Ranks of Build Forgiveness

[Jormengand]

Ranks of Build Forgiveness

What is this?

This is an attempt, by me, to categorise how forgiving a class is for a player who builds badly. A fixed-list caster, for example, can almost not be built wrong short of giving them a casting score that's too low for what they want to do. A fighter, however, can't change his feats after having taken them short of high level spells or powers being used on him.

Why are you making this?

As a resource to show players and DMs which classes are easiest for a new player to pick up, screw up, and then fix up.

Doesn't the rank system step on the tier system's toes?

Not really. A sorcerer, for example, is tier 2, but rank D, while a beguiler is tier 3 but rank A. A warrior is tier 6 but rank A. That said, tier 2 classes tend to be rank D, and tier 1 classes tend to be rank B or C. Given that both scales in some sense measure versatility, this isn't surprising.

So, here I present: the rank system. A blue class is high in its rank. A red class is low in its rank.



Rank A

"Power isn't something that you put on or take off like a jacket. It's something you just ARE."

A rank A class cannot, without some very deliberate de-optimisation, be built "Wrong," even temporarily. Whether this is because the rank A class always has the same build options, or because the rank A class doesn't actually do anything, it puts it in the same category. A barbarian, for example, will always do a barbarian's job so long as you put his physical stats up and give him a two-handed weapon. Even if you waste every single one of the barbarian's feats and skill points, he still retains his capabilities as a barbarian. A fixed-list caster doesn't choose their spells, so they can't be built wrong either.

Hypothetically, a class which can change their abilities completely on the fly would be rank A, but those types of class do not, to my knowledge, exist. Binders with Expel Vestige, who come close, take their rightful seat in rank A.

Examples: All fixed-list casters, plus barbarian, duelist, dwarven defender, binder (W/ Expel), most T6 classes incl. aristocrat, commoner, warrior.

Rank B

"He had a spell prepared that will actually solve our problem! That proves it can't possibly be Durkon!"

A rank B class can make wrong decisions, but they'll only last you one day. For example, if you play a cleric, even if you waste your domains and feats, you can re-select the majority of your spells each day, and it's not like any of the domain spells are bad either.

Druids are a special case, bordering on rank A - wild shape is just that good - while not quite getting into it, because the difference between a druid with spells and a druid with no spells is also huge.

Examples: Most prepared divine casters, incl. cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, blackguard, adept, plus soulknife, binder (W/O expel).

Rank C

"A wizard's strength is his ability to prepare spells each day, but it is also our weakness. It is difficult, even for us, to defend against every possible form of attack simultaneously."

Similar to rank B, but distinguished inasmuch as that a rank C class needs more than a single day to prepare for any eventuality. Even the most studious of wizards could never hope to record every spell ever to come to be in their spellbook without some serious TO. That said, it will take, what, a few days, tops, to scribe a new spell in your book? Wizards are high in this rank.

Rogues can always fix their build choices next level by putting their skill points somewhere useful. Unlike sorcerers, they have enough skill points (Usually about 10) to fix their entire build in the space of two levels.

Examples: Most spellbook casters incl. wizard plus rogue, shadowdancer, expert

Rank D

"I don't have to prepare spell slots!"

When you're in rank D, it means that you have little, if any, control over what you can do with your spell slots or other abilities once you've picked them, but, what that also means is that your optimisation floor is actually somewhere where, actually, you're not going to feel like a silly goose even if you misplaced them. Rank D classes are almost always tier 2 or 3, though some tier 4 classes fit.

Examples: Most spontaneous casters incl. Bard, sorcerer, assassin, and most psionic casters incl psion, psychic warrior, wilder.

Rank E

"Hey there, nice feat! That allowed you to be utterly ineffective twice in the same round! Congrats all around!

Rank E classes are annoying. They might possibly be anything up to tier 2, but that doesn't mean that they're going to forgive you for making shoddy build choices. Don't play a rank E class unless you've got a clue how to optimise. Unfortunately, the iconic martial class, the fighter, fits right in here.

Examples: Fighter, monk, arcane archer, archmage, heirophant.

Rank F

"Nope, we didn't cotton to no simplicity of design, nosiree"

"In the beginning, there was the word, and the word was suck." There are a few classes where it's really easy to mess them up, and really difficult to deal with them. Truenamer is the iconic one, but gets the blue tint of this-is-high-in-its-rank because even if you screw up badly, it's hard not to make your Perfected Map DCs at least some of the time, while Dragon Disciple is another (Who knew that you were meant to enter it from barbarian X/bard 1?). Rank F classes have at least two tiers of swing in them (Dragon Disciple can be a -3 class if entered from sorcerer or a +1 class if entered from fighter; truenamer can go from 6 to low 3) and have a very low floor.

Examples: Dragon Disciple, Truenamer, All truespeak prestige classes incl. Disciple of the Word.

Variable rank - "Rank V"

Most classes don't change ranks - a rank is to do with the mechanics of how builds are made from the class, not what these builds do, after all. However, there are a few exceptions. Most of them are prestige classes.

Technically, psions are rank V, because of their psychic reformation abilities (a psion who knows them is arguably rank A, because they can change their abilities whenever they have the power points to spend, while a psion without them is firmly rank D. However, most rank V classes just copy the rank of their entry class.

Examples: Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, Loremaster, Mystic Theurge, Thaumaturgist, Cerebremancer. Technically, the Elocater, Metamind, Psion Uncarnate, Slayer and Thrallherd, are also rank V, but with the caveat that they're almost always entered by rank D classes.



Okay, so what's the best rank?

It depends. Yes, I stole that line, no it's not any less true. For a new player, I would recommend rank C or above - preferably rank B or above. If your player wants to be a wizard, give them lots of scrolls of good spells.

That said, there are definite advantages to lower ranks. While a binder can, on the very spot he stands, pull something that completely catches you off guard (because it's not written anywhere on the binder's character sheet) and the cleric can do the same every day when he wakes up, a wizard can only use abilities that you know he has, because they're recorded in his spellbook. Sure, he can go out and buy something, but only if you let him have it. Similarly, a sorcerer will never surprise you.

That said, neither will a barbarian or a warrior. Classes with low tiers and high ranks tend to be really simple classes with not a lot they can do.

Fighters and downwards make an interesting build challenge. Disciple of the Word actually makes quite a nice build when you do the right things, but please, please do not allow this class near a new player.

So, what rank should a homebrew class aim for?

You might as well ask what tier it should aim for. That said, I quite enjoy making rank D classes, because it means that your build options matter, but you aren't screwed over horribly if you choose wrong. Have a look at some of my homebrew classes' ranks:

Worldspeaker 2D
Cantrip Mage 4D
Clavat 3A
Yuke 3A
Selkie 3A
Lilty 3A
Honour Guard 4D
Mechanical Warrior 2D
Nihilist 3D
Spellslinger 3A
Devoted Specialist 3D
Feragenitor (+/-0)V
Cultist of the Apocalypse 2D
Dungeon Master 3D
The Warp Mage 2D
The Ineffable Disciple 3D
The Commander 3B
The Splitsoul 3V (Beast 3D Mage 3C Psychic 3D Priest 3B Thief 4C Warrior 4E)
The Exemplar 4E
The Veteran 1A

There's a few A-ranked (and a couple of V-ranked, one B-ranked and one E-ranked, ignoring the Aspects for a moment), but most of them are D-ranked. That's just my preference, though. B-ranked classes are also good class design in the sense that you don't get shot in the foot permanently for your build decisions. C-ranked classes are good for the same reason, but they leave you with a bit longer to appreciate the possibility that maybe your build's fine; you were just having an off day is all.

E-ranked classes are usually, but not always, bad design. Maybe the class is supposed to be hard to use properly - that is, a class with high skill ratios. Or, it's made on the assumption that you know how to optimise. F-ranked classes are just an exaggeration of the same thing: your build choices are at their most meaningful.



This is just a thing I came up with when thinking about how hard it is for new players to pick up new classes. Anyone have any suggestions, additions, etcetera, please feel free to send them my way.

EDITS:

- Moved binder from A to low A/mid B depending on Expel Vestige.

[AmberVael]

Potentially a pretty useful list, though I wonder if there are some classes out there that might perform more reliably than the rank they would ostensibly be in. Tome of Battle classes, for example, work rather like psion in terms of build: You choose an ability from a big list, you're stuck with it. They can swap them out a limited amount of times when leveling up. However, the overall balance of the classes is such that they have a pretty high optimization floor. Its really hard to actually pick maneuvers that would completely mess you up and leave you with a near unusable build, whereas with a psion you can potentially pick a list full of things like Synesthete or Empty Mind that leave you close to worthless. Its less that their design is different, and more that the underlying balance of their abilities is significantly better.

I also have no idea how Incarnate would function here. On one hand, in theory you can switch around most everything you do between days. On the other hand, your non-incarnum build choices can matter a lot, and it can be difficult to understand how to use an Incarnate in the first place.

[rockdeworld]

This seems like a quite reasonable endeavor. In a phrase, the tier system is for a class's optimization ceiling, and you're looking at a class's optimization floor.

If I understand it, the ranks can be condensed as follows:
A: High floor - Can't screw up because the class does what it's meant to anyway
B: Low floor but... - If you screw up, you can fix it within 24 hours
C: Low floor but... - If you screw up, you can fix it within a few days and some cash/resource expenditure (i.e. the time/cost to go fetch a new spell and put it in your spellbook)
D: Moderately high floor - It's hard to screw up because your options are limited.
E: Low floor - Requires some optimization knowledge to be able to solve problems, if it can at all
F: Very low floor - Requires serious optimization knowledge to be able to solve problems.
V: Fits into more than 1 rank depending on build choice.

But I would say some classes fit into more than one rank, and that's a problem because the ranks are supposed to help people figure out a class's optimization floor. I would suggest the following changes:

A: High floor - Can't screw up because the class can solve problems anyway
E: Low floor - Requires some optimization knowledge to be able to solve problems.
V: This category shouldn't exist. My thoughts on the Psion below.

I question rogue/expert's inclusion in Rank C. Neither can prepare for every eventuality, because the expert can only do things skill points can do (and those can't just be "fixed" if you put all your ranks into Handle Animal/Ride/etc because it'd make a "sweet Beastmaster build" in a game where the DM doesn't allow Bubs or time to train animals). Rogue is similar, except they also do DPS to non-immune things. You could argue that either of those problems is fixed by just taking Diplomacy and/or UMD, but again those are single choices that the classes can make.

Same for Sorcerer & Psion being in Rank D. Both can royally screw up, but usually don't because picking spells/powers that sound cool sometimes results in picking solid spells/powers. If they do screw up, they are a lump until they level up twice (for sorcerers) or get psychic reformation (if a psion) - and the latter case is basically a death sentence for anyone who doesn't know exactly what psychic reformation does or why they'd want it (i.e. the type of player who screws up power selection in the first place). Both might be low in C, or more reasonably perhaps a new rank called Rank C- (or something), because if you screw up it's going to take a LONG time to fix it.

For the NPC/bad classes, just put them in F. No PC should play an NPC class, and if a player's goal is to be able to contribute to the game, then picking one of those classes is by itself screwing up, unless they know exactly what they're doing.

I question Soul Knife being in Rank A, because it's bad unless you go Soulbow. More like F.

Maybe worth noting that Fighter is Rank D until level 5-ish, and E after that, because common equipment will carry you until that point. So if the campaign starts at level 1 and goes beyond level 5, then it's E.

[nedz]

Nice idea, but looking at one of your examples.

Beguilers can be helped massively by doing such things as

Dipping a full casting PrC before Beguiler 7 to bump the level of the spell available with Advanced Learning
Feat choice: e.g. Arcane Disciple
Choice of spells for Advanced Learning
Skill point allocation: E.g. UMD or not UMD

So they are not rank A

I suspect that you need another rank at the top of the tree.

[Jormengand]

Potentially a pretty useful list, though I wonder if there are some classes out there that might perform more reliably than the rank they would ostensibly be in. Tome of Battle classes, for example, work rather like psion in terms of build: You choose an ability from a big list, you're stuck with it. They can swap them out a limited amount of times when leveling up. However, the overall balance of the classes is such that they have a pretty high optimization floor. Its really hard to actually pick maneuvers that would completely mess you up and leave you with a near unusable build, whereas with a psion you can potentially pick a list full of things like Synesthete or Empty Mind that leave you close to worthless. Its less that their design is different, and more that the underlying balance of their abilities is significantly better.

That's almost the definition of rank D. Psions can screw up their build entirely, but I would find it difficult to build a psion who couldn't do anything useful if I were trying, except by giving them too low INT to do anything interesting. ToB classes are probably high rank D.


I also have no idea how Incarnate would function here. On one hand, in theory you can switch around most everything you do between days. On the other hand, your non-incarnum build choices can matter a lot, and it can be difficult to understand how to use an Incarnate in the first place.

Mm... I don't know much about Incarnates (assuming you're not talking the TN paladin from dragon mag. :smalltongue:) but in general, if they can ruin their build with the wrong choices, they go in E, if their build relies on their choices but it's difficult to make them terrible, they're D, and if it doesn't really matter, they go up to B.

[AmberVael]

Nice idea, but looking at one of your examples.

Beguilers can be helped massively by doing such things as

Dipping a full casting PrC before Beguiler 7 to bump the level of the spell available with Advanced Learning
Feat choice: e.g. Arcane Disciple
Choice of spells for Advanced Learning
Skill point allocation: E.g. UMD or not UMD

So they are not rank A

I suspect that you need another rank at the top of the tree.

My understanding is that the rankings aren't so much looking at the ceiling of a build, but instead the floor. No matter what feats, advanced learning spells, or skill points you choose, the Beguiler is still a full spellcaster with a solid spell list. That sounds like rank A material to me- yeah, you can make the Beguiler better, but its super freaking hard to make it bad. You pretty much just have to dump its casting stat.

[Extra Anchovies]

A Binder can make bad build choices (binding the wrong spirit or spirits for that day), but those mistakes can be fixed the next day. That's the definition of Rank B.

[Jormengand]

A: High floor - Can't screw up because the class can solve problems anyway
E: Low floor - Requires some optimization knowledge to be able to solve problems.
V: This category shouldn't exist. My thoughts on the Psion below.

For the NPC/bad classes, just put them in F. No PC should play an NPC class, and if a player's goal is to be able to contribute to the game, then picking one of those classes is by itself screwing up, unless they know exactly what they're doing.

The thing is, it's less about whether they can solve problems (You're looking for the tier system for that) and more about whether they can be fixed up to their full potential (even if it's bad) if you screw up.


I question rogue/expert's inclusion in Rank C. Neither can prepare for every eventuality, because the expert can only do things skill points can do (and those can't just be "fixed" if you put all your ranks into Handle Animal/Ride/etc because it'd make a "sweet Beastmaster build" in a game where the DM doesn't allow Bubs or ). Rogue is similar, except they also do DPS to non-immune things. You could argue that either of those problems is fixed by just taking Diplomacy and/or UMD, but again those are single choices that the classes can make.

Yeah, but unless you choose utterly dire class skills, you can fix everything next level. 10 skill points will go a long, long way (shove them all in Diplomacy or UMD, for example). The expert is red because it's possible to make it utterly unsalvageable, but it's not easy.


Same for Sorcerer & Psion being in Rank D. Both can royally screw up, but usually don't because picking spells/powers that sound cool sometimes results in picking solid spells/powers. If they do screw up, they are a lump until they level up twice (for sorcerers) or get psychic reformation (if a psion) - and the latter case is basically a death sentence for anyone who doesn't know exactly what psychic reformation does or why they'd want it (i.e. the type of player who screws up power selection in the first place). Both might be low in C, or more reasonably perhaps a new rank called Rank C- (or something), because if you screw up it's going to take a LONG time to fix it.
D is the rank for "You can screw up, but if you do, you don't care." They're fine where they are.


Maybe worth noting that Fighter is Rank D until level 5-ish, and E after that, because common equipment will carry you until that point. So if the campaign starts at level 1 and goes beyond level 5, then it's E.

Perhaps, but ranks and tiers alike kinda break down at both ends - a 3rd-level truenamer is invariably salvageable by the time she hits 6th.


My understanding is that the rankings aren't so much looking at the ceiling of a build, but instead the floor. No matter what feats, advanced learning spells, or skill points you choose, the Beguiler is still a full spellcaster with a solid spell list. That sounds like rank A material to me- yeah, you can make the Beguiler better, but its super freaking hard to make it bad. You pretty much just have to dump its casting stat.

Exactly.


A Binder can make bad build choices (binding the wrong spirit or spirits for that day), but those mistakes can be fixed the next day. That's the definition of Rank B.

Mm, I guess, but moves uppy-downy depending on whether or not you have Expel Vestige to have a go at it twice in the same day.

[rockdeworld]

The thing is, it's less about whether they can solve problems (You're looking for the tier system for that)
No, that's exactly what it's about, because you posted this:

Why are you making this?

As a resource to show players and DMs which classes are easiest for a new player to pick up, screw up, and then screw up.



Yeah, but unless you choose utterly dire class skills, you can fix everything next level. 10 skill points will go a long, long way (shove them all in Diplomacy or UMD, for example).
And I'm saying no, skill points do not go a long way. First you have to survive for that level, and have the right stats to support the skill you need (i.e. not dump Charisma when you first make your character), and, in the case of UMD, then be able to go to a shop, and have the cash to buy what you need. In the case of Diplomacy, that skill has to actually matter with your campaign/DM. Then you can start fixing your character.

[Jormengand]

No, that's exactly what it's about, because you posted this:

That's supposed to say "Pick up, screw up, and then fix up".



And I'm saying no, skill points do not go a long way. First you have to survive for that level, and have the right stats to support the skill you need (i.e. not dump Charisma when you first make your character), and, in the case of UMD, then be able to go to a shop, and have the cash to buy what you need. In the case of Diplomacy, that skill has to actually matter with your campaign/DM. Then you can start fixing your character.

If your DM won't let you use any of the rogue skills that allow you to be an effective rogue, then something's gone horribly, horribly wrong.

[nedz]

My understanding is that the rankings aren't so much looking at the ceiling of a build, but instead the floor. No matter what feats, advanced learning spells, or skill points you choose, the Beguiler is still a full spellcaster with a solid spell list. That sounds like rank A material to me- yeah, you can make the Beguiler better, but its super freaking hard to make it bad. You pretty much just have to dump its casting stat.

But it's the same argument. By not choosing Ceiling options you have made the character less useful in many situations. Ceiling and Floor are closely related — at least in terms of tier — they are two sides of the same coin.

[Jormengand]

But it's the same argument. By not choosing Ceiling options you have made the character less useful in many situations. Ceiling and Floor are closely related — at least in terms of tier — they are two sides of the same coin.

I'm more measuring the distance from wall to floor than cieling to floor. I don't really care that there's all this cool stuff that you can do for beguiler if you make specific choices that most people wouldn't think of like going into a PrC at a specific level to use a specific trick.

[Telonius]

I think I'm starting to wrap my brain around the idea. So, Artificer would probably be ... high in C? Warlock seems like it could be in either A or E, depending on whether you think Hellfire Warlock is necessary.

[AmberVael]

I think I'm starting to wrap my brain around the idea. So, Artificer would probably be ... high in C? Warlock seems like it could be in either A or E.

Warlock definitely ranks low. You can make a bad warlock. Man, you can really make a bad warlock. You have to be super careful in picking out invocations and deciding on build direction.

[nedz]

I'm more measuring the distance from wall to floor than cieling to floor. I don't really care that there's all this cool stuff that you can do for beguiler if you make specific choices that most people wouldn't think of like going into a PrC at a specific level to use a specific trick.

But how do you measure the wall ?
Ceiling and Floor can be defined, well if you ignore TO, but what is this wall ?

[Telonius]

Warlock definitely ranks low. You can make a bad warlock. Man, you can really make a bad warlock. You have to be super careful in picking out invocations and deciding on build direction.

I'm thinking more in terms of Eldritch Blast damage. Kind of like Barbarian Rage. You can make some weird Invocation choices, or even go straight 8s in all your ability scores; but it's always going to be doing its core shtick, which is Eldritch Blast. Barbarian can make all kinds of weird feat choices, but (as long as he doesn't do something stupid like ignore Power Attack) he's always going to be able to Rage.

On the other hand, if Eldritch Blast isn't what you're considering Warlock to be about, or if you think it's really underpowered (and I think it is), then it's not going to be an A.

[Vhaidara]

It seems to me that the wall is how easily can you recover from making bad choices. A fighter who takes the Weapon Focus line and Toughness is stuck with them. A Cleric who prepares bad spells can fix them tomorrow.

As a note, if you're looking to add more books (I notice you basically have SRD+ToM), I think the Incarnum classes are all B rank. The main thing you have is your melds, and you can change those day to day, knowing the entire list.

[Jormengand]

I'm thinking more in terms of Eldritch Blast damage. Kind of like Barbarian Rage. You can make some weird Invocation choices, or even go straight 8s in all your ability scores; but it's always going to be doing its core shtick, which is Eldritch Blast. Barbarian can make all kinds of weird feat choices, but (as long as he doesn't do something stupid like ignore Power Attack) he's always going to be able to Rage.

On the other hand, if Eldritch Blast isn't what you're considering Warlock to be about, or if you think it's really underpowered (and I think it is), then it's not going to be an A.

It suffers from druid syndrome. Wild Shape is A. Casting is B. What do? Unfortunately, it's a lot bigger of a gap. I'd almost be tempted to put it in D as a sort of "Yes you can screw up, but then Eldritch Blast".

[eggynack]

I think you may have underestimated druids a bit. Wild shape is a hugely relevant factor for spontaneous approach shifting, but also relevant for that is spontaneous summoning. Summoning is strong enough that you're never all that sad to be saddled with crappy spells. The overall impact is that the only thing a druid can't swap in the moment is their companion, and that's a relatively negligible factor of optimization. You said that a druid without spells is far different from a druid with spells, and while true, a druid is only without spells if they've cast them.

[AmberVael]

Eldritch Blast is... I mean, its just a damage mechanism. And its not even necessarily a very good one. Early on it suffers badly (1d6 damage, woo!), and later on it isn't much better unless you've really put effort into it (Hellfire for more damage, Eldritch Glaive or Claws for more attacks). You generally do need some kind of added bonus to make it worthwhile.

[Jormengand]

I think you may have underestimated druids a bit. Wild shape is a hugely relevant factor for spontaneous approach shifting, but also relevant for that is spontaneous summoning. Summoning is strong enough that you're never all that sad to be saddled with crappy spells. The overall impact is that the only thing a druid can't swap in the moment is their companion, and that's a relatively negligible factor of optimization. You said that a druid without spells is far different from a druid with spells, and while true, a druid is only without spells if they've cast them.

True, but a druid who's chosen bad spells is far less versatile than one who's chosen good spells (Because while "Be a bear" and "Have a bear" are good, "Be a bear," "Have a bear", "Heal people", "Make water," "Move without leaving tracks," "Send long-distance messages", "Make traps", "Disguise myself as a tree" and so forth are just so, so much better). It's better than filling every available slot with Cure X wounds, anyway. Druids are high B rather than just B because of the whole be a bear+spontaneous conversion thing, but it's not quiiiite enough to get them into A. It's not that a druid is at all bad with only wild shape+summoning, it's just that a proper druid is better.

[Brova]

Two things. First, I think this needs to rank "complexity to reach X balance point" rather than general complexity. Second, you need separate tiers for play complexity. You've got the Druid ranked anywhere other than "easiest" despite the fact that the only feat a Druid needs is natural spell. That's just not correct.

[Jormengand]

Two things. First, I think this needs to rank "complexity to reach X balance point" rather than general complexity. Second, you need separate tiers for play complexity. You've got the Druid ranked anywhere other than "easiest" despite the fact that the only feat a Druid needs is natural spell. That's just not correct.

It's not about complexity. It's about how much you can do to fix something once you've broken it. The fact that "The only feat a druid needs is natural spell" is entirely true, but if he skips it at level 6, he needs to wait 3 more levels to change that decision.

[Brova]

It's not about complexity. It's about how much you can do to fix something once you've broken it. The fact that "The only feat a druid needs is natural spell" is entirely true, but if he skips it at level 6, he needs to wait 3 more levels to change that decision.

Sure. But the actual power drop from not having that is not actually huge. Or rather, it is, but the rest of the Druid is fine on its own. Compare that to the Barbarian (who is in a higher tier). The Barbarian is required to take that totem that give pounce at first level. If he misses that, it gets fixed never. FFS, grabbing shock trooper requires what, four other feats? That's a lot more effort than the one feat the Druid needs.

[Jormengand]

Sure. But the actual power drop from not having that is not actually huge. Or rather, it is, but the rest of the Druid is fine on its own. Compare that to the Barbarian (who is in a higher tier). The Barbarian is required to take that totem that give pounce at first level. If he misses that, it gets fixed never. FFS, grabbing shock trooper requires what, four other feats? That's a lot more effort than the one feat the Druid needs.

Right, but at the same time, the barbarian can always pick up a greatsword and do that thing that barbarians do. Druids can, however temporarily, shut themselves off from doing those nifty things that some druids can do and other druids can't because they prepared bad spells.

[Brova]

Right, but at the same time, the barbarian can always pick up a greatsword and do that thing that barbarians do. Druids can, however temporarily, shut themselves off from doing those nifty things that some druids can do and other druids can't because they prepared bad spells.

But the thing that Barbarians do if they aren't built well is suck. And the thing that Druids do well if they pick bad spells is summon bears (spontaneous summon nature's ally), have a pet bear (animal companion), and turn into a bear (wild shape).

[eggynack]

I think you're also somewhat overestimating how forgiving those low power classes are. Yes, a commoner technically doesn't have any class features to screw up with, but that just means that the feats and magic items, the ones available to anyone, have far greater impact on a low power class. And, of course, those choices can not be changed frequently. Commoners are tier six, but built well they can be significantly higher predicated solely on those class-invisible decisions.

[Jormengand]

But the thing that Barbarians do if they aren't built well is suck. And the thing that Druids do well if they pick bad spells is summon bears (spontaneous summon nature's ally), have a pet bear (animal companion), and turn into a bear (wild shape).

Yes, but "Suck" is less different from "Suck a little less" than "BEARS BEARS BEARS" is from "BEARS BEARS BEARS HEALING WATER OTHER STUFF MORE STUFF ALL THE STUFF." A barbarian is forgiving inasmuch as that, unless you start going on a sourcebook dive (Bear in mind also we're comparing wall, not ceiling) your decent barbarian with power attack and what have you isn't that much better than your bad barbarian with weapon focus.


I think you're also somewhat overestimating how forgiving those low power classes are. Yes, a commoner technically doesn't have any class features to screw up with, but that just means that the feats and magic items, the ones available to anyone, have far greater impact on a low power class. And, of course, those choices can not be changed frequently. Commoners are tier six, but built well they can be significantly higher predicated solely on those class-invisible decisions.

Yeah, but commoners are pretty much not playable unless you go for a lot of optimisation. Hand your average casual D&D player a commoner and they'll probably make a lancer ubercharger at best (handle animal and ride are class skills. You can get MWP lance and spirited charge at level 6 with human. Go to town), and even then a fighter or barbarian lancer will be way out of your league. That a mid-OP commoner would even be a lancer ubercharger I remain skeptical.

[eggynack]

Yeah, but commoners are pretty much not playable unless you go for a lot of optimisation. Hand your average casual D&D player a commoner and they'll probably make a lancer ubercharger at best (handle animal and ride are class skills. You can get MWP lance and spirited charge at level 6 with human. Go to town), and even then a fighter or barbarian lancer will be way out of your league. That a mid-OP commoner would even be a lancer ubercharger I remain skeptical.
Either it's about floor relative to ceiling, and the ease of moving from one to the other, in which case commoners should be significantly lower, or it's about the actual power level of a low-op character played by someone skilled, and how long it takes said character to reach that power level, in which case the druid should probably be higher up. It doesn't matter that a high-op commoner would only be reasonable. It only matters that they'd be way better than a low-op commoner.

[Jormengand]

Either it's about floor relative to ceiling, and the ease of moving from one to the other, in which case commoners should be significantly lower, or it's about the actual power level of a low-op character played by someone skilled, and how long it takes said character to reach that power level, in which case the druid should probably be higher up. It doesn't matter that a high-op commoner would only be reasonable. It only matters that they'd be way better than a low-op commoner.

That's a very good analysis, only, you missed the bit where you don't get to dictate to me what my thread's about. I don't care what the ceiling is. I care what the average, normal level at which a character would be played is. The druid takes one day, no more, no less, to reach the level where it's played. The commoner just is at the level where it would normally be played: the level of hitting things with a stick, badly.

[nedz]

That's a very good analysis, only, you missed the bit where you don't get to dictate to me what my thread's about. I don't care what the ceiling is. I care what the average, normal level at which a character would be played is.

Hmmm, well you can take that view if you wish: but your thread will likely be less useful than it could be.

[eggynack]

That's a very good analysis, only, you missed the bit where you don't get to dictate to me what my thread's about. I don't care what the ceiling is. I care what the average, normal level at which a character would be played is. The druid takes one day, no more, no less, to reach the level where it's played. The commoner just is at the level where it would normally be played: the level of hitting things with a stick, badly.
Except that's not strictly the average point of the commoner. Even if you don't go crazy, commoner feat, item, and skill selection can make a huge difference. You don't have to go crazy into TO and chicken summoning to get a workable result, especially if you make good use of handle animal. The difference between a good optimizer playing a weak commoner and a poor optimizer playing a weak commoner is relatively small, and it remains so for a good amount of time, while the difference between a commoner built to be strong and one built by a poor less skilled optimizer is pretty big. Because while a badly built commoner can only hit things with a stick badly, a better commoner can hit things with that stick pretty decently, while also bolstered by a small army of animal friends.

[Jormengand]

small army of animal friends.

Yeah, you and I have radically different ideas of what mid-OP looks like. I don't mean mid-OP for the average Giant member, which basically comprises anything that doesn't involve the words "Kobold," "Gate," "Wish" or "Pazuzu." I mean actual stuff that you'd expect in a game. You might as well pump charisma, take leadership, and use your wizard cohort to do all the work.

[eggynack]

Yeah, you and I have radically different ideas of what mid-OP looks like. I don't mean mid-OP for the average Giant member, which basically comprises anything that doesn't involve the words "Kobold," "Gate," "Wish" or "Pazuzu." I mean actual stuff that you'd expect in a game. You might as well pump charisma, take leadership, and use your wizard cohort to do all the work.
But in that case, mid-optimization druids look a whole lot like a bear riding a bear while shooting bears. It's really pretty much all you see, for whatever reason. Besides that, the advantage of the actual ceiling as opposed to some mid-op average is that the latter is ridiculously arbitrary. You and I can have radically different ideas of what mid-op looks like, because what constitutes "normal" depends entirely on the table. Thus, a ranking with regards to such a metric is a bit pointless. Also, "small army of animals" doesn't have to mean dozens upon dozens of creatures, sent against your foes to down them one by one. It could just mean keeping a few around to aid in your combat style. The exact count depends on how much you want to push it, but any count is way better than no count.

[Amphetryon]

That's a very good analysis, only, you missed the bit where you don't get to dictate to me what my thread's about. I don't care what the ceiling is. I care what the average, normal level at which a character would be played is. The druid takes one day, no more, no less, to reach the level where it's played. The commoner just is at the level where it would normally be played: the level of hitting things with a stick, badly.

Unfortunately, since 'average, normal level at which a character would be played' is an incredibly variable and moving target, depending on Player and table, this proviso winds up reading, from here, as 'this is how things rank at Jormengand's table; Jormengrand makes no assertion that these experiences match or are particularly relevant to a different DM's table.'

[Grim Reader]

Interesting. Another axis for the tier system.

As I have understood it, average level at which a character would be played is not that relevant. What we are looking at here is how easily a character moves within its build.

For example, give a skilled player a build by an unskilled one, and how easily can he improve it. Without leveling, changing feats etc. Maybe Ive misunderstood.

I am not sure PrCs fit in here though. They inherit too much from their base classes. Eldrich Kinght on a Beguiler looks very different to Eldrich Knight on a Bard.

[Jormengand]

I am not sure PrCs fit in here though. They inherit too much from their base classes. Eldrich Kinght on a Beguiler looks very different to Eldrich Knight on a Bard.

This is true, which is why EK is rank V. However, other prestige classes have their own ranks - Dragon Disciple is notable for being rank F, and so is disciple of the word. Arcane archer, archmage and heirophant's abilities are distinct enough from those of the original class that they deserve mentioning. Assassin, Blackguard, Ur priest and Sublime Chord have their own spellcasting. Duelist and Dwarven Defender have no spellcasting at all, and don't follow in the slightest from their base classes.

[Brova]

Yes, but "Suck" is less different from "Suck a little less" than "BEARS BEARS BEARS" is from "BEARS BEARS BEARS HEALING WATER OTHER STUFF MORE STUFF ALL THE STUFF." A barbarian is forgiving inasmuch as that, unless you start going on a sourcebook dive (Bear in mind also we're comparing wall, not ceiling) your decent barbarian with power attack and what have you isn't that much better than your bad barbarian with weapon focus.

No, the Barbarian is less forgiving. Because if you mess up a Druid, you still have Bear God. If you mess up a Barbarian, you have an NPC. And messing up the Barbarian is literally permanent. If you opt to not get the pounce totem, you never get the pounce totem. Whereas if you opt to not take natural spell, you take it next level.

[Extra Anchovies]

That's a very good analysis, only, you missed the bit where you don't get to dictate to me what my thread's about.

I don't see the point of even having a thread if you're going to respond to criticism of the concept you presented in the OP with "you can't tell me what to do".


I care what the average, normal level at which a character would be played is.

There is no "average, normal level at which a character would be played", or at least there isn't one that we can determine. People have this annoying tendency to be individuals and adapt to their circumstances, so people generally don't all pick build options A, B, and C when they're playing class X.

[rockdeworld]

If your DM won't let you use any of the rogue skills that allow you to be an effective rogue, then something's gone horribly, horribly wrong.
There's "DM won't let you use" and there's "died before I could level up and get back to town with a bunch of loot", in the case of UMD, or "DM won't let you abuse" in the case of Diplomacy. I think I have to agree with Amphetryon that this is applies to your table rather than in general.

But in any case, either I misread the original Rank C or you edited it, because it looks like Rank C now says "these builds can fix themselves over the course of levels". That's cool. The wizard is very high in that rank, since they don't have to wait for a level-up, but I don't think that's a problem.

On a side note, would you put "In the beginning, there was the word, and the word was suck." in quotes? It's directly out of Zaq's guide.

[bekeleven]

But in that case, mid-optimization druids look a whole lot like a bear riding a bear while shooting bears. It's really pretty much all you see, for whatever reason. Besides that, the advantage of the actual ceiling as opposed to some mid-op average is that the latter is ridiculously arbitrary. You and I can have radically different ideas of what mid-op looks like, because what constitutes "normal" depends entirely on the table. Thus, a ranking with regards to such a metric is a bit pointless. Also, "small army of animals" doesn't have to mean dozens upon dozens of creatures, sent against your foes to down them one by one. It could just mean keeping a few around to aid in your combat style. The exact count depends on how much you want to push it, but any count is way better than no count.

Reminds me of my tiers by optimization essay, which I started months ago and abandoned 2500 words in. The basic principle was that I could define optimization levels (I defined 5, but only 3 were useful) and see how each class moves in tiers across them.

For instance, a psion played at low op-levels (what I define as grade C, or "newb-op") is tier 4, because it blasts like a warmage. The thing is, a warmage played a newb-op is also tier 4, for the same reasons. This means that a Psion has 2 tiers of build mobility from JaronK's standard (call it 2-2-4), while a warmage has 0 (4-4-4).

You'll like this: Druid is the only class with a (1-1-1) tier rating.

[Nifft]

I hereby grace this metric with a Truename: Floorgiveness.

[Brova]

You'll like this: Druid is the only class with a (1-1-1) tier rating.

That doesn't make any sense. JaronK's actual standard for Tier 1 is "breaks the game super hard". All the game breaking stuff you can do as a Druid is weird and complicated (as it is with any class). The highest anything played by a noob is going to be in that system is Tier 3.

Now, I do think a ranking like that is probably worthwhile, but putting it in the context of JaronK's Tiers is an exercise in futility, because those tiers are worthless in and of themselves. What you'd actually want to do is look at the build complexity of classes and rank based off of that. So the Fighter is really high complexity, because you have to know which of the Fighter shticks aren't trap options, which feats you need to take to make those options work, what dips are appropriate, and where everything is (for example, there are two lion totems, one of which gives you pounce and one of which gives you run). Conversely, there's basically one feat that is even unambiguously necessary for a Druid, and that's natural spell.

[Extra Anchovies]

That doesn't make any sense. JaronK's actual standard for Tier 1 is "breaks the game super hard". All the game breaking stuff you can do as a Druid is weird and complicated (as it is with any class). The highest anything played by a noob is going to be in that system is Tier 3.

Really? Even a standard bear-swarm druid can wreck a campaign pretty easily by making any other martials irrelevant.

[Brova]

Really? Even a standard bear-swarm druid can wreck a campaign pretty easily by making any other martials irrelevant.

I mean, if "make martials cry" is sufficient to be Tier 1, they the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Sorcerer, and Wilder all belong there.

[bekeleven]

I mean, if "make martials cry" is sufficient to be Tier 1, they the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Sorcerer, and Wilder all belong there.

A noob beguiler in a noob campaign will reign all over the noob fighters in said campaign, but won't be able to solo every encounter.

Even at its basest "bear riding bears summoning bears" level a noob druid will probably be able to figure most of that out.

My grades are thus:

S - Theoretical Optimization. I don't bother cataloging this tier.
A - Top PO. The stuff I build when a recruiting thread in GITP says "Optimize your character."
B - Standard PO. The stuff I bring to IRL games.
C - Newb Op. How I built characters from 2003-2006.
F - Deliberate Failure. Any class can suck if built in bad faith.

Druids wrecked campaigns in 2003-2006.

[Brova]

A noob beguiler in a noob campaign will reign all over the noob fighters in said campaign, but won't be able to solo every encounter.

Well that's why you need two rankings, right? One for building, one for playing. The only difference between a noob Beguiler and a competent Beguiler is that the noob is probably just going straight Beguiler 20. And while that sucks in an undead heavy campaign, it still lets you pull minion laundering shenanigans where you have a horde of mooks that are individually more dangerous than the Fighter. And you get to recruit any new enemies to that horde after you beat them unconscious.


Even at its basest "bear riding bears summoning bears" level a noob druid will probably be able to figure most of that out.

Except that's not the basest level. A noob Druid has all kinds of options to just kind of ... not do anything. The build itself is very forgiving, because you can take any Druid that can cast spells and make it rock. But that doesn't actually make it easy. If you prepare a bunch of cure light wounds "because the party needed a healer" and fight with a scimitar and hide armor, you still suck.

Basically, the minimum you're looking at for rankings like this is three lists, plus a balance point. So you have one ranking "how hard is it to build X class to this balance point". That ranking goes from "trivial" (Beguiler, Druid) to "very hard" (Fighter). Then you have a ranking of "how hard is it to play a competently built X class". That that goes from "trivial" (Fighter) to "very hard" (Druid, Wizard). And then finally you have a ranking for "how easy is it to break the game with X class". And that includes both making a character that is too strong and one that is too weak. So Monk is the "trivial" for that list, while Rogue is probably the "very hard".

[Jormengand]

Okay, so hang on, druid is moving to... can we say low A? Druid is still a weird special case because it looks as though it should be a B, even if it's not. Who needs moving to E? Or F? Are we just moving all the T4-6 classes that are in A down to E? Is the barbarian in A if he doesn't have totem access? What are we doing here; I'll work with you.

[Brova]

Okay, so hang on, druid is moving to... can we say low A?

I think you just need to rethink these tiers entirely. You've defined "built wrong" as "bad at what it does" rather than "bad in general", and that doesn't produce helpful results. You should instead be looking at the difficulty of getting a class to perform in a level appropriate way. To do that, you first need to define "level appropriate" in some consistent way.

[Jormengand]

I think you just need to rethink these tiers entirely. You've defined "built wrong" as "bad at what it does" rather than "bad in general", and that doesn't produce helpful results.

Yes, it does. Otherwise everything low tier 4 and below can go straight to rank F and stay there, because you will never get them to perform in a "Level appropriate" way without severe cheese.

[Brova]

Yes, it does. Otherwise everything low tier 4 and below can go straight to rank F and stay there, because you will never get them to perform in a "Level appropriate" way without severe cheese.

I don't understand how that's a problem. The build forgiveness of the Monk is very low, because the Monk is a steaming pile. And actually, a lot of the things "in tier 4" can be optimized pretty well. For example, the Flask Rogue, Rainbow Warsnake, and Ubercharger are all totally reasonable life choices.

[Jormengand]

I don't understand how that's a problem. The build forgiveness of the Monk is very low, because the Monk is a steaming pile.

But at the same time, any monk who grabs a necklace of natural weapons with the right stuff on it and a monk's belt is as fixed as he's going to get. He can literally go to town and grab the stuff he needs - I was almost tempted to put him in rank C. It's not about how much forgiveness you get for taking the monk, it's about how much forgiveness you get for taking the wrong feats and such. I mean, for the monk, the answer is still "Not a great deal", which is why he's rank E. But the barbarian is in rank A because the response to "I'm not dealing enough damage" is "Pick up a greatsword and rage". I mean, yeah, totems, but then if we're gonna go there the truenamer moves up a rank or three because he can just grab an item familiar whenever he gets a feat, and sorcerer moves down to E because you can't recover from being a battle sorcerer. And wizard goes down to D because you can't recover from not being a domain wizard.

[Brova]

But at the same time, any monk who grabs a necklace of natural weapons with the right stuff on it and a monk's belt is as fixed as he's going to get. He can literally go to town and grab the stuff he needs - I was almost tempted to put him in rank C.

So? That's not fixed. The build has not "forgiven" you to the point of "being a useful character". The actual example of a character who can fix himself by going to town is the Wizard. If you happened to be in the position of having a bunch of spells that sucked, you could just go to a store and buy scrolls of level appropriate battlefield control spells. And then you would be an actual character.


But the barbarian is in rank A because the response to "I'm not dealing enough damage" is "Pick up a greatsword and rage". I mean, yeah, totems,

The only reason you'd take level* of Barbarian is for free pounce. If you mess that up, it can literally never be fixed. The Barbarian is the least forgiving it is possible for a class to be.


but then if we're gonna go there the truenamer moves up a rank or three because he can just grab an item familiar whenever he gets a feat,

No, because the Truenamer is still not an actual class even with item familiar. Seriously, that is probably in the top five "cheesiest feats" and it still doesn't redeem the Truenamer.


and sorcerer moves down to E because you can't recover from being a battle sorcerer.

No, the Sorcerer and Battle Sorcerer are just different classes with different power levels. They're actually probably the same ranking on this scale, the Battle Sorcerer is just worse on the "being a level appropriate character" scale.


And wizard goes down to D because you can't recover from not being a domain wizard.

Except not being a Domain Wizard isn't like not taking the pounce totem. You can still be a level appropriate character whether you do that or not, Domain Wizard just happens to be better.

*: Not a typo, there is just close to no reason to take the second level of Barbarian.

[Jormengand]

So? That's not fixed. The build has not "forgiven" you to the point of "being a useful character". The actual example of a character who can fix himself by going to town is the Wizard. If you happened to be in the position of having a bunch of spells that sucked, you could just go to a store and buy scrolls of level appropriate battlefield control spells. And then you would be an actual character.

Seriously, man, if you don't think that someone's an "Actual character" unless they're a tier 1, you're playing in the Tippyverse.


The only reason you'd take level* of Barbarian is for free pounce. If you mess that up, it can literally never be fixed. The Barbarian is the least forgiving it is possible for a class to be.
Again, we're assuming the levels of optimisation that you might actually play. In a real game. Without UA.


No, because the Truenamer is still not an actual class even with item familiar. Seriously, that is probably in the top five "cheesiest feats" and it still doesn't redeem the Truenamer.
If you don't think that being able to dispel a spell cast by Boccob himself with a DC 16 truespeak check, or sit there casually removing people's ability to fly, or killing them by dropping a metric boopton of (Whatever you're not immune to) damage on them, or cast 4th-level spells at first level, doesn't make you "An actual class" then I'm afraid I have no idea what kind of game you're playing.


No, the Sorcerer and Battle Sorcerer are just different classes with different power levels. There actually probably the same ranking on this scale, the Battle Sorcerer is just worse on the "being a level appropriate character" scale.

0_0

So are the barbarian and totem barbarians!


Except not being a Domain Wizard isn't like not taking the pounce totem. You can still be a level appropriate character whether you do that or not, Domain Wizard just happens to be better.

*: Not a typo, there is just close to no reason to take the second level of Barbarian.

Look, seriously, we're not in the Tippyverse any more, Dorothy.

Bear in mind the rank system is for determining what happens when you give new players these classes. If you give a new player any class in the type of game you're imagining - where everyone goes sourcebook diving at the first available opportunity, takes nothing but wizard levels because there's no point being anything else when you could be a wizard, and so forth, then they're going to fail. They will not learn the game properly. The moment you utter the words "No reason to take the second level of Barbarian", you are assuming a far, far, far higher level of optimisation than I am. I mean, the rank system and the tier system both assume that you are actually playing a barbarian when they rank the barbarian. They do not assume:

- That you are playing a totem barbarian, which is a variant class.
- That you are dipping barbarian in a warblade build.
- That you are dipping a totem barbarian, which is a variant class, in a warblade build.

Okay?

[Brova]

There are two criteria I'm looking at in terms of "real character" (arguably three):

1. You can contribute to level appropriate encounters in a meaningful way.
2. There is not another build that does everything you do better.
3. (arguably a subset of 2.) The trick/interpretation/PrC you use wouldn't break the game in someone else's hands.


Seriously, man, if you don't think that someone's an "Actual character" unless they're a tier 1, you're playing in the Tippyverse.

If you can't contribute against level appropriate encounters, you are not an actual character. The Monk can't, and any party with a Monk would be better off ditching him and getting a bigger pile of XP and gold for themselves.


Again, we're assuming the levels of optimisation that you might actually play. In a real game. Without UA.

UA lion totem gives run as a bonus feat. The Complete Champion version gives pounce.


If you don't think that being able to dispel a spell cast by Boccob himself with a DC 16 truespeak check, or sit there casually removing people's ability to fly, or killing them by dropping a metric boopton of (Whatever you're not immune to) damage on them, or cast 4th-level spells at first level, doesn't make you "An actual class" then I'm afraid I have no idea what kind of game you're playing.

I get that you would badly like truenaming to be better than it is. Unfortunately, it is not better than it is. And let's not kid ourselves, the 4th level spell you're casting is freedom of movement and it lasts one round.


0_0

So are the barbarian and totem barbarians!

Complete Champion lion totem is an ACF. And even if we do accept Lion Totem Barbarian and Barbarian as different classes, that just means that regular Barbarian falls to "not viable" and Lion Totem Barbarian is top rank because getting all of its good class features involves zero choices.


Look, seriously, we're not in the Tippyverse any more, Dorothy.

Sigh. You do understand that there's a difference between "worse than The Wish" and "not able to contribute to encounters", right? The first is totally okay. Any number of builds are worse than The Wish. In fact, in a very real sense, all of them are. But the second is not actually okay at all. If you are not able to meaningfully contribute to solving level appropriate encounters, you need to figure out a new thing to be doing.


If you give a new player any class in the type of game you're imagining - where everyone goes sourcebook diving at the first available opportunity, takes nothing but wizard levels because there's no point being anything else when you could be a wizard, and so forth, then they're going to fail.

That's not even true. There are a whole bunch of builds that are totally reasonable and want to take zero Wizard levels. For example, becoming a Rainbow Servant from Wizard is a straight downgrade from doing it from Beguiler. And I'm not even demanding that you play "the best character". Just one that can actually contribute. Such as the Flask Rogue. Or the Warshaper. Or the Dread Necromancer. Or any number of Wizard, Druid, Cleric, or Sorcerer builds. Or the Idiot Crusader.


I mean, the rank system and the tier system both assume that you are actually playing a barbarian when they rank the barbarian.

No, that's not what the tier system assumes. If the tier system assumed that, the Rogue would be T3, the Beguiler and Dread Necromancer would be T2, the Archivist and the Erudite would be unranked, the Favored Soul would be T3 at best, and the Factotum would have separate rankings for FoI and no FoI. The tier system is based entirely on "what JaronK thinks is reasonable". Seriously, his actual reasoning for putting the Dread Necromancer in T3 is that "not getting magic circle against whatever sucks". Despite the fact that you can get magic circle against evil with either a one level dip into Rainbow Servant or a single feat. And the fact that planar binding is totally obscene.

Seriously, if you're going to rank classes, rank them as they are actually used.

[Jormengand]

2. There is not another build that does everything you do better.

Right. That's the problem with literally your entire position. Because Pun-pun, Truenamer McApocalypse, or any mid-level wizard or cleric can do everything that you do better.


No, that's not what the tier system assumes...Seriously, his actual reasoning for putting the Dread Necromancer in T3 is that [he's assuming that you're not going to take] a one level dip into Rainbow Servant

Uhm... yeah, so what you're saying is that the tier system assumes you're actually playing a DrN, not a DrN/RBS. In the same way, the rank system assumes you're playing Brb X, rather than Brb 1/WrB X.


I get that you would badly like truenaming to be better than it is. Unfortunately, it is not better than it is. And let's not kid ourselves, the 4th level spell you're casting is freedom of movement and it lasts one round.

I get that you would badly like truenaming to be worse than it is. Fortunately, it is not worse than it is. And let's not kid ourselves, we can also cast a spell that basically dimensionally anchors someone, a mini guidance of the avatar only it lets us make more skill checks for the duration, or a spell that deals more damage than the average wizard has hit points.


Seriously, if you're going to rank classes, rank them as they are actually used.

By you. I, speaking personally, have never borne witness to someone taking a 1-level dip into totem barbarian, and I'm quite glad to say that I don't play in the kinds of games where that's the Only Real WayTM of playing a barbarian (and there is No Real WayTM) to play, uhm, over half of the core classes if you're staying in core). To paraphrase Ampheytron, this proviso winds up reading, from here, as "This is how things rank at Brova's table; Brova makes a major, but absolutely unfounded, assertion that these experiences match or are particularly relevant to a different DM's table."

I'm making the assumption that the person who is doing this is a casual player, does not frequent GiantITP or MinMaxBoards, and is being provided with challenges which can be defeated by a mid-OP (Whatever their class is). You know, this is the kind of game that has new players in, not the kind of game where you obviously only use totem barbarian to get pounce, duh, every schmuck knows that.

[Brova]

Right. That's the problem with literally your entire position. Because Pun-pun, Truenamer McApocalypse, or any mid-level wizard or cleric can do everything that you do better.

Okay, I guess I need to spell out the caveat that we're assuming you aren't doing TO here. Obviously there aren't any builds better than The Wish, because that is the best build. As far as mid level Clerics and Wizards, there are totally builds that do things better than them. For example, the Beguiler and minion laundering. Or the Rogue and trapfinding. Or the Dread Necromancer and undead hordes. Or if you want to talk about specific builds, the guy who chains metamagic feats onto scorching ray plays differently from the guy who took a bunch of generically useful feats like uncanny forethought or improved familiar.


Uhm... yeah, so what you're saying is that the tier system assumes you're actually playing a DrN, not a DrN/RBS.

I'm saying that JaronK bumped the Dread Necromancer down a tier because he didn't realize that arcane disciple, Rainbow Servant, scrolls, or paying people to cast spells exist. Or that you can use animate dead on outsiders you call and kill.


I get that you would badly like truenaming to be worse than it is. Fortunately, it is not worse than it is. And let's not kid ourselves, we can also cast a spell that basically dimensionally anchors someone, a mini guidance of the avatar only it lets us make more skill checks for the duration, or a spell that deals more damage than the average wizard has hit points.

You mean, the spell that lasts one round and doesn't stop people from attacking? Super good. Or the one that gives you a +5 bonus to skill checks? Totally competitive with color spray. Or the one that is worse than shooting people with a crossbow? Great choice. Oh, and you get one of those at 1st level.


I, speaking personally, have never borne witness to someone taking a 1-level dip into totem barbarian, and I'm quite glad to say that I don't play in the kinds of games where that's the Only Real WayTM of playing a barbarian (and there is No Real WayTM) to play, uhm, over half of the core classes if you're staying in core).

I'm making the assumption that the person who is doing this is a casual player, does not frequent GiantITP or MinMaxBoards, and is being provided with challenges which can be defeated by a mid-OP (Whatever their class is).

So you're going to write something on this board, for people who don't use this board? Sweet plan. That aside, new players aren't playing in an environment unforgiving enough that mistakes like "not taking natural spell" or "playing a Monk" matter. If you want to help new players, write a resource about basic adventuring tactics or something. Not a ranking of "classes under these specific conditions".

[Jormengand]

Okay, I guess I need to spell out the caveat that we're assuming you aren't doing TO here.

No, apparently I do.


I'm saying that JaronK bumped the Dread Necromancer down a tier because he didn't realize that arcane disciple, Rainbow Servant, scrolls, or paying people to cast spells exist. Or that you can use animate dead on outsiders you call and kill.

No, he realised those and in the case of scrolls, adressed them. He just wasn't tiering the rainbow servant.


You mean, the spell that lasts one round and doesn't stop people from attacking? Super good.
Yeah, but it shuts down every melee build ever, so yeah.

Or the one that gives you a +5 bonus to skill checks? Totally competitive with color spray.
Well, it's actually the one I use for the McApoc trick, so...

And also, yeah, if you try to use universal aptitude in combat, you're going to get the same result as trying to use colour spray to help you jump. There's a reason that guidance of the avatar is considered insanely good, and this is its baby sister.

Also, you're comparing everything to wizards again.


Or the one that is worse than shooting people with a crossbow? Great choice.
Uhm...

Okay, a crossbow requires a roll to hit. Mortalbane reversed minor word of nurturing requires a truespeak check. Your truespeak bonus is better than your attack bonus, and the DC is lower than any self-respecting opponent's AC. The crossbow deals 1d8 damage (Average 4.5). MRMWoN does 3d6 (Average 10.5, enough to knock out a nontoughnessed wizard with maximum constitution at first level, or a nontoughnessed rogue with maximum constitution at first level, for that matter). The crossbow wastes your move action. MRMWoN doesn't. The crossbow doesn't deal any more damage if you concentrate on it. MRMWoN doesn't. So maybe you should stop trying to argue with someone who clearly knows more than you do about truenamers.


Oh, and you get one of those at 1st level.

Yes. And then you can keep using it until you can't physically make the truespeak check.


So you're going to write something on this board, for people who don't use this board? Sweet plan.
Okay, let me tell you something you might not have realised: Some DMs (on this board) might want to introduce some new players to the game. Wow! Revolutionary! Amazing! Splendourous! Now, that means that the DM on this board can, wait for it, go on this board, and look at this resource (on this board) to see what his players not on this board should use in their game, and here's the big bit, not on this board!


That aside, new players aren't playing in an environment unforgiving enough that mistakes like "not taking natural spell" or "playing a Monk" matter. If you want to help new players, write a resource about basic adventuring tactics or something. Not a ranking of "classes under these specific conditions".

Why don't you go do that and quit bothering me about how nobody should ever play a monk because that would be bad.

[Brova]

No, he realised those and in the case of scrolls, adressed them. He just wasn't tiering the rainbow servant.

So, uh, why isn't the Dread Necromancer T2? The actual explaination of "Why Each Class Is In It's Tier (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4890.0)" cites that as the con.


Yeah, but it shuts down every melee build ever, so yeah.

Except the ones with a ranged attack. Or any friends. Or that win initiative. Or that get a surprise round. And it costs you your action. And it eventually stops working.


Well, it's actually the one I use for the McApoc trick, so...

You mean the thing where you rebrand a trick that is literally over a decade old at this point with a magic system you personally like? Totally impressive.


And also, yeah, if you try to use universal aptitude in combat, you're going to get the same result as trying to use colour spray to help you jump. There's a reason that guidance of the avatar is considered insanely good, and this is its baby sister.

guidance of the avatar pushes you all the way off the RNG. Twice. universal aptitude ... doesn't.


Also, you're comparing everything to wizards again.

Or Sorcerers. Or Beguilers. Or maybe we can talk about the Rogue throwing a flask for 2d6 acid damage on a ranged touch attack.


Okay, a crossbow requires a roll to hit. Mortalbane reversed minor word of nurturing requires a truespeak check. Your truespeak bonus is better than your attack bonus, and the DC is lower than any self-respecting opponent's AC. The crossbow deals 1d8 damage (Average 4.5). MRMWoN does 3d6 (Average 10.5, enough to knock out a nontoughnessed wizard with maximum constitution at first level, or a nontoughnessed rogue with maximum constitution at first level, for that matter). The crossbow wastes your move action. MRMWoN doesn't. The crossbow doesn't deal any more damage if you concentrate on it. MRMWoN doesn't.

Couple of things:

1. So you're going to dip into 3.0 material from a second noncore sourcebook to prove that Truenamers can compete with the basic attack of an unclassed character? That sounds like a winning strategy for your overall goal of "convince me that truenaming matters".
2. The AC/DC gap is actually not huge. It's one point for a goblin and zero points for a wolf. And it immediately stops being in your favor if you use the utterance once. Twice if you're a human for skill focus but no stat boost.
3. Consider what an actual character, such as a Rogue might be doing. In the case of the Rogue, a d6 of sneak attack, which puts him 2.5 points below the Truenamer. A point above if he's a halfling.
4. While you can totally concentrate for an extra round, you can also fire a crossbow again.
5. Let's compare to actual attacks that 1st level characters might use. For fun, these are all going to be core only. First, the Orc Barbarian swings at +11 for 2d6+12, a minimum damage less than your average. Second, the Flask Rogue hits touch AC at +7 for 2d6. Finally, the Wizard hits four enemies with a DC 16 save or die.


So maybe you should stop trying to argue with someone who clearly knows more than you do about truenamers.

Maybe you should admit that a worthless subsystem is worthless.


Yes. And then you can keep using it until you can't physically make the truespeak check.

Well, you can use the version that is competitive with the crossbow five times. The fact that you can use an attack that has a higher failure rate for less damage than a crossbow fails to impress me. Especially since that's your backup to something as impressive as 0th level spell launch bolt.


Okay, let me tell you something you might not have realised: Some DMs (on this board) might want to introduce some new players to the game. Wow! Revolutionary! Amazing! Splendourous! Now, that means that the DM on this board can, wait for it, go on this board, and look at this resource (on this board) to see what his players not on this board should use in their game, and here's the big bit, not on this board!

So what does this tell a DM exactly? Does it say which classes are easy to play? No it does not. Does it say which classes are easy to build? No it does not. Does it say which classes fit well into high/low/mid OP parties? No it does not.


Why don't you go do that and quit bothering me about how nobody should ever play a monk because that would be bad.

Because I don't feel the need to either yell at people about how they don't understand my vanity project (what you are actually doing) or write a resource for noobs (what you claim to be doing).

[Jormengand]

So, uh, why isn't the Dread Necromancer T2? The actual explaination of "Why Each Class Is In It's Tier (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4890.0)" cites that as the con.



Except the ones with a ranged attack. Or any friends. Or that win initiative. Or that get a surprise round. And it costs you your action. And it eventually stops working.



You mean the thing where you rebrand a trick that is literally over a decade old at this point with a magic system you personally like? Totally impressive.



guidance of the avatar pushes you all the way off the RNG. Twice. universal aptitude ... doesn't.



Or Sorcerers. Or Beguilers. Or maybe we can talk about the Rogue throwing a flask for 2d6 acid damage on a ranged touch attack.



Couple of things:

1. So you're going to dip into 3.0 material from a second noncore sourcebook to prove that Truenamers can compete with the basic attack of an unclassed character? That sounds like a winning strategy for your overall goal of "convince me that truenaming matters".
2. The AC/DC gap is actually not huge. It's one point for a goblin and zero points for a wolf. And it immediately stops being in your favor if you use the utterance once. Twice if you're a human for skill focus but no stat boost.
3. Consider what an actual character, such as a Rogue might be doing. In the case of the Rogue, a d6 of sneak attack, which puts him 2.5 points below the Truenamer. A point above if he's a halfling.
4. While you can totally concentrate for an extra round, you can also fire a crossbow again.
5. Let's compare to actual attacks that 1st level characters might use. For fun, these are all going to be core only. First, the Orc Barbarian swings at +11 for 2d6+12, a minimum damage less than your average. Second, the Flask Rogue hits touch AC at +7 for 2d6. Finally, the Wizard hits four enemies with a DC 16 save or die.



Maybe you should admit that a worthless subsystem is worthless.



Well, you can use the version that is competitive with the crossbow five times. The fact that you can use an attack that has a higher failure rate for less damage than a crossbow fails to impress me. Especially since that's your backup to something as impressive as 0th level spell launch bolt.



So what does this tell a DM exactly? Does it say which classes are easy to play? No it does not. Does it say which classes are easy to build? No it does not. Does it say which classes fit well into high/low/mid OP parties? No it does not.



Because I don't feel the need to either yell at people about how they don't understand my vanity project (what you are actually doing) or write a resource for noobs (what you claim to be doing).

Okay, either you could actually stop accusing me of random things for no good reason and also stop trying to force me to create a system that cannot classify about half of classes because in your opinion they're crap, or you could just go, because by this point, you're not even trying to help, you're just coming here to crap on my thread. If you want, go off and write a guide on how you, personally, think we should all play D&D, but it is NOT THE POINT OF THIS THREAD. Please go off and talk about it somewhere that isn't in my thread, please stop trying to lob covert insults at me, please, do something useful or leave. If you can find some resolution that does not involve dropping fully one half of the classes in the game because you personally don't know how to use them, feel free to propose them, but right now you're not helping anyone do anything. I could point out that I specified "Melee build", I could point out that again this is a resource for people whose players aren't likely to create flask rogues and who probably don't even know how to make a wizard who can survive that one level 1 utterance which is better than a crossbow in essentially every regard in which you could possibly wish it to be, or I could just tell you that you're not helping anyone, not even yourself.

[Brova]

create a system that cannot classify about half of classes because in your opinion they're crap

Point of order, useless is a classification. And honestly, it's not even close to half. Of the PHB classes, you can create viable builds with eight of the eleven base classes off the top of my head. Fighter Ubercharger, Tripstar, or possibly Idiot Crusader. Barbarian as Fighter, except probably not Tripstar and including Pounce Rogue. Rogue Flask Rogue or Pounce Rogue. Ranger Mystic Ranger or Wildshape Ranger. Cleric, Sorcerer, Wizard, and Druid various. You can even make a viable, if outclassed Bard build.


you personally don't know how to use them

Sweet burn. Except wait, you have yet to demonstrate that the Truenamer is even a reasonable life choice at first level. Seriously, a 1st level Wizard is walking in with three color sprays and three launch bolts, which are better to much better than the one utterence the Truenamer gets.

[Jormengand]

Point of order, useless is a classification.

Yes, your proposed change would make it useless as a classification and that is exactly why I reject it.


Sweet burn. Except wait, you have yet to demonstrate that the Truenamer is even a reasonable life choice at first level. Seriously, a 1st level Wizard is walking in with three color sprays and three launch bolts, which are better to much better than the one utterence the Truenamer gets.

You mean that first-level wizard who is, on average, dead if I win initiative? Because you know what the fun thing is about reversed words of nurturing? Untyped. Damage. With no save. And no roll to hit. Throw everything immunity (Yes, even spell immunity, I can get by that. I'm a truenamer!) and the highest AC and DR on the wizard you like: he is going down like a stone.

Oh, and the other way I win against the wizard? My range is four times as big as that of his colour spray. His movement speed is not enough to make the distance and still spend the standard action to cast his spell. Assuming I'm fighting the wizard in an at all organic situation, he almost certainly can't actually cover the distance to fire a colour spray at me before I kill him dead. Speaking of, that orc barbarian? I stand on a big rock and he can't charge me if he wants to kill me. Truenamers may not win every encounter, but they are dangerous for a wizard... exactly as an equal-CR encounter is supposed to be.

It's also funny if I decide my truenamer will take Minor Utterance of the Evolving Mind and then I also know the utterance which will hold the wizard in place, just in case he is close enough to me that I care, and I win initiative but am worried about a bad damage roll so I want to move out the way first.

But, you know, you're convinced that the truenamer is a pile of crap because everyone on the Giant forums likes to joke that it is, so nothing I can say or do will ever change your mind, and it's not the point anyway.

[Brova]

Yes, your proposed change would make it useless as a classification and that is exactly why I reject it.

What? The fact that a system has a classification of useless does not make that system itself useless.


You mean that first-level wizard who is, on average, dead if I win initiative?

You don't fight arena battles, you fight actual encounters. Such as two Orcs, who kill you. Or any ambush monster, which kills you. Or a Wizard who wins initiative, which kills you.


Oh, and the other way I win against the wizard? My range is four times as big as that of his colour spray.

So he'll ready power word pain, a better version of your trick. Or sleep. Or minor image. Or the launch bolt I already mentioned he prepared.


Speaking of, that orc barbarian? I stand on a big rock and he can't charge me if he wants to kill me.

Unless, you know, he has a ranged weapon. Which also benefits from his strength bonus.


Truenamers may not win every encounter, but they are dangerous for a wizard... exactly as an equal-CR encounter is supposed to be.

At 1st level. Under optimal conditions. If you win initiative. If you haven't boosted the DC to "you fail" territory. And the DC grows at a rate of twice level and your bonus grows a a rate of level, so you fall behind super fast. Do I need to draw a freakin' diagram?


But, you know, you're convinced that the truenamer is a pile of crap because everyone on the Giant forums likes to joke that it is, so nothing I can say or do will ever change your mind, and it's not the point anyway.

No, I came to the conclusion that the Truenamer sucks all on my own. Mostly because it sucks. And interesting, any skill boosting you do is always going to end up being inferior to doing the same thing with diplomacy or abuse magic device. The class is worse than core skills.

[Jormengand]

Wow.

Okay, you've gone past "Not contributing anything" to "Actively trying to threadjack". I'm not going to indulge you any more; I'm sorry. You're going over the kinds of things that I realised how to overcome within about five minutes of opening the tome of magic, in a thread which has nothing to do with truenamers in the first instance. And then you're treating me like an idiot for knowing how to overcome them because you don't think I realise them. Please don't let the door hit you on your way to go and talk about them somewhere else.

[Brova]

You're going over the kinds of things that I realised how to overcome within about five minutes of opening the tome of magic, in a thread which has nothing to do with truenamers in the first instance. And then you're treating me like an idiot for knowing how to overcome them because you don't think I realise them. Please don't let the door hit you on your way to go and talk about them somewhere else.

You mean like item familiar or custom skill items? Well, that seems like a worse strategy then using those, abuse magic device, and runestones to cast save or dies at crazy high DCs. Of course, I should point out that this "I'm not going to bother telling you" attitude is stupid. If you actually had something, you would post it. And recall that you were the one who started this tangent. You threw down, got beat, then blamed be for derailing your thread.

And step back for a second. This debate isn't even "are Truenamers good" it's "are Truenamers usable". Even if you have some secret hack that makes the DCs doable, your big trick is that you can do a couple of dice of damage. Color me unimpressed. That's less useful tactically then web and it's barely better than color spray.

[Jormengand]

And recall that you were the one who started this tangent.

And I'm ending it. Now. Quit it. Now. Capiche?

[Endarire]

What about using the psionic class rules that state you can research additional powers over your normal maximum? Normally, it costs (200 EXP and 1 week) per power level.

Does that change ranks?

[AmberVael]

What about using the psionic class rules that state you can research additional powers over your normal maximum? Normally, it costs (200 EXP and 1 week) per power level.

Does that change ranks?

This is an unfortunately common misconception. Researching new powers does not actually allow psionic characters to exceed their normal maximum limit.

The source of this error is that the SRD simply lacks the line present in the Expanded Psionics Handbook which clarifies this.


The number of powers that all psionic classes can know is strictly limited; manifesters can never exceed those limits even through the research of original powers.

[atemu1234]

This is an unfortunately common misconception. Researching new powers does not actually allow psionic characters to exceed their normal maximum limit.

The source of this error is that the SRD simply lacks the line present in the Expanded Psionics Handbook which clarifies this.

Erudite. That is all.

[AmberVael]

Erudite. That is all.

That's great, but has nothing to do with misconceptions about the independent research rules.

[Tvtyrant]

Two things. First, I think this needs to rank "complexity to reach X balance point" rather than general complexity. Second, you need separate tiers for play complexity. You've got the Druid ranked anywhere other than "easiest" despite the fact that the only feat a Druid needs is natural spell. That's just not correct.

There are a numbet of threads that have been posted on this forum with the opposite finding. Bears have very low AC, and Druids do not have lots of HP. Plsying a Druid as bearmcbear guy is an easy way to die early.

[Brova]

There are a numbet of threads that have been posted on this forum with the opposite finding. Bears have very low AC, and Druids do not have lots of HP. Plsying a Druid as bearmcbear guy is an easy way to die early.

Again, missing the point. It is totally true that the Druid is very hard to play. But the Druid is very easy to build.

[eggynack]

There are a numbet of threads that have been posted on this forum with the opposite finding. Bears have very low AC, and Druids do not have lots of HP. Plsying a Druid as bearmcbear guy is an easy way to die early.
The notion of the "bear druid" is an oversimplification of what a druid can actually accomplish, even on a spontaneous basis. Swapping out that black, polar, or other bear for something like a fleshraker, just as available to a knowledgeable player as those bears, gives the druid 20 AC and a far more robust attack routine (with pounce as a major standout). Of course, even that claim is something of an oversimplification of melee druids, as there's a wide variety of potent forms, and the list gets better as you go up in level, even though the fleshraker remains viable.

Moreover, you can always just not use that tactic that could indeed cause you to die early. Your spells are presumably limited by poor selection at the beginning of the day, but even on a list of nothing but detect poison, you can always become a desmodu hunting bat and start converting those detect poisons into a variety of powerful summons. Here too, the idea of shooting bears serves as a stand in for the true potency of the tactic, as you can pull in standard combat creatures of every flavor, backed by more unusual and amazing creatures like the unicorn or oread. On the basis of that latter creature, this detect poison druid could be flying around and firing earthquakes all over the place on a spontaneous basis starting at level 11.

Finally, it's mostly a side note, but from where do you get the notion that druids have poor HP? Even poorly optimized, you're still running an HP count that's on par with a ranger or monk of equal optimization. With even a small amount of optimization, said druid would be doing better on HP than those classes, because the druid is a fundamentally SAD class, and can thus find put greater emphasis on constitution. With a good amount of optimization, of course, the issue basically vanishes entirely, as you're investing heavily in constitution, and can even build an HP focused druid if so inclined, running a dragonborn desert half-orc that can even out-HP characters with a significantly larger hit die.

So, in conclusion, if you saw threads coming to that conclusion, then they were coming to the wrong conclusion. It seems more likely that you saw a thread denouncing that commonly held idea of the druid as a bear riding a bear shooting bears, or it was perhaps analysis that was book limited in some way, but as optimizers coming upon this crap-druid in mid-play, we are held to no such constraint. And notably, even those few issues that do exist with these strategies dissipate within a day of rest, as was noted in the initial post of this thread. After that night, the fleshraker becomes a fleshraker with luminous armor, backed by a second fleshraker, both equipped with venomfire if so inclined. Or, naturally, they could just default to that bat strategy, which I think is the optimal way to go, and now equipped with more potent spells.

[rockdeworld]

this is a resource for people whose players aren't likely to create flask rogues
No, it isn't.

My initial post was wrong - you aren't talking about optimization floors in this guide. Your stated goal isn't "to help new players," and the guide doesn't, because it doesn't reference problem solving ability. It specifically tries to categorize classes based on how easy they are to fix after screwing up their initial build.

But it doesn't do that, for 2 reasons:
1. You used the standard of "what a class wants to do", which is problematic because:
a. that's impossible for classes that are bad. Some Warriors are bodyguards, and thus want to specialize in other-person-defense. But being good at defense is almost impossible in D&D, and actually impossible for a Warrior (against any type of spellcasting/sneaking/non-traditional offense), so that class can't do what it wants to do, no matter how it's built.
b. that's ambiguous by definition for a lot of classes. There's no definition for what a Wizard wants to do more specific than "cast spells", because a Wizard can do literally anything.
2. All the definitions for your ranks are long, wordy, and metaphorical, rather than clear and concise. When I offered clear and concise definitions, you neither confirmed nor denied them. So I (and I suspect others) got confused as to what the ranks actually mean.

And the fact that you reference tiers, even though this guide has nothing to do with them, adds to the confusion.

I'm interested in this thread because I like the idea of helping people see how easy a class is to fix after screwing up. But just as the Fighter class was built without reference to the challenges high-level fighters have to overcome, you've provided rankings without reference to what a "fix" for a class actually is. I guessed it was "be able to solve problems", but you said no, and only repeated "what a class wants to do". But that isn't a good definition. Your guide badly needs a new definition for a "fix" if it's going to be useful to anyone.

[eggynack]

For reference, here are the essential metrics I would use to define these ranks. First, what is the approximate ceiling in practical optimization. Not necessarily the strict ceiling, but even if the ceiling wavers from person to person, that height does define the region of optimization that exists for a class. Like, for a commoner, the height of optimization could be defined as using chicken infested, and a horde of animals, and charging like crazy, but even a more reasonably optimized character will use some of those facets. The ceiling is also relatively stable, if not perfectly so.

Second, assuming the worst character possible, taken in the middle of the day (though not after using daily resources to a substantial degree), how close can that character, in skilled hands, get to that ideal? This metric would define the sheer quantity of forgiveness available for a given class. Classes with only static assets would have limited forgiveness, defined solely by what can be done in future levels, while classes with more dynamic assets would have higher available forgiveness, as they can adjust past errors.

Third and finally, assuming that same character, what is the rate at which they approach that point? This would factor in both the time to the rough end-point overall, as well as where the character places at various points on that spectrum. How close is the character to that ideal after a few rounds? How about after a day? Two days? A level? Forgiveness quantity is important for what it is, but if it takes a veritable eternity to hit that point, then there's limited value in it.

[rockdeworld]

I think what eggynack posted is exactly Jormengand's original intent, stated more plainly. I'd like to clarification on a point, and to clarify another.

assuming the worst character possible, taken in the middle of the day (though not after using daily resources to a substantial degree)
So 1/2 resources? Like 1/2 spell slots/per day left, 1/2 hp (which matters for classes in parties that don't have ready access to healing), and 1/90 WBL*?


How about after a day? Two days? A level? Forgiveness quantity is important for what it is, but if it takes a veritable eternity to hit that point, then there's limited value in it.
This is the key difference between the Wizard and the Rogue, as well as the Bard and Sorcerer.

At low levels, the wizard can wait a day to fix their build (aka spells prepared, and this isn't counting if they left spell slots open), while the rogue has to wait at least 1 if not several levels (and keep in mind each level is about 4 days for a normal party, but longer if you have a bad build because you can't do as many encounters per day and survive). At high levels the wizard can stop time and change their build immediately, while the rogue can just die because that's what happens when you screw up at high levels (although they'll probably come back, but at lower level).

At any level the Bard can choose a different spell immediately, and problems that can't be solved by Bard spells take several levels for a Bard to get good enough to start contributing (DFI/a good prestige class/Tome of Battle levels/etc). The Sorcerer has to wait exactly one level to start picking good spells because they don't have a fixed list - unless they have ranks in UMD, in which case they just need to buy a wand/scroll.

Those look to me like some wide variations within the same rank.


*calculated at 1/10 WBL per level, 13.5 encounters per level, and 4 encounters per day to give 4.5 days per level, 1/45 WBL per day, divided by 2 to get 1/90

[eggynack]

So 1/2 resources? Like 1/2 spell slots/per day left, 1/2 hp (which matters for classes in parties that don't have ready access to healing), and 1/90 WBL*?
I was thinking a good degree more available resources, close to the full daily allotment while allowing for a bit of loss. Half does make sense though. My feeling is that dictating a particular time of day is going a bit far in defining the scale of crappiness at hand. To touch on your latter issue, one interesting factor is how many strictly static class features a class has. The fixed list characters are addressed as falling into this category, but the bard, with its always available bardic music, and the monk, with most of its class features having no choice involved, have a bit of an edge in that area.

[Telok]

Interesting problem.
Personally I'd define the class floor / pathetic build as a 13 in the primary class stat and 10's for the other stats, hit points at average -1 per level, all standard feats as the +2/+2 skil feats, all bonus feats as various +1 to a die roll feats (no stacking +1s), all skills in various crafting areas (baskets, floral arrangements, haircuts), and the class ability choices either randomized or thematic (example: a sorcerer with all abjuration spells or all noise/sonic spells).

The question then is how difficult it is to get to modest PO levels, something nicely capable of contributing to a normal style mid-op party. This breaks into three or four chunks. Player optomizaion skill or knowledge, character resources, and in-game time. Since we are assuming more normal play styles than some of the TO stuff you see around here let's presume that it takes two weeks to level up, including travel, healing/restorations, selling loot, and buying gear up to the next WBL. For simplicity we'll also assume no crafting happens.

So for example a barbarian. Our floor is a 13 Str, sword and board, no PA, guy with studded leather and... 55 hp at level ten? He's probably stuck untill he levels up.
His basic abilities are non-pathetic hit points, rage, an ok Fort save, and full BAB. He isn't great but he can contribute in combat with a sword or bow.
The most basic things to do are get mithril plate, a two handed weapon, get or retrain a feat into PA, and invest in Str, Con, and AC boosting items. So the minimum improvement takes two weeks, a feat, WBL, and gives us a standard NPC-like barbarian with crap skills.
A better method would be either a full rebuild vis the PHII rules at level up or finding a psion with Reformation and spending a minor amount of gold and xp to do the same thing faster. Plus the equipment changes of course. So in two weeks or less we can get to a tripper, ubercharger, or whirl-pounce build. Which is probably our PO ceiling with those crappy stats.
So it looks like a barbarian floors at barely contributing but still usable. Minimum improvement is two weeks and all character resources to NPC / cohort levels of contribution. And a high of less than two weeks and all character resources to a low-op but acceptable melee combatant.

[Jormengand]

The trouble is, it has to be something that a new player might conceivably build. Like, if someone builds a 13-int wizard, or 13-cha sorcerer, and decides to stay that way up until they realise that they're not getting their 4th-level spells (which is worse, in the sorcerer's case, because that happens just seconds after they had an opportunity to do something about it) then they aren't going to get anywhere, either. A wizard with 7ths because he doesn't have the INT to cast ninths just isn't as good as a new player who, in the fashion of every new player I've ever seen, consistently lobs a 16 in his casting stat and improves it on every level.

[ComaVision]

The reason I can't see using this as a resource is because it could lead to some very poor choices for new players. All the classes called out by name for Rank A are classes with very low optimisation floors. A list of classes by optimisation floor would achieve almost the same thing but you could link it to a new player without a hefty explanation.

High floor: Druid, Initiators, Dragonfire Adept & Warlock, fixed list casters
Low floor but easily fixed: Wizard, Cleric
Low floor but can be fixed in a few levels: Sorcerer, Psion
Low floor: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, most martials

Not meaning to be rude at all, just my two cents. With my ranking stub ^, a new player could have a good idea of what's going to be at least a bit helpful in a game with more experienced players or at least know what classes are forgiving.

[Brova]

High floor: Druid, Initiators, Dragonfire Adept & Warlock, fixed list casters
Low floor but easily fixed: Wizard, Cleric

What makes the Cleric substantively harder to fix than the Druid? I don't really see DMM: Persist as any more needed than Natural Spell (that is, great to have, but not strictly required) and both classes can prepare spells again in the morning. I guess you could make a case about PrCs, but I think that Planar Shepherd is actually better than any of the Cleric PrCs (and thus worse for your build to miss).

[ComaVision]

What makes the Cleric substantively harder to fix than the Druid? I don't really see DMM: Persist as any more needed than Natural Spell (that is, great to have, but not strictly required) and both classes can prepare spells again in the morning. I guess you could make a case about PrCs, but I think that Planar Shepherd is actually better than any of the Cleric PrCs (and thus worse for your build to miss).

I don't think the Druid ever needs to be fixed, worst case scenario you use Summon Nature's Ally spontaneously, plus wildshape and animal companion. A Cleric that preps absolutely horrid spells is a healbot at best until tomorrow.

I didn't assume that any class would definitely have any particular feat(s).

[Brova]

I don't think the Druid ever needs to be fixed, worst case scenario you use Summon Nature's Ally spontaneously, plus wildshape and animal companion. A Cleric that preps absolutely horrid spells is a healbot at best until tomorrow.

I mean, that still puts him closer to the Druid than the Wizard. A Wizard can learn only useless spells, requiring either money or levels to become useful. On the other hand, a Cleric always knows every Cleric spell (barring alignment issues). That's at least 80% of his possible power regardless of build.

[ComaVision]

I mean, that still puts him closer to the Druid than the Wizard. A Wizard can learn only useless spells, requiring either money or levels to become useful. On the other hand, a Cleric always knows every Cleric spell (barring alignment issues). That's at least 80% of his possible power regardless of build.

I do agree with you but I think there's a benefit to having as few categories as possible. Cleric is in the high end of the "easily fixed" category, definitely.

[Brova]

I do agree with you but I think there's a benefit to having as few categories as possible. Cleric is in the high end of the "easily fixed" category, definitely.

Having "low X" and "high X" is basically indistinguishable from just having more ranks. I think that the best fit, without low/high distinctions, is top tier.

[Troacctid]

Clerics have to wait until the next day to go from sucky to kickass. Druids have multiple ways to do it within 6 seconds. Also, a sucky Druid still comes with a free beatstick on the side.

[Amphetryon]

Clerics have to wait until the next day to go from sucky to kickass. Druids have multiple ways to do it within 6 seconds. Also, a sucky Druid still comes with a free beatstick on the side.

In theory, the Druid could have chosen a Bird or other noncombat-oriented AC, but said Druid would still have SNA, and could probably sub in some reasonable scouting or similar for the beatstick.

[Telok]

The trouble is, it has to be something that a new player might conceivably build. Like, if someone builds a 13-int wizard, or 13-cha sorcerer, and decides to stay that way up until they realise that they're not getting their 4th-level spells (which is worse, in the sorcerer's case, because that happens just seconds after they had an opportunity to do something about it) then they aren't going to get anywhere, either. A wizard with 7ths because he doesn't have the INT to cast ninths just isn't as good as a new player who, in the fashion of every new player I've ever seen, consistently lobs a 16 in his casting stat and improves it on every level.

Actually at 7th level, when 4th level spells come in, the character can afford a +2 stat booster which will boost the character being able to cast 5th level spells. The truely pathetic floor character is stuck at casting 3rd level spells out of 4th level slots but that's fixed by WBL at any point where the charcter can do the buy/sell shuffle.

I pretty much picked the 13 stat because it's the break point for the most important feats and a caster can WBL into casting level appropriate spells with it. Having less than a 13 in the primary class stat takes more than the minimum op-fu to become viable unless the character is a warlock.

[eggynack]

Having less than a 13 in the primary class stat takes more than the minimum op-fu to become viable unless the character is a warlock.
Or a druid. Between wild shape and the companion, the all 8's druid is actually probably better off than the all 8's warlock at most levels. Yet another reason why druids are really great in this general area.

[Brova]

Or a druid. Between wild shape and the companion, the all 8's druid is actually probably better off than the all 8's warlock at most levels. Yet another reason why druids are really great in this general area.

I feel like this is drifting from "poorly built" to "actively anti-optimized".

[Gabrosin]

Why not just call this a measure of the power level that a class forces on you? So a druid always has wild shape and summoning spells by default no matter how bad their choices are (unless we're allowing ACFs to trade things away). A barbarian can always rage. A warlock can always eldritch blast, and so on.

I don't think this is a very good resource for new players. Basically every time I've introduced someone to D&D, no matter how smart they are, no matter what their aptitude for gaming in general, the first thing they ask for when faced with the enormity of the D&D rules system is "I want to play something simple". They dip their toe in with fighters and rogues and barbarians and other classes with no spellcasting, because that way they think they can ignore spells entirely (mostly true at low levels). Then they branch out a bit into ToB martials or druids or clerics or beguilers, classes where they gets spells and spell-like features but don't have to make selections from the thousands of spells floating around out there. Then if they handle that, the final step is to try out a wizard or sorcerer.

This is completely natural. How can you evaluate the power level of a spell yourself if you've never even been in combat? You can go online and find a hundred recommendations, but unless you're the sort to follow them blindly, that won't be satisfying. Even if you are, having someone tell you Glitterdust is great is going to produce some skepticism. What, I get to play a class that literally throws fire and lightning at its enemies, and you're telling me that's stupid and I should toss glitter on them and make them slip on some grease? That sounds ridiculous.

A more useful guide would be build complexity. How many choices does the player have to make to play this class, and from how wide a range of options? You can add a corollary about how easy it is to pick a bad option, but the core question is different from what's being asked here.

If I'm playing a Barbarian, I have very few choices. I pick a weapon, some feats, and maybe you can interest me in some ACFs to be better at smashing things. If I'm playing a Druid, I still have very few choices (weapon/feats, my animal companion). But now I've introduced an impossible array of daily choices: what spells to memorize, what animal to shift into. It feels much more complicated.

If I'm playing a Sorcerer, I have more choices, but fewer daily choices. I only need to care about picking new spells when I level up; once I've got one I can always use it, no memorizing. This seems safer, even though it's easier to screw up through poor spell selection.

[Brova]

A more useful guide would be build complexity. How many choices does the player have to make to play this class, and from how wide a range of options? You can add a corollary about how easy it is to pick a bad option, but the core question is different from what's being asked here.

If I'm playing a Barbarian, I have very few choices. I pick a weapon, some feats, and maybe you can interest me in some ACFs to be better at smashing things. If I'm playing a Druid, I still have very few choices (weapon/feats, my animal companion). But now I've introduced an impossible array of daily choices: what spells to memorize, what animal to shift into. It feels much more complicated.

If I'm playing a Sorcerer, I have more choices, but fewer daily choices. I only need to care about picking new spells when I level up; once I've got one I can always use it, no memorizing. This seems safer, even though it's easier to screw up through poor spell selection.

This is the core of what I was suggesting. I think you should probably split it slightly further though. While the Barbarian and the Druid are very similar in number of build choices, they are radically different in number of play choices. Playing a Barbarian is actually very simple - you smash people. But playing a Druid is radically more complex. You have to know which animals are legal wild shape forms. And which critters you can summon. And what all of your 500+ spells do. And so on.

So at a glance, you'd have (assuming three tiers in each ranking):

Build
Easy: Druid, Beguiler, Barbarian
Medium: Rogue, Fighter, Wizard
Hard: Sorcerer, Favored Soul

Play
Easy: Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian
Medium: Sorcerer, Favored Soul
Hard: Wizard, Beguiler, Druid

You could probably make arguments to add more rankings, or move stuff around. I could see arguments for the Rogue doing to medium play complexity, or the Sorcerer/Favored Soul going to easy. Rogue and Wizard could also go up to hard build complexity. Actually, medium and hard build complexity might just switch. Building a Sorcerer is punishing, but not super hard with system mastery.

Now, I think it is also useful to measure these things against some kind of balance target, because it gives you a framework for bringing new players into established groups. It's certainly true that you can build a Barbarian or a Ranger with minimal thought, but building one that can contribute to a party with a Beguiler, a Druid, and a Sorcerer is a lot harder. However, both of those Barbarians are essentially equally easy to play.

[ComaVision]

A more useful guide would be build complexity. How many choices does the player have to make to play this class, and from how wide a range of options? You can add a corollary about how easy it is to pick a bad option, but the core question is different from what's being asked here.


I explicitly disagree with this. A Samurai is a very simple class but it's absolutely terrible so I'd never recommend it to a new player.

[eggynack]

I feel like this is drifting from "poorly built" to "actively anti-optimized".
Of course, but it came up, and to the extent that it's relevant druids are amazing at it. More likely is a particularly weak stat array, where you do badly no matter how you assign it. By the rules, I suppose that means something like 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8. Although, I have seen posters come here with stat rolls that are technically not allowed by the rules, so I guess that such an outcome is theoretically plausible, if not something that requires much examination. Also, the player could always assign their one good stat poorly for whatever reason, deciding that length of rage is the most important thing on a barbarian, or really wanting to test out that scimitar druid build from the book, and assigning the max stat to constitution and strength respectively. Not massively likely, but not strictly anti-optimized either.

[Brova]

I explicitly disagree with this. A Samurai is a very simple class but it's absolutely terrible so I'd never recommend it to a new player.

Well, Samurai is a bad case, because yes, it sucks. But consider the Fighter. Fighter is a very bad class on its own merits. But there are Fighter based builds that are quite usable. One of those is fine for a new player, if someone walks them through the process of building a character. And it actually plays very easily. A Fighter/Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker with Shock Trooper is fairly difficult to build. But it's very easy to play. So it works fine for a new player, provided they get help with the build.

Now, there is the separate problem that there are very few (if any) published classes that are simple to build, simple to play, and appropriately powered. But that's an issue for another day.

[ComaVision]

Well, Samurai is a bad case, because yes, it sucks. But consider the Fighter. Fighter is a very bad class on its own merits. But there are Fighter based builds that are quite usable. One of those is fine for a new player, if someone walks them through the process of building a character. And it actually plays very easily. A Fighter/Barbarian/Frenzied Berserker with Shock Trooper is fairly difficult to build. But it's very easy to play. So it works fine for a new player, provided they get help with the build.

Now, there is the separate problem that there are very few (if any) published classes that are simple to build, simple to play, and appropriately powered. But that's an issue for another day.

It depends on the table but I don't personally bring new players into higher leveled games or try to explain multi-classing right away (unless they have a very specific character in mind that requires it).

I agree there aren't any published classes that are simple to build/play at a decent power into a high-op game but I think the Initiators are fairly simple and can contribute to a mid-op group fairly easily.

[Brova]

It depends on the table but I don't personally bring new players into higher leveled games or try to explain multi-classing right away (unless they have a very specific character in mind that requires it).

Well, it's obviously group and individual dependent. Starting a game with all (or most) new players is its whole own can of worms, and probably needs a guide just for that. How to fit a noob into an established group probably deserves some discussion, but a guide like this should be aimed at telling people which archetypes will perform well under what build conditions.


I agree there aren't any published classes that are simple to build/play at a decent power into a high-op game but I think the Initiators are fairly simple and can contribute to a mid-op group fairly easily.

Well, Initiators are probably around the middle in terms of build complexity. You've got to choose maneuvers known and readied, and you need to keep an eye on high level prerequisites. Play complexity is also probably medium, as you have to deal with half a dozen options every round with multiple break points (maneuvers + basic attacks, with forks for stances). It's probably the best choice, as it requires less tactical and system mastery than a Wizard and is less complex than a non-Tome of Battle martial, but I don't really like it.

As with so many things, the best solution is to write up a new version of D&D. Sadly, that's an awful lot of work, and doesn't get good network externalities.

[Optimator]

Some class shuffling may be needed but I like the concept a lot. Good job!

[Endarire]

As a GM who had a player who very much wanted to play a Samurai, I urged him to play something that was thematically similar with refluffing (Warblade), but mechanically superior (Warblade). He still wished he could have played the "Samurai" class, though because - as I understood it - he had a great amount of faith in the name rather than what it did.

I've also had player who insisted on playing a Mindbender (more than one level, mind you) as often as she could. Again, it's a matter of taking the name on faith that what it says is what it does and what it does is useful and desirable.

[Brova]

As a GM who had a player who very much wanted to play a Samurai, I urged him to play something that was thematically similar with refluffing (Warblade), but mechanically superior (Warblade). He still wished he could have played the "Samurai" class, though because - as I understood it - he had a great amount of faith in the name rather than what it did.

I've also had player who insisted on playing a Mindbender (more than one level, mind you) as often as she could. Again, it's a matter of taking the name on faith that what it says is what it does and what it does is useful and desirable.

Honestly, those are basically solvable if you're willing to allow homebrew/rules modifications. There's a Samurai class in Races of War that's quite effective. Mindbender is actually a lot easier. Just bump the class up to full casting, tinker with the charm monster ability to work a little more clearly, and ask politely that the player doesn't cheese out any extra minions. Probably more balanced than the regular Enchanter as it gives a coherent place to stop.