disagree with some of those objections, but we should move on.

I see your point about requiring game breaking abilities not being necessarily necessary.

[Just to Browse]

That's probably good, because considering how long we talked, there may be plenty more to come.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Western mythology can help here - it's a pretty well-established trope that a worthy hero can find his way to the the land of the dead or other such places just by walking/swimming. Hell, even Olympus was just a mountain you could climb. I guess in D&D terms this would be like a setting with coterminous planes, or something like that one ability from 4e where you can walk literally anywhere in 24 hours.

Getting there required superhuman abilities though (not the DnD characters don't clearly possess superhuman abilities). Planar Travel is an ability would be cool though (and is part of why I like the Planar Champion PrC).

[icefractal]

One obvious way to do it, although it's sort of offloading the work, is The Leader.

The Leader is the one who should clearly be in charge, and everyone knows it. That means they can:
* Have more and better cohorts.
* Convince enemies to surrender and become their followers.
* Travel to a new area, and within a short time have people rushing to assist and obey them.
* Put the word out that they need something done, and have that spread all over the world rapidly until it reaches someone capable of doing it.
* Denounce someone, and have that spread all over the world, leaving the target extremely demoralized and without support from anyone.

Depending how powerful you made the mechanics, it could easily be Tier 0.

[icefractal]

Related to which, I was thinking about tactical-vs-strategic power, and I came to the conclusion that my ideal system (for a D&D type of game) would be one where the character accessed those things separately. So for example you have your tactical element -we'll call that Class. That could be martial skill, or the tactical-scale elements of magic (blasting but not scrying, for instance), or whatever.

Then you have the strategic element, which I'll call Scheme. Some possible Schemes:
* Ritual Magic. Possibly more than one type of it, in fact.
* Leadership. As mentioned above, although less T0.
* Connections. More in the shadows than Leadership. The guy with a Leadership Scheme, when he needs to make changes, he goes to the town square, makes a speech, and people rally around him. With Connections, you talk to the right people, pull some strings, and maybe nobody even realizes it was you but the changes happen.
* Destiny. What it sounds like - fate itself will warp to move you toward your goals. Controversial, perhaps, because it necessarily operates on a somewhat meta-game level.

Schemes should be comparable to each-other, but not necessary do the exact same things. There can definitely be cases where one Scheme does a job better. For example, maybe you need a flower from an uninhabited island that's far away and surrounded by perpetually stormy regions. Magic (via teleportation) can do that no problem, connections not so easily. Conversely, if you're trying to break into the heavily-warded tower of the highly popular duke, magic and leadership might be stymied, but connections will still get you inside.

Class and Scheme are separate, so you could be a rune knight who goes into battle strictly with swordplay, but busts out the scrying circles when he needs information. Or a sorcerer king, who throw fireballs around but relies on his charisma to get large-scale stuff done.

[Flickerdart]

That's a pretty neat idea but you risk falling afoul of D&D's lack of compartmentalization - do you focus on Scheme feats and skills, and neglect your tactical-level abilities, or boost Class and end up being crappy on the strategic scale?

[Milo v3]

That's a pretty neat idea but you risk falling afoul of D&D's lack of compartmentalization - do you focus on Scheme feats and skills, and neglect your tactical-level abilities, or boost Class and end up being crappy on the strategic scale?

Since the aim is to keep them separate, I'd assume that you cannot advance one at the cost of the other.

[Just to Browse]

Since the aim is to keep them separate, I'd assume that you cannot advance one at the cost of the other.

From icefractal's post, it sounds like that is intentional. See the sorcerer versus the knight.

More relevant to the thread, that sounds wholly not-mundane. Even the knight that only fights with a sword is using magic rituals to do things outside of combat.

[Flickerdart]

Since the aim is to keep them separate, I'd assume that you cannot advance one at the cost of the other.
But then it's just two separate and unrelated systems in one game, no?

[icefractal]

From icefractal's post, it sounds like that is intentional. See the sorcerer versus the knight.

More relevant to the thread, that sounds wholly not-mundane. Even the knight that only fights with a sword is using magic rituals to do things outside of combat.My thinking was that they're two separate pools, you can't advance one at the cost of the other. Breaking it down, you'd have:
Swordsman (Class) + Ritual Magic (Scheme)
Sorcerer (Class) + Leadership (Scheme)

And those weren't an attempt at being all mundane; they were an example that you don't have to do only the "traditional" pairings like Sorcerer + Ritual Magic or Swordsman + Leadership.

[Just to Browse]

That's why I think it's weird. In a thread called "High-Tier Mundane", which is about bringing mundane characters up to higher tiers, it's strange to suggest something that can affect all classes equally and isn't necessarily mundane, because it fails out of the gate on two separate fronts.

Perhaps this would do better in a dedicated thread?

[icefractal]

The second post was a bit of a tangent - I was talking about a hypothetical better system where "can mundanes be high tier" would not even be a thing. Although it does have some bearing here, in that it's important to remember the strategic-scale stuff - just making a Fighter better and better at combat will not give him strategic-level capability.

More directly on topic, the previous post - The Leader, T0 non-magic character. Derail done. :smalltongue:

[Grod_The_Giant]

One obvious way to do it, although it's sort of offloading the work, is The Leader.

The Leader is the one who should clearly be in charge, and everyone knows it. That means they can:
* Have more and better cohorts.
* Convince enemies to surrender and become their followers.
* Travel to a new area, and within a short time have people rushing to assist and obey them.
* Put the word out that they need something done, and have that spread all over the world rapidly until it reaches someone capable of doing it.
* Denounce someone, and have that spread all over the world, leaving the target extremely demoralized and without support from anyone.

Depending how powerful you made the mechanics, it could easily be Tier 0.
That would potentially work. The biggest source of power would probably be calling on temporary cohorts, with raw might being dependent on how strong an ally you could call on. If you can get wizards and clerics just a level or two behind, whenever you need them, that's one monster of a class alright. If your cohorts are farther behind the party it becomes more reasonable-- sort of a Chameleon-style trading of raw power for the ability to change your loadout as needed.

[Just to Browse]

Having a T1 caster as a cohort feels like a very weak way to count as "mundane" to me. While your method of control might be nonmagical, the people doing the heavy lifting are still clerics, wizards, and druids, and cannot be mundane.

Without even going into the problems of making that concept playable, I don't think it fits the basic criteria.

[icefractal]

You might end up using casters. But I don't think you'd absolutely have to, depending how powerful and far ranging your influence was. At the point you have seriously powerful creatures showing up to join your cause, and the gods themselves lending support (to go for a rather high end), you don't need no stinking casters.

Mundane is a tricky word to use, anyway. If you're defining it as "nothing that amazing", then it becomes tautologically true that you can't be high tier with it, because we already know high-tier characters are capable of amazing things. I think the broadest definition that's still workable would be "not using magic", and even then I'd draw a line between that and "not benefiting from magic".

[Grod_The_Giant]

You might end up using casters. But I don't think you'd absolutely have to, depending how powerful and far ranging your influence was. At the point you have seriously powerful creatures showing up to join your cause, and the gods themselves lending support (to go for a rather high end), you don't need no stinking casters.
On the other hand, the original idea here was to make T1-2 characters without magic-- either via their own abilities, or some means of simulating magic. I think "caster cohorts" counts as "simulating magic." Your idea still has potential, don't get me wrong, but... can we write it in such a way that it has T1-2 power without needing to draw on casters? (Or even being able to-- I'd like to see a leadership character that doesn't boil down to "I'm actually playing half a dozen characters")

[Just to Browse]

The problem with using leadership as a method of hitting higher tiers is that you're just offloading the problem. Now you need to write minion powers instead of personal powers and you haven't reduced your workload at all.

Also, I suggest using the term "mundane" as "not powered by an overtly magical or supernatural source, subject to individual discretion". That's how the thread started, so now we can stop complaining about the terminology.

[OldTrees1]

Connections (aka leadership) can be used for strategic power even when just limited to mundane followers or even limited to just the same kind as the leader. Specifically connections break the 1 turn/PC and the 1 location/PC limitations. Massive action economy can wrought many strategic goals as can being everywhere. However there are limitations to this as well.

But I agree with Just to Browse in that Connections would be a work intensive option both for the designer and for the player. So what other things can we come up with?

Would thinking in the face of goals that require strategic power be useful?
Case 1: Contest an army.
Case 2: Contest a government.
Case 3: Contest a global organization (like the Thieves/Assassins/Spies Guilds).

[icefractal]

Oh, it definitely would be work intensive. But I don't think there's a way of getting around that. If you want to achieve stuff on the level of spells, you need to either:
1) Indirectly get spells.
2) Have an extremely freeform ability can do whatever you need. Which would be an outlier for D&D.
3) Make your own system of abilities. It doesn't have to be anywhere as big as "all spells", but it would probably end up comparable to a subsystem like Binding or Manuevers in scale.

These can be a new subsystem with its own resource management, they can be special HTM-Only feats, they can be abilities you unlock by having enough skill ranks, but you ultimately can't give people the abilities they need without at some point making those abilities.

If you're only going for a specific niche of High-Tier Mundane, you can slim that down a limited subset of abilities, just enough for one character to have, and lock those in as class features. Which doesn't eliminate the work, but does reduce it.

[Demidos]

Nope. Stop. Stop right there.

So what am I saying? Forget "mundane." "Mundane" is a self-limiting term. "Mundane" is an insult. We shouldn't be categorizing half the classes in the game as an insult. Call them "martial" or "non-magic" or "skill-based" or whatever you want. But don't force them to conform to the bounds of "realism," because casters sure as hell don't.


A bit of a late response, for which I apologize, but I just saw this pop up again.


First off, OP, if you feel this isn't useful, please let me know and we can take this discussion elsewhere, as I wouldn't want to hijack your thread. I just answered here in case it helped to have two opposing viewpoints.

That being said, back to Grod -- I omitted some of your post to summarize it down to what seemed to me your main ideas. Hope I didnt miss anything important.

Response:
1) Some people WANT to play someone mundane. It isnt WRONG to want to play your version of a martial, but if the OP specifies he wants a mundane, it seems difficult to reconcile suggesting a class where stomping creates an earthquake. That is just so far from the bounds of reality, that it destroys the suspension of disbelief coming from a regular human. That doesnt hold for all of your abilities (reading people's intentions from their face, punching people hard enough for them to suffer memory loss, and recruiting soldiers through sheer charisma are all credible enough to be done by a normal human), but many of them (especially higher level ones) become blatantly magical. You can call a swordsman who is so good as to be able to cut reality open with a club a "martial" simply because he uses a weapon, but the ability is clearly not something a human could ever do.
Yes, I am basing my arguments based off the idea that DnD humans are just like real-world humans. Anything past this which they are able to accomplish in a "magical" world, is likely due to...you know, magic, rather than anything that is doable by humans.

2) Mundane is only an "insult", as you put it, because you are basing the relative power off of what the published classes currently have. Yes yes, Wizard > Fighter > Commoner, but I would be just as frightened of the guy who can talk his way into a kingship as the guy who summons or reanimates hordes of fell warriors. Sure, the guy who can talk his way into a kingship is probably a bard using Glibness, but that's a flaw in the current system (there isnt a charismatic warrior archetype who can get the same bonuses) rather than a flaw in the (potentially nonmagical) approach.

In summary, and less rambly:
You suggest making mundanes into martials (with explicitly magical abilities) to bring them up to par. While I actually rather like your class, I think that mundanes are a feasible concept within themselves and could work well even without some of the blatantly supernatural powers you have given them.

[Milo v3]

2) Mundane is only an "insult", as you put it, because you are basing the relative power off of what the published classes currently have.
Actually, I think it's considered insult because mundane is defined as "lacking interest or excitement; dull." and no player class should be "lacking interest or excitement; dull."

[newb]

Tome of battle classes