Optimization Optimization and Tiers: The Tier System Expanded. [Archive]

bekeleven

2015-11-14, 04:36 AM

The tier system holds up across equal levels of optimization, and until someone makes a comprehensive list of all possible degrees of optimization, that's the best we can do.

Introduction
The existing Tier system doesn’t take into account what happens when Emperor Tippy builds a wizard in the same party as a 13 year-old builds a fighter. In fact, it doesn’t even take into account what happens when CaptnQ builds a monk in the same party as the 13 year-old builds a wizard. Perhaps less so. The mantra repeated on these forums is a simple one:

Player > Build > Class

Which make it hard to catalog the power of a class. JaronK’s Tier System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?266559-Tier-System-for-Classes-%28Rescued-from-MinMax%29) nonetheless did so, and most agree (at least partially) that he was onto something. It states that Tippy’s Wizard is more powerful than his fighter, and CaptnQ’s Artificer can solve more problems than his warblade. It states that the 13 year-old, new to the game, will build a psion more powerful than his binder.

Not so, say I.

I don’t know about you, but if I built a binder at age 13, I would’ve tried a bunch of vestiges until I finally found one that seemed to work for me, then use that all of the time. And when I leveled up, I’d try one or two of the unlocked vestiges, under the assumption that they would be more powerful than the ones I’d left behind. Sure, I might be taking nonproficiency penalties for that magical greataxe I found last dungeon, but by chance I’d eventually cobble together a working build capable of solving problems.
My Psion, on the other hand? Blasting spells all. Day. I probably wouldn’t even use more than one or two of them (namely, the highest level ones). In other words, my binder is probably better.
JaronK made the point that the power of tiers can be relative to optimization. In other words, Biffoniacus_Furiou’s commoner would be equal to young me’s Warblade: “Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging.”
My position is that this view is incomplete. A wizard played by someone just starting the game wouldn’t be able to solve every situation as easily as a druid – druids are near impossible to screw up in any capacity, both build-wise and play-wise. The bare minimum someone will play a druid past level 5 is still leagues ahead of most other classes, even tier 1 classes. Below, you’ll see that I rate Druid as a (1-1-1): The only class that remains tier 1 through all 3 optimization grades. Yes, of course Eggynack’s Druid would be more powerful than mine were a decade ago. I still blundered through my similarly masterful friends’ campaigns and made a beautiful mess of things.
Below, I enumerate each grade as well as the grades above and below my range. Please be familiar with JaronK’s Tier System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?266559-Tier-System-for-Classes-%28Rescued-from-MinMax%29) before you continue, as this is a derivative work.

The Five Levels of Optimization
These are, by necessity, subjective. I use my own experience and opinions to create them. You can define your own if you like, but this is what I used to create the table below. I didn’t base these entirely on balance decisions. Most of the division is based on system mastery, especially at the low end, and the remaining is mostly based on what I would build and bring to a table in good faith.

To reiterate:

Player > Build > Class.

If the player plays poorly, nothing will save him.

What Separates the Grades
I primarily used the following factors to divide specific builds and optimization tricks into their grades.

System Mastery. This is the most important one. It's the only one that affects play (and player > etc.), and also informs many factors. As a player reads the books more (or goes on the internet in search of advice), they will necessarily tire of the material they have access to (or see more recommended). Conversely, if a player gets a new book, they will generally either read it and become more enfranchised, or skim it and take a few tricks, but not necessarily use them to their fullest. In other words, more material access generally correlates to knowing how to use stuff, and since the entire system is placing things in general buckets, I'm running with it.

As stated, Book Access is a consideration. A DM can ban books from the game, which minimizes the effects of book access.

"Spirit Of The Game." This is a rough one to explain, but basically: Grade C is where the designers intended the game take place. Midlevel Grade C D&D feels like sword and sorcery fantasy. It feels like lord of the rings. Eventually, someone playing the game read the trap rules and asked, "Can't I make a create food trap?" Then they solved world hunger. "Can't I create a teleportation circle network?" Then they solved travel. "Can't I create Mage's Lucubration..." and there go limited spell slots. This person didn't know it yet, but they were on the road to the tippyverse (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?222007). The first and most fundamental cornerstones of the Tippyverse aren't things that require high system mastery to do, merely the ability, and willingness, to redefine the genre of Dungeons and Dragons for yourself and your playgroup. And the more you move from "Intended Play" to consequential mechanical use, the more you tend to rise in grade.

I don't say this as a judgement call. Both Grade C and Grade A games have a lot going for them, and I've played in both. Both can be fun. I think most tend to play in grade B, not just because they can't optimize higher, but (also or instead) for other reasons - It's easier for the DM to build encounters, it's easier for the DM to build a world closer to fantasy convention, and because most people get into D&D because they like sword and sorcery fantasy.

S: Theoretical Optimization (TO)
"Stay within the rules."

This grade of optimization consists of anything that I would never bring to a table, or even suggest at a table, unless I knew the GM was aware of how it worked and made an informed decision to allow it. Here is a very incomplete list of the types of things I consider TO:

Ancestral Relic Custom Runestaves
Drown Healing
Most epic skill use
Diplomacy optimization, basically at all
Item Familiar (including XP boost)
Dark Chaos Feat Shuffle (Bonus feats/Otyugh Hole, not just retraining)
Infinite Loops/Destroying the World
Cost-free metamagic reduction
Starting games with a dozen partially-charged wands
Anything involving free wishes (Ice Assassin, Shapechange into Zodar, Gate, etc.)
Stacking Nightsticks, Stacking Theurges, and other “questionable” interpretations
Most things involving Kobolds

I don’t tier things in TO. TO is useless to grade. First, because at and around this level of brokenness, you can build every class as a kobold with cross-class ranks in Knowledge (Religion). The class isn’t as important as the ability to hide from GM smacks. Second, I would never build these and try to avoid playing near them as well, so why would I care what tier your Incantatrix hits?

There are different levels of build within this optimization grade. But it's very hard to find a dividing line within the group between Pun-Pun and the rest. Simply, there are no meaningful numbers if you're so close to infinity.

A: Top Practical Optimization (Top PO)
"Win the game without breaking it."

Top PO is the grade of character that I build when I’m told to optimize hard and I know the other players have decent system mastery. I almost never build full casters at this tier; I prefer to tweak a martial build all to hell instead. Top PO takes advantage of a lot of tricks, but the tiers are actually visible because you’re somewhat limited by your chassis and class features.
Here’s an idea of what I mean by top PO:

Custom skill-increasing items
Item Familiars (minus XP boost)
Metamagic Reduction (besides DMM abuse, Incantatrix’s Metamagic Effect, and similar)
Enhance Wild Shape, Polymorph, and some Shapechange
A Knowstone or two or 46
7th+ level Chameleon spell slots
A stat above level+25, particularly mental stats

As you can see, most of the things on my watchlists are spells or spellcaster-related. I’ll add: Duh. Of course that’s what you watch.
Games can be a bit silly at this grade, and they certainly hit rocket tag much faster than lower op levels, but nobody is explicitly god and nobody needs a PhD to compete. To me, this type of game is good in small doses.

B: Standard PO
"Be good the game."

This is the grade to which I optimize a character if I’m not explicitly told to go above it. This level of optimization isn’t that hard to achieve, as it only requires basic system mastery and the desire to build with synergy.

This tier is likely the widest. I’d say I jumped from grade C to B sometime around when I joined the Wizards forums. Nowadays you can point to the moment a person reads JaronK’s Tier System for the first time as the time they cross into PO range. The thing is, I generally build PO characters whether I play with experts or noobs, varying only the base class I start with. If I play with a party of noobs, I’ll build a Superman Monk or Two-Weapon Fighter. If I build for a game on these boards I’ll make a factotum or Wildshape Ranger.

Here are sample shenanigans you can find in PO:

Most Uberchargers
Intelligent Divination use (basic Scry + Die)
Stockpiling Scrolls
More than one ACF on a character
More than one prestige class on a character
Use of X Stat to Y Bonus
Dragonborn Warforged

Grade B covers the majority of games I see, but its lack of real milestones prevents me from easily breaking it down further. You can say some builds are B- and others are B+, but that gets beyond the scope of this guide.
C: Newbie Op
"Trust in the Designers."

I built grade C characters from 2003 until about 2007, when I signed up for the wizards boards out of curiosity.
Newbie Op is the optimization level of the Vow of Poverty Monk. This isn’t to say that all Newbie-Op characters are that bad, but rather that all newbie op characters trend that far downwards from their power level in other optimization grades. A Newbie Op Druid is about 4 tiers more powerful than said monk, after all. Newbie Op is built around the assumption that the makers of the game carefully balanced all character options against each other, meaning that building the character you think is the coolest won’t put you behind others – and may put you ahead. Here are some optimizations I tried during my first years with the game:

Dual bastard sword fighter
Evocation-spec Sorcerer, banning illusion and abjuration
Vow of Povery Fighter (TWENTY NINE FEATS! @( FEATS!)
Solving every problem with silent image (not as a shadowcraft mage)
A wizard with only his 2/level free spells
Healbot Clerics
Never summoning familiars, because they’re a liability
The same, but with animal companions, because I didn’t read that part very closely
Playing a Kobold (because they’re funny!)

The games I played in 2003 were D&D, and in some ways they were more fun than games I play now. Don’t knock lack of system mastery! Sometimes the guy playing the monk got depressed because he couldn’t hit the gnoll and didn’t know why, but in general, I got together with friends, and we all hung out and had fun. Isn’t that what D&D is all about?

In one sense, this guide is self-defeating. If anyone legitimately playing at this level reads this guide and JaronK’s Tier System, the process will likely move them past it. It can be hard to put that Djinn back into a bottle.

One thing all of my early D&D groups had in common was a focus on damage. You win a fight when the enemy's health hits 0. If you fireball the enemy, you are that much closer to winning. Why would I use solid fog, when it doesn't help me win? I don't know if this attitude was universal, but it was certainly rather widespread at the time.

Arguably, even grade C can be higher-optimized than the designers intended, due to the extremely limited nature of playtesting. Druids were so powerful because the original Vadania playtester focused more on a Scimitar throwing build than wild shape, so the designers never realized how potent being a bear riding a bear summoning bears could be. Those so inclined could refer to this category as C- or D grade, as it's a bit under my assumed newbie-op level.

Still, I think that by 2003 and the release of 3.5, even WotC realized the power of druids, at least to the extent that they could do more than prepare Summon Nature's Ally as one of 3 seventh-level spells, buy a +2 Keen Throwing Returning Scimitar, and spend feats on Point Blank Shot, Far Shot, Improved Critical (Scimitar), and Weapon Focus (Scimitar). And Track. Scribe Scroll was all right.

F: Deliberate Failure

Frankly, a Wizard can suck even more than a Fighter could ever dream of sucking. A Fighter can stab himself to death, but only a Wizard could Plane Shift to some horrible far realm to be tortured for an eternity of insanity.
If you’re building a character in bad faith, you lower your power level without limit. I don’t address that in this guide, as it’s both pointless and futile.

Mixing Grades
I don't recommend mixing disparate optimization grades in a campaign, but if you must, it would be good to know how they relate. As a very rough guide, Grade A = Grade B+2 = Grade C+4. This works better on lower-versatility characters.

For instance, an ubercharging barbarian is frequently a Grade B Tier 4, because it can do one thing really well, but that thing doesn't always help. In many Grade-C campaigns, that thing will help more often, since enemies that are grade C won't make use of inclines, rubble, concealment, and other common anti-charge tricks. In addition, the lower levels of ambient optimization mean he's 1shotting a much larger subset of enemies. He has now (approximately) moved from tier 4 to tier 2, equal with a wizard - fewer options, but higher numbers. The wizard uses his utility spells (fly and invisibility) to God his way around encounters on bad terrain or with spread-out enemies, and the barbarian slices and dices the rest. A rogue with optimized UMD and solid spells and scrolls would be able to keep up with or outshine these party members (Grade A Tier 5), but be inherently more limited and easy to break, since she's sort of still a tier 5 class, just with all the dials turned past the max.

There are plenty of inherent issues bringing higher-grade characters into lower-grade campaigns, even if the grade isn't S. Basically, a lot of optimization takes some groundwork to understand. I built a diplomancer fooling around once around '06 and ended up with +20 to diplomancy at level 2. In our first session, I met my party members in a tavern, then said, "Hold on, I'll get us some drinks" and asked for a round on the house.

What followed was 15 minutes of argument culminating in me making a new character. My Grade C group wasn't ready for a Grade A (or higher) optimization, even stapled to a Bard useless in combat. So diplomacy got essentially houseruled out.*With his rules niche bulldozed, he was homeless. That which can be asserted without system mastery can be dismissed without system mastery. Using a delay death loop to build the Omniscifier would result in a similar houserule, if used in one of my games around the same time.

A partial solution is to avoid large numbers. Numbers are incredibly easy to compare, making bigger ones boogiemen. Instead of the Mailman, build a God Wizard. The incremental action economy advantage of Haste is harder to see - and if it is seen, it will be in the form of your party members contributing more. That was Treantmonk's thesis when he made it (well, one of them).

The point of most games of D&D is not to win. In most cases, playing to the optimization grade of your table will lead to a better experience for all. Build Pun-Pun if you must get it out of your system, but come with a real character after you've proven that you can "win."
*With the benefit of hindsight, I support this move. Diplomacy is the nuclear weapon of D&D

bekeleven

2015-11-14, 04:37 AM

Case Studies
Barbarian: Barbarians are remarkably unchanged as you optimize. Mainly, you start with a higher-strength race and your power attack returns get larger. The build mostly scales down with the power level of the group, although towards the low end it may lose the ability to reliably hit/kill encounters. But hey, so does everybody else. Barbarian maintains a constant tier, although they're low in tier 4 in grade A.

Bard: A high-op bard is adding a billion D6 to everyone’s damage dice, but it took me forever to see that. My first thought on seeing Bard: I have the chassis of rogue but without sneak attack. I have spells like a wizard if the wizard sucked at his job. And my unique class feature requires my standard action every round to give everyone a bonus that only hits +4 at level twenty? Jack of all trades, master at jack.

Cleric: Grade A and B clerics are CoDZillas. Grade C clerics are healbots/buffbots who occasionally venture into blasting spells. In my experience, cleric felt bad to play; A group I DMed in 2006 rolled to see who would take the “cleric (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1hnzhn/) bullet (http://forums.rptools.net/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3573&start=15).” However, as I look back, the buff spells did a lot to help the group – even if I didn’t see it at the time.

Druid: Once you get past the “It’s a cleric with some useless class features in place of the good healing spells” you begin to see the power of druids. Even if wild shape is limited to wolves (or maybe a bear) it still boosts stats and grants attacks. With fewer blasting spells on the list a druid player will be forced to get creative, and may stumble on some of the real power pieces available (yes, I am trying to spin that as a positive for some reason). Finally, although they’ll likely make multiple mistakes with the numbers (unless the GM is more experienced), a noob’s companion can’t really be screwed up – even an advanced riding dog can dish out damage at low op-levels. And if my experience is any indication, the newer the group, the more leeway the GM gives when controlling the companion.

Fighter: My very first character was a level 1 human fighter. I looked at toughness and saw that it granted 3 HP and went, “1 HP is worth 33% of a feat.” Then I saw Endurance and Diehard and said, “For two feats I can get 10 HP. I’m ahead of the curve!” This is a 100% true story.

A Grade-C fighter takes diehard. A Grade-B fighter takes Zhentarim, Imperious Command and Never Outnumbered. A Grade A fighter shuffles his feats and springboards into a prestige class. There are worse classes.

Monk: I’ve written about monks before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?338524). If I end up in an S-grade game, I like to build a monk and use subdermal plating and other dragon mag tricks to make a character that might be able to equal an A-grade Tier 4, a B-grade tier 3, and would dominate a C-grade game with Tier 2 gamebreaking power.

But short of TO tricks?

When I was making the above guide I was searching google aimlessly for information on monks. Besides hundreds of spirited defenses of the best class wizards ever printed, I found a single forum thread from around 2004. It was by a player discussing a challenging encounter his last session where he paid close attention and finally realized that his monk was dealing less damage per round than the wizard’s summoned monster. The responses included others telling him he built wrong, some saying monks are tanks first and foremost and shouldn’t get worried about DPS, and still others saying he must have rolled poorly.

Paladin: The three most prominent paladin archetypes are A-Game buffer, Ubermount and Shining Armor. A-Game shines in grade B, making the paladin a sort of weird Bard archetype. Ubermount also shines in grade B, making the paladin most comparable to a barbarian. "Shining Armor" is a generic term for the C-grade attempt to play the paladin as the designers may have intended. It's not as good, even relative to the playing field.

In Grade-A, none of these three archetypes pulls its weight, but the paladin can still contribute meaningfully to encounters.

Ranger: I am explicitly assuming grade A and B rangers are using Wild Shape, perhaps as a springboard into the Master of Many Forms, the best prestige class. (Heard it here first – and last, folks.) Other differences include wider spell access, partly in the sense of looking through more books, but specifically in that while you can take spells to make you a good archer, it's not really what you rely on.

Rogue: The main difference between C and B can be summed up in 3 words: Use Magic Device. There are other differences, ACFs, Penetrating strike, and Craven being among them. But access to spells via UMD turns the rogue into a more powerful, more versatile performer.

The difference between B and A, however, is rather different. The Rogue's main highlights are skills and somewhat-fiddly damage. At A-grade optimization, neither of those things shines, as both are fairly trivial, and many other classes outcompete the rogue, even by accident (optimization level A is the one where you look through web articles and find divine insight). Rogue drops a tier, having hit its maximum use in grade B. This isn't so bad, as grade B is the one I see most played.

Sorcerer: Complete Mage has a section on how to play spellcasters. p.23: "Summon Monster (I through IX): A creature conjured to fight in your stead offers no guarantee that it will deal even a single point of damage."

This is the only mention of summon monster spells outside of the Summoner archetype. The archetype which says this, under weaknesses: "Casting spells that send summoned creatures into battle might prevent some of the more powerful area spells from being cast at the same time. Although it's certainly not out of the question to cast such spells regardless, one has to question the purpose of even summoning the creatures in the first place."

This chapter lists sample spell lists for each archetype. Imagine a sorcerer following them.

Grade C sorcerers, however, are tricky to tier. Absent optimizations like runestaves, the primary determiner of a sorcerer build's power and utility are the spells known (and how it's played, but that's obviously harder to quantify). Just as low levels are swingy due to the dice being the largest part of every equation (I know what will happen when I roll 1D20+18 to hit and 1D8+20 for damage; 1D20+3 to hit can be off by a factor of ~6 and 1D8+2 changes by a factor of ~3), low grade sorcerers are swingy due to the lack of meaningful obstacles to a single good trick. A sorcerer learning Glitterdust at level 4 can force a Grade C DM to roll over and play dead, start an arms race, or throw exclusively Grimlocks at the party until the sorcerer lets go of his shiny new toy. I rated the sorcerer where I've observed him most, but even at low grades it's possible to stumble onto a really neat trick. Hennet presumably took Spell Focus (Evocation) because he liked his Lightning Bolt, but his third level spells also include Dispel Magic and Haste.

A Grade A sorcerer, meanwhile, knows and can cast as many spells spontaneously as a wizard has prepared. (Grade S sorcerers can cast all the spells forever.)

Wizard: A Grade A or B wizard is probably playing god or something similar. A grade C wizard (in my experience) spends 90% of the time acting like a grade C sorcerer. They stay tier 2, in my estimation, because the few utility spells they select will be enough to bypass many grade C encounters (Fly and Teleport being some of my main picks in my early years).

bekeleven

2015-11-14, 04:39 AM

Tier By Optimization Grade

Class
A
B
C

Druid
1
1
1

Wizard
1
1
2

Archivist
1
1
3

Artificer
1
1
4

Cleric
1
1
4

Sorcerer
1
2
4

Warmage
1
4
4

Favored Soul
2
2
3

Wilder
2
3
5

Swordsage
3
3
2

Ranger
3
3
4

Bard
3
3
4

Warblade
3
3
2

Paladin
4
3
4

Barbarian
4
4
4

Fighter
4
4
5

Monk
4
4
5

Duskblade
4
3
3

Rogue
5
4
5

Healer
5
5
5

Warrior
6
6
5

Commoner
6
6
6

In your glowing reviews of my class tiering ability, please, spare my ancestors.

Updates to follow.

bekeleven

2015-11-14, 04:42 AM

Incoming responses!

To head off the flood: No, I don't know all of these classes equally well. No, I haven't even played every single one firsthand, much less at every op level. A lot of this is educated guessing.

Even if you disagree with every call I make, please understand the intentions behind it. Simply, tiers are mutable.

I've been ruminating on this for a while. I'm sure everyone will tell me my numbers are all 2 or 3 off, and that's fair. I just wanted to get this somewhere public so people could help me brainstorm what more correct numbers could be. And, of course, add more classes.

I can't promise I'll get to everything immediately, but I plan I'll read every response suggesting more accurate tiers.

rrwoods

2015-11-14, 04:49 AM

I like this idea, and I'd like to see it expanded and refined. However I have to disagree with the idea that some of the things in your 'S' grade are things that shouldn't be brought to the table at all.

Diplomacy optimization is useful, when the player isn't purposefully using it on every encounter but rather only the social ones. Maybe this seems arbitrary, but it's really no more arbitrary than the Wizard not solving every encounter with game-breaking spells. To me at least.

A dozen partially-charged wands also seems not-game-breaking to me, but maybe that's lack of experience talking? I could be convinced.

I could see maybe making an 'S' grade for "questionable" things, where most DMs will at least raise an eyebrow and some will outright say no, and then an 'X' grade (which you wouldn't tier the classes in) for the really dumb stuff.

Endarire

2015-11-14, 05:00 AM

rrwoods, thank you for explaining the tiers in more detail! It's good to know (and have in a fancy-looking guide post) that optimization ranks (S through F) do matter. A lot. They determine whether someone is 'meh' or shines - at least to a large degree.

As I discovered by playing D&D 5E, being a theoretically powerful character (in the 5E example, a Half Elf Bard focused on crowd control, stealth, and social skills) is powerful if your party plays that way! Some of the most powerful characters are ones that fit within their group and don't try to replace the group.

LudicSavant

2015-11-14, 05:27 AM

Diplomacy optimization is useful, when the player isn't purposefully using it on every encounter but rather only the social ones. Maybe this seems arbitrary, but it's really no more arbitrary than the Wizard not solving every encounter with game-breaking spells. To me at least.

"You use the Diplomacy skill basically at all" was on the CharOp campaign smashers thread next to Pun Pun back on the WotC boards, IIRC.

...Just sayin'. YMMV. I, at least, am of the general opinion that the skill is badly designed to the point that it should just be avoided or replaced entirely.

Simply, tiers are mutable.

I agree with this; insofar as obviously the power level of characters varies based on optimization, sources, table standards, player skill, etc.

A few concerns, though.

For one, I question the ability to make practical categories that would cover the wide ranged of player skills, table standards, sources, optimization levels, etc. Too many variables.

Even if categories are limited, your categories seem rather ambiguously defined. Moreso than JaronK's tier list, it's not clear what a given numbered tier means (it seems to mean something distinct from JaronK's definitions). Even if it was, there would be the issue of how you would test your assertions. You could just say "well, a player of X skill wouldn't use that tool." In this sense, how is your opinion subject to falsifiability?

For instance, how exactly do you decide if Tool X for Class X is an A or B level tool? Choosing whether to consider a given tool for a class to be "category A" or "category B" can easily shift their tiers, and it seems like that's pretty much purely a judgment call on your part. How exactly do you decide if Tool X for Class X is an A or B level tool?

Also, does a Tashalatora count as a Monk, a Psychic Warrior, or just something not covered by the thread because the tiers only reflect single class 20 characters? (That last bit doesn't sound right, since prestige classes and such are mentioned)

And of course, if you're doing full scale theoretical optimization, all characters approach the same power level, because everyone starts getting infinite power. I can make Pun Pun with a Commoner. :smalltongue:

I guess if your only point is to get across "tiers are mutable" that's cool, but then I just worry that you're putting a lot of work into a chart which could be taken the wrong way.

Vhaidara

2015-11-14, 07:05 AM

rrwoods

2015-11-14, 02:47 PM

Hm. I see what you're saying on Diplomacy. But, if we're talking about practical optimization levels, we're talking about real campaigns, and how many DMs actually run Diplomacy by-the-book? In my experience, none. Maybe that's not the case on a more global scale, and I know this forum is a big stickler for talking about RAW by default (and with good reason!), but in this case does it make sense to assume a deviation, for practical purposes?

Also, I didn't really explain the tiers... that was bekeleven :-P

rrwoods

2015-11-14, 05:02 PM

Pardon the double-post, but I thought of something and figured this was worth the bump. Apologies if this is out-of-line.

Someone mentioned the optimization grades being "ambiguously defined", which I think is a valid criticism. What might we be able to do to fix that, and make this system more meaningful in discussions?

Right now, the grades are defined by their *goals*, which I'll loosely summarize:
S - "win" the game, or break it
A - optimize as much as possible, without choosing options that fall under S
B - avoid options that fall under C
C - naively choose options, assuming that all options are written in a way to help make my character relevant
F - deliberately choose poor options

Give or take a few things here and there, that's my understanding of the grades. As mentioned, for practical purposes, it's safe to ignore S and F.

Where the ambiguity lies is in what types of characters these optimization grades actually produce. For meaningful discussion, we need to define the grades not by *goals*, but by some other easy-to-measure metric. We can't use *effectiveness*, since that's what the tier system gives us (and the whole point of the grade system is to make the class + grade = tier mapping). So what do we use? I'm at a loss here, but I'm extremely interested in this topic.

EDIT: Maybe we can get somewhere if we pick a couple case studies for options other than just classes.

Where does Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian fall, and why?
Where does Time Stands Still fall, and why?
Where does Whisper Gnome fall, and why?
Where does Lesser Aasimar fall, and why?
Where does Leadership fall, and why?
Where does Ocular Spell fall, and why?
Etc.

I reiterate "and why" because that's the real question here, and it may lead us to a pattern that gives us a real metric by which to define the grades. I have my ideas about each of those things, but some of them may be more controversial. The OP has a couple case studies as well but doesn't address them in detail (diplo optimization, for example) and I think addressing each case in detail can give us clues.

Ger. Bessa

2015-11-14, 06:54 PM

LudicSavant

2015-11-14, 07:46 PM

Hm. I see what you're saying on Diplomacy. But, if we're talking about practical optimization levels, we're talking about real campaigns, and how many DMs actually run Diplomacy by-the-book? In my experience, none.
If all DMs are houseruling Diplomacy, then they by definition are not using the RAW Diplomacy rules which Bekeleven is suggesting that they should not use.

GilesTheCleric

2015-11-14, 07:55 PM

I like having a grading system that doesn't focus on the flexibility/ power dichotomy. This one seems to better fit a table manners/ system mastery/ ease of building axis.

However, it doesn't fit (wasn't designed to fit, I think) my favourite type of "optimization": focused building. When building a character, I like to build to a theme or to some specific ability. This means that I search far and wide for build resources that help emphasize my particular goal. Some of the options are worse picks than something else that could have occupied the same resource space, and thus end up affecting the tier rating of the final build. Now, some of the methods of completing such a build can be torturous, sometimes even requiring calls to tricks this guide calls grade S. I am certain that such builds would fall under grades B or A in this guide, and tiers 2-4 when looking at their output. Think Iron Chef.

How can this guide account for builds like this? The tier system does so by judging output, which is a fairly defined value. I'm grateful that this guide instead looks at inputs (also decently well-defined), but that method as it stands doesn't account for synergies or for system mastery applied to the resources of lower grades. Is this something you would like this treatise to account for, or is it beyond the scope? The ease of building aspect of this guide seems like it should apply, but doesn't quite.

Edit: I think that the reason this guide doesn't fit quite so cleanly is because the inputs being evaluated are more varied: System mastery and resources at the same time. The tier system evaluates only two outputs, but its method of structuring them turns them into single outputs: First flexibility, then power, where T1 and T2 are effectively separate from T3+.

LudicSavant

2015-11-14, 08:13 PM

Someone mentioned the optimization grades being "ambiguously defined", which I think is a valid criticism. What might we be able to do to fix that, and make this system more meaningful in discussions?

Right now, the grades are defined by their *goals*, which I'll loosely summarize:
S - "win" the game, or break it
A - optimize as much as possible, without choosing options that fall under S
B - avoid options that fall under C
C - naively choose options, assuming that all options are written in a way to help make my character relevant
F - deliberately choose poor options

If we're determining tiers by which options you're allowed to use, ambiguity stems from the fact that it's not clear how one is deciding if an individual component option is S, A, B, or C. Moving even one option up or down a category can meaningfully change the relative power level of classes in those categories.

A much less ambiguous way to do things would be to compare the power levels of actual specific builds.

Maybe we can get somewhere if we pick a couple case studies for options other than just classes.

Where does Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian fall, and why?
Where does Time Stands Still fall, and why?
Where does Whisper Gnome fall, and why?
Where does Lesser Aasimar fall, and why?
Where does Leadership fall, and why?
Where does Ocular Spell fall, and why?
Etc.

I reiterate "and why" because that's the real question here

Pretty much.

xyianth

2015-11-14, 08:20 PM

I might not see something obvious, but about the suggestions for Optimization Tiers

* What is TO Theurge stacking ? (And when does a theurge gets more power than a caster with a dedicated PrC ?)
* Where does the "free metamagic" of Anima Mage and Recaster goes ? The obvious thought was for DMM, Incantatrix and maybe Circle Magic, but what of definitely limited /day uses ? Is Ultimate Magus that efficient at the suggested Grade A optimisation ?
* What of multi-pouncing (with teleportation and Shadow Pounce) ? (Guess it goes into "stacking" and questionnable interpretations)
*Isn't a stat of 25+ normal with Elite array + WBL ? (15 + 5(lvl) + 6(item) ). The wish or tome boost reaches 30 but 25+ at lv20 seems normal (unless you're talking of stats at lv 1).

Also, many "rules" are not to be taken blindly, (no more than 1 PrC ? what about fluff ACFs ?) and I might add that 7th level chameleon spell slots taste more like TO cheese than basic ancestral relic runestaff. (AR staff of Wish recharged with Wall of Salt otho, is reblochon)

TO theurge stacking is the use of both sides of a theurge on the same base class, netting you two effective levels of casting per level in the theurge class. (This can be done a variety of ways, but one of the easiest is to play a sha'ir 4/mystic theurge 8; which lets you cast as a 20th level sha'ir at ECL 12)

Any free metamagic is potentially gamebreaking. It depends on how it is used. I'd personally put free metamagic in the high-end of PO, (tier A in this thread) but arguments could be made for it being TO level. (tier S) Ultimate magus has the potential of combining TO theurge stacking with metamagic reduction. I'd place it in tier A as well, though any use of it to theurge stack is strictly tier S territory.

Multi-pouncing is not much better than an ubercharger in my opinion, even when executed on an idiot crusader type build. I'd place it in tier B, just like most uberchargers. If you can somehow find a way to do it more than 4 times per round, it might enter tier A territory; but I'd think that was more a result of whatever you are using to break the action economy instead of the multi-pouncing.

I think the stat thing was saying any stat equal to 25+character level (i.e 45+ at ECL 20) is tier A. A score of 25 is not unusual at all, a score of 45 requires several concurrent optimization tricks.

As for not taking rules blindly, I believe that was covered in the whole Player>Build>Class idea. I'd say that any tricks from tier A (for example) used to optimize a less than optimal tactic is not tier A anymore. But when rating tricks, we should assume that the trick is being used to its fullest when determining what tier it occupies.

Troacctid

2015-11-14, 08:46 PM

If all DMs are houseruling Diplomacy, then they by definition are not using the RAW Diplomacy rules which Bekeleven is suggesting that they should not use.

Let's be fair, the Diplomacy rules give DMs a lot of wiggle room as written.

bekeleven

2015-11-14, 09:09 PM

For one, I question the ability to make practical categories that would cover the wide ranged of player skills, table standards, sources, optimization levels, etc. Too many variables.Trust me, my initial mental model had several more grades. I eventually squished it into 3 grades, with a ++ up top and a -- on the bottom. Most of the grades I initially thought of ended up under grade B (the divisions between them were muddier than the rest), which is why it's rather broad. In my opinion, the vast majority of players here build optimization grade B.

Even if categories are limited, your categories seem rather ambiguously defined. Moreso than JaronK's tier list, it's not clear what a given numbered tier means (it seems to mean something distinct from JaronK's definitions). Even if it was, there would be the issue of how you would test your assertions. You could just say "well, a player of X skill wouldn't use that tool." In this sense, how is your opinion subject to falsifiability?The tiers are defined the same as JaronK's tiers, with an addendum, mainly: "This is how this class performs relative to other classes at this optimization grade, assuming the campaign is being run at this optimization grade." This is, for instance, one reason that warblade and wizard converge on tier 2 at grade C. Both tend to completely overpower by-the-book early 3.0 and 3.5 modules, but both require just a bit more mastery than grade C to break all aspects of a campaign in half. I suspect that in plenty of grade C campaigns, the warblade will overpower the wizard. It certainly looks more impressive in all the metrics I used to grade characters in 2003.

For instance, how exactly do you decide if Tool X for Class X is an A or B level tool? Choosing whether to consider a given tool for a class to be "category A" or "category B" can easily shift their tiers, and it seems like that's pretty much purely a judgment call on your part. How exactly do you decide if Tool X for Class X is an A or B level tool?You're right. It's 100% a judgement call on my part. I think the broad strokes, the shape of the curves, are straightforward enough that most would agree. But when it comes down to the minutiae, the questions are

If I see other characters in this campaign using custom skill-boosting items and metamagic reducers, what do I feel is fair for me to build?
What requires similar amounts of system mastery (book access and system knowledge)?
What feels similarly in the "spirit of the game"? For instance, Grade C is the game as the designers intended it to be played. While Grade A is the tippyverse and beyond. Create food traps breaking the economy is the simplest example of something that doesn't require much system mastery, doesn't feel "unfair," but still moves the game away from the spirit in which D&D was intended to be played. (From there it's just a hop to the Mage's Lucubration trap.) I'm not saying this as a judgement call, that grade C is better. I'm using it as a metric on what feels more Gygax at one end and more Tippy/CaptnQ/Biffoniacus_Furiou/Rubik on the other end. As I said, I tend to play somewhere in the middle.

It's not about power and versatility. That's what the tiers explain. Grades are a separate axis from those. That's why grade A and B low-tiered characters can party with grade B and C high-tiered characters. For a very, very rough equivalency, Grade A = Grade B+2 = Grade C+4. So a newbie-op Druid can party with Rubik's rogue/healer.

Remember: The original Tier system states, "Given equal system mastery and book access, here's the relative power and versatility of each class." I'm breaking it down and saying, here's how that relationship changes as system mastery and book access change. In general, I view system mastery as a larger factor than book access, since it determines playstyle, and here, let me center some text again, it's fun.

Player > Build > Class

Also, does a Tashalatora count as a Monk, a Psychic Warrior, or just something not covered by the thread because the tiers only reflect single class 20 characters? (That last bit doesn't sound right, since prestige classes and such are mentioned)Tashalatora is a psywar option in my view. Just like a diplomancer with a marshal build doesn't elevate the marshal to tier 1-2, Tash doesn't bring up Monk. This is a convention from the JaronK's original tier system. Go here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=14474947&postcount=2) and read, "But what about dips?"

And of course, if you're doing full scale theoretical optimization, all characters approach the same power level, because everyone starts getting infinite power. I can make Pun Pun with a Commoner. :smalltongue:That's the example I used to explain why I didn't tier Grade S.

Right now, the grades are defined by their *goals*, which I'll loosely summarize:
S - "win" the game, or break it
A - optimize as much as possible, without choosing options that fall under S
B - avoid options that fall under C
C - naively choose options, assuming that all options are written in a way to help make my character relevant
F - deliberately choose poor optionsThis is roughly what I was shooting for. I'll add, again, that Grade B is the widest and tends to include most play from enfranchised players (the type that visit these forums and post in threads like this).

I might not see something obvious, but about the suggestions for Optimization Tiers

* What is TO Theurge stacking ? (And when does a theurge gets more power than a caster with a dedicated PrC ?)
* Where does the "free metamagic" of Anima Mage and Recaster goes ? The obvious thought was for DMM, Incantatrix and maybe Circle Magic, but what of definitely limited /day uses ? Is Ultimate Magus that efficient at the suggested Grade A optimisation ?
* What of multi-pouncing (with teleportation and Shadow Pounce) ? (Guess it goes into "stacking" and questionnable interpretations)
*Isn't a stat of 25+ normal with Elite array + WBL ? (15 + 5(lvl) + 6(item) ). The wish or tome boost reaches 30 but 25+ at lv20 seems normal (unless you're talking of stats at lv 1).

Also, many "rules" are not to be taken blindly, (no more than 1 PrC ? what about fluff ACFs ?) and I might add that 7th level chameleon spell slots taste more like TO cheese than basic ancestral relic runestaff. (AR staff of Wish recharged with Wall of Salt otho, is reblochon)
A few notes -

TO Theurge stacking is using a theurge to advance the casting of two classes, at least one of which is a theurge. I am of the opinion that it doesn't work by RAW, but there's an argument.
Using metamagic to reduce a spell below its level or to persist a pile of round/level buffs (DMM, as you said, being the easiest method). Using Easy Metamagic to cast Rapid spells at +0 3 times a day is not. The system is holistic. There's a big sliding scale between those extremes.
Level+25 stats (think 26 int at level 1, 35 int at level 10, 45 int at level 20).
Ancestral Relic Custom Runestaff refers to a build liked by some people on these forums where, basically, you can cast any spell spontaneously for a single feat investment. The mechanics are more complicated, of course.

I'm not too familiar with multi-pouncing. I'd have to see the specific build.

Edit: Turns out there's a bunch of responses since I started writing this. I will get to them soonish.

Malroth

2015-11-14, 09:09 PM

Warlock
Tier D easy to enter by accident by believing the class is a blaster Runs about a 3 compared to other D's or a 6 if trying to be a C and failing
Tier C Slightly Better options at this level than a Bard but not by much 4
Tier B Worst place for a warlock, can be an ok DPS guy with eldritch claws but lack of versitility hurts here 4
Tier A Can actually serve as a DPS blaster or a HIPS stealth monster or Decent artificer replacement or a Powerful Minion master but is unilkely to be more than 2 of these 2
Tier S Works surprising well in this tier, Enhanced Diplomacy, Ignores item creation prereqs, NAD, and a few infinite loops that can easily be started with self crafted scrolls or by darkspeeching yourself a few hiveminds Low2

LudicSavant

2015-11-14, 10:49 PM

Remember: The original Tier system states, "Given equal system mastery and book access, here's the relative power and versatility of each class." I'm breaking it down and saying, here's how that relationship changes as system mastery and book access change. In general, I view system mastery as a larger factor than book access, since it determines playstyle, and here, let me center some text again, it's fun.

I get what you're going for, but I feel there are a few issues that you may want to look into. You aren't evaluating system mastery and book access as separate categories, for example. Also, player ability can not only take many sizes, but also many shapes. What one guy finds easy to optimize, another may find difficult, and vice versa. What is high effort / obscure / complex to one person may be low effort / obvious / simple to another, and vice versa. Different players have an easier time with different things.

For example, a lot of people talk about Fighters being easier for them, but in my newbie days I seem to recall having had an easier time optimizing casters, simply because I had the freedom to change out elements of my build more easily and didn't feel as much of a need to plan build elements in advance. I could just try things out, and if I didn't like them, I could try something else without building a whole new character. I didn't need to have any feat trees or expensive equipment or anything to make a Web spell do its thing.

Player > Build > Class

I generally agree with that. I can even provide a lot of examples from my own experience (e.g I've seen a smart player with a purposely gimped character dominate a game, and I've seen a player who took a ridiculous fleshraker druid build straight off the forums have no idea how to use it and be absolutely useless).

However, your chart still is tiering classes, and leaving it rather vague what tools, builds, etc they are using to be evaluated as such. What if you tried tiering specific build archetypes? That seems like it would remove a lot of ambiguity regarding what tools are being evaluated, and would make the chart more open to falsifiability (e.g. someone could reasonably come in and say "hey, this build is better than that build")

MukkTB

2015-11-14, 11:30 PM

I like the idea, but I have some objections to the categorization of what behavior makes S, A, B, C, and F. Particularly I disagree on some specifics, but I also disagree with only listing a few examples. I think rrwoods' statement of goals is accurate, but it is also not accurate enough to be useful for specifics. We either need to be looking at a build by build classification or go item by item classifying each with regard to its place on the chart.

Going item by item I immediately see disagreement coming into play. Particularly class S is going to be a point of contention. We can probably all agree about infinite loops and drown healing. On the other hand partially charged wands does not seem to belong in the same class of things as infinite loops. We feel strongly about some of these matters, and the classification of a single little thing has spawned mega threads full of flame.

I would feel better about addressing individual builds. However even that is a daunting challenge. And at many levels of play, builds are not straight jackets. You can combine builds. You can adapt them to your tastes. Or you can build strong and weak generic setups that are not defined by a small set of choices or abilities but instead represent a well rounded approach to the class.

For example with regard to partially charged wands. These items can facilitate cost efficient cheese. However there does not seem to be any reason in game why some wands should not come onto the market with variable number of charges left. A DM attempting to simulate a living breathing world would probably be able to respond to players searching for partially charged wands. However I would expect these items to not always (rarely?) come in with the exact number of charges the player desires. I would not even expect such items to exist on the market for all spells. Buying a partially charged wand, like buying or building any custom item, even if it is allowed by the rules, requires a bit of roleplay time between the player and the DM.

rrwoods

2015-11-15, 01:18 AM

I think rrwoods' statement of goals is accurate, but it is also not accurate enough to be useful for specifics.
That's kinda my point: They're classified by goals, but they *want* to be classified by something else (that maps closely to those goals in practice, but is also easy to specify).

Beheld

2015-11-15, 01:21 AM

Honestly, to me the biggest problem with the Tier system is not that is doesn't tell you who is the strongest at what level of optimization, it is that it doesn't tell you the things you might actually want to know to find out if you would enjoy playing a character.

To me the questions you actually want to know about a class before you consider playing it are:

1) How easy is it to "build" a strong character of that class?

2) How easy is it to play the character after it has been built?

So for example: It is really easy to build a competent Beguiler, you write Beguiler on your character sheet, and then you have a competent beguiler, and you could also do better by looking up good domains to arcane disciple or whatever, but that isn't necessary. So if someone wants to make a character for the first time, I can recommend Beguiler over Wizard, because Beguiler will be easier. Wizard on the other hand is very hard to make, because you have to make individual decisions as to which spells you include, and you have to evaluate a lot of spells to do it. And Barbarian is even harder, because the only viable Barbarian builds involve tons of source dipping for that one thing, and cheesing to get a competent character, and if you make any mistakes, it isn't like a Wizard, who can just fall back on a great different spell, it just means you are bad.

On the other hand, if ten years ago I was making a character for my kid brother, or for someone knew who isn't a regular RPG nerd, and is just getting into things, I want to know that Sorcerers, even though they are harder to build, are really easy to play once built. And so are Barbarians, but Druids are actually super hard, because you have to pick each day from every single druid spell in existence, and then you have to decide on good wildshape forms based on all sorts of factors, and then you have to choose in combat whether you cast a spell you prepared, wade into melee, or spontaneously summon one of a whole bunch of monsters. That's a lot going on, so a new player is more likely to make mistakes or throw up their hands in frustration.

One thing I don't care about even a little bit, is how easy or hard, or even worse, how many different way a class can break the game, which JaronK's tiers loveee to count. If a character can break the game in one way, then it can break the game in every way that matters, because every table gets to break the game only one time before the game is broken. If you already have an infinite shadow army and Glabrezu army, and Wished for a staff of wishes, then you are done, there is no more game to play. And it doesn't matter if you could also use schism to BS yourself to 13 standard actions a turn, because the guy with access to infinite wishes can also just wish to get items that allow him to have lots more standard actions through a variety of means. No one cares how many ways you can break the game (except JaronK).

GilesTheCleric

2015-11-15, 02:45 AM

Bekeleven, thank you for thinking of this and posting it. I'm glad to have a different codified way to think about classes in relation to each other.

This thread seems to have gotten a bit "constructive", so maybe I can help balance that out a bit.

Killer Angel

2015-11-15, 03:43 AM

Introduction
The existing Tier system doesn’t take into account what happens when Emperor Tippy builds a wizard in the same party as a 13 year-old builds a fighter.

Doesn't the Tier System suppose the same level of optimization in the party? Am I remembering it wrong? :smallconfused:

xyianth

2015-11-15, 04:05 AM

Doesn't the Tier System suppose the same level of optimization in the party? Am I remembering it wrong? :smallconfused:

Yes, you remember correctly. The point of the tier system was to provide a quick and easy reference for which classes are better played together assuming all players had the same amount of optimization applied. (whether that was none or tippyverse) As a side bonus, it made it somewhat easy to make allowances for players with better optimization skills. You could limit the better optimizers to lower tiers and help achieve a better result overall. I think this thread is just trying to codify those allowances at a finer grain.

rrwoods

2015-11-15, 04:16 AM

... Sort of.

The tier list assumes a specific but unspecified level of optimization. It's useful only if you know what that level of optimization is.

Saying that wizard is tier 1 is going to seriously confuse anyone in optimization grade C, especially completely new players, because their power is so not-apparent when reading only their class description. I'd almost argue that at grade C wizard is tier 4.

Also: the tier system isn't designed to measure how enjoyable a concept is to play; that kind of thing isn't measurable. That doesn't make it useless. That conversation is offtopic for this thread, but I'd argue that knowing what tiers your party mates plan to play CAN increase the enjoyment factor of the game as a whole.

LudicSavant

2015-11-15, 06:37 AM

Saying that wizard is tier 1 is going to seriously confuse anyone in optimization grade C, especially completely new players, because their power is so not-apparent when reading only their class description. I'd almost argue that at grade C wizard is tier 4.

I think this whole system makes the mistake of assuming that newbies, in general, will make the same mistakes and assumptions as each other. This is simply not true in my experience. Not every new player looks at a Cleric and instinctively assumes that their job is to be a healbot and that other things in their toolbox aren't important. Not every new player looks at a Wizard and then doesn't immediately start looking over what these spells he's being granted are. It doesn't require a "build" for someone to just grab Stinking Cloud and start being awesome.

By the same note, players can easily make mistakes with non-casters, too. There was just a thread recently where there was a DM talking about a level 5 character in their party who was only doing a low attack bonus ~1d8 damage hit every round, for example. That's not going to be doing anything in a manticore fight.

Fizban

2015-11-15, 06:37 AM

I also disagree with your ranking of some game elements*, but the idea is good. Rather than focusing on a list of examples which is likely to cause immediate disagreements, I'd lean more towards rrwoods's rephrasing with the examples shifted down or spoilered or something to emphasize a lack of finality. Rank S is exploiting the rules to the max, A is avoiding the worst of S, and B is trying but not super hard. C rank is what I admittedly look down on but seems to be the most common in real life: just doing the obvious. Having a table of those interactions is quite handy, makes it easy to go down the list and see which classes don't change and which do, just needs moar classes.

*Ancestral Relic Runestaff, I don't know what other people are doing with it but I just see it as the sorcerer's answer to the wizard's ability to buy any spell for dirt cheap, and then either make their own custom Runestaff or use some other spontaneous casting trick. If Knowstones exist then sure it looks cheap, but those are dragon mag, and Runestaves have a cast limit that cuts into the sorcerer's "I cast until it works" shtick.

Killer Angel

2015-11-15, 09:00 AM

Melcar

2015-11-15, 09:21 AM

Introduction

I built grade C characters from 2003 until about 2007, when I signed up for the wizards boards out of curiosity.

This is me as well. I have got to say though, that I really dont play A or B characters all the time. Sometimes I get more joy out of C characters, because they seem more "realistic" which is kind of stupid in a high fantasy game, bot there is a more LoTR feeling to C grade characters... Maybe its just me. :smallbiggrin:

tsj

2015-11-15, 11:05 AM

How would a commoner gain unlimited power unless he takes wizard levels and/or uses items that grants wishes?

Is there a guide to system mastery?

I still feel like a newbie even though I have tried to optimize a build for a game many times?

I am still a newbie OP despite obviously having a user account on this forum

nedz

2015-11-15, 11:38 AM

How would a commoner gain unlimited power unless he takes wizard levels and/or uses items that grants wishes?

Pun Pun — though probably not at level 1

Now this does usually involve using Candles of Invocation to grab some wishes, but not directly and there may be other routes.

LudicSavant

2015-11-15, 12:08 PM

Pun Pun — though probably not at level 1

Pun Pun as a level 1 Commoner? Lessee...

Okay, let's take a Human Commoner 1 with 18 int, 4 ranks in Knowledge, skill focus, a masterwork tool (book of relevant knowledge), a 40gp psionic shard, and the Education feat. This is sufficient to know how to summon Pazuzu (you say his name three times).

Do so. Get a wish. Wish for a Candle of Invocation. Summon an Efreet to get 3 wishes. Wish to plane shift to another plane, become a Scaled One native to Toril, and to summon a Sarrukh. Order the Sarrukh to give you Dominate Monster at will, Manipulate Form, and stun immunity. Find something reptilian. Dominate them and give them Manipulate Form. Become Pun Pun.

nedz

2015-11-15, 12:29 PM

Pun Pun as a level 1 Commoner? Lessee...

Okay, let's take a Human Commoner 1 with 18 int, 4 ranks in Knowledge, skill focus, a masterwork tool (book of relevant knowledge), a 40gp psionic shard, and the Education feat. This is sufficient to know how to summon Pazuzu (you say his name three times).

Do so. Get a wish. Wish for a Candle of Invocation. Summon an Efreet to get 3 wishes. Wish to plane shift to another plane, become a Scaled One native to Toril, and to summon a Sarrukh. Order the Sarrukh to give you Dominate Monster at will, Manipulate Form, and stun immunity. Find something reptilian. Dominate them and give them Manipulate Form. Become Pun Pun.

It doesn't surprise me that it can be done at level 1 — I kind of just left the suggestion there as a challenge :smallamused:

I normally view Char OP as having the following levels

Low OP: Pick feats, etc. because they sound cool or have the right flavour for your character
Mid Op: Pick feats, etc. because they give your character some ability
High Op: Pick feats, etc. because they work together synergistically or generate a Combo. No feat is wasted and, ideally, they come together at the same time.
TO: Find some trick or exploit.

Beheld

2015-11-15, 12:51 PM

know how to summon Pazuzu (you say his name three times).

Do so. Get a wish. Wish for a Candle of Invocation.

What is the authority for this? Because Fiendish Codex I doesn't say "and then Pazuzu gives you whatever you wish for" it just says that he helps people in order to make them become dependent on them. Giving people a Candle of Invocation is pretty much the exact opposite of that.

Grek

2015-11-15, 01:04 PM

Ger. Bessa

2015-11-15, 01:24 PM

So, with your responses...

*TO theurge stacking : either progressing other theurges classes or progressing twice the same class. There is no RAW way to do that (no triple-threat thread ever tried to do it). The only things that can be done are Caster Level stacking (because FR have wonky formulation), Legacy champion (just theurge on more levels) and fast progression theurge (Wiz/Urpriest). None of that is strictly stronger than wiz/incantatrix (and those build are more often made for the rule of cool and not played to their full potential). So TO theurge stacking is just rudisplorkery.

*level+25 stats : Ok, this is silly.
*Multipouncing is just Ubercharger up to 11.
*I understand what you mean about free metamagic, and why you put anima mage and incantatrix in the same category (had you read Recaster, you would know that it doesn't allow Persist/Repeat/Twin/Echoing and as such, is far less 'powerful').

Then, the problem with this thread (along the original tiering) is that people will come to the thread to know "what is too powerful for a starting DM" and use it as a banlist even if anyone who write in this thread know that player>build>class.

I want to play a grade C Orochimaru clone.

I'll play a Wizard (Conjurer) (abrupt jaunt) (that's the ninja part)
I'll use Planar Binding on Fiendish big snakes.
I'll make him a changeling recaster to maximize freely the number of smaller snakes I'll summon with Summon Monster.
I'll grab through Recaster Divine Power and another cool spell (Maybe body outside body)
I'll use polymorph as a hydra.

I'll play a gish that will summon (sometimes as a free action) snakes. Not outsiders with SLAs, snakes. Maybe water snakes. I'll have fun with Vipergout and maybe Snake darts (even freely maximized). I'll use that lv1 spell to swap myself with my snakes. No scry and Die, just taxi at most.

How many alarms do I raise ? What if I add Wild/Hidden talent for psionic focus and walking on the walls ? And Incarnum because Azure dodge is better than classic dodge and I'll need it for a later PrC ? Maybe I'll add assassin's stance, it fits a bit. Ancestral Relic for a cool katana (not a runestaff, I'm a wizard) ?

I think it's a really good tool to further understand the potential of classes, but since a class/build/player can be underplayed, it really must not appear as any kind of potential banlist.

Also, give a druid to a newbie, he'll see the BSF charge and 1-shot, will do the same, lose his pet and burn his spells in healing. Even if your build can't be missed, your character can be misplayed. (I loved the posts about the blaster Psion).

xyianth

2015-11-15, 01:44 PM

*TO theurge stacking : either progressing other theurges classes or progressing twice the same class. There is no RAW way to do that (no triple-threat thread ever tried to do it). The only things that can be done are Caster Level stacking (because FR have wonky formulation), Legacy champion (just theurge on more levels) and fast progression theurge (Wiz/Urpriest). None of that is strictly stronger than wiz/incantatrix (and those build are more often made for the rule of cool and not played to their full potential). So TO theurge stacking is just rudisplorkery.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but would you mind citing the RAW bit that prevents both sides of a theurge from applying to the same class? I've looked for it before and never found it, thereby forcing me to set it as a houserule. If I've missed something, I'd love to know.

Troacctid

2015-11-15, 01:54 PM

nedz

2015-11-15, 02:14 PM

I'm not disagreeing with you, but would you mind citing the RAW bit that prevents both sides of a theurge from applying to the same class? I've looked for it before and never found it, thereby forcing me to set it as a houserule. If I've missed something, I'd love to know.

There is no explicit rule, just an implicit interpretation based upon the wording in the Theurge classes themselves.

Theurges advance other spellcasting classes, but don't have spellcasting themselves.

+1 level of existing arcane spellcasting class/
+1 level of existing divine spellcasting class
also

Spells per Day

When a new mystic theurge level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in any one arcane spellcasting class he belonged to before he added the prestige class and any one divine spellcasting class he belonged to previously.
The other interpretation leads to the madness of Theurge stacking.

bekeleven

2015-11-15, 02:57 PM

I get what you're going for, but I feel there are a few issues that you may want to look into. You aren't evaluating system mastery and book access as separate categories, for example. Also, player ability can not only take many sizes, but also many shapes. What one guy finds easy to optimize, another may find difficult, and vice versa. What is high effort / obscure / complex to one person may be low effort / obvious / simple to another, and vice versa. Different players have an easier time with different things.You're correct. I'm taking some things that the original tier system left as constants (class relations in regards to system mastery and book access) and attempting to scale the tiers based on them. In my experience, the two tend to move in concert, at least with R^2=.5 or so. And even if they didn't, making this a 3d system is just overkill in that its enlightenment:comprehension ratio would plummet even further than my 2D table.

Optimization, being related to how easy/hard something is and how the player thinks of it, is mostly based on my personal experience with each class, although I attempted to integrate some of what I saw others do in games I've played.

However, your chart still is tiering classes, and leaving it rather vague what tools, builds, etc they are using to be evaluated as such. What if you tried tiering specific build archetypes? That seems like it would remove a lot of ambiguity regarding what tools are being evaluated, and would make the chart more open to falsifiability (e.g. someone could reasonably come in and say "hey, this build is better than that build")There was a thread ages ago where someone listed a dozen different party roles (tank, DPS, stealth, sage, buffing, movement...) and ranked each class on those. They're all different ways to look at the same play data. The tier system is built to be higher-level.

I like the idea, but I have some objections to the categorization of what behavior makes S, A, B, C, and F. Particularly I disagree on some specifics, but I also disagree with only listing a few examples. I think rrwoods' statement of goals is accurate, but it is also not accurate enough to be useful for specifics. We either need to be looking at a build by build classification or go item by item classifying each with regard to its place on the chart.I may go back and edit that section, but not in the way you mean.

If I can make it clear exactly what attitudes, playstyles and experiences lead to each grade of play, I'll remove the examples altogether. As we all can see, they seem to be more controversial than the rest of the guide. And the point is not intended to be that doing a specific thing breaks the game (see Ludic's fleshraker druid story). It just so happens that those things are quite often done in concert with breaking the game.

Honestly, to me the biggest problem with the Tier system is not that is doesn't tell you who is the strongest at what level of optimization, it is that it doesn't tell you the things you might actually want to know to find out if you would enjoy playing a character.That's a tricky one. My measure of enjoyment when playing a character basically comes down to, "how many relevant or cool things can I do at any point in time?" Sometimes one thing can be relevant and cool (archery optimiation) but something that's super-relevant but not cool just can't entertain me (ubercharging). My favorite base and prestige classes are WS ranger, factotum, chameleon and master of many forms.

Anyway, if you make a guide on class enjoyment I'd read it.

One thing I don't care about even a little bit, is how easy or hard, or even worse, how many different way a class can break the game, which JaronK's tiers loveee to count. If a character can break the game in one way, then it can break the game in every way that matters, because every table gets to break the game only one time before the game is broken. If you already have an infinite shadow army and Glabrezu army, and Wished for a staff of wishes, then you are done, there is no more game to play. And it doesn't matter if you could also use schism to BS yourself to 13 standard actions a turn, because the guy with access to infinite wishes can also just wish to get items that allow him to have lots more standard actions through a variety of means. No one cares how many ways you can break the game (except JaronK).This is a concept Urpriest termed "TO-Complete." The question is: Does a class have a power that allows him to access an expanding list of powers? The classic example is Planar Ally, Wish or Gate.

You've probably seen this rough distillation of the tiers before:

↓Power↓
Flexible
Inflexible

High
1
2

Medium
3
4

Low
5
6

It misses some details but captures the majority of classes in each tier.

I tend to enjoy classes that are flexible, but inflexible classes are frequently easier to play, even if they may require more mastery to build. This is because while a flexible class has a toolbox, a less flexible classes has a really, really big hammer.

Bekeleven, thank you for thinking of this and posting it. I'm glad to have a different codified way to think about classes in relation to each other.Thanks for the kind words.

Saying that wizard is tier 1 is going to seriously confuse anyone in optimization grade C, especially completely new players, because their power is so not-apparent when reading only their class description. I'd almost argue that at grade C wizard is tier 4. I spent a lot of time on wizard. Like I said in the wizard writeup, they will choose some spells (Invisibility, Fly, and Teleport being high-visibility classics) that bypass some encounters purely by chance. This happened to me and my party mates when 3.5 was released. We didn't always think to use them as such (See: that text I keep centering) but sometimes we did, and the DM would just shuffle the NPC sheets to the bottom of the pile as we walked or flew by the gnoll encampment or whatever.

However, a wizard that doesn't take these spells (or doesn't think to use them) is tier 4. A wizard that takes many of these spells and uses them in conjunction with his blasting mainstays might be tier 3. I waffled between those three tiers for grade C, and decided that most wizards would probably be solving some encounters mechanically - even if that means a lot less than it does at grade A.

This is me as well. I have got to say though, that I really dont play A or B characters all the time. Sometimes I get more joy out of C characters, because they seem more "realistic" which is kind of stupid in a high fantasy game, bot there is a more LoTR feeling to C grade characters... Maybe its just me. :smallbiggrin:Yeah, grade C is gameplay as the designers intended. It's taking the mechanics of the game wholesale with the assumptions.

I'm going to point out the same thing I point out every time someone talks about making a new tiering system:

Tier should not be based on class, it should be based on build.It should also separate system mastery and book access. I'll give you another we've brought up: It should also separate play complexity from build complexity.

Since, here, let me indulge myself

Player > Build > Class
you end up with this weird situation where the single-classed TWF ranger is more effective in most situations than the druid, even though both characters were build by the DM, because it's played by Emperor Tippy. So to recap, you can take a class, take that class's build, list book access, say the optimization grade of the build, then say the system mastery of the player (on one or more axes), and by the end, the reader is too confused to learn anything.

Everything designed to explain must make some assumptions.

IIRC, it's not that there's a rule forbidding it, it's that there simply don't exist any theurge classes whose specific wording would permit it.I can't find it now, but I once had a multipage argument on these forums over what counts as a "spellcasting class." Guess what: The rules don't actually clarify. I argued that it was any class with its own casting progression, but funny enough, I seem to recall even that interpretation ran into some rules snafu.

So that's why I had someone using arcane heirophant to advance his mystic theurge and his urpriest casting, then dipping wizard and advancing mystic theurge and wizard with ultimate magus. Or whatever the build was.

xyianth

2015-11-15, 03:52 PM

There is no explicit rule, just an implicit interpretation based upon the wording in the Theurge classes themselves.

Theurges advance other spellcasting classes, but don't have spellcasting themselves.

also

The other interpretation leads to the madness of Theurge stacking.

I was actually referring to the use of mystic theurge to double advance a sha'ir, an anyspell cleric, or a favored soul of bahamut/tiamat. Those base spellcasting classes are capable of casting both arcane and divine spells by themselves. The wording of mystic theurge is that you gain a level in one arcane casting class and one divine casting class. Nothing requires those to be different classes as far as I can tell. This is what I changed with a houserule.

bekeleven's multipage discussion aside, I am of the opinion that "prestige classes that advance casting do not count as casting classes" is RAW. Therefore, I am not so concerned with using a arcane hierophant to advance mystic theurge. Any attempts to do so can be quickly and easily resolved with a swift DMG thrown to the face.

Beheld

2015-11-15, 03:57 PM

That's a tricky one. My measure of enjoyment when playing a character basically comes down to, "how many relevant or cool things can I do at any point in time?" Sometimes one thing can be relevant and cool (archery optimiation) but something that's super-relevant but not cool just can't entertain me (ubercharging). My favorite base and prestige classes are WS ranger, factotum, chameleon and master of many forms.

I wasn't talking about an enjoyment tier. Enjoyment is subjective. But to know whether a class is easy or hard to build, or easy or hard to play, is more useful than saying "if you hit some specific level of optimization that may be easy or hard to hit, and then play in a specific way that may be easy or hard to do you will be X tier!"

Anyway, if you make a guide on class enjoyment I'd read it.
This is a concept Urpriest termed "TO-Complete." The question is: Does a class have a power that allows him to access an expanding list of powers? The classic example is Planar Ally, Wish or Gate.

You've probably seen this rough distillation of the tiers before:

↓Power↓
Flexible
Inflexible

High
1
2

Medium
3
4

Low
5
6

It misses some details but captures the majority of classes in each tier.

I tend to enjoy classes that are flexible, but inflexible classes are frequently easier to play, even if they may require more mastery to build. This is because while a flexible class has a toolbox, a less flexible classes has a really, really big hammer.

I have not seen that before, nor does it make any sense at all. Dread Necros are as high powered as Wizards, but less flexible in build because they only have the same 5 ways to break the game plus whatever they invest more than a Wizard in getting. Beguilers are as high powered as Wizards, assuming game breaking cheese is banned, or maybe just as good with gamebreaking cheese because they can still be Shadocraft Mages. The Sorcerer class has access to every single broken thing the Wizard has, and also it's whole completely different set of broken things.

And this is my point, by trying to talk about tiers without recognizing the fundamental difference between play and build, you are basically talking the same nonsense as every other tier system that ignores those things.

The Beguiler is more flexible than the Wizard in play, and probably at least as powerful. Sorcerer is extremely inflexible once built, but is much more flexible than the Beguiler in build. These distinctions are important, and by trying to characterize things without recognizing them you do a disservice to literally anything you have to say.

Troacctid

2015-11-15, 04:34 PM

I was actually referring to the use of mystic theurge to double advance a sha'ir, an anyspell cleric, or a favored soul of bahamut/tiamat. Those base spellcasting classes are capable of casting both arcane and divine spells by themselves. The wording of mystic theurge is that you gain a level in one arcane casting class and one divine casting class. Nothing requires those to be different classes as far as I can tell. This is what I changed with a houserule.

That's what I was referring to as well. The specific wording of Mystic Theurge is:

When a new mystic theurge level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in any one arcane spellcasting class he belonged to before he added the prestige class and any one divine spellcasting class he belonged to previously. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. This essentially means that he adds the level of mystic theurge to the level of whatever other arcane spellcasting class and divine spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day and caster level accordingly.
Sha'ir is both an arcane spellcasting class you belonged to before you added the prestige class and a divine spellcasting class you belonged to previously. So if that's your only casting class, when you take a level of Mystic Theurge, you gain new spells per day as if you had also gained a level in Sha'ir. This essentially means you add your Mystic Theurge level to your Sha'ir level when determining spells per day.

Talakeal

2015-11-15, 04:37 PM

You might want to add a few more tiers.

I personally am considered to be my groups resident power gamer and I would never pull half the stuff in group B. That doesn't mean I choose trap options though; there is a heck of a gulf between an uber-charger and a guy who dual wields bastard swords.

Also, why use S when you are not using D?

nedz

2015-11-15, 05:35 PM

Story

2015-11-15, 05:39 PM

Warlock 1/ Binder 1/Marshal 1. I can automatically turn a hostile creature friendly in a single round, and am only about 6 points off of reaching Helpful (which can easily be managed through Item Familiar or Custom +skill items, both legal at that tier of play).

If you go all out on Diplomacy optimization, you can do it as just a Marshal 1/Binder 1, and hit Hostile -> Friendly every round all day, without spells/invocations/etc. I made a thread about this a while back. You can probably do Hostile->Helpful at level 2, but I was 1 point short when I tried it.

I was actually referring to the use of mystic theurge to double advance a sha'ir, an anyspell cleric, or a favored soul of bahamut/tiamat. Those base spellcasting classes are capable of casting both arcane and divine spells by themselves. The wording of mystic theurge is that you gain a level in one arcane casting class and one divine casting class. Nothing requires those to be different classes as far as I can tell. This is what I changed with a houserule.

You don't need to houserule it per se, since the rules are ambiguous here. After all, gaining a single level is consistent with the phrasing (you gain 1 level in an X class and gain 1 level in an Y class). Did you gain a level in an X class? Check. Did you gain a level in a Y class? Check. When the RAW can be plausibly interpreted in multiple ways and one of those ways is not broken, it makes sense to use that interpretation.

Beguilers are as high powered as Wizards, assuming game breaking cheese is banned,

I'm not really sure what you mean here unless you either A) define "game breaking cheese" as anything a Wizard can do that a Beguiler can't, or B) allow Versatile Spellcaster/Rainbow Servant cheese, at which point everybody is equally broken.

The Wizard spell list is simply MUCH better than the Beguiler list. Even if you take out all the obviously broken spells, the Wizard will still get better spells that are useful in more situations, especially after level 5.

A: Top Practical Optimization (Top PO)
Top PO is the grade of character that I build when I’m told to optimize hard and I know the other players have decent system mastery. I almost never build full casters at this tier; I prefer to tweak a martial build all to hell instead. Top PO takes advantage of a lot of tricks, but the tiers are actually visible because you’re somewhat limited by your chassis and class features.
Here’s an idea of what I mean by top PO:

Custom skill-increasing items
Item Familiars (minus XP boost)
Metamagic Reduction (besides DMM abuse, Incantatrix’s Metamagic Effect, and similar)
Enhance Wild Shape, Polymorph, and some Shapechange
A Knowstone or two or 46
7th+ level Chameleon spell slots
A stat above level+25, particularly mental stats

I contest the inclusion of Polymorph, because unlike the others, it's an ordinary spell right there in the PHB, broken even if used as intended. The thing is that you need to have some level of system mastery just to know what is broken and what isn't. A lot of low-op groups will assume that anything in the PHB is ok.

I recall a story posted here a while back by a newbie playing a low op Sorcerer. Then when they reached level 8, they saw the description of Polymorph, said hey that looks cool, thumbed through the MM a bit to look for powerful forms, and broke the game, completely on accident.

TheifofZ

2015-11-15, 06:37 PM

rrwoods

2015-11-15, 07:08 PM

Beheld

2015-11-15, 07:13 PM

I'm not really sure what you mean here unless you either A) define "game breaking cheese" as anything a Wizard can do that a Beguiler can't, or B) allow Versatile Spellcaster/Rainbow Servant cheese, at which point everybody is equally broken.

The Wizard spell list is simply MUCH better than the Beguiler list. Even if you take out all the obviously broken spells, the Wizard will still get better spells that are useful in more situations, especially after level 5.

The Beguiler gets more spells useful in more situation because he spontaneously casts off his entire list He can and will spend PrC levels and feats expanding his spell list. When a Beguiler has every single spell that a Wizard prepares that day on his class list (or emulates another class list with his rune staff) he can also have a bunch of other things to do. Whether those things are being a Shadowcraft Mage and having the entire Conjuration and Evocation Wizard list spontaneously at his disposal, taking levels of a class that grants domains and then follows up by adding the entire Cleric list to his spontaneous casting list, or if he "only" takes Arcane Disciple feats for some great domain spells that don't rely on saving throws, and then takes a bunch of PrCs that all grant a domain or two in very few levels to get a bunch more domains worth of good spells, and go from there.

I mean, at level 1, Wizards are preparing silent image, Color Spray, and Sleep, and the Beguiler is casting from those spontaneously and also a bunch of other utility spells. At level 4 when the Wizard is preparing Glitterdust and Web, the Beguiler only has Glitterdust and eleven utility spells, and some other spell like Shadow Spray, and whatever domains he has access to. And then at level 6, when the Wizard is casting Stinking Cloud you have to settle for Deep Slumber, Dispel Magic, Hesitate, and Slow for your spontaneous casting, also eight really solid utility spells, and rely on your undead army from your Arcane Disciple Undeath to make up the difference. Or perhaps you have Arcane Disciple Cold and you cast Sleet Storm, or perhaps you took Arcane Disciple Earth because your DM lets you abuse Stone Shape as a no save kill spell, or perhaps you have Arcane Disciple Travel, and you can fly, or perhaps you used a background to get knowledge religion as a class skill at level 1 and you worship a weird god, and you have all three of those and the Oracle domain from your level in Divine Oracle, and you have plans to enter Rainbow Servant next level to get the Good Domain.

The point is that whatever the best spells are, the Beguiler is going to spend effort to get them on his class list, and then he is going to cast them spontaneously. So if the best spells are Animate Dead, because your DM allows you to undead cheese, then he will get that before the Wizard, and if the best spells are save or dies because your DM hates when you use minions, then you start with a bunch of save or dies, and work as many more onto your list as you can, which is all the best ones.

Also, I seriously question how taking levels in Rainbow Servant is somehow equivalent to letting everyone wish up belts of +900000 Magnificence from your local candle of invocation store.

rrwoods

2015-11-15, 08:14 PM

Useful distinction, possibly helpful for refining definitions of grades:

The beguiler can and will choose those PrCs at optimization grade B. I'd argue a grade C player may be fine staying in beguiler to 20. Discuss?

Maybe Beguiler is A1/B2-3/C3? (I'm not familiar enough with the class to say, this could be way off.)

Story

2015-11-15, 08:53 PM

xyianth

2015-11-15, 09:14 PM

The point is that whatever the best spells are, the Beguiler is going to spend effort to get them on his class list, and then he is going to cast them spontaneously. So if the best spells are Animate Dead, because your DM allows you to undead cheese, then he will get that before the Wizard, and if the best spells are save or dies because your DM hates when you use minions, then you start with a bunch of save or dies, and work as many more onto your list as you can, which is all the best ones.

Also, I seriously question how taking levels in Rainbow Servant is somehow equivalent to letting everyone wish up belts of +900000 Magnificence from your local candle of invocation store.

I'm really trying to understand your point here, but I am utterly failing. I think you are arguing that spontaneous>prepared but I don't see exactly why. The arcane disciple comment is, quite frankly, nonsense. Both wizards and beguilers can take that feat and both would be limited to casting any spell they learn from it 1/day. Even if we assume that spending feats/prestige class levels on expanding your spell list is something all players would do, both wizards and beguilers can do so equally. But wizards get access to higher spell levels earlier and can continue to expand their spell list without spending levels or feats.

Rainbow Servant is +2 tiers because it grants the ability to cast all cleric spells. Clerics are tier 1 because of their spells. Gaining those spells makes you tier 1 as well. I have no idea where +900000 belts of magnificence came from, but cleric spell access means access to the planar binding line. If you want to start an infinite wish chain, you can.

Beheld

2015-11-15, 09:56 PM

If you're optimizing the Beguiler to that level, (rather than the newbie friendly Beguiler 20), then the Wizard is almost certainly going to be using Uncanny Forethought. Or if EoE is not available for some reason, than at least Alacritous Cogitation and probably Spontaneous Divination.

If you are optimizing the Beguiler to the level of taking any feats or PrCs at all, then all Wizards spend two feats to be a ****ty version of a Beguiler (and presumably use retroactive retraining every level to be slightly less ****ty version of a Beguiler). Sure whatever. Never seen a Beguiler who didn't take feats and PrC, never seen a Wizard who took that feat, but whatever.

Also, keep in mind that spontaneity is only an advantage for combat spells and spells that you need on the fly. A Wizard can prepare any empty spell slot in 15 minutes, which is enough to cover most utility needs, and battles where you know they're coming in advance.

Spontaneity is useful for all kinds of spells. For example, I have never seen a Wizard in my life who left more than 2 spell slots open who didn't have either Uncanny Forethought or Alacritious Cognition, because generally speaking, you know what spells you want and need, and you prepare and cast them, and leaving spell slots open means you have to wait 15 minutes, which could be a long time for no reason, you can usually guess how many times you are going to TP in a day, so why set it up so you might not have it when you need it. And then, when the day comes around where you need two teleports and something else, or three teleports, you are just sort of sad. The truth is that having all your utility be spontaneous is incredibly useful because it means you don't have to be an int 34 genius who predicts exactly how many slots of what levels you are going to need for utility spells over the course of a day.

Also, Shadow Conjuration is barely a substitute for the real thing, because it suffers from spell resistance, unlike real Conjuration spells. Not to mention being weaker and higher level.

Shadow Conjuration not useless, but was only talking about emulating entire conjuration and evocation schools if you are in fact a Shadowcraft Mage.

I'll grant you that Beguilers have a good list of 1st and 2nd level spells, which is why I mentioned that the disparity only really becomes clear at higher levels.

Yes, disparity only exists after Beguilers have multiple class features and feats spent vastly expanding their spell list and have easily affordable runestaves to negate advantage. I agree.

It's also curious that you avoid mentioning most of the Wizards best spells. At level 3, they get Stinking Cloud, but they also get Haste, Shrink Item, and Heart of Water, just off the top of my head. At level 4, it's not even a contest any more. Even if Polymorph and Celerity are banned, you still have all sorts of stuff - Dimension Door, Black Tentacles, Orb of Fire... And Wizards can get hundreds of other less famous spells if they care to. And they can do it without investing any permanent character resources, whereas the Beguiler struggles to get even a few good spells onto its list.

Because Shrink Item is useless at level 3, Beguilers get Haste on their spontaneous list, and Beguilers get Freedom of Movement on their list, mostly negating the advantage of Heart of Water. Nor is Heart of Water a particularly good use of 3 level slots at level 5.

At level 4, Orb of Fire really not that great a spell, but we are well past the point where Beguilers can afford runestaves if they want, and could also cast that, though I would personally prefer Burning Blood to Orb of Fire. If I were a Beguiler I would put that and Moon Bolt in a Runestaff. Dimension Door is something that Beguilers have access to so easy that it might as well be on their list. Evard's Black Tentacles is a 3rd level spell on the Blackwater domain, so you can stick that in the runestaff and cast it out of lower level slots. Or you can get the blackwater domain, but honestly, the blackwater domain isn't very good outside of that one spell, where Travel, Cold, and Undeath all are, so I prefer to put EBT in a runestaff as a third level spell, and not cast it at level 6, even though I could.

And that's the point, you call even the most obvious and simple expansion of their spell list evil TO, while at the same time crowing about these great spells that really aren't much greater than the Solid Fog, Freedom of Movement, Greater Mirror Image, and Confusion that they are already getting in addition to their at this level 3-8 domains.

Oh, you need to teleport? That's cute. The Wizard gets a variety of teleportation spells right in the PHB (newbie level opt) whereas the Beguiler has to go book diving just to get a single less useful teleport spell.

Oh, I already have spontaneous Dimension Door at (spell) level 4, Spontaneous Teleport at level 5, and Spontaneous Greater Teleport at level 7 with the build I just gave you in the post that you are now mocking for not having teleport.

And all that stuff about Arcane Disciple? You're limited to one. Hope you choose wisely. Also, it makes you a bit MAD for Wisdom.

I look forward to my ban for saying this, but this is the text of the feat: "Special: You can take this feat more than once. Each time, you must select a different domain available to the same deity you chose the first time you selected the feat."

You very specifically can add a whole bunch of spells to you class list, and the primary limiter is finding a god who is all about traveling in the cold, or traveling in the water.

Tell me more about how the Beguiler gets any non-will saves at high levels. Sure you can maybe get a few with Arcane Disciple or whatever, but it takes a great deal of effort and character building resources to do something that a newbie opt Wizard gets for free (well for scribing costs anyway).

Okay, you are a Beguiler, you are not an idiot, so you buy a Runestaff that includes Flesh to Ice or Glass Strike depending on your level, to go with your no save effects like Solid Fog, and Wall of Ice, and Dominated Monsters, and Undead Minions, and Silent Image. Or, depending on level and build, you might just cast something off the entire Cleric List. Also you can take a level in Contemplative to get the Gluttony Domain at level 10-11.

I never said anything about Candle of Invocations. It doesn't take much cheese for a Wizard to break the game, and by the point you're allowing Rainbow Warsnakes, the Wizards are doing equally silly stuff. At that level, class distinctions start to break down.

You said everyone was the same. Since most classes are not the same at the level of allowing spellcasters to take Prestige classes, I compared the thing you claim is the most TO thing in the universe: The beguiler taking a prestige class. With something that actually created the situation you claimed that creates.

I'm really trying to understand your point here, but I am utterly failing. I think you are arguing that spontaneous>prepared but I don't see exactly why.

Spontaneous is objectively better than prepared if you are casting the same spells under either system. The usual reason that Prepared is better is because Sorcerers and Favored Souls are arbitrarily kicked in the balls with really small lists of spells to cast from. Beguilers who expand their spell list have a wide enough range spells to be as good as Wizards because they will have enough spells to choose from that sometimes occasionally having slightly worse spells will be accounted for by the breadth of available spontaneous casting.

The arcane disciple comment is, quite frankly, nonsense. Both wizards and beguilers can take that feat and both would be limited to casting any spell they learn from it 1/day.

1) If Wizard's take the feat, they gain the ability to prepare those spells, which is objectively worse than adding them to the list of spells they can be spontaneously cast from.

2) Beguilers are not limited to casting once per day, because the spells are added to their class list as a separate statement then the one saying that they can be added as learned spells, and the casting limit is plausibly attached only to the spells limited. It is certainly an open question, but in either case, having them spontaneously is objectively superior.

Even if we assume that spending feats/prestige class levels on expanding your spell list is something all players would do, both wizards and beguilers can do so equally.

Expanding the list of spells you can prepare does very little. Expanding the list of spells you can cast spontaneously from does a lot.

Rainbow Servant is +2 tiers because it grants the ability to cast all cleric spells. Clerics are tier 1 because of their spells. Gaining those spells makes you tier 1 as well. I have no idea where +900000 belts of magnificence came from, but cleric spell access means access to the planar binding line. If you want to start an infinite wish chain, you can.

1) Planar Binding isn't on the Cleric list, it is on the Wizard list, and the Dread Necro list.

2) Beguilers are already Tier 1, because the Beguiler list is Tier 1 because of their spells, because the Tiers make no sense. The fact that there exists a readily available prestige class designed to expand the class list of a class that casts off it's class list means that classes that cast off their class list can, if they choose, get access to a wider spell list. That is what things like Divine Oracle and Contemplative mean too. Saying that "Beguilers are ****, because I personally ban them taking prestige classes that expand their list" is silly. Also, you do know that games below level 20 exist right? The main advantage to Rainbow Servant is that you get domains every few levels, like the Air Domain, which is really good to spontaneously cast from with a good saving throw (as opposed to travel which is just as good without the saving throw). Yeah, the whole Cleric list is a great capstone that you hardly ever see, but getting the Air Domain early on can be really good.

rrwoods

2015-11-15, 10:02 PM

Can we move the wizard/beguiler competition to another thread? Unless it's related to nailing down how to specify grade distinctions, which right now I don't believe it is.

LudicSavant

2015-11-15, 10:28 PM

You're correct. I'm taking some things that the original tier system left as constants (class relations in regards to system mastery and book access) and attempting to scale the tiers based on them. In my experience, the two tend to move in concert, at least with R^2=.5 or so. And even if they didn't, making this a 3d system is just overkill in that its enlightenment:comprehension ratio would plummet even further than my 2D table. They aren't moving in concert on your tier list, however. For instance, diplomacy optimization and custom skill items and such get placed in S-class by you, and yet that's core only stuff that I see newbie groups use (My personal experience is that such things are actually less likely to be allowed or used in more experienced groups).

A C-class Sorcerer is tier 4. Why is this? I mean, it takes effort to make a Paladin that outperforms a core Sorcerer that didn't do anything more complicated than "took Stinking Cloud at level 6." What makes them the same tier?

Optimization, being related to how easy/hard something is and how the player thinks of it, is mostly based on my personal experience with each class And that's the rub, I think. I suspect you're charting your personal evolution as an optimizer rather than saying something generally applicable. Not everyone went through the same learning arc.

I personally had more difficulty building "mundane" characters in my early days than I had making Clerics and Sorcerers. My very first character, for example, was a Sorcerer. Said sorcerer took Color Spray at level 1. They had Stinking Cloud at level 6. I was not particularly trying to optimize, I just picked whatever looked good on my first read-through of the book. In my very first game of 3e, I was the most powerful character in a party of more experienced players who were using supplements and such.

Same went for my first Cleric. It didn't take system mastery or supplement access to simply not assume that my only purpose in life was to heal things. I mean, I saw other spells on the list. And if we're going by "just went with what looked cool and interesting" then "Command," "Cause Fear," and "Protection from Evil" all sounded more interesting to me than "Cure Light Wounds." In the case of a Cleric, a lack of gaming experience might even help in avoiding the healbot bias; I think people bring in that assumption from their experience with other games.

For one of the PHB's full BAB classes, on the other hand, I had to worry more about prerequisites, feat trees, combos to keep my vertical scaling relevant, high opportunity cost itemization, locking myself into fighting style choices (like "tripper" or "greatsword charger" or "archer"), rules for moving on slopes or firing into grapples or charging on hewn stone, etc. And with only PHB access I wasn't pulling out stuff that competed with Stinking Cloud as a Barbarian.

The places you draw the lines between optimization categories for different classes just all seems very vague and subjective to me.

Ifni

2015-11-15, 11:10 PM

A C-class Sorcerer is tier 4. Why is this? I mean, it takes effort to make a Paladin that outperforms a core Sorcerer that didn't do anything more complicated than "took Stinking Cloud at level 5." What makes them the same tier?

C-class sorcerers don't get Stinking Cloud until L6, and are also probably more likely to take Fireball :smallwink:

I was nostalgically amused reading the OP, just because when I used to play Living Greyhawk (i.e. episodic games, your group can change for every game), there was so much variation in optimization level. I've seen a L15 druid who spent the game sulking about being useless. I've played with a L7 wizard whose preferred tactic in combats was to use his CL1 Wand of Magic Missile, and thus was regularly outshone by the multiclass bard/wizard/sorcerer/rogue (yes, really).

(The wizard barely had any known spells, just the ones from leveling up, because he was so worried about wasting money that he insisted on waiting to scribe spells until he could craft a Boccob's Blessed Book. Furthermore, because he had plans involving scribing spells from other PC wizards, for his free level-up spells he had chosen exclusively spells that none of the other wizards used, generally because they were dreadful.)

I personally had more difficulty building "mundane" characters in my early days than I had making Clerics and Sorcerers. My very first character, for example, was a Sorcerer. Said sorcerer took Color Spray at level 1. They had Stinking Cloud at level 5.

You mean L6, right?

I was not particularly trying to optimize, I just picked whatever looked good on my first read-through of the book. In my very first game of 3e, I was the most powerful character in a party of more experienced players who were using supplements and such.

Yeah, I was the first person in my group to notice how nasty Evard's Black Tentacles was; it only took a couple of games after my sorcerer hit L8 for everyone to be convinced :smallwink: Low-op games tend to be swingy that way.

(The same group, however, was originally convinced that strength-oriented monks were completely overpowered, after watching Improved Grapple Half-Orc Guy stomp over most encounters for the first few levels :smallwink:)

LudicSavant

2015-11-15, 11:14 PM

You mean L6, right?

Yes. Silly me. :smallredface:

Point is, it was the first level 3 spell my very first Sorcerer took.

C-class sorcerers don't get Stinking Cloud until L6, and are also probably more likely to take Fireball :smallwink:

I don't know how you're evaluating that they're more likely to take Fireball. I mean, I didn't take Fireball. That's what I mean when I say it just seems very subjective. But even if that's what they took, they're dealing out a minimum of 6d6 base fire damage in a 40 foot area.

That's 21 average damage, 10.5 if they save, multiplied by the number of targets hit. No attack roll needed to deal some damage. Can take out a horde of orc skeletons with falchions outright. Contrast some of the martial characters I've seen mentioned in recent threads around that level (such as a Ranger who just threw out two 1d8+1 attacks with a low attack bonus every round). Even if both attacks hit (at a level where enemies have an average of 19 AC according to the CharOp Combat Benchmarks tables), that's 11 average damage to one target. Fireball is doing that if the enemy saves, and it's doing it to multiple enemies and ignoring DR.

Troacctid

2015-11-15, 11:17 PM

C-class sorcerers don't get Stinking Cloud until L6, and are also probably more likely to take Fireball :smallwink:

Okay. A Sorcerer who takes Fireball at level 6 still easily outperforms a Paladin in C-class. You're attacking with a longsword for 1d8+4 damage against one guy, with a chance of missing and dealing no damage. I'm attacking with a fireball for 6d6 damage against all the guys, with a chance of missing and dealing half damage.

bekeleven

2015-11-15, 11:27 PM

Can we move the wizard/beguiler competition to another thread? Unless it's related to nailing down how to specify grade distinctions, which right now I don't believe it is.Some people really like arguing beguilers are better than wizards (this isn't even the first time I've seen in on these forums this year). I do wish they wouldn't bring it up in my threads, though.

They aren't moving in concert on your tier list, however. For instance, diplomacy optimization and custom skill items and such get placed in S-class by you, and yet that's core only stuff that I see newbie groups use (My personal experience is that such things are actually less likely to be allowed or used in more experienced groups).I actually built a character in the waybackwhen of '05-'06 that had +20 to diplomacy at level 2. (Half-elf bard). I even used it on one session. The DM's response was, since he hadn't ever really read the diplomacy rules, to say "well, the king's long years of experience run contrary" or "the merchant thinks you might be telling the truth about the portal, but he has kids to feed." Basically, optimization which can be asserted without system mastery can be dismissed without system mastery. Try omniscifier or the D2 crusader in one of these less-enfranchised groups. You won't get "you win," you'll get "stop messing around and play" (or, "let's ban crusaders").

This isn't always true. I remember seeing the story about the sorcerer polymorphing into the ravid. In my group we had one guy try to polymorph, the rules were super-complicated, we messed up all his stats, and then we never used polymorph again. Sort of like Vadania, whose playtester build a scimitar throwing build because wild shape was too many numbers. (Yes, really, that's who you have to blame for druid balance.)

And that's the rub, I think. I suspect you're charting your personal evolution as an optimizer rather than saying something generally applicable. Not everyone went through the same learning arc.If you make an objective measure of system mastery, please, write it up and I will revise my tier gradings to reflect it. My experience was even when we stumbled on powerful spells by chance, we lacked understanding of things GITP takes for granted, like action economy, "the first and most important touchstone of optimization."*So we would use the fireball over the solid fog because the goal is to get enemy health to 0, fireball moved you along the axis to victory, solid fog did squat.

Is this universal? Well, no, but I was in multiple groups in my Grade-C days and we all felt the same with regards to crowd control. Maybe it was just more satisfying to roll damage dice. Maybe we felt that it played closer to lord of the rings. Who knows.*-Person_Man

stanprollyright

2015-11-15, 11:28 PM

This thread is silly. There are simply too many variables, and they're all entirely subjective. Player skill (in general), build optimization, player skill (with the build they're playing), book access (which can be irrelevant or all-important), multiclassing (since that's part of build optimization). So yeah, those are your variables. Now, how do you define a skilled player? What constitutes an "optimized" build? At what point does the game "break"? The answers are different for everyone.

The original tier system had clearly defined goals and variables. Goal: A tool for DMs to reduce players overshadowing each other. Variables: Power, as defined by the mechanical ability to solve encounters efficiently. Versatility, as defined by the number of different encounters that a character can solve with mechanical abilities.

LudicSavant

2015-11-15, 11:34 PM

If you make an objective measure of system mastery, please, write it up

What I am saying is that it would be beneficial for you to try to isolate some of the variables if you want to do a comparison that has weight.

Right now it seems like you're kinda rolling all of these diverse factors together in a way that's specific to your own personal evolution on several axes... system mastery, mechanic preference, supplement access, table rules, prestige classes, specific build choice, etc.

Story

2015-11-15, 11:39 PM

Some people really like arguing beguilers are better than wizards (this isn't even the first time I've seen in on these forums this year). I do wish they wouldn't bring it up in my threads, though.

I created a new thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?459442-Beguiler-vs-Wizard) to continue the discussion in case anyone is interested.

Beheld

2015-11-15, 11:46 PM

Some people really like arguing beguilers are better than wizards

Except the whole thing where no one was arguing that.

Fizban

2015-11-16, 12:01 AM

I suspect you're charting your personal evolution as an optimizer rather than saying something generally applicable. Not everyone went through the same learning arc.
While I pretty much agree with it. Looking back on my evolution a while ago, as well as that of a friend who joined the hobby later than me, I noticed a pattern that I think could apply broadly to players of the same mindset.

You start out wanting spellcasters because duh, magic! (straight mundane characters were not considered in the first place). Then as you get better and learn to do more with less and want to also just bash things you move to gishes. After a while you're less interested in magic because it's all the same and move from gishes to super complex whatsit builds which may or may not include magic, often trying to make underpowered stuff work or intentionally de-powering overpowered stuff (that's where my friend was). Then you reach the point where you've seen all the major builds and they don't really mean anything anymore, so you just move on to homebrew that skips the hassle and just does what you want (where I am).

I think this is reflected in others as well, the evolution of the options/combo minded player. As for weather it's clouding the the ranking system, I think your experience is more subjective here, Ludic. In my experience it's been fairly rare to find players even willing to look at more spells in the PHB than fireball/cure wounds, the books outright suggest that sorcerer=blaster and clerics are given spontaneous healing because the game assumes you're gonna be doing that. Assuming that an "as intended" Cleric or Sorcerer will be slinging Command, Color Spray, or Stinking Cloud is the stretch. You mention that people bring in their experience from other games: yes, yes they do, and it's pretty hard to find someone without any prior assumptions from roleplaying/video games/literature/movies/any other media ever, who is also willing to do the research and realize they can do more than what the book intro told them to. The C ranking is for people who did not do the research (where research means: read the books, or even one book through).

Endarire

2015-11-16, 02:12 AM

bek: May we get your responses copied into the original posts for ease of reference?

ryu

2015-11-16, 02:39 AM

I think that far too many people on the forums have forgotten the simple joy of not trying to be the best thing ever.
I am fully capable of playing A grade characters that dabble in munchkinry and so on. I don't enjoy it much, though.
I play D&D to escape from the world for awhile and derp around with my friends, not to dig through books to find loopholes and crunch numbers to the dozenth decimal point.
I know I can never go back to the days where cobbling together a strange build to get, say, 6 attacks on a fighter without TWF was impressive, but I can at least willfully avoid the really heavy stuff.

Remember: Just because you can, doesn't mean you have to. And that if every problem you face in a 3.5e D&D game must involve pulling 5 different obscure rules together to overcome it than you would make a fine lawyer, but I don't think I want to play with you at the table.

Also: 5e is a whole different world from 3.5e. Most of my friends complain because there aren't enough customization options, but I like how clean it is right now.
Personally, I've enjoyed the little of it I've played far more than the last few years of 3.5 that I've partaken of, just because most of the guys in the 3.5 group do like to play it in top PO.

Okay first off no. A lot of people who play at a high level of power are not playing for dominance or to make the best thing ever. We just have a natural knack for complex systems and don't want to actively hamper our own abilities. You speak of playing at a highly complex level of power as if it's some burden that we carry for the sake of power. In reality it's quite the opposite. The natural state of mind for me and quite a few people when reading any given option is to ask what can be done with the option and how it compares to other options with the same or similar costs. We then pick the option which we evaluate as most useful. Going out of our way to deliberately pick options that are not just suboptimal, but so drastically below the usefulness of the cloud of ''good'' options that they never entered serious consideration for use after evaluation feels bad. It feels like entering into a race only to deliberately take the far outside of the track at all times to maximize the amount of distance needed to keep up with the pack let alone win. To put this in a non-competitive light because everyone at the table is ostensibly working towards the same goal? It's like entering into a team sports event and deliberately playing badly so your teammates look better by comparison.

LudicSavant

2015-11-16, 03:43 AM

Okay first off no. A lot of people who play at a high level of power are not playing for dominance or to make the best thing ever.

Echoing this. In fact, the highest powered groups I've been in were made up of people who were just picking whatever looked cool and fit their desired flavor, because the people in said groups had the optimization skill to make just about anything really strong.

You can't even really have the "try your hardest to optimize" mentality past a certain skill threshold (e.g. the threshold where you are aware of pretty much anything from the Campaign Smashers list and know how to use it). Nobody is actually playing Pun Pun, even if they are more than capable of building such characters via 100 different means. Everyone past a given skill level is intentionally limiting themselves.

nedz

2015-11-16, 06:33 AM

Echoing this. In fact, the highest powered groups I've been in were made up of people who were just picking whatever looked cool and fit their desired flavor, because the people in said groups had the optimization skill to make just about anything really strong.

You can't even really have the "try your hardest to optimize" mentality past a certain skill threshold (e.g. the threshold where you are aware of pretty much anything from the Campaign Smashers list and know how to use it). Nobody is actually playing Pun Pun, even if they are more than capable of building such characters via 100 different means. Everyone past a given skill level is intentionally limiting themselves.

this

What I tend to do is build a character which will be competitive with, but not outshine, the other characters in the party. I also try to ensure all party threats exist and I like multi-threat characters.

E.g. In one game: I knew one player was going for a Druid (solid tactical player, Mid Op builder), another for a Barbarian/Sorcerer (fairly solid tactical player, Mid-High Op builder) so I went for a High Op Beguiler (not RS) which I thought would compliment and balance the party. I also picked Arcane Disciple (Healing) partly so I could pose as a Cleric, and partly because the Barb/Sorc player wanted a secondary healer in the group and I wanted to free him for taking that role upon himself.

What grade of Optimisation is this ?

Fizban

2015-11-16, 07:29 AM

To put this in a non-competitive light because everyone at the table is ostensibly working towards the same goal? It's like entering into a team sports event and deliberately playing badly so your teammates look better by comparison.
I really like that analogy. Like nedz said, once you've looked at a few handbooks everyone is limiting themselves to some extent, but there's a difference between slowing your pace so a friend can keep up and shackling your legs together or strapping on a framepack. While I don't think TheifofZ is suggesting draconian DMing, that's kinda what it feels like switching from 3.x to 5e, like being a fast runner playing with a physical handicap.

For nedz's group: based simply on the amount of information given that sounds like a B/C. Druid by itself gives no information, Barb/Sorc is a C without a prestige class even if they know what they're doing, Beguiler with Arcane Disciple is efficient enough but still not cashing in on PrCs so it's a B.

nedz

2015-11-16, 08:29 AM

For nedz's group: based simply on the amount of information given that sounds like a B/C. Druid by itself gives no information, Barb/Sorc is a C without a prestige class even if they know what they're doing, Beguiler with Arcane Disciple is efficient enough but still not cashing in on PrCs so it's a B.

Your assumptions are incorrect, but then I didn't detail things like PrCs - more information.

Druid is unknown, but probably straight vanilla Druid 20
Barb/Sorc will be using PrCs — Spellsword 1 / Abjurant Champion 5 / etc.
Beguiler will be using Divine Oracle dips (3 levels) for Advanced Learning — Shadow Conjuration & Greater
AD domains will be Healing+Travel+Good(Later for Holy Word), also DO gives Oracle.
Access to most of Illusion, Enchantment, Divination and Conjuration schools allowing basic Scry + Die and other tricks.

So the Gish and Beguiler will be B.

The Druid seems to fall between B and C because Druid is hard to get wrong and it doesn't need more power - though newbie mistakes are unlikely so it won't be C. Enhance Wild Shape might happen, which is rated A. So this is all over the place. In fact because Druid 20 is stronger without PrCs (with a few exceptions) this class alone sort of breaks this system.

But what does this tell us ?

The Tier system tells me that this should be a fairly balanced party — which was the goal — but the optimisation level (as detailed in this thread) doesn't really add much to our understanding. It is just too granular.

rrwoods

2015-11-16, 08:42 AM

LudicSavant

2015-11-16, 11:09 AM

Regarding Stinking Cloud vs Fireball: with the optimization grades defined as-is, if you're doing math on the options you're no longer in grade C. Grade C is defined by the assumption that every option equally viable; doing math is predicated on the idea that one option might actually be inferior to another.

Now, I'm not saying necessarily that this gives the most useful grading system, but as laid out that's how it works.

I don't feel like it actually is laid out according to that criteria, because the examples given are definitely not consistent with that. I daresay that the player who is talking about how awesome their Vow of Poverty Fighter is may well have more supplement access, more experience, and has put in more time and effort into trying to make a stronger character than the person who just picked Color Spray at level 1 because they didn't automatically assume that Color Spray was useless because it wasn't a blasting spell. Indeed, if you thought all of the choices were balanced, what is all this about "you may only heal with your cleric" and "you may only Fireball with your Sorcerer" and "familiars are a liability?"

I'd even say that ideas like "Sorcerers must cast fireballs" and "Clerics only cast heals" and "Familiars are a liability" stem from learned biases rather than simple inexperience. To make statements like that, you have to have learned wrong things, instead of merely not knowing things. And you also have to have made the assumption that the game is not carefully balanced, because you're straight up saying things like "Summoning familiars is a liability." That is straight up claiming that one option (summoning familiars) is inferior to another (not summoning familiars). That is no more acting on the assumption that everything is balanced than saying that Monks aren't good.

By the same note, the A-Game Paladin and Stinking Cloud are not representative of roughly the same amount of optimization effort. One requires you to understand the interactions between piles of supplements and squeeze them for all they're worth. The other simply requires you to not assume that Fireball is the only 3rd level spell you should ever look at.

We can see plenty of examples of the supposed C-Grade character doing math and considering some options superior or inferior in Bekeleven's posts. Just look here:

Fighter: My very first character was a level 1 human fighter. I looked at toughness and saw that it granted 3 HP and went, “1 HP is worth 33% of a feat.” Then I saw Endurance and Diehard and said, “For two feats I can get 10 HP. I’m ahead of the curve!” This is a 100% true story.

That is totally an example of doing math and considering a given option to be "ahead of the curve." The fact that it's wrong doesn't mean that he didn't attempt to do math and make comparisons and evaluate the worth of options.

Talakeal

2015-11-16, 03:43 PM

It's important to remember that the names of the grades aren't meant to imply correctness. It's no more correct to play an A than it is to play a C. They are purely labels for ease of reference. I play at low B most of the time but it depends on the table, and being able to know that I'm in a tier 3-ish game means I should play a high C wizard instead of a full on BFC monster is useful.

S without D is because the tiers that are useful to talk about are the ones starting at A; S and F are deliberately "off the ends" to set them off from the rest.

Bekeleven, pardon me if I'm speaking for you incorrectly but I think we are on the same wavelength here :)

There is still a gap between D and F, its called E :)

It just feels weird not having a "normal" optimization level.

Most of the groups I play with would, for example, recognize that a 2H power attack fighter is way better than a dual wielding fighter, but they wouldn't search through multiple books and stack multiple similar abilities to create an uber charger.

As it stands C is mostly "trap" options while B is mostly going out of your way to find combos that are probably not working as intended. I think C should probably be the "RAI" tier, stuff that is neither more or less effective than the baseline assumed by the original authors of the game, while you would put the trap options that are unintentionally weak as D and the intentionally weak suck characters as F.

rrwoods

2015-11-16, 04:25 PM

You can't have a "normal" since that is different player to player. I think most are C, maybe B.

Good points made about making real considerations and still falling in C, I retract what I said about the assumption of equal viability. Assumptions are a level of abstraction too removed to be of use anyway, and I'd like to find a mapping that's more concrete if possible.

bekeleven

2015-11-16, 06:35 PM

You might want to add a few more tiers.

It just feels weird not having a "normal" optimization level.

S without D is because the tiers that are useful to talk about are the ones starting at A; S and F are deliberately "off the ends" to set them off from the rest.
Woods, this is exactly the reason I used A - B - C for the three tiered grades. Although on the off chance that people liked the system but thought there should be more granular tiering, having extra room between S and F was a consideration.

The reason that Grade B is the widest is that I found it so hard to draw any meaningful distinction between the top and bottom of it. While moving from C to B is fairly granular, the bottom and top of grade B (B- to B+ if you will) are distinguished by a gradual trick-by-trick shifting. For one build it might be getting races of stone and swapping the trip fighter to a goliath. For another it might be discovering frenzied berserker, or shock trooper, or (towards the upper end of B) both.

This thread is silly. There are simply too many variables, and they're all entirely subjective. Player skill (in general), build optimization, player skill (with the build they're playing), book access (which can be irrelevant or all-important), multiclassing (since that's part of build optimization). So yeah, those are your variables. Now, how do you define a skilled player? What constitutes an "optimized" build? At what point does the game "break"? The answers are different for everyone.The answers are different for everyone, but most people can agree on some milestones. The nasty gentleman and the emerald legion are TO (S-grade), played in few games besides, for instance, Tippy's group. The Gatling Chain Tripper or Jack-B-Quick are very high-op, but low-tiered, builds (A-Grade Tier 4-5). Healbot clerics or Scimitar throwing druids are low-op (C-Grade) builds, despite the powerful classes to which they are attached. Then there's this large area between, which most people refer to as "Mid-Op" or "Playable" where the majority of games with enfranchised players tend to take place. This is primarily the spot where JaronK's tier system is aimed, and it's generally the most accurate there.

My goal is to show that the relationships between the classes shift in different ways as the optimization level changes.

bek: May we get your responses copied into the original posts for ease of reference?

I'll edit the original posts today or tomorrow. I've been on a skill trick kick recently and I want to finish a block first.

Fizban

2015-11-16, 09:13 PM

Your assumptions are incorrect, but then I didn't detail things like PrCs - more information.
Druid is unknown, but probably straight vanilla Druid 20
Barb/Sorc will be using PrCs — Spellsword 1 / Abjurant Champion 5 / etc.
Beguiler will be using Divine Oracle dips (3 levels) for Advanced Learning — Shadow Conjuration & Greater
AD domains will be Healing+Travel+Good(Later for Holy Word), also DO gives Oracle.
Access to most of Illusion, Enchantment, Divination and Conjuration schools allowing basic Scry + Die and other tricks.

So the druid is using a C rank build, just straight base class and presumably the obvious feats like Natural Spell. I personally don't like that level of perfect gishing, but I think most people would rank it a B. To me it looks like the Beguiler is the highest OP with that expanding spell list but it's still not on par with what most people consider an A so I guess it's a B (half of bek's A list is stuff I've banned or nerfed). Bek has Druid at T1 always (I'd put a C druid at T2 myself, until the player levelled up), I think gish builds are usually considered T2-3? and I'd say a Beguiler with that setup is T2 but I expect others would disagree. The reason the optimization ranking wasn't useful simply because we don't have gish PrCs and Beguiler's on the table yet. If they were then we wouldn't have needed to work backwards and you could have just said class/PrC/optimization and gotten a tier result.

It just feels weird not having a "normal" optimization level.
That's just what I was saying in a completely different thread: if you don't indicate the "normal" position it feels weird and people start making assumptions. Personally I think of C as the normal since it's less experienced and it's easier to play down than up. I would prefer B, but it's ridiculously hard to get players to level up if they don't want to. And so I'll make the same suggestion I did there: yeah, should probably rename the optimization tiers with descriptive titles rather than letter ranks. Say: Theoretical OP, Extra OP, More OP, Expected OP, and Intentional Failure. Expected OP sounds more dignified. Maybe it's just a thin excuse, but the point is to avoid immediate butthurt if/when people realize they're at the bottom of the pile. Though there is the point that most people reading it are likely OP interested and less likely to take offense.

'd even say that ideas like "Sorcerers must cast fireballs" and "Clerics only cast heals" and "Familiars are a liability" stem from learned biases rather than simple inexperience. To make statements like that, you have to have learned wrong things, instead of merely not knowing things.
And those learned biases can come from other media, including games that descended from or even directly based on dnd rules. I expect an inexperienced player to be bringing in baggage from other media and for it to drag down their optimization skills. If they do math that's good and indicates they're interested in getting better, but they're still just as or more likely to have done the wrong math.

nedz

2015-11-17, 02:28 AM

So the druid is using a C rank build, just straight base class and presumably the obvious feats like Natural Spell. I personally don't like that level of perfect gishing, but I think most people would rank it a B. To me it looks like the Beguiler is the highest OP with that expanding spell list but it's still not on par with what most people consider an A so I guess it's a B (half of bek's A list is stuff I've banned or nerfed). Bek has Druid at T1 always (I'd put a C druid at T2 myself, until the player levelled up), I think gish builds are usually considered T2-3? and I'd say a Beguiler with that setup is T2 but I expect others would disagree. The reason the optimization ranking wasn't useful simply because we don't have gish PrCs and Beguiler's on the table yet. If they were then we wouldn't have needed to work backwards and you could have just said class/PrC/optimization and gotten a tier result.

Well it's an example from an actual table where the tier system was used to balance the group. Testing theories against the real world is never a bad idea — though this is only one example.

My question still stands though: what does this optimization ranking system tell us ?

What predictions does it make about any game ?

Fizban

2015-11-17, 12:14 PM

nedz

2015-11-17, 12:46 PM

I'm not sure I understand your question. Defining an optimization ranking doesn't tell you anything, it's just labeling the scale. The prediction it makes is pretty clear: combining the optimization and class data you get the tier of the build, which can be used to roughly predict how balanced the party will be. Your group collectively balanced their builds based on the tiers, that's good, but if you can't rely on cooperation you need some way to at least guess what's going to happen. Some people don't build characters that mesh with the party or reveal much of anything about what they're planning until it hits the table, so being able to predict party balance based on optimization skill and basic class information is useful.

You may have noticed that I attempted to classify the players in terms of their tactical ability and their build ability. I did this because Player > Build > Class and so these classifications are useful and predictive. Now my classification was brief, imprecise and doesn't cover all I know about these players; but it's enough to know that a T1 class in the hands of a mid-low OP builder isn't going to overshadow the other characters too much. (Maybe there is some mileage in trying to classify the Player and Build portions of the formulae ?). Telling me that this is a type B game is too much of a broadbrush and, well, anyone could suddenly decide to up this to A, or even S, quite easily.

stanprollyright

2015-11-17, 10:46 PM

The answers are different for everyone, but most people can agree on some milestones. The nasty gentleman and the emerald legion are TO (S-grade), played in few games besides, for instance, Tippy's group. The Gatling Chain Tripper or Jack-B-Quick are very high-op, but low-tiered, builds (A-Grade Tier 4-5). Healbot clerics or Scimitar throwing druids are low-op (C-Grade) builds, despite the powerful classes to which they are attached. Then there's this large area between, which most people refer to as "Mid-Op" or "Playable" where the majority of games with enfranchised players tend to take place. This is primarily the spot where JaronK's tier system is aimed, and it's generally the most accurate there.

My goal is to show that the relationships between the classes shift in different ways as the optimization level changes.

OK, but milestones don't help anyone. Boundaries do. The concepts of "high-op", "low-op", "mid-op", "theory-op" already exist. You can call them A, B, C, and S, but you haven't defined them any better. For example: Leadership is probably the most overpowered feat in the game by RAW. By itself, it would be a grade-A, or even grade-S option, right? Except plenty of grade-C players take the feat for flavor reasons. Even if the rest of their build is crap, does having Leadership make them grade-A? Or does it average out into grade-B? Or is it still grade-C, with special exception for Leadership? OK, now let's think about Fighters. They have tons of feats, and even grade-C Fighters have a reason to dive through splatbooks for good ones. Chances are that by level 10 a Fighter will have gone through a feat chain or two and be pretty good at whatever their combat style. Does that make them grade-B automatically because it's that easy to reasonably optimize their chosen combat style?

With the tier system, each tier can be defined by a single sentence:

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite (Spell to Power Variant)

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

Examples: Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges), Erudite (No Spell to Power)

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Examples: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psychic Warrior

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Examples: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Zhentarium Variant)

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Examples: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight, CW Samurai (with Imperious Command available)

Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

Examples: CW Samurai (without Imperious Command available), Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner

and which class fits into what tier follows a clear pattern. Tier 1: SAD full prepared casters. Tier 2 is spontaneous versions of Tier 1 classes. Tier 3 is partial casters/focused casters. Tiers 4 and 5 are MAD martial classes. Tier 6 is NPC classes and the ones that don't function. So we see several different criteria right away that all play a part. SAD or MAD? Spells or not? Prepared or spontaneous? General spell list or focused? Many skills or few? Synergistic class features or not? If you chose option 1 for (almost) everything, you are tier 1. if you chose option 2 for several of those categories, you are a lower tier. Optimization doesn't play much part in it at all, and it does nothing to change the rankings. No matter how good your Ubercharger build, it doesn't hold a candle to 9th level spells. That's why the tier system includes the idea that high-optimization can bump you up a tier and low-op can bump you down one, as well as the idea that prestige classes can bump you up or down the list as well. There is some leeway for different levels of optimization, but not a lot. There is simply no way to make your Monk equal to a Wizard no matter how well built the Monk is and how poorly built the Wizard is.

A blaster Wizard, a healbot Cleric, and a scimitar-throwing Druid walk into a bar... Bartender says, "What should I prepare you today?" "The usual," says the Wizard. "Same as always," says the Druid. "Maybe I should try CoDzilla," says the Cleric.

The thing about tier 1 is that you don't need to optimize; each of those classes can do totally different things tomorrow. As long as the scimitar-wielding Druid has Natural Spell, at any point the player could spend 10 minutes skimming the Monster Manual and become way more powerful than his peers. The Wizard could get bored with blasting and prepare a totally different spell list. The Cleric just has to try Divine Power to realize he can smash as good as the Fighter. Optimization just makes them even better and more versatile. Low tiers are the opposite: more optimization ostensibly makes you better at your thing, but it often locks you into being one-trick-pony.

The reason this thread is silly is that it provides no information. It has no predictive power and no defined boundaries. If the tier system is scientific medicine, this thread is homeopathy.

rrwoods

2015-11-18, 02:36 PM

I'd agree that the grades as described are not as helpful as they could be, but I don't think they're homeopathy as compared to medical science. I think they're a starting point, and a good one at that.

But what I would agree is that they aren't good enough. Can we make them better? I don't have (good) ideas but I hope we can find some.

Here's a (possibly bad) idea: one of the premises here is that the JaronK tiers are at grade B. What if, instead of defining A and C prescriptively, we try to find the top of A and the bottom of C for each class? An "optimization ceiling" and "floor", if you will. Those terms have certainly been used by well spoken giantitp posters to describe classes that are more or less forgiving or more or less rewarding. But has anyone ever put solid numbers in one place for future reference?

Then we have easy definitions for A and C -- and more importantly, we don't actually need to define them at all, since the goal (a tool to help create balanced parties) is accomplished without them.

nedz

2015-11-18, 02:55 PM

Possibly useful ideas

A way to grade Players in terms of

Type
Play (Tactical, Role-play)
Building (Op level capability)
?

I'm not sure any simple system is going to be practical for the above

A way to grade Builds
+/- Tiers perhaps ?

A grading of classes by Floor and Ceiling

Grading of the options presented in S, A, B and C as mentioned up thread.

stanprollyright

2015-11-18, 04:04 PM

Possibly useful ideas

A way to grade Players in terms of

Type
Play (Tactical, Role-play)
Building (Op level capability)
?

I'm not sure any simple system is going to be practical for the above

I don't think that will be helpful at all, honestly. Player skill is far too subjective and depends on stuff like your group, your DM, your familiarity with the class you're playing, etc. Plus, if we ever come up with a good system, it'll open us up to "I'm a tier B player and you're tier C so your point is invalid." Player rankings are somewhat antithetical to cooperative roleplaying, dontcha think?

A way to grade Builds
+/- Tiers perhaps ?

That seems the most doable. People already talk about builds like that, and there is already a +/- tier system for PrCs. If there were a good rating system for feats (or chains thereof) and ACFs with fractional tier values...

For instance, Leadership is +1 tier by itself. Ranger's Wild Shape ACF is +1. Zhentarim Fighter ACF is +0.5. Sword of the Arcane Order, Arcane Disciple, Imperious Command could all be +0.5 or +0.25 options depending on who is taking them. Multiclass feats such as Swift Hunter and Aescetic Rogue could be +0.5. Shock Trooper and Knowledge Devotion +0.25... So I could build a Tier 3 Scout/Ranger with the Swift Hunter, Sword of the Arcane Order, and Imperious Command (Ranger is Tier 4, +0.5 for Swift Hunter, +0.25 for SotAO, +0.25 for Imperious Command, adding up to +1). The A-game Paladin takes a whole bunch of these +tier options and ends up around Tier 3 (but it's more impressive because it starts from Tier 5).

Notice some of these ACFs are already accounted for in the Tier system, such as Wildshape Ranger and Zhentarium Fighter.

EDIT: So things like Natural Spell, Power Attack, and Improved Initiative are considered to be normal feat tax (+0, or already factored in to the rankings and their absence is negative). TWF chain might be a negative on all but the specific classes (Rogues for instance). There would definitely have to be consideration for what kind of character is taking whichever feat, and whether it's a power or a versatility option. Too many power options and you're a one-trick pony (more damage on your Ubercharging Barbarian isn't going to make a tier difference), too much versatility and you're a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none (a familiar isn't going to make a Bard powerful).

Grod_The_Giant

2015-11-18, 04:28 PM

That sounds like it would be too granular to be accurate and too all - encompassing to be usable.

Honestly, I think the system proposed is pretty good. What exactly constitutes low-op verses high-op varies from group to group, but... This is basically tiering each class at low, medium, and high optimization, which is a perfectly fine expansion of JaronK's system.

stanprollyright

2015-11-18, 04:35 PM

I'll give you granular.

The tiers should be the same if the whole group is a similar level of optimization. It's when they aren't that we run into issues.

nedz

2015-11-18, 04:54 PM

I don't think that will be helpful at all, honestly. Player skill is far too subjective and depends on stuff like your group, your DM, your familiarity with the class you're playing, etc. Plus, if we ever come up with a good system, it'll open us up to "I'm a tier B player and you're tier C so your point is invalid." Player rankings are somewhat antithetical to cooperative roleplaying, dontcha think?

I was just trying to identify all possible options.

I did use an informal method like this in the example I gave upthread; but I'm not sure you could make it into a formal system.

Beheld

2015-11-18, 05:09 PM

I'll give you granular.

The tiers should be the same if the whole group is a similar level of optimization. It's when they aren't that we run into issues.

The entire point is that the Tiers aren't the same for different levels of optimization. Some classes benefit from optimization more than others. So a low op game does not have the same classes in the same order as a high op game.

JaronK's tiers are at a very specific optimization point that disallows things he thinks shouldn't be allowed and allows things he thinks should be allowed (and are probably still wrong for even that). Despite claims to the contrary, if you go up or down in optimization skill, you end up with very different tiers. A Beguiler casts glitterdust at level 4 every round no matter what. If you go to a low op group, he will still cast glitterdust, but the Sorcerer will have only scorching ray. The Tiers do not even remotely stay the same.

stanprollyright

2015-11-18, 07:30 PM

JaronK's tiers are at a very specific optimization point that disallows things he thinks shouldn't be allowed and allows things he thinks should be allowed (and are probably still wrong for even that). Despite claims to the contrary, if you go up or down in optimization skill, you end up with very different tiers. A Beguiler casts glitterdust at level 4 every round no matter what. If you go to a low op group, he will still cast glitterdust, but the Sorcerer will have only scorching ray. The Tiers do not even remotely stay the same.

That's not true at all. In a low-op party, Scorching Ray still does more damage than a sword and board Fighter, and the Sorc can fly and turn invisible to boot. The Beguiler won't necessarily use Glitterdust, at low-op he's probably trying to get Save-or-Sucks to stick and has no idea what to do against stuff that is immune to mind affecting powers. Optimized or not, spells still solve encounters more efficiently than skills and swords, a Cleric still wears heavy armor, the bard is still useful 99% of the time, the rogue is still sneaky and good at traps, the ranger is still a decent combatant and good tracker, the Barbarian is still the king of melee damage, the monk still sucks, the Paladin is still MAD, and the fighter still has his thumb up his ass until initiative is rolled.

Beheld

2015-11-18, 08:12 PM

That's not true at all. In a low-op party, Scorching Ray still does more damage than a sword and board Fighter, and the Sorc can fly and turn invisible to boot. The Beguiler won't necessarily use Glitterdust, at low-op he's probably trying to get Save-or-Sucks to stick and has no idea what to do against stuff that is immune to mind affecting powers.

See, this is what I am talking about. You are so wedded to this absolutely ridiculous notion that all classes must stay in exactly the same place regardless of optimization that you believe a Beguiler will look at their level 2 spells and refuse to ever even cast glitterdust, even though that is the single obvious attack spell for beguilers at that level.

You refuse to admit that a level 4 Beguiler will cast glitterdust because instead of casting Glitterdust he will cast "all" the save or sucks on his list, which is by the way Glitterdust, two spells with 30ft or less range that are also will negates, and a spell that blinds one target for one round will negates. You refuse to admit that they will cast glitterdust, because admitting that means that tiers don't stay in exactly the same order for every single optimization level. If you commit yourself to such an absurd position, you should probably consider that maybe the conclusion which caused you to commit yourself to this position is wrong.

nedz

2015-11-18, 08:44 PM

A Beguiler casts glitterdust at level 4 every round no matter what.

If the Beguiler is expecting 4 encounters a day, then he will use Glitterdust exactly once in any encounter. Multiple uses have diminishing returns anyway. It is more efficient to use his level 1 slots in subsequent rounds rather than have to rely on them entirely for several encounters.

stanprollyright

2015-11-19, 12:30 AM

See, this is what I am talking about. You are so wedded to this absolutely ridiculous notion that all classes must stay in exactly the same place regardless of optimization that you believe a Beguiler will look at their level 2 spells and refuse to ever even cast glitterdust, even though that is the single obvious attack spell for beguilers at that level.

You refuse to admit that a level 4 Beguiler will cast glitterdust because instead of casting Glitterdust he will cast "all" the save or sucks on his list, which is by the way Glitterdust, two spells with 30ft or less range that are also will negates, and a spell that blinds one target for one round will negates. You refuse to admit that they will cast glitterdust, because admitting that means that tiers don't stay in exactly the same order for every single optimization level. If you commit yourself to such an absurd position, you should probably consider that maybe the conclusion which caused you to commit yourself to this position is wrong.

Who said anything about "refusing" to cast Glitterdust? Let's see...

The Beguiler won't necessarily use Glitterdust, at low-op he's probably trying to get Save-or-Sucks to stick

Then there's your ridiculous assumptions that a low-op sorcerer is definitely a blaster, and that blasting is inherently bad. A Sorcerer could have Glitterdust or any other 2nd level spell, and even if Scorching Ray is what he's got, that's good damage at level 4. Besides, your level 4 snapshot isn't a good representation of the tier system, which aims to represent classes as a whole, which means high levels.

Class Power by Level. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?228852-Class-Power-by-Level/page3&p=12543740#post12543740)

Beheld

2015-11-19, 01:06 AM

Who said anything about "refusing" to cast Glitterdust? Let's see...

Yes, you only say that he isn't casting glitterdust because he's probably only using his save or sucks, such as glitterdust and literally nothing else.

A Sorcerer could have Glitterdust or any other 2nd level spell, and even if Scorching Ray is what he's got, that's good damage at level 4.

If the Sorcerer is casting the same spell as the Beguiler, the Beguiler is better, because the Sorcerer gets one spell, and the Beguiler gets 18, more HP, more skill points, and class features.

Besides, your level 4 snapshot isn't a good representation of the tier system, which aims to represent classes as a whole, which means high levels.

Yes, definitely level 20 is the only level that matters, definitely no other level ever matters "the whole game" is represented just by high levels and not at all by the levels that most games occur at. Surely that is a great system.

stanprollyright

2015-11-19, 01:37 AM

Beheld

2015-11-19, 01:51 AM

The tier system's biggest flaw is that it doesn't accurately reflect low level play, but by around 10th it pretty much works as stated. And since we're talking about classes as a whole, judging classes by their performance for the latter half of their progression is the best we can do, since low levels are very...swingy. A single feat can make all the difference at low levels.

Since we are judging classes by their whole, we should ignore half the game completely and focus only on the half of the game that is least played. I think I would be hard pressed to find even a single person who agrees with you that we should evaluate classes based on how they perform from 11-20 but ignore how they perform 1-10.

Alternatively, since we are talking about classes as a whole, we should judge them based on the entire class, and to the extent that we weight any levels at all, they should be weighted to the levels people play more often.

stanprollyright

2015-11-19, 02:20 AM

Beheld

2015-11-19, 03:08 AM

Ugh. Early levels are swingy, where a single feat or racial modifier or +1 BAB can make a huge difference. There is simply no way to accurately judge relative class power at early levels because the variance is so huge. Around 5th is when most class abilities have come online. By 6th level there is still variance, but we see a definite trend towards what the the tier system predicts, and by 8th level it should be pretty close to what you'd expect by reading the tier system; by 10th it's totally set in. That's much more than half of your progression.

Literally none of that is true.

Late levels are swingy, a single feat or spell can completely change the game. +1 BAB has basically no effect on the game at all except at the specific breakpoint levels. You can very easily judge class power at early levels the same way you judge class level at any other level. Build a sample character of that level, evaluate them against encounters they are likely to face, see how effective they are. Done. That is the only possible way to evaluate a class at level 1, 5, 8, 14, and 20. It is the same method. If you have a coherent effective method of evaluating balance at level X, the same method applies at level Y.

This is as opposed to claiming that levels before level 10 don't count. If you made a Beguiler style class with the best spells in the game at spell levels 6-9 and the worst or zero spells at levels 1-5, that class would not be "Tier 1" or any other thing. It would be a class that was absolute garbage and no one should play for 10 levels of the game, and then an acceptable trending to great class. Just deciding "the levels where the class I like sucks don't count" is basically an a priori commitment to not evaluating class balance at all.

stanprollyright

2015-11-19, 04:47 AM

Literally none of that is true.

Whatever dude. Saying "nuh uh" over and over doesn't make you right.

Beheld

2015-11-19, 11:52 AM

Whatever dude. Saying "nuh uh" over and over doesn't make you right.

Saying that only levels 10+ Count and it is impossible to evaluate balance under level ten makes you emphatically wrong.

GilesTheCleric

2015-11-19, 04:12 PM

Bekeleven, do you think there's a place in this system for another category, "non-optimized"? I know that when I first began playing, I was between F and C -- I would play a class much like the playtesters did, picking whatever sounded cool and ignoring most of my class features ("Spells? That's way too much reading. I think I'll hit that creature with my double-ended mithril mace instead"). Do you think that sort of classification would be of any benefit beyond being a single letter that replaces looking at a class's proficiencies, HD, and BAB?

Troacctid

2015-11-19, 05:16 PM

I think the C (or possibly D) level you're really looking for is "Paint-by-numbers": AKA premade characters. How does the class play if you only use the feats and items suggested in the PHB2? Essentially use a sample character —let the book build it for you.

Florian

2015-11-20, 06:01 AM

In my opinion, the only interesting question is: Does it affect CR and along that line the intended game balance or not?

The base assumption for that is the willingness to play the game instead of breaking it. Contemplating ways to break the game may be interesting, but ultimatelly, as the concept itself implies, a futile thing.

The tier system, as it has been established, is a quite one-sided thing that allows for players ingnoring the game while holding the gm responsible for sticking to it and that is quite findamentally wrong, leading the the usual binary situation.

Therefore, in my opinion, a finctioning tier system should more focus on how a gm would need to adapt the rules to keep the game as intended going, and also stop players from utilizing ways to break the intended game.

To explain that a bit more indepth: The game is "Combat as Sports", 11,5 equal-CR encounters to a level up. An equal CR encounter should cost 25% or ressources. My position on this is: If that Encounter doesn't cost you said 25% ressources, it ceases to be equal CR and must be downgraded to the approrpiate value, most of the time ceasing to be a challenge and giving XP at all.

It may tick some people the worng way, but consider the difference between "Combat as Sports" and "Combat as War" and where those lead to. Switching from one to another without changing anything will destroy the game as it is. Yes, some things may be sound tactics, but they change the game fundamentally, so please, don't, and don't insist on using them, you're not entitled to change the game on your own.

GilesTheCleric

2015-11-20, 09:23 AM

To explain that a bit more indepth: The game is "Combat as Sports", 11,5 equal-CR encounters to a level up. An equal CR encounter should cost 25% or ressources. My position on this is: If that Encounter doesn't cost you said 25% ressources, it ceases to be equal CR and must be downgraded to the approrpiate value, most of the time ceasing to be a challenge and giving XP at all.

This doesn't account for variation in play, though. Some days players may be more on their game and think of a creative way to solve an encounter, and other days may only feel like swinging their s+b longsword at everything they see. They would be punished for playing well.

Florian

2015-11-20, 10:24 AM

This doesn't account for variation in play, though. Some days players may be more on their game and think of a creative way to solve an encounter, and other days may only feel like swinging their s+b longsword at everything they see. They would be punished for playing well.

Agreed. You can't take such stuff as granted and you can't really automatically integrate that into the system you're using. Else you wouldn't need a gm to be a referee and faciliator instead of just an administrator of the rules.

Seward

2015-11-20, 11:50 AM

Just a mild comment on monks. People who build them as tanks are missing the point. Monks are light infantry, with class abilities designed to make them hard to remove with a single action, increase their mobility and do battlefield-control effects to single targets when they can't get their full attack (this keeps the enemy in full attack range, which will generally destroy the enemy the next round, just like any other well designed melee who starts a turn next to an opponent).

Just as the most effective use of a standard action for some characters is to buff the party, the Monk is the ideal chasse for a buff spell. The spell won't be wasted because the monk fails a save before she moves. When she attacks, she'll get a lot of attacks at relatively high attack mods, and unlike a TWF person, you can buff just one "weapon" and it applies to all attacks, and full strength is applied to all damage.

Also a mild comment on tanks. If your tank doesn't do significant damage, they won't be annoying enough to do their jobs. They don't have to compete with the barbarian or full-attack from rogue+sneak or monk+buffs, but they do need to be able to kill most anything in a couple-three rounds. If you don't take a big chunk out of the bad guy, they'll ignore you, wander by and clobber a squishie. So the people who do things like optimize armor class at the expense of anemic damage are automatically in the "Fail" level of optimization unless they do something else well. (I had a warchanter that pretended to be a tank. He looked the part, full armor, shield, dwarf waraxe that spouted 3 damage types (from weapon capsule retainers), he looked really scary in round 1. Then he spent the rest of the fight supporting the party while standing in the middle of the enemies. He drew enough fire to make his investment in durability worthwhile)

Flickerdart

2015-11-20, 11:56 AM

The "monks gain the most from buffs" line of thought has been thoroughly debunked way back in the Giacomo/partially charged wands era.

As for light infantry, that's not actually a useful role in D&D, and even if it were, monks are bad at it. Their debuffs have low DCs, their mobility doesn't stack with the most common speed boost type, they can barely teleport, their lauded defenses are a hindrance half of the time. You are much better off with a real party member.

Seward

2015-11-20, 12:02 PM

I think this whole system makes the mistake of assuming that newbies, in general, will make the same mistakes and assumptions as each other. This is simply not true in my experience. Not every new player looks at a Cleric and instinctively assumes that their job is to be a healbot

Yeah. The healbots actually were useful. What they do is conceptually simple, they'll have some buffs for when nobody is hurt and they do something that contributes most rounds of combat.

The biggest cleric trap I saw was thinking they were a melee (or worse archer) without doing anything to meaningfully fix the action economy problem. (A cleric played this way is a fighter without feats, who spends the first 2-3 rounds of a fight doing nothing but buffing himself. The fight is over before they participate - or they don't buff and do anemic damage).

The biggest druid trap I saw, and this happens ALL THE TIME, is that some young person will be encouraged to play a druid because it has a pet that is their best friend. (sometimes this is a non-RPG person who isn't a youth, but it's extremely common to be teenage or younger). Druids are INSANELY complex to play if you try to milk out the full power of the wildshape options, the companion options and the summoning options. A 7thish level druid with augment summoning and natural spell who summons something then attacks might have 10+ attack rolls to resolve, different feats on the character, pet and summoned critter and ALSO has some druid spells that might be viable options for the combat instead of personally mixing it up.

Their turn comes up and they have no idea what to do except send in the pet to attack, and sometimes not even that if the pet gets hurt. They use NONE of the druid abilities, often forgetting to do anything at all, or if you're lucky maybe using a crossbow and missing.

Without significant system mastery, druid players freeze up. At the level C optimization you are better off encouraging the druid player to prep nothing but long duration buffs for themselves and their pet, and focus on being two animals in melee role, with some utility spells for out-of-combat stuff (druids are awesome scouts without even trying, and newbies aren't under the time pressure for that role as they are if trying to get the true power of summon+wildshape+pet+battlefield control spells)

One reason sorcerers (and similar things like favored souls or oracles) do decently well at a lot of level C play is that the player without system mastery for the game CAN achieve system mastery of their handful of spells. All critical decisions are made during level up, away from the time pressure of the game, and repeatedly using a small toolset to overcome challenges builds system mastery without much chance they'll be entirely useless in most encounters. (they players with system mastery can improve their odds by encouraging them to carry a few key scrolls to fill holes in their spell mix until they get enough spells known to cope with most anything)

Seward

2015-11-20, 12:13 PM

I'm going to point out the same thing I point out every time someone talks about making a new tiering system:

Tier should not be based on class, it should be based on build.

Evocation Blaster Wizard is functionally a different class from Transmutation Buff Wizard. Evil Necromancer Cleric is a different class from Good Healbot Cleric.

I think you misunderstand tiers. Tiers are not about how effective a character is in a single situation (I think everybody agrees that ANY decent melee character at high levels will kill anything it is next to in a single round, with even level C optimization. Dead is a better condition than anything the god-wizard tosses out at that target short of a massive damage spell that also kills it)

Tier is about the potential to break the game.

My "Arcane Archer" wizard who is built around doing as much damage with scorching ray as an optimized archer can do at every level between 3 and 11 (she's doing 150 damage on a single target at level 10...for 3 rounds) can still do everything a God-Wizard can do if she chooses to reshuffle her spell choices. (as an example, she's got a bunch of spells in her spellbook designed to find everything in a secret tomb or ancient ruin, and bypass all locks, traps, barriers etc - she does this the day AFTER she blows everything up. She can also reshuffle to make the entire party invisible and nearly silent, while providing barrier-bypass spells to avoid the 'open door' problem invisible parties face, should stealth be the main thing. She can spam charm person until the bad guy talks, if we just keep him around until she can rest. She moves the party with phantom chariots, sleeps in a rope trick, can teleport back to a major city if she gets mummy rot, get it fixed and teleport back without slowing the party, etc etc etc). It's just that most days her spell mix is focused on removing one enemy per round by killing them outright.

She can behave this way because she's a tier 1 character class, and I invested in her spellbook even though most days she works primarily with only a handful of spells and a hell of a lot of metamagic, much like a sorcerer. A cleric or druid is even easier, they get all the spells without spending resources on a spellbook. That healbot can CHOOSE to be a melee monster if he shuffles spells around and has the luxury to buff before entering combat. Or the healbot can scry on enemies, speak to the dead, raise the assassinated king from the dead etc.

An Ubercharger can't do all that. Anybody can UMD into a lot of it but it requires having the scrolls/wands/etc handy and it's expensive. Tiers aren't high tier from power, they're high tier from flexibility. But only if the player has the skill to realize this, and not get paralyzed by too many options.

Beheld

2015-11-20, 01:07 PM

I think you misunderstand tiers. Tiers are not about how effective a character is in a single situation (I think everybody agrees that ANY decent melee character at high levels will kill anything it is next to in a single round, with even level C optimization. Dead is a better condition than anything the god-wizard tosses out at that target short of a massive damage spell that also kills it)

I think that I don't agree with that, but whatever.

Tier is about the potential to break the game.

While that is a fine position to take, and almost certainly actually the true decision making process behind JaronK's sorting method, that is not the claim of the tier system. The Tier system claims to be a tool for DMs to figure out if the players are balanced against each other. Even though that makes no sense, because a Wizard who refuses to break the game with minions or wish or CL skill dances plays the game just fine with a party that has a Cleric, a Rogue, and Warblade all of whom optimize the same amount, contribute a fair amount and feel totally cool playing the same game, even though the Tier system says that should be a problem and that you should almost certainly replace the rogue with some kind of artificer who duplicates rogue things and a druid to replace the warblade.

Which is why on this forum you can see tons of examples of people talking about Tier 3 games, where people are literally not allowed to play Wizards or Clerics or Druids because they want the game to be balanced and if one player brings a rogue, then no one else can bring a Tier 1 class without the game being unfun for everyone.

So yes, the Tier system looks almost exactly like if you sorted the classes based on the number of ways that class could break the game, and then sorted them in that order, and looks nothing like a list of what classes do or do not play well with each other in the same game when they choose not to break the game. But it for some reason claims to be the latter, not the former.

GreyBlack

2015-11-20, 01:12 PM

Personally, I feel that Healer should be bumped up to T4 in A-grade, due to the fact that there are some gems on the spell list which help it to shine (e.g. Gate), and it is possible to build a Healer that shines in only one specific area, while being utter rubbish everywhere else (the definition of a T4). Otherwise, great list!

Seward

2015-11-20, 01:17 PM

While I pretty much agree with it. Looking back on my evolution a while ago, as well as that of a friend who joined the hobby later than me, I noticed a pattern that I think could apply broadly to players of the same mindset.

Yes, I've seen that evolution fairly often. A lot of my friends (and me) do a different route, probably because of a misspent youth playing Champions for the 20 years before 3.0 came into existence.

We'll take a concept that D&D really doesn't want you to do mechanically, and use system mastery to make it effective. If you are like me, you'll take perverse pleasure in taking stuff everybody says is bad and making it strikingly effective. Here's a few from my 15ish years of playing 3.x in home campaigns, 3.5 Living Greyhawk and Pahtfinder Society....

High Strength, dumped wisdom monk. (grappled in low levels tripped in mid levels, became a raw damage dealer in higher levels with shenanigans like ranged melee attacks, attacks after abundant-step etc).

Telekenetic themed sorceress (started with just tenser disk and unseen servant. Never took any of the normal spells unless they fit a very narrow theme. Ended her career doing things like tossing 15 size large greatswords with chain-spell +4 greater magic weaopn, guided shot and other crap - and that was when she didn't just toss 14 GMW+flame arrowed arrows and the party melee monster at the enemy. Mostly though focused on action economy, battlefield control and utility)

Bog-standard arcane archer (ranger2/fighter4/wiz1/arcane archerX). Routinely outdamaged better optimized archers and blaster-oriented arcanists on single targets because of a laser focus on doing nothing but full-attacking in combat, even if the situation involved him being upside down and dangling from a tree while a spider tried to pull him up or while falling 1000 feet to the ground (hey guided shot lets me hit this round while falling, feather fall lets me land safely next round..although I'm less likely to hit, etc). Had a few shenanigans with familiar and benign transposition that helped with most problems archers get into, a bat familiar to pinpoint invisible targets etc. He was also a decent scout.

5 strength, dex-oriented halfling tank. She was so effective she's my only character that ever got audited, just to see how the hell I got AC and saves so high, while still dealing out effective damage. The brilliance of this character is she looks and plays EXACTLY like that barbarian we've all adventured with who charges into the middle of the enemies and gets slaughtered. Except that she's JUST FINE. She's also really fun to play the last day of the con when I'm too brain dead for more sophisticated characters.

My "Arcane Archer" (a pure wizard evoker who uses admixture and high knowledge skills to know exactly the best way to blast single targets into atoms). She was mentioned above.

Currently I'm playing two dragon disciples based roughly on Alex and Catherine Armstrong from Full Metal Alchemist. One is somebody who tries to make an arcane, unarmed-strike, muscles-on-mucles concept work, the other is a mix of blaster and surprisingly dangerous but fragile close-in melee. Both have significant challenges within the low level limits of Pathfinder Society, and it's fun to both bring the characters to life while also figuring out how to work the system to keep them from just getting slaughtered.

It's important in organized play to be able to pull out all the stops when your party is unusually weak for the challenge, but also to dial it back a bit so other people get a chance to shine. Usually these characters are deliberately "tier-weakened" - very strong at something that is somewhat unusual and memorable but not game-breaking (The Alex Armstrong character at level 3 could haul a couple of tons while swimming or climbing with actual swim and climb speeds), able to contribute strongly in most combats if necessary but often switch to more of a supporting role if the party's got things in hand, and some things they're just plain bad at for comic effect. One tactic I use a lot with the folks who deal stupidly high damage to share spotlight is to aim it at the minions, taking out most or all of them while the rest of the party focuses on the "big bad" and get the glory - I only aim the big guns at the "big bad" when we're in danger of losing if I don't.

I also play a lot of support-oriented characters who are usually incapable of winning a fight on their own, but supercharge the party, letting even D-list players and builds contribute effectively. I find these characters the most challenging to do well, and try to play them when I'm sure to be rested and mentally sharp, since things can go downhill fast with a weak party and the support character making the wrong choices.

Seward

2015-11-20, 01:32 PM

Which is why on this forum you can see tons of examples of people talking about Tier 3 games, where people are literally not allowed to play Wizards or Clerics or Druids because they want the game to be balanced and if one player brings a rogue, then no one else can bring a Tier 1 class without the game being unfun for everyone.
.
Yeah, that's stupid. There isn't anything wrong with the concept of a Vancian caster. It just takes some player self-control to keep it fun for everybody. A GM can't really win with the banhammer, there's always some other way to break the game if you really try. The worst one is the "low magic" games where magic items are deeply restricted. That's recipe for everybody who is NOT a spellcaster to get overshadowed.

So yes, the Tier system looks almost exactly like if you sorted the classes based on the number of ways that class could break the game, and then sorted them in that order,

Yes, that is what the tier system means. It is a warning about potential if GM and players have no restraint.

and looks nothing like a list of what classes do or do not play well with each other in the same game when they choose not to break the game. But it for some reason claims to be the latter, not the former.

If players with high system mastery choose not to break the game, all classes are fine, and for those players, damn near any class or build will be effective.

This post is about how players with less system mastery tend to play. I think it's somewhat flawed, my experience of evolution is different but it's still an interesting topic. IMHO the best way to allow newbie players to have some fun is to steer them toward characters+builds that behave roughly like this:

1. Most critical decisions made at level-up (mundane characters, spont casters and hybrids that don't have huge amounts of vancian magic)

2. Limited but effective options for the character, ideally options the player is interested in. Asking them what kind of hero they want to play helps tremendously. So if they want a beloved pet that stays out of danger, get them a familiar, if they want their pet to eat their enemies, point them at something with an animal companion.

3. Avoid things that require system mastery to use at the table. Even something as simple as power attack and remembering to use party buffs like Bardsong or Prayer is a chore for some players. Such a player is better off with a sorcerer, whose spells are far less likely to change behavior based on the situation. Others are fine with tracking minutia about their attack rolls but get paralized with spell options. Aim them at the martial classes.

New players can find even a power attacking barbarian difficult - they forget to rage, forget their power attack, juggle weapons to get a bow out when they should just move to a charge lane etc. Archers or blaster-sorcerers are probably the easiest overall, as long as you remember to help them with skill and spell selection during level-up so they aren't totally bored when fights aren't happening.

Then when they get good at one character, and see others play, move them to trickier concept.s

Florian

2015-11-20, 01:48 PM

Seward

2015-11-20, 02:09 PM

The "monks gain the most from buffs" line of thought has been thoroughly debunked way back in the Giacomo/partially charged wands era.

My experience is based on organized play with a wide variety of parties and encounters. I've played one effective monk, and seen about 3 others. I've seen an equal number completely ineffective. It is a class where system mastery plays a big role in how well it contributes. That's true of light infantry in general, although charge/pounce builds can be easier to manage once they come together, if the allies of those you just vaporized aren't close enough to pound you into hamburger after your shock-trooper AC dumping charge. As an aside, the Pathfinder monks work a lot better out of the box, and the Unchained monk is quite decent although a bit less durable against will-oriented attacks.

I do not base any of my conclusions on board theory. But then if you don't believe light infantry has a purpose in D&D, then you won't believe my experience. Light infantry falls into the "does one thing well" and it's "one thing" comes up more often than heavy infantry ("tank+middling damage") but probably less often than archery "I just kill things with raw damage" approaches. You can make a monk-like character with multiclassing, if you end up with a lot of attacks, some mobility, adequate AC and really good saving throws, you've arrived at the same point.

My personal area of difficulty is with the sneak-attack classes. I just can't make them work as anything but an NPC class in organized play. In a campaign you can train your party to provide adequate support and ensure you get key items that widen those you can sneak attack, but it's damn hard with a random group of classes and strangers to make it work better on its own than the other light infantry alternatives. Monks though - they work at least as well as anything else, and are much more effective at the many-attack thing than the TWF builds (a low bar granted, but it matters when considering how much damage your Spikes spell brings to the party when you cast it)

Seward

2015-11-20, 02:26 PM

@Seward:

Problem is, stating "breaking the game" or "no self restraint" is meaningless without stating what exactly the game is and where unrestrained actions, mostly based on tactical acumen and creativity breaks it.

What breaks the game is entirely campaign dependent. In some campaigns, the ability to teleport ruins it, in others, it's expected and routine for any party in the 10-20 range. Some campaigns can handle PC's creating their own demiplanes and gating in deities, in others they'd prefer the 18th level characters stick to spells like meteor swarm, time stop and Summon Monster 9 with critters only from Monster Manual 1. Some GM's really want MMORPG-like doors with locks that can't be picked until you get a plot token, and so you have to worry about stone shape, passwall, disintegrate, dimension door and anybody with an adamantium weapon, or even power attack and persistence. The game has counters for some of these (having the door actually be a gate to another plane, for example, stops most of them) but yeah, in some cases just using Diplomacy as written screws up a whole campaign, leaving aside all the charm/dominate/divination things that can happen.

There is a social contract at the table, and while it's possible for a low system mastery player to stumble into a powerful trick, it's just one trick and the GM will adapt and move on. A high system mastery player will know lots of things that will screw with the campaign's flavor, tone and story arcs and will just do something else fun instead that fits the game everybody showed up to play.

So yeah, I sometimes play tier 1 classes, but if I'm playing Pathfinder Society my character is a Pathfinder with goals and motivations and, yes, build emphasis that fit that theme. So my wizard who focuses on blasting single targets is also really, really good at looting tombs off-camera, the day after the action ends, even though we rarely see those days in play. But even if the campaign allowed level 12-20 play, she wouldn't be creating her own demiplane or planar binding critters to do her bidding, because those things don't interest her, or the Society. She knows how to kill things, and sometimes knows other things because of how knowledge skills work, but is the last person you want on the diplomatic team, and has a problem with accidently killing people, even when using her nonlethal rod.

Because she was built as a tomb-raider, she's much more dangerous buffed on the "10 minute wizard" cycle, but she still copes fairly well with surprise encounters and things like overland travel. The pointy nature of the character means sometimes it's really clear why the Venture Captains picked her for a given mission, and other times she's a fish out of water and comic relief. But in any situation where lives are at stake, yeah, she'll find a way to contribute. I don't play characters that have their thumb up their rear in combat, even when deeply out of their comfort zone.

Leaving mechanics aside, I know that my GM system mastery may be lacking, and I may sit down at a table with extremely skilled players, or people running a level 7 pregenerated character who've never played D&D 3.x or Pathfinder before. My job as a player is to add to the fun of the table, make sure we all succeed at the mission while not dominating the spotlight. So yeah, I have a style of play for when we're all about to die, and it's a bit different from when it's a routine encounter, and it's fairly easily justified by the fact my character is a professional who does have resource-limited abilities and won't want to waste her best stuff on a fight that isn't all that dangerous or a challenge that can be overcome with a bit more time if I just let the party scout do their thing.

Florian

2015-11-20, 02:48 PM

@Seward:

I don't disagree with you, but I want to show you another POV.

See, the real beauty of 3.0 (mind, not 3.5) was, that it incorporated only one style of campaign and suppported that.
Everything was based on a very simple formula and if you ditch that, you're in unsuported country and on your own.
We saw a return to that with 4E and recently with 5E again.
That's a thing to understand and acknowledge, not necessarily to like and accept for ones own group.

3,5 is a special kind of beast, as most of that thinking was disregarded by customer request and that customer base still sticks to this particular edition and hasn't moved on.
But the distinction is important.

So no, we can't talk about stuff that is campaign dependent, we can only talk about the type of campaign intended and supportet by the rules and ammend that view by also talking about what deviating from that can us lead to, but only on the vaguest of terms.

You talking about the monk is an good example of that, as when sticking to the original intended parameters, the monk will fullfil its role and is sufficient at it, even being MAD and all.

Beheld

2015-11-20, 02:56 PM

IMHO the best way to allow newbie players to have some fun is to steer them toward characters+builds that behave roughly like this:

My solution is to give to have them play classes that do their entire concept with almost no choices on level up or at the beginning of the day, and all their choices on a round by round basis.

So if they want to be a Necromancer, they are Dread Necros, if they want to be a illusionist/enchanters they are beguilers, and if they want to be something else, well, there is an entire forum who's homebrew contains an at will class with round by round choices from level appropriate effects tied to a theme for every possible theme and I just go steal their stuff.

Seward

2015-11-20, 07:41 PM

So if they want to be a Necromancer, they are Dread Necros, if they want to be a illusionist/enchanters they are beguilers

There is merit to this approach, which is one reason I think the Pathfinder Archetype approach is stronger than the 3.x Prestige Class approach. A Zen Archer Monk doesn't have to wait to become level 8 to become a Zen Archer the way an Arcane Archer does and will basically work even if the player does stupid things with his feat choices.

The Beguiler is arguably too versatile for a newbie, but it's essentially the same idea as helping a sorcerer with spell selection - it just gets more spells per level and has less ability to break theme to get one spell the PLAYER thinks is within theme but the GAME DESIGNER did not.

For example, I want to play the ultimate mind-controller type arcane caster. So yeah, the Beguiler has most of it, but if I was a sorcerer I could ditch the illusion cruft and add things like Command Undead, Halt Undead (and the construct equivalents in some editions/splatbooks) or maybe add things like Stone Shape because I'm "Commanding" the stone to move etc.

So with a newbie I will usually ask what they want to play, and then show them a way to get there that kind of works, but still leaves them a bit of scope to break the mold (eg, I won't suggest ALL of a sorcerer's spell list, just enough to strongly support the theme and I'll tell them "look, you can get some scrolls or wands of fly if the party needs you to be able to cast fly", so don't freak out too much about too narrow a spell list. But he's more likely to charm a flying creature, or Suggest it to approach or something if he really is into the mind control approach to solving problems)

I have to disagree that 3.0 was any different from 3.5 or Pathfinder from a Tier standpoint. Cripes, 3.0 had haste giving extra standard actions, attribute buff spells that made magic items useless due to duration etc etc etc, all of which tipped the tier-envy even higher to the Vancian casters.

4.0 yeah - except that it got just as complex as you leveled, it just expressed differently. The entire game system didn't allow Tier1-2 effects (it's hard with strict limits on range, area of effect etc) beyond the ritual system, which anybody could use if they wanted to.

I don't know 5th edition, and I'm unlikely to learn. I'm a bit off Hasbro at the moment, I'm not a fan of planned obsolescence in gaming systems where they throw out the old system after they've sold enough books.

stanprollyright

2015-11-20, 10:18 PM

@Seward:

Problem is, stating "breaking the game" or "no self restraint" is meaningless without stating what exactly the game is and where unrestrained actions, mostly based on tactical acumen and creativity breaks it.

I would define "breaking the game" as making the game unfun for other players, including the DM. Angel Summoners make the game no fun for BMX Bandits. Even if your Wizard refrains from using infinite Wish loops and other abusive albeit creative tricks, he still runs the risk of making the low-tiered classes feel useless when he routinely uses spells that completely bypass their mundane abilities. And it will make the DM pull his hair out trying to design encounters to challenge the Wizard that won't simultaneously wipe out the lower tiers. Even a blaster Wizard compared to a Barbarian is a seeker missile platform compared to a shotgun. The tier system is really just about knowing those things ahead of time, in hopes that you can plan/build around it.

Beheld

2015-11-20, 10:37 PM

I would define "breaking the game" as making the game unfun for other players, including the DM. Angel Summoners make the game no fun for BMX Bandits. Even if your Wizard refrains from using infinite Wish loops and other abusive albeit creative tricks, he still runs the risk of making the low-tiered classes feel useless when he routinely uses spells that completely bypass their mundane abilities.

As a Rogue, I personally just hate it when the Wizard casts Grease or Glitterdust. It just makes the whole game so much less fun for me.

nedz

2015-11-21, 03:45 AM

@Seward:

Look at this from the POV of the DM:

The DM is trying to create challenging encounters for the party. If the party is unbalanced then he has a choice of setting an encounter which would be a challenge for the Angel Summoner, in which case the BMX bandit is a spectator, or setting one which would be a challenge for the BMX bandit, in which case the Angel Summoner solves this problem trivially and the BMX bandit is still a spectator.

Now there are ways around this, but life for the DM just got a lot harder since most of the available encounter space is useless.

Florian

2015-11-21, 03:55 AM

@Seward:

You've been looking at the wrong things. I didn't mean indivial characters powers and options in the first place, but that those editions simply stated how the game is to be played and had those assumptions hardwired into the rules.

For example, no rest and refreh before X condition happens.

This approach creates a rough parity between all day long and ressource heavy classes if you stick to it. PF is a good example for middleground classes,, with all the x/day hybrids that are availlable there.

Now 3,5 broke its own rules by integrating ever more all day long options to ressource heavy classes without adding ressources to the all day long classes (outside ToB), pretty much ruining this approach. Think about it, the heavy prevaillance of gish-type classes and builds is one of the best examples of this kind of shift.

@stanprollyright/nedz:

Sorry, but focusing on one encounter only leads to repeating that stupid meme all over again. This was never meant to be a one encounter only game and players don't have the option to make it into one without deliberatelly breaking the game by changing it.

Seward

2015-11-21, 01:00 PM

@Seward:

You've been looking at the wrong things. I didn't mean indivial characters powers and options in the first place, but that those editions simply stated how the game is to be played and had those assumptions hardwired into the rules.

For example, no rest and refreh before X condition happens.

But....3.0 was WORSE in that respect than 3.5.

Permanency was broader. Lots of buffs were reduced from hour/level to minutes or even rounds/level. There was no reason at all to buy an attribute boost item, or an enhancement bonus on a magic item past +1 (3.5 still had long duration greater magic weapon, but the progression was slowed down, so the problem was pushed back to level 8 instead of level 6, and didn't pay serious dividends until level 12, instead of 9).

You may not have seen much of it personally simply because 3.0 was only out for a couple of years, and people had not yet deconstructed its possibilities - the worst stuff did get slammed with the nerfbat in the 3.5 conversion.

4.x was better than 3.x in that the short rest/long rest mechanics reduced the ability to stack up resources into a single encounter, but it had its own issues that worked in the other direction (action points in particular really aided "nova" rounds and as you leveled you eventually got enough encounter and daily abilities to nova pretty damn well anyway)

Florian

2015-11-21, 01:33 PM

@Seward:

Please don't mistake cause and effect. You are right, those spells were better and they were a better investion than spending WBL on certain items.
Now look at what that downgrade has led to: Before, it was only logical to buff melees with Bulls Strength, nearly lasting all day long but costing you slots, now, because of scaling spells, your caster is lasting longer as he can fall back on simple but useful spells like Fiery Ray while your melees invest on items.
That's exactly the cha ge I was talking about.

GreyBlack

2015-11-21, 03:29 PM

Yeah. The healbots actually were useful. What they do is conceptually simple, they'll have some buffs for when nobody is hurt and they do something that contributes most rounds of combat.

The biggest cleric trap I saw was thinking they were a melee (or worse archer) without doing anything to meaningfully fix the action economy problem. (A cleric played this way is a fighter without feats, who spends the first 2-3 rounds of a fight doing nothing but buffing himself. The fight is over before they participate - or they don't buff and do anemic damage).

The biggest druid trap I saw, and this happens ALL THE TIME, is that some young person will be encouraged to play a druid because it has a pet that is their best friend. (sometimes this is a non-RPG person who isn't a youth, but it's extremely common to be teenage or younger). Druids are INSANELY complex to play if you try to milk out the full power of the wildshape options, the companion options and the summoning options. A 7thish level druid with augment summoning and natural spell who summons something then attacks might have 10+ attack rolls to resolve, different feats on the character, pet and summoned critter and ALSO has some druid spells that might be viable options for the combat instead of personally mixing it up.

Their turn comes up and they have no idea what to do except send in the pet to attack, and sometimes not even that if the pet gets hurt. They use NONE of the druid abilities, often forgetting to do anything at all, or if you're lucky maybe using a crossbow and missing.

Without significant system mastery, druid players freeze up. At the level C optimization you are better off encouraging the druid player to prep nothing but long duration buffs for themselves and their pet, and focus on being two animals in melee role, with some utility spells for out-of-combat stuff (druids are awesome scouts without even trying, and newbies aren't under the time pressure for that role as they are if trying to get the true power of summon+wildshape+pet+battlefield control spells)

One reason sorcerers (and similar things like favored souls or oracles) do decently well at a lot of level C play is that the player without system mastery for the game CAN achieve system mastery of their handful of spells. All critical decisions are made during level up, away from the time pressure of the game, and repeatedly using a small toolset to overcome challenges builds system mastery without much chance they'll be entirely useless in most encounters. (they players with system mastery can improve their odds by encouraging them to carry a few key scrolls to fill holes in their spell mix until they get enough spells known to cope with most anything)

This! I actually remember playing with a guy who had, literally, no idea how to use a druid, even going so far as to grab some bow-related feats to bolster his combat abilities. This all changed when I showed him MoMF (please, I realize it's not the best PrC, but bear with me for a second), and he realized some of the potential that the chassis has. He, at that point, switched over entirely into Druid 5/MoMF 10/Warshaper 5, becoming something of a party tank. Fact is, his initial build was C to F level play, leading to some... interesting moments, we'll say.