Tier 3 is Overrated. We should stop fetishizing JaronK's Tier 3 definition. [Archive]

johnbragg

2016-02-21, 06:51 PM

TLDR:
1. Caster supremacy is a thing, and it is a bad thing.
2. JaronK’s Tier system, and especially Tier 3 definition, has been overemphasized.
3. Tier 1 and 5 are the problem. Tier 2-4 is just fine.
4. Therefore, fixes should focus on
a. Why Tier 1 is a problem. Is it a dozen broken spells, or is Tier 1 hopeless?
b. Fixing Tier 1 so that the caster isn’t a one-man party
c. Fixing Tier 5 so that the Fighter/Monk/etc is an equal member of the party.
5. Fixes should NOT focus on giving the Fighter non-combat abilities.

1. Caster supremacy is a thing, and it is a bad thing.
(IF you like, you can read that as "Tier 1 is a different playstyle", which is a perfectly respectable statement.)
The reason that JaronK bothered to write up the Tier system, and the reason it caught on, is that Tiers 1 and 5 is are problems. Tier 1 characters have access to game-breaking and campaign-rearranging abilities, which makes DMs unhappy. But worse, they have fairly obvious access to abilities which obsolete the other players, which is a bad thing in a table game. Famously, a 13,000 gp item obsoletes a class, for about 4000 gp you can get a Hewards' Haversack and fill it with 1st-3rd level scrolls that obsolete the Rogue, and polymorph and summon monster/nature's ally obsolete the beatstick fighter.

I'm not talking about high-level or high-op play, either. (Ok, the game-breaking campaign rearranging stuff is high op. But that's not the real problem, that's player vs DM and DM forgetting that he can cheat.) I’m talking about the BMX Bandit/Angel Summoner problem, where, in-character, the most reasonable solution to most any challenge the DM throws at the party is “figure out the optimum spell for the Wizard/Cleric/Druid to cast/form to polymorph/wildshape into.” That’s a mid-level problem.

2. JaronK’s Tier system, and especially Tier 3 definition, has been overemphasized.
I've been listening to/reading the folks who REALLY don't care for JaronK's Tier list. And, while the Tier list was a terribly useful tool for a long time, to identify and explain and theorycraft caster supremacy and especially caster supremacy when they have unlimited list access, I wonder if the Tier system hasn't had its day in some ways.

More exactly, I wonder if homebrewers don't place too much emphasis on the Tier system. I've certainly fallen victim to the trap of
1. Write hopelessly confused, unplayable mess of a class, post, ask if it brings (Wizard/Fighter) (up/down) to Tier 3.
2. GEt questions and explanations that indicate that the class is a horribly written, unplayable mess which may or may not meet JAronK's Tier 3 criteria.
3. "So, it IS a Tier 3?"

In business (or any bureaucracy), there’s a category of problems where some Thing is found to correlate with Goodness. So, in an effort to improve, the administration starts to measure Thing, and in various ways promote sources of Thing and parts of the organization taht show Thingness, etc.

So middle management endeavors to maximize Thing. The problem is that soon, Thing is no longer an effective proxy for Goodness.

I think the best case for JaronK’s definitions being Thing over Goodness is the core, out-of-the-box Bard as Tier 3. Yes, that Inspire Courage/Competence is always useful, and the bard is a decent spellcaster and a decent combatant. And the Bard lends itself well to shenanigans, which is a great fit for players who love shenanigans. But just taken as a set of mechanical abilities, the Bard never really has a Moment of Awesome. Out-of-the-box, it’s as much of a roleplaying downer as the old Healbot cleric--you want one in the party, but you hope it’s somebody else.

3. Tier 1 and 5 are the problem. Tier 2-4 are just fine.
Going back to the original source material, the Word of JaronK says:

As a rule, parties function best when everyone in the party is within 2 Tiers of each other (so a party that's all Tier 2-4 is generally fine, and so is a party that's all Tier 3-5, but a party that has Tier 1 and Tier 5s in it may have issues).

A party that's all Tier 2-4 is generally fine. I'm going to repeat that part again--"a party that's all Tier 2-4 is generally fine." Yet we strive to tweak homebrew Tier 4 classes up to Tier 3, and take Tier 2 classes and wad them up and start over.

"A party that has Tier 1 and Tier 5 may have issues". Pretty much. Tier 1 and Tier 5 ARE the issues.

4. Therefore, fixes should focus on
a. Why Tier 1 is a problem. Is it a dozen broken spells, or is Tier 1 hopeless?
Are Tier 1 problems localized to the alter self/polymorph line, summon monster/natures’ ally, planar ally/binding, celerity, contingencies and maybe scry-and-teleport lines?
Or is the problem inherent in a dude who can cast improved invisibility and fly, and then haste his party and fly around throwing lightning bolts, before turning around the next day and loading up on command undead and animate dead, or conjure a half-dozen earth elementals and rearrange a floor plan?

b. Fixing Tier 1s so that the (wizard/cleric/druid) isn’t a one-man party.
c. Fixing Tier 5 so that the Fighter/Monk/etc is an equal member of the party.
(I don’t have a lot to say here. I just think should be a measuring stick)

5. Fixes should NOT focus on giving the Fighter non-combat abilities.
This may be a revolutionary statement, but most of the time the player who rolls up a beatstick fighter or barbarian came to the table to stab and bash imaginary monsters with pretend metal sticks. (Or pretend fists). (This doesn’t mean a fix can’t throw the Fighter a bone and give him 4 Skill Points per level, or make Spot and Listen class skills for guards, etc. But that shouldn’t be the focus.)

So it’s not entirely relevant that the Fighter can’t natively fly, teleport, summon and bind outsiders, become fire-resistant, breathe water, etc. And not because “WBL and MAgic MArt”, otherwise the Expert would be a playable class. Because when he needs these things, he has a magic-using friend to help do these things--and that magic-using friend needs the Fighter to handle melee combat for him.

If your playstyle is high-level Tier One, that’s fine and there is no Badwrongfun (even though your fun is, in fact, bad and wrong). But that playstyle has no real place for mundanes, and there’s no point tweaking mundanes until they can contribute at that level. (Setting aside high-op Rogues played by a certain poster.) Notice that Living Greyhawk dropped their max level from 18 to 16, and Pathfinder Society caps at 12. To me, that’s an indication that the RAW game just breaks down at that point, or at least becomes a specialized variant of the game.

Starbuck_II

2016-02-21, 07:05 PM

[SIZE=3]
5. Fixes should NOT focus on giving the Fighter non-combat abilities. [/B]
This may be a revolutionary statement, but most of the time the player who rolls up a beatstick fighter or barbarian came to the table to stab and bash imaginary monsters with pretend metal sticks. (Or pretend fists). (This doesn’t mean a fix can’t throw the Fighter a bone and give him 4 Skill Points per level, or make Spot and Listen class skills for guards, etc. But that shouldn’t be the focus.)

So it’s not entirely relevant that the Fighter can’t natively fly, teleport, summon and bind outsiders, become fire-resistant, breathe water, etc. And not because “WBL and MAgic MArt”, otherwise the Expert would be a playable class. Because when he needs these things, he has a magic-using friend to help do these things--and that magic-using friend needs the Fighter to handle melee combat for him.

Issue is if he can do this why doe she need the Fighter (who can't)?
Would not instead get someone not expendable and can do some of that?

Example Barbarian can get fire resistance in 3.5 with a feat. Cold resistance as well. At same time if take both.
So, why Fighter? Again Fighter is the problem. I'll admit, the immunity of these resistances apply only when raging, but rarely is that an issue. (see Burning Rage and Freezing Rage, they stack).

If you give him non-combat so he has a excuse to be in party over other choices.

Deophaun

2016-02-21, 07:10 PM

johnbragg

2016-02-21, 07:24 PM

Issue is if he can do this why doe she need the Fighter (who can't)?
Would not instead get someone not expendable and can do some of that?

Example Barbarian can get fire resistance in 3.5 with a feat. Cold resistance as well. At same time if take both.
So, why Fighter? Again Fighter is the problem. I'll admit, the immunity of these resistances apply only when raging, but rarely is that an issue. (see Burning Rage and Freezing Rage, they stack).

If you give him non-combat so he has a excuse to be in party over other choices.

In order for a fighter to stab and bash imaginary monsters with pretend metal sticks, it is often necessary for them to a) reach said imaginary monsters and b) not get turned into a flaming puddle of slag before reaching said monsters. That means it is entirely relevant.

PEople are missing the part about the fighter being better in combat. Nobody seems to complain about the Warblade not being able to teleport or contact other plane etc.

Tome of Battle is a good answer. Maybe refluffing the Barbarian is a good answer, for people who want to play a civilized-world beatstick.

The point is, that "how do we make Fighter Tier 3" is the wrong question.

Deophaun

2016-02-21, 07:33 PM

The point is, that "how do we make Fighter Tier 3" is the wrong question.
It's the wrong question because it's already been answered: Warblade. Barbarian. If you wanted you could buff the Warblade with full Fighter feat progression and it still wouldn't alter the Warblade's tier. The Fighter chasis is just that bad.

And the Warblade may not be able to fly, but it does have significant mobility through Tiger Claw maneuvers as well as iron heart surge which can negate BFC. Focusing on teleportation really is missing the point of what you need to teleport for, while the fixation on planar binding is just... odd.

Zaq

2016-02-21, 07:36 PM

[SIZE=3]In business (or any bureaucracy), there’s a category of problems where some Thing is found to correlate with Goodness. So, in an effort to improve, the administration starts to measure Thing, and in various ways promote sources of Thing and parts of the organization taht show Thingness, etc.

So middle management endeavors to maximize Thing. The problem is that soon, Thing is no longer an effective proxy for Goodness.

This part of what you've said is absolutely true.

That said, I don't think it's necessarily the case that the tier system isn't useful, or that it's "had its day." I'm not going to say it's flawless by any stretch, but I am, in general, a pretty firm believer in it for most purposes. I don't spend a whole lot of time around homebrew discussions, but if I take you at your word that homebrewers (as a whole) are getting hung up on defining things as T3, maybe that's a problem with the homebrewers rather than with the tier system.

Using the terms from your quote, the problem is not with Thing itself. The problem is when the "middle management" promotes Thingness over actual Goodness. That isn't Thing's fault. And if people are hung up on trying to squeeze new material into the T3 label, that's not the fault of the tier system.

I mean, we can get into obviously extreme examples of the principle you're discussing. Let's say we're all trying to cook delicious (Good) fried chicken, and we discover that fried chicken tends to be more delicious (Good) when it's golden brown (Thing). If we start aiming to make fried chicken more and more golden brown (Thing) and just assume that golden brown (Thing) fried chicken is automatically delicious (Good), then we can get absurd results like someone just cooking a shoddy piece of chicken in the microwave and dunking it in food dye to make it look even more golden brown (Thing) than chicken that's fried normally. If we were judging the fried chicken solely on its golden brownness (Thing) instead of on how actually delicious (Good) it is, then the microwaved chicken that's been dunked in brown dye will be judged to be good. Yes, this is a clearly absurd result, and it's an indication that we can't just use being golden brown (Thing) as a proxy for being delicious (Good) without applying some common sense to it. But the problem comes from whatever robotic set of rules we're using to judge ourselves and our fried chicken. It does NOT mean that delicious fried chicken isn't golden brown, and it doesn't mean that it's not useful at all to consider how golden brown your fried chicken is turning when you're cooking it normally and not trying to game the system. It just means that you can't mechanically equate golden brown = delicious without considering why golden brown fried chicken is usually delicious.

So yeah. It's not generally useful to just strive to get a judgment of being "T3" without considering what that means and why you would want it. And if "T3" has become a proxy for "good/useful/balanced," then yeah, perhaps some common sense is in order to make sure that you're measuring what you think you're measuring. But that doesn't mean that T3 isn't still the sweet spot for a lot of people (including me, speaking generally). That doesn't mean that it's not useful to emulate the characteristics of T3 classes. It just means we can't get sloppy with what we're measuring.

As far as T2 not being a problem? I disagree. Remember, T2 is roughly defined as being able to do anything a T1 class can do, just not everything a T1 class can do. If the things that T1 classes do are problems (whether that's polymorph abuse or planar binding abuse or anything else you mentioned), then it's problematic when T2 classes do those same things. By definition, they can do fewer of those problematic things (when comparing actual characters in actual play, at least), but that's precisely why they're in a lower tier. Not every T2 character who sees play will do problematic things, of course, but no one has ever said that they have to. (Not every T1 character will automatically be a problem, either, of course.) And we all know that T2s might even end up being less flexible in actual play than certain T3s, depending. I'm not saying anything new, of course; pretty much all of this is in the definition of the tier system. But I don't see how you can define T1 characters (broadly) as problematic and declare that T2 characters (broadly) aren't problematic as well, since they have basically the same tricks (just not all at once).

I could get into specifics of what you said, but that wouldn't really be helpful, so I'll break here for now.

Sayt

2016-02-21, 07:41 PM

While I personally like T3, I think you've put together a pretty cogent argument, and I agree that Tiers 1 and 5 are definately the problem children.

But I also get why people like T3, and I think it's probably for relatively similar reason to my own: People like to contribute. They like to be able to have a positive effect towards solving A. The definitional goal of T3 is that they can always contribute. The Bard is a good fifth sapient because while he can make the entire party better at their jobs: they're always relevant.

Whereas the Barbarian is not always relevant when it's time to go to a Ball or negotiate a peace treaty, he doesn't have a mechanically effective way to contribute.

On the other hand, some people are interested in playing characters like that, so 2-4 is honestly fine., so long as you ahve a choice between 3 and 4.

Honestly, point four is the one I'm most interseted in:

4a)There are way too ****ing many great spells. There are spells that only one kind of magic can do (For instance, Divine tends to be better at healing and restoration, Arcane is better at teleportation and mobility), and that in and of itself isn't a problem. The problem is that some kinds of wizards get to do everyone else's stuff as well, and they often get to do it better. CoDzillas are emblematic of this They lay down the smack better than classes dedicated to laying down smack. Knock is a spell that's also emblematic of this. There are also great spells that let you be better at your party member's job's than they are that get better. (Polymorph and Planar Binding are the obvious choices. As more bestiaries are released, the more content becomes available, the more outliers there are in the shallow end of the bellcurve to chortle and rub one's hands over.)

Some groups deal with this by a sometimes unspoken gentleman's agreement of "Don't steal your friend's schtik, cripes..." Sometimes you need to just blacklist certain spells as not okay. If I don't trust the group I'm running for I probably just ban prepared casters. (This is 4b as well)

As for 4c... I honestly think Pathfinder has done pretty well at this. Unchained Monk can actually do it's thing and contribute pretty well. Well built rangers can lay down heavy damage and have enough skill ranks to contribute out of combat, Fighter's advance weapon training give intiative boosts, better saves, etc.

Cosi

2016-02-21, 07:41 PM

Tier 1 characters have access to game-breaking and campaign-rearranging abilities, which makes DMs unhappy.

I disagree with the sentiment here. The DM doesn't have any special privilege to be happy with the game at the expense of other players. I like the campaign changing abilities casters get, and I don't think they're bad because some people can't figure out how to tell a compelling story with them.

for about 4000 gp you can get a Hewards' Haversack and fill it with 1st-3rd level scrolls that obsolete the Rogue,

That's kind of true, but it's more a symptom of the Rogue not getting abilities that scale their niche to high levels. I've frequently made the case that at low levels, knock versus Open Lock (and all the similar complaints) is a meaningful trade-off. knock is faster and more consistent, but it's use limited and trades off with the raw awesomeness of glitterdust or web. That doesn't scale to high level very well because the relative cost falls, but if the Rogue kept getting abilities (perhaps from skills, perhaps from class) which lived in that niche, it would continue to be relevant.

and polymorph and summon monster/nature's ally obsolete the beatstick fighter.

polymorph sure, but that spell is four or five kinds of broken. I don't really get the value people think there is in summoning critters with CRs less than half your level, but whatever.

I've been listening to/reading the folks who REALLY don't care for JaronK's Tier list. And, while the Tier list was a terribly useful tool for a long time, to identify and explain and theorycraft caster supremacy and especially caster supremacy when they have unlimited list access, I wonder if the Tier system hasn't had its day in some ways.

I think the big problem with the tier system is that it's mostly right. Wizards are better than Fighters. Barbarians are worse than Clerics. And so on. But it's wrong, not just in assignments (Rogue/Beguiler/Favored Soul/etc), but in criteria. JaronK placed a big emphasis on versatility, and that isn't really the problem. The fact that a Wizard could use his fourth level slots on evard's black tentacles or polymorph or charm monster or burning blood or whatever isn't really all that important to the question of class imbalance. It's that doing any of those things is more of a contribution than the Fighter can make (assuming anything close to equal optimization). Versatility also tends to be talked about more in the context of combat spells (where it is not much of a deal, barring some PrCs/Feats/ACFs) rather than downtime spells (where spell knowledge has real value).

Are Tier 1 problems localized to the alter self/polymorph line, summon monster/natures’ ally, planar ally/binding, celerity, contingencies and maybe scry-and-teleport lines?

polymorph et al - This spell needs to not let you flip through the MM and assume random forms. Also, it needs to involve checking less sources to adjudicate (seriously, it's PHB + PHB II + Rule Compendium + Errata to all + maybe FAQ + maybe Rules of the Game articles + arguments about precedence/inheritance/interpretations + dumpster dive MMs, which would be unworkable even if the end result was balanced).

summon monster et al - I don't see any problems with these. They aren't great in combat, and they're not much better than other versatility spells (minor creation, fabricate, shadow conjuration, limited wish, etc) for utility. Can someone explain what they think the broken tricks are for these?

planar binding et al (counting animate dead, simulacrum, and any similar spells) - These are essentially impossible to balance as written. Not per se because of what you can do with them (after all, you could simply assume that people jump to self + twenty CR 13 minions at level 11, even if that is stupid), but because the power of the spell varies radically based on what you do and how often you do it. Binding an earth elemental to dig out a mine is fine and cool, binding fifty to clobber all your enemies forever is dumb.

celerity - This is really two problems - action economy and interruptions. I'm not sold on people wanting to burn three slots to cast two spells a round in most cases (particularly in nominally balanced games), but the interrupt power changes the tactical landscape considerably.

contingency - I think the spell is fine. The tricks for getting a bunch are not, but I think "actually, I'm over here" is a fine thing (although it should probably not be a spell, and be a class feature or something instead).

Scry 'n' Die - It's a tactic. Not a super broken tactic, except for the fact that short duration buffs with limited daily uses let you get an insurmountable advantage using it. It comes down to whether you think haste or this is a more important. You can also mitigate it by giving teleport a warning on the end where you're arriving and a longer casting time, and simply pushing the tactic back to greater teleport.

Or is the problem inherent in a dude who can cast improved invisibility and fly, and then haste his party and fly around throwing lightning bolts, before turning around the next day and loading up on command undead and animate dead, or conjure a half-dozen earth elementals and rearrange a floor plan?

I don't see what's wrong with that from a power perspective. If all of those shticks are balanced, getting to pick one each day is balanced. There are some issues with divinations letting you get more value out of situational spells, but I'm not convinced that's fundamental.

This may be a revolutionary statement, but most of the time the player who rolls up a beatstick fighter or barbarian came to the table to stab and bash imaginary monsters with pretend metal sticks.

I think this is missing the point. Right now, the Fighter is serving two masters: the guy who wants to ignore out of combat stuff, and the guy who wants to use a sword in combat. Those groups do overlap, but the overlap isn't total. Some people want to play a Knight who runs a plot of land, some people want to play a Mage who just blows stuff up in a fight and ignores the game otherwise. The solution is to write a few (two-three) classes that have a simple combat shtick, and minimal or passive non-combat abilities. Those classes shouldn't all be in one archetype, and no archetype should be all those classes.

So have a Fire Mage who just slings fireballs and scorching rays, a Barbarian who just hulks out and smashes things, and a Marshal who just has a passive aura of making people tough. But also have a Wizard who can use evard's black tentacles in combat and fabricate outside it, a Knight who fights defensively and manages a kingdom, and a Cleric who lays down buffs and debuffs but can still summon angels.

Beheld

2016-02-21, 07:50 PM

5. Fixes should NOT focus on giving the Fighter non-combat abilities. [/B]
This may be a revolutionary statement, but most of the time the player who rolls up a beatstick fighter or barbarian came to the table to stab and bash imaginary monsters with pretend metal sticks. (Or pretend fists). (This doesn’t mean a fix can’t throw the Fighter a bone and give him 4 Skill Points per level, or make Spot and Listen class skills for guards, etc. But that shouldn’t be the focus.)

So it’s not entirely relevant that the Fighter can’t natively fly, teleport, summon and bind outsiders, become fire-resistant, breathe water, etc. And not because “WBL and MAgic MArt”, otherwise the Expert would be a playable class. Because when he needs these things, he has a magic-using friend to help do these things--and that magic-using friend needs the Fighter to handle melee combat for him.

As per my previous comments:

1) Who cares if they care only about hitting things? Giving them a supernatural power source that lets them hit things better and also have out of combat utility doesn't mean they have to use it in the first place, and honestly, chances are very good that you are wrong about them not wanting them, they probably just wanted to be a guy who hits things with sticks and were willing to give up out of combat utility to do it.

Unless you are making a class for literally only one human being in the world, you probably shouldn't design it based on some hypothetical "what fighter players want" idea. And it's even worse if you claim to know what people want in order to justify making a class that is objectively inferior to other classes "I will fight exactly as well as other classes but in a different way, but I will have nothing do any time combat music isn't playing."

2) You are propagating the idea that classes have roles and you need someone in each role. That's actively bad for the game. People should be able to play whatever class they want, and do what they want. If you don't have someone who wants to play the Heal bitch, you can't make your game mandate that someone needs to play the heal bitch without making it a worse game because someone isn't happy. That doesn't stop being true if you replace Heal Bitch with Fighter Bitch.

PEople are missing the part about the fighter being better in combat.

Do you mean better than everyone else in the game in a way that completely unbalances either parties with fighters or parties without fighters and makes everyone except the fighter feel bad whenever they are in combat?

Because if so, my guess is that they are missing it because they are deliberately giving you the benefit of the doubt and thinking you couldn't possibly mean something so terrible for the game.

Cerefel

2016-02-21, 07:52 PM

PEople are missing the part about the fighter being better in combat. Nobody seems to complain about the Warblade not being able to teleport or contact other plane etc.

Tome of Battle is a good answer. Maybe refluffing the Barbarian is a good answer, for people who want to play a civilized-world beatstick.

The point is, that "how do we make Fighter Tier 3" is the wrong question.

Well for one thing, a watblade with good feat selection CAN teleport. But also, who says the fighter is better in combat than a full caster? A wizard/sorcerer/whatever has ways to deal with enemies without getting killed without a fighter's help, as well as being able to do all of the caster-y things you've already acknowledged with basically no investment.

nedz

2016-02-21, 08:00 PM

I'm running a game at the moment where I have

Banned T1
Banned Casterly PrCs which increase the Tier
Made all lower tier classes which use Vancian casting spontaneous (Healer, Paladin, Ranger, etc.)
Implemented PF skill system in 3.5
Banned about 50 feats - the usual suspects
Banned about 12 spells
Fixedup about twice as many, including many which made skills irrelevant
Added various fixes for known dysfunctions - these are kind of compulsory houserules for any game
Various other minor tweaks, like swapping the Druid and Ranger's AC, giving Favoured Soul TU and domains (though one less than Cleric - these both get extra domains at 6th, 11th, 16th), ...

My aims were to

Remove Vancian casting - there are plenty of other magic systems: one of the strengths of 3.5
Reduce action economy and metamagic abuse
Make the skill system more important

I did this after a close reading of the tier system, analysing my own experience with the players I play with, and various discussions with JaronK, and others, on this very forum.

I found JaronK's analysis very useful and insightful.

I saw no need to ban T5 - they are useful as dips.

I considered banning T2, but that would have made it a very different game and I didn't want to have to write/review lots of T3 homebrew.

The only class I struggled with was Spirit Shaman - which is both T1 and T2. I ended up making this spontaneous too.

As to the results: well the game is only at level 4 so far so it's probably too early to tell but it seems OK so far.

I know it is still possible to break the game, only it's a lot less likely.

johnbragg

2016-02-21, 08:01 PM

This part of what you've said is absolutely true.

That said, I don't think it's necessarily the case that the tier system isn't useful, or that it's "had its day." I'm not going to say it's flawless by any stretch, but I am, in general, a pretty firm believer in it for most purposes. I don't spend a whole lot of time around homebrew discussions, but if I take you at your word that homebrewers (as a whole) are getting hung up on defining things as T3, maybe that's a problem with the homebrewers rather than with the tier system.

Using the terms from your quote, the problem is not with Thing itself. The problem is when the "middle management" promotes Thingness over actual Goodness. That isn't Thing's fault. And if people are hung up on trying to squeeze new material into the T3 label, that's not the fault of the tier system.

I agree. It's not Thing's fault, and it doesn't mean that Thing is bad. It just means that Thing no longer effectively measures Goodness.

I have great respect for what JaronK did. I just think that it's been pushed beyond where it's useful to push it.

As far as T2 not being a problem? I disagree. Remember, T2 is roughly defined as being able to do anything a T1 class can do, just not everything a T1 class can do. If the things that T1 classes do are problems (whether that's polymorph abuse or planar binding abuse or anything else you mentioned), then it's problematic when T2 classes do those same things. By definition, they can do fewer of those problematic things (when comparing actual characters in actual play, at least), but that's precisely why they're in a lower tier.

Well, I think one reason that T2s are not a problem while T1s are is, the T2 has a limited set of tricks. A Sorcerer with polymorph means you have polymorph problems. You can fix polymorph (Pathfinder rules, Giant's fix, your own homebrew, other homebrew, use 2E's rules, etc etc), or ban polymorph and tell the player to pick something else, or you can decide to live with polymorph problems, or you can come to an arrangement with the player about what is and isn't reasonable. (Or rocks fall, everyone dies and you play Munchkin or watch anime).

But I don't see how you can define T1 characters (broadly) as problematic and declare that T2 characters (broadly) aren't problematic as well, since they have basically the same tricks (just not all at once). BEcause waking up in the morning and selecting from "all the tricks" is a quantum difference in power from having this, that and the other trick. A 10th level Sorcerer knows 15 spells, 3 of them 4th-5th level. A 10th level wizard worth a damn has 15 5th level spells to pick from, plus 20 4th level spells. And if he can get to Ye Olde Magic MArt early enough in the morning, he has ALL TEH SPELLZ to pick from.

Graypairofsocks

2016-02-21, 08:04 PM

polymorph et al - This spell needs to not let you flip through the MM and assume random forms. Also, it needs to involve checking less sources to adjudicate (seriously, it's PHB + PHB II + Rule Compendium + Errata to all + maybe FAQ + maybe Rules of the Game articles + arguments about precedence/inheritance/interpretations + dumpster dive MMs, which would be unworkable even if the end result was balanced).
Maybe make them roll a knowledge check to see if their character knows about a certain monster?

By the way some advice I think I may have once heard about this:
Print all those relevant rules text out or put it all in one folder on your computer.

Cosi

2016-02-21, 08:20 PM

\The problem is that some kinds of wizards get to do everyone else's stuff as well, and they often get to do it better. CoDzillas are emblematic of this They lay down the smack better than classes dedicated to laying down smack.

But do they do that at level 2? Not really, at least if you don't force people to play Fighters. And if the classes are balanced at low levels, but diverge at high levels, why are the classes that are on the high side of that divergence the problem? Couldn't it equally be said that Warblades are the problem for not keeping up to Clerics?

Knock is a spell that's also emblematic of this.

No, it isn't. knock trades off with glitterdust and can be used once per day. Open Lock trades off with Climb and can be used at will. Those are profoundly different things, and I think they are basically balanced. That diverges at high levels, but how is that the Wizard's fault?

Remove Vancian casting - there are plenty of other magic systems: one of the strengths of 3.5

This is I think the best argument for T3 over higher tiers. The balance arguments are basically inane, but the classes in T3 (and to a lesser extent T4) do use a wide variety of different resource management mechanics. The Duskblade's spell channeling, the Beguiler's vancian casting (ish), the Warblades encounter + recharge, the Binder's vestiges, and the Totemist's essentia make for a variety of classes that are not just distinct in what they do, but how they do it.

As to the results: well the game is only at level 4 so far so it's probably too early to tell but it seems OK so far.

D&D, without any modifications, is balanced at level four. Not perfectly, but close as makes no odds.

I know it is still possible to break the game, only it's a lot less likely.

I don't see how that's a result of banning Wizards. What are Wizards doing to break the game now that planar binding or polymorph no longer break the game?

Maybe make them roll a knowledge check to see if their character knows about a certain monster?

That doesn't fix the problem, it just makes the problem less likely to happen. If it is broken to use polymorph to turn into a creature, that is still broken if you have to make a knowledge check first.

Print all those relevant rules text out or put it all in one folder on your computer.

But it's not just "the rules", it's deciding which ones to use. And arguing what they mean. And how the rules inherit from spell to spell. For example: Octopus Fu (if you get creature's natural attack routine, then you can turn into an Octopus and stack a bunch of buffs that enhance your individual attacks) or Dire Wolf Fu (if you use a creature's natural attacks with your own attack routine, then you can pick a creature with a sweet natural attack and get it a bunch of times)? One of those is true, but the rules (and official statements) are conflicted on the matter.

Zaq

2016-02-21, 08:21 PM

Well, I think one reason that T2s are not a problem while T1s are is, the T2 has a limited set of tricks. A Sorcerer with polymorph means you have polymorph problems. You can fix polymorph (Pathfinder rules, Giant's fix, your own homebrew, other homebrew, use 2E's rules, etc etc), or ban polymorph and tell the player to pick something else, or you can decide to live with polymorph problems, or you can come to an arrangement with the player about what is and isn't reasonable. (Or rocks fall, everyone dies and you play Munchkin or watch anime).

BEcause waking up in the morning and selecting from "all the tricks" is a quantum difference in power from having this, that and the other trick. A 10th level Sorcerer knows 15 spells, 3 of them 4th-5th level. A 10th level wizard worth a damn has 15 5th level spells to pick from, plus 20 4th level spells. And if he can get to Ye Olde Magic MArt early enough in the morning, he has ALL TEH SPELLZ to pick from.

If the GM has to step in to limit T2 power, then T2 isn't "perfectly fine." (Yeah, any class in any tier can find something that's going to require the GM stepping in, but it's not usually as easy as just selecting Polymorph as a spell known, so don't get hung up on that, because you know damn well what I'm saying here.) We obviously agree that one specific Sorcerer is going to have fewer tricks than one specific Wizard (again, that's kind of the definition of being T2 vs. T1), so the GM might have to make fewer discrete interventions, but those interventions are no less important when the Sorcerer is casting Planar Binding and Polymorph and Genesis than when the Wizard is casting those same spells. Yes, fewer maximum interventions (though a Sorcerer can still know enough "problem spells" to keep a GM's hands full) theoretically means less work, but I don't really see a qualitative difference between "I had to nerf Polymorph, ban Planar Binding, and tell the Sorcerer to play nice with his other spells" and "I had to nerf Polymorph, ban Planar Binding, retool Contingency, limit Contact Other Plane, and tell the Wizard to play nice with his other spells." The GM still has to be aware of problem spells and still has to choose how to deal with them (or to not deal with them). Just because a given Sorc can know fewer at once doesn't mean you're not applying the same solutions to the same problems. You've just got a difference in degree.

We all know the tiers are paired (T1/T2 are way closer to each other than to the next step down, same for T3/T4, same for T5/T6). Within each pair, you're going to find mostly differences of degree rather than wildly different differences of quality.

Naturally, not every T2 character is going to be a problem. But neither is every T1 character. But I maintain that if problem spells are enough to make you want to hard-ban T1, you're probably not going to just be okay with T2 without making some other changes and restrictions (whether that's hard-coded nerfs/bans or just soft "gentlemen's agreements" and other admonitions to play nice). And the fact that you need to make those changes and restrictions means that T2 is still basically the same kind of problem that T1 is, just to a different degree.

johnbragg

2016-02-21, 08:29 PM

I disagree with the sentiment here. The DM doesn't have any special privilege to be happy with the game at the expense of other players. I like the campaign changing abilities casters get, and I don't think they're bad because some people can't figure out how to tell a compelling story with them.

Well, yeah. You were one of the folks I was referring to happily playing in/running high-level Tier 1 games. You and your table don't have a problem, and to the extent you do, it's solved by not playing classes that can't keep up with Tier 1s.

I think the big problem with the tier system is that it's mostly right.
Agreed, or it wouldn't be the gold standard. Of course, no modern currency runs on the gold standard anymore.

rather than downtime spells (where spell knowledge has real value).
I want to save that thought for one of my fix ideas, but that's another thread.

polymorph et a summon monster et al - I don't see any problems with these. They aren't great in combat, and they're not much better than other versatility spells (minor creation, fabricate, shadow conjuration, limited wish, etc) for utility. Can someone explain what they think the broken tricks are for these?planar binding et al (counting animate dead, simulacrum, and any similar spells) celerity contingency

You're misunderstanding what I was saying, which I'll assume is my fault. Assuming that Tier 1 is a problem (which you don't assume), is it a problem because of a fairly limited list of problem spells, or is the problem larger than that.

I don't see what's wrong with that from a power perspective. If all of those shticks are balanced, getting to pick one each day is balanced.

NO, having more options is an advantage over having fewer options. Having more options means that you can solve more problems, which means you have more power. That's why Tier 1s have more power than Tier 2s.

I think this is missing the point. Right now, the Fighter is serving two masters: the guy who wants to ignore out of combat stuff, and the guy who wants to use a sword in combat. Those groups do overlap, but the overlap isn't total. Some people want to play a Knight who runs a plot of land, some people want to play a Mage who just blows stuff up in a fight and ignores the game otherwise. The solution is to write a few (two-three) classes that have a simple combat shtick, and minimal or passive non-combat abilities. Those classes shouldn't all be in one archetype, and no archetype should be all those classes.

But the design idea was that there would be a tradeoff between combat power--especially melee combat power--and out-of-combat utility. It didn't work out that way.

As per my previous comments:

1) Who cares if they care only about hitting things? Giving them a supernatural power source that lets them hit things better and also have out of combat utility doesn't mean they have to use it in the first place, and honestly, chances are very good that you are wrong about them not wanting them, they probably just wanted to be a guy who hits things with sticks and were willing to give up out of combat utility to do it.

But, if they were naive enough to choose Fighter, after making that tradeoff they're still only fair-to-middlin' at hitting things with sticks.

2) You are propagating the idea that classes have roles and you need someone in each role. That's actively bad for the game. People should be able to play whatever class they want, and do what they want. If you don't have someone who wants to play the Heal bitch, you can't make your game mandate that someone needs to play the heal bitch without making it a worse game because someone isn't happy. That doesn't stop being true if you replace Heal Bitch with Fighter Bitch.

The idea that classes have roles is pretty much fundamental to the idea of classes. You could certainly build a d20 system on that idea, starting with say the Battle Sorcerer chassis and building a menu of tradeoffs. But that's not the system any of us is playing.

Do you mean better than everyone else in the game in a way that completely unbalances either parties with fighters or parties without fighters and makes everyone except the fighter feel bad whenever they are in combat?

I should be more careful about clarifying when I'm using "Fighter" specifically and "fighter" to mean generic beatstick. And yes, a party without a beatstick should have serious problems, as much as a party without a primary spellcaster.

Well for one thing, a watblade with good feat selection CAN teleport. But also, who says the fighter is better in combat than a full caster? A wizard/sorcerer/whatever has ways to deal with enemies without getting killed without a fighter's help, as well as being able to do all of the caster-y things you've already acknowledged with basically no investment.

The beatstick *should* be better in combat than a full caster.

Cosi

2016-02-21, 08:48 PM

Well, yeah. You were one of the folks I was referring to happily playing in/running high-level Tier 1 games. You and your table don't have a problem, and to the extent you do, it's solved by not playing classes that can't keep up with Tier 1s.

T1s aren't the only one with that kind of utility. The Bard knows glibness, the Sorcerer gets teleport, and the Beguiler or Dread Necromancer have a lot of utility and can pick up more easily.

You're misunderstanding what I was saying, which I'll assume is my fault. Assuming that Tier 1 is a problem (which you don't assume), is it a problem because of a fairly limited list of problem spells, or is the problem larger than that.

IMO, it's closer to say "there are some things (minions, polymorph, WBL breaking, UMD abuse, Diplomacy), which break the game regardless of who uses them". It happens that the classes that are T1 have a lot of those tricks, but it doesn't mean "T1 is broken", it means those tricks are broken. The Bard's charm monster + Diplomacy routine is just as broken as the Beguiler's, the Sorcerer's, or the (UA enchanter variant) Wizard's. The Adept's ability to run up a huge army with animate dead is just as broken as the Wizard's, or the Cleric's, or the Dread Necromancer's. The Tier System is frequently used to conflate balance problems with spells with balance problems with classes.

There are also independent problems where classes are better than each other in various roles, but that's a different problem.

NO, having more options is an advantage over having fewer options. Having more options means that you can solve more problems, which means you have more power. That's why Tier 1s have more power than Tier 2s.

Sort of, sort of not. It is totally true that knowing animate dead makes you better than not knowing animate dead. But that's not true for everything. Particularly, it's not true for prepared casters choosing combat spells.

Consider 2nd level Sorcerer/Wizard spells. The best (in the sense of "most generally useful") spell is probably web, glitterdust, or cloud of bewilderment. But there are spells that beat those spells in specific situations. command undead instantly wins fights with mindless undead. Similarly for ray of stupidity and animals. So knowing those spells makes you better, right? Wrong. Unless you know what you face when you prepare spells for the day, you can't pick command undead sight unseen. Sure, it beats the hypothetical Minotaur Zombie encounter, but it loses hard in the (absent other evidence, equally probable) Barghest encounter. So you still pick web or glitterdust or cloud of bewilderment.

Now, some things do change that. Wizards benefit from advanced intel (either from divinations, or from Gather Information), and there exist abilities that let you cast spontaneously, which removes the cost of preparing the wrong spell. But the core mechanism of "preparing from a bunch of spells" doesn't make you win more at combat than a Sorcerer or Beguiler does.

The beatstick *should* be better in combat than a full caster.

It should be better at beatsticking. It shouldn't be better at battlefield control or summoning. Having encounters you must have a Fighter to beat is just as bad as having encounters you must have a Wizard (or Cleric or Rogue or Bard) to beat.

Actually, I think this is getting into issues about role protection that deserve a separate thread.

Beheld

2016-02-21, 09:01 PM

NO, having more options is an advantage over having fewer options. Having more options means that you can solve more problems, which means you have more power. That's why Tier 1s have more power than Tier 2s.

Nopey Nope Nope. Having another option you didn't choose is not more powerful than not having another option you didn't choose, because no matter what happens, you didn't choose it.

Wizards are better than Sorcerers, not because Wizards have more choices they didn't make, they have the same number of choices they didn't make, they are stronger for two reasons:

1) The Sorcerer Progression is terrible, they get better spells later, and they get way too few spells known at their highest levels of spells (the ones that matter the most).

2) There are a whole bunch of spells, the most powerful ones in the game, that are really terrible spells known on combat days, but really great spells known on off days, because they give you free stuff that you can keep on the combat days.

Sorcerers are Wizards who choose their spells on character creation (or level up but then very hard to change), instead of on a day to day basis. That means they can't use downtime spells without giving up combat spells.

But when it comes right down to fighting the Demon/Slaad/Dragon you face that day, the Wizard having the ability to have chosen Fleshshiver or Burning Blood instead of the spells he did prepare is worth no more than the the fact that the Sorcerer could have chosen Fleshshiver or Burning Blood instead of the spells he learned.

But, if they were naive enough to choose Fighter, after making that tradeoff they're still only fair-to-middlin' at hitting things with sticks.

Uh..... What? Look, if you are making a new class or a change to a class, whatever class this is (that shouldn't be called fighter) will obviously be as good in combat as every other class. He will do combat differently, primarily by hitting things with sticks in whatever cool ways are associated with his source of supernatural power, so he will be better at hitting people with sticks than anyone who's source of power isn't hitting people with sticks related.

There is no tradeoff to being X + Y instead of X. He can have non-combat abilities too, in addition to whatever combat he was going to have that made him equal to other classes (and the best at hitting with sticks).

The idea that classes have roles is pretty much fundamental to the idea of classes.

It really isn't at all, and it hasn't been for like... 16 years, or maybe just 15 years, people have been making characters that didn't fall into the "role" of their class (that don't have roles, and that the 3.0 DMG specifically says don't have roles) for the last 16 years of playing 3e, why would they become fundamental now? Because 4e was so successful they had to be backdated?

The beatstick *should* be better in combat than a full caster.

That's wrong, and you should feel bad for saying it. You are basically just demanding that you get to enshrine "my preferences are better than yours" into the rules, and you are wrong. The concept of someone who hits things with a stick in combat is not inherently better as a concept than the concept of someone who casts spells during combat. Those are equally as viable concepts, and have both had a prominent place as the "best combatant" in popular media since before you were born, and I don't even have to know how old you are to say that, because it is literally impossible for you to be old enough to have been alive when that wasn't true.

Psyren

2016-02-21, 09:08 PM

I think the OP is mistaken that T3 is overrated - T3 is right to be viewed as favorably as it is because it fits into so many campaign styles and levels of GM/player experience. So I would say it's rated just where it needs to be. Rather, I'd say it is T4 that is underrated (it's a perfectly fine balance point as the OP notes), and T1/T2 are a bit overhyped in terms of the effect they actually have at real tables.

Where I will disagree is the 5th point, that T4/T5 shouldn't have anything to do out of combat. They don't need much, and I do agree with the general sentiment that players who want a bevy of options in these situations will be drawn to other classes entirely - but none at all is going too far in the other direction, especially since giving them at least something to do is easy to do. Some good examples from PF:

1) Intimidate - Even a fighter who doesn't want to do much talking should have no problem flexing their muscles to get a conversation moving in the right direction. But Fighters, Barbarians and Monks/Brawlers tend to have low Cha, making their attempts at this falter even when they they should logically be very intimidating. The Intimidating Prowess feat ends up therefore being an easy fix, letting their high strength pull double-duty as a social stat. This also helps them in combat when it comes to demoralizing foes.

2) Sense Motive - being Wis-based, this is geared more at monks; even when they aren't as well-equipped to participate in the talky bits of the game, the beauty of Sense Motive is that it doesn't require your tongue, only your ears. A monk built to catch lies can then alert the party that something is amiss, helping out the face. What I especially like here is that thematic monk trappings like Vows of Silence or Truth don't get in the way of this - you can cough/clear your throat loudly, tug the bard's sleeve and roll your eyes, stamp your foot etc. Monks also have combat reasons to invest in Sense Motive due to Snake Style.

3) Crafting - this one is geared more at Fighters - they have tons of feats to spare, so they can afford to spend a couple of Master Craftsman, CWI and CMAA. Full casters get much more bang out of metamagic while the T3 classes tend to have "Extra X" feats that help them with their thing too. Not only does crafting help the entire party, it's also a way for the Fighter to extend his WBL and cover for some of his innate weaknesses, like crafting himself Winged Boots instead of asking for a fly spell.

4) Equipment Tricks - this is another one more for fighters - letting you get additional use out of secondary weapons or tools. Many are combat-oriented but some help you with non-combat or post-combat tasks like traversing/bypassing obstacles, restraining/imprisoning foes for interrogation, rescuing allies or interfering with traps. WMH added some more powerful ones that let you use magic items in unoreseen ways, which combos well with the crafting abilities above.

I think abilities like these are easy ways to let lower-tier classes contribute to a situation that doesn't involve straightforward or imminent combat.

squiggit

2016-02-21, 09:13 PM

I'm not sure 3 is really "fetishized" so much as that it's just considered a good balance point because a character at that level is reasonably versatile and reasonably powerful.

I do think that 2 and 4 are both undersold though. 4 is a solid tier. They just tend to have a more narrow scope and throwing a Barbarian alongside a Bard is totally functional for everyone involved.

2 just gets way, way undersold and for some reason people tend to lump T2 characters in with T3 characters more often than T1, when realistically a sorcerer is going to cause basically every problem that you think a wizard is going to cause in any given campaign. Yeah, they're ultimately less versatile than Wizards, but you don't need a filled out spellbook to break a game in half either.

johnbragg

2016-02-21, 10:08 PM

Red Fel

2016-02-21, 10:20 PM

Alright, I'm coming a bit late to this game, but I'll take a shot. Let me address each point, one at a time.

1. Caster supremacy is a thing, and it is a bad thing.

Yes, and no. Yes, caster supremacy is absolutely a thing. No, it's not necessarily a bad thing.

It is a bad thing in the sense of balance; at low levels, a caster has more options and more solutions than a non-caster, and at high levels, those options and solutions can frequently trivialize encounters. In that sense - that the caster has vastly greater opportunity than the non-caster, and can potentially outshine him in any situation - it is a bad thing.

It is not, however, necessarily a bad thing in terms of fun. You can have a fun game while your T1 caster is highly optimized and your T4 non-caster isn't. And if everyone's having fun, the balance is less relevant. Because that's the issue: the point is whether everyone enjoys the game. Balance can contribute to enjoyment, but is not outcome-determinative.

As has been said, there needs to be a distinction between "thingness" and "goodness of the thing." Here, "thing" equals class balance. And while I happen to find, for my own taste, that being constantly overshadowed takes the joy out of the game, that's frequently a problem of the player, not the class. Much like DMPCs, class imbalance to me is a yellow flag, but not automatically a problem.

2. JaronK’s Tier system, and especially Tier 3 definition, has been overemphasized.

I can't help but notice the passive voice in this one. Specifically, "has been overemphasized." That's passive voice. Let's try a real-world example.

The vast majority of Super Bowl billboard advertisements have been vandalized.

Now, does that sentence tell you what the problem is? Is the problem that the Super Bowl designed vandalism-prone advertisements, or the fact that people have chosen to vandalize them? Or that the Super Bowl made the mistake of cheesing off San Franciscans?

That's the point. Saying that people have overemphasized the tier system doesn't mean that the tier system is flawed. That doesn't mean the system is not flawed, but it doesn't mean it is, either; it simply means that people have overemphasized it.

So this statement really doesn't take me anyplace, just yet.

3. Tier 1 and 5 are the problem. Tier 2-4 is just fine.

Not necessarily. Many of the "problems" with Tier 1 extend to Tier 2 as well. I've heard some debate about this among threads. Many will say that the gap falls between Tiers 2 and 3, with Tiers 1 and 2 having phenomenal cosmic power, and Tiers 3-on never catching up. I have seen a few that place the gap between Tiers 1 and 2, but they tend to be fewer and less vocal.

And again, the "problem" is only a problem when it is, in fact, a problem. We really need to define that word before we use it freely, or else it stops sounding like a word. Problem. Problem. Prooooobleeeeem. Problem.

4. Therefore, fixes should focus on
a. Why Tier 1 is a problem. Is it a dozen broken spells, or is Tier 1 hopeless?

Okay. Here we go. Let's assume "problem" means "balance issue," otherwise this will get us absolutely nowhere in a hurry. Tier 1 is defined by spells (or in some cases, powers, which I'm going to call spells because that's what they are). That is, the defining trait of what makes something Tier 1 or 2 is access to an assortment of problem-solving spells. What distinguishes Tier 1 from Tier 2 is just how many of these problem-solving tools you can hang in your garage.

The problem isn't the class itself. Classes like Wizard have only one class feature. If that sole class feature didn't grant access to spells like Polymorph, Teleport, Invisibility, Fly, Wish, and Gate, it would actually be pretty underwhelming. "Oh, look at you. You can throw fireballs. And when you tire of that, you can throw lightning. Wah wah." It's the addition of specific, powerful spells that let the Tier 1 do anybody else's job that disrupts class balance. It's those same spells that make Tier 1 Tier 1; without those spells, Tier 1 would be "caster who is good at casting;" with those spells, it's "caster who is good at everything," which is pretty much the definition of Tier 1.

The problem isn't the Tier 1 classes; it's what makes them Tier 1 classes, which is to say very specific spells I can point to look they're right there you guys seriously right there.

b. Fixing Tier 1 so that the caster isn’t a one-man party

1. Don't give him spells that let him do everybody's job.
2. Limit his access to spells that trivialize every encounter.
3. Limit his ability to use spells to become immune to everything.

And we're done. Any one of these steps reduces the Tier 1's ability to be a "one-man party." Taking all three turns him into an ordinary class like everyone else.

But here's the problem - you're talking about fixing class imbalance by fixing Tier 1. Many people have suggested that the problem isn't that casters are overpowered, but that non-casters are underpowered. A rising tide raises all ships; many have suggested, as have I, that nerfing casters hurts non-casters more. A caster with a spell list of over 100 spells, when you remove two or three, still has a boatload of spells. The non-caster in his party who relies on those spells, however, is screwed.

Perhaps a better idea would be to buff non-casters.

c. Fixing Tier 5 so that the Fighter/Monk/etc is an equal member of the party.

And here we are. Yes. If your thesis is that class imbalance is an issue, then buffing the non-casters is a great way to address it.

However, your desire to address Tier 5 raises a question in my mind: Where's Tier 3 in all of this? Heck, what does "Tier 1 is too strong, Tier 5 is too weak" even have to do with Tier 3? How did we get here? Where am I and what did you do with my pants?

5. Fixes should NOT focus on giving the Fighter non-combat abilities.

What. Why? We just said that we needed to make the Fighter (etc.) an equal member of the party. Why not give him non-combat utility?

Tier 1 classes have tons of non-combat utility. Conjure up a place to sleep for the night. Teleport you to your destination. Fly you there. Speak any language. Stealth you past guards. Tier 2 classes have similar access. Even Tier 3 classes have tricks they can do to help out of combat, sometimes.

Why can't the Fighter? What's wrong with giving him a bit of functionality off the battlefield? This statement makes no sense to me, and doesn't seem to jive with the rest of your thesis.

Bottom line, your starting position was that Tier 3 was overrated. You then went on to say:
Caster supremacy is bad. This has nothing to do with Tier 3 being overrated.
Tier 3 is overemphasized. This is conclusory and unhelpful.
Tiers 1 and 5 are problems, and Tiers 2-4 are fine. If Tiers 2-4 are fine, how is Tier 3 not fine?
We need to fix Tier 1. Again, nothing to do with Tier 3.
We do not need to fix Tier 5. Self-contradicting, and nothing to do with Tier 3.
Honestly, I don't even know what point you're trying to make here. But whatever it is, it seems to have sailed completely over my head.

Albions_Angel

2016-02-21, 10:39 PM

Ive said it plenty of times, the tier system only works in optimal conditions. When you ask someone why a wizard is tier 1, they dont say "they can cast spells". Instead they usually say "Well they can divine any threat and then pick spells to deal with it, and if anything unexpected comes up they can throw down a time stop and pop back home to grab just the right scroll. And they can make a ton of magic items."

Thats all well and good, but they need time to write those scrolls, and to research and find additional spells. Most of the campaigns I have been in have been heavily story driven and there is little to no downtime. At that point, the wizard doesnt have the spell slots to waste on divination and just has to hope they pick the right combination of utility spells, or else focus on blasting.

Dont get me wrong, they are still more versatile and powerful than mundanes, but if they get it wrong, they are stuck. The fighter, tier 5 though he is, has no such problem. They will ALWAYS be pretty decent at smacking things over the head very hard.

As an even more extreme example, I have seen some people claim Archivist to be not just Tier 1, but the mythical Tier 0. But what can an archivist actually do without time to write scrolls and sit in a library? They dont just take a gamble on their utility. They are actually useless.

Agree with OP. Tier system is flashed around too much for it to matter in MOST games. Sure, its fun to see how powerful you can build something, but I would say fully optimized games, with all the Dragon Magazine content, 40+ point buys, all the 3.0 content, allowing Pathfinder content, Gestalt, every night is the wizard popping into a fast time dimension to scry the next days encounters, every encounter is meticulously planned ahead of time, probably only make up 1% of games.

Far more likely are games without access to the full content of books played with a much lower ceiling where the wizard blows his offensive spells in the first encounter of the day and the Barb 1/ Fighter 6 is the most effective member of the party from then on. Ill even go out on a limb and say most druids are probably weaklings that rarely wildshape and sit behind their companions throwing the occasional entangle. In those games, Fighters and Monks can get along fine, and I played a pure CAd Ninja to great effect in a similar game.

Classes are what you make of them in 99% of games.

Deophaun

2016-02-21, 10:56 PM

Where am I and what did you do with my pants?
Stop being so dramatic. Everyone knows you don't have any pants.

johnbragg

2016-02-21, 10:56 PM

I can't help but notice the passive voice in this one. Specifically, "has been overemphasized." That's passive voice. Let's try a real-world example.

A lot of people, including me, trying to address Tier 1/Tier 5 balance issues have overemphasized whether the result of a particular fix is "Tier 3", as opposed to Tier 2 or 4. Overemphasized relative to "does the revised/replacement class do the thing(s) it is supposed to do" and/or "does the revised/replacement class still overshadow other party members"

The problem isn't the Tier 1 classes; it's what makes them Tier 1 classes, which is to say very specific spells I can point to look they're right there you guys seriously right there.

1. Don't give him spells that let him do everybody's job.
2. Limit his access to spells that trivialize every encounter.
3. Limit his ability to use spells to become immune to everything.

And we're done. Any one of these steps reduces the Tier 1's ability to be a "one-man party." Taking all three turns him into an ordinary class like everyone else.

This is a theoretically easy fix, which may prove much more difficult in the implementation. Or maybe not.

But here's the problem - you're talking about fixing class imbalance by fixing Tier 1. Many people have suggested that the problem isn't that casters are overpowered, but that non-casters are underpowered.

This is definitely difficult to implement

However, your desire to address Tier 5 raises a question in my mind: Where's Tier 3 in all of this? Heck, what does "Tier 1 is too strong, Tier 5 is too weak" even have to do with Tier 3? How did we get here? Where am I and what did you do with my pants?

Tier 1 is too strong. Tier 5 is too weak. People (including me) have carried that a step further, and operated on the basis that Tier 2 is also too strong and Tier 4 is also too weak.

What. Why? We just said that we needed to make the Fighter (etc.) an equal member of the party. Why not give him non-combat utility?

I don't object to give him some non-combat utility, but that shouldn't be the focus of the fix. The focus of the fix should be to make the beatstick a good beatstick. A fix that does that is a good fix, even if it doesn't let the beatstick fly and have max ranks in Knowledge: The Planes.

Bottom line, your starting position was that Tier 3 was overrated. You then went on to say:[list=1]
Caster supremacy is bad. This has nothing to do with Tier 3 being overrated.
Tier 3 is overemphasized. This is conclusory and unhelpful.
Tiers 1 and 5 are problems, and Tiers 2-4 are fine. If Tiers 2-4 are fine, how is Tier 3 not fine?

Tier 3 is fine. But Tier 2 and 4 fixes can also be fine. The criteria for a good class fix is not "is it Tier 3?"

johnbragg

2016-02-21, 10:59 PM

Stop being so dramatic. Everyone knows you don't have any pants.

Well, not anymore. I WILL HAVE ALL THE PANTS!

Psyren

2016-02-21, 11:17 PM

I'd say those count more as "throwing the class a bone", like giving 4 skill points per level, than as "the focus of the fix."
"
Right, you did mention that - I just wanted to get more specific than just "give them more skill points." Though I would argue that Master Craftsman is quite a bit more comprehensive than "throwing a bone" - it's a comprehensive alteration to the entire crafting subsystem, along with the whole "you can ignore spell requirements" change.

Deophaun

2016-02-22, 12:02 AM

Tier 3 is fine. But Tier 2 and 4 fixes can also be fine. The criteria for a good class fix is not "is it Tier 3?"
...for you. Which is what all this is. You don't have a prblem with Tier 2 classes. Great. I do. So Tier 2 class fixes are not fine for me. Tier 4 classes are fine for me, true, but they are just "fine." I prefer Tier 3.

Now, if you look at this situaton, assuming we are somehow representative of this conflict you perceive, as a neutral party interested in creating the definitive fix for one of these classes to get the most people using it as possible, which Tier are you going to aim for? Tier 3, because that's the one everyone agrees is in a good place.

nedz

2016-02-22, 12:20 AM

What balance issues you choose to address should be based upon the play-styles of your group - because they are the only issues which will actually effect your game.

If you have a bunch of Low OP players then you will probably need to take no action, although Druid.
If your game will only be low level then you will probably need to take no action either. E6 is simply a way of enforcing this. This is because 3.5 is fairly balanced over the first half a dozen levels or so.
If you have a bunch of high OP players then you should pitch your game at a narrow range of tiers or accept that the game will be unbalanced from mid-level onwards.
More likely you will have a range of different play-styles in your group. Quite how this pans out will vary from table to table, and different solutions will be applicable depending upon the situation.

For example: I DM for two groups. One group is Mid OP and no special action is required. The other group has a wider range of OP styles, from Low-Mid OP to Mid-High; this is the group I applied the house-rules I described above for.

I suspect that this variance is why we see so many heart felt views on this subject - because everyone's game is different and we all see different things.

I guess we could create a system to model this, but maybe that's not for this thread.

tsj

2016-02-22, 01:43 AM

Inevitability

2016-02-22, 03:54 AM

I just wanted to say I agree completely with you here. What people don't seem to get is that it's not the power difference that makes fighters unable to contribute to a party with a wizard, it's the large power difference. If you have a fighter and a barbarian, or a rogue and a beguiler, those classes can work together just fine.

Many people don't seem to get this, though. I had this player who wanted to play a barbarian in a mid-op party. He was a very good optimizer, so I let him, trusting him to create a build that would be able to keep up. He did so, and I have to say I was impressed.

Then the optimizer heard two other players were going to play a wizard and a cleric. I suppose tier envy took over then (nevermind the cleric was a glorified meatshield and the wizard chose a familiar over Abrupt Jaunt), and a few days later the optimizer showed me his new character idea: a dragonwrought kobold druid/wizard going into mystic theurge and arcane hierophant with two swindlespitter companions.

My point? If you want to have a great time, it doesn't matter if you're a tier behind the other party members. What matters, is that as long you have skills that contribute to the party's success, you are doing well. If the barbarian can't reach that flying monster without a Fly spell from the party's sorcerer, that's alright, because the sorcerer can't kill the monster without a tough mundane to throw at it.

martixy

2016-02-22, 08:58 AM

I think we should stop fetishizing balance altogether.

Apparent problems only arise when looking at things in isolation, divorced from the greater picture. The game as a sum of all parts is greater than the individual components.

Here's some relevant points I wanna bring up in no particular order:
1. You can have fun without balance.
2. Whatever you do, you CAN'T have a character that's good at all the things, all the time.
3. Things are not black and white. You can strive for more balance without needing to have perfect balance or abandoning the notion altogether.
4. The tier system is a useful tool in the way CR is useful. In a certain set of narrow circumstances it lines up perfectly, but in the greater scheme of things it is merely a tool used to gauge relative characteristics in a rough manner. And can be wildly off the mark sometimes.
5. Non-mechanical considerations(non-RAW-crunch bits) also play a large part in balance and fun. Things like player disposition, social contract, character personality, world design.
6. A problem in one component of the game can be fixed or rendered moot by a different component.

johnbragg

2016-02-22, 09:39 AM

I think we should stop fetishizing balance altogether.

Apparent problems only arise when looking at things in isolation, divorced from the greater picture. The game as a sum of all parts is greater than the individual components.

Here's some relevant points I wanna bring up in no particular order:
1. You can have fun without balance.
2. Whatever you do, you CAN'T have a character that's good at all the things, all the time.
The first two are in conflict. The reason there is unbalance is that Clerics and Wizards (after a few levels of scary low HP) and DRuids are good at all the things, all of the (relevant) time.

3. Things are not black and white. You can strive for more balance without needing to have perfect balance or abandoning the notion altogether.
4. The tier system is a useful tool in the way CR is useful. In a certain set of narrow circumstances it lines up perfectly, but in the greater scheme of things it is merely a tool used to gauge relative characteristics in a rough manner. And can be wildly off the mark sometimes.

AGreed. That was my point, plus the idea that "BAlance does not always and forever equal Tier 3." I may be arguing with my own strawman, but here we are.

Psyren

2016-02-22, 10:12 AM

2. Whatever you do, you CAN'T have a character that's good at all the things, all the time.

You can, if you're T1, above the lowest levels. Most people don't (and shouldn't) but it's definitely possible, and it's something I would alter about the system were I in charge. A key source of it is due to the unmatched versatility of conjuration, which does let you do all the things if optimized, from melee combat to ranged combat to scouting to infiltration to traversal to social interactions to mystery-solving and so on. I would move some of those spells elsewhere (like healing to necromancy and orbs to evocation) while also including more DM-discretion clauses in calling spells and toning down summon SLAs further.

I agree with everything else in your post.

OldTrees1

2016-02-22, 10:17 AM

Telonius

2016-02-22, 10:38 AM

johnbragg

2016-02-22, 10:40 AM

As always, when dealing with Tiers I go to the definitions rather than the listings.

Tier 1 is defined by campaign smashing abilities, single ability solutions, and capability to do everything at specialized+ levels
Tier 2 is defined by campaign smashing abilities, single ability solutions, and limited flexibility
Tier 3 is defined by multiple categories: Either the specialized at field, and always useful outside of field or the skilled at everything
Tier 4 is defined by multiple categories: Either the skilled at field, but often useless outside of field or the competent at everything
Tier 5 is defined by multiple categories: Either the competent at field, but useless outside of the field or barely proficient at everything

Want to avoid single party characters? Design for Tier 2 or lower.

Want to avoid campaign smashing abilities? Design for Tier 3 or lower.

Notice how Tiers 3-5 are almost identical just with different degrees (competent-specialized, useless outside-useful outside, barely proficient-skilled at all trades)? Really it is just one long continuum. Select target to taste.

Personally I prefer either (skilled & always useful, or competent) which hits between Tier 3-4 or (specialized & always useful, or skilled) which is Tier 3. This is because I don't want to leave players spectating but want the flexibility to set different campaign thematic expectations.

Whereas I've flailed at trying to tweak things, and come to the conclusion that I can work around campaign-smashing abilities, but not single-party-characters, because they make me sad as me as a player. And, Tier 5 also makes me sad as a player. But Tier 2-4 is workable, so I'm going to stop stressing about whether this fix meets JAronK's Tier definition, if it means that the Fixed Full Caster is not a one-man-party, and the Fixed Mundane is able to do melee combat and maybe other mundane things well. EDIT: Does the class do its job, AND is that job a fun job in a fantasy RPG?

I may be arguing with myself, but I'm still glad I did it, since I won the argument. :smallwink:

johnbragg

2016-02-22, 10:44 AM

I don't think the problem is simply a matter of bigger numbers for the fighter. There are already ways of bumping damage per round into the stratosphere even on a Fighter20 (Leap attack, Shock Trooper, etc). If dealing huge amounts of damage in a round is what makes a player happy, you don't even have to change any of the rules to do that. Fighter is already pretty competent at dealing damage. Making the Fighter "better" at combat (as measured by damage per round) would just move him from doing enough damage to one-shot an enemy, to doing enough damage to one-shot an enemy twice. Maybe a little bit more satisfying, but it doesn't change how useful he is to the group in general.

What makes Fighter weak (and therefore lower tier) is that there isn't much outside of doing damage that they can do, if they aren't specifically built as a lock-down character. That's why most of the Fighter fixes (and ToB classes for that matter) center around giving them non-combat abilities, or options to do something other than Charge/Shock Trooper/Power Attack.

This goes outside my original rant/argument, but the same-level-optimization Fighter is behind the Barbarian, which is something I fiddle with. Worse than that, for me, is the way the math limits the beatstick to One True Way of Beatsticking, the Holy Two-HAnded Power Attack. That means that players who want to be two-handed dervishes or sword-and-board or tanky defenders have to either optimize a lot, or choose between effectiveness and roleplaying.

But that is something that, for once, we cannot blame on Caster Supremacy.

digiman619

2016-02-22, 10:45 AM

I think we might need an alternate 3.x game like PF but where all PC classes and PC prestige classes are tier 3...

The classes could focus on boosting tier 5 and 4 classes as well as rewriting the truenamer class

Y'know what? I would LOVE to see a truenamer fix that made it Tier 2 or 3. I'd also like to see a fully functional hoverboard (and not one that only works on predetermined rails). Or Half Life 3. But I doubt such a thing is possible.

martixy

2016-02-22, 10:45 AM

Whereas I've flailed at trying to tweak things, and come to the conclusion that I can work around campaign-smashing abilities, but not single-party-characters, because they make me sad as me as a player. And, Tier 5 also makes me sad as a player. But Tier 2-4 is workable, so I'm going to stop stressing about whether this fix meets JAronK's Tier definition, if it means that the Fixed Full Caster is not a one-man-party, and the Fixed Mundane is able to do melee combat and maybe other mundane things well. EDIT: Does the class do its job, AND is that job a fun job in a fantasy RPG?

I may be arguing with myself, but I'm still glad I did it, since I won the argument. :smallwink:

Here's a brain-fart... if you have a one-man-party as a character why not have 2-party problems?

atemu1234

2016-02-22, 10:54 AM

Important to note is that people, in general, don't mind being given a power boost. They mind, however, getting nerfed. This is why most fixes are bottom-up, instead of top-down.

Psyren

2016-02-22, 10:56 AM

Pathfinder gave the Fighter several advantages over the Barbarian, most notably Advanced Weapon Training, plus their higher number of feats gives them more leeway to take multiple styles (and mix them via Combat Style Master.) When Armor Master's Handbook drops this year Fighter will likely get even more toys to distinguish themselves from a Barbarian.

Grod_The_Giant

2016-02-22, 10:59 AM

I think we might need an alternate 3.x game like PF but where all PC classes and PC prestige classes are tier 3
all other classes are then considered to be NPC classes

The classes could focus on boosting tier 5 and 4 classes
as well as rewriting the truenamer class and

Tier 1 and 2 classes should get a specific spell list like all other casters already have

Especially the druid but the druid also needs to be limited to a very specific set of animal forms
There are a whole bunch of good fixes floating around the homebrew boards. You can also do the whole limited class list thing-- if you're willing to mix 3.5 and PF material in particular you can cover the whole spectrum pretty easily. (Tome of Battle, Magic of Incarnum, Pathfinder's 6th level casters...)

Y'know what? I would LOVE to see a truenamer fix that made it Tier 2 or 3. I'd also like to see a fully functional hoverboard (and not one that only works on predetermined rails). Or Half Life 3. But I doubt such a thing is possible.
The Truenamer has two problems: wonky Laws, and weak/wonky Utterances. Fixing the former is easy; fixing the latter would be a lot of work, but it wouldn't be hard work. If you're willing to take the lazy way out and just turn spells into utterances, it would honestly be pretty straightforward to make up a thematic list-- I could probably do it in an hour or so. But I don't have to-- Kyeudo did a great job with rewriting the whole chapter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?217713-A-Book-of-Words-An-Expanded-Truenamer-Fix-PEACH&p=11971747#post11971747).

martixy

2016-02-22, 11:08 AM

Important to note is that people, in general, don't mind being given a power boost. They mind, however, getting nerfed. This is why most fixes are bottom-up, instead of top-down.

Precisely. This is a point, I feel, 90% of DMs out there forget. Which is why, as I said, I'd rather design to accommodate the campaign smashedness rather than remove it. As you'll note from that other thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?479331-Designing-for-campaign-smashing-abilities) I posted.

Deeds

2016-02-22, 12:20 PM

In the three years as both a DM and a player in my gaming group we've rarely had problems with Tier 1's destroying game play.

My group's party usually looks something like this: Wizard (most likely me,) 2 to 3 Barbarians/Bop-its, a single Rogue/Skill-monkey, and a Cleric (also sometimes me). The spells I prepare for the day are spells that compliment the party. Why should I prepare Knock or Polymorph to outshine my friends when I could prepare Summon Monster II or Mass Enlarge Person and support my friends? It boggles my mind to think that an experienced player would choose spells that nullifies a fellow player's role.

I think we should stop fetishizing balance altogether.

Apparent problems only arise when looking at things in isolation, divorced from the greater picture. The game as a sum of all parts is greater than the individual components.

Amen martixy.

dascarletm

2016-02-22, 12:26 PM

Why should I prepare Knock or Polymorph to outshine my friends when I could prepare Summon Monster II or Mass Enlarge Person and support my friends? It boggles my mind to think that an experienced player would choose spells that nullifies a fellow player's role.

Pretty much this.

Having a range of power/versatility between classes allow for more groups to play with what they are comfortable with. You don't need to balance the game if it isn't competitive. Since it is run and played by people, they can balance between their group if they value that.

nedz

2016-02-22, 12:39 PM

My group's party usually looks something like this: Wizard (most likely me,) 2 to 3 Barbarians/Bop-its, a single Rogue/Skill-monkey, and a Cleric (also sometimes me). The spells I prepare for the day are spells that compliment the party. Why should I prepare Knock or Polymorph to outshine my friends when I could prepare Summon Monster II or Mass Enlarge Person and support my friends? It boggles my mind to think that an experienced player would choose spells that nullifies a fellow player's role.

Because some people, who do know better, can't help themselves. Also, some players can do this by accident. You can also get an arms race between the casters. I've seen all three :smallsigh:

Deophaun

2016-02-22, 01:42 PM

My group's party usually looks something like this: Wizard (most likely me,) 2 to 3 Barbarians/Bop-its, a single Rogue/Skill-monkey, and a Cleric (also sometimes me). The spells I prepare for the day are spells that compliment the party. Why should I prepare Knock or Polymorph to outshine my friends when I could prepare Summon Monster II or Mass Enlarge Person and support my friends? It boggles my mind to think that an experienced player would choose spells that nullifies a fellow player's role.
Because, in the case of knock, it does not simply nullify a fellow player's role, but it can do things that the fellow PC cannot do, no matter how good an Open Locks modifier he has and how many feats and class features he has invested into picking locks. Try asking a rogue to open a door that has been chained shut from the other side. Or, arcane lock.

squiggit

2016-02-22, 01:44 PM

Because some people, who do know better, can't help themselves. Also, some players can do this by accident. You can also get an arms race between the casters. I've seen all three :smallsigh:

This.

Moreover, people are only looking at it from a wizard's perspective. Yeah, a wizard can always "play down" and pick options that let them play nice with all of the weaker classes.

But a fighter can never play up enough to reach the wizard. At least not without no longer being a fighter. And that's definitely an issue.

OldTrees1

2016-02-22, 01:45 PM

martixy

2016-02-22, 01:50 PM

This.

Moreover, people are only looking at it from a wizard's perspective. Yeah, a wizard can always "play down" and pick options that let them play nice with all of the weaker classes.

But a fighter can never play up enough to reach the wizard. At least not without no longer being a fighter. And that's definitely an issue.

A stupid wizard's perspective.
I believe the phrase you need is not "playing down", but "playing smart". Why waste resources on a capability your party already possesses, when then can be better allocated to something no one else covers.

Deophaun

2016-02-22, 02:16 PM

Nitpick: A rogue does not use Open Lock to open a chained door. If the door is chained shut from the other side then disable device sounds called for. But that is a nitpick, a skill challenge cannot compare to a single action.
I'm not sure how Disable Device would work when you still do not have line of effect to the Device you need to Disable, as there's a huge door in the way, but point taken.

dascarletm

2016-02-22, 03:15 PM

OldTrees1

2016-02-22, 03:25 PM

I'm not sure how Disable Device would work when you still do not have line of effect to the Device you need to Disable, as there's a huge door in the way, but point taken.

I didn't know there was rules on line of effect for Disable Device.

While line of effect for Disable Device is an obvious (seriously dascarletm?) common sense rule, the Rogue has line of effect to the hinges and can make more lines of effect via their handy drill.

Assuming a standard double door with the hinges on the far side that has been chained shut (the chains anchored into the wall rather than the door):
1) Applying pressure on the door will create small cracks (frame-door-door-frame) that grant access to both the hinges and the part of the chain that crosses from one door to the other.
2) Hinges, while mostly on one side or the other, do extend to both sides of a door. You can disable a hinge from either side (same side is merely much easier).

All this effort and know how on the Rogue's part further emphasizes how much the Knock spell outclasses them.

Deophaun

2016-02-22, 03:46 PM

I didn't know there was rules on line of effect for Disable Device.
In that case, there are no rules on range, either. The Arcane Trickster's class feature is entirely redundant. You can pick locks across the planes starting at level 1.

But, the rules heavily imply that LoE is required:

Ranged Attack Traps

Once a trap’s location is known, the obvious way to ruin it is to smash the mechanism—assuming the mechanism can be accessed.

dascarletm

2016-02-22, 03:49 PM

I was saying that tongue-in-cheek.

Beheld

2016-02-22, 03:54 PM

If you are looking at a door, you probably don't have line of effect to the chains or hinges on the other side of the door. But if you have a gap under the door, you still don't have line of effect, but you might be able to use a long thin object to reach them.

Line of Effect is a different thing than accessible.

Pex

2016-02-22, 07:25 PM

If I'm playing a wizard and need to get past a locked door but there is no rogue around or anyone capable of opening it, I'm perfectly happy to cast Knock. However, given a typical party, I have absolutely no reason to prepare the spell or use a scroll or use a wand. I don't give a Hoover how "superior" the Knock spell is over someone taking the time to pick the lock. There's no need to use up the resource when someone could do it right there. I do not resent that. It is nice to have a scroll of Knock handy in the event I really, really need to open a door, and the rogue is not there. There is absolutely no reason for the rogue to resent that happenstance.

As I've said many times before, the Tier System is only useful in its original intent in explaining the different amount of versatility a class can have. A DM might find it useful to be aware of such things. The Tier System becomes junk when people treat it like gospel as the only way to play the game. They need the Tier System's permission to do things. When what they want to do violates the Tier System, they look for ways to "fix" the problem to lower or raise a class's tier or just outright ban classes because of one person's opinion of his own arbitrary rating. Not to insult JaronK, but why give him such power over how to play your game?

No class needs to be in any particular tier for permission to play it. You do not need the Tier System at all to play anything. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a druid and fighter in the same party.

johnbragg

2016-02-22, 07:46 PM

. Not to insult JaronK, but why give him such power over how to play your game?

Because his account of the Tier system matched our experience of playing the game at our tables. Tier 1 casters could solve any problem, and were often the most efficient way to solve a problem if we could take 20 minutes in-game to swap out spells. Meanwhile, Fighters were *just* barely better at fighting than CoDzilla. Some Core classes turned out to be more powerful, and some classes less powerful.

JaronK was the first to systematize the problem that some classes were Too Good, and some classes were Too Suck, leaving the others as Just Right. The strength of people's experience that Fighters and Monks weren't performing, and Druids and Clerics and Wizards were overperforming, (call it High-Medium-Low), gave credibilty to his account of WHY different classes were High, Medium and Low.

No class needs to be in any particular tier for permission to play it. You do not need the Tier System at all to play anything. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a druid and fighter in the same party.

There IS something wrong with a game that says (or at least implies) that Fighters and Wizards and Druids and Rogues are all options for a player, implying that they're all equal options, but when my daughters pick Druids and my son picks a Fighter, my daughters get spells and an Animal Companion and a weapon at first level, and my son gets a weapon and +1 BAB.

(Yes, I solved this in our game by giving my son a free Wild Cohort. But it's still a problem.)

Svata

2016-02-23, 05:14 AM

Here's a brain-fart... if you have a one-man-party as a character why not have 2-party problems?

Ice assassins. Sure, that's just one example, but it came to mind literally as soon as I read your post.

Florian

2016-02-23, 05:45 AM

Because his account of the Tier system matched our experience of playing the game at our tables. Tier 1 casters could solve any problem, and were often the most efficient way to solve a problem if we could take 20 minutes in-game to swap out spells. Meanwhile, Fighters were *just* barely better at fighting than CoDzilla. Some Core classes turned out to be more powerful, and some classes less powerful.

JaronK was the first to systematize the problem that some classes were Too Good, and some classes were Too Suck, leaving the others as Just Right. The strength of people's experience that Fighters and Monks weren't performing, and Druids and Clerics and Wizards were overperforming, (call it High-Medium-Low), gave credibilty to his account of WHY different classes were High, Medium and Low.

There IS something wrong with a game that says (or at least implies) that Fighters and Wizards and Druids and Rogues are all options for a player, implying that they're all equal options, but when my daughters pick Druids and my son picks a Fighter, my daughters get spells and an Animal Companion and a weapon at first level, and my son gets a weapon and +1 BAB.

(Yes, I solved this in our game by giving my son a free Wild Cohort. But it's still a problem.)

You know, part of that will always remain a mystery to me. Maybe that is my socialization with german-style RPGing, where any form of competition is a no-go area and the general Rule Zero of the local scene is "Don´t play with A-Holes" (and people wanting to compete with their fellow players are considered to be just that), or maybe that is because the most widely played RPG around here is even more imbalanced than any d20 game could hope to be (to the extend that people regularly play the equivalent of commoners without feats alongside fully-fledged archmages). We usually also have a very different view about what "power" over the system/rules a gm actually has and how he might leverage that.

In extend, that also leads to the situation that the Tier system is known and discussed in local RPG forums, but only really by people like me who traffic in "foreign" boards like this and have a broader view on some topics. So, we´re a minority there and out fellow discussion partners mostly either disagree or don´t even understand what the fuss is all about. That tells you something.

Coming back to the original topic:

I think that T3 is the "sweet spot" that games could gravitate around. The classes that make up that tier are good allrounders and are able to contribute (How I hate that concept by now) at most scenes without outshining the other members of that tier.

It is rather interesting to compare D&D 3.5 with Pathfinder in this regard:
The bulk of PF classes use the 3/4 BAB, 6th level spellcasting framewo

rk and put up a pretty good performance. The specialists, Full BAB or Full Casting, outperform them in things concerning their specialty, but aren´t as well-rounded.
The bulk of 3,5 classes focus on one of both ends of the specialist chains, either full casters or full BAB (or, more weird, all-day-long classes like Warlock or stuff like the Binder), leaving the middle ground, T3, pretty much empty and not really being the reference point for balance that it should be.

Even more interesting, it does not come down to be "spallcasting" that´s the trouble point, but, as has already been mentioned, it´s the spells that are. I think it can be readily agreed upon that Fireball isn´t a game changer, but Planar Binding is, when it becomes available, and so on.

As I see it, D&D 3.5 had a very disturbing problem in this department and PF inherited some of that. There´re spells that simply break the game, no matter what, and their number grew over the course of that edition.

But that leads us back to attitude. Any gamer that has been socialized the way I have been will not assume anything and will not take the rules/system for granted but ask for group and gm permission on anything that he wants to do. That is not "playing dumb" but it´s "playing a social game" and that´s all there is to say on that.

The Viscount

2016-02-23, 04:06 PM

Because, in the case of knock, it does not simply nullify a fellow player's role, but it can do things that the fellow PC cannot do, no matter how good an Open Locks modifier he has and how many feats and class features he has invested into picking locks. Try asking a rogue to open a door that has been chained shut from the other side. Or, arcane lock.

I've always found this line of thinking, which I will call "the knock argument" rather bizarre. Yes, the knock spell means that you don't have to use Open Lock or Disable Device on a lock. I do agree that it is useful in illustrating the far reaching power of spells even in core, and the questionable construction of some skills. However, there's more to the story here than just T1 makes T4 useless.

First: The knock argument assumes that we are in a party where the party did not discuss division of resources at start, and the wizard simply shoves the rogue aside and uses knock on a chest they were going to pick.

Second: It assumes that the rogue would object to this. Maybe they would for some people. However, rogue is a class with more skills to put ranks into than it is likely to have ranks for. If a rogue doesn't invest points in Open Lock, they are free to invest them into other skills to do other things. Also, maybe it's just me, but I don't look forward to picking locks. It's not something that I would miss if I didn't have to do it.

Third: It assumes that knock is specific T1 resource. Rogues have UMD, and knock is a second level spell. A rogue can open locks using a wand of knock, and it's easier to make the DCs for the wand than it is to open even an average lock, and UMD can be used for all wands, whereas open lock can only be used on locks.

Fourth: Knock is simply more efficient use of materials. The DCs for Open Lock are quite high and begin at 20, which for some skills is near the top. The party taken as a whole has to invest a lot more to succeed on Open Lock checks than it does on using knock.

Fifth: The party succeeds and fails together. A locked door the party is trying to bypass is often a part of the plot, the story continues when the party moves past it. If the rogue does not have a high enough Open Lock modifier, then the party can't open the door and story grinds to a halt. If the party has access to knock in any form, the party unlocks the door and moves on with the story.

All of these arguments apply to means of finding and disabling traps other than relying on the rogue to sink ranks into Search, which doesn't have much use besides trapfinding. It also requires the rogue keep trapfinding instead of trading it away via ACF.

For the larger argument of Tier 3 and its place, JaronK didn't say that just because Tier 3 was in the middle that it was the best one. The community did, and "best" is entirely subjective. For a veteran player in a game with newer players, the "best" class might be one that challenges them and keeps them in check. For a player under Tippy as a DM, the "best" class is one that can survive the rudimentary intelligence greater shadesteel golems. I would agree that T3 is sometimes overplayed as "best" in that we at times overlook the ability of a T3 to derail or mess with a campaign. A Dread Necromancer who invests their money into making undead can create some serious problems for certain campaigns. Something that also is (to me at least) rather important but often left out is that, as always, these are potentials. The Tier 1s have the most potential power, but they require some amount of work to do so. There are tons of stories about how a wizard with poor spell choices can render themselves the least useful member in the party. Tier 3s are sent up partially because they have both lower ceiling and higher floor, there are similarly many discussions on how a crusader picking roughly at random will find themselves contributing. I certainly agree that a Tier 1 can seriously mess with a campaign or obviate other characters, it's just not always cake to do so. A lot of people also discuss how the Tier 3 classes tend to have a more distinctive identity to build characters around, but that is likely a lesser role.

And of course finally the burning question: if Tier 3 isn't "best" then what is?

johnbragg

2016-02-23, 04:21 PM

And of course finally the burning question: if Tier 3 isn't "best" then what is?

Short answer is Tier 2-4. Long answer is that JaronK was RIGHT about the issues of power imbalance, but not necessarily right about the criteria to identify a balanced class.

Thus the homebrew debates I've been in (on both sides)
"HEy, can you guys Tier my poorly-thought out class fix?"
"IT's terrible and confused and nobody likes it and it's practically unplayable. Technically, it does fit the Tier 3 definition, but it's bad in every other way."
"So you're saying it's a Tier 3? Yay, I did it."

Or "It's not Tier 3, but besides that it's terrible and bad and awful." "Well, how would I make it Tier 3?"

Instead of focusing on JaronK's definitions, consider--does this class do its job effectively (Core Monk, Fighter)? Is that job a fun thing to do in a fantasy roleplaying game (i.e. Healer, Expert)? Does this class consistently overshadow other classes (Tier 1 casters)?

That's the framework I'm using moving forward, anyway.

EDIT: People will argue and have argued that Tier 2 still creates Tier 1 problems. All I can say is, I find Tier 2 problems to be manageable. A Tier 2 has to make choices, choosing certain things and passing on other things. They don't have access to ALL THE THINGS over the next 24 hours. So they'll excel sometimes when their spell solves the encounter, and they tend to always have useful things to do. (How often do your party members pass on a stat booster, anyway?) And Tier 4 classes excel at things that are important in the game, even if there are things in the game where they're not relevant.

Florian

2016-02-23, 04:24 PM

@The Viscount:

You´re totally right. The whole arguments takes place in a void and can only function in that void. It disregards what is there and puts the players in full control of how to handle the environment.

squiggit

2016-02-23, 04:29 PM

I still don't think that's really fetishizing. It's just pointing to Tier 3 because it's a good middle ground for a well rounded character. I think most people also acknowledge that T4 characters are solid, just generally in a more limited and specialized way.

Which is admittedly why I'm a bit confused at this thread, because in the end you're more or less reaching the same conclusion that people started with after all this typing.

The only real point of contention here is whether or not T2 should be lumped in with T3 and 4 or T1 and that has a lot less to do with "fetishizing" tier 3 and more to do with how you value a sorcerer's toolkit.

You´re totally right. The whole arguments takes place in a void and can only function in that void. It disregards what is there and puts the players in full control of how to handle the environment.

It disregards what's there because "what's there" can change from game to game and moment to moment, so it's weird to try to account for any particular outcome when talking about things... and the fact that in certain scenarios things might be different doesn't really have any bearing on the core point anyways.

johnbragg

2016-02-23, 04:36 PM

I still don't think that's really fetishizing. It's just pointing to Tier 3 because it's a good middle ground for a well rounded character. I think most people also acknowledge that T4 characters are solid, just generally in a more limited and specialized way.

Which is admittedly why I'm a bit confused at this thread, because in the end you're more or less reaching the same conclusion that people started with after all this typing.

WEll, writing the OP helped me clarify my thinking. Thanks to everyone else for chipping in.

But if you browse the homebrew forum, you will see a lot of "You can make your Fixed Fighter as +100 to hit and damage and 100 AC, he's still Tier 4 if he doesn't have out-of-combat options." Yes, that technically could include the idea that Tier 4 is just fine, but it always sounds like if your homebrew Fighter Fix is a Tier 4, you did not achieve anything useful. (Which, if you're designing towards Tier 1, I suppose you didn't.)

Perhaps I should not have used the word "fetishize", I did not agonize over that particular word choice. But I'll support "seriously over-emphasize."

martixy

2016-02-23, 05:03 PM

WEll, writing the OP helped me clarify my thinking. Thanks to everyone else for chipping in.

But if you browse the homebrew forum, you will see a lot of "You can make your Fixed Fighter as +100 to hit and damage and 100 AC, he's still Tier 4 if he doesn't have out-of-combat options." Yes, that technically could include the idea that Tier 4 is just fine, but it always sounds like if your homebrew Fighter Fix is a Tier 4, you did not achieve anything useful. (Which, if you're designing towards Tier 1, I suppose you didn't.)

Perhaps I should not have used the word "fetishize", I did not agonize over that particular word choice. But I'll support "seriously over-emphasize."

You're in good company. There's a healthy tradition within D&D of using that word (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/fetishizing-balance.html).

Cosi

2016-02-23, 05:54 PM

Y'know what? I would LOVE to see a truenamer fix that made it Tier 2 or 3. I'd also like to see a fully functional hoverboard (and not one that only works on predetermined rails). Or Half Life 3. But I doubt such a thing is possible.

That's actually not terribly hard. You just have to scrap skill based casting. In any level-based system your skills will either correlate fully with level (in which case skill-based casting is pointless) or they will not (in which case it is broken). Once you move past that, it's merely a matter of deciding which of the magical effects associated with True Names you want people to use. Maybe they're summoners who bind demons by their true names or something. Honestly, language magic is super huge. You've got kill spells (power word kill et al, command), summoning (it's easy to imagine planar binding requiring a True Name), divination (ditto for scrying or speak with dead), sonic damage (duh), and various utility powers (tongues).

I've always found this line of thinking, which I will call "the knock argument" rather bizarre. Yes, the knock spell means that you don't have to use Open Lock or Disable Device on a lock. I do agree that it is useful in illustrating the far reaching power of spells even in core, and the questionable construction of some skills.

IMHO, knock is basically the stupidest possible version of this argument. knock is fine for a bunch of reasons:

1. At the level you get it, it's a meaningful trade off. The Wizard has to weaken himself for combat challenges to make himself better at non-combat challenges, the Rogue doesn't.
2. There's nothing wrong with multiple characters getting to solve a problem. FFS, having the Fighter smash the door seems like it would be rather effective at bypassing it.
3. There are situations where knock is worse than Open Lock. For example, you might have to unlock two doors in one day.

If you were redesigning things from the ground up, you could shuffle things around so that Rogues got knock (I am somewhat in favor of this solution). But as is, knock is 0% of the reason castes overshadow anyone.

The community did, and "best" is entirely subjective.

I am 99% certain that the reason people say T3 is best is just that it has a bunch of classes people like in it. If you took a poll of people's favorite classes and tier preferences, there would be a very strong correlation between "tier of favorite class" and "favorite tier".

And of course finally the burning question: if Tier 3 isn't "best" then what is?

As you point out, "best" is a deeply subjective term. That said, there are a number of statements you can make.

If you want classes that are mechanically "level appropriate" by the standards of the CR system (go 50/50 against CR = Level enemies), there isn't really a tier for that (for a bunch of reasons), but the list is something like: Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Psionic Fullcasters, Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Rogue, Archivist, Artificer (at mid-high levels), some specific builds (Sublime Chord Bards, Bardblades, Rainbow Servant/Domain Dipping Warmages*, Swift Hunters).

If you want classes that are mechanically diverse, T3/T4 is actually a pretty good place to start. You've got full casters (Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Warmage), partial casters (Bard, Duskblade, Adept), vestiges (Binder), a couple of point based options (Psychic Warrior, Factotum, Incarnate, Totemist), the three ToB classes, at-will (Warlock), auras (Marshal), and a variety of other stuff. If you wanted to build a game where every class felt relatively mechanically distinct, you could do a lot worse than starting with that list and balancing up/down to wherever you want classes to be.

The problem, IMHO, with using the Tiers for balance is threefold:

1. It conflates broken tricks with class imbalance. The game breaks into small pieces if you abuse the shape-changing rules, the WBL rules, the Diplomacy rules, the rules for getting minions, or UMD (specifically, Emulate Class Feature). This isn't really a class balance issue, as everyone from the T5 Expert to the T1 Wizard can abuse those tricks to some degree, but it's presented as the dividing line between T2 and T3.

2. It puts way more value on versatility than is at all warranted. Wizards and Clerics benefit more from downtime spells than Sorcerers (lower opportunity cost), but they don't benefit much more from combat spells than the Sorcerer does. The Wizard will have more information than the Sorcerer when choosing between evard's black tentacles and solid fog, but not overwhelmingly so.

3. There is essentially zero effort to test the tiers empirically, or to make particularly effective predictions on their basis. The tiers are a hypothesis, but the overwhelming majority of people talk about them as if they were a theory (in the scientific sense).

There are also issues about tiering (Favored Soul should be lower, Dread Necromancer should be higher), but those are a different kind of problem

*: Yes, this is obviously worse than doing the same thing with Beguiler or Dread Necromancer. That doesn't make it bad per se, just overshadowed.

digiman619

2016-02-23, 07:09 PM

That's actually not terribly hard. You just have to scrap skill based casting. In any level-based system your skills will either correlate fully with level (in which case skill-based casting is pointless) or they will not (in which case it is broken). Once you move past that, it's merely a matter of deciding which of the magical effects associated with True Names you want people to use. Maybe they're summoners who bind demons by their true names or something. Honestly, language magic is super huge. You've got kill spells (power word kill et al, command), summoning (it's easy to imagine planar binding requiring a True Name), divination (ditto for scrying or speak with dead), sonic damage (duh), and various utility powers (tongues).

Except that the whole damn point of the class, mechanically speaking. That's like saying "To fix Druids, just get rid of the wild shape and animal companion"

Cosi

2016-02-23, 07:12 PM

Except that the whole damn point of the class, mechanically speaking. That's like saying "To fix Druids, just get rid of the wild shape and animal companion"

Some things aren't fixable. Skill based magic in a level based system is one of those things. Feel free to propose a solution to the problem if you want, but I'm not holding my breath. Seriously, when people tried to fix Truenaming before (DSP, IIRC), they dropped the skill check for a level check.

digiman619

2016-02-23, 07:36 PM

Some things aren't fixable. Skill based magic in a level based system is one of those things. Feel free to propose a solution to the problem if you want, but I'm not holding my breath. Seriously, when people tried to fix Truenaming before (DSP, IIRC), they dropped the skill check for a level check.

Personally. I'd suggest the check's DC should increase by spell level [instead of 15 + (target's HD/CR x2), be, 15 + (utterance level x 2)] , and lower level utterances should have essentially augments if you beat the DC by a lot.

Cosi

2016-02-23, 07:38 PM

Personally. I'd suggest the check's DC should increase by spell level [instead of 15 + (target's HD/CR x2), be, 15 + (utterance level x 2)] , and lower level utterances should have essentially augments if you beat the DC by a lot.

So I get to make my Utterances crazy better than level-appropriate if I buy an Amulet of Truespeak +10?

Florian

2016-02-23, 07:40 PM

So I get to make my Utterances crazy better than level-appropriate if I buy an Amulet of Truespeak +10?

And stack some Skill Focus and other lower-manure items.... sure.

You´re right. The whole idea was broken from the beginning and that´s about it.

digiman619

2016-02-23, 07:43 PM

So I get to make my Utterances crazy better than level-appropriate if I buy an Amulet of Truespeak +10?

Ban it. It was needed when the class was Tier 6, but it's not necessary in this fix.

Cosi

2016-02-23, 07:48 PM

Ban it. It was needed when the class was Tier 6, but it's not necessary in this fix.

Why is it better to ban the skill boosters that break skill based casting than to not just write something that breaks the game with skill boosters?

digiman619

2016-02-23, 07:56 PM

Why is it better to ban the skill boosters that break skill based casting than to not just write something that breaks the game with skill boosters?

Because this way casters get to roll dice to determine success or failure. and damn it, we're roleplayers. Rolling dice is half the point of playing!

Florian

2016-02-23, 07:57 PM

Because this way casters get to roll dice to determine success or failure. and damn it, we're roleplayers. Rolling dice is half the point of playing!

Muh? Getting a damn huge feeling of pure Disconnect right there....

Cosi

2016-02-23, 07:58 PM

Because this way casters get to roll dice to determine success or failure. and damn it, we're roleplayers. Rolling dice is half the point of playing!

1. You can accomplish that with a level check. That captures 100% of the benefit of skill based systems and 0% of the problems.
2. Dice are already rolled to see if spells succeed or fail. For example, saves and spell resistance. Those dice mostly aren't rolled by casters, but it's mathematically the same if they are.

nedz

2016-02-23, 07:59 PM

IMHO, knock is basically the stupidest possible version of this argument. knock is fine for a bunch of reasons:

1. At the level you get it, it's a meaningful trade off. The Wizard has to weaken himself for combat challenges to make himself better at non-combat challenges, the Rogue doesn't.
2. There's nothing wrong with multiple characters getting to solve a problem. FFS, having the Fighter smash the door seems like it would be rather effective at bypassing it.
3. There are situations where knock is worse than Open Lock. For example, you might have to unlock two doors in one day.

The optimal use of Knock is via a wand because:

It is fairly cheap
It's effects are not level dependant
You either don't need it at all on any given day - or you need to use it a lot

There is an issue is with Open Lock - because that's far too narrow a skill to spend the points on.
Fighter have always been able to smash doors down but that is quite noisy.

1. It conflates broken tricks with class imbalance. The game breaks into small pieces if you abuse the shape-changing rules, the WBL rules, the Diplomacy rules, the rules for getting minions, or UMD (specifically, Emulate Class Feature). This isn't really a class balance issue, as everyone from the T5 Expert to the T1 Wizard can abuse those tricks to some degree, but it's presented as the dividing line between T2 and T3.

2. It puts way more value on versatility than is at all warranted. Wizards and Clerics benefit more from downtime spells than Sorcerers (lower opportunity cost), but they don't benefit much more from combat spells than the Sorcerer does. The Wizard will have more information than the Sorcerer when choosing between evard's black tentacles and solid fog, but not overwhelmingly so.

3. There is essentially zero effort to test the tiers empirically, or to make particularly effective predictions on their basis. The tiers are a hypothesis, but the overwhelming majority of people talk about them as if they were a theory (in the scientific sense).

1. Citation please.

2. The main difference between T1 and T2 is between strategic and tactical flexibility.

There is also is a play-style difference: T1 classes are best when the player puts more work in during the session, T2 when they do more homework.

As for your general point: It is far more effective to optimise your character to acquire more options than to acquire bigger numbers. The tier systems reflect this.

3. The only real test of this stuff is in real games. Hundreds, or maybe thousands, of people have read the Tier system and applied it at their tables. Very few people have reported anything other than minor inaccuracies with it - and many of the reported issues with individual classes could easily be down to the play-style of the group.

Cosi

2016-02-23, 08:13 PM

The optimal use of Knock is via a wand because:

It is fairly cheap
It's effects are not level dependant
You either don't need it at all on any given day - or you need to use it a lot

That costs 4,500 GP. Not really particularly cheap enough to be a good option until mid levels, when the cost of simply preparing knock is not all that high.

There is an issue is with Open Lock - because that's far too narrow a skill to spend the points on.

I'm going to be totally honest, I have no idea why Open Lock exists. Disable Device is a skill, and locks are devices! The skills should just be folded together.

Fighter have always been able to smash doors down but that is quite noisy.

Yes, it's a series of trade-offs. knock takes a spell slot, Open Lock (Disable Device) takes a skill "slot", and having the Fighter beat on it takes nothing.

1. Citation please.

These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Still potencially [sic] 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.

For an example of this, consider charm monster + Diplomacy (or Diplomacy in general). By dropping charm monster on enemies (or bystanders) and making a DC 20 Diplomacy check, you can make people Helpful which (probably, Diplomacy is vague) makes them fight along side you. Classes that can do that include Wizard (T1), Sorcerer (T2), Beguiler (T3), and Bard (T3). If we accept that is trick is campaign smashing (and I find it hard to argue it is not), why are Beguiler and Bard not T2?

2. The main difference between T1 and T2 is between strategic and tactical flexibility.

Citation needed.

3. The only real test of this stuff is in real games. Hundreds, or maybe thousands, of people have read the Tier system and applied it at their tables. Very few people have reported anything other than minor inaccuracies with it - and many of the reported issues with individual classes could easily be down to the play-style of the group.

If you want to talk about data, I strongly suspect that the number of people who have simply played 3e and not noticed balance problems is massively higher than the number of people who feel that the tiers or the SGT or whatever is an accurate description of imbalance. If we are going to accept that the best standard is the one that is most used, we must reject the idea that class imbalance exists at all.

Snowbluff

2016-02-23, 08:28 PM

Well as soon as you say T2 is good and T1 is bad, your argument is bad. They are indistinguishable. As a rule, T2 has all of the tools needed to perform "T1" style exploits.

nedz

2016-02-23, 08:33 PM

That costs 4,500 GP. Not really particularly cheap enough to be a good option until mid levels, when the cost of simply preparing knock is not all that high.
I find they turn up quite early in games where this is relevant - YMMV

I'm going to be totally honest, I have no idea why Open Lock exists. Disable Device is a skill, and locks are devices! The skills should just be folded together.
I agree.

For an example of this, consider charm monster + Diplomacy (or Diplomacy in general). By dropping charm monster on enemies (or bystanders) and making a DC 20 Diplomacy check, you can make people Helpful which (probably, Diplomacy is vague) makes them fight along side you. Classes that can do that include Wizard (T1), Sorcerer (T2), Beguiler (T3), and Bard (T3). If we accept that is trick is campaign smashing (and I find it hard to argue it is not), why are Beguiler and Bard not T2?

Where is this from ?
I couldn't find it here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293).

2. The main difference between T1 and T2 is between strategic and tactical flexibility
Citation needed.
Not a citation - analysis.

The classes listed as T1 generally use Vancian casting, the ones listed as T2 generally use spontaneous casting. Vancian casting allows you to tailor your spell choice to the environment you expect to be facing, in any event you get to make strategic choices. Spontaneous casting allows you to make your spell choice in reaction to tactical level decisions. The T1 and T2 classes which use different magic system use systems with the same characteristics.

If you want to talk about data, I strongly suspect that the number of people who have simply played 3e and not noticed balance problems is massively higher than the number of people who feel that the tiers or the SGT or whatever is an accurate description of imbalance. If we are going to accept that the best standard is the one that is most used, we must reject the idea that class imbalance exists at all.
It does depend upon the group - as I mentioned up thread. But I'm not sure where you are going here ?
I strongly suspect that most people who play 3E haven't read either system - but we could both be wrong in our suspicions.
Also, If we are going to accept that the best standard is the one that is most used, then that would be the Tier system FWIW.

Cosi

2016-02-23, 08:34 PM

Well as soon as you say T2 is good and T1 is bad, your argument is bad. They are indistinguishable. As a rule, T2 has all of the tools needed to perform "T1" style exploits.

This is, sort of, the point I'm making. Classes aren't broken. Abilities are broken. Diplomancy (and minionmancy in general) is broken. It's broken if a T1 Wizard does it, it's broken if a T2 Sorcerer does it, it's broken if a T3 Beguiler does it, it's broken if a T4 Rogue does it, and it's broken if a T5 Expert does it. Conversely, a Wizard that just walks around dropping stinking cloud or evard's black tentacles or acid fog isn't broken. The idea that Wizards are broken misses the point.

Snowbluff

2016-02-23, 08:42 PM

This is, sort of, the point I'm making. Classes aren't broken. Abilities are broken. Diplomancy (and minionmancy in general) is broken. It's broken if a T1 Wizard does it, it's broken if a T2 Sorcerer does it, it's broken if a T3 Beguiler does it, it's broken if a T4 Rogue does it, and it's broken if a T5 Expert does it. Conversely, a Wizard that just walks around dropping stinking cloud or evard's black tentacles or acid fog isn't broken. The idea that Wizards are broken misses the point.

The thing is, a T3 character will NOT have those abilities assuming basic optimization. Sure, a Beguiler may have Simulacrum on their spell list, but compared to it being native on the sorcerer or wizard, exploiting the game isn't its natural state.

T1 and T2 are defined by their significantly higher density of high powered abilities that are not generally available to the other tiers. It's not broken if it a T5 expert does it because a T5 expert never will.

Cosi

2016-02-23, 08:51 PM

I find they turn up quite early in games where this is relevant - YMMV

I dunno. I can't imagine it being a higher priority than grabbing a +Stat item for a caster. Even after that, I'd think you'd want other stuff (maybe a Blessed Book, maybe a Runestaff of some sort, maybe some gear for gishing) first. And if a non-caster buys it, that's not really a tier problem.

Where is this from ?
I couldn't find it here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293).

Not 100% sure what you mean. The quotes are both on that page, though the spelling error was corrected:

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.

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 you mean the trick, I'm not sure why you'd expect that to be on the tier page. The relevant text (charm monster cites to charm person):

This charm makes a humanoid creature [Added for clarity: charm monster is not restricted by type] regard you as its trusted friend and ally (treat the target’s attitude as friendly).

SRD Link to charm monster. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/charmMonster.htm)

That is obviously a citation to the Diplomacy rules:

Friendly — — Less than 1 1 20

SRD link for Diplomacy. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm)

In short, if someone fails the save to charm monster, it takes a DC 20 Diplomacy check (which almost anyone passes at 7th or 8th, and a Beguiler or Bard probably cannot fail) to turn them permanently helpful.

Also, If we are going to accept that the best standard is the one that is most used, then that would be the Tier system FWIW.

No, the most common standard about class imbalance is that classes are balanced. When picking a standard to address imbalance, the one to pick is the one that accurately identifies imbalance (not the tier system) and provides a method for demonstrating balance (not the tier system). It was your suggestion to use the tiers because people default to them.

The thing is, a T3 character will NOT have those abilities assuming basic optimization. Sure, a Beguiler may have Simulacrum on their spell list, but compared to it being native on the sorcerer or wizard, exploiting the game isn't its natural state.

First, you are wrong. The Beguiler does not have simulacrum on their spell list.

Second, if you were right, or were talking about some similar thing where you would be right (i.e. charm monster), how could it possibly be more optimization to use an ability you always and automatically have than to use an ability you must actively select from hundreds of options?

Snowbluff

2016-02-23, 09:15 PM

First, you are wrong. The Beguiler does not have simulacrum on their spell list.
Advanced Learning. See below as to why you're having a problem with this argument.

Second, if you were right, or were talking about some similar thing where you would be right (i.e. charm monster), how could it possibly be more optimization to use an ability you always and automatically have than to use an ability you must actively select from hundreds of options?
Because their are much more versatile and varied spells available on the Wizard List. Charm Monster is awful, as a lot of monsters that would be useful to charm are immune or otherwise resistant, and after that it doesn't give complete control.

nedz

2016-02-23, 09:38 PM

@Cosi:
The reason I pulled you up on point 1 is because I recall JaronK saying the exact opposite, albeit on some other thread.

The Tier system looks at Classes (it's even in the title of the thread: "Tier System For Classes"). Issues which any class can do are out of it's scope. Blaming the Tier system for something it doesn't do is missing the point. The fact that there are non class related balance issues is not connected to the fact that there are class related balance issues.

You also seem to have drifted off the track on point 3. Maybe it was my use of irony which confused you ?

What is the point of discussing Balance issues in the context of groups who don't experience them ? That tells us nothing. Moreover this is a fallacy: just because a group doesn't experience balance issues doesn't mean they don't exist.

johnbragg

2016-02-23, 09:43 PM

What is the point of discussing Balance issues in the context of groups who don't experience them ? That tells us nothing. Moreover this is a fallacy: just because a group doesn't experience balance issues doesn't mean they don't exist.

You (or somebody) said that the Tier system is the measuring stick because it's widely accepted. Cosi countered that the most widely accepted theory is "The game is balanced". Cosi is saying that if JaronK > SGT because vox populi, then by the same principle, "It's balanced" > JaronK.

nedz

2016-02-23, 09:56 PM

You (or somebody) said that the Tier system is the measuring stick because it's widely accepted. Cosi countered that the most widely accepted theory is "The game is balanced". Cosi is saying that if JaronK > SGT because vox populi, then by the same principle, "It's balanced" > JaronK.

No - you have been caught out by a bait and switch.

Cosi Claimed that the Tier system hadn't been tested Empirically.

I claimed that it had because a large number of people had used it in their real games.

Cosi then switched the debate to saying that this meant that balance issues were irrelevant because most people didn't notice them.

If we are going to accept that the best standard is the one that is most used, we must reject the idea that class imbalance exists at all.

I responded (ironically - I used exactly the same words) that this would imply

Also, If we are going to accept that the best standard is the one that is most used, then that would be the Tier system FWIW.

But the last two points are red herrings. There is plenty of empirical evidence relating to the tier system or it would have been discarded long ago.

Cosi

2016-02-23, 10:10 PM

Advanced Learning.

That is true. Perhaps you should have lead with that.

Because their are much more versatile and varied spells available on the Wizard List. Charm Monster is awful, as a lot of monsters that would be useful to charm are immune or otherwise resistant, and after that it doesn't give complete control.

Maybe you should read the post right before yours? Also, if you're getting minions, it doesn't really matter if some things are immune, because one thing that isn't in a level's worth of encounters more than doubles your power in the long run.

@Cosi:
The reason I pulled you up on point 1 is because I recall JaronK saying the exact opposite, albeit on some other thread.

I am totally willing to believe that JaronK radically alters his position so people believe him. That said, the tier system does actually make the listed claims.

Issues which any class can do are out of it's scope. Blaming the Tier system for something it doesn't do is missing the point. The fact that there are non class related balance issues is not connected to the fact that there are class related balance issues.

No, it's not. If planar binding is broken regardless of who uses it (it is), tiering some classes as "game breaking" for having planar binding is conflating a broken game element with a broken class.

Cosi Claimed that the Tier system hadn't been tested Empirically.

I claimed that it had because a large number of people had used it in their real games.

That's not testing. Following the tier system doesn't prove anything about assignments, and it certainly doesn't give a meaningful standard for "balance". So yes, the comparison about people experiencing "everything is balanced" is in fact totally reasonable.

But the last two points are red herrings. There is plenty of empirical evidence relating to the tier system or it would have been discarded long ago.

I understand I'm not allowed to talk politics on this forum, but I am 100% sure you can personally name something that has lasted way longer than the tiers in the real world with zero empirical evidence. Don't post it or anything, but consider it and reflect on the inanity of your claim.

Anlashok

2016-02-23, 10:26 PM

If you want classes that are mechanically "level appropriate" by the standards of the CR system (go 50/50 against CR = Level enemies), there isn't really a tier for that (for a bunch of reasons), but the list is something like: Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Psionic Fullcasters, Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Rogue, Archivist, Artificer (at mid-high levels), some specific builds (Sublime Chord Bards, Bardblades, Rainbow Servant/Domain Dipping Warmages*, Swift Hunters).

Do you really think that a bard can't function effectively in a CR appropriate group without going bardblade or sublime chord? Or that Factotums, Binders, Favored Souls, Spirit Shamans, Binders, Ardents, Crusaders, Warblades, Swordsages, Incarnates, Totemists, Rangers, PsyWars, Warlocks, Shugenjas, Barbarians, Duskblades and probably a bunch more I'm missing can't?

Most ninth level casters plus artificers and the rogue(?) seems like a weird list to decree as the only ones who can handle CR appropriate challenges.

Also, yeah, we get it, you hate tier lists. All the weird, snide, backhanded stuff doesn't really help though.

Cosi

2016-02-23, 10:30 PM

Do you really think that a bard can't function effectively in a CR appropriate group without going bardblade or sublime chord?

Whether something functions in a group isn't the point. A party of four PCs versus one monster of CR = APL is an overwhelming encounter for that monster. You can be pretty anemic and still contribute in that environment.

Most ninth level casters plus artificers and the rogue(?) seems like a weird list to decree as the only ones who can handle CR appropriate challenges.

Rogues get to deal very large piles of damage on several attacks. It turns out, that's pretty good for killing things. Seriously, run the SGT for a flask Rogue and see what happens.

Anlashok

2016-02-23, 10:41 PM

Oh yeah, rogues do great damage for sure, but so do lots of other characters.

Whether something functions in a group isn't the point.
We're talking about mechanically level appropriate for a game that assumes a 4 person party by default. I think group dynamic is the entire point. Or should be at least.

Cosi

2016-02-23, 10:44 PM

Oh yeah, rogues do great damage for sure, but so do lots of other characters.

Feel free to run tests on whatever builds you want.

We're talking about mechanically level appropriate for a game that assumes a 4 person party by default. I think group dynamic is the entire point. Or should be at least.

Sure, it is certainly less of a problem if you have power issues in a team game. But the game has strict guidelines as to what is level appropriate. That's beating CR = Level encounters roughly half the time. And most classes don't measure up.

TheCreatorT

2016-02-23, 10:50 PM

Can't we agree that there are balancing issues and then just have fun? If these issues appear in game play, they should be dealt with accordingly.

Is that possible?

Beheld

2016-02-23, 10:51 PM

Oh yeah, rogues do great damage for sure, but so do lots of other characters.

We're talking about mechanically level appropriate for a game that assumes a 4 person party by default. I think group dynamic is the entire point. Or should be at least.

The points are:

1) The game is defined at a level of competition that gives the PCs a 99% success rate, so who cares. Really, 4 PCs fighting a single monster who could actually be a literal copy of one of those PCs is not an encounter you should ever lose. So measuring in that circumstance only tells you that your group succeeds when it practically can't fail, that's not very meaningful.

2) If you are in a party, and you do nothing, and the other three people do everything, it doesn't matter if the group succeeds, you are still a useless drain on the party.

So you need a measurement system that measures the specific contribution of a single character against the monsters you will fight, and that gives a success rate between 1-99% instead of between 100-150% because you can't tell the difference between those.

Now, specifically Bards and a few other classes (Marshals) can not be particularly meaningfully measured in a regular SGT, because they exist for the sole purpose of providing a party wide buff.

But that doesn't mean Bards aren't terrible, and that becomes intensely apparent when you play an actual bard in actual games that use actual encounters that are challenging and realize that your contribution is basically not worth it and you could be a follower or a cohort and know one would care about the difference.

Cosi

2016-02-23, 10:55 PM

Can't we agree that there are balancing issues and then just have fun? If these issues appear in game play, they should be dealt with accordingly.

Is that possible?

Sure. But the point of balance discussions is to ensure that when those problems do come up, you deal with them in a reasonable and effective way. For examples of not dealing with things in a reasonable and effective way, see Psyren's arguments about XP free wish in the Efreet thread. If you have a bunch of solutions (no magic items, no cheating magic item XP costs, cap at XX GP) at the ready, then you are much less likely to do something stupid in actual play (like make it impossible to use planar binding for anything at all).

Snowbluff

2016-02-24, 12:30 AM

That is true. Perhaps you should have lead with that.
I expect someone participating in this argument to have a minimum working knowledge of the subject matter. Beguilers are T3 in this T3 thread. :smalltongue:

Maybe you should read the post right before yours? Also, if you're getting minions, it doesn't really matter if some things are immune, because one thing that isn't in a level's worth of encounters more than doubles your power in the long run.

I read it. The kinds of creatures you would pick up are trash. That's the problem. Sure you have a minion, it's kind of helpful, but it won't do anything you wouldn't do. After that, you certainly are better off with the ability to bend time and space to your whim or create magic items out of nothing.

EDIT: Also, if you're citing Psyren, I'd like to point out his style would cause the critter's attitude to drop once the Charm drops because you've tricked it.

Pex

2016-02-24, 01:00 AM

Sure. But the point of balance discussions is to ensure that when those problems do come up, you deal with them in a reasonable and effective way. For examples of not dealing with things in a reasonable and effective way, see Psyren's arguments about XP free wish in the Efreet thread. If you have a bunch of solutions (no magic items, no cheating magic item XP costs, cap at XX GP) at the ready, then you are much less likely to do something stupid in actual play (like make it impossible to use planar binding for anything at all).

Some solutions aren't reasonable. I would not call "no magic items" a reasonable solution, nor banning classes as another popular option. Then you get to the point of personal taste. What one person finds reasonable another finds intolerable and vice versa.

Ironically enough for me, I'm currently developing a game for my Pathfinder group when it's my time to DM. I'm trying for a gothic fantasy feel where magic is mysterious and faith is for belief not power. As such wizards, druids, and clerics don't fit so aren't used. The witch and alchemist fit nicely instead of wizard, shaman instead of druid, and oracle instead of cleric. Bias as I am for my own world, if in the hypothetical I was a potential player, the idea of wizard, druid, and cleric being "banned" wouldn't bother me because of the theme. However, if I'm potentially to join a game and be told wizard, druid, and cleric are banned because they're Tier 1 and even Tier 2 will be watched closely, then I'm confident such a game is not for me because, as I'm seeing it, the DM wants to dictate what and how I play based off a stranger's opinion on the internet. The DM isn't wrong, but neither am I wrong for rejecting to play.

Svata

2016-02-24, 01:21 AM

The points are:

1) The game is defined at a level of competition that gives the PCs a 99% success rate, so who cares. Really, 4 PCs fighting a single monster who could actually be a literal copy of one of those PCs is not an encounter you should ever lose. So measuring in that circumstance only tells you that your group succeeds when it practically can't fail, that's not very meaningful.

2) If you are in a party, and you do nothing, and the other three people do everything, it doesn't matter if the group succeeds, you are still a useless drain on the party.

So you need a measurement system that measures the specific contribution of a single character against the monsters you will fight, and that gives a success rate between 1-99% instead of between 100-150% because you can't tell the difference between those.

Now, specifically Bards and a few other classes (Marshals) can not be particularly meaningfully measured in a regular SGT, because they exist for the sole purpose of providing a party wide buff.

But that doesn't mean Bards aren't terrible, and that becomes intensely apparent when you play an actual bard in actual games that use actual encounters that are challenging and realize that your contribution is basically not worth it and you could be a follower or a cohort and know one would care about the difference.

Screw you, man. My favorite character I ever played was a bard. NG (exalted) Bard/War Weaver/Virtuoso, to be exact. The party stayed buffed to high heaven, what with inspire Courage and the buffweave. I know several fights would have tpked us without my massive quantity of buffs.

Jormengand

2016-02-24, 07:27 AM

Y'know what? I would LOVE to see a truenamer fix that made it Tier 2 or 3. I'd also like to see a fully functional hoverboard (and not one that only works on predetermined rails). Or Half Life 3. But I doubt such a thing is possible.
Except that the whole damn point of the class, mechanically speaking. That's like saying "To fix Druids, just get rid of the wild shape and animal companion"

It's dangerous to go alone! Take this! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?397500-The-Worldspeaker-revisited-Truenamer-PEACH)

Beheld

2016-02-24, 08:01 AM

Screw you, man. My favorite character I ever played was a bard. NG (exalted) Bard/War Weaver/Virtuoso, to be exact. The party stayed buffed to high heaven, what with inspire Courage and the buffweave. I know several fights would have tpked us without my massive quantity of buffs.

Look man I don't care about your favorite character, I'm not telling you can't have fun facing non-level appropriate challenges, or that your bard doesn't feel special when you play with a bunch of fighters and binders and other weak classes.

But it doesn't change the fact that the actual Bard class provides nothing level appropriate, and people (rightly) notice that when they play against challenging opposition with competent party members.

johnbragg

2016-02-24, 08:10 AM

Look man I don't care about your favorite character, I'm not telling you can't have fun facing non-level appropriate challenges, or that your bard doesn't feel special when you play with a bunch of fighters and binders and other weak classes.

But it doesn't change the fact that the actual Bard class provides nothing level appropriate, and people (rightly) notice that when they play against challenging opposition with competent party members.

Part of the genesis of this thread is the realization that the game I want to play (have most fun playing) is Tier 2-4, and I'm fine with running CR -1 after level 4 or 5 until things break down.

Cosi

2016-02-24, 08:14 AM

Some solutions aren't reasonable. I would not call "no magic items" a reasonable solution, nor banning classes as another popular option. Then you get to the point of personal taste. What one person finds reasonable another finds intolerable and vice versa.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Those are restrictions on what you can get with wish.

I expect someone participating in this argument to have a minimum working knowledge of the subject matter. Beguilers are T3 in this T3 thread. :smalltongue:

You made a claim that was false. Eat your crow.

That said, even in the context of Advanced Learning, the set of spells the Beguiler can take is about a fourth the size of the set of spells the Wizard can take. So I find it hard to believe it is in any sense less likely that you'd take simulacrum as a Beguiler.

I read it. The kinds of creatures you would pick up are trash. That's the problem.

How are CR = Level creatures "trash"?

Florian

2016-02-24, 08:40 AM

Look man I don't care about your favorite character, I'm not telling you can't have fun facing non-level appropriate challenges, or that your bard doesn't feel special when you play with a bunch of fighters and binders and other weak classes.

But it doesn't change the fact that the actual Bard class provides nothing level appropriate, and people (rightly) notice that when they play against challenging opposition with competent party members.

As this whole thread revolves around T3 being the goal to aim for, high synergy classes like the Bard actually start to shine as they can bring that synergy to bear.

How are CR = Level creatures "trash"?

Come on. Creatures aren´t equal and we were to do a tier-ranking based on CR, the differences would show. The actual number of creatures that you really want to have under your control is not that huge.

johnbragg

2016-02-24, 08:57 AM

As this whole thread revolves around T3 being the goal to aim for, high synergy classes like the Bard actually start to shine as they can bring that synergy to bear.

Actually, under my personal evaluation, ("1. Does its job? Fighter, Monk fail. 2. Fun job in an RPG? Expert, Healer fail. 3. Does everyone's job? Tier 1 fail.") The out-of-the-box, not-very-optimized Bard, while almost the ideal Tier 3 ("Always relevant, never shining") is suspect on point 2. I didn't bring it up before because the Bard gets plenty of love from the forum, has ample splat support, and plenty of Playgrounders who will be happy to help a player or DM have more fun Barding.

The Elan Bard, without optimization and splat, is a pretty darn good example of an ideal Tier 3 that, in play, needs help through homebrew and optimization and splat. (Or DM intervention to make sure that high Charisma and putting points in Charisma skills is an actual asset in the campaign.)

Beheld

2016-02-24, 09:06 AM

As this whole thread revolves around T3 being the goal to aim for, high synergy classes like the Bard actually start to shine as they can bring that synergy to bear.

Except: 1) This thread is about how that goal is wrong. 2) Nothing about some other person saying that's the goal means I have to agree. 3) As I said, if you play against actually challenging encounters, with competent party members, you will see otherwise. So beating up on lower CR monsters with your Binder and Factotum buddies isn't relevant to what I said at all.

Come on. Creatures aren´t equal and we were to do a tier-ranking based on CR, the differences would show. The actual number of creatures that you really want to have under your control is not that huge.

And yet, because you immediately decided that this was crap without actually thinking about it at all, here is a list of CR 8 monsters that are immune to this strategy:

Bodak, Lammasu, Mohrg, Greater Shadow, Hellwasp Swarm, Treant, Shield Guardian, Guargantuan Monstrous Spider.

And here are some monsters you can totally use this on: Elder Xorn, All Dragons, Efferti, Noble Djinn, all Hydras, Gynosphinx, Gorgon, Stone Giant, Gray Render, Behir, Athach, Destrachan.

So what you can't get that you might actually care about are Lammasu, Shield Guardians, and the Bodak and Greater Shadow you can get with Command Undead.

And what you can get is all the best melee bruisers, the best scouts, infinite wishes, a monster that tunnels for you, a monster that follows you around save or dying your enemies, and a creature that can cast an 8th level spell every week that you can keep around until you need it.

Lans

2016-02-24, 09:44 AM

There is an argument that charm+diplomancy doesn't work.

But it doesn't change the fact that the actual Bard class provides nothing level appropriate, and people (rightly) notice that when they play against challenging opposition with competent party members.

Technically bards get suggestion and charm monster at the appropriate level, and they get alterself, which is broken for its level

Seward

2016-02-24, 10:27 AM

Nitpick: A rogue does not use Open Lock to open a chained door. If the door is chained shut from the other side then disable device sounds called for. But that is a nitpick, a skill challenge cannot compare to a single action.

Or, you know, carve a small chunk out of the door with an adamantine blade then unchain the lock. Or climb through a window and open it from the other side. Or whatever. None of which uses a resource.

Pathfinder fixed the Knock problem by turning it into "disable device roll, level = caster level+casting attribute" which is something that can open easy locks but not hard ones until high levels. A disable device weenie can pick the DC40 locks by about level 6 if they care enough to be good at it.

Pathfinder isn't perfect (commune, planar binding etc are still in the game unchanged) but it did help rather a lot on polymorph tree spells and instant-fixes to a variety of problems with no d20 roll.

The actual bard class is pretty much the best natural face and has a solid, if boring contribution to most fights which scales with the size of the party. They're also capable of minionmancy via both diplomonster+early entry tongues and the charm-dominate tree (making the need to combine them irrelevant vs most enemies).

Beheld

2016-02-24, 10:35 AM

Technically bards get suggestion and charm monster at the appropriate level, and they get alterself, which is broken for its level

Charm + Diplomacy is just one of the many things that are broken, and have to be removed from the game for any possible balance at all. Experts can use Diplomacy, and Commoners can buy Candles of Invocation. One of the many problems I have with the Tier system is that it values classes based on the number of ways they can break the game, instead of how well they actually play the game.

Alter Self is really not that broken. Especially on Bards. It can get you a burrow speed or a flight speed, which isn't broken, or it can get to an AC bonus that is about a Tower Shield. If you happen to have the outsider type, it can do more than that, because it can grant you a huge **** of AC boost, but if you don't grant casting, it basically can't do anything broken unless cast by an outsider, and giving yourself a huge AC boost for an hour with your highest level spell at 6th level isn't that meaningful. Especially for a class that lacks useful offense.

Cosi

2016-02-24, 10:37 AM

There is an argument that charm+diplomancy doesn't work.

I've heard a couple of those. Is it "when the spell wears off, they go back to hostile" (stupid because if you use fly to reach the top of a cliff, you don't fall when the spell ends) or "they're just treated as friendly for attitudes" (stupid because the spell doesn't make the distinction) or something else.

Technically bards get suggestion and charm monster at the appropriate level, and they get alterself, which is broken for its level

Those are a few decent tricks. They don't get enough daily uses, and they don't get anything at high levels, but they definitely fall somewhere in the grey area between the Monk's "always terrible" status and the Wizard's "never terrible" status.

Pathfinder fixed the Knock problem by turning it into "disable device roll, level = caster level+casting attribute" which is something that can open easy locks but not hard ones until high levels. A disable device weenie can pick the DC40 locks by about level 6 if they care enough to be good at it.

So they fixed it by making it nearly useless? At 3rd level (when you get knock) you need to roll a 12 or 13 on a d20 to open the minimum DC lock (DC 20). And it still costs you a cloud of bewilderment (not glitterdust because PF nerfed it). That's the power of Pathfinder!

Pathfinder isn't perfect (commune, planar binding etc are still in the game unchanged) but it did help rather a lot on polymorph tree spells and instant-fixes to a variety of problems with no d20 roll.

The polymorph spells aren't broken anymore (I think, they patched type changing and ability acquisition, which were the big issues), but they still involve way more rules citations than are on any level reasonable.

The skill check replacing spells were never broken in any meaningful sense.

I have difficulty calling those changes improvements.

Beheld

2016-02-24, 10:43 AM

Pathfinder fixed the Knock problem by turning it into "disable device roll, level = caster level+casting attribute" which is something that can open easy locks but not hard ones until high levels. A disable device weenie can pick the DC40 locks by about level 6 if they care enough to be good at it.

Pathfinder isn't perfect (commune, planar binding etc are still in the game unchanged) but it did help rather a lot on polymorph tree spells and instant-fixes to a variety of problems with no d20 roll.

I don't see either of those as improvements. Making Knock objectively worse than Disable Device and never worth casting is just removing it from the game, not fixing it. And it does nothing to fix the dumb high lockpick checks.

Polymorph doesn't do what you want from a polymorph spell at all. It limits your size by ridiculous margins and acts as a buff spell instead, and even worse, punishes you for trying to make decisions about casting it for a variety of forms (and gates them behind absurdly high level spells, I mean, you can't even turn into a Dragon at all until level 11, and then you can only be Medium sized, does anyone actually care about medium sized dragons at all?)

I'd rather play with 3.5 polymorph at every level. (Since PAO literally doesn't even work in Pathfinder.)

OldTrees1

2016-02-24, 10:44 AM

Or, you know, carve a small chunk out of the door with an adamantine blade then unchain the lock. Or climb through a window and open it from the other side. Or whatever. None of which uses a resource.

Nice to meet a fellow trapsmith/locksmith.

Personally I don't like that the 2nd level spell can duplicate, via resource expenditure, the skill of a 20th level locksmith. Pathfinder's fix is a good solution.

I don't see either of those as improvements. Making Knock objectively worse than Disable Device and never worth casting is just removing it from the game, not fixing it. And it does nothing to fix the dumb high lockpick checks.

Wait, making a 3rd level investment objectively worse than a 6th level investment breaks the game? Should a single 2nd level spell outclass a higher level character at the same job? I would say no. Both should work but the higher investment should reap higher rewards.

Having Knock give a CL+Ability+Misc modifier vs the rogue's HD+3+Ability+Misc seems a fair arrangement.

Beheld

2016-02-24, 10:52 AM

Wait, making a 3rd level investment objectively worse than a 6th level investment breaks the game? Should a single 2nd level spell outclass a higher level character at the same job? I would say no. Both should work but the higher investment should reap higher rewards.

you get that like, a 20th level locksmith the locksmith is like .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000001% of his character right?

Literally teleporting to the other side of every door you ever see is something you can do at level 1 with a feat.

Wait, making a 3rd level investment objectively worse than a 6th level investment breaks the game? Should a single 2nd level spell outclass a higher level character at the same job? I would say no. Both should work but the higher investment should reap higher rewards.

Uh... 1) A 3rd level character only casting lock still can't open as many locks as someone with ranks.

2) Skill ranks are not a higher investment, they are a lower investment. Skills are a token thing that isn't a big deal that everyone has. 20 levels of investment in one skill is worth less than a 3rd level spell. Is it worth less than a 2nd level spell? Maybe, hard to say.

OldTrees1

2016-02-24, 10:54 AM

you get that like, a 20th level locksmith the locksmith is like .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000001% of his character right?

Literally teleporting to the other side of every door you ever see is something you can do at level 1 with a feat.
1)Hyperbole
2)You get that Knock is like, 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000001% of a Wizard's character right?

You dislike Pathfinders change to Knock because it
1) Made Knock worthless (disproved: It works just fine for locks, just not as well as the specialist. Seriously, crunch the math.)
2) ???

Lans

2016-02-24, 10:58 AM

Alter Self is really not that broken. Especially on Bards. It can get you a burrow speed or a flight speed, which isn't broken, or it can get to an AC bonus that is about a Tower Shield. If you happen to have the outsider type, it can do more than that, because it can grant you a huge **** of AC boost, but if you don't grant casting, it basically can't do anything broken unless cast by an outsider, and giving yourself a huge AC boost for an hour with your highest level spell at 6th level isn't that meaningful. Especially for a class that lacks useful offense.

I didn't mean broken as in game breaking. I meant broken as in its overpowered for its spell level. It is like having fly, barkskin, and a few other spells in one slot.

johnbragg

2016-02-24, 10:59 AM

Nice to meet a fellow trapsmith/locksmith.

Having Knock give a CL+Ability+Misc modifier vs the rogue's HD+3+Ability+Misc seems a fair arrangement.

Oberroni to the rescue, but we've usually ruled that the target of the revised Knock spell is a character, not the lock. So HD+3+RogueDex+Misc + CL + 10 + CastingSTat +d20. We're opening that sumbitch. (Mechanically, it works out the same as 3.5--cast spell, ignore lock, but it means you only bother if the Rogue failed in the first place.)

Beheld

2016-02-24, 10:59 AM

1)Hyperbole
2)You get that Knock is like, 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000001% of a Wizard's character right?

No, it really isn't. By definition, if you divide up his spell levels per day, Knock eats some amount of them, that amount is basically his entire character, since absent spells, he's a commoner with a will save. Knock is a significant use.

You dislike Pathfinders change to Knock because it
1) Made Knock worthless (disproved: It works just fine for locks, just not as well as the specialist)
2) ???

It made a greater investment into a useless piece of **** that no one should ever use. Being able to spend a huge portion of your character to be able to mimic a tiny portion of another character for one second out of the day is not a meaningful trade of. It is a dumb waste of resources that no one will ever do ever unless they are an idiot.

Also, let's be clear, you disproved nothing. The spell doesn't even unlock the easiest lock until you are level 10. Who gives a **** about a 2gp lock at level 10? Especially since by then most locks are Planar, and if there is a mundane one, it will be DC 40. Just cast any other spell and go through the door.

OldTrees1

2016-02-24, 11:02 AM

Uh... 1) A 3rd level character only casting lock still can't open as many locks as someone with ranks.

2) Skill ranks are not a higher investment, they are a lower investment. Skills are a token thing that isn't a big deal that everyone has. 20 levels of investment in one skill is worth less than a 3rd level spell. Is it worth less than a 2nd level spell? Maybe, hard to say.

How many skills does your 20th level rogue have at max ranks? How many spells does your 20th level Wizard know? 1 Spell known is a lower character investment for the Wizard than the 1 skill is for the rogue.

Remember Int is something everyone has, don't let that confuse you into thinking that Int is worth less than a 1st level spell to a Wizard.

OldTrees1

2016-02-24, 11:05 AM

No, it really isn't. By definition, if you divide up his spell levels per day, Knock eats some amount of them, that amount is basically his entire character, since absent spells, he's a commoner with a will save. Knock is a significant use.

It made a greater investment into a useless piece of **** that no one should ever use. Being able to spend a huge portion of your character to be able to mimic a tiny portion of another character for one second out of the day is not a meaningful trade of. It is a dumb waste of resources that no one will ever do ever unless they are an idiot.

Also, let's be clear, you disproved nothing. The spell doesn't even unlock the easiest lock until you are level 10. Who gives a **** about a 2gp lock at level 10? Especially since by then most locks are Planar, and if there is a mundane one, it will be DC 40. Just cast any other spell and go through the door.

1) Count spells known vs skills maxed. I'll wait. Even spells per day is orders of magnitudes more than skills maxed.
2) Have you cruched the math yet? Cl+Ability+Misc < HD+3+Ability+Misc. How much lower? 3! That is a mere 15% that you are crying over.

Beheld

2016-02-24, 11:11 AM

How many skills does your 20th level rogue have at max ranks? How many spells does your 20th level Wizard know? 1 Spell known is a lower character investment for the Wizard than the 1 skill is for the rogue.

Only if you think skills are the only class feature of a Rogue (or even an important one) If the rogue class is 99.999999999999% class features and .000000000000001% skills, then you further have to divide its skills as part of that small percent, and then if Open Lock is the least important skill it has ranks in by a wide margin, it's going to be even less.

Once again, 1 spell known is not the investment, it's one spell cast, which means it cost your spell levels that day at least 2 spell levels to open one door that you could have opened with zero spell levels instead.

1) Count spells known vs skills maxed. I'll wait. Even spells per day is orders of magnitudes more than skills maxed.

Which doesn't matter, because Skills are not the metric, it is the metric of worth total. And since the 10th skill maxed by a Human Rogue is worth less to him than the **** he takes every morning, it doesn't matter.

But again, again, you can't just know knock and unlock all doors, you have to cast it, which means you have to spend spell levels doing that.

OldTrees1

2016-02-24, 11:19 AM

Only if you think skills are the only class feature of a Rogue (or even an important one) If the rogue class is 99.999999999999% class features and .000000000000001% skills, then you further have to divide its skills as part of that small percent, and then if Open Lock is the least important skill it has ranks in by a wide margin, it's going to be even less.

Once again, 1 spell known is not the investment, it's one spell cast, which means it cost your spell levels that day at least 2 spell levels to open one door that you could have opened with zero spell levels instead.

Which doesn't matter, because Skills are not the metric, it is the metric of worth total. And since the 10th skill maxed by a Human Rogue is worth less to him than the **** he takes every morning, it doesn't matter.

But again, again, you can't just know knock and unlock all doors, you have to cast it, which means you have to spend spell levels doing that.

I see we have a disconnect. You don't see the value of skills to the skillmonkey (and you are obsessed with using ridiculous hyperbole to try to yell your point). Just for giggles, give us your percent breakdown for the 3.5 Rogue. What percentage is gear, what percentage is sneak attack, what percentage is feats, and what percentage is the skills they bring to bear? I'll have fun laughing at your estimates. (Be warned: continual use of hyperbole will just make you look more foolish in your answer).

Anyways, I think your hyperbole contrasted with my actual math (remember that skill check using Cl vs skill check using ranks I asked you to calculate?) makes my point well enough for the audience even if you would never be convinced.

Lans

2016-02-24, 11:20 AM

I've heard a couple of those. Is it "when the spell wears off, they go back to hostile" (stupid because if you use fly to reach the top of a cliff, you don't fall when the spell ends) or "they're just treated as friendly for attitudes" (stupid because the spell doesn't make the distinction) or something else.

I would argue that the rules could be interpreted that they remain friendly for the duration of the charm person, and diplomacy doesn't have the ability to change that attitude whether the roll is -20 or +30

Those are a few decent tricks. They don't get enough daily uses, and they don't get anything at high levels, but they definitely fall somewhere in the grey area between the Monk's "always terrible" status and the Wizard's "never terrible" status.

Right, they are possibly the worst tier 3 class, but they do have a few level appropriate abilities.

ryu

2016-02-24, 11:22 AM

How many skills does your 20th level rogue have at max ranks? How many spells does your 20th level Wizard know? 1 Spell known is a lower character investment for the Wizard than the 1 skill is for the rogue.

Remember Int is something everyone has, don't let that confuse you into thinking that Int is worth less than a 1st level spell to a Wizard.

Skills are worth less than spells. Why do I say this? Simple. When playing wizard I invest in cross class use-magic device. Why? Because even at half speed of acquisition those are skill points trading into more spell versatility, and while wands are still relevant in combat more action economy.

The fact your rogue 20 doesn't get anything as valuable as what ninth level wizard has doesn't change the fact that skills aren't worth as much as spells. Do keep in mind that wizard number is actually inflated to generously favor the rogue too. I'm confident that given the same wealth an eight level wizard would still stand a fighting chance in battle. Just removing variability.

Cosi

2016-02-24, 11:30 AM

I would argue that the rules could be interpreted that they remain friendly for the duration of the charm person, and diplomacy doesn't have the ability to change that attitude whether the roll is -20 or +30

Maybe. Even if they're always treated as Friendly, one would assume they have some attitude they revert to afterwards. The interpretation that you can change that attitude (and do so at the DCs for influencing someone Friendly) seems equally reasonable to me. In any case, making it not work seems to require enough rules-jiggering to count as "significant DM attention to avoid breaking the game" (or whatever term JaronK used), implying that the Bard/Beguiler are at least T2 by his definitions.

Right, they are possibly the worst tier 3 class, but they do have a few level appropriate abilities.

Bards are weird. The core Bard is pretty weak, but over the course of the edition WotC seems to have noticed that and printed a bunch of stuff (like Sublime Chord or Inspiration boosters) that let you build a Bard that is reasonable at something. This is not particularly true for, say, the Paladin.

johnbragg

2016-02-24, 11:36 AM

For an example of this, consider charm monster + Diplomacy (or Diplomacy in general). By dropping charm monster on enemies (or bystanders) and making a DC 20 Diplomacy check, you can make people Helpful which (probably, Diplomacy is vague) makes them fight along side you. Classes that can do that include Wizard (T1), Sorcerer (T2), Beguiler (T3), and Bard (T3). If we accept that is trick is campaign smashing (and I find it hard to argue it is not), why are Beguiler and Bard not T2?

Except that the trick requires a real stretching of the rules. Charm monster, or charm person, sets the target's attitude as Friendly. DC 20 Diplomacy check upgrades that to "Helpful."
SRD under Diplomacy "Helpful means Will take risks to help you Possible Actions Protect, back up, heal, aid"

Notice it does not say "Follow you around like a stray dog you've given meat to, waiting oh just waiting for a way to please Your Exalted Wonderfulness." That would be, under the Epic Usages of Diplomacy section, Fanatic, a DC 50 if the target was Helpful already, a DC 60 if target was Friendly. Your target will protect or heal or join you in a common fight, or cast a spell for you, or grant a Wish, today. He or she or it is not going to abandon it's previous existence doing whatever it was doing to follow you around in hopes it can provide service.

Although I guess this is all a digression, as it applies equally well to Tier 1 Wizards, Tier 2 Sorcerers, Tier 3 Bards, and Tier 5 Experts with Maxxed UMD and A Scroll.

Jormengand

2016-02-24, 11:38 AM

Bards are weird. The core Bard is pretty weak, but over the course of the edition WotC seems to have noticed that and printed a bunch of stuff (like Sublime Chord or Inspiration boosters) that let you build a Bard that is reasonable at something. This is not particularly true for, say, the Paladin.

I dunno, there's battle blessing and ways of sneaking actually good spells onto the paladin list, so you can fire off swift-action spells with reckless abandon and they're actually half-decent ones too.

johnbragg

2016-02-24, 11:40 AM

Bards are weird. The core Bard is pretty weak, but over the course of the edition WotC seems to have noticed that and printed a bunch of stuff (like Sublime Chord or Inspiration boosters) that let you build a Bard that is reasonable at something. This is not particularly true for, say, the Paladin.

I think that's partially because they were servicing the PAladin players through Complete Divine and such. All of that stuff fits thematically with the Paladin, holy champion who brings the divine smack down upon unbelievers. (And it was also very easy for Paladin players to bleed over into CoDzillas with little loss of roleplaying.)

Cosi

2016-02-24, 11:43 AM

Except that the trick requires a real stretching of the rules. Charm monster, or charm person, sets the target's attitude as Friendly. DC 20 Diplomacy check upgrades that to "Helpful."
SRD under Diplomacy "Helpful means Will take risks to help you Possible Actions Protect, back up, heal, aid"

Notice it does not say "Follow you around like a stray dog you've given meat to, waiting oh just waiting for a way to please Your Exalted Wonderfulness." That would be, under the Epic Usages of Diplomacy section, Fanatic, a DC 50 if the target was Helpful already, a DC 60 if target was Friendly. Your target will protect or heal or join you in a common fight, or cast a spell for you, or grant a Wish, today. He or she or it is not going to abandon it's previous existence doing whatever it was doing to follow you around in hopes it can provide service.

The trick is just an easier (lower skill checks) version of Diplomacy abuse. I was not aware that it was in any way contentious that Diplomacy is broken. The argument about Fanatic holds some water, but I personally can't endorse the ELH as a solution to balance problems.

Although I guess this is all a digression, as it applies equally well to Tier 1 Wizards, Tier 2 Sorcerers, Tier 3 Bards, and Tier 5 Experts with Maxxed UMD and A Scroll.

Which is the point. The "broken tricks" which define T1 and T2 are not exclusive to those tiers, and without them those tiers are not impressively broken.

Lans

2016-02-24, 11:58 AM

Maybe. Even if they're always treated as Friendly, one would assume they have some attitude they revert to afterwards. The interpretation that you can change that attitude (and do so at the DCs for influencing someone Friendly) seems equally reasonable to me. In any case, making it not work seems to require enough rules-jiggering to count as "significant DM attention to avoid breaking the game" (or whatever term JaronK used), implying that the Bard/Beguiler are at least T2 by his definitions. Eh, I would say that both are reasonable rules interpretations so bards and beguilers would be in flux depending on the interpretation.

Bards are weird. The core Bard is pretty weak, but over the course of the edition WotC seems to have noticed that and printed a bunch of stuff (like Sublime Chord or Inspiration boosters) that let you build a Bard that is reasonable at something. This is not particularly true for, say, the Paladin.
Yes, which goes to a problem with tiers. A bard can basically do everything a beguiler can, in the same way that Mike Tyson can do everything now that he did 25 years ago.

Beheld

2016-02-24, 12:00 PM

Yes, which goes to a problem with tiers. A bard can basically do everything a beguiler can, in the same way that Mike Tyson can do everything now that he did 25 years ago.

I was going to tell you how wrong you are... But then you finished the analogy, and it was hilarious.

johnbragg

2016-02-24, 12:01 PM

The trick is just an easier (lower skill checks) version of Diplomacy abuse. I was not aware that it was in any way contentious that Diplomacy is broken. The argument about Fanatic holds some water, but I personally can't endorse the ELH as a solution to balance problems.

ELH via SRD is cited as saying "Helpful" doesn't mean that the angel follows you around just in case you have a problem that you need his limited wish to solve. (But during the duration of a Charm Monster spell, maybe before you go you could limited wish up a scroll of anyspell for us? That might work.) Diplomacy and Bluff together can be broken, but unless the GM is particularly obtuse, not more broken than "cast Suggestion on a dude without having to cast the spell." Diplomacy and Bluff, with or without spell support, turning NPCs into followers isn't RAW, it's a really shaky interpretation.

Which is the point. The "broken tricks" which define T1 and T2 are not exclusive to those tiers, and without them those tiers are not impressively broken.

For me, it's not so much the "campaign-smashing abilties" which make T1 BadWrongFun, it's the Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit problem. A hypothetical Tier 2 Angel Summoner can only summon up angels to do a limited roster of things, leaving space in the party for a Tier 4 BMX Bandit to be Ghost Rider or something, this analogy kind of got away from me.

Pex

2016-02-24, 01:35 PM

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Those are restrictions on what you can get with wish.

Clarification accepted.

I'll stay with my point on its own merits then. :smallsmile:

Snowbluff

2016-02-24, 06:32 PM

You made a claim that was false. Eat your crow. No, my claim was accurate. I said it wasn't on their native list. Nothing about it was inaccurate. If you want me to show humility, I'll do the opposite to not only annoy you, but because any amount of humility would be inappropriate.

That said, even in the context of Advanced Learning, the set of spells the Beguiler can take is about a fourth the size of the set of spells the Wizard can take. So I find it hard to believe it is in any sense less likely that you'd take simulacrum as a Beguiler.

I would take Simulacrum, but it's not the only option. It's considered the optimal choice, but not the assumed one, it comes online late, and all of the other beguiler options share a bunch of the same weaknesses. Beguiler is only considered T3 because of this, but I'd put it at the top of T3 at worst.

How are CR = Level creatures "trash"?

Because will saves and immunity outstrip CR scaling, meaning that your already powerful caster can't obtain something more powerful than himself with the trick. When you use Charm Monster, it's gonna be easier listing what does work.

Animals and Magical beasts are not immune, but your trick doesn't work.
A ton of outsiders are immune (archons outright are) or have high will saves or just won't be available unless your can use planar binding or plane shift. This means not many SLAs to improve your actual capabilities.
No undead, which are really good at level 7 when you consider things like wights or incorporeal undead.
No constructs, but that doesn't really matter.

So you're probably looking at people with class levels, usually humanoids, to improve your capabilities. Except that the next spell level has Dominate Person, which takes 1/11th to work, has a stronger DC, and flat out gives better control.

That's the rub of Enchantment spells. While they can be good, they rarely can be actually awesome, and a lot of things have been put in place to avoid you getting doubled effectiveness out of them.

Beheld

2016-02-24, 07:02 PM

Because will saves and immunity outstrip CR scaling, meaning that your already powerful caster can't obtain something more powerful than himself with the trick. When you use Charm Monster, it's gonna be easier listing what does work.

Except that you are totally 100% wrong. I just made the list of CR 8 monsters, when you get the spell. Unsurprisingly, it was mostly stuff that wasn't immune, and as you go up in levels, things continue to not be immune.

Apparently your new claim is that all monsters are immune to saving throws at high levels, which is both ridiculous, and irrelevant, because you can totally just beat something unconscious (or cast it unconscious) dispel any protections it has that are dispellable, and then cast it on the unconscious creature, and then wake it up, and then diplo it, and then have a minion.

But at level 8, you can have basically anything you want, and then again, at level 10 you can also have like... All the monsters, including Formian Mynarchs, Fire Giants, Bebliths, and Coatls, and then at level 13 you can still use it on pretty much everything, including Death Slaads, and Ice Devils, and Glabrezus. And then at level 15 you can still use it on most anything you want, including Maraliths, ect.

Basically, you make bold claims about how "all monsters are immune to will saves" or "most monsters are immune" but you never actually look at the monsters to see if those claims are true first. You should probably start by doing that.

Snowbluff

2016-02-24, 07:17 PM

Except that you are totally 100% wrong. I just made the list of CR 8 monsters, when you get the spell. Unsurprisingly, it was mostly stuff that wasn't immune, and as you go up in levels, things continue to not be immune. A large number of the lower level monsters in the game are undead. If you've only made a list of CR 8 creatures, of course your numbers will be off.

Apparently your new claim is that all monsters are immune to saving throws at high levels, which is both ridiculous, and irrelevant, because you can totally just beat something unconscious (or cast it unconscious) dispel any protections it has that are dispellable, and then cast it on the unconscious creature, and then wake it up, and then diplo it, and then have a minion.
What good is a monster if you can beat it up? I certainly don't need a Glabrezu if my other resources can already overtake it, especially with non lethal techniques. Normally when someone takes command of a creature, their looking for something to improve their capabilities. Ergo, trash mons. Sure, you'll win fights, but that's not something you couldn't do already, and it won't actually break a game.

And as for anything you want, unlike Planar Binding and the like, you're limited to what you can hunt down or encounter. Not to mention the casting time plus the diplomacy, so doing this against packs is much less effect (but still valid).

Basically, you make bold claims about how "all monsters are immune to will saves" or "most monsters are immune" but you never actually look at the monsters to see if those claims are true first. You should probably start by doing that. Except I never said all monsters, and I did give a good list of reasons why the technique is impractical, and why it's not considered good in the first place. If you've a problem with a rational deduction instead of just doing rubbing my face in some books, here you go.

Well, a 4th level spell, assuming cast by a decently scored caster (18 + 10 + 6 = 34, mod of 12) gives you 26. The average Will save at CR 20 is 21, so a 25% before any other modifiers like spell resistances.

When I talk about lower levels, it's more difficult to nail down a decent score, but I'll just assume starting with 22, so mod 6, which gives a good 45% of working against the average 11.

So like I said, it gets worse as you level.

Beheld

2016-02-24, 07:43 PM

A large number of the lower level monsters in the game are undead. If you've only made a list of CR 8 creatures, of course your numbers will be off.

Level 8 is when you get the spell. But you know what, no if you go lower level, you still get the best of everything you want anyway, so it doesn't matter.

What good is a monster if you can beat it up? I certainly don't need a Glabrezu if my other resources can already overtake it, especially with non lethal techniques. Normally when someone takes command of a creature, their looking for something to improve their capabilities. Ergo, trash mons. Sure, you'll win fights, but that's not something you couldn't do already, and it won't actually break a game.

SO your official position is that being a level 13 Beguiler with 12 CR 13 monsters following you around helping you is somehow not more or less powerful than being a level 13 Beguiler without 12 CR 13 minions following you around?

Like, do you not understand how this works? You are able to beat up a Glabrezu because starting at level 8 you starting collecting Symbols of Sleep from a Gynosphinx, and you just got more and more minions. You are literally 100% ing monsters of your CR because you have an army of allies to help you, and now, as a level 13 character, you are adding more level 13 monsters, and that's "Trash"?

You position is basically a joke.

And as for anything you want, unlike Planar Binding and the like, you're limited to what you can hunt down or encounter. Not to mention the casting time plus the diplomacy, so doing this against packs is much less effect (but still valid).

You don't do it during combat, you do it after, combats are super easy, because you have an actual army of monsters to help you, but you don't cast Charm and talk them over during combat.

Except I never said all monsters, and I did give a good list of reasons why the technique is impractical, and why it's not considered good in the first place.

Except that you gave terrible reasons that were totally wrong that were based on pulling complete nonsense out of nowhere. You claimed that Outsiders are immune, even though basically none of them are (Inevitables, because constructs, and the good ones with magic circle effects are the only ones). You also claimed they have high will saves, even though they usually have bang on average will saves for their level.

Well, a 4th level spell, assuming cast by a decently scored caster (18 + 10 + 6 = 34, mod of 12) gives you 26. The average Will save at CR 20 is 21, so a 25% before any other modifiers like spell resistances.

1) You are comparing level 20, even though that is nonsense, because Beguilers got Dominate Monster 3 levels ago.
2) Who cares what the save is? It could be DC 10 and it wouldn't matter, if they trigger the symbol of sleep that your CR 8 Gynosphinx made for you, and they are unconscious, then you can cast DC 10 Charm Monster and they give up the save. If you beat an Ice Devil unconscious with your army of 10 Fire Giants, and then dispel it's unholy aura, you can cast DC 10 Charm Monster on it, and it is now charmed. Charm Monster is not a combat spell, it's a minion creation spell, that means you use it to create minions from, amongst other things, things you just beat unconscious with your army.

Snowbluff

2016-02-24, 07:53 PM

You position is basically a joke. But anyone can have basic beatstick minions. Hell, the technique can get you equivalent NPCs with just diplomacy.

You don't do it during combat, you do it after, combats are super easy, because you have an actual army of monsters to help you, but you don't cast Charm and talk them over during combat.

Yeah, about that, are you just running into fire giants exclusively? That's the main problem with the plan. I'd call it good, except for anyone can do this without spells and that unlike spells that eliminate all of the variables, this one doesn't.

Not to mention just walking through them with Charm, and ignoring them so they don't take up space. I won't even argue Diablo ex Machina (even though your argument relies on the opposite), but I will say that having a large of allies generates an increase in CR for fights.

Except that you gave terrible reasons that were totally wrong that were based on pulling complete nonsense out of nowhere. You claimed that Outsiders are immune, even though basically none of them are (Inevitables, because constructs, and the good ones with magic circle effects are the only ones). You also claimed they have high will saves, even though they usually have bang on average will saves for their level.
I siad some outsiders are immune, which was accurate. Their will saves are on the higher side. The average is lower because of monsters with much worse saves.

1) You are comparing level 20, even though that is nonsense, because Beguilers got Dominate Monster 3 levels ago.
2) Who cares what the save is? It could be DC 10 and it wouldn't matter, if they trigger the symbol of sleep that your CR 8 Gynosphinx made for you, and they are unconscious, then you can cast DC 10 Charm Monster and they give up the save. If you beat an Ice Devil unconscious with your army of 10 Fire Giants, and then dispel it's unholy aura, you can cast DC 10 Charm Monster on it, and it is now charmed. Charm Monster is not a combat spell, it's a minion creation spell, that means you use it to create minions from, amongst other things, things you just beat unconscious with your army.
1) Hey, you wanted math to justify my argument, and I did so.

2) The DC for symbol of sleep isn't much better. I'd label it worse than doing the technique without it. Symbol of Sleep only affects HD 10 or less creatures.

The Viscount

2016-02-24, 08:11 PM

Can't we agree that there are balancing issues and then just have fun? If these issues appear in game play, they should be dealt with accordingly.

Is that possible?

You may be able to see that, but we are all too far gone. The thread has grown beyond any of us or our ability to stop it. Flee, gentle friend, for you will find nothing but ruin here.

Beheld

2016-02-24, 08:11 PM

But anyone can have basic beatstick minions. Hell, the technique can get you equivalent NPCs with just diplomacy.

That's the main problem with the plan. I'd call it good, except for anyone can do this without spells and that unlike spells that eliminate all of the variables, this one doesn't.

Anyone can do this with a Diplomacy check 30 points higher, but if you have Charm Monster, you can do it taking 10 and succeeding every time. The point was specifically that is a trick that breaks any class that does it from Expert to Wizard.

Not to mention just walking through them with Charm, and ignoring them so they don't take up space. I won't even argue Diablo ex Machina, but I will say that having a large of allies generates an increase in CR for fights.

If you need EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLL 60 encounters to challenge a level 10 Beguiler, then that tells you that the Beguiler is breaking the game.

1) Hey, you wanted math to justify my argument, and I did so.

No I didn't, I said I wanted you to look at the monsters before making baseless claims, making more new baseless claims without looking at monsters doesn't fix that problem.

2) The DC for symbol of sleep isn't much better. I'd label it worse than doing the technique without it. Symbol of Sleep only affects HD 10 or less creatures.

You get Symbol of Sleep at level 8, and you can store them up and throw 20 saves against things if you really want. Who cares?

Yeah, about that, are you just running into fire giants exclusively?

Who cares? You can make a minion of anything you run into. Yes, if you run into one Fire Giant, chances are very high that other Fire Giants are around and you can get more. But even if you can't, who cares if you have Gray Renders instead of Fire Giants, you can have like 30 of them, you can can 1 Gray Render, 1 Fire Giant, 1 Beblith, 1 Ice Devil, 1 Glabrezu, 1 Fiendish Pyro-Hydra, 3 GynoSphinxes and 36 Chain Devils, who cares what you have, you have an ever growing army of monsters that on their own can destroy or incapacitate anything even close to your level.

OldTrees1

2016-02-24, 08:14 PM

A large number of the lower level monsters in the game are undead. If you've only made a list of CR 8 creatures, of course your numbers will be off.
What good is a monster if you can beat it up? I certainly don't need a Glabrezu if my other resources can already overtake it, especially with non lethal techniques. Normally when someone takes command of a creature, their looking for something to improve their capabilities. Ergo, trash mons. Sure, you'll win fights, but that's not something you couldn't do already, and it won't actually break a game.

You might want to refine your presentation of your argument. If you can beat monster X with 25% of your resources, then 8 of them at your command would triple your strength.

Troacctid

2016-02-24, 08:17 PM

Not to mention just walking through them with Charm, and ignoring them so they don't take up space. I won't even argue Diablo ex Machina (even though your argument relies on the opposite), but I will say that having a large of allies generates an increase in CR for fights.
More importantly, your NPC allies are all taking a share of the XP, so if you're facing the same challenges with a dozen extra friends, your advancement will slow to a crawl.

Beheld

2016-02-24, 08:20 PM

More importantly, your NPC allies are all taking a share of the XP, so if you're facing the same challenges with a dozen extra friends, your advancement will slow to a crawl.

Funny, I don't see that anywhere in my DMG:

"When the party defeats monsters, you award the characters experience points (XP). The more dangerous the monsters, compared to the party’s level, the more XP the characters earn. The PCs split the XP between themselves, and each character increases in level as his or her personal XP total increases."

Not, mind you, that that is an actual disadvantage at all, since you either have lots of easy fights, so who cares, and you get to grow your army even more, or you fights against more enemies, get the same CR, and get to grow your party even more.

Snowbluff

2016-02-24, 08:21 PM

4. Divide the base XP award by the number of characters in the party. This is the amount of XP that one character receives for helping defeat that monster.
I don't see it saying "PC" there.

But we also have the problem of a DM saying that you didn't participate enough, which is described on the same page, but I wouldn't rob someone of XP for something like that if they did a good job.

Anyone can do this with a Diplomacy check 30 points higher, but if you have Charm Monster, you can do it taking 10 and succeeding every time. The point was specifically that is a trick that breaks any class that does it from Expert to Wizard. The problem with that is that anyone can do it. Like WBLmancy, it's not considered in the tier listing, and it's still weaker. It doesn't really break the game, because the rules are designed so that a DM can calculate a more challenging fight for when the party gets bigger.

If you need EL 60 encounters to challenge a level 10 Beguiler, then that tells you that the Beguiler is breaking the game.
Or a single Allip. .-.

And it's not a level 10 Beguiler, it's a bunch of other monsters. See above to see why that logic doesn't work. After that, if a DM has you fighting in a big battle, they'll put big monsters on either side, so it's not much different from that.

No I didn't, I said I wanted you to look at the monsters before making baseless claims, making more new baseless claims without looking at monsters doesn't fix that problem. You said that me saying that the Will save scaling makes a lot of spells unreliable. I showed my work. If you've a problem with me directly answering a claim, and then ignore me when I do right by you and show the work, maybe you should rethink your posture.

You get Symbol of Sleep at level 8, and you can store them up and throw 20 saves against things if you really want. Who cares?
But my conservative save DC for Charm Monster already had parity, and doesn't have the option of possibly splashing you in its radius.

Who cares? You can make a minion of anything you run into. Yes, if you run into one Fire Giant, chances are very high that other Fire Giants are around and you can get more. But even if you can't, who cares if you have Gray Renders instead of Fire Giants, you can have like 30 of them, you can can 1 Gray Render, 1 Fire Giant, 1 Beblith, 1 Ice Devil, 1 Glabrezu, 1 Fiendish Pyro-Hydra, 3 GynoSphinxes and 36 Chain Devils, who cares what you have, you have an ever growing army of monsters that on their own can destroy or incapacitate anything even close to your level.
Usually you run into trashier monsters. 36 chain devils aren't going to matter at the point you would have that many. That's like what, 10 gangs?

Cosi

2016-02-24, 08:23 PM

For me, it's not so much the "campaign-smashing abilties" which make T1 BadWrongFun, it's the Angel Summoner/BMX Bandit problem. A hypothetical Tier 2 Angel Summoner can only summon up angels to do a limited roster of things, leaving space in the party for a Tier 4 BMX Bandit to be Ghost Rider or something, this analogy kind of got away from me.

Isn't the easy solution to that to just pull out the Trapfinding card and declare that certain problems are "Scout Problems" or "Ranger Problems" and not let other people sovle them?

No, my claim was accurate. I said it wasn't on their native list. Nothing about it was inaccurate. If you want me to show humility, I'll do the opposite to not only annoy you, but because any amount of humility would be inappropriate.

The thing is, a T3 character will NOT have those abilities assuming basic optimization. Sure, a Beguiler may have Simulacrum on their spell list, but compared to it being native on the sorcerer or wizard, exploiting the game isn't its natural state.

Did you read the thing you posted? You kind of sort of imply a difference but "may have simulacrum on their spell list" sounds 0% like you are talking about Advanced Learning (which adds spells to your spell list).

I would take Simulacrum, but it's not the only option. It's considered the optimal choice, but not the assumed one, it comes online late, and all of the other beguiler options share a bunch of the same weaknesses. Beguiler is only considered T3 because of this, but I'd put it at the top of T3 at worst.

Yes, it's a choice, but it is a choice from among fewer options. Like, by definition. The Beguiler is choosing from "Sorcerer/Wizard Illusion or Enchantment spells", while the Wizard is choosing from "Sorcerer/Wizard spells". I don't understand how you could possibly make the argument that a Beguiler is less likely to learn simulacrum than a Wizard, let alone a Sorcerer.

Because will saves and immunity outstrip CR scaling, meaning that your already powerful caster can't obtain something more powerful than himself with the trick. When you use Charm Monster, it's gonna be easier listing what does work.

That's not true. The CR 26 Mountain Giant has a will save of +10, which you can 50/50 at level 8 (10 points base, four points charm monster, six from INT, one more from more INT or Spell Focus). It's not a super great CR 26 encounter, but if you finagle one at 8 you win the game for a lot of levels.

Bad example? Yes. But even looking at something a lot more respectable (the CR 18 Kelvezu), it's only got +11 Will. There are things that you can recruit at mid-high levels without even bothering with any downtime stuff. And if you factor in downtime options, you can get almost anything.

So you're probably looking at people with class levels, usually humanoids, to improve your capabilities. Except that the next spell level has Dominate Person, which takes 1/11th to work, has a stronger DC, and flat out gives better control.

And this is an argument that the Beguiler's minions cannot spiral out of control and take over the game because...

Troacctid

2016-02-24, 08:31 PM

Funny, I don't see that anywhere in my DMG:

"When the party defeats monsters, you award the characters experience points (XP). The more dangerous the monsters, compared to the party’s level, the more XP the characters earn. The PCs split the XP between themselves, and each character increases in level as his or her personal XP total increases."

It's in Chapter 4, under the rules for NPC allies.

Allies come in two types: those who help the PCs with information, equipment, or a place to stay the night, and those who actually travel with them on adventures. The former make useful contacts and resources. The latter function as party members and earn a full share of experience points and treasure just as any other character does.

Beheld

2016-02-24, 08:37 PM

The problem with that is that anyone can do it. Like WBLmancy, it's not considered in the tier listing, and it's still weaker. It doesn't really break the game, because the rules are designed so that a DM can calculate a more challenging fight for when the party gets bigger.

And yet, without this thing allegedly not considered by the Tier system, Bards are objectively terrible... Oh wait, I mean of course it considers the Bards class abilities!

Or a single Allip. .-.

There you go baselessly repeating the nonsense you've heard again without actually doing the work needed to justify that claim. Here's a list of the CR 8-10 monsters you could have as minions who can kill an Allip 100% of the time while you watch (we'll ignore that you actuall do have several spells that can effect an allip):

Couatl, Formian Mynarch, Dark Naga, Spirit Naga, Guardian Naga, Efferti, Noble Djinn (technically requires you to say something), Vrock, Behir, Rakshasa, Noble Salamander, all the dragons, all 506 of them, whatever.

And it's not a level 10 Beguiler, it's a bunch of other monsters. See above to see why that logic doesn't work. After that, if a DM has you fighting in a big battle, they'll put big monsters on either side, so it's not much different from that.

See above how a Beguiler getting a bunch of minions that follow him around helping him covers his alleged weakness such that he has none.

Snowbluff

2016-02-24, 08:48 PM

Did you read the thing you posted? You kind of sort of imply a difference but "may have simulacrum on their spell list" sounds 0% like you are talking about Advanced Learning (which adds spells to your spell list).

I said plain as day what I meant. A Beguiler may add it it to their list via Advanced Learning.

The next step (and where you seem to be stuck) is figuring out how that works with the the tier rating. I personally like beguilers and I think they are pretty good, but for the specific case of "I can make a similacrum of a Solar"/etc:

1) The tier list assumes mid levels. Simulacrum is level 7, requiring a beguiler to be level 14. That's at the upper edge of what's being considered for the list, at best.
2) It's not an automatic decision, and isn't available ex posto facto a la wizard. The list assumes moderate optimization, because then you run into decisions that can make anything into a tier one style character. It measures baseline abilities, not optimal power.
3) In general, the uses for advanced learning are so limited, it's considered a wash barring the very powerful options.

Cosi

2016-02-24, 08:52 PM

I said plain as day what I meant. A Beguiler may add it it to their list via Advanced Learning.

Times advanced learning appears in your post: zero.

But yes, totally clear.

2) It's not an automatic decision, and isn't available ex posto facto a la wizard. The list assumes moderate optimization, because then you run into decisions that can make anything into a tier one style character. It measures baseline abilities, not optimal power.

And the baseline Artificer is T1 because...

Also Erudite, Archivist, and (for T2) Favored Soul.

3) In general, the uses for advanced learning are so limited, it's considered a wash barring the very powerful options.

You mean if you don't count the options that are very good, advanced learning isn't very good? I am totally impressed by that visionary statement.

Anlashok

2016-02-24, 08:52 PM

"Objectively terrible" maybe in this weird world where the only characters that can function are ninth level casters and rogues, but I can't really see how a good spell list and great party buffs that let it fight as well as most martials turn into "terrible".

Snowbluff

2016-02-24, 09:02 PM

Times advanced learning appears in your post: zero.

But yes, totally clear. 'S not my fault if you don't have knowledge about it. Can't keep blaming me for something I elaborated to you.

And the baseline Artificer is T1 because...

Also Erudite, Archivist, and (for T2) Favored Soul.

Odds are you'll end up with a good number of workable options. Artificer is functionally (but more expensively) identical to wizard. I'll elaborate.

You mean if you don't count the options that are very good, advanced learning isn't very good? I am totally impressed by that visionary statement.

Generally, Beguiler has most of the good spells for his two main schools already. Simulacrum, Ice Assassin, and Mind Rape are probably the most power spells that would probably place it up a tier, but they are too high of a level and too specific to be considered on the tier list. After that, it's a selection of spells that don't make the character much better than normal or break the way in games in new ways, so the tier isn't really affected.

For player use, it's great. When you add a player into a mix, you can get some nice stuff done with it and feats.

Forrestfire

2016-02-24, 10:38 PM

And the baseline Artificer is T1 because...

No comment on the other ones, but for this one in particular...

(a) Crafting of items and especially scrolls as they like (as Snowbluff noted, functionally identical to the wizard if highly-optimized), and (b) because it has the baseline capacity to spontaneously cast any spells from any list up to 4th level, has metamagic shenanigans on these and other spells built into their class, gets free exp to craft with no downsides (at which point, see (a)), and a decently strong set of feats to support their crafting.

You don't even have to craft to meet the baseline "able to break encounters, campaigns, and settings" that tends to be the definition of tier 1. You can just use the class' natural synergy with items, powerful metamagic feats, and the infusion list for that. And when they actually use all their class features? They out-CoDzilla the cleric and druid, far outstrip the other prepared casters in versatility, and have the tools to solve anything on hand.

squiggit

2016-02-24, 10:49 PM

Isn't the easy solution to that to just pull out the Trapfinding card and declare that certain problems are "Scout Problems" or "Ranger Problems" and not let other people sovle them?

That's the easy solution, but I think it leads to issues of tokenism. It's not necessary, but there's certainly the risk that the character feels less like a real member of the party and more like an NPC in an escort quest in a video game: Yeah, you can't go through the door without them, but it doesn't mean they're really adding anything to the group.

Beheld

2016-02-24, 11:14 PM

No comment on the other ones, but for this one in particular...

(a) Crafting of items and especially scrolls as they like (as Snowbluff noted, functionally identical to the wizard if highly-optimized), and (b) because it has the baseline capacity to spontaneously cast any spells from any list up to 4th level, has metamagic shenanigans on these and other spells built into their class, gets free exp to craft with no downsides (at which point, see (a)), and a decently strong set of feats to support their crafting.

No, you definitely can't do that. Like at all. You have to craft items before you can use them, it takes days to craft items. No artificer ever has been able to spontaneously cast from any spells from any list up to 4th level. Nor, frankly, even if you did give them the thousands of wands that would be required, would that even be the same as a Wizard, since they are still items, with appropriately terrible save DCs.

This is certainly my point, and probably Cosi's people make claims about how artificers are a god class that can do anything, but in practice, that's only if you are literally insane in how much prep work you put into optimizing everything you can possibly think of, and then turn right around and give yourself all the prep time needed to get there, and you still aren't going to outdo a Wizard who buts the same amount of effort into it. (Or at least, not until you turn hit your first infinite combo and the Wizard buys a Candle of Invocation and the entire game dies.)

A "moderate optimization" "baseline abilities" Artificer is basically a huge party sink who eats the parties gold and makes you wish you had a Wizard or Cleric instead.

Misery Esquire

2016-02-24, 11:16 PM

Thus the homebrew debates I've been in (on both sides)
"HEy, can you guys Tier my poorly-thought out class fix?"
"IT's terrible and confused and nobody likes it and it's practically unplayable. Technically, it does fit the Tier 3 definition, but it's bad in every other way."
"So you're saying it's a Tier 3? Yay, I did it."

Or "It's not Tier 3, but besides that it's terrible and bad and awful." "Well, how would I make it Tier 3?"

Instead of focusing on JaronK's definitions, consider--does this class do its job effectively (Core Monk, Fighter)? Is that job a fun thing to do in a fantasy roleplaying game (i.e. Healer, Expert)? Does this class consistently overshadow other classes (Tier 1 casters)?

Alright. So lets agree with the premise people go in with staring tunnel vision to get the label T3, and disregard in how many ways their writing, balance and feature planning is the equivalent of Goodkind's fantasy "novels". This doesn't make JaronK's tier system the problem. The problem is the terrible designers who drool for someone to stamp T3 on their work, instead of just designing a fun/interesting/effective class and seeing where it lands.

The thread, as per usual for one about tiers, has become about what casters can and cannot do and/or why everyone's favorite flavour of arcane is incorrectly placed. So, I suppose the Tier system is fault (dubitably) for providing an easier basis for these merry-go-round arguments and some homebrewers inability not to want a designer label.

Troacctid

2016-02-24, 11:45 PM

No, you definitely can't do that. Like at all. You have to craft items before you can use them, it takes days to craft items. No artificer ever has been able to spontaneously cast from any spells from any list up to 4th level. Nor, frankly, even if you did give them the thousands of wands that would be required, would that even be the same as a Wizard, since they are still items, with appropriately terrible save DCs.

You might think that, until you read their infusion list more closely and realized that they actually can do that just with infusions, without crafting a single item. Infusions are a surprisingly big game.

Beheld

2016-02-24, 11:53 PM

You might think that, until you read their infusion list more closely and realized that they actually can do that just with infusions, without crafting a single item. Infusions are a surprisingly big game.

Put up or shut up. Are they spending 10 consecutive rounds in combat storing a spell in an item and making a DC 23 UMD check in order to then spontaneously cast Color Spray? Or are they preparing the item in advance of combat, also known as "not spontaneously"?

The Viscount

2016-02-25, 12:35 AM

Put up or shut up. Are they spending 10 consecutive rounds in combat storing a spell in an item and making a DC 23 UMD check in order to then spontaneously cast Color Spray? Or are they preparing the item in advance of combat, also known as "not spontaneously"?

Spontaneous magic is that that does not have to be done at the beginning of the day. Artificers can use spell storing item at any point during the day, not deciding what goes in when they start the day, which isn't prepared, so is spontaneous. Also a DC 23 UMD check is not that bad for an artificer. Rapid infusion exists if you've got the need for speed, as does Quicken spell. There is no need to be upset.

Beheld

2016-02-25, 12:46 AM

Spontaneous magic is that that does not have to be done at the beginning of the day. Artificers can use spell storing item at any point during the day, not deciding what goes in when they start the day, which isn't prepared, so is spontaneous. Also a DC 23 UMD check is not that bad for an artificer. Rapid infusion exists if you've got the need for speed, as does Quicken spell. There is no need to be upset.

1) 23 absolutely is at level 1 when it's the actual DC to get a level appropriate spell.

2) Spontaneous is Spontaneous. With 10 rounds of advance notice is not spontaneous. You can't walk around the corner and see a zombie and cast Silent Image, you can't walk around the corner and see an Orc mob and cast Color Spray. You can have any spell as long as you know you need it more than ten rounds before you need it (and get lucky on a roll). That is not spontaneous.

3) Rapid Infusions requires action points. You get 5 of those at level 1 for 13 encounters. Then you might get 6 for level 2, or you might get 10 when you hit level 4 and never see an action point from levels 2-3. Who knows? Quicken Spell does nothing at all to help the fact that you need 10 rounds advance notice. Hell, you might not even be in Ebberron, and then you get none.

4) Why are you so upset Viscount. Stop being upset Viscount. You need to be less upset Viscount.

fishyfishyfishy

2016-02-25, 12:51 AM

Artificers might take a little more preparation than another T1, but they're still incredibly versatile. I have a player that is great at picking and choosing the temporary enhancements on armor and weapons via infusions. Many spell effects can be replicated that way no problem. He also likes to have Persisted and Extended Divine Power, Righteous Might, and Wraith Strike going pretty much all the time. Between that and the various weapon enhancements he can slap on he's a strong front liner in addition to being the party problem solver. It's one of the best classes in the whole game, and he's never fallen behind the other two PCs in the group (optimized Cleric and Wizard).

The Viscount

2016-02-25, 01:40 AM

1) 23 absolutely is at level 1 when it's the actual DC to get a level appropriate spell.

2) Spontaneous is Spontaneous. With 10 rounds of advance notice is not spontaneous. You can't walk around the corner and see a zombie and cast Silent Image, you can't walk around the corner and see an Orc mob and cast Color Spray. You can have any spell as long as you know you need it more than ten rounds before you need it (and get lucky on a roll). That is not spontaneous.

3) Rapid Infusions requires action points. You get 5 of those at level 1 for 13 encounters. Then you might get 6 for level 2, or you might get 10 when you hit level 4 and never see an action point from levels 2-3. Who knows? Quicken Spell does nothing at all to help the fact that you need 10 rounds advance notice. Hell, you might not even be in Ebberron, and then you get none.

4) Why are you so upset Viscount. Stop being upset Viscount. You need to be less upset Viscount.

1 I can't do by level 1 off the top of my head, but I can do level 2, when level 1 spells are still the highest spells anyone has. Let's say we put spell storing into a scroll because we're kooky. We can apply the +2 bonus from artisan bonus because we have scribe scroll, 5 from ranks, say 3 from charisma bonus, +3 from skill enhancement infusion, +2 to UMD on scrolls from 5 ranks in Spellcraft makes for a modifier of 15. As Forrestfire explains in the cool artificer handbook, hardened criminal lets you take 10 on a skill of your choice. Let's say we're human or strongheart halfling and used our feats on iron will and hardened criminal. That's a DC 25 hit with no chance of failure. I'm sure someone else can do a better job if you need it to be level 1.

2 We clearly have different definitions, I was merely thinking a Prepared vs Spontaneous caster dichotomy. If a sorcerer needs to spend 10 rounds to cast break enchantment, is it still spontaneous in your eyes? If so what makes it different than the artificer?

3 Rapid infusion does not use up action points, which is the point of the feat. An artificer can use an action point to cast an infusion in one round normally. I was making reference with quicken that artificer can apply metamagic to infusions, but I had forgotten quicken spells limitation on duration. I'm sorry.

I'm not upset at all, friend. Who's upset?

Beheld

2016-02-25, 02:10 AM

1 I can't do by level 1 off the top of my head, but I can do level 2, when level 1 spells are still the highest spells anyone has. Let's say we put spell storing into a scroll because we're kooky. We can apply the +2 bonus from artisan bonus because we have scribe scroll, 5 from ranks, say 3 from charisma bonus, +3 from skill enhancement infusion, +2 to UMD on scrolls from 5 ranks in Spellcraft makes for a modifier of 15. As Forrestfire explains in the cool artificer handbook, hardened criminal lets you take 10 on a skill of your choice. Let's say we're human or strongheart halfling and used our feats on iron will and hardened criminal. That's a DC 25 hit with no chance of failure. I'm sure someone else can do a better job if you need it to be level 1.

That's... Terrible. First off: 1) Putting a Spell Storing Infusion on something is not activating that thing, your Artisan bonus doesn't apply.
2) It's still not activating a scroll, your +2 synergy doesn't apply.
3) Using a skill infusion is a terrible idea. You are level 3, you get probably 4, maybe 5 total infusions at all that day. Spending one on a skill infusion for a +3 to the skill for a 15% greater chance of making the UMD check is a bad idea, you are almost certainly better off just using the infusion, and if it fails, using it again. Especially because that bonus isn't going to stick around long enough for the next two times you want to put Color Spray in an item.

So what is the end result? Your level 2 character has a +8 to UMD and is rolling against DC 23. Basically, you manufactured +4 out of not understanding the rules and +3 out of wasting an infusion slot just to be able to use this infusion slot. I'm not impressed.

2 We clearly have different definitions, I was merely thinking a Prepared vs Spontaneous caster dichotomy. If a sorcerer needs to spend 10 rounds to cast break enchantment, is it still spontaneous in your eyes? If so what makes it different than the artificer?

Spontaneous things are things you can cast without knowing you need them before you need them. Things that are not spontaneous are things that you need to know in advance that you need. If you need Break Enchantment, you need it in your off time, if you need knock you (almost certainly) need it in your off time. If you need Remove Disease you probably need it in your off time. But if you need Color Spray, you need it this round, not 10 rounds from now.

I'm not upset at all, friend. Who's upset?

Clearly you, I was just telling you not to be upset. Why are you so upset. Stop being upset.

johnbragg

2016-02-25, 03:41 AM

Alright. So lets agree with the premise people go in with staring tunnel vision to get the label T3, and disregard in how many ways their writing, balance and feature planning is the equivalent of Goodkind's fantasy "novels". This doesn't make JaronK's tier system the problem. The problem is the terrible designers who drool for someone to stamp T3 on their work, instead of just designing a fun/interesting/effective class and seeing where it lands.

It's not JaronK's fault. It's my fault. (Not just me, but including me.). This thread, for me, is about me not doing that anymore.

The thread, as per usual for one about tiers, has become about what casters can and cannot do and/or why everyone's favorite flavour of arcane is incorrectly placed. So, I suppose the Tier system is fault (dubitably) for providing an easier basis for these merry-go-round arguments and some homebrewers inability not to want a designer label.

WE could blame the Tier system for providing a structure to these ritualized arguments, I suppose. These arguments would be much more incohate without it, with even more goalpost-shifting.

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 04:03 AM

Speaking from a designer's perspective, I actively try to get my classes to fall roughly somewhere in the T3 area. Not because I think that T3 is a worthy end in and of itself, but because what makes a particular class T3 (i.e. "can reliably and effectively do its own schtick, while occasionally contributing to others, and without overshadowing the contributions of others") is my ideal sweet spot for class design. Obviously a given class doesn't have to be T3 to be "fun/interesting/effective," but I think the expectations for the label set up a good dynamic.

Florian

2016-02-25, 05:14 AM

It's not JaronK's fault. It's my fault. (Not just me, but including me.). This thread, for me, is about me not doing that anymore.

WE could blame the Tier system for providing a structure to these ritualized arguments, I suppose. These arguments would be much more incohate without it, with even more goalpost-shifting.

This thread/discussion pretty much shows one thing again, over and over: Its not the classes that are a problem, its the spells and the potential exploits they provide.

We could, for example, use the basic Paladin/Ranger setup (Full BAB, 4th level casting, no bonus feats) and provide early access to the full list of problematic spells and examine where we come out with it. My guess is: T1 problems on a T4 framework.

So yes, a lot of the answers come over as "ritualized" as all the talk here is about "symptoms", not the underlying "causes".

For example, right now I´m working on a Kitsune Samurai NPC for the campaign I´m running (yeah, PF, so what?), a very basic T5 class, with multiple instances of the "Magical Tail" racial feat, therefore easy and early access to Dominate Monster as a SLA. (Amongst other hard-hating SLA like Confusion, Invisibility, Displacement...).

Troacctid

2016-02-25, 05:27 AM

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 05:34 AM

This thread/discussion pretty much shows one thing again, over and over: Its not the classes that are a problem, its the spells and the potential exploits they provide.

We could, for example, use the basic Paladin/Ranger setup (Full BAB, 4th level casting, no bonus feats) and provide early access to the full list of problematic spells and examine where we come out with it. My guess is: T1 problems on a T4 framework.

So yes, a lot of the answers come over as "ritualized" as all the talk here is about "symptoms", not the underlying "causes".

For example, right now I´m working on a Kitsune Samurai NPC for the campaign I´m running (yeah, PF, so what?), a very basic T5 class, with multiple instances of the "Magical Tail" racial feat, therefore easy and early access to Dominate Monster as a SLA. (Amongst other hard-hating SLA like Confusion, Invisibility, Displacement...).

It's not just the spells, although I agree with you that they are certainly a major component. Spellcasting mechanics also contribute, which is why the Wizard is more broken than the Sorcerer, despite having access to the same pool of potential spells, and why the Sorcerer is more broken than the Beguiler.

But to fix the latter problem, you have to slaughter one of the sacred cows of D&D—Vancian casting—in favor of spontaneous fixed-list casters.

ryu

2016-02-25, 05:37 AM

It's not just the spells, although I agree with you that they are certainly a major component. Spellcasting mechanics also contribute, which is why the Wizard is more broken than the Sorcerer, despite having access to the same pool of potential spools, and why the Sorcerer is more broken than the Beguiler.

But to fix the latter problem, you have to slaughter one of the sacred cows of D&D—Vancian casting—in favor of spontaneous fixed-list casters.

A very controversial move not just because it's a ''sacred cow,'' but because some people genuinely desire their game to be highly complex, strategic, and demanding on a mental level. Those people approach the system by just playing tier 1 characters and having the game step its challenge up to demand that level of power and thought.

Troacctid

2016-02-25, 05:41 AM

Spellcasting mechanics also contribute, which is why the Wizard is more broken than the Sorcerer, despite having access to the same pool of potential spools, and why the Sorcerer is more broken than the Beguiler.

The Beguiler has a more powerful spellcasting mechanic than the Sorcerer, and they're like the same tier, so I have to disagree with you here.

ryu

2016-02-25, 05:42 AM

The Beguiler has a more powerful spellcasting mechanic than the Sorcerer, and they're like the same tier, so I have to disagree with you here.

Uh no? Sorcerer is native tier 2 while beguiler is native tier 3. Beguiler may have a better mechanic, but they also have a weaker native list.

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 05:45 AM

A very controversial move not just because it's a ''sacred cow,'' but because some people genuinely desire their game to be highly complex, strategic, and demanding on a mental level. Those people approach the system by just playing tier 1 characters and having the game step its challenge up to demand that level of power and thought.

Yeah, each table's different. It's just my opinion that, if you want to achieve some semblance of "balance," that's the first step. Reasonable people may disagree on whether my opinion is effective, and reasonable people may disagree on what balance point they want to find, if any.

The Beguiler has a more powerful spellcasting mechanic than the Sorcerer, and they're like the same tier, so I have to disagree with you here.

They're certainly very close. But a Sorcerer gets the nod because they can choose their spells, allowing them to take multiple gamebreaking spells on a single character. At least, that's my reasoning for putting one above the other. I realize that under the right circumstances, the Beguiler can definitely outstrip the Sorcerer. But out of the box, the ability to take Teleport, Polymorph Self, Animate Dead, Planar Binding, etc., edges out the Beguiler's admittedly strong list and mechanics.

Troacctid

2016-02-25, 05:57 AM

Uh no? Sorcerer is native tier 2 while beguiler is native tier 3. Beguiler may have a better mechanic, but they also have a weaker native list.

Only because JaronK didn't tier them very well. There's a pretty fair number of classes that are mis-tiered in his rankings. Beguilers and Dread Necromancers are more accurately T2. They're just Sorcerers who picked a very specific set of spells, and both their lists have plenty of top-tier choices on them—more than enough to elevate them past the T3 classes.

Even if you think Sorcerers are better, it's clearly not going to be because of their casting mechanic, which is just straight-up worse. They have the same spells per day, the same spontaneous casting, and fewer spells known, all on a weaker chassis with no class features to speak of. The only reason you could argue that they're more powerful is because they have more powerful individual spells. And if, like Gnorman, you claim they're more powerful for some reason OTHER than "because they have better spells," well, then, quite frankly, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 06:01 AM

Only because JaronK didn't tier them very well. There's a pretty fair number of classes that are mis-tiered in his rankings. Beguilers and Dread Necromancers are more accurately T2. They're just Sorcerers who picked a very specific set of spells, and both their lists have plenty of top-tier choices on them—more than enough to elevate them past the T3 classes.

Even if you think Sorcerers are better, it's clearly not going to be because of their casting mechanic, which is just straight-up worse. They have the same spells per day, the same spontaneous casting, and fewer spells known, all on a weaker chassis with no class features to speak of. The only reason you could argue that they're more powerful is because they have more powerful individual spells. And if you say they're more powerful, but for some reason OTHER than "because they have better spells," well, then, frankly, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

I guess maybe we should nail down what you mean by "casting mechanic"? When I mentioned spellcasting mechanics, it was in reference at first to the difference between prepared and spontaneous casting, and then to the difference between choosing your spells and having a fixed list. More spells known is nice, but I don't think it compares to the customization potential of the Sorcerer.

EDIT: Please don't attribute to me a position I didn't take. I didn't claim that the Sorcerer was better for a reason other than "they have [access to] better spells." That's exactly the reason I'm pointing to. Their spellcasting mechanic allows them to take multiple gamebreaking spells. The Beguiler's does not, or at least certainly not to the same degree. In any case, I'm not trying to quibble about whether the Sorcerer is more powerful than the Beguiler. I'm just trying to say that the spellcasting mechanic of "Choose a Limited Number of Spells from All of the Arcane Spells" is generally considered more gamebreaking than "You Know These Specific Spells." Would it be better if I said that the Sorcerer is considered to be better than the Warmage?

Troacctid

2016-02-25, 06:08 AM

Sorcerers cast spontaneously off a limited number of spells, instead of casting spontaneously off of their entire class spell list. It's a less powerful casting mechanic, similar to how the Wizard has a less powerful casting mechanic than the Cleric—they're the same, except the Wizard only knows the spells in her book, where the Cleric can draw from her entire class spell list.

Florian

2016-02-25, 06:08 AM

Of course the spells are the problem. That's like the TL;DR of the whole tier system. Spells are overpowered. More spells are more overpowered. There, now you don't need to look at the tiers anymore.

Compare 5th Edition. You have basically the exact same Wizard class, but better. More class features, more ability score increases, better chassis, vastly improved casting mechanic. Port that sucker to 3.5 and it would be busted to hell. Except it's not overpowered in 5th Edition, because the spells are nerfed.

I´m just pointing out a very interesting fallacy that is conducted over and over again. The divide here being "Native Access" vs. "External Source Access" and seeing those things as not being equal, even if the end-results are functionally the same.

The topic here is "fetishizing T3" and that mostly centers around those classes having no "Native Access" to the most problematic spells, therefore not really breaking the game whilst being butt-naked, something that will not happen in a game that has WBL as an underlying part of the core system.

On a personal note, I do not really like D&D 5E for similar reasons I disliked 4E. Both a very fluid games and very enjoyable, especially on the tactical level, but I´m not a great fan of the brand of balance they impose. We have a local system, "Splittermond", that is way ahead in this regards, showcasing that good balance and customization of your character can go hand-in-hand and it makes D&D 5E look rather crude in comparison.

@Gnorman:

Preparing casters can always leave slots open to fill later to handle different situations. Spells known casters have the same access to the Big Ones, yes, but lack the pin-point flexibility here.

ryu

2016-02-25, 06:10 AM

Only because JaronK didn't tier them very well. There's a pretty fair number of classes that are mis-tiered in his rankings. Beguilers and Dread Necromancers are more accurately T2. They're just Sorcerers who picked a very specific set of spells, and both their lists have plenty of top-tier choices on them—more than enough to elevate them past the T3 classes.

Even if you think Sorcerers are better, it's clearly not going to be because of their casting mechanic, which is just straight-up worse. They have the same spells per day, the same spontaneous casting, and fewer spells known, all on a weaker chassis with no class features to speak of. The only reason you could argue that they're more powerful is because they have more powerful individual spells. And if, like Gnorman, you claim they're more powerful, but for some reason OTHER than "because they have better spells," well, then, frankly, I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

Casting mechanic only matters at all if the classes in question have the same list or almost identical list. The beguiler list is just straight up worse than the sorcerer list because the sorcerer list is the wizard list with a few small sorc exclusives. Therefore beguiler is worse than sorc.

On the other hand lets compare that same sorc to a wizard with almost exactly the same list sans exclusives. Their mechanic difference is that wizards have access to pretty much as many spells known as they damn well please while sorcs get spontaneous casting... at about a level of delay..... and the wizard can be fully spontaneous with more daily versatility than sorcs with one ACF and a feat.

Yes casting mechanic matters as a tie-breaker after list strength. The wizards casting mechanic is arguably one of the strongest in the entire game if you're willing to put in the cost of roughly two feats worth. Only ones to beat are psions who know ever arcane spell and divine spell in the game as powers, and debatably artificers for early access.

Albions_Angel

2016-02-25, 06:44 AM

Casting mechanic only matters at all if the classes in question have the same list or almost identical list. The beguiler list is just straight up worse than the sorcerer list because the sorcerer list is the wizard list with a few small sorc exclusives. Therefore beguiler is worse than sorc.

On the other hand lets compare that same sorc to a wizard with almost exactly the same list sans exclusives. Their mechanic difference is that wizards have access to pretty much as many spells known as they damn well please while sorcs get spontaneous casting... at about a level of delay..... and the wizard can be fully spontaneous with more daily versatility than sorcs with one ACF and a feat.

Yes casting mechanic matters as a tie-breaker after list strength. The wizards casting mechanic is arguably one of the strongest in the entire game if you're willing to put in the cost of roughly two feats worth. Only ones to beat are psions who know ever arcane spell and divine spell in the game as powers, and debatably artificers for early access.

And this is another example of where the tier system breaks down. Wizards need DOWN TIME and MONEY to transcribe new spells into their book beyond what they automatically get each level. Without adequate down time, Sorcs actually do better. They get more spells per day, can select anything from their list to learn (although then they are locked in to that) and can theoretically do anything a wizard can do.

While that situation isnt optimal, it IS common enough to show the point of this thread. That the tier system doesnt work as intended in normal play. As for Beguilers and Dread Necros, I agree to some extent. Sure, they get a limited list, but not having to pick a small subset, and potentially make the wrong choice, means they are potentially more versatile.

ryu

2016-02-25, 07:02 AM

And this is another example of where the tier system breaks down. Wizards need DOWN TIME and MONEY to transcribe new spells into their book beyond what they automatically get each level. Without adequate down time, Sorcs actually do better. They get more spells per day, can select anything from their list to learn (although then they are locked in to that) and can theoretically do anything a wizard can do.

While that situation isnt optimal, it IS common enough to show the point of this thread. That the tier system doesnt work as intended in normal play. As for Beguilers and Dread Necros, I agree to some extent. Sure, they get a limited list, but not having to pick a small subset, and potentially make the wrong choice, means they are potentially more versatile.

Actually no. The sorc is still worse in that scenario. Wanna know why? Collegiate wizard is four more free spells known per level. The wizard also isn't hamstrung by slower progression. Congrats. By explicitly messing with the playing field to favor the sorc you've forced me to waste an extra feat to get the added power that was the whole point of my class, in a less efficient way mind, and the sorc still doesn't meaningfully compare.

Florian

2016-02-25, 07:33 AM

Actually no. The sorc is still worse in that scenario. Wanna know why? Collegiate wizard is four more free spells known per level. The wizard also isn't hamstrung by slower progression. Congrats. By explicitly messing with the playing field to favor the sorc you've forced me to waste an extra feat to get the added power that was the whole point of my class, in a less efficient way mind, and the sorc still doesn't meaningfully compare.

You know that PrC and the follow-up shifts in tier placement are left out for exactly those reasons.

ryu

2016-02-25, 07:36 AM

You know that PrC and the follow-up shifts in tier placement are left out for exactly those reasons.

Not a PrC. All that was just mentioned are either feats or ACFs.

nedz

2016-02-25, 08:15 AM

Albions_Angel

2016-02-25, 08:21 AM

It doesn't matter, even without Feats, PrCs, Scrolls (part of standard random loot), Cash or Downtime the Wizard still knows 4 spells of the highest level available at the point the Sorcerer knows 1, and has been casting them for a whole level. This is still way more options, of the most powerful available, for him to select from. Also, at the point where the Sorcerer knows 2 spells of the level; the Wizard now knows 2 of the next highest.

On the other hand, the sorc gets more uses per day. If his 3 spells known are all utility, then he can quite easily be more versatile than the wiz by virtue of doing more stuff that day. Ability to actually use your class tools is also a mark of versatility.

Im not arguing a god wizard isnt more versatile than a sorc. Im saying that the tier system doesnt work in most games BECAUSE of things like this. Because of low down time, poor resource flow, high encounter per day situations, puzzles that take longer than expected, time limits, night time raids. Just like any DM plan, the tier system rarely survives contact with the average campaign.

ryu

2016-02-25, 08:29 AM

It doesn't matter, even without Feats, PrCs, Scrolls (part of standard random loot), Cash or Downtime the Wizard still knows 4 spells of the highest level available at the point the Sorcerer knows 1, and has been casting them for a whole level. This is still way more options, of the most powerful available, for him to select from. Also, at the point where the Sorcerer knows 2 spells of the level; the Wizard now knows 2 of the next highest.

Just using feats to point out that even if you allowed the sorcerer wizard progression, which is a huge buff to sorcerers, they still wouldn't be in the wizard's league. To do this I prefer to make the numbers so outlandishly impressive that not even the most obstinate of debate opponents can ignore the difference with credibility.

If they start trying to alter game assumptions to make that impossible I alter the build such that the changes are ultimately irrelevant. A wizard is still a wizard and if you intend to take away all books, scrolls, free and safe rest and preparations, and gold he's still a wizard. Wizards aren't strong just due to a difference in progression or even spells known. You can't change any one thing, or five things for that matter, about a world that will prevent a wizard from outstripping most any other caster that wasn't already looked on as an equal.

Beheld

2016-02-25, 11:52 AM

But a Sorcerer gets the nod because they can choose their spells, allowing them to take multiple gamebreaking spells on a single character. At least, that's my reasoning for putting one above the other. I realize that under the right circumstances, the Beguiler can definitely outstrip the Sorcerer. But out of the box, the ability to take Teleport, Polymorph Self, Animate Dead, Planar Binding, etc., edges out the Beguiler's admittedly strong list and mechanics.

And see, this is the completely wrong thing that people say and believe all the time, but that Tier system defenders claim is not part of the Tier system when it is pointed out how incredibly wrong this is. I point I will now make (again) here:

This is wrong. This is wrong several times over. Access to more game breaking spells is not a measure of anything anyone should ever care about.

A Beguiler has more than zero ways to break the game, since he has more than zero ways to break the game, he can break the game and then the game is broken, and then he is equally as powerful as any other character, because the game is broken. But he's not going to do that, because the player wants to play the game, so they are going to not break it.

A Sorcerer has more hypothetical spells that he could take that break the game. And that is meaningless, because he's not going to break the game. He wants to play the game, so he doesn't break the game. Then after he has chosen spells in a way that doesn't break the game, his hypothetical ability to cast those spells is meaningless, because he can't cast those spells, because he doesn't know them.

The only meaningful comparison is the Sorcerer as actually played, with the spells he actually knows, against the Beguiler as actually played, with the spells he actually knows.

At level 8 that means the Sorcerer is casting "spontaneously" from Wings of Flurry and nothing else, while the Beguiler is casting spontaneously from

Freedom of Movement, Whelm, Mass, Solid Fog, Locate Creature, Charm Monster, Confusion, Crushing Despair, Greater Invisibility, Mirror Image, Greater, Phantom Battle, and Rainbow Pattern.

And also perhaps Evard's Black Tentacles, or Stone Shape, or Minor Creation (Or perhaps you took Arcane Disciple as well and have more spells, or mostly likely you PrCed and have more spells)

Meanwhile the Sorcerer has two REALLY GOOD 3rd level spells... like Stinking Cloud or... well... Third level spells is a really bad level for Sorcerers as compared to Beguilers. But like, Two spells though, whatever the best two spells are.

Seward

2016-02-25, 11:56 AM

I'm with Albion's Angel. In actual play, the ability to master the spells you actually have vs the potential spells you might have, and the ability to have all of them plus every metamagic varaition on tap until your top level spell slots run out often trumps the wizard's theoretical versatility.

This is ignoring things both Wiz and Sorc can abuse, such as minionomancy and polymorph. This is just how the numbers work out.

Each spell a wizard uses reduces his flexibility for the rest of the day. Each spell slot a sorcerer uses does not, until she actually runs out of the top tier slots. At any moment in time, a sorcerer generally has more options at her fingertips than a wizard. Every odd level from 3-17, the wizard has the advantage of a higher tier of spells for 3 uses/day than the sorcerer. In play both tend to contribute at a pretty similar level - the sorcerer needing more system mastery in choice of spells known, the wizard needing more system mastery and ability to guess the upcoming plot at the table when prepping spells.

Consumables do change the equation for both, especially if the wizard can craft for half cost. Pearls of power mitigate it for lower level spells between combats. My experience though is that both wizards and sorcerers use consumables in low levels a lot, and less as they level. The wizard to give more options period per day, and sometimes to use an option more than once if it isn't level/save dependent. The sorcerer to fake having more spells known until enough come on line that most challenges can be met with spells in her head.

The big thing a wizard can do that a sorcerer can not is between-day flexibility. This is an attribute of vancian casting, and divine casters do it way better than wizards because they have their whole spell list. Still, my blaster oriented wizard can shift from "clear the tomb of threats" to "loot the tomb with divination/stone shape type spells" with 8 hours rest, where my telekenetic sorceress needed to either handle both situations with her spells known, or if, say, tomb looting was normally not very difficult (she uses disintegrate instead of stone shape, for example), have a few things like a wand of detect secret doors available.

nedz

2016-02-25, 12:56 PM

I'm not arguing a god wizard isn't more versatile than a sorc. I'm saying that the tier system doesn't work in most games BECAUSE of things like this. Because of low down time, poor resource flow, high encounter per day situations, puzzles that take longer than expected, time limits, night time raids. Just like any DM plan, the tier system rarely survives contact with the average campaign.

Well Batman Wizard is a thing, Batman Sorcerer not so much.

I'm not sure what the average campaign is, but I have argued several times in this thread that action to address balance issues should be tailored to the group in question. For some games you need do nothing, for several and various reasons, but for others, if you don't act then that could cause problems. It is also much easier to act up front rather than trying to rescue a game after it has crashed.

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 03:00 PM

And see, this is the completely wrong thing that people say and believe all the time, but that Tier system defenders claim is not part of the Tier system when it is pointed out how incredibly wrong this is. I point I will now make (again) here:

This is wrong. This is wrong several times over. Access to more game breaking spells is not a measure of anything anyone should ever care about.

A Beguiler has more than zero ways to break the game, since he has more than zero ways to break the game, he can break the game and then the game is broken, and then he is equally as powerful as any other character, because the game is broken. But he's not going to do that, because the player wants to play the game, so they are going to not break it.

A Sorcerer has more hypothetical spells that he could take that break the game. And that is meaningless, because he's not going to break the game. He wants to play the game, so he doesn't break the game. Then after he has chosen spells in a way that doesn't break the game, his hypothetical ability to cast those spells is meaningless, because he can't cast those spells, because he doesn't know them.

The only meaningful comparison is the Sorcerer as actually played, with the spells he actually knows, against the Beguiler as actually played, with the spells he actually knows.

At level 8 that means the Sorcerer is casting "spontaneously" from Wings of Flurry and nothing else, while the Beguiler is casting spontaneously from

Freedom of Movement, Whelm, Mass, Solid Fog, Locate Creature, Charm Monster, Confusion, Crushing Despair, Greater Invisibility, Mirror Image, Greater, Phantom Battle, and Rainbow Pattern.

And also perhaps Evard's Black Tentacles, or Stone Shape, or Minor Creation (Or perhaps you took Arcane Disciple as well and have more spells, or mostly likely you PrCed and have more spells)

Meanwhile the Sorcerer has two REALLY GOOD 3rd level spells... like Stinking Cloud or... well... Third level spells is a really bad level for Sorcerers as compared to Beguilers. But like, Two spells though, whatever the best two spells are.

In a thread about theorycrafting, analyzing a system intended to be used for theorycrafting (and not practical play), this argument is misplaced.

I have never disputed that the Beguiler (or other fixed-list casters) are very versatile, moreso than a comparably-situated Sorcerer. But the Sorcerer gets to take more "gamebreaking" spells, of which the likes of Freedom of Movement & Whelm are not. The Beguiler might very well be able to break the game! They're considered a very high Tier 3 or Tier 2 class! But being able to compare a character with one or two ways to break the game to a character with N ways to break the game is kind of the point of the tier system. Maybe that's not a valuable exercise to you, and that's fine. But saying that "access to more game breaking spells is not a measure of anything anyone should ever care about" is not only wrong in this context, it misses the point of the discussion entirely.

Beheld

2016-02-25, 03:36 PM

In a thread about theorycrafting, analyzing a system intended to be used for theorycrafting (and not practical play), this argument is misplaced.

Except that that is not what the thread is about, or what the Tier system claims to be about (or at least, it claims to not be about that, it also claims to be about that).

But being able to compare a character with one or two ways to break the game to a character with N ways to break the game is kind of the point of the tier system. Maybe that's not a valuable exercise to you, and that's fine. But saying that "access to more game breaking spells is not a measure of anything anyone should ever care about" is not only wrong in this context, it misses the point of the discussion entirely.

1) The Sorcerer cannot take more Gamebreaking spells. He has more gamebreaking spells to take, but he can't actually take more of them. But infinitely more importantly:

2) If this is the case, then every Tier defender should instantly and immediately without fail admit that the Tier system is a useless piece of garbage that has no relevance to anyone actually playing D&D at all, and yet, they never do that, instead, they declare me an evil monster liar for claiming that this is what the Tier system measures, and tell me that it doesn't concern game breaking things at all, and is all about measuring the ability of classes to deal with level appropriate challenges in actual games.

Which is of course, the point. The Tier system is useless garbage because no two people can agree on what it means, and it either: 1) Fails to measure the thing the person things it measures, or 2) Fails to measure the thing it claims it measures, and also the thing it claims to measure is ****ing worthless garbage.

You have picked 2, but other people in other threads pick 1.

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 03:44 PM

2) If this is the case, then every Tier defender should instantly and immediately without fail admit that the Tier system is a useless piece of garbage that has no relevance to anyone actually playing D&D at all, and yet, they never do that, instead, they declare me an evil monster liar for claiming that this is what the Tier system measures, and tell me that it doesn't concern game breaking things at all, and is all about measuring the ability of classes to deal with level appropriate challenges in actual games.

Which is of course, the point. The Tier system is useless garbage because no two people can agree on what it means, and it either: 1) Fails to measure the thing the person things it measures, or 2) Fails to measure the thing it claims it measures, and also the thing it claims to measure is ****ing worthless garbage.

You have picked 2, but other people in other threads pick 1.

I'm not calling you an evil monster liar. I just think that we're measuring different things, which is fine. The Tier system is most definitely not, in my mind, a method of measuring the ability of classes to deal with level appropriate challenges in "actual games" (whatever that means). That would be better handled by the Same Game Test. The Tier system is a rough system for comparing the ability of classes to contribute as compared to other classes. That's perhaps more theoretical and divorced from practical play than you'd prefer, but it's certainly not garbage. It's a very useful tool for designers.

Red Fel

2016-02-25, 03:47 PM

1) The Sorcerer cannot take more Gamebreaking spells. He has more gamebreaking spells to take, but he can't actually take more of them.

Semantic arguments are semantic.

But infinitely more importantly:

2) If this is the case, then every Tier defender should instantly and immediately without fail admit that the Tier system is a useless piece of garbage that has no relevance to anyone actually playing D&D at all, and yet, they never do that,

... what? Seriously, what? How do you even - no, on second thought, I actually don't want to know how you got to that point. I honestly don't see how you got from "being able to compare the opportunities of classes to break the game" to "the Tier System is useless" at all, and I don't think I want to.

instead, they declare me an evil monster liar for claiming that this is what the Tier system measures,

Have you been reading my LiveJournal posts?

Seriously, show of hands: How many people here have actually called Beheld an "evil monster liar"? Because I'm supposed to have a monopoly on at least two of those words, and I don't do sharing.

and tell me that it doesn't concern game breaking things at all,

Except in the post you just quoted, where Gnorman says:

But the Sorcerer gets to take more "gamebreaking" spells, of which the likes of Freedom of Movement & Whelm are not. The Beguiler might very well be able to break the game! They're considered a very high Tier 3 or Tier 2 class! But being able to compare a character with one or two ways to break the game to a character with N ways to break the game is kind of the point of the tier system. Maybe that's not a valuable exercise to you, and that's fine. But saying that "access to more game breaking spells is not a measure of anything anyone should ever care about" is not only wrong in this context, it misses the point of the discussion entirely.

I've bolded where he uses the words "break" and "game" for your convenience.

and is all about measuring the ability of classes to deal with level appropriate challenges in actual games.

No. The Tier System has nothing to do with "the ability of classes to deal with level appropriate challenges in actual games." The Tier System has nothing to do with actual games.

The Tier System asks one question: In a vacuum, absent any other consideration, what are the limits to the versatility of this class?

If you want something that measures "the ability of classes to deal with level appropriate challenges in actual games," go run the Same Game Test. Or, revolutionary thought, play an actual game.

Which is of course, the point. The Tier system is useless garbage because no two people can agree on what it means,

If one of them is named Beheld.

and it either: 1) Fails to measure the thing the person things it measures, or 2) Fails to measure the thing it claims it measures, and also the thing it claims to measure is ****ing worthless garbage.

Conclusory conclusion is conclusory.

Also, profanity is helpful!

Elderand

2016-02-25, 03:51 PM

1) The Sorcerer cannot take more Gamebreaking spells. He has more gamebreaking spells to take, but he can't actually take more of them. But infinitely more importantly:

Yes, yes he can. Beguiler is generaly stuck with what spell are on his list, almost none of which are gamebreaking. So his ability to pick gamebreaking spells is limited to advanced learnings.

Meanwhile a sorcerer can pick any spell he wants to know that are on his list. He can, quite literraly, have nothing but gamebreaking spells. A sorcerer as a potential for 43 gamebreaking spells. A beguiler has what..5..6?

2) If this is the case, then every Tier defender should instantly and immediately without fail admit that the Tier system is a useless piece of garbage that has no relevance to anyone actually playing D&D at all, and yet, they never do that, instead, they declare me an evil monster liar for claiming that this is what the Tier system measures, and tell me that it doesn't concern game breaking things at all, and is all about measuring the ability of classes to deal with level appropriate challenges in actual games.

Which is of course, the point. The Tier system is useless garbage because no two people can agree on what it means, and it either: 1) Fails to measure the thing the person things it measures, or 2) Fails to measure the thing it claims it measures, and also the thing it claims to measure is ****ing worthless garbage.

You have picked 2, but other people in other threads pick 1.

Meanwhile, anyone who has actually bothered to read what each tier is can easily tell that the tier system kinda does both. Tier 6 to 3 are about basic competence and versatility while tier 1 and 2 are about gamebreaking potential. None of which is about actual games mind you, just comparaison of classes.

torrasque666

2016-02-25, 03:52 PM

- takes sledgehammer to argument - And this is why Red Fel is one of my favorites.

Beheld

2016-02-25, 03:52 PM

I'm not calling you an evil monster liar. I just think that we're measuring different things, which is fine. The Tier system is most definitely not, in my mind, a method of measuring the ability of classes to deal with level appropriate challenges in "actual games" (whatever that means). That would be better handled by the Same Game Test. The Tier system is a rough system for comparing the ability of classes to contribute as compared to other classes.

I didn't claim you said that, I said that all the people who defend the Tiers in other threads say that whenever I say that the Tier system attempts and fails to measure the thing you claim it measures. That is my entire point. I'm literally trapped in a Bureaucratic nightmare where the Tier system defenders claim mutually contradictory things about what the Tier system measures depending on the thread, and in both threads they call me an idiot for claiming that the things people said in the other thread are things anyone ever says.

That's perhaps more theoretical and divorced from practical play than you'd prefer, but it's certainly not garbage. It's a very useful tool for designers.

That is literally worthless for designers. Comparing which classes are capable of breaking the game the highest number of times is meaningless to anyone designing anything that is actually going to be played ever. (Or is meant to be.)

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 03:55 PM

Being able to identify that a class is Tier 1, and therefore likely (ed: perhaps "able" would be better here?) to overshadow other classes in actual play, or Tier 5, and thus unlikely to meaningfully contribute, is actually incredibly valuable from a designer's perspective.

dascarletm

2016-02-25, 03:58 PM

Well put argument

Tis a shame to see such a thing going to waste...
You know because feeding the regenerating creatures and all.
I shall mourn your post.

Beheld

2016-02-25, 04:05 PM

Yes, yes he can. Beguiler is generaly stuck with what spell are on his list, almost none of which are gamebreaking. So his ability to pick gamebreaking spells is limited to advanced learnings.

Meanwhile a sorcerer can pick any spell he wants to know that are on his list. He can, quite literraly, have nothing but gamebreaking spells. A sorcerer as a potential for 43 gamebreaking spells. A beguiler has what..5..6?

There aren't 43 gamebreaking spells on the Sorcerer Wizard list.

There is Planar Binding (all three), Gate, Animate Dead, Charms, Dominates, Shapechange, Polymorph Any Object, Wish, Shades, Simulacrum (and Ice Assassin) and a few extremely specific weird niche spells elsewhere that mostly just reference back to these same spells. Since I could build a Beguiler Right now that has all of those on his list except Ice Assassin (and heck, maybe even that, I'd have to look at the cold domains) I'm just not impressed by your ability to have those spells on your list.

Semantic arguments are semantic.

But non semantic arguments are not semantic. If some other character that isn't you can have a spell, that has no effect whatsoever on whether or not you have it.

Except in the post you just quoted, where Gnorman says:

Hmm... if only there was some other part of the post that provided context to that statement...

You have picked 2, but other people in other threads pick 1.

So how about you go post and tell eggynack he is completely wrong in the other thread? Oh what, you were too busy agreeing with him in the other thread... Okay sure.

Let me explain how this concept works as if to a child. When one person says X, and then I claim that people say X, someone else saying ~X does not mean that no one ever said X.

If one of them is named Beheld.

You are correct, all those other posters that were posting in other threads exact specific contradictions to what Gnorman is saying in this thread don't exist at all.

Oh look, here's Gnorman directly contradicting HIMSELF! and you at the same time:

Being able to identify that a class is Tier 1, and therefore likely to overshadow other classes in actual play, or Tier 5, and thus unlikely to meaningfully contribute, is actually incredibly valuable from a designer's perspective.

The Tier System has nothing to do with actual games.

The Tier system is most definitely not, in my mind, a method of measuring the ability of classes to deal with level appropriate challenges in "actual games" (whatever that means).

So tell me which of the two mutually contradictory things is it. Do Tier systems not measure things in actual games, and therefore I'm an idiot for thinking that anyone would ever claim they do, or do they measure things in actual games and I'm an idiot for ever thinking anyone would claim they don't?

Red Fel

2016-02-25, 04:13 PM

But non semantic arguments are not semantic.

And a tautology is a tautology! I can do this all day.

If some other character that isn't you can have a spell, that has no effect whatsoever on whether or not you have it.

Totally agreed. Also, totally irrelevant.

Hmm... if only there was some other part of the post that provided context to that statement...

Quoting your own words does not explain your decision to ignore the post you were quoting.

So how about you go post and tell eggynack he is completely wrong in the other thread?

Because he isn't! Okay, ask me another! This is a fun game!

Oh what, you were too busy agreeing with him in the other thread... Okay sure.

Was I even in the other thread? I don't even know. Could you maybe link me to my post in that thread so that I might check?

You are correct, all those other posters that were posting in other threads exact specific contradictions to what Gnorman is saying in this thread don't exist at all.

This is a sentence.

Oh look, here's Gnorman directly contradicting HIMSELF! and you at the same time:

As is his prerogative. I have no beef with Gnorman contradicting me.

Gnorman, we cool? You don't have to answer, I know it.

johnbragg

2016-02-25, 04:15 PM

Being able to identify that a class is Tier 1, and therefore likely to overshadow other classes in actual play, or Tier 5, and thus unlikely to meaningfully contribute, is actually incredibly valuable from a designer's perspective.

Hey, we're back to the neighborhood of my original argument!

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 04:16 PM

I fail to see the contradiction. Design risks do not always bear out in reality, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be aware of their potential.

Red Fel: we cool. I don't even think we disagree, but even if we did, we cool.

Beheld

2016-02-25, 04:16 PM

As is his prerogative. I have no beef with Gnorman contradicting me.

So just to be clear, you official position is that I'm wrong for saying that anyone would ever claim that the Tier system measures things in actual games. . .

And the fact that two people in this thread have already said exactly that doesn't change your mind at all...

Okay yeah. Sure.

dascarletm

2016-02-25, 04:17 PM

Hey, we're back to the neighborhood of my original argument!

pshh! When has a thread stayed on topic past page 3?

Svata

2016-02-25, 04:20 PM

Semantic arguments are semantic.

... what? Seriously, what? How do you even - no, on second thought, I actually don't want to know how you got to that point. I honestly don't see how you got from "being able to compare the opportunities of classes to break the game" to "the Tier System is useless" at all, and I don't think I want to.

Have you been reading my LiveJournal posts?

Seriously, show of hands: How many people here have actually called Beheld an "evil monster liar"? Because I'm supposed to have a monopoly on at least two of those words, and I don't do sharing.

Except in the post you just quoted, where Gnorman says:

I've bolded where he uses the words "break" and "game" for your convenience.

No. The Tier System has nothing to do with "the ability of classes to deal with level appropriate challenges in actual games." The Tier System has nothing to do with actual games.

The Tier System asks one question: In a vacuum, absent any other consideration, what are the limits to the versatility of this class?

If you want something that measures "the ability of classes to deal with level appropriate challenges in actual games," go run the Same Game Test. Or, revolutionary thought, play an actual game.

If one of them is named Beheld.

Conclusory conclusion is conclusory.

Also, profanity is helpful!

Also, he thinks bards are useless, so his opinions are just bad. Let's take a level nine bard. Every one of his friends/summons/charmed minions is getting +10 to attack and +10d6+10 damage on every attack. Every. Attack. So that hydra the wizard just polymorphed into is now getting 9 attacks at +23 to hit, and each dealing (on average) 55 damage. Sounds like a relevant contribution to me.

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 04:20 PM

Perhaps I've used confusing wording. Allow me to try and correct that. The Tier system, by measuring the upper bounds of versatility of a class, measures the potential risk that it will trivialize other players in actual games.

But regardless, in my earlier post, I was trying to point out "level-appropriate challenges" as the canard in your argument, not "actual games."

nedz

2016-02-25, 04:23 PM

Hey, we're back to the neighborhood of my original argument!

*LOL*

I did actually try to address your points about T1 before it got lost in the usual train wreck this sort of thread seems to devolve into these days.

Maybe we should start discussing Monks next ?

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 04:26 PM

Maybe we should start discussing Monks next ?

Sorry, it's Thursday. Thursday is reserved for debates about Dragonwrought kobolds.

Jormengand

2016-02-25, 04:28 PM

Maybe we should start discussing Monks next ?

Sorry, it's Thursday. Thursday is reserved for debates about Dragonwrought kobolds.

No no no! It's a thread about the tier system and how it's totally broken (or at least, it is such a thread now). Truenamers have to come into it somewhere. Never mind monks!

Red Fel

2016-02-25, 04:29 PM

So just to be clear, you official position is that I'm wrong for saying that anyone would ever claim that the Tier system measures things in actual games. . .

Nope. I'm saying that The Tier System is not intended to model an actual game. I'm not saying anything about whether you are wrong about anything. I'm not saying anything about what "anyone would ever [hypothetically] claim [about] the Tier system[.]"

And the fact that two people in this thread have already said exactly that doesn't change your mind at all...

Okay yeah. Sure.

People say things that don't change my mind all the time. Seriously, all the time. Like, just this past week, I was out doing my thing, walking the hellhound, and out of nowhere this guy was all, "Get behind me, Devil," and I was all, "Nah, I'm good right here, thanks." Didn't change my mind or anything.

All the time, this.

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 04:30 PM

No no no! It's a thread about the tier system and how it's totally broken (or at least, it is such a thread now). Truenamers have to come into it somewhere. Never mind monks!

Is nothing sacred anymore? It's Truenamer Tuesday.

Florian

2016-02-25, 04:30 PM

Oh, please, don´t start with that kind of stuff. That will even derail the derail...

johnbragg

2016-02-25, 04:33 PM

pshh! When has a thread stayed on topic past page 3?

Thread drift is not unusual. Drifting back to the neighborhood of the original topic is.

*LOL*

I did actually try to address your points about T1 before it got lost in the usual train wreck this sort of thread seems to devolve into these days.

Yes, you did, and thank you.

No no no! It's a thread about the tier system and how it's totally broken (or at least, it is such a thread now). Truenamers have to come into it somewhere. Never mind monks!

There was a truenamer digression in there somewhere. Jormengand plugged this Truenamer fix.

Jormengand

2016-02-25, 04:37 PM

There was a truenamer digression in there somewhere. Jormengand plugged this Truenamer fix.

Oh, yeah, I did. TBF, that was a conversation about Tier 3 truenamers, so it was totally relevant. I mean, compared to the average thing in this thread.

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 04:38 PM

dascarletm

2016-02-25, 04:48 PM

Is T0 the guy that just walks down the lane and kicks the pins over?

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 04:52 PM

Is T0 the guy that just walks down the lane and kicks the pins over?

T0 is the sweeper.

Florian

2016-02-25, 05:12 PM

Is T0 the guy that just walks down the lane and kicks the pins over?

T0 is the spoilsport that firebombs the whole bowling joint instead of playing along.

johnbragg

2016-02-25, 05:22 PM

Well, in that case, I'll bring it around to the original point.

Think of the Tier system as a bowling lane, and the bowler as designer. Generally, your best bet for knocking all the pins down is to go roughly down the middle (i.e. Tier 3). So you want to try and do that. If you're really good at putting the right spin on the ball, then maybe you can approach it from the right or the left (Tier 2 or Tier 4), perhaps even the extreme edges of the lane (Tier 1 and Tier 5). But if you're not careful, you run the risk of a gutterball.

It's rather belabored, but I think it's what johnbragg is getting at. Except he's also pointing out that, if you just fixate on rolling the ball down the exact middle all the time, you're going to get some awkward splits.

Your analogy is quite good in one way--on JAronK's own terms, if you're aiming at a Tier 3 balance point, Tier 2-3-4 is good enough. Tier 2s and 4s can cooperate usefully as more-or-less equals. IF you homebrew the Wizard and divine casters down to 2 (assume some Sor/Wiz distinction) and the Fighter up to 4, your Core Fix Classes are good to go.

The other part of what I was getting at is that JaronK's emphasis on always-contributing (Tier 3 Bard) over sometimes-shining/sometimes useless (Tier 4 Barbarian). That measures effectiveness, but the reality is that this is a game. IT's supposed to be fun. OVer-emphasis on "Tier 3 always contributing" can lead to class designs that are mathematically effective, but not much of a player experience. CAse in point the Bard's Inspire Courage/Competence. It's great mathematically. But it's pretty rare to high-five the bard player after you win the combat, even if you make the killshot by 1 and the bardsong made the difference. There comes a point where "This will make a great song if we live through it" stops explaining why the Bard is poking around dungeons full of ogres and trolls.

Imagine a homebrewed Marshal that

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 05:27 PM

Well, to be fair, "not contributing" is rarely fun. You're describing a parallel problem, not one inherent to the Tier system as a design guideline.

johnbragg

2016-02-25, 05:33 PM

Well, to be fair, "not contributing" is rarely fun. You're describing a parallel problem, not one inherent to the Tier system as a design guideline.

"Not contributing" isn't fun. But dominating one or two scenes, then being irrelevant in the next few things (Tier 4 pattern) usually adds up to more TTRPG fun than being a valuable contributor in every scene but never dominating (Tier 3 pattern).

Yes, it's a problem the Tier system doesn't address. That's not really a knock on the TIer system, it's just that in focusing exclusively on whether the homebrew is Tier 3 or not, it's a major area that's not addressed.

Thus my three-point test: Does the class do its job? (Fighters, Monks fail). Is this a fun job in a fantasy RPG? (Healers, Experts fail). Does the class need the rest of the party? (Tier 1s fail.)

IT's not that hard to imagine a homebrewed Healer fix that would be Tier 3 (refluffed Inspire Courage/Competence) that would still be a drag to get stuck playing.

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 05:38 PM

"Not contributing" isn't fun. But dominating one or two scenes, then being irrelevant in the next few things (Tier 4 pattern) usually adds up to more TTRPG fun than being a valuable contributor in every scene but never dominating (Tier 3 pattern).

I don't know that I'd qualify Tier 4 as "interspersing dominance, then irrelevance." Tier 4 is "able to contribute reliably to their own schtick, but not able to contribute outside of it." Tier 3 is "able to contribute reliably to their own schtick, and also outside of it."

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."

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 competance without truly shining."

Deadline

2016-02-25, 05:52 PM

"Not contributing" isn't fun. But dominating one or two scenes, then being irrelevant in the next few things (Tier 4 pattern) usually adds up to more TTRPG fun than being a valuable contributor in every scene but never dominating (Tier 3 pattern).

My experience differs greatly from yours in that case. In situations where the character is irrelevant, I wind up seeing the players of those characters disengage from the group dynamic with a high rate of regularity. Have you not run into that issue?

johnbragg

2016-02-25, 05:54 PM

I don't know that I'd qualify Tier 4 as "interspersing dominance, then irrelevance." Tier 4 is "able to contribute reliably to their own schtick, but not able to contribute outside of it." Tier 3 is "able to contribute reliably to their own schtick, and also outside of it."

I think of Barbarian as the classic Tier 4.
First encounter, rage-lance-pounces the Ogre into oblivion.
Then the party comes to a locked door, Barbarian, um, keeps watch while the Rogue finds and disables the trap on the lock and picks the lock. (OR while UMD Rogue summons to detonate the trap on the door and then knocks the door open).
Then the Wizard or Sorcerer casts a short-duration fly spell to cross the chasm (which the Barb could maybe jump, but the spell is a sure thing) carrying a rope for the rest of the party to cross with. Then the Barbarian decimates some guardian zombies.
Then the party fights the evil wizard. He flees, and they rescue PRincess McGuffin.

I think of the BArd as the classic Tier 3.
The Bard, meanwhile, Inspire Courage's the barbarian as he one-shots the ogre.
Inspires Competence on the skillmonkey (Disable Device, UMD, whatever)
Inspires Competence on the not-super-difficult skill checks to use the rope to get across.
Inspires Courage in the zombie fight, and the wizard fight. Casts some useful spells.
Maybe the DM throws the Bard a bone and PRincess McGuffin needs some diplomancy or something. (She's still under a charm person effect from Evil Wizard McNasty.
Or maybe the DM forgets to wedge a "bard moment" into the adventure.

johnbragg

2016-02-25, 05:55 PM

My experience differs greatly from yours in that case. In situations where the character is irrelevant, I wind up seeing the players of those characters disengage from the group dynamic with a high rate of regularity. Have you not run into that issue?

On a tactical level yes. But in my experience, the section where their character shines makes up for it. Moreso than "always engaged, never awesome."

The expectation that something will happen relatively soon where their character will excel helps players be patient with the other players' time in the spotlight.

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 05:57 PM

Anlashok

2016-02-25, 06:00 PM

Generally I find when a character doesn't have some way to contribute you're very likely to have a player who stops caring, because they're not part of that part of the session. Which is where you get "that guy" who only is engaged in the combat and doesn't give a damn about the plot. It's certainly not a sure thing, but I see it happen often enough.

On the other side. I don't think I've ever seen someone complain that they're always useful.

Moreover, your description of "always kind of useful but never that good" is more befitting of T4 anyways.

Tier 2s and 4s can cooperate usefully as more-or-less equals.

Only if the Tier 2 is playing in such a way as to accommodate the tier 4.

In which case you don't need to change the T1s either because the same argument applies to them as well.

johnbragg

2016-02-25, 06:22 PM

My point is that both Tier 3 and Tier 4 classes are "capable of doing one thing quite well." It's just that the Tier 3 class is also capable of doing other things. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's a master-of-none scenario.

You're describing an issue that you have with the Bard, not with Tier 3 classes in general.

Tier 3 is "occasionally awesome, always relevant, always engaged."

Tier 4 is "occasionally awesome, occasionally irrelevant, occasionally engaged."

The risk with Tier 3 is that what you have is "situationally aweome, always relevant" IF the adventure or campaign doesn't lend itself to that situation, well, you don't get to be awesome.
(Which is the opposite of what the Tier system is supposed to be in this case. Tier 5, "In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed."
Sorry Beguiler, we're fighting nothing but undead for the next 3 levels.)
Tier 4 tends to be "regularly awesome, occassionally irrelevant."

I find engagement is more related to time between Moments of Awesome than it is to how mechanically relevant your character is when it's someone else's turn to shine.

Hal0Badger

2016-02-25, 07:00 PM

The risk with Tier 3 is that what you have is "situationally aweome, always relevant" IF the adventure or campaign doesn't lend itself to that situation, well, you don't get to be awesome.
(Which is the opposite of what the Tier system is supposed to be in this case. Tier 5, "In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed."
Sorry Beguiler, we're fighting nothing but undead for the next 3 levels.)
Tier 4 tends to be "regularly awesome, occassionally irrelevant."

I find engagement is more related to time between Moments of Awesome than it is to how mechanically relevant your character is when it's someone else's turn to shine.

What about warblade?

Gnorman

2016-02-25, 07:25 PM

Again, here are the definitions for Tier 3 & 4:

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."

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."

Within each one, there are two different definitions to unpack. Tier 3 is either (A) capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or (B) capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Tier 4 is (A) capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or (B) capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining.

You're comparing 4(A) to 3(B). But you're neglecting to include 3(A) within your definition of Tier 3. Both Tier 3 & Tier 4 are effective within their particular role. The Barbarian is good at his role, i.e. combat. The Bard is good at his role, i.e. social encounters. Both get the chance to shine. But the difference is that the Bard can also contribute in other areas, whereas the Barbarian's versatility is limited. The Barbarian doesn't really have a place at the diplomat's table. But the Bard can contribute in combat, and not only via Inspire Courage.

I don't see how Tier 3 classes somehow don't get as many "Moments of Awesome." They do. It's just that they, unlike Tier 4 classes, have fewer "Moments of Not Being Able to Participate." The Barbarian might get more "Moments of Awesome" because their role (combat) is one that comes up rather frequently in D&D. But that just makes me think that you're using two examples of a Tier 3 and a Tier 4 class to represent the tiers in general, which isn't necessarily correct.

EDIT: And this has made me realize that the entire premise of this thread may be based on a slight misconception about what "Tier 3" means.

johnbragg

2016-02-25, 08:41 PM

What about warblade?

Warblade seems awesome. (I haven't been able to play Tome of Battle yet, but someday.)

Again, here are the definitions for Tier 3 & 4:

Within each one, there are two different definitions to unpack. Tier 3 is either (A) capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or (B) capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Tier 4 is (A) capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or (B) capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining.

You're comparing 4(A) to 3(B). But you're neglecting to include 3(A) within your definition of Tier 3. Both Tier 3 & Tier 4 are effective within their particular role. The Barbarian is good at his role, i.e. combat. The Bard is good at his role, i.e. social encounters. Both get the chance to shine. But the difference is that the Bard can also contribute in other areas, whereas the Barbarian's versatility is limited. The Barbarian doesn't really have a place at the diplomat's table. But the Bard can contribute in combat, and not only via Inspire Courage.

The Bard's weakness is in campaigns run by mediocre DMs, which are a reality. The Bard's strength in social encounters is somewhat dependent on the GM providing an opportunity for social encounters to happen. With a mediocre GM, the (unoptimized core) Bard slides from a shenanigantastic 3A to a dull plod of a 3B.

A ton of Fighter fixes have been scorned or abandoned on the basis that they only brought the Fighter up to Tier 4 and didn't improve his out-of-combat performance. Ideally, you'd want all classes at Tier 3. But a Tier 4 Fighter fix is workable if you're also putting a brake on the Tier 1s.

Notice you don't see a lot of homebrewed Barbarian Fixes, because the perceived need isn't there.

The Viscount

2016-02-25, 11:46 PM

Imagine a homebrewed Marshal that

The forum ate your post here. I'd like to know what it was, because I'm a big Marshal fan.

Want to hear something funny? WotC likely designed dragon shaman as a marshal fix.

johnbragg

2016-02-26, 12:12 AM

The forum ate your post here. I'd like to know what it was, because I'm a big Marshal fan.

Want to hear something funny? WotC likely designed dragon shaman as a marshal fix.

Wasn't the forum, it was my editing process. I was driving at the "always useful, but boring to actually play in combat" idea, so something like an Aura that gives +MArshal level to allies hit, damage and AC, but the MArhsal has to use his standard action to maintain it. It wasn't supposed to be a good thing, sorry.

The MArshal is the sort of class concept that could easily meet Tier 3 "always useful" by cranking up his numbers, while still being the sort of mechanic that's better suited to a cohort. "I'm going to go get a soda. If my turn comes, I do the thing again."

nedz

2016-02-26, 04:00 AM

My first view of the Marshall was that of a military leader, but the crunch doesn't really do that. A Cheerleader for the Jocks, replete with pom-poms, is a better match.

Florian

2016-02-26, 04:01 AM

The MArshal is the sort of class concept that could easily meet Tier 3 "always useful" by cranking up his numbers, while still being the sort of mechanic that's better suited to a cohort. "I'm going to go get a soda. If my turn comes, I do the thing again."

That´s one of the reasons why I´m not too big a fan of classes without resource-mechanics even if the prove to be effective in play.
If I had to choose, I´d always pick a class with a good mix of different resource mechanics, like X/rounds, X/day plus some spells.

Gnorman

2016-02-26, 04:39 AM

So basically we've learned that "effective" and "interesting" are two different metrics that don't necessarily intersect.

ryu

2016-02-26, 05:49 AM

So basically we've learned that "effective" and "interesting" are two different metrics that don't necessarily intersect.

Think of it as necessary and sufficient. In order to be engaged you must believe that your presence is having some important effect on the game. That's necessary. It's not however sufficient if your net effect on the game could be duplicated by an NPC version of you that had incredibly simple, predictable action patterns. This is the difference between your characters existence mattering and your existence mattering.

People like making choices not being static modifiers on everyone else's numbers.

Florian

2016-02-26, 06:09 AM

So basically we've learned that "effective" and "interesting" are two different metrics that don't necessarily intersect.

Not... necessarily.

I think that showcases something about the real T1 tactics. They´re all "effective" because they´re based on circumventing any meaningful kinds of rules interaction to minimize the option to simply fail at a given task. You know, the point when you browse some guides and happen over rating-notes that mention something could be used by "creative" players.

That is a very different kind of "effective" when the interaction with the actual rules happens. This works on a reactive situation in which the gm presents a situation an the players makes choices based on the actual situation given, not the pro-active kind we talk about with the "other effective".

Gnorman

2016-02-26, 06:17 AM

Not... necessarily.

I think that showcases something about the real T1 tactics. They´re all "effective" because they´re based on circumventing any meaningful kinds of rules interaction to minimize the option to simply fail at a given task. You know, the point when you browse some guides and happen over rating-notes that mention something could be used by "creative" players.

That is a very different kind of "effective" when the interaction with the actual rules happens. This works on a reactive situation in which the gm presents a situation an the players makes choices based on the actual situation given, not the pro-active kind we talk about with the "other effective".

Well, no, this isn't necessarily (there's that word again) true. You're not circumventing any rules by casting Knock, but it still does the rogue's job better than the rogue with no risk of failure. Sometimes it's just bad design, not bad players.

ryu

2016-02-26, 06:57 AM

Well, no, this isn't necessarily (there's that word again) true. You're not circumventing any rules by casting Knock, but it still does the rogue's job better than the rogue with no risk of failure. Sometimes it's just bad design, not bad players.

It's not being a bad player to minimize chance of player. In so much as this is a game, there are win-states. Win-state one involves success in standard murderhobo objectives. The monsters are dead, the loot is claimed, and the victimized people who gave a quest are happy if they existed to begin with. The second win-state is about achieving the first win-state while having fun. This is mainly achieved through nuanced decisions in combat/dungeon exploring strategy and having a good time play-acting whatever character you're running. Achieving success, and by the same token minimizing failure, is a core conceit of the game. Actually it's a core conceit of MOST games.

johnbragg

2016-02-26, 07:07 AM

It's not being a bad player to minimize chance of player. In so much as this is a game, there are win-states. Win-state one involves success in standard murderhobo objectives. The monsters are dead, the loot is claimed, and the victimized people who gave a quest are happy if they existed to begin with. The second win-state is about achieving the first win-state while having fun. This is mainly achieved through nuanced decisions in combat/dungeon exploring strategy and having a good time play-acting whatever character you're running. Achieving success, and by the same token minimizing failure, is a core conceit of the game. Actually it's a core conceit of MOST games.

Yup. The reality that sometimes the most effective way to "win the game" produces the least fun is primarily the fault of the rules system, and only secondarily the fault of the players (DM included), who have discovered this and had to patch together ways around it.

ryu

2016-02-26, 08:06 AM

Yup. The reality that sometimes the most effective way to "win the game" produces the least fun is primarily the fault of the rules system, and only secondarily the fault of the players (DM included), who have discovered this and had to patch together ways around it.

One workaround is to bring a nerf-bat all over the players and make everything T3.

Personally I prefer to make the game step up in difficulty and make T1 normal for parties. Lots of important choices there. Actually more important choices than any other tier of play. Literally every spell slot or spell known can have huge effects on combat. Therefor the game gains the vaunted infinitely-high skill ceiling that really speaks to a veteran. It's similar to the reason stuff like melee and project M have more sway as competitive games than either of the two sequels within the actual series.

johnbragg

2016-02-26, 08:28 AM

One workaround is to bring a nerf-bat all over the players and make everything T3.

Some fluff that I like is lost there. I'm falling back to a position of making everything Tier 2-4. I'm not so concerned with "campaign breaking shenanigans", I can handle those in limited quantities. Tier 1s can easily overshadow Tier 4s (or the entire party) by accident, Tier 2s rarely do. And Tier 5s get overshadowed sometimes no matter what. So if I can get the Fighter up to Tier 4, and the book-based Wizard down to Tier 2, (or a functional Tier 2 equivalent), the divine casters are pretty easy to split up into Divine Casters (low BAB, no armor, low HP) and Divine Warriors (limited spellcasting).

Personally I prefer to make the game step up in difficulty and make T1 normal for parties. Lots of important choices there. Actually more important choices than any other tier of play. Literally every spell slot or spell known can have huge effects on combat. Therefor the game gains the vaunted infinitely-high skill ceiling that really speaks to a veteran. It's similar to the reason stuff like melee and project M have more sway as competitive games than either of the two sequels within the actual series.

I'm *ahem* of a certain generation, and my RPG peers are casual gamers, who grew up with the Old Game, fighter-wizard-cleric-thief. So the mid-to-high level Tier 1 arms race doesn't have much appeal to me.

Basically, I think there's a philosophical split over whether the High Level Mundane is a necessary thing to have. IF not, then the Tier 1 Game works.

Hal0Badger

2016-02-26, 12:34 PM

OldTrees1

2016-02-26, 12:39 PM

For the topic discussion, does anybody have buffs to up mundane martial oriented classes, without the help of magic? Namely "Fighter"? This is the actual part I am interested most, aside from a couple of good-old back to back derailed arguments.

Yes, but nothing that hasn't been said on better threads.

As a fan of Fighter, I default to Martial Rogue as a start to a Fighter buff (some tables might need to buff their skill use rulings). Then I make worthwhile combat feats. Finally add action economy and level appropriate on attack effects.

Edit:
That just made me think of something
Fighters learn X out of Y attack modifying effects and get to apply Z to each attack. (X, and Z increase with level).
Why only attack? Probably expand it to movement too?

nedz

2016-02-26, 01:17 PM

For the topic discussion, does anybody have buffs to up mundane martial oriented classes, without the help of magic? Namely "Fighter"? This is the actual part I am interested most, aside from a couple of good-old back to back derailed arguments.

I raised this question on another thread earlier today: do you need spells for T3 ?

I think we can get Fighter to T4 without much trouble.

johnbragg

2016-02-26, 01:34 PM

I raised this question on another thread earlier today: do you need spells for T3 ?

The consensus answer seems to be "No", unless you count Martial Maneuvers as spells.

I think we can get Fighter to T4 without much trouble.

Probably so. I've been beating my head against the T3 Barrier, so I haven't developed anything I'm happy with or regard as finished.

But quick-and-dirty would be to go
1. Bonus Feat every level
2. Martial Stances and Maneuvers are available as Feats
3. Profit.

So you only have to learn a little bit of Tome of Battle at a time. (New subsystem and a book full of options is kind of a barrier.)

Bucky

2016-02-26, 01:35 PM

Pathfinder Fighter with the right archetypes (most importantly Martial Master) and access to Path of War feats (Martial Training line and Advanced Study) almost gets to tier 3, with spontaneous access to any stance or (with one round downtime) any maneuver. The main downsides compared to the real initiator classes are late access to maneuvers, capping out at level 6 maneuvers, and the worst recovery mechanics.

Elderand

2016-02-26, 01:48 PM

ghanjrho

2016-02-26, 02:58 PM

Bucky

2016-02-26, 03:06 PM

At the point where you need to redesign a class straight up, slotting in a weaker version of a better subsystem and holding the whole thing together with ductape, that's the point you have to realize that you should stop fetishizing the name "fighter".

You're missing half the point. Let me discard the concept and discuss the same class by a different name.

We have a Tier 5 casting class, the Feat-o-mancer. Its chassis is decently tanky, at least at low levels, and full BAB means it has a secondary role DPSing locked-down targets. In addition, Feat-o-mancers get spells known that are mostly either self-buffs, which they can persist for free from level 1, or which they can apply as riders on attacks (including AoOs or parts of full attacks). They also get a few 'action' spells that get cast as their own action. They get plenty of castings/day and virtually never run out.

However, they have two major weaknesses.

First, their spell list has a lot of holes in it. It lacks many common utility effects, like flight, healing and anti-invisibility. The buffs are generally weaker than a bard's or cleric's, where they overlap, and tend to be considerably less versatile. Their higher level slots are particularly short on good options, often meaning the Feat-o-mancer takes additional low level options instead. There's a general shortage of 'action' spells for when they aren't in a position to use normal attacks, leading to wasted actions in combat. And finally, the list is overspecialized for combat - very few of their spells have general applications outside of it.

Secondly, they get very few spells known. They have 3 spells known at level 5 to a bard's 7, and 11 at 20 to a bard's 29. They can spend feats for extra spells known, at a rate of one spell per feat, and most builds need to spend at least one of their feats this way.

-------------

We were discussing access to maneuvers as feats because it addresses the first weakness; strikes give extra 'action' spell options, some maneuvers have more general utility, and maneuvers scale in a way that most feats don't. But we don't really need maneuvers, they're just the easy answer. We could instead build out a different set of fighter bonus that contains both 'action' feats and utility, and that scales all the way up the bonus feat ladder.

My Martial Master point addresses the second weakness. That archetype gives fighters some floating feats that they can reassign as a move action. Martial Master helps the low spells known by giving a couple of extras, but more importantly gives them limited spontaneous 'casting' from their entire 'spell' list, taking pressure off their 'spells known' for uncommon utility effects. One could instead increase their 'spells known' with a lot more bonus feats, possibly with the limitation that they only have some of them 'prepared'.

Ultimately, bringing fighters into tier 3 with its current focus (bonus combat feats) requires solving both problems. The Martial Training+Martial Master combo I mentioned is the best official candidate I know of that does so.