Tier based point buy: are these balanced?

[Pinkie Pyro]

My turn to DM for my group again, I wanted to mix it up and switch from point buy to arrays, and I wanted it to be based off your tier to give the fighters and such a bit of a buff:

Tier 1-2: 18 14 10 10 08 06
Tier 3-4: 18 16 14 12 10 08
Tier 5-6: 18 18 16 14 12 10

Anyone think these are good? all I can really see is that Tier 1-2 might need a 16 instead of that 18.

[Honest Tiefling]

I sincerely doubt it. As a wizard, I'd only need that juicy 18 and 14 and I'm golden. I wouldn't really see a reason to take the lower tiers, really.

[Pinkie Pyro]

I sincerely doubt it. As a wizard, I'd only need that juicy 18 and 14 and I'm golden. I wouldn't really see a reason to take the lower tiers, really.

It's not about making All tiers balanced, that's impossible by definition, this is to just give the little guy something nice. And no, I won't let them exploit it by going whatever 1/wis 19 for the extra stats.

[Honest Tiefling]

Perhaps give the lower tiers some extra goodies? More skill points, and more feats might work nicely with this. And I don't think I was clear enough. What I mean is that while the Tier 1 array isn't the best, its fine and dandy for many an aspiring god wizard.

[Flickerdart]

When you force the wizard to have terrible stats, you are saying "I will make sure you are unable to contribute except using your most broken ability." What you actually want to do is give them reasons not to solve every problem with super-powerful spells.

Meanwhile, the mundanes aren't actually any better off with bigger stats because all you're doing is boosting their numbers. Numbers aren't the problem.

[OldTrees1]

Tier 1-2s can contribute without exploits and with only a 16 in their casting stat.
I would use 18/16/14/14/10/08 for Tier 3-4. It is more the number of boosted stats that is important rather than the magnitude. (Magnitude is merely +numbers, but spread means investments in skill points and options)

[eggynack]

I'm not really sure what the thread title's question means. Some marginally different ability scores on different classes obviously aren't going to balance the game, and looking at it from the other direction, they're not going to imbalance the game either. I'd tend towards stronger differences if I were doing this, tending toward's the tier system based point buy which sets tier 6 at 44 points and tier 1 at 24 points, or even something broader with tier 1 at 15 or 20 points, but this doesn't seem especially problematic.

[EugeneVoid]

When you force the wizard to have terrible stats, you are saying "I will make sure you are unable to contribute except using your most broken ability." What you actually want to do is give them reasons not to solve every problem with super-powerful spells.

Meanwhile, the mundanes aren't actually any better off with bigger stats because all you're doing is boosting their numbers. Numbers aren't the problem.

Just gonna re-post this.

[ben-zayb]

So T1s can get awesome stats by dipping T5/6 using the first level? Awesome, if you really want to go Abjurant Champ anyway.:smallamused:

[sideswipe]

So T1s can get awesome stats by dipping T5/6 using the first level? Awesome, if you really want to go Abjurant Champ anyway.:smallamused:

to fix this, give the bonuses on every 4th level.
from level 1-4 you take all classes entered and the one with the highest tier is the one you count.
depending on the tier you gain stat bonuses.
tier 1 - 0
tier 2 - 1
tier 3 - 2
tier 4 - 3
tier 5 - 4
tier 6 - 5

do this for each 4 level block. the points can be distributed as you like.

for example wizard 1 fighter 3 gets none.
factotum 3 cleric 1 gets none.
healer 3 fighter 1 gets 4 points to spend.
favoured soul 2 duskblade 2 gets 1.

[SirKazum]

One way I've heard to balance tiers is having lower-tier characters use Gestalt (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/gestaltCharacters.htm) rules. I suppose you consider a gestalt of 2 low-tier classes as equivalent to a high-tier class. By giving low-tier characters a broader array of abilities and fewer weaknesses, you mitigate some of what sets the tiers apart. Although with gestalt you incur the risk of high-MAD characters... so giving them more or less good ability scores across the board might be good as well, I dunno. Anyone here ever tried this?

[Jormengand]

I've found that tier-based compensation systems encourage people to try to get a low-tier class into a higher tier rather than anything else - I played a funny old game where you got extra experience for being a low tier (10% for each tier beyond 1st), the end result of which was that I ended up Truenamering everyone's face off because the DM failed his spot check against me sneakily moving up three tiers.

That said, with this little difference, I'd probably not even bother. If you started handing out 24s to the lower tiers, that would start to help (Think 24-INT rogue), but still not much. Sticking the T1s on really low stats (INT-15 wizard can always cast his highest spell level, then give him 10s and 8s in other stuff) might help (Where's your pretty little spells-per-day boost now?) but it wouldn't change their actual tiers because that's not how tiers work.

[sideswipe]

I've found that tier-based compensation systems encourage people to try to get a low-tier class into a higher tier rather than anything else - I played a funny old game where you got extra experience for being a low tier (10% for each tier beyond 1st), the end result of which was that I ended up Truenamering everyone's face off because the DM failed his spot check against me sneakily moving up three tiers.

That said, with this little difference, I'd probably not even bother. If you started handing out 24s to the lower tiers, that would start to help (Think 24-INT rogue), but still not much. Sticking the T1s on really low stats (INT-15 wizard can always cast his highest spell level, then give him 10s and 8s in other stuff) might help (Where's your pretty little spells-per-day boost now?) but it wouldn't change their actual tiers because that's not how tiers work.

most people understand how tiers work, i think all threads like these are to hinder high tiers enough to not make them the go to choice and make you consider those poor but cool classes you always wanted to play. i would play weak classes all the time if i got a cool boost like this (and i wasn't forced into wizard cleric and psion because everyone else is fighters and rogues in my group)

[Forrestfire]

I'm just going to echo the idea that this is a bad idea. Taking the high-tier classes and giving them less points leads to them focusing on the things they can do that are still useful... Namely, using their powerful spells.

Giving everyone good stats, in my experience, has led to more stuff like gishes, or odd multiclasses and fun prestige classes. The god wizard is what you do when you don't have anything useful you can do otherwise, whereas good stats lets the wizard abandon the general highly powerful tier 1ness and do something like, say, Wizard/Swiftblade/Abjurant Champion. Sure, they outfight the Fighter, but what doesn't? Overall, it makes for a much more fun and interesting character than the alternative, in my opinion. A wizard with a 15 in intelligence and no other good stats can just fall back on planar binding, save or loses with feats to buff the DCs, or no save just loses. A wizard with a 15 in intelligence, a 14 in con, and an 18 in strength gets to do more interesting stuff, and oftentimes isn't going to have picked the ridiculously powerful stuff.

[OldTrees1]

I'm just going to echo the idea that this is a bad idea. Taking the high-tier classes and giving them less points leads to them focusing on the things they can do that are still useful... Namely, using their powerful spells.

To be fair, casters can be useful with a minimum casting score without resorting to broken spells. WoTC did playtest with an evoker and a healbot remember?

However you are right that a person with 2 arms is more likely to use their leftmost arm than a person with 3 arms. Neither needs to use that particular options, but the presence of more alternatives does generally decrease the likelihood of using a particular option.

[Xerlith]

Try it like that: Everyone starts with a 32point buy, but later:

Tier 1-2 gains +1 point every 4 class levels, as normal.
Tier 3 gains +2 points every 4 class levels.
Tier 4-5 gains +2 points every 2 class levels.
Tier 6 gains +1 point every odd level, +2 points every even level.

Off the top of my head. Even chances, but more numbers later on - but that's only numbers.
If you give a feat here or there for the weaker classes, maybe that's something.
Like, normal progression for tier 1-2, tier 3-4 gains Pathfinder progression (every odd level), tiers 5-6 gain both 3.5 and pathfinder progressions.

Damn, that's a lot of feats for a fighter.

[(Un)Inspired]

When you force the wizard to have terrible stats, you are saying "I will make sure you are unable to contribute except using your most broken ability." What you actually want to do is give them reasons not to solve every problem with super-powerful spells.

Meanwhile, the mundanes aren't actually any better off with bigger stats because all you're doing is boosting their numbers. Numbers aren't the problem.


I'm just going to echo the idea that this is a bad idea. Taking the high-tier classes and giving them less points leads to them focusing on the things they can do that are still useful... Namely, using their powerful spells.

Giving everyone good stats, in my experience, has led to more stuff like gishes, or odd multiclasses and fun prestige classes. The god wizard is what you do when you don't have anything useful you can do otherwise, whereas good stats lets the wizard abandon the general highly powerful tier 1ness and do something like, say, Wizard/Swiftblade/Abjurant Champion. Sure, they outfight the Fighter, but what doesn't? Overall, it makes for a much more fun and interesting character than the alternative, in my opinion. A wizard with a 15 in intelligence and no other good stats can just fall back on planar binding, save or loses with feats to buff the DCs, or no save just loses. A wizard with a 15 in intelligence, a 14 in con, and an 18 in strength gets to do more interesting stuff, and oftentimes isn't going to have picked the ridiculously powerful stuff.

Everyone open your ears so Flickerdart and Forrestfire can squirt some truth into you.

[Curmudgeon]

Here's what I use. Adjust the points available for point buy based on the Tier System for Classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0):

15 point buy (This is where the Wizard is.)
22 point buy
28 point buy
32 point buy
40 point buy (This is where the Monk is.)
You might try 50 here, but really: just skip characters this weak. :smallsigh:
This assumes PCs are going to start in their primary class. If they change the primary class in later levels they'd retroactively lose points if necessary, but would never retroactively gain points.

[Hiro Quester]

JaronK's description of the tier system here (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0) also includes several recommendations for using the tier system to get a good game going. Look in the "house Rules" section (in the spoiler) for many suggestions on how to appropriately balance different tiers.

One of his suggestions is the tiered point buy. He describes it as "a quick and dirty fix that helps a bit.

the partial gestalt is another. Banning higher tiers is very clunky. Nerfing overpowered abilities is another (e.g. no polymorph).

At the end, he gives a detailed suggestion for setting up a more balanced game in which he "wanted a low magic game, with characters using skills and martial abilities to solve problems instead of spells".

The overall effect of the House Rules he implemented is that "The entire party can optimize like crazy and they're still maxing out at Tier 2 if they really work at it, and are usually Tier 3 otherwise." Check it out.

[Barstro]

When you force the wizard to have terrible stats, you are saying "I will make sure you are unable to contribute except using your most broken ability." What you actually want to do is give them reasons not to solve every problem with super-powerful spells.

Meanwhile, the mundanes aren't actually any better off with bigger stats because all you're doing is boosting their numbers. Numbers aren't the problem.

Prior to this statement, I thought it was a decent idea. However, Flickerdart is mostly correct.

I think the real problem isn't tiers, it is players trying to win the game instead of actually roleplaying. A Tier-1 doesn't break the world; the player chooses to use the Tier-1 to break it. It takes a particular form of roleplaying to say "I could rewrite the world, but I'm going to cast Stinking Cloud instead."

In the end, changing the array simply makes a weaker character slightly better. Lying about the die roll will have the same effect. For that matter, you could just allow tiers to change the roll; Tier 5 gets to add or subtract 4, Tier 4 gets to add or subtract 3, etc. as determined by your highest tier, once per action (attack, save, damage).