Retiering the Classes: Bard, Factotum, Jester, and Savant [Archive]

eggynack

2017-03-10, 03:32 PM

Here we have the jacks of all trades. Capable of slotting into a wide variety of different roles, verging towards all of them, though not typically capable of outdoing a master in the area except maybe in some regions of particular competence. The bard is the iconic spell for this role, the jester quite nearly a bard variant, and the factotum a class that takes a different angle on the archetype, emphasizing skill use more than the bard's array of abilities does.

Bard: The bard is the iconic class in this area, classically considered not especially powerful by dint of the capacity of other classes to outdo it in its various areas of competence, but a look below the surface reveals deep wells of power. This is a class with quite good casting (slower and less deep than most classes that go up to 9th's, but faster and deeper than most classes besides that), holding that position in core and getting better out of it, and a bunch of optimization potential outside of core, including very powerful mass buffing. And that's all alongside rather high level skill use and a bunch of decent class features.

Factotum (Dungeonscape, 14): The factotum takes a very different approach to the jack of all trades archetype. Here, a lot more emphasis is placed on skills, as one of the only classes with all skills on its list, alongside a more long term take on its casting mechanic (with very few spells/day but in prepared style), and a massive pile of abilities that key off of intelligence focus.

Jester (DC, 36): This class is like the bard's shadow, first because it's oriented towards debuffing rather than the bard's mass buff shtick, and second cause it is not the full bard. It's a class with a lot of those aforementioned elements held in common, but it has some disadvantages in core, and fails to reap any real rewards from an out of core environment. However, a weaker bard can still be quite powerful, and the jester still boasts reasonable progression casting off of a pretty good list.

Savant (DC, 45): Akin to the factotum, the savant has all class skills, some roguish abilities, and some spellcasting, arcane and divine alike for really broad coverage. Unfortunately, the casting here is somewhat anemic, and the class features less useful, so like the jester compared to the bard, this is, in a sense, the factotum but weaker. Still, the class encapsulates the goal of broadly covering the game's roles, so it fits into this power traded for versatility oriented niche.

What are the tiers?

The simple answer here is that tier one is the best, the home of things on the approximate problem solving scale of wizards, and tier six is the worst, land of commoners. And problem solving capacity is what's being measured here. Considering the massive range of challenges a character is liable to be presented with across the levels, how much and how often does that character's class contribute to the defeat of those challenges? This value should be considered as a rough averaging across all levels, the center of the level range somewhat more than really low and really high level characters, and across all optimization levels (considering DM restrictiveness as a plausible downward acting factor on how optimized a character is), prioritizing moderate optimization somewhat more than low or high.

A big issue with the original tier system is that, if anything, it was too specific, generating inflexible definitions for allowance into a tier which did not cover the broad spectrum of ways a class can operate. When an increase in versatility would seem to represent a decrease in tier, because tier two is supposed to be low versatility, it's obvious that we've become mired in something that'd be pointless to anyone trying to glean information from the tier system. Thus, I will be uncharacteristically word light here. The original tier system's tier descriptions (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0) are still good guidelines here, but they shouldn't be assumed to be the end all and be all for how classes get ranked.

Consistent throughout these tiers is the notion of problems and the solving thereof. For the purposes of this tier system, the problem space can be said to be inclusive of combat, social interaction, and exploration, with the heaviest emphasis placed on combat. A problem could theoretically fall outside of that space, but things inside that space are definitely problems. Another way to view the idea of problem solving is through the lens of the niche ranking system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System). A niche filled tends to imply the capacity to solve a type of problem, whether it's a status condition in the case of healing, or an enemy that just has too many hit points in the case of melee combat. It's not a perfect measure, both because some niches have a lot of overlap in the kinds of problems they can solve and because, again, the niches aren't necessarily all inclusive, but they can act as a good tool for class evaluation.

Tier one: Incredibly good at solving nearly all problems. This is the realm of clerics, druids, and wizards, classes that open up with strong combat spells backed up by utility, and then get massively stronger from there. If you're not keeping up with that core trio of tier one casters, then you probably don't belong here.

Tier two: We're just a step below tier one here, in the land of classes around the sorcerer level of power. Generally speaking, this means relaxing one of the two tier one assumptions, either getting us to very good at solving nearly all problems, or incredibly good at solving most problems. But, as will continue to be the case as these tiers go on, there aren't necessarily these two simple categories for this tier. You gotta lose something compared to the tier one casters, but what you lose doesn't have to be in some really specific proportions.

Tier three: Again, we gotta sacrifice something compared to tier two, here taking us to around the level of a swordsage. The usual outcome is that you are very good at solving a couple of problems and competent at solving a few more. Of course, there are other possibilities, for example that you might instead be competent at solving nearly all problems.

Tier four: Here we're in ranger/barbarian territory (though the ranger should be considered largely absent of ACF's and stuff to hit this tier, as will be talked about later). Starting from that standard tier three position, the usual sweet spots here are very good at solving a few problems, or alright at solving many problems.

Tier five: We're heading close to the dregs here. Tier five is the tier of monks, classes that are as bad as you can be without being an aristocrat or a commoner. Classes here are sometimes very good at solving nearly no problems, or alright at solving a few, or some other function thereof. It's weak, is the point.

Tier six: And here we have commoner tier. Or, the bottom is commoner. The top is approximately aristocrat. You don't necessarily have nothing in this tier, but you have close enough to it.

The Threads

Tier System Home Base (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?515845-Retiering-the-Classes-Home-Base&p=21722272#post21722272)

The Fixed List Casters: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?515849-Retiering-the-Classes-Beguiler-Dread-Necromancer-and-Warmage&p=21722395#post21722395)

The Obvious Tier One Classes: Archivist, Artificer, Cleric, Druid, Sha'ir, and Wizard (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516137-Retiering-the-Classes-Archivist-Artificer-Cleric-Druid-Sha-ir-and-Wizard&p=21731809#post21731809)

The Mundane Beat Sticks (part one): Barbarian, Fighter, Samurai (CW), and Samurai (OA) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516602-Retiering-the-Classes-Barbarian-Fighter-Samurai-(CW)-and-Samurai-(OA)&p=21747927#post21747927)

The Roguelikes: Ninja, Rogue, and Scout (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517091-Retiering-the-Classes-Ninja-Rogue-and-Scout)

The Pseudo-Druids: Spirit Shaman, Spontaneous Druid, Urban Druid, and Wild Shape Ranger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517370-Retiering-the-Classes-Spirit-Shaman-Spontaneous-Druid-Urban-Druid-and-WS-Ranger&p=21774657#post21774657)

The Jacks of All Trades: Bard, Factotum, Jester, and Savant (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?517967-Retiering-the-Classes-Bard-Factotum-and-Jester&p=21794327#post21794327)

The Tome of Battlers: Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518495-Retiering-the-Classes-Crusader-Swordsage-and-Warblade&p=21815193#post21815193)

The NPCs: Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Magewright, and Warrior (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?519155-Retiering-the-Classes-Adept-Aristocrat-Commoner-Expert-Magewright-and-Warrior&p=21838412)

The Vaguely Supernatural Melee Folk: Battle Dancer, Monk, Mountebank, and Soulknife (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?519701-Retiering-the-Classes-Battle-Dancer-Monk-Mountebank-and-Soulknife)

The Miscellaneous Full Casters: Death Master, Shaman, Shugenja, Sorcerer, and Wu Jen (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?520291-Retiering-the-Classes-Death-Master-Shugenja-Sorcerer-Wu-Jen&p=21878654#post21878654)

The Wacky Magicists: Binder, Dragonfire Adept, Shadowcaster, Truenamer, and Warlock (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?520903-Retiering-the-Classes-Binder-Dragonfire-Adept-Shadowcaster-Truenamer-Warlock&p=21898782#post21898782)

The Rankings
Bard: Tier three

Factotum: Tier three

Jester: Tier three

Savant: Tier four

And here's a link to the spreadsheet. (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hj9_9PQg6tXACUWZY_Egm2R9Gtvg9nXRTPfGYnAfh9w/edit)

Troacctid

2017-03-10, 03:47 PM

Bard and Factotum are pretty easy 3s, with great skills and spellcasting off of good lists.

Jester is basically a worse version of Bard that's still good enough for T3.

Since it may be of interest, here is my previously posted comparison of the Jester and the Core Bard:

Skills

Lose
Gain

Appraise
Disable Device

Concentration (!)
Intimidate

Craft
Open Lock

Decipher Script
Search

Diplomacy

Knowledges (all except local and nobility)

Listen

Profession

Spellcraft

Swim

0-level spells

Lose
Gain
Retain

Ghost Sound
Create Water
Dancing Lights

Know Direction

Daze

Lullaby

Detect Magic

Message

Flare

Read Magic

Light

Resistance

Mage Hand

Summon Instrument

Mending

Open/Close

Prestidigitation

1st level spells

Lose
Gain
Retain

Alarm
Bane
Animate Rope

Comprehend Languages
Color Spray
Cause Fear

Confusion, Lesser
Command
Charm Person

Cure Light Wounds
Doom
Disguise Self

Detect Secret Doors
Entropic Shield
Expeditious Retreat

Erase
Jump
Feather Fall

Identify
Obscuring Mist
Grease

Magic Mouth
Reduce Person
Hideous Laughter

Obscure Object
Sanctuary
Hypnotism

Remove Fear
Shocking Grasp
Magic Aura

Summon Monster I

Silent Image

Undetectable Alignment

Sleep

Unseen Servant

Ventriloquism

2nd level spells

Lose
Gain
Retain

Animal Messenger
Darkvision
Alter Self

Animal Trance
Find Traps
Blur

Blindness/Deafness
Fog Cloud
Daze Monster

Calm Emotions
Levitate
Eagle's Splendor

Cat's Grace
Rope Trick
Enthrall

Cure Moderate Wounds
Spider Climb
Fox's Cunning

Darkness
Touch of Idiocy
Glitterdust

Delay Poison
Undetectable Alignment
Hypnotic Pattern

Detect Thoughts

Invisibility

Heroism

Minor Image

Locate Object

Mirror Image

Rage

Misdirection

Shatter

Pyrotechnics

Silence

Scare

Suggestion

Sound Burst

Summon Monster II

Summon Swarm

Tongues

Whispering Wind

3rd level spells

Lose
Gain
Retain

Blink
Bestow Curse
Confusion

Charm Monster
Rage
Crushing Despair

Clairaudience/Clairvoyance
Shrink Item
Displacement

Cure Serious Wounds
Stinking Cloud
Gaseous Form

Daylight
Suggestion
Haste

Deep Slumber
Tongues
Invisibility Sphere

Dispel Magic

Slow

Geas, Lesser

Glibness

Good Hope

Illusory Script

Major Image

Phantom Steed

Remove Curse

Scrying

Sculpt Sound

Secret Page

Sepia Snake Sigil

Speak with Animals

Summon Monster III

Tiny Hut

4th level spells

Lose
Gain
Retain

Break Enchantment
Bestow Curse (again)
Dimension Door

Cure Critical Wounds
Charm Monster
Freedom of Movement

Detect Scrying
Fear
Invisibility, Greater

Dominate Person
Minor Creation
Rainbow Pattern

Hallucinatory Terrain
Polymorph
Shout

Hold Monster
Reduce Person, Mass

Legend Lore

Locate Creature

Modify Memory

Neutralize Poison

Repel Vermin

Secure Shelter

Shadow Conjuration

Speak with Plants

Summon Monster IV

Zone of Silence

5th level spells

Lose
Gain
Retain

Cure Light Wounds, Mass
Break Enchantment
Mind Fog

Dispel Magic, Greater
Command, Greater
Persistent Image

Dream
Feeblemind
Seeming

False Vision
Hold Monster

Heroism, Greater

Mirage Arcana

Mislead

Nightmare

Shadow Evocation

Shadow Walk

Song of Discord

Suggestion, Mass

Summon Monster V

6th level spells

Lose
Gain
Retain

Analyze Dweomer
Ethereal Jaunt
Animate Objects

Cat's Grace, Mass
Insanity
Eagle's Splendor, Mass

Charm Monster, Mass
Mislead
Irresistible Dance

Cure Moderate Wounds, Mass

Eyebite

Find the Path

Fox's Cunning, Mass

Geas/Quest

Heroes' Feast

Permanent Image

Programmed Image

Project Image

Scrying, Greater

Shout, Greater

Summon Monster VI

Sympathetic Vibration

Veil

You also lose the ability to cast in armor, and you replace bardic music with some jester performances that are pretty similar power-wise.

DEMON

2017-03-10, 04:34 PM

Well I've put the Rogue at the bottom of T3 and I think both Bard and Factotum are firmly in this tier, too - spells, skills, skill points, some nice class features and a few decent ACFs for the Bard.

So Bard T3, Factotum T3.

Bard might very well be capable of jumping up a tier with some additions, but not on his own, without PrCs.

No experience with Jester, at all, so skipping this one.

eggynack

2017-03-10, 04:43 PM

I'll put myself down for 3's on all of them. The bard and jester have enough spellcasting ability, supported by some other stuff, to make it there. Honestly, the only one I'm expecting some serious discussion on is factotum. That one has always been a bit controversial, going back to JaronK's seemingly biased support for the class (talking about web enhancement feats in a system that was generally assuming core plus the class' source, and that seemed to heavily discount feats and such), but I think that it's a class with enough stuff to get there, between a lot of solid abilities, including useful casting that's weirdly both fast (relative to just about anything not a full caster), broad in method (cause it's prepared), and heavily limited (because you get so little each day). I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of support four four popped up though, going less from my own opinion and more from what people tend to think about the class.

Beheld

2017-03-10, 04:46 PM

eggynack

2017-03-10, 04:54 PM

I'm fairly certain Factotum belongs in Tier 4. I still have no feeling for Tier 3, but Bard probably is like, the very last person who belongs there (like the weakest Tier 3 who is still Tier 3) or maybe Jester if it's very close (too lazy to read up on it now) but if Jester can't provide a bunch of arbitrary bonuses of potentially RNG breaking amounts to his allies, then he probably belongs in Tier 4 with the Factotum.
I think the exact opposite about bard. That spellcasting means a lot. To me, they're just about the strongest tier three that's still in tier three. Jester is weaker, but still has a lot of good casting. I mean, geez, look at what those lists are doing in the first three spell levels. Both classes have access to some of the best spells at each of these levels: silent image, charm person, sleep, alter self, glitterdust, invisibility, mirror image, haste, and slow. And that's just the joint access ones. Third level spells especially benefit a lot from talking about what each class has individually, glibness and dispel magic in the case of the bard, stinking cloud and shrink item in the case of the jester. Separately, not exactly sure how to put you down on the basis of this post, if at all. My feeling is four for factotum, three for bard, and currently kinda nothing for the jester.

Troacctid

2017-03-10, 05:02 PM

I don't get the hype for Shrink Item. I don't think it's that good a spell.

eggynack

2017-03-10, 05:07 PM

I don't get the hype for Shrink Item. I don't think it's that good a spell.
Neither do I, honestly, especially on a spontaneous class, but ever since it was asserted back in the community tiering thread that a lack of shrink item was the primary thing keeping beguilers out of tier two, I think by Karl Aegis, I've been throwing it on my lists of accessible good spells where applicable. It certainly has some uses. Boulders and cones and such.

Beheld

2017-03-10, 05:29 PM

I think the exact opposite about bard. That spellcasting means a lot. To me, they're just about the strongest tier three that's still in tier three. Jester is weaker, but still has a lot of good casting. I mean, geez, look at what those lists are doing in the first three spell levels. Both classes have access to some of the best spells at each of these levels: silent image, charm person, sleep, alter self, glitterdust, invisibility, mirror image, haste, and slow. And that's just the joint access ones. Third level spells especially benefit a lot from talking about what each class has individually, glibness and dispel magic in the case of the bard, stinking cloud and shrink item in the case of the jester. Separately, not exactly sure how to put you down on the basis of this post, if at all. My feeling is four for factotum, three for bard, and currently kinda nothing for the jester.

Well "strongest still in Tier 3" is really weird for me to hear, because last I checked, Beguilers/Dread Necros/Warmages were still Tier 3, although, maybe the votes in your threads came out differently.

But for me, I look at the Bard (I don't know the Jester enough to have opinion) and I see that they are behind on everything, and limited. Bard can provide, with some optimization, some big numbers, and that's nice, but if you look at his actual casting:

At level 4 he gets access to (if he has a bonus spell, which he probably will, but still, only if he has one) one use of Glitterdust or Mirror Image. Glitterdust is good enough that it wouldn't be out of place at third level, so this is certainly impressive compared to **** classes, but it's still one Glitterdust for four encounters in a day. Fights may only last 2-3 meaningful rounds (although, I have argued in the past, that people greatly underestimate what actual encounters "look" like when you follow all the guidelines) but that's still at least 7/8ths of the day that he's not casting Glitterdust at level 4, and instead casting.... well he's got a 3 first level spells! So I like that he can provide bonuses, ideally while doing things.

But it only gets worse from there, because there aren't really any 3rd level spells that could be 4th level spells, so when a Bard is getting his first and only 3rd level spell at level 7, and he can once per day cast Haste or Stinking Cloud, or Dispel Magic, I'm just not impressed with that one round out of 8-10 in the day when he manages to emulate a level 5 Wizard, while the Wizard has at least 1 4th level spell per encounter, and falls back on actions that are as good or better than the spellcasting that is not just the Best the Bard can do, but literally a once a day thing for the Bard.

The best example I've ever seen of showing how being a few levels down on spells is so important, is someone did an analysis of a Factotum pulling off a "super combo" of EBT and Solid Fog in the same round, and even though it literally can't be done at level 10 (the person who suggested it forgot the only one highest level spell thing) an analysis of every CR 10 monster in the SRD showed that something like 90% of them basically didn't even care, and yet, at level 7 both of those spells are gangbusters.

While that was the Factotum, the Bard suffers from a similar problem in casting, being able to do something that was really cool 2-3 levels ago once a day just isn't that impressive at whatever level you are at, because 1) It' s not that cool anymore, 2) You can only do it once, and then you need to contribute to 8-10 more actions that day before you earn your keep.

I think if the Bard earns his keep, it's with Inspire Courage optimization, not with really lackluster spellcasting that falls behind way too quick to be worth talking about as a major source of character power.

This is part of my "The Rogue is Tier 3, and maybe the Barbarian, but the Bard is Tier 4" thing (I'm not saying those are actually their tiers, this is conceptually about the idea of what those classes do) because doing one thing well enough that the rest of the party always wants you around is way better than doing lots of little things at a level where you are actually behind the curve in multiple ways, and everyone sort of just says "and then the Factotum takes his action, and no one cares what it is, and then we get back to the real characters turn and something important happens" and charging for "monsters HP +20 damage" can be a real thing, but casting spells that were cool 3 levels ago isn't without lots of dumb cheese like "Shrink Item is how I kill everything in the game" or "and then I alter self into a Dwarven Ancestor" stuff that, at least in my groups, are less favored than simple "I do a thing that is level appropriate at this level without cheese, and I will do so again in the future."

Grod_The_Giant

2017-03-10, 05:31 PM

eggynack

2017-03-10, 05:47 PM

Well "strongest still in Tier 3" is really weird for me to hear, because last I checked, Beguilers/Dread Necros/Warmages were still Tier 3, although, maybe the votes in your threads came out differently.
They did. Beguilers and dread necromancers are rated tier two, and far more critically, I think they should be rated tier two. They're pretty much even with sorcerers. Warmage is tier three, but that's still an improvement over where they were before, in tier four. I don't think they're necessarily better than bards either. Without feat optimization and such, the warmage is generally constrained to fewer areas than the bard is. They have more damage output, but less capacity to engage with things besides the battlefield. It makes a lot of sense to me that they'd wind up in the same tier, with the bard trading away some combat performance for some non-combat performance, and optimization making each class more capable in the other's prime area of competency.

At level 4 he gets access to (if he has a bonus spell, which he probably will, but still, only if he has one) one use of Glitterdust or Mirror Image. Glitterdust is good enough that it wouldn't be out of place at third level, so this is certainly impressive compared to **** classes, but it's still one Glitterdust for four encounters in a day. Fights may only last 2-3 meaningful rounds (although, I have argued in the past, that people greatly underestimate what actual encounters "look" like when you follow all the guidelines) but that's still at least 7/8ths of the day that he's not casting Glitterdust at level 4, and instead casting.... well he's got a 3 first level spells! So I like that he can provide bonuses, ideally while doing things.
One use of glitterdust or alter self (I think significantly better than mirror image, and it allows some non-combat utility in the form of upped mobility), along with three or four uses of charm person, silent image, grease, or, let's assume they picked a spell that doesn't scale well under the assumption that there's some early level emphasis going on, sleep. A lot of these spells continue to impact the battlefield just fine at the late game. It's not like silent image suddenly loses its versatility, or like charm person stops all its enemy turning, once you get second level spells. It's a set of spells that allows some solid combat impact, especially alongside bardic music, and some solid non-combat impact, especially alongside skills.

But it only gets worse from there, because there aren't really any 3rd level spells that could be 4th level spells, so when a Bard is getting his first and only 3rd level spell at level 7, and he can once per day cast Haste or Stinking Cloud, or Dispel Magic, I'm just not impressed with that one round out of 8-10 in the day when he manages to emulate a level 5 Wizard, while the Wizard has at least 1 4th level spell per encounter, and falls back on actions that are as good or better than the spellcasting that is not just the Best the Bard can do, but literally a once a day thing for the Bard.

Glibness. First of all. And no, this isn't a wizard. That's why wizards are tier one. But this is as compared to barbarians here, and if we're not using inspire courage optimization, rather bog standard barbarians at that. And I'd very likely prefer the stinking cloud or haste. Or frigging glibness, cause that spell could easily be fourth or even fifth level.

While that was the Factotum, the Bard suffers from a similar problem in casting, being able to do something that was really cool 2-3 levels ago once a day just isn't that impressive at whatever level you are at, because 1) It' s not that cool anymore, 2) You can only do it once, and then you need to contribute to 8-10 more actions that day before you earn your keep.
With a lot of these spells, I'm really not seeing where a loss in utility would happen. They just kinda start good and stay good. Sure, some of them might dry up, invisibility facing vision modes or sleep having obvious diminishing returns, but spells frequently hold power even late in the game, against high level foes.

I think if the Bard earns his keep, it's with Inspire Courage optimization, not with really lackluster spellcasting that falls behind way too quick to be worth talking about as a major source of character power.

Falls behind what? We're obviously falling behind the wizard. No one would plausibly argue otherwise. But wizard is one of the most powerful classes in the game. Just about everything falls behind it. Sorcerer? Still a tier above the bard, by my reading. Is it truly falling behind a barbarian? Like, you have this party with a barbarian, a rogue, and a fighter, and the bard, with its fancy spellcasting that's all the casting the party would get absent UMD, is falling behind that? Despite its ability to warp battlefields and social situations alike? I'm doubtful.

Cosi

2017-03-10, 05:54 PM

Bard is likely on the edge of three and four. It's bad at most stuff, but it can trade things around so that it's good at one thing (with, for example, Song of the White Raven or Sublime Chord). Your spells are okay, but your uses are very limited. I guess it basically comes down to how much worse than Tier Two you can be and still be Tier Three.

Jester is like the Bard, except without the splat support that lets you make an effective Bard at high levels. Definitely worse, how much so depends on what exactly you're giving the Bard credit for (e.g. feats or PrCs).

Factotum just doesn't do anything good. You get extra actions, but your actions are very bad. You get spellcasting, but it's very slow. The big ticket items people talk about (Font of Inspiration, Iajutsu Focus) are, respective, a Web Enhancement feat from a setting specific web enhancement, and a setting specific skill from a 3.0 setting. I don't think those things factor in very much to tiering. Probably Tier Four.

Troacctid

2017-03-10, 06:09 PM

Glibness. First of all. And no, this isn't a wizard. That's why wizards are tier one. But this is as compared to barbarians here, and if we're not using inspire courage optimization, rather bog standard barbarians at that. And I'd very likely prefer the stinking cloud or haste. Or frigging glibness, cause that spell could easily be fourth or even fifth level.
In fact, in 5e, it is 8th level. https://www.dnd-spells.com/spell/glibness

Bard is likely on the edge of three and four. It's bad at most stuff, but it can trade things around so that it's good at one thing (with, for example, Song of the White Raven or Sublime Chord). Your spells are okay, but your uses are very limited. I guess it basically comes down to how much worse than Tier Two you can be and still be Tier Three.
I gotta disagree. I think it's very close to the top of T3. The spellcasting is legit.

Factotum just doesn't do anything good. You get extra actions, but your actions are very bad. You get spellcasting, but it's very slow. The big ticket items people talk about (Font of Inspiration, Iajutsu Focus) are, respective, a Web Enhancement feat from a setting specific web enhancement, and a setting specific skill from a 3.0 setting. I don't think those things factor in very much to tiering. Probably Tier Four.
Those are the big tickets? Really? I'm not convinced either of them is even good. In my opinion, the real big tickets are Cunning Insight, Cunning Knowledge, Brains over Brawn, and Arcane Dilettante, as well as the skills, with an honorable mention to Cunning Surge. Combined, they bring the class pretty easily into T3 IMO.

Beheld

2017-03-10, 06:19 PM

One use of glitterdust or alter self (I think significantly better than mirror image, and it allows some non-combat utility in the form of upped mobility), along with three or four uses of charm person, silent image, grease, or, let's assume they picked a spell that doesn't scale well under the assumption that there's some early level emphasis going on, sleep. A lot of these spells continue to impact the battlefield just fine at the late game. It's not like silent image suddenly loses its versatility, or like charm person stops all its enemy turning, once you get second level spells. It's a set of spells that allows some solid combat impact, especially alongside bardic music, and some solid non-combat impact, especially alongside skills.

1) Specifically talking about how much of a non factor the bards casting is.

2) 1 casting of Glitterdust (also Alter Self is mostly ****, especially as your highest spell of the day that you have one of) followed by, best case scenario, casting a sometimes cantrip 3 times a day. Yeah, you can get use out of your ability to cast a Gnome Wizard's cantrip, but you are 4th or 5th or 6th level! If all you bring is "and then I'm a level 1 character" the casting is just not breaking the game.

Glibness. First of all. And no, this isn't a wizard. That's why wizards are tier one. But this is as compared to barbarians here, and if we're not using inspire courage optimization, rather bog standard barbarians at that. And I'd very likely prefer the stinking cloud or haste. Or frigging glibness, cause that spell could easily be fourth or even fifth level.

Glibness is ass flavored ass that people only think is great because they forgot what bluff actually does. And that's the thing, at 7th level, when you either get a person who casts haste once a day, or a person does level appropriate damage, that second guy is a better adventuring companion.

eggynack

2017-03-10, 06:29 PM

1) Specifically talking about how much of a non factor the bards casting is.
And I'm specifically talking about how you're mistaken.

2) 1 casting of Glitterdust (also Alter Self is mostly ****, especially as your highest spell of the day that you have one of) followed by, best case scenario, casting a sometimes cantrip 3 times a day. Yeah, you can get use out of your ability to cast a Gnome Wizard's cantrip, but you are 4th or 5th or 6th level! If all you bring is "and then I'm a level 1 character" the casting is just not breaking the game.
No, we're not breaking the game. We're just doing reasonable level appropriate stuff. You know that thing where wizards get all these incredibly powerful spells all the time at this really speedy rate? That's way more than level appropriate. And I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that the thing we're casting after second level spells are cantrips. They just aren't that. Though bard cantrips are pretty good too. And alter self allows broad access to movement modes, including flight, and useful combat oriented stuff, for long parts of the day.

Glibness is ass flavored ass that people only think is great because they forgot what bluff actually does. And that's the thing, at 7th level, when you either get a person who casts haste once a day, or a person does level appropriate damage, that second guy is a better adventuring companion
You are really going to have to justify why the skill that pretty explicitly does this thing people claim it does doesn't do this thing it explicitly says it does. And that's haste once a day, along with the ability to fly around, blind foes and reveal invisible ones, toss around illusions, and manipulate social encounters at a high level when you're not adventuring.

Cosi

2017-03-10, 06:31 PM

In fact, in 5e, it is 8th level. https://www.dnd-spells.com/spell/glibness

I wouldn't necessarily use 5e as an example of anything. It's not really ... good (though that's a topic for another thread). But one of the core principles is "bounded accuracy" (or "you don't get to bone the RNG"), so obviously a bonus larger than the RNG is going to be higher level.

Those are the big tickets? Really? I'm not convinced either of them is even good. In my opinion, the real big tickets are Cunning Insight, Cunning Knowledge, Brains over Brawn, and Arcane Dilettante, as well as the skills, with an honorable mention to Cunning Surge. Combined, they bring the class pretty easily into T3 IMO.

Offensively, Cunning Insight isn't enough on its own to matter. Defensively, it's okay, but you're not really getting anywhere with good defense but no offense.

Cunning Knowledge is limited to 1/day, and most skills don't do anything you really care about past maybe 7th level (I am less than amazed by your power to have a big Jump bonus when people can just fly).

Brains Over Brawn boosts your initiative, but you don't have actions people care about. What are you going to do going first? Make a standard melee attack?

Arcane Dilettante doesn't give enough spells, or at high enough level to matter. It's okay for utility, but then your left with a character that does nothing in combat, and that's just not workable.

LordOfCain

2017-03-10, 06:33 PM

Doesn't savant have all skills as class skills?

eggynack

2017-03-10, 06:35 PM

Doesn't savant have all skills as class skills?
Apparently. Knew I should have put a bit more wiggle room there.

Bucky

2017-03-10, 06:43 PM

One of Bard's major selling points is that its buffs let it assist other party members at things that are outside the Bard's core competence. In contrast, Jesters' debuffs can't contribute in any situation without a well defined adversary.

Beheld

2017-03-10, 07:05 PM

No, we're not breaking the game. We're just doing reasonable level appropriate stuff. You know that thing where wizards get all these incredibly powerful spells all the time at this really speedy rate? That's way more than level appropriate.

No it really isn't. Casting Stinking Cloud and Haste at level 5 and EBT and Fear at level 7 isn't either.

And I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that the thing we're casting after second level spells are cantrips. They just aren't that. Though bard cantrips are pretty good too. And alter self allows broad access to movement modes, including flight, and useful combat oriented stuff, for long parts of the day.

No, Glitterdust is a great spell, and you have it once per day, and then you are casting Silent Image as literally the best other combat spell you have. That's literally a cantrip for Gnome Wizards. 1st level characters cast that. If you are level 4, and 1 round a day you are not a 1st level character, and every other round of the day you are a 1st level character, then you are not pulling your weight.

Again, "Broad access to movement modes for long parts of the day" is terrible when you are a 4th level character who can do it once per day as literally the best thing you can do. At least Glitterdust significantly contributes to one combat, Alter Self significantly contributes to 1/4th of the party getting to a location.

You are really going to have to justify why the skill that pretty explicitly does this thing people claim it does doesn't do this thing it explicitly says it does.

Describe you using Bluff to accomplish anything that I would care about for a 7th level character, and I'll describe why that thing isn't that meaningful.

eggynack

2017-03-10, 07:29 PM

No it really isn't. Casting Stinking Cloud and Haste at level 5 and EBT and Fear at level 7 isn't either.
Fear, no. Stinking cloud, haste, and black tentacles, quite likely yes. These low level wizard spells are core to their status as tier one, just as, with slower progression, they're core to the bard's status as tier three.

No, Glitterdust is a great spell, and you have it once per day, and then you are casting Silent Image as literally the best other combat spell you have. That's literally a cantrip for Gnome Wizards. 1st level characters cast that. If you are level 4, and 1 round a day you are not a 1st level character, and every other round of the day you are a 1st level character, then you are not pulling your weight.

Again, "Broad access to movement modes for long parts of the day" is terrible when you are a 4th level character who can do it once per day as literally the best thing you can do. At least Glitterdust significantly contributes to one combat, Alter Self significantly contributes to 1/4th of the party getting to a location.
I really don't think we should identify a spell as a cantrip just because it shows up like that on a really specific character build. Next you're gonna say that haste is a first level spell cause it lands there on the trapsmith list. And silent image is a great contribution, but it's far from your only contribution from first level spells, or your actual cantrips. I also think you're vastly underestimating alter self. It does a whole pile of different things. It's one of the best second level spells in the game. And keep in mind that bard class features provide a wide array of non-spell ways to interact with combat and non-combat alike. Spells are just one of your better ways to interact with your environment, not your only way.

Describe you using Bluff to accomplish anything that I would care about for a 7th level character, and I'll describe why that thing isn't that meaningful.
"We're not actually your enemies. I'm your boss in disguise, and these other folks are my minions, like you are." "I am, in fact, the rightful king of this region, because of some kinda true bloodline or whatever." Stuff like that.

Cosi

2017-03-10, 07:35 PM

Fear, no. Stinking cloud, haste, and black tentacles, quite likely yes. These low level wizard spells are core to their status as tier one, just as, with slower progression, they're core to the bard's status as tier three.

I think you and Beheld are, to some degree, talking past each other. He's saying that having Wizard casting is a level appropriate ability. You're saying it's a Tier One ability. Nothing particularly stops those both from being true if you happen to believe that the game is (or should be) balanced around characters with capabilities close to the Wizard's.

I also think you're vastly underestimating alter self. It does a whole pile of different things. It's one of the best second level spells in the game.

I'm a little down on the whole polymorph line, because of how tangled the rules around them are. There are definitely cool things to be done with alter self, but the ones that bear mentioning as a primary offensive tool at 4th level aren't things you are likely to be able to use at most tables.

eggynack

2017-03-10, 09:35 PM

I think you and Beheld are, to some degree, talking past each other. He's saying that having Wizard casting is a level appropriate ability. You're saying it's a Tier One ability. Nothing particularly stops those both from being true if you happen to believe that the game is (or should be) balanced around characters with capabilities close to the Wizard's.
I dunno if it matters what the game should be or is balanced around, precisely. These abilities are absolutely those of a tier one character. If tier one is to be the norm, then we still have tier threes that are worse than the norm by this much, and tier fours are worse by that much. What I'm saying, and I think you'd agree, is that being significantly worse than a wizard or sorcerer at magic can essentially only imply that you are in a tier below those classes. There's not much of a point in bringing those classes into an argument that bards belong in tier four.

I'm a little down on the whole polymorph line, because of how tangled the rules around them are. There are definitely cool things to be done with alter self, but the ones that bear mentioning as a primary offensive tool at 4th level aren't things you are likely to be able to use at most tables.
Perhaps. I was thinking that one high AC form or something, which I think is on the level (I think troglodyte). This isn't precisely the primary offensive tool. It's thinking of it more as this defensive mobility thing with a decent though not huge amount of offensive edge, and stuff like glitterdust, silent image, and grease is how you'd generally interact when just trying to toss out a combat effect, spell-wise.

Lans

2017-03-11, 02:09 AM

I think you should add the Savant to this list, its basically another take on the Factotum

eggynack

2017-03-11, 02:25 AM

I think you should add the Savant to this list, its basically another take on the Factotum
Maybe, yeah. Is that the only other class that has all the skills? If it is, that'd make a good case for heavy thematic connection to existing classes. And it'd make writing the little entry easier. Also, about where do you think it places power-wise compared to what's already in this thread? I don't have a great feel for the class yet.

Lans

2017-03-11, 02:56 AM

Maybe, yeah. Is that the only other class that has all the skills? If it is, that'd make a good case for heavy thematic connection to existing classes. And it'd make writing the little entry easier. Also, about where do you think it places power-wise compared to what's already in this thread? I don't have a great feel for the class yet.

The only other one would be the expert in a kind of sort of way.

I think its alot like a weaker factotum.

eggynack

2017-03-11, 03:02 AM

The only other one would be the expert in a kind of sort of way.

I think its alot like a weaker factotum.
Yeah, I think I'ma add it then. It's pretty early in the thread. Also, not really sure what other category I'd put it in.

MHCD

2017-03-11, 03:07 AM

Most of my thoughts have already been expressed well by eggynack and Troacctid, so I'll say that perhaps a better perspective for judging these classes would be to entirely forget tier ones for the moment and think in comparison to the recently judged "roguelikes".

In comparison to the roguelikes:

Bard is in the same echelon of "skillz", but some might say is worse at combat out-of-the-box. However, this is at worst for the bard a case of "low floor, high ceiling", as between the amazing class feature of SPELLCASTING, a bard can be built to be a highly competitive foe at this level. (That's right, bard spellcasting is amazing. There are no 9th level spells in this discussion, remember? That's not the benchmark for not sucking. 6th level vs [N/A] level is - say it with me now - amazing.) The bard also has this other class feature that may have been the subject of a discussion or two online called inspire courage. Between varieties of bardic music and spellcasting options, can a bard specifically built for combat compete at the same level as a roguelike? Yes.

Between spellcasting and bardic music, would that same bard still be able to do some other things better than those roguelikes (including, but not being limited to, using much of that same optimization to support other party members)? Probably. Between the natural versatility of those class features and fantastic splat support, would a differently built bard be able to compete at a similar level of effectiveness in other arenas? Absolutely.

Bards one of the most easily tier-3'd classes in the game. In strictly core, a beginner's bard can be "good" at solving most problems or even specialize a bit, and their options for limited power and/or versatility only get better from there. I wouldn't put one next to a beguiler or sorcerer, but you can't seriously put one next to a rogue either. I have no practical experience with Jesters, but reason dictates comparison to a core bard - again, tier 3.

I do admit that factotum is messier here, and perhaps harder to keep consistent between judgement in theory and observations in play. Again, let's compare to the roguelikes. In skill use, factotum is an easy champ. An inevitably higher intelligence score also means he'll probably have more skill points than even the rogue, and he uses them better than anyone. Just from the number of points, cunning knowledge and brains over brawn, he is either better than the roguelikes at their specialized skills or equally good while also better in all others. And again, he has all the skills. And shaming a factotum for relying on making use of iaijutsu focus or lucid dreaming is like viewing a rogue the same for using a wand of gravestrike - the class is intended to be able to make use of those abilities.

In offensive combat, the factotum's class features are up against sneak attack, skirmish, and sudden strike. He has options to help him hit and make it count with cunning insight, cunning strike, and IF (if he makes any investment). He also can ignore damage reduction with cunning breach. He also can make better use of combat maneuvers than the roguelikes with brains over brawn. He's no chain-tripping fighter, but that's not the point here - with no specialized investment, he can still do it better than the roguelikes. His damage should not be compared to a raging, pouncing barbarian, but to the lower-accuracy, lower-output, and the I-need-a-specific-set-of-circumstances-to-roll-my-extra-d6's of the roguelikes. He can match that. And he can do it while exhibiting superior skill use, superior knowledge, superior magical abilities, superior versatility, and a vastly superior capstone.

Playing a non-IF melee factotum in a very murderhobo group left me out-damaged by the ranger, out-magic'd by the sorcerer, and outsmarted by the DM who stuck to skill-light challenges, but playing one in a four-character party with a rogue, a scout, and a ninja, I felt like a god-wizard among sorcerers; I could be comparable to any of them, but my real strength came from being able to do some of what any of them could do while also filling in the gaps and being able to do something different in the next encounter. It may sit below a bard, and it may be hard to feel effective if built a certain way or played with certain expectations, but a factotum is at least in the same rank of combat power as the roguelikes while being more effective elsewhere and with greater flexibility. That spells tier three.

I have no practical experience with savant, but the "first draft factotum" looks tier-three to me, albeit a lower tier three than bard. It's class features, while not individually fantastic, all have optimization potential for those who want to invest in specialization (and you'll have some extra feats anyway), and it's already set up to be a jack-of-all-trades.

eggynack

2017-03-11, 03:12 AM

Just added the savant, which should be clear going by the new thread title. The description is alright, I think. Big struggle with all of these has been not infusing it with really subjective elements while still having stuff to say. Prefer not to lead people to specific tiering outcomes at the start of a thread too much. Now to edit the change into all the other threads.

Edit: Thought it'd be worth note that 9th's aren't completely out of this equation. Warmage already falls into tier three, and healer is liable to go the same way. Not great 9th's, certainly, but present 9th's, and both casting mechanics have some allowance for spell addition, meaning a good number of the spells you might not expect to compete against are ones you likely do have to compete against at higher optimization levels. Still, it's not like high optimization levels are unkind to the bard. The general position from people opposed to high power bards is that they're weak absent optimization, if strong when it's present.

StreamOfTheSky

2017-03-11, 03:41 AM

Bard: Tier 3, and holds a strong position in it, too. Solid if somewhat limited spell list, good skills, and oh my...the inspire courage optimization. Want everyone in the party to do +5d6 fire damage (or other type, if you get a Draconic Heritage feat) every attack by level 6? With enough splat resources, you can totally do that!

Factotum: I don't buy the hype here at all. Sinking multiple feats into Font of Inspiration is crippling to anything else you want to do...if it's even allowed. The SLAs per day are too few to matter much (special note for how amazing a Factotum teamed up w/ a Spellthief is, though), and the class itself offers nothing worthwhile to do offensively with your inspiration...1d6 SA per point is awful, and Manyshot (from Cunning Surge bonus standard actions) makes Monk look accurate. it's a nice class to mix w/ something else with meaningful combat abilities, but that's all it is to me. Eight levels is a lot to invest for the surge, usually I'll do a 3 level dip for Brains over Brawn to supplement a trip build or the like, and grab Able Learner to carry over the 1:1 cost on all skills to my real class. As frosting (supplementing your actual class) it's very good. As cake...in its own merits or with minimal dips to other classes, it's tier 4 to me. Not even particularly high in tier 4, it's middle of the pack like Rogue (where I put Rogue, at least). It can handle a lot of roles and perform them anywhere from slightly below to slightly above average, except combat (the most important role) where its clearly sub-par. I also think the Factotum / Chameleon build is grossly overrated, but that's a bit of a side tangent and one I don't feel like getting into. :smallsmile:

EDIT: As for Iaijutsu Focus, people need to stop acting like it's a Factotum class feature. If it's allowed, any melee character can and probably will get it. Likely through a Factotum dip and Able Learner, but only because that's the most value-gained option. Compared to dipping Expert instead, or taking the UA feat to add one skill to your "class skills" list for all classes. Saying that's a credit to the Factotum is like saying Fighter's a better class than ranger because it's a better dip.

Jester: Not much to say here. It's Bard but worse, but not downgraded enough to fall out of tier 3.

Savant: I have never seen this class used and know almost nothing about it. No rating.

Fizban

2017-03-11, 05:36 AM

Bard for t3, spellcasting is a lot weaker than people give it credit for but still obviously better than 4/10 casting and skills+bardic music fill in the gaps for a much more reliable endurance character.

Factotum for t4, while their "spellcasting" is actually pretty comparable to Bard, being "prepared" and forbidden from bringing more than one copy of each spell means you need a lot more system mastery just to reach Bard level. Limited use combat abilities again require more mastery to use than Inspire Courage or Sneak Attack, to the point that many people can't even figure out how to use the class without Iajutsu Focus or Font of Inspiration. Class requires a player with system mastery who is not a slave to system mastery, a contradiction which now that I think about it probably applies to a lot of things. It does have a minor advantage in un-screw-uppableness by not actually needing any particular stat: Arcane Dilletante and Opportunistic Piety still have solid minimum effects and it only takes one level up to spread skill points around for Cunning Knowledge.

Jester looks like a Bard variant that loses splatbook spells thanks to not actually being a Bard, meh. I remember reading the alternate musics once and not being impressed, don't feel like re-reading them.

Savant is like a bad multiclass build, without splatbook spells, notable only for being the only class that actually lets you just overwrite the rest of the party's nonexistant skill ranks, which is limited to a paltry selection of skills chosen as you level up. I don't see how anyone could actually rate it above tier 4 on its own problem solving ability, and while it's more obvious in use than the Factotum it just doesn't have the omph to match a facto with an once of ability begged borrowed or stolen. But I wouldn't count it as self-sabotaging either so 4 it would be.

Malroth

2017-03-11, 06:41 AM

Bard: right on the doorway between Tiers 2 and 3 Single class bard doesn't quite make Tier 2 but is definately in the running for the strongest 3

Factotum: Doesn't really do anything well enough but access to 7ths is pretty sweet and some DM's might actually allow Iaijutsu shennagans Low Tier 3 but i understand the arugment for 4

Jester: Wants to be a bard and fails completely but has a few solid spells, Low 3 but only because stinking cloud glitterdust and polymorph

Savant: Kinda sorta helps people with skills sometimes and has weaker than paladin spell progression with no real combat ability Tier 4 pushing 5

Troacctid

2017-03-11, 09:33 AM

I've played Savant. It's basically a worse version of Spellthief. Tier 4.

I think Shugenja is the strongest T3, by the way.

Zaq

2017-03-11, 10:02 AM

I don't have as much time as I'd like, so this will be a partial assessment.

Bard: The Bard is pretty much the quintessential T3, and I think it earns the title easily. Bard spells are awesome (even in core-only, the three low-level Gs—Grease, Glitterdust, and Glibness—have a lot of bang for the buck), but they don't have enough spells per day to be casting every single round, so they have to be smart about it. Still, a well-placed Bard spell can solve a lot of problems. Inspire Courage is tame if you don't put any work into it, but it's a monster if you know how to go book-diving for boosts to it. They have excellent skill access, and I love both Bardic Knowledge and Bardic Knack. (Bardic Knowledge is fun even if you like investing in Knowledge skills anyway, since there's nothing saying you can't roll both a BK check and a regular Knowledge check about the same question.) Their musical options other than IC tend to be situational at best, but it's not wise to discount them entirely (Fascinate and Suggestion take finesse, but they can help you get out of trouble—or alternatively, they can help you get into much more interesting trouble).

There's a lot of toys for a Bard to play with when you have access to lots of books, and it's entirely possible to build very functional Bards with a really wide variety of abilities. (I know I'm not the only one here who's designed and played in an all-Bard campaign, and it was absolutely possible to not step on each other's toes.)

So why T3 and not T2 or higher? First, many Bard tricks are indeed kinda situational. They've got a robust enough set of abilities that a well-built Bard can usually find a way to contribute, but they might not always be able to contribute in the way they would prefer to. Second, Bards are most impressive when they have some good op-fu behind them, but putting an equivalent amount of optimization effort into a Sorcerer or a similar unambiguously T2 class does tend to create more impressive results from a raw power perspective. Third, Bards don't get insane high-level spells. I mean, don't get me wrong, high-level Bard spells are really good, but they're not the level of "I will reshape the campaign in my image" that you get from true 8ths and 9ths (Astral Projection, Gate, Shapechange, Time Stop, PAO, etc.). T2s are traditionally considered to have at least some access to abilities that fundamentally alter what problems you can choose to solve (which is not the same thing as abilities that allow you to address different problems), and I don't see that in a pure-class Bard. You could make an argument that high-octane Diplomancy shenanigans kind of fall under that banner, but I think that's a bit more weaksauce than Teleport, at least with respect to "I'm going to reshape this campaign."

Factotum: Really running out of time here, so I'm likely to have to come back to this one. I think the Factotum is T4. A pure-class Factotum is really good at skills, and the class is designed for creative problem-solving, which I like. But I think that there's a fundamental lack of power behind the curtain, to mix a metaphor a tiny bit. Factotums aren't actually especially good at contributing to combat through their class abilities alone; Iaijutsu is all well and good, but it's harder to use than many folks care to admit, and it's still not going to turn you into a beast. If Iaijutsu isn't on the table, a Factotum is decent at tripping (at least if they have the stats to afford both good STR and good INT), but that's about it. The other thing is that the Factotum's legendary versatility has, ultimately, no staying power. Their SLAs are only once per day per spell, which is enough to pull something out of your butt now and again but which isn't enough to rely on as a primary source of power or magic. Cunning Knowledge is also once per day per skill, which is a massive limitation, since skills are rarely rolled exactly once per day (so you've got one ace up your sleeve, but I hope you have a good baseline for the skills without that ace, otherwise you're going to get into trouble without a way to get out). I mean, how often do you need exactly one Swim check? How often do you need to Bluff past exactly one set of guards? How often is exactly one Ride check or exactly one Climb check going to get you where you need? You've gotta have something more than CK to actually be skillful, so I think CK is overrated.

Totally out of time. I'll come back to this. But I think the Factotum is T4—decent versatility out of combat, but very little staying power, and very limited class-native way to contribute to fights.

WhamBamSam

2017-03-11, 11:03 AM

I remember Tippy asserting that Factotums were actually T2 a while back based on access to Planar Binding, but that involves a whole suite of assumptions that probably aren't going to be a factor in this discussion.

I'm going to come down on the side of T3 for Factotum, Bard, and Jester. The Savant isn't going to get out of T4 and even there, that spell list is less than inspiring.

Admittedly, I've only actually ever seen relatively optimized, and yes, Iaijutsu using, Factotums, but even so, I'm comfortable with them at T3. There was a post earlier that was dismissive of them because they have a tendency to burn out on an 'alpha strike,' but that alpha strike tends to be a level appropriate and sufficiently variable contribution to justify T3 status. Stealth, initiative, and the like allow them to cause enough mayhem at the start of a fight, that the encounter goes from level appropriate for the party to level appropriate or below for the rest of the party and just being a warm body is sufficient the rest of the way. On the flip side of the coin, the once per encounter nova can do a lot to turn the tide in encounters that are going badly.

Cosi

2017-03-11, 12:23 PM

For people who think the Factotum is Tier Three, what do you see a Factotum doing in combat if he's not allowed to take Iajutsu Focus?

What I'm saying, and I think you'd agree, is that being significantly worse than a wizard or sorcerer at magic can essentially only imply that you are in a tier below those classes.

I dunno. Obviously, casting like a Wizard from the Sorcerer/Wizard list makes you as good as a Wizard, and casting less efficaciously than that makes you some amount less good. Where you draw the line sort of depends on how you expect people's contributions to hash out in various situations

Perhaps. I was thinking that one high AC form or something, which I think is on the level (I think troglodyte). This isn't precisely the primary offensive tool. It's thinking of it more as this defensive mobility thing with a decent though not huge amount of offensive edge, and stuff like glitterdust, silent image, and grease is how you'd generally interact when just trying to toss out a combat effect, spell-wise.

I don't think defensive buffs are terribly good when they come at the expense of offensive power. D&D is, at its core, a combat simulator, and you need to have something to do that causes you to win. alter self is good when it stops being one of your big ticket spells and starts being something you can just passively do.

I remember Tippy asserting that Factotums were actually T2 a while back based on access to Planar Binding, but that involves a whole suite of assumptions that probably aren't going to be a factor in this discussion.

The idea that the Factotum is Tier Two off planar binding only really makes sense in something like JaronK's system where you get Tier Two for being able to break the game. You get planar binding at 15th level, at which point the game is very likely already over.

Bucky

2017-03-11, 12:38 PM

For people who think the Factotum is Tier Three, what do you see a Factotum doing in combat if he's not allowed to take Iajutsu Focus?

IIRC the original tier thread discussed a session where a first time player was introduced as an unarmed, tied up Tiefling Factotum... who, rather than being rescued by the party as planned, proceeded to Escape Artist her way free, Alter Self into an effective combat form and shred the encounter with natural attacks and extra actions.

BaronDoctor

2017-03-11, 12:50 PM

Bard: High 3. Buff your allies, use skills to solve problems. Oh and by the way you have a bunch of really nice spells at full caster level. Granted, you don't get quite as many as a sorcerer, and you don't get quite the degree of high level spells they do, but compared to things like ranger or paladin it's pretty nice.

Jester: Mid 3. Bard's shadow. Debuffs enemies, uses skills to solve problems. Has good (but not sorcerer) casting.

Factotum: Lowest 3 / Highest 4. If you compare it to a rogue, it comes out ahead. A bunch of skills including the weird stuff. Given that it comes in a slightly obscure book, that it's a slightly obscure class, if you know about it and you want to use it you're going to end up with a better-than-average-op individual.

Savant: Skip. Don't know it.

Lans

2017-03-11, 01:51 PM

The factotum has acess to power building spells like command undead, shrink item, wall of stone etc I think this will let him pull out to tier 3 in most campaigns.

eggynack

2017-03-11, 03:58 PM

I remember Tippy asserting that Factotums were actually T2 a while back based on access to Planar Binding, but that involves a whole suite of assumptions that probably aren't going to be a factor in this discussion.

I don't think it makes them tier two, but something about it strikes me as critical. Not necessarily in this exact form, but the fact that the factotum has access to this kinda thing is really important. Right above me, Lans lists a few power building spells, and held in that "etc" is a ridiculous amount of stuff. It's one of the things wizards are best at. Tons of divinations, and minion gaining spells, and social spells, and environmental manipulation spells, and so on. And those spells are also good in combat, if unreliable as a main shtick given the lack of spells/day.

I dunno. Obviously, casting like a Wizard from the Sorcerer/Wizard list makes you as good as a Wizard, and casting less efficaciously than that makes you some amount less good. Where you draw the line sort of depends on how you expect people's contributions to hash out in various situations.
That some amount less good is so arbitrary though. It's next to impossible to jump right from, "This class is X amount worse than the wizard," to, "This class is three tiers lower than the wizard." That toss is just so distant, who can say what will happen in the intervening tiers? Far better to use nearby classes. How does this casting compare to that of a warmage, a healer, or an adept?

I don't think defensive buffs are terribly good when they come at the expense of offensive power. D&D is, at its core, a combat simulator, and you need to have something to do that causes you to win. alter self is good when it stops being one of your big ticket spells and starts being something you can just passively do.
The bard does still have a number of things to cause them to win. Glitterdust is pretty solid across a wide variety of circumstances, if you're in a combat situation. Alter self is like this backup high versatility defense/mobility thing, which is nice when you're not doing the combat simulator thing, and can help in a few situations that glitterdust can't. You don't have that many spells known. Multitools are nice. It's possible the bard should pick up something more combat oriented as the second second, and get alter self next level, but mirror image doesn't make much sense for that role.

The idea that the Factotum is Tier Two off planar binding only really makes sense in something like JaronK's system where you get Tier Two for being able to break the game. You get planar binding at 15th level, at which point the game is very likely already over.
Yeah, that kinda model is really bad, and leads to stuff like healer in tier one or two. Still, as I noted above, this sort of assertion, that a factotum's power building capacity is really useful, and may serve to get the factotum the rest of the way to tier three where the standard day to day combat stuff didn't necessarily suffice.

bean illus

2017-03-11, 04:58 PM

Factotum just doesn't do anything good. You get extra actions, but your actions are very bad. You get spellcasting, but it's very slow. The big ticket items people talk about (Font of Inspiration, Iajutsu Focus) are, respective, a Web Enhancement feat from a setting specific web enhancement, and a setting specific skill from a 3.0 setting. I don't think those things factor in very much to tiering. Probably Tier Four.

I was tempted to say 'anyone who can't think of what to do with 400 skill points and extra actions isn't thinking 'outside the box'. ... I mean, i'm just teasin'. UMD can't do everything, right?

Those are the big tickets? Really? I'm not convinced either of them is even good. In my opinion, the real big tickets are Cunning Insight, Cunning Knowledge, Brains over Brawn, and Arcane Dilettante, as well as the skills, with an honorable mention to Cunning Surge. Combined, they bring the class pretty easily into T3 IMO.
I think system mastery is needed to enjoy Factotum. Rogue is easier for newbs. Bard has lots of potential for creativity, but can lean on a few tricks if they want to.
Brains over Brawn is (i think) under rated as a Jock of all trades trick. The game are littered with things that are skill checks, combat included. But instead of one or two tricks, the Facto has many, and they are synergistic. Being good at initiative AND tripping AND extra actions is kinda cool for melee, and that's just the famous ones.
On the other hand, it is a long haul for a Facto, and waiting for some of the stuff is slow. I admit i usually think of it as a dip.

The factotum has access to power building spells like command undead, shrink item, wall of stone etc I think this will let him pull out to tier 3 in most campaigns.

A lot of opinions on tier have a sort of 'what if a wizard fought a rogue' sort of approach. I add another point: 'will this character have something to do for the party all the time' is a sorta valid question.
As WhamBamSam said about facto. There's really no telling how much mayhem going first with extra actions can cause in the hands of a great factotum. Again, don't forget UMD.
In fact, having read the whole thread about how facto only gets so few spells (some 8th with cross class cheese iirc), i must remind that they have some of the best UMD access in the whole game. Very few characters can really afford to max UMD, since skill points are expensive, but when we say "combat", "initiative", and "extra actions" then i think it's fair to say UMD.

Bard: Top of Tier 3. Great splat support, and always something for the team, and can often change whole encounters on or off battlefield. A story line character.

Factotum: Depending on access to Font of Inspiration; high Tier 3, but probably under bard. Way too versatile for tier 4, and a bit too powerful, with broad access to 8th level spells and UMD.
Without FoI, probably the bottom definition of tier 3. Under Rogue, maybe. FoI is a powerful recharge mechanic, where many of your class abilities last throughout the day in a way that some classes don't enjoy. Pretty powerful.

Jester: I know it less, but i would consider it under bard and facto. Possibly T4. Debuff is situational. Common, but more in combat, less out?

Savant: Tier 4. I've studied it several times when theorizing builds. ... It's ... an npc. lol. It's kinda cool and all, and i'd play one with the right dm, but this class is ... just doesn't do it for me.

Bucky

2017-03-11, 06:10 PM

What can Savant do that isn't matched by either a rogue or an expert with UMD?

Soranar

2017-03-11, 06:54 PM

Factotum has access to

-extra actions

-alter self /polymoprh/draconic polymorph
-animate dead, command undead
-charm person/ dominate person
-planar binding spells
-a way to ignore SR

this alone should make him tier 3 if not lower tier 2

sure he doesn't have many spellslots but you can do a lot with them

AnachroNinja

2017-03-11, 08:52 PM

Mostly self explanatory stuff so I'm not going to get too deep.

Bard: High Tier 3. They are the poster child. They have a huge variety of ways to use their abilities. From DFI buffbots to Nature Bards with beefy animal companions and snowflake wardance. They can be useful in all-day every situation.

Jester: Low Tier 3: Very similar to the bard but not quite as good in most ways. Spell list has some gems added to it. They didn't lose enough to justify tier 4 in my opinion.

Factotum: Tier 4: I'm coming in on the side of Factotums just being highly overrated. On paper they look great with all kinds of gimmicks, but in practice they just never quite pull it out. Yeah, you can be a stealthy sneak attacker smooth talking spell slinging UMD'ing extra action taking Jack of all trades... But you suck at all those things individually. If you focus, you can do a good job of emulating a rogue or half ass job of being a spell caster, but you're always well behind the others. Playing a factotum is almost like having a high LA template. Yeah, you get all these fun abilities and SLAs that look awesome, but your main capabilities are still 3 levels behind everyone else. You can manage OK, but you're not actually good at anything.

Savant: Pass, don't know it.

dhasenan

2017-03-12, 12:00 AM

"We're not actually your enemies. I'm your boss in disguise, and these other folks are my minions, like you are." "I am, in fact, the rightful king of this region, because of some kinda true bloodline or whatever." Stuff like that.

The official guidelines about Bluff are absurdly permissive.

If your Bluff score is the same as your opponent's Sense Motive, Glibness is enough, according to PHB, to convince someone of a rather unlikely lie no matter your rolls. And 3/4ths the time, you can convince them of something entirely outrageous. As a level 8 bard, you can fake Stealth by telling people that you're a figment of their imagination for over an hour per day.

I've heard of orc rogues doing the same sort of thing with Intimidate: when someone sees you, you shout at them: "YOU DID NOT SEE GROGG!" And they stammeringly agree with you.

nyjastul69

2017-03-12, 03:18 AM

I consider both Bard and Factotum tier 3, top and bottom respectively. I don't have enough experience with Jester or Savant to give an informed opinion.

Malroth

2017-03-12, 03:34 AM

What can Savant do that isn't matched by either a rogue or an expert with UMD?

A little bit, they can cast a few spells on their own, and can share their skill ranks in certian stealth skills with the party making the whole group much less likely to fail a spot listen or disguise check on the whole it averages out to about that of a high CHA character making a Marshal dip.

Beheld

2017-03-12, 05:53 AM

Fear, no. Stinking cloud, haste, and black tentacles, quite likely yes. These low level wizard spells are core to their status as tier one, just as, with slower progression, they're core to the bard's status as tier three.

Just no. If you think Stinking Cloud, Haste, and EBT are more than level appropriate and game breaking at 5 and 7, .... then what the **** could possibly be level appropriate? Being a fighter?

I really don't think we should identify a spell as a cantrip just because it shows up like that on a really specific character build. Next you're gonna say that haste is a first level spell cause it lands there on the trapsmith list.

It's a cantrip for some characters, and it's a level 1 ability at all. If you are level 4, and 7/8ths of your character can be replaced by a level 1 character, that's a bad sign, and that's literally the bards casting.

And silent image is a great contribution, but it's far from your only contribution from first level spells, or your actual cantrips.

No, it's 100% of your contribution. Casting anything else is literally reducing your contribution.

Spells are just one of your better ways to interact with your environment, not your only way.

Hence why I said "just talking about the Bards spellcasting being bad."

"We're not actually your enemies. I'm your boss in disguise, and these other folks are my minions, like you are." "I am, in fact, the rightful king of this region, because of some kinda true bloodline or whatever." Stuff like that.

Okay, so you spent a 7th level ability, your only one for the entire day, and the thing you accomplished is to beat a single encounter, provided they speak the same language as you, have a boss they have to tolerate any kind of bull**** from, and that they are specifically guarding something, but even then only for a short time? Okay? And then you ask for information, and suddenly they know you are lying, or you go meet literally anyone else, and you fight a harder encounter, or you bypass that one encounter and that's it. So you managed to put yourself in the running for king of a recently opened up kingdom that just had all it's monarch's family die suddenly? I mean, I don't know why you think convincing someone you are the rightful king accomplishes literally anything if the actual king is still alive. Last I checked, people don't hand over their crowns/automatically create and commit themselves to a rebellion based on a hypothetical legal technicality about bloodlines even if they do believe it's true.

I dunno if it matters what the game should be or is balanced around, precisely. These abilities are absolutely those of a tier one character. If tier one is to be the norm, then we still have tier threes that are worse than the norm by this much, and tier fours are worse by that much. What I'm saying, and I think you'd agree, is that being significantly worse than a wizard or sorcerer at magic can essentially only imply that you are in a tier below those classes. There's not much of a point in bringing those classes into an argument that bards belong in tier four.

If the things you do are not helping you beat level appropriate encounters, then the things you do don't deserve to put you in Tier 3 at all. Being able to totally kick the ass out of any number of CR 1 encounters at level 10 is meaningless. Fundamentally I am making the argument that "Bard spellcasting is not a meaningful contribution to most level appropriate encounters" and you are responding with "Well it was 2-5 levels ago, so it must still be right?" or just ignoring the tremendously limited uses per day.

It seems like the quintessential Tier 3 class would be +1d6 SA for every 10 levels, 3 bonus feats, and casting spells your cohort's cohort could cast for most people, and that's depressing. Being bad at everything is not in fact like being good at something.

eggynack

2017-03-12, 06:22 AM

Just no. If you think Stinking Cloud, Haste, and EBT are more than level appropriate and game breaking at 5 and 7, .... then what the **** could possibly be level appropriate? Being a fighter?
Bard, maybe? Really depends on the game. This notion of level appropriateness doesn't actually strike me as all that useful. Suffice to say that the wizard, with those spells among others, is better than nearly every other class in the entire game. That they also happen to be better than bards strikes me as irrelevant.

It's a cantrip for some characters, and it's a level 1 ability at all. If you are level 4, and 7/8ths of your character can be replaced by a level 1 character, that's a bad sign, and that's literally the bards casting.
A level one character of significantly higher tier, even under my reading. And you're nowhere close to replicating 7/8's of the character. You're copying only the first level casting, but not the second level casting, or the general chassis, or the skill use, or the bardic music.

No, it's 100% of your contribution. Casting anything else is literally reducing your contribution.
That's not how anything works. Some situations call for silent image, some call for not silent image. If every situation had silent image as the one and only best solution, then no one would cast things that aren't silent image, at least not with first level spells.

Hence why I said "just talking about the Bards spellcasting being bad."
But part of the utility to bardic spellcasting is that it shows up on a class that can do things otherwise. With that few spells/day you could have plausible cause to worry that you're wasting away all of your power by using those spells. That you have so many backup options allows freer use of the spells available, because you have greater endurance than is available through spells alone.

Okay, so you spent a 7th level ability, your only one for the entire day, and the thing you accomplished is to beat a single encounter, provided they speak the same language as you, have a boss they have to tolerate any kind of bull**** from, and that they are specifically guarding something, but even then only for a short time? Okay? And then you ask for information, and suddenly they know you are lying, or you go meet literally anyone else, and you fight a harder encounter, or you bypass that one encounter and that's it. So you managed to put yourself in the running for king of a recently opened up kingdom that just had all it's monarch's family die suddenly? I mean, I don't know why you think convincing someone you are the rightful king accomplishes literally anything if the actual king is still alive. Last I checked, people don't hand over their crowns/automatically create and commit themselves to a rebellion based on a hypothetical legal technicality about bloodlines even if they do believe it's true.
Glibness lasts for ten minutes/level, first of all. You can paper over lies with more lies when necessary. And you did, in fact, beat a single encounter, all on your own, in a single round, in a way that can be broadly modified to specific circumstances, and then you can further apply that elsewhere. We're spontaneously transforming a foe that was set to kill the bard and their party into someone who is, at least temporarily, allied with the party. It doesn't matter what kind of boss they have either, cause they believe the lie even if the underlying structure of it is nonsensical, because that's what bluff explicitly does. On kingmaking, circumstances dictate what specific lies you can use to manipulate things in your direction. You can make the king and their subjects believe just about anything about the king, the kingdom, yourself, or anything, really. Is it a perfect one way ticket to king-town? Not necessarily, but it's a solid and workable plan that can likely get you some lesser things even if you don't get the grand prize. Hell, you can even convince people that you are straight up the actual king, and that the king currently ruling stuff is a villain in disguise. You could probably even convince the king of that, if that'd help.

I'm not sure when you got the impression that solving the majority of encounters, combat and non-combat alike, without much in the way of plausible defenses, with a single third level spell, that lasts over an hour, is weak. Is this what we ask of third level spells? Does stinking cloud suck because it can "only" debilitate a large quantity of enemies, instead of doing that and also allowing you to take over an entire kingdom trivially? And haste "only" makes your party more capable of combat in a number of ways. Completely fails at any kind of information gathering or ally earning. Sometimes it doesn't even completely eradicate the encounter. What a crappy spell that is. Are you seriously asserting that glibness sucks because it "only" does that stuff to the wide variety of enemies that share your language, even though bards are really good at languages?

If the things you do are not helping you beat level appropriate encounters, then the things you do don't deserve to put you in Tier 3 at all. Being able to totally kick the ass out of any number of CR 1 encounters at level 10 is meaningless. Fundamentally I am making the argument that "Bard spellcasting is not a meaningful contribution to most level appropriate encounters" and you are responding with "Well it was 2-5 levels ago, so it must still be right?" or just ignoring the tremendously limited uses per day.
You haven't really given much in the way of argument for why these spells don't contribute to the solution of level appropriate encounters. You just keep pointing out that higher tier casters get better casting and get it faster. Which, sure, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to tell us.

Fizban

2017-03-12, 06:29 AM

Just no. If you think Stinking Cloud, Haste, and EBT are more than level appropriate and game breaking at 5 and 7, .... then what the **** could possibly be level appropriate? Being a fighter?
Yes.

Just had to say that. As for Glibness, entirely dependent on how your DM interprets the Bluff rules and how far they'll let you push them, except Bluff is even less well defined than Diplomancy and has a specific spell that says "lol who cares." So it does whatever the DM says it does, and any ability that dependent I'm writing off (and expect sensible DMs to have already banned by now).

eggynack

2017-03-12, 06:39 AM

Just had to say that. As for Glibness, entirely dependent on how your DM interprets the Bluff rules and how far they'll let you push them, except Bluff is even less well defined than Diplomancy and has a specific spell that says "lol who cares." So it does whatever the DM says it does, and any ability that dependent I'm writing off (and expect sensible DMs to have already banned by now).
What's the alternate interpretation that makes it not work? I mean, the, "This is clearly borked, so an argument relying upon its more borked uses clearly falls into some high optimization/permissiveness settings and should thus be heavily discounted," argument holds quite a lot of water, but the claim that there's a whole separate argument about the skill just not working in this fashion is both interesting and somewhat disproved. I was expecting something along those lines when I provided my scenarios. In any case, I don't know that the fact that highest end uses are stupid disqualifies the whole ability. There are likely ways to use it that are really powerful without being insanely powerful. It's one of those situations where you can maybe hit every point on the power curve up to a certain level, so any line drawn below that level is one you can hit perfectly. Which is strong.

Fizban

2017-03-12, 07:20 AM

A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell.
Unless the encounter is built as "get this guy to believe X," Bluff does not solve it. So the standard is "I'm actually your boss in disguise?" That'll get the guy to hesitate for one round before realizing that if his boss in disguise sees him not doing his job he'll be fired so he runs you through proper processing anyway. You're putting emphasis on them believing whatever you say, but even if the skill says they believe it the skill doesn't say they act on it for more than one round. A Suggestion spell can influence the target with a sentence or two if "phrased reasonably," for a few hours or until completed- except Bluff is explicitly not a Suggestion, and even Epic Bluff is only a 10 minute Suggestion. Bluff gets you maybe one round of desired action followed by maybe 10 minutes or a day of bewilderment before they write it off.

So sure, Bluff can win every encounter that is built to allow Bluff to win. In an "intrigue" campaign where you can get by with short misdirections instead of actual deep intrigue, Glibness is auto-win, but it's not going to get canny opponents mired in long-term plots they actually believe in when they're the people who invented bluffing and know how to think twice. And just like Diplomacy, Planar Binding, copying spells, or any other slightly grey area, it only takes the tiniest bit of DM thought to find the limitations right in front of them.

Rhyltran

2017-03-12, 09:15 AM

Bard: My vote is Tier three. The bard has useful spells at each level that they gain spells. Ranging from the likes of glitterdust, grease, charm person, charm monster, dominate, hold person, hold monster, scrying, and so much more. With their songs they range from being able to protect the party, boost their saves, or even act as force multipliers. Another important factor is that a Bard doesn't take much in the way to make useful. A completely new player who even randomly selects the bard's spells will probably still get a handful of useful options and even without optimization will still have bardic music and provide great utility/use for their party. A bard is capable of being useful in any situation, at any time, and have the option to end many encounters on their own.

Factotum: My vote is Tier 3 here. Between Iaijutsu shenanigans, alter self, polymorph, extra actions, charm person, dominate person, planar binding spells, animate dead, some of the most useful skill list, and as mentioned can ignore SR. You're talking about someone who can potentially be a one man party here. Also in this list I only touched the tip of the iceburg. We also have their very useful wide range of class features battlefield control in the way of grease, glitterdust, dimensional door, and so on.

Jester: My vote is Tier 3. A weaker bard but with no splat support. It doesn't change the fact that their music ability still functions as a force multiplier, though it's quite a bit weaker than bardic music, it does have some interesting quirks like being able to affect undead. Their spell list, while being a bit more limited, does have some very powerful spells. Just like the bard they have access to spells that can very well end encounters, that have wide range of uses, and can be applied in most situations. Their skill list is vast as well, for where it counts, and some of their most powerful options is shared by the class they're similar to (bard). Still, despite losing some features, without the splat support, I think they're on the middle or lower end of Tier 3 but solidly tier 3.

Savant: I have no experience with this class so I can't comment on it.

Duelpersonality

2017-03-12, 10:25 AM

Bard: Tier 3. Between their spells and skills, there's a lot of ground they can cover quite well. That they also have features that can contribute outside of that is fantastic. I do think that their spells are able to solve level appropriate encounters in a lot of situations. Obviously there are some gaps, but I still feel that they're strong tier 3

Factotum: Tier 3. I just think there's too many things that they can do for tier 4. They can access potent abilities, and can mix in strong skill use. Yes, they need a high level of system mastery to truely shine. The very limited nature of their casting really hampers their ability to be a high end force for a whole day, so I don't think they're high tier 3 and I can't see 2 at all here.

the_archduke

2017-03-12, 10:44 AM

Bard: Despite my personal feelings regarding their absurdity (quoth Tellah the Sage "You spoony Bard!"), they are the quintessential Tier 3. Probably right smack in the middle of Tier 3. Good spell list, useful class features, lots of skills.

Factotum: Tier 4. And low in Tier 4 at that. What exactly is he supposed to do in combat? Medium BaB, MAD (wants int for class abilities, str if he wants to do anything in combat, dex as he is light armored, con because everybody wants con, a bit of cha too if he wants to use opportunistic piety and a good chunk of his skills.) Extra standard actions is amazing... but what is he doing with them? When he gets higher level, he gets once a day SLAs. You know who else gets level appropriate abilities too little, too late? A Truenamer. A Factotum is a jack of most trades and a master of none. In a game that rewards specialization, you are the guy that tries to do a little of everything and none of those things well enough to warrant inclusion in a party.

Jester: No vote, never seen it.

Savant: See Jester

Dondasch

2017-03-12, 12:42 PM

Bard: Tier 3
You get 7/10 casting off of a list with good spells, a wide variety of skills, and a class feature useful for buffing the party. It also responds very well to even low amounts of optimization.

Factotum: Tier 4
As others have said before me, you're a jack of all trades, but you kinda suck at all of them. And here's why:
Your SLAs are late, limited in uses/day, and you can't even double up on your best options.
Your "be good at any skill" is only usable 1/day/skill. And often, usage of skills comes in clumps.
You end up MAD despite having class features trying to make you SAD.
You run out of steam very quickly without taking a web enhancement feat a bunch of times. I should note that I've met DMs that ruled the text for taking the feat multiple time was just a poorly worded way of saying the effects stack, not the accelerating growth assumed in forum optimization.
One of the most often suggested combat methods relies on a 3.0 skill from a setting-specific book and an exotic weapon from another book, making it rather obscure. It's also more limited than sneak attack (seriously, getting people flat-footed consistently is difficult).
You get a few defensive abilities, but you suffer from Dwarven Defender Syndrome: you aren't giving people much reason to attack you in the first place.

Overall, the Factotum does a lot of stuff, but that stuff isn't all that great or synergistic. A lot like the Monk, but the janky spellcasting off the Sor/Wiz list is enough to pull you up out of T5.

eggynack

2017-03-12, 01:38 PM

Unless the encounter is built as "get this guy to believe X," Bluff does not solve it. So the standard is "I'm actually your boss in disguise?" That'll get the guy to hesitate for one round before realizing that if his boss in disguise sees him not doing his job he'll be fired so he runs you through proper processing anyway. You're putting emphasis on them believing whatever you say, but even if the skill says they believe it the skill doesn't say they act on it for more than one round. A Suggestion spell can influence the target with a sentence or two if "phrased reasonably," for a few hours or until completed- except Bluff is explicitly not a Suggestion, and even Epic Bluff is only a 10 minute Suggestion. Bluff gets you maybe one round of desired action followed by maybe 10 minutes or a day of bewilderment before they write it off.

So sure, Bluff can win every encounter that is built to allow Bluff to win. In an "intrigue" campaign where you can get by with short misdirections instead of actual deep intrigue, Glibness is auto-win, but it's not going to get canny opponents mired in long-term plots they actually believe in when they're the people who invented bluffing and know how to think twice. And just like Diplomacy, Planar Binding, copying spells, or any other slightly grey area, it only takes the tiniest bit of DM thought to find the limitations right in front of them.
Even if the encounter manages to clear the hurdle of the first lie, I've gotta think there's a lie density where they can't plausibly stop you from getting past them without harm. For example, if they say they need to do proper processing, you can tell them that the whole procedure has been eliminated. They won't necessarily act directly on your lies past one round, but there's no indication that they stop believing these lies, which means there's not really much of a reason why they'd continue to stop you after their reasons for stopping you have been stripped away. And even these canny opponents who supposedly think twice have no apparent allowance within the rules to stop believing the things you're saying. You say something, and they believe the thing you say. Such is the function of bluff. they can be invested in other truths, or your lie can be implausible, but those are explicit factors that were already going into the check.

Dunsparce

2017-03-12, 01:39 PM

I once had a player be a Savant. He really couldn't do much of anything effectively. The class is a master of none that tries to do too many things at once, and they advance abilities at a snail's pace and the only thing it can really do is any shenanigans that come with having every skill as a class skill and being able to share a limited amount of them with others. Factotum is pretty much a direct upgrade to the class, there's no reason to use Savant over it outside of a handful of niches or Factotum being barred from use, and even then you're better off with a Bard, Jester, or Rogue.

For those unaware of what a Savant even does, they're like some sort of chimera of various core class abilities. They get Trapfinding, Sneak Attack at level 3(a whopping 3d6 at level 20), Arcane spells at level 5 (1-4 spells of mostly utility spells, most of which aren't useful for combat, and at half caster level), Divine Spells at level 10(also 1-4 with half caster level, gets some better options but they come online too late), and over the course of the levels they get 3 free bonus feats(no restrictions) and the ability to assist with skills at a distance, to a max of 30 feet at level 20. It's chassis is about the same as sword sage but with bad reflex, and they can use all simple and marital weapons, light armor, and all shields sans tower shield and they don't have any defenses against AFC like bards and similar classes

Cosi

2017-03-12, 03:12 PM

IIRC the original tier thread discussed a session where a first time player was introduced as an unarmed, tied up Tiefling Factotum... who, rather than being rescued by the party as planned, proceeded to Escape Artist her way free, Alter Self into an effective combat form and shred the encounter with natural attacks and extra actions.

So, if you pick the right race, and dumpster dive the right monster, and get favorable resolution to alter self, then you can beat an encounter with some guards? That's not super great.

The factotum has acess to power building spells like command undead, shrink item, wall of stone etc I think this will let him pull out to tier 3 in most campaigns.

I think that's probably backwards. In most cases, the power of casters is that they can cast good spells in combat, not that they get downtime spells. People mostly don't get to use those, because they are broken and stupid. Even insofar as the Factotum will be allowed to use them, it's much later than you would normally get them.

-extra actions

That's not good on its own. Giving the Commoner extra actions wouldn't make it not suck.

Efrate

2017-03-12, 03:16 PM

Bard: Tier 3. Good spells, good class features, a lot of options to do a lot of things both in and out of combat. You can sort of cover for anyone in a broad sense. Utility and power and versatility in and out of combat but nothing to the level of tier 2 full casting. You have a lot a tricks, a ton of splat support, and you can always be useful no matter what.

Factotum: Tier 3. UMD + extra actions + ignoring SR is really good as is. You have a ton of use in non-combat skills, and though your best role short of IF and trip in combat is often bad warmage, its still a thing that is useful. And unlike warmage which I put in t4, you can do stuff that isn't directly related to combat. You also can sub in a role filler anywhere. You are worse in a stand in your face beat it down fight than a fighter or rogue, but you are not reliant upon fighting in that style, your kit encourages you to fight on your own terms, which is what you should always do, not try to play fighter.

Jester: Tier 3. A worse bard is still better than most of t4. More directly focused on combat than bards, with debuffing being normally limited to just combat scenarios, but still decent. It does stuff in and out of combat, and has some nice tricks. Plus cool points for being able to dress in motley and ruin enemies.

Savant: Tier 5. You are supposed to be (one of the) best at skills, but you really aren't, and all you have is skills. A bit of utility very late, but very minor. You have no function in combat, and your class is fine for an NPC but for a PC I would rather play a monk,and monk is tier 5 if not 6. I don't see you contributing meaningfully even in the situations where you are supposed to most of the time, whereas in t4 you at least do your one thing well, but you don't even really do that. Your focus is so lacking as to be palpable, and your tricks come on so late as to be pretty much completely replicated by WBL a long time ago. You are an aid another class, so you are a worse cohort/familiar a lot of the time, just nearly without the optimization potential.

bean illus

2017-03-12, 03:19 PM

Factotum: Tier 4
Your "be good at any skill" is only usable 1/day/skill. And often, usage of skills comes in clumps.

You end up MAD despite having class features trying to make you SAD.

You run out of steam very quickly without taking a web enhancement feat a bunch of times. I should note that I've met DMs that ruled the text for taking the feat multiple time was just a poorly worded way of saying the effects stack, not the accelerating growth assumed in forum optimization.

One of the most often suggested combat methods relies on a 3.0 skill from a setting-specific book and an exotic weapon from another book....

Though you are completely right about more than one thing, Facto has much more than 'once a day good at a skill'. They get +12 (or more?) on about 24? skills. Than alone is worth 288 points. They average over 200 through levels, and doesn't count Mad mods or synergies. Well over 500 points is not hard.
Add in take 10, take 20, aid another, etc, and making a skill check becomes the norm.

Knowledge Devotion? No starter for facto to max it (+5 hit/dam every time). No uses for craft alchemy in or out of combat?

Also some folks still overlooking the synergy of going first, and twice, with whatever UMD ammo your DM lets you have. Limited spells is somewhat balance in facto by that.

In a surprise round (which they of course get lots of) facto8? can go 'THREE times' before the opponent gets to go. I'm havin' a hard time seeing that there's not some way to do something.

In fact, i would say that possibly it's really up to the DM (even more than other classes) and FoI access what tier facto is in. With allowing DMs skills and umd are more powerful, with others not so much.

eggynack

2017-03-12, 03:44 PM

That's not good on its own. Giving the Commoner extra actions wouldn't make it not suck.
Yeah, this is maybe an overstated element. The way I see it, it's an ability that kinda has two modes to it. Spells and not-spells. If you're doubling up on spells, then yeah, that's probably pretty good. Not perfect encounter destruction good, but spells are impactful and two of them together can make a lot of distance, even when most of them are a level below your already reduced (compared to a wizard) max spell level. But, of course, doubling up on spells is somewhat ridiculous when you account for the factotum's low spells/day. The 8th level factotum has three spells, one third level and two second level. So, you get one encounter a day where you can do this arguably pretty powerful double spell thing, and then you have either a single second level spell or a single third level spell, and in the latter case your double spell trick wasn't all that great. This is also your entire inspiration point expenditure for the encounter. Not necessarily a huge problem, cause the spell thing was a reasonable contribution, but it's not great either.

Using spells with cunning surge, then, faces the same issues as using spells as your basic response to combat encounters. That being, of course, that you get about the spells/day of a frigging paladin, and way fewer than an adept (which also gets third level spells at this exact point in their careers). And, if you're not doubling down on spells, what are you doing? Adding a single extra attack? Getting a move+full attack (essentially strictly worse at this level)? I think we have to accept that, whatever it is you're doing here, it's likely way less good than whatever a baseline core fighter is doing without losing juice within an encounter. Which, I think we can all agree, is bad. Like, you get to use intelligence for tripping or whatever, but the fighter was already doing that but with strength. And you can boost your AC, but the fighter was doing that with armor. And you're double-attacking once each combat, but the fighter's single attack leading into possible full attacks later is probably quite a lot better on a number of levels. When we talk about extra actions being good, hitting an opponent in the face with +6/+1 and limited class feature support is not what we're talking about. I've arguably left some kinda factotum favored stuff off of this comparison, but I don't think there's much in the way of a way to make this extra standard action stab in the face all that interesting.

This doesn't mean my vote is really a changed one though. A lot of my perspective is premised on the idea that factotums are usually mediocre but occasionally competent in combat (through the fact that your limited spells/day still represent combats where you're offering meaningful contribution), but really good out of combat. And not just really good out of combat in the sense that you can win social encounters through the use of the occasional spell for that purpose alongside skill use. Really good out of combat in an in-combat sense, weirdly. This was said, but it deserves repetition. The tenth level factotum can cast animate dead. Is that amazing? No. But swap out that mediocre combat capability with a set of zombies hitting stuff, and you're arguably not doing so mediocre in combat anymore. It's really relevant, just like it's really relevant that the factotum can lesser planar bind, not just an efreeti at super high optimization, but just some normal type caster monster to lend its combat ability to your own. The factotum has a bunch of stuff like that, and I think that stuff makes you generally good enough for tier three.

Edit: Note that the casting in combat plan becomes somewhat better over the next two levels. Level nine turns that into one 3rd and three 2nd's, which means you can toss out two spells each in two encounters, with those two spells plausibly happening in the same round. Level ten, of course, makes it one 4th and three 3rd's, which really improves the quality of that barrage. Still not a consistent or great plan, but it's not nothing that it's a thing the factotum can do. We're at like half quite good encounters and half pretty mediocre encounters, or four decent encounters.

Dondasch

2017-03-12, 04:11 PM

Though you are completely right about more than one thing, Facto has much more than 'once a day good at a skill'. They get +12 (or more?) on about 24? skills. Than alone is worth 288 points. They average over 200 through levels, and doesn't count Mad mods or synergies. Well over 500 points is not hard.
Add in take 10, take 20, aid another, etc, and making a skill check becomes the norm.

How are you getting +12 or more on a reasonable build? 20 base Int (point buy+Int race), 5 from levels, 5 from Tomes, and 6 from headband puts you at +13, but that assumes you are SAD enough to afford sinking a lot of resources into Int. That costs you in other stats, or costs you even more gp trying to keep those other stats up to par (at which point UMD becomes prohibitively expensive; my thoughts on UMD are further down).
The problem with Brains over Brawn is that most of the benefits either become obsolete or require more specialized builds.
On the skills side, Balance, Climb, and Jump stop mattering once you have flight, Escape Artist is inferior Freedom of Movement, Hide and Move Silently are replaced by spells or invalidated by special senses (unless you spend at least one feat, but that takes the place of a Font), Open Lock is okay but many things can be bashed, Ride requires you to build for it most of the time, Sleight of Hand is pretty bad barring cheesy applications of the RAW (which don't even require you to make the check), Swim is most useful in aquatic campaigns (where the party will probably invest in appropriate spells/magic items), Tumble has a fixed DC 15 for the important use (or 40 for the OA 10ft step, but see Iaijutsu Focus), and Use Rope is laughable.
Initiative is good, but other ability checks tend to be fairly rare.
Combat maneuvers are generally bad unless you build for them. Tripping is probably the best for the Factotum, but it still takes feat investment to get mileage out of it.

Knowledge Devotion? No starter for facto to max it (+5 hit/dam every time). No uses for craft alchemy in or out of combat?

If you're getting max Knowledge devotion, that's investing in up to 6 skills. Good ones, but that eats a decent chunk of the skill points you could have invested in other things.
While I am an advocate of Craft (Alchemy), getting stuff worth using generally requires lots of splatbook options, and those options can also cross into the territory of likely being banned (Dust Eggshell Grenade, Tarmak Warpaint. And I'm not a fan of having to burn gp to do things in combat. Shapesand is probably the best noncombat option, but it's reusable, so getting it cheaper isn't a huge deal.

Also some folks still overlooking the synergy of going first, and twice, with whatever UMD ammo your DM lets you have. Limited spells is somewhat balance in facto by that.

In a surprise round (which they of course get lots of) facto8? can go 'THREE times' before the opponent gets to go. I'm havin' a hard time seeing that there's not some way to do something.

In fact, i would say that possibly it's really up to the DM (even more than other classes) what tier facto is in. With allowing DMs skills and umd are more powerful, with others not so much.

As you said, DM permissiveness is important here. But UMD doesn't impress me enough for Tier 3. As I've said, you're burning gp to be useful, and extra actions just eat through your WBL that much faster. Plus, UMD is available to many classes if they want to sink the points. the Factotum might be better than most, but UMD isn't a huge advantage over other classes. You can also "cast spells" with those extra actions, but you get at most 8/day, so doublecasting once burns through 25% of your spells at level 20, more at lower levels.

Also, does anyone else think we're getting a case of Schrodinger's Factotum? It can supposedly be good at a lot of things if you invest in them, but how much can one specific Factotum be good at?

eggynack

2017-03-12, 04:25 PM

Also, does anyone else think we're getting a case of Schrodinger's Factotum? It can supposedly be good at a lot of things if you invest in them, but how much can one specific Factotum be good at?
Not sure about the other arguments, but mine have been pretty consistent with a single factotum. Single combat load out of spells, tailored to meet the situation if the possibility of that exists, and then you have this wide variety of out of combat support and power building things that are all accessible to any factotum regardless of build. I think you get a lot of out of combat utility from this stuff, alongside a set of out of combat tricks, increasing in quantity and quality alike at moderate to high levels, which serve to increase in combat power. It's a nice setup.

Dunsparce

2017-03-12, 05:24 PM

Savant: Tier 5. You are supposed to be (one of the) best at skills, but you really aren't, and all you have is skills. A bit of utility very late, but very minor. You have no function in combat, and your class is fine for an NPC but for a PC I would rather play a monk,and monk is tier 5 if not 6. I don't see you contributing meaningfully even in the situations where you are supposed to most of the time, whereas in t4 you at least do your one thing well, but you don't even really do that. Your focus is so lacking as to be palpable, and your tricks come on so late as to be pretty much completely replicated by WBL a long time ago. You are an aid another class, so you are a worse cohort/familiar a lot of the time, just nearly without the optimization potential.

I find it surprising that more people know about the Jester than the Savant apparently, even though they were introduced in the same book(Though to be fair Jester was an AD&D class as well). Savant is the perfect example of how NOT to make a jack-of-all-trades class, they have very little to give to a team in most situations compared to the other 3 classes being ranked here, I'd have to agree Tier 5 is very appropriate for this, because it's it true is quite bad.

Kudos to anyone that can figure out any sort of optimization for this 20 level mess without extensive homebrew/house rules.

eggynack

2017-03-12, 05:35 PM

I find it surprising that more people know about the Jester than the Savant apparently, even though they were introduced in the same book(Though to be fair Jester was an AD&D class as well).
I just find the jester easier to quickly parse, especially after Troacctid gave that breakdown of spells kept, gained, and lost. I just had to say, "yep, this spells known list, combined with a decent amount of other stuff, is sufficient to get this class to tier three." I consider bard pretty high in tier three, so I can eyeball jester as low tier three. Savant, I'm less sure on. It has a bunch of different stuff going on, including that always difficult to evaluate all the skills list (weighing the obscure and semi-obscure stuff like iajatsu focus and autohypnosis, along with high optimization stuff like UMD). They're probably tier four or five, and I'd guess four offhand, but I'm not sure. Which is another problem. We're in a lower power strata here, the four/five gap, where smaller power differences can represent a shift. Jester, I feel like I can evaluate it in a broad sense and figure it ranges from low tier three to a bit below moderate tier three, without much tier four space at all. Savant is on the line, and I don't think jester is, and that means that my lack of depthy knowledge about the class is more of a problem.

Rhyltran

2017-03-12, 05:40 PM

I find it surprising that more people know about the Jester than the Savant apparently, even though they were introduced in the same book(Though to be fair Jester was an AD&D class as well). Savant is the perfect example of how NOT to make a jack-of-all-trades class, they have very little to give to a team in most situations compared to the other 3 classes being ranked here, I'd have to agree Tier 5 is very appropriate for this, because it's it true is quite bad.

Kudos to anyone that can figure out any sort of optimization for this 20 level mess without extensive homebrew/house rules.

I can't speak for everyone but the reason why I know Jester and not Savant is simply because when I claim I don't know a class it isn't because I don't have the book (my list of books are vast) but because I only review classes that I've either played or seen in play. I've never seen anyone play a Savant for instance in any of my groups and I've never played one myself so in my analysis I didn't list my thoughts on the class.

Beheld

2017-03-12, 06:14 PM

Bard, maybe? Really depends on the game. This notion of level appropriateness doesn't actually strike me as all that useful. Suffice to say that the wizard, with those spells among others, is better than nearly every other class in the entire game. That they also happen to be better than bards strikes me as irrelevant.

The notion of level appropriateness strikes me as literally the only useful metric that could possibly exist. There are a whole bunch of encounters you are defined to be able to contribute equally to, if you can't in fact, do that, then you are bad and you need to be thrown away and replaced with a real character. If you sometimes can and sometimes have to contribute less because this isn't your thing, then you are a fair contribution to a party.

Being able to cast Obscuring Mist at level 1 is fundamentally a different kind of thing than being able to cast Obscuring Mist at level 12.

A level one character of significantly higher tier, even under my reading. And you're nowhere close to replicating 7/8's of the character. You're copying only the first level casting, but not the second level casting, or the general chassis, or the skill use, or the bardic music.

To repeat again: I'm talking about how bad bard casting is. Bard casting. Still. You are replicating 7/8ths of a level 4 bard casting with a level 1 character because 7/8ths of it is "I'm a level 4 character casting silent image because that's the only thing I have that isn't completely terrible against EL 4 encounters." The "2nd level casting" is Glitterdust once a day. or you know, at best 1/8th of the casting contribution of the bard.

That's not how anything works. Some situations call for silent image, some call for not silent image. If every situation had silent image as the one and only best solution, then no one would cast things that aren't silent image, at least not with first level spells.

Silent Image is the first level spell that you might know as a bard that actually provides any use at all. You get to know 3 spells, they are Silent Image, because it's the one that actually does things in combat, probably something useless like Sleep that you took 2 levels ago when it was your once a day vaguely competent spellcasting attack, and then a utility spell you pick because in theory it might be really good, but then you never cast.

Glibness lasts for ten minutes/level, first of all. You can paper over lies with more lies when necessary. And you did, in fact, beat a single encounter, all on your own, in a single round, in a way that can be broadly modified to specific circumstances, and then you can further apply that elsewhere. We're spontaneously transforming a foe that was set to kill the bard and their party into someone who is, at least temporarily, allied with the party. It doesn't matter what kind of boss they have either, cause they believe the lie even if the underlying structure of it is nonsensical, because that's what bluff explicitly does. On kingmaking, circumstances dictate what specific lies you can use to manipulate things in your direction. You can make the king and their subjects believe just about anything about the king, the kingdom, yourself, or anything, really. Is it a perfect one way ticket to king-town? Not necessarily, but it's a solid and workable plan that can likely get you some lesser things even if you don't get the grand prize. Hell, you can even convince people that you are straight up the actual king, and that the king currently ruling stuff is a villain in disguise. You could probably even convince the king of that, if that'd help.

I'm not sure when you got the impression that solving the majority of encounters, combat and non-combat alike, without much in the way of plausible defenses, with a single third level spell, that lasts over an hour, is weak. Is this what we ask of third level spells? Does stinking cloud suck because it can "only" debilitate a large quantity of enemies, instead of doing that and also allowing you to take over an entire kingdom trivially? And haste "only" makes your party more capable of combat in a number of ways. Completely fails at any kind of information gathering or ally earning. Sometimes it doesn't even completely eradicate the encounter. What a crappy spell that is. Are you seriously asserting that glibness sucks because it "only" does that stuff to the wide variety of enemies that share your language, even though bards are really good at languages?

...

Even if the encounter manages to clear the hurdle of the first lie, I've gotta think there's a lie density where they can't plausibly stop you from getting past them without harm. For example, if they say they need to do proper processing, you can tell them that the whole procedure has been eliminated. They won't necessarily act directly on your lies past one round, but there's no indication that they stop believing these lies, which means there's not really much of a reason why they'd continue to stop you after their reasons for stopping you have been stripped away. And even these canny opponents who supposedly think twice have no apparent allowance within the rules to stop believing the things you're saying. You say something, and they believe the thing you say. Such is the function of bluff. they can be invested in other truths, or your lie can be implausible, but those are explicit factors that were already going into the check.

1) The rule actually says "The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider." which means there are in fact things too incredible to consider, so you can't actually convince the king that he's an impostor.

2) You are just deciding that they will act in completely implausible ways to make your bluff work. Watch:
Bard: I'm actually the king.
King: Guards Kill Him.
Bard: Actually Guards, I'm the King.
Guards: *Stab the Bard to Death*

Why? Because people don't care about you being the king, they care about doing what they are supposed to do, which isn't give you the kingdom.

3) When you bluff someone they definitely don't believe it forever, they believe it until they get new information, which can be as short as one round or even shorter. And this is so obviously the case that your entire argument amounts to relying on that assumption, since otherwise, everyone will just have a designated friend bluff them to believe everything they want to believe, and then when you contradict their friend, sorry, permanent bluff duration, so you can't do anything.

Since new information instantly negates your bluff checks, your ability to say "I'm the King" gets you zero kingdoms, since it is instantly met by the King (who doesn't believe you, or doesn't even care if you are telling the truth, depending on which lie you are using) says "well if you really are the king than X" and then all the guards are like "oh ****, new information, now we don't believe the thing you said any more."

4) You are basically arguing that you can take over a kingdom by teleporting into the king's house and murdering him after scrying on him, and then pretending that the King can't have Mindblank or Screen cast. If you live in a world where Bluff is magic mind control, then people are going to respond to that appropriately, to whit: There will probably be a deaf guy who responds to a signal and casts detect magic, and then gives you a thumbs down, or he just pulls out a scroll and reads "King so and so is the rightful king and has not been replaced by a doppleganger, if you have any further questions, stab the person telling you otherwise in the chest because they are lying to you with mind control powers."

5) As Fizban has pointed out, very often the result of a "successful" bluff is identical to what it would be otherwise, or is a demand for proof.

"I'm your boss in disguise" results in "Well then you will know the password, and will be made that I didn't kill you for not knowing the password" followed by "the password is X" followed by "No it isn't" followed by "You must be mistaken about what the password is" followed by "Hey Jim, is that the password?" "Nope" followed by "I have decided that the past events make you less than believable, possibly so much so that literally everything you say is too incredible to consider."

You haven't really given much in the way of argument for why these spells don't contribute to the solution of level appropriate encounters. You just keep pointing out that higher tier casters get better casting and get it faster. Which, sure, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to tell us.

Your argument is that level 1 Wizards are totally level 4 characters who contribute to level 4 encounters. That's not so great an argument that I feel it needs much addressing.

Alternatively, your argument is "I'm going to ignore what you are talking about, and talk about something else instead." because you think Bards are meaningful for non casting reasons, in which case have fun?

Yes. [Fighter is level appropriate]

My books and books worth of defined encounters indicate that is not at all true.

Factotum: My vote is Tier 2 here. This may not be the popular opinion but between Iaijutsu shenanigans, alter self, polymorph, extra actions, charm person, dominate person, planar binding spells, animate dead, some of the most useful skill list, and as mentioned can ignore SR. You're talking about someone who can potentially be a one man party here. Also in this list I only touched the tip of the iceburg. We also have their very useful wide range of class features battlefield control in the way of grease, glitterdust, dimensional door, and so on.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............

Thank god I didn't see this until a bunch of other people posted, or I'd despair.

Rhyltran

2017-03-12, 06:57 PM

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ............

Thank god I didn't see this until a bunch of other people posted, or I'd despair.

Honestly I don't know what I was thinking when posting Tier 2. I'm going to change it to Tier 3. In my defense I rate any class that has active to Planar Binding pretty high due to that spell alone. The things that can be done via planar binding is pretty nuts. However, most DM's are going to put a lid on what it's capable of and that alone I am aware should not push a class into tier 2 territory.

Lans

2017-03-12, 07:45 PM

So, if you pick the right race, and dumpster dive the right monster, and get favorable resolution to alter self, then you can beat an encounter with some guards? That's not super great. If it can get his damage to a reasonable level with natural attacks and jacked AC, and his bardic music over the course of the adventuring day then it might be a reasonable contribution.

Edit I think most races you could choose from have good options to alter self to

I think that's probably backwards. In most cases, the power of casters is that they can cast good spells in combat, not that they get downtime spells. People mostly don't get to use those, because they are broken and stupid. Even insofar as the Factotum will be allowed to use them, it's much later than you would normally get them.

Even if the factotum is getting them late, if they work, they work. It can get command undead at level 5, with a bit of luck he can start something there. I would only rule against actual game smashing things like chain binding

Savant: Tier 5. You are supposed to be (one of the) best at skills, but you really aren't, and all you have is skills. A bit of utility very late, but very minor. You have no function in combat, and your class is fine for an NPC but for a PC I would rather play a monk,and monk is tier 5 if not 6. I don't see you contributing meaningfully even in the situations where you are supposed to most of the time, whereas in t4 you at least do your one thing well, but you don't even really do that. Your focus is so lacking as to be palpable, and your tricks come on so late as to be pretty much completely replicated by WBL a long time ago. You are an aid another class, so you are a worse cohort/familiar a lot of the time, just nearly without the optimization potential.

It can emulate a weak rogue with its bonus feats, grabbing craven, the sneak attack stance, and perfect TWF.

The notion of level appropriateness strikes me as literally the only useful metric that could possibly exist. There are a whole bunch of encounters you are defined to be able to contribute equally to, if you can't in fact, do that, then you are bad and you need to be thrown away and replaced with a real character. If you sometimes can and sometimes have to contribute less because this isn't your thing, then you are a fair contribution to a party.

I agree with this sentiment, its the reason why I think incarnates are tier 4. However, I think you are going about it the wrong way. It doesn't matter if a 1st level character could do what you can do at level 12 if the trick still works. Which is how I feel about the bardic casting. It can work vs mindless creatures, and some other ones. Generally it would just be creatures with low saves and that might be enough.

Silent Image is the first level spell that you might know as a bard that actually provides any use at all. You get to know 3 spells, they are Silent Image, because it's the one that actually does things in combat, probably something useless like Sleep that you took 2 levels ago when it was your once a day vaguely competent spellcasting attack, and then a utility spell you pick because in theory it might be really good, but then you never cast.

Their is at least one other spell in core, that being grease a spell that can shut down CR 10 fire giants at level 1

bean illus

2017-03-12, 08:07 PM

How are you getting +12 or more on a reasonable build? 20 base Int (point buy+Int race), 5 from levels, 5 from Tomes, and 6 from headband puts you at +13, but that assumes you are SAD enough to afford sinking a lot of resources into Int. That costs you in other stats, or costs you even more gp trying to keep those other stats up to par (at which point UMD becomes prohibitively expensive; my thoughts on UMD are further down).
The problem with Brains over Brawn is that most of the benefits either become obsolete or require more specialized builds.
On the skills side, Balance, Climb, and Jump stop mattering once you have flight, Escape Artist is inferior Freedom of Movement, Hide and Move Silently are replaced by spells or invalidated by special senses (unless you spend at least one feat, but that takes the place of a Font), Open Lock is okay but many things can be bashed, Ride requires you to build for it most of the time, Sleight of Hand is pretty bad barring cheesy applications of the RAW (which don't even require you to make the check), Swim is most useful in aquatic campaigns (where the party will probably invest in appropriate spells/magic items), Tumble has a fixed DC 15 for the important use (or 40 for the OA 10ft step, but see Iaijutsu Focus), and Use Rope is laughable.
Initiative is good, but other ability checks tend to be fairly rare.
Combat maneuvers are generally bad unless you build for them. Tripping is probably the best for the Factotum, but it still takes feat investment to get mileage out of it.

If you're getting max Knowledge devotion, that's investing in up to 6 skills. Good ones, but that eats a decent chunk of the skill points you could have invested in other things.
While I am an advocate of Craft (Alchemy), getting stuff worth using generally requires lots of splatbook options, and those options can also cross into the territory of likely being banned (Dust Eggshell Grenade, Tarmak Warpaint. And I'm not a fan of having to burn gp to do things in combat. Shapesand is probably the best noncombat option, but it's reusable, so getting it cheaper isn't a huge deal.

As you said, DM permissiveness is important here. But UMD doesn't impress me enough for Tier 3. As I've said, you're burning gp to be useful, and extra actions just eat through your WBL that much faster. Plus, UMD is available to many classes if they want to sink the points. the Factotum might be better than most, but UMD isn't a huge advantage over other classes. You can also "cast spells" with those extra actions, but you get at most 8/day, so doublecasting once burns through 25% of your spells at level 20, more at lower levels.

Also, does anyone else think we're getting a case of Schrodinger's Factotum? It can supposedly be good at a lot of things if you invest in them, but how much can one specific Factotum be good at?

As i said, your right about more than one thing. I just think it's enough for Tier 3 (and i almost stopped and checked my math before i posted. +10/11 is easier) My basic premise is use SLA for 'two' encounters, UMD for 'one', and something else for the last. Facto doesn't have to be most important in all four encounters.
But as i said, i usually think of it as a dip, and as we agree? DM style is important here.

When i think Tier 4, i think of someone who has nothing helpful to do several times a day. Facto is sorta a team player there, but should find something to do almost always.

Beheld

2017-03-12, 08:27 PM

Their is at least one other spell in core, that being grease a spell that can shut down CR 10 fire giants at level 1

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#move

Crawling
You can crawl 5 feet as a move action. Crawling incurs attacks of opportunity from any attackers who threaten you at any point of your crawl.

Even if we presume the Fire Giant always fails his save, you take away 1.5 rounds of his actions for your standard action and spell cast. It's certainly not worthless, but it's hardly shutting them down.

Lans

2017-03-12, 09:19 PM

Good point, so the best bard spell selection for first level spells Silent Image, Grease, Hideous Laughter, Alarm. Lets him punish heavily armored enemies, and attack 2 saves for an ok effect, and to provide a safer camp out

eggynack

2017-03-12, 09:37 PM

The notion of level appropriateness strikes me as literally the only useful metric that could possibly exist. There are a whole bunch of encounters you are defined to be able to contribute equally to, if you can't in fact, do that, then you are bad and you need to be thrown away and replaced with a real character. If you sometimes can and sometimes have to contribute less because this isn't your thing, then you are a fair contribution to a party.

Being able to cast Obscuring Mist at level 1 is fundamentally a different kind of thing than being able to cast Obscuring Mist at level 12.
But, as I noted elsewhere in my post, you didn't really have a good argument for lack of contribution from these spells. If we're asking whether this is level appropriate, it doesn't matter whether the spells can be gained by other classes at level one or level ten. All that matters is whether the ability itself is good.

To repeat again: I'm talking about how bad bard casting is. Bard casting. Still. You are replicating 7/8ths of a level 4 bard casting with a level 1 character because 7/8ths of it is "I'm a level 4 character casting silent image because that's the only thing I have that isn't completely terrible against EL 4 encounters." The "2nd level casting" is Glitterdust once a day. or you know, at best 1/8th of the casting contribution of the bard.

The second level spell is not 1/8th of the bard's casting contribution. If you don't include cantrips and assume second level spells hold equal value to firsts (why would you?), it's 1/4 of your spells/day, 2/5's of your spells known (not saying it's a great metric, just that it's a valid one that you could theoretically use that also doesn't lead to 1/8). Under the evaluation metric that's worst for the bard, where you count cantrips and evaluate all these spells as equal utility for some ungodly reason, you still get 1/7, or 2/11's by the weird spells known metric. It's never 1/8, as far as I can tell, and any reasonable analysis would find that you're replicating significantly less than the 1/4 I proposed, if you include the fact that glitterdust is presumably more valuable than 1st's to some meaningful degree.

More importantly, who cares? What does another class' ability to contribute have anything to do with the bard's ability to contribute? Your claimed metric is level appropriateness. This means that another class could get every single thing a bard provides at first level, and the bard could still do well along your claimed metric, because they still do monster defeating stuff. If we're doing class to class comparisons, again, it's gotta be something of a comparable tier.

Silent Image is the first level spell that you might know as a bard that actually provides any use at all. You get to know 3 spells, they are Silent Image, because it's the one that actually does things in combat, probably something useless like Sleep that you took 2 levels ago when it was your once a day vaguely competent spellcasting attack, and then a utility spell you pick because in theory it might be really good, but then you never cast.
Why are we assuming the third first level spell is in any fashion useless? Grease is pretty useful, and scales up well. Also could be running the classic inspirational boost if we're running non-core. Maybe charm person. Non-combat and combat applications alike on that one. Its type restriction isn't the best, but your other spells can do things to non-humanoids.

1) The rule actually says "The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider." which means there are in fact things too incredible to consider, so you can't actually convince the king that he's an impostor.
As long as something is in the theoretical realm of possibility, it's not too incredible to consider. Besides which, bluff doesn't say anywhere that things that are too incredible to consider are automatically incapable of working.

2) You are just deciding that they will act in completely implausible ways to make your bluff work. Watch:
Bard: I'm actually the king.
King: Guards Kill Him.
Bard: Actually Guards, I'm the King.
Guards: *Stab the Bard to Death*

Why? Because people don't care about you being the king, they care about doing what they are supposed to do, which isn't give you the kingdom.
Dunno why you assume the bard is just running up at complete random and just saying they're the king. The cool thing about crazy bluffs is that they can adapt to various situations.

3) When you bluff someone they definitely don't believe it forever, they believe it until they get new information, which can be as short as one round or even shorter. And this is so obviously the case that your entire argument amounts to relying on that assumption, since otherwise, everyone will just have a designated friend bluff them to believe everything they want to believe, and then when you contradict their friend, sorry, permanent bluff duration, so you can't do anything.

Since new information instantly negates your bluff checks, your ability to say "I'm the King" gets you zero kingdoms, since it is instantly met by the King (who doesn't believe you, or doesn't even care if you are telling the truth, depending on which lie you are using) says "well if you really are the king than X" and then all the guards are like "oh ****, new information, now we don't believe the thing you said any more."
You haven't really cited any new information in these cases. The king didn't present any information in their defense, in the example. They just kinda said you were wrong. And new information could just be met with an instant, "Nah, that information is false for whatever reason."

4) You are basically arguing that you can take over a kingdom by teleporting into the king's house and murdering him after scrying on him, and then pretending that the King can't have Mindblank or Screen cast. If you live in a world where Bluff is magic mind control, then people are going to respond to that appropriately, to whit: There will probably be a deaf guy who responds to a signal and casts detect magic, and then gives you a thumbs down, or he just pulls out a scroll and reads "King so and so is the rightful king and has not been replaced by a doppleganger, if you have any further questions, stab the person telling you otherwise in the chest because they are lying to you with mind control powers."
Eh, there might be defenses, but you don't necessarily have to go into a crazy defended kingdom. A deaf detect magic guy is such a weirdly specific defense too. Is that really expected to show up frequently? This isn't a perfect attack plan, in any case. If it were, jeez, this would be way way way better than a third level spell, as opposed to the just somewhat overleveled nature you're asserting. And I'm not even sure your assertion is correct. You could always make them doubt the veracity of the deaf guy.

5) As Fizban has pointed out, very often the result of a "successful" bluff is identical to what it would be otherwise, or is a demand for proof.

"I'm your boss in disguise" results in "Well then you will know the password, and will be made that I didn't kill you for not knowing the password" followed by "the password is X" followed by "No it isn't" followed by "You must be mistaken about what the password is" followed by "Hey Jim, is that the password?" "Nope" followed by "I have decided that the past events make you less than believable, possibly so much so that literally everything you say is too incredible to consider."
Again, you can just paper over holes in your lies with more lies. If they demand a password, you can just bluff them further into thinking that the password is non-existent in some fashion. Defenses could theoretically proceed for a few layers, but 10 minutes/level is a lot of time to dig through them, and there are few things that can't be eliminated with a sufficiently audacious lie. I'm not even sure why they would ask for a password though. They believe completely that you're the boss.

Your argument is that level 1 Wizards are totally level 4 characters who contribute to level 4 encounters. That's not so great an argument that I feel it needs much addressing.
First level wizards aren't great in fourth level situations, but their spells don't tend to lose their applicability much as you level. They tend to just kinda do the same things they always did. Greater levels increase the scale and potency, or offer completely new tricks, but they don't suddenly invalidate the old. A first level wizard, using abrupt jaunt, has always been my first suggestion when a game weirdly demands that a character come in at first level to a high level party. Because tenth level fighters still like a friendly enlarge person, and, in the case of the bard, tenth level rogues still like someone casting grease. The bard loses the abrupt jaunt, which is one of the reasons the early wizard kinda adds up, but they get normal bardic chassis to make up for it.

Alternatively, your argument is "I'm going to ignore what you are talking about, and talk about something else instead." because you think Bards are meaningful for non casting reasons, in which case have fun?

You're kinda talking about two completely opposed notions. You're setting as your header that bards don't do level appropriate stuff, and then using a complete non sequitur, that first level wizards/sorcerers can replicate the first level spells of a fourth level bard, to prove that. If your notion of level appropriateness is derived from encounter destruction, then any such claim must be backed with some way in which these things can't help with encounters. If it's derived from comparative classes, then we should rightly be comparing the bard to other tier three classes, as well as some tier fours. Comparing to wizards makes more or less zero sense.

Anyway, my position in a general sense is that, at least in a core environment, your prime utility at this level is spells. It's a critical element of how you deal with things, and without them I would certainly be tiering the class lower. Where the other class features and stuff come into play is where the limits of spells come into play. Bard spells are good when they last, in my opinion, but they don't last forever, and access to these class features increases your general endurance and breadth of encounter solution in a way that transcends this posited low level wizard. The main disadvantage of the low level wizard is not that their spells are unimpactful, but that they lack endurance and, in core, survivability. Bards make up for those disadvantages somewhat with things that are not spells, so it's important to bring non-spells into the discussion when these limits come up. It's important that bards have a weird mass buffing effect when they're down to cantrips, or that they can use normal diplomacy when glibness runs out. They're not the core engagement of the class, but they're far from nothing.

Bucky

2017-03-12, 10:39 PM

For those pushing the "Bluff is not Suggestion" criticism of Bards with Glibness, please recall that Bards get Suggestion also, and it doesn't even cost a spell slot.

Efrate

2017-03-12, 11:24 PM

It can emulate a weak rogue with its bonus feats, grabbing craven, the sneak attack stance, and perfect TWF.

Spending nearly all your resources to make you into a poor rogue doesn't make you equal to a rogue, so I think this clearly puts you into t5 category. You still end up with fewer skills and skill points, and your SA lags behind, assassin's stance gets you up to 4d6 which is a 7th level rogue, who can just take craven. Not to mention to use those feats you need to be level 12, which is a nice chunk of your career done. The rogue could have all that, and a skill list that is better, and more SA dice, and will continue to scale SA, compared to you getting all of +1d6 more as of level 15. I think that is pretty clearly in t5.

Lans

2017-03-12, 11:36 PM

Spending nearly all your resources to make you into a poor rogue doesn't make you equal to a rogue, so I think this clearly puts you into t5 category. You still end up with fewer skills and skill points, and your SA lags behind, assassin's stance gets you up to 4d6 which is a 7th level rogue, who can just take craven. Not to mention to use those feats you need to be level 12, which is a nice chunk of your career done. The rogue could have all that, and a skill list that is better, and more SA dice, and will continue to scale SA, compared to you getting all of +1d6 more as of level 15. I think that is pretty clearly in t5.

I was more arguing against the monk comparison, which is why I used the words weak in my description of what I was doing. So basically I think its comparable to the ninja.

Fizban

2017-03-13, 12:18 AM

For those pushing the "Bluff is not Suggestion" criticism of Bards with Glibness, please recall that Bards get Suggestion also, and it doesn't even cost a spell slot.
Fascinate->Suggestion requires you to Fascinate first. Fascinate requires you to be out of combat, has a strict limit on number of targets and duration, and calls attention to itself as a musical performance. The Suggestion effect is further limited to a single target.

My books and books worth of defined encounters indicate that is not at all true.
I thought the whole point of CR being broken was that the books and books worth of encounters were too easy for people with the wizard's "level appropriate" abilities. Which would make them not level appropriate. You can only have one standard, and if you're setting your standard at the most overpowered wizard spells then it's your own fault that nothing matches up. Which was all the point I was trying to make with my jab.

As long as something is in the theoretical realm of possibility, it's not too incredible to consider.
Spoken as someone born after the enlightement who has been raised specifically to keep an open mind, except with a curious disregard for anything other than what this random person is telling them. You want to talk "possibility?" Which is more possible, that this rando is actually my boss and everything I've been told was a lie and I should actually drop what I'm doing and follow his orders? Or that they are not in fact my boss, because that would be stupid and I'm smarter than that? You want smart open minded people, they'll think twice. You want dumb single thinking people, they won't be open minded. Either has a threshold beyond which your bluff means nothing.

Besides which, bluff doesn't say anywhere that things that are too incredible to consider are automatically incapable of working.
So your reading of "almost too incredible to consider" is "actually just anything." Congratulations, your ultra-liberal interpretation of the rules lets people get away with whatever you let them get away with. Any DM that doesn't want Bluff to do everything simply has to read the line and not do that, because there is no modifier listed for "let the player rewrite this NPC."

Again, you can just paper over holes in your lies with more lies.
Never seen a story about what happens to people when they can't stop lying have you?

If they demand a password, you can just bluff them further into thinking that the password is non-existent in some fashion. Defenses could theoretically proceed for a few layers, but 10 minutes/level is a lot of time to dig through them, and there are few things that can't be eliminated with a sufficiently audacious lie.
Out one side of the mouth, NPCs react according to a program you can exploit, out the other, they invent new programming to match whatever you've Bluffed. Switch it around and hey look, it doesn't matter what your Bluff is because their programming says to ignore it without evidence you can't provide (which is literally the whole point of passwords, seals/signets, chains of command. . . ) and they can remember n+1 reasons to ignore your claims that their entire life is a lie.

But we can go further:

A Bluff check made as part of general interaction always takes at least 1 round (and is at least a full-round action), but it can take much longer if you try something elaborate.
So you have an elaborate series of lies that will supposedly guarantee this person does exactly what you want? It's still one check. The skill is not some command line editor that lets you reprogram an NPC one line at a time by spamming bluff, it's a single roll to try and get them to do something which is adjudicated by the DM. And the more bs you try to stack on there, the more obvious it is that your concoction is no longer "almost too incredible" and has become "completely incredible."

Seriously, your whole argument is "well it doesn't define what's impossible to believe so everything is believable." No, it's not, that's up to the DM to decide. That's the same crap as "well there's no official limit on what sources I can use so I can use whatever I want and you can't stop me." Players don't get to do that. The same crap as "well planar binding doesn't define reasonable so I don't actually have to offer anything and it serves me perfectly because the internet said so." Players don't decide that.

Bluff and therefore Glibness are entirely dependent on the DM, and a DM that lets any single game element crush the game so severely isn't doing their job. Glibness is not overpowered because RAW, it's overpowered because assuming a bad lazy DM.

Ties in to the question of torture/intimidation, which we had a thread on a little while ago. As I said there, some people take the stance that just capturing someone should automatically make them spill their guts, while others say that any NPC of sufficient importance is fanatical enough they can't be intimidated regardless of skill. Bluff just happens to have a spell that gives lol bonus which makes people push really hard for the idea that this particular skill check shouldn't involve DM adjudication.

Granted, I've only been skimming the thread so I don't know why Glibness is supposedly so important now, but I'll show up to stamp it out regardless. I think Beheld was saying Bard is bad because it's not a Wizard or something and eggy says Glibness is hueg? Eh. I don't have anything novel to say to people rating Facto higher than I am, it's obvious they're using higher op levels and higher character levels which no amount of arguing will convince them aren't actually representative.

eggynack

2017-03-13, 12:48 AM

Spoken as someone born after the enlightement who has been raised specifically to keep an open mind, except with a curious disregard for anything other than what this random person is telling them. You want to talk "possibility?" Which is more possible, that this rando is actually my boss and everything I've been told was a lie and I should actually drop what I'm doing and follow his orders? Or that they are not in fact my boss, because that would be stupid and I'm smarter than that? You want smart open minded people, they'll think twice. You want dumb single thinking people, they won't be open minded. Either has a threshold beyond which your bluff means nothing.
It doesn't matter what's more possible. If this bluff were equally as possible as the actual truth, then we wouldn't even be in this highest tier of bluff. In that case, it wouldn't even be hard to believe, and would probably get a really low increase to the DC. This is incredibly hard to believe. The only criteria that's been posed as disqualifying a bluff is that it be impossible to believe. More than that, that it be too incredible to consider.

So your reading of "almost too incredible to consider" is "actually just anything." Congratulations, your ultra-liberal interpretation of the rules lets people get away with whatever you let them get away with. Any DM that doesn't want Bluff to do everything simply has to read the line and not do that, because there is no modifier listed for "let the player rewrite this NPC."
It's not my fault that, "Almost too incredible to consider," covers the vast majority of bluffs that you'd make. I mean, geez, the thing I'm arguing against is, "Describe you using Bluff to accomplish anything that I would care about for a 7th level character, and I'll describe why that thing isn't that meaningful." And then I pointed out that it's a spell that, for over an hour, basically just lets you bypass encounters entirely, on top of social uses that are incredibly broad, which is a high end use for it. But even lesser uses are useful. Glibness needs so little to fall in its wheelhouse to be useful to a 7th level character. Or a higher level character.

Never seen a story about what happens to people when they can't stop lying have you?
I meant in the immediate sense, not long term.

Out one side of the mouth, NPCs react according to a program you can exploit, out the other, they invent new programming to match whatever you've Bluffed. Switch it around and hey look, it doesn't matter what your Bluff is because their programming says to ignore it without evidence you can't provide (which is literally the whole point of passwords, seals/signets, chains of command. . . ) and they can remember n+1 reasons to ignore your claims that their entire life is a lie.

The problem is that you're suggesting that this stuff would allow the NPC to not believe you. It wouldn't. The NPC believes your lie because that's what bluff does. You don't need evidence, because they believe you when you say the evidence isn't required for some reason.

Granted, I've only been skimming the thread so I don't know why Glibness is supposedly so important now, but I'll show up to stamp it out regardless. I think Beheld was saying Bard is bad because it's not a Wizard or something and eggy says Glibness is hueg?
I think you're stamping out the wrong side of things in this case (well, I would, cause I'm me, but still). My initial claim wasn't strictly that glibness is huge, as it were. Just that it's, y'know, good. Here is the side you're adopting, verbatim: "Glibness is ass flavored ass that people only think is great because they forgot what bluff actually does." My claim, my essential claim, is that glibness is good. In point of fact, it's that glibness is good enough to provide at least level appropriate capabilities to a seventh level party. I was asked to provide some arbitrary bluffs, so I did. Maybe they're too powerful, but if they are, jeez, just pick a frigging use for yourself that's level appropriate and slot it in to whatever it is I've already said, such that you may convince yourself that a bard using glibness, and another 3rd level spell for other situations, actually, is "level appropriate".

I think I'ma skip the rest of your post, the above parts tying to DM permissiveness and bluff reading, because I suspect it's not as important in this context that I've presented. I know for a fact that you agree with the ultimate conclusion of my position, that bards are sufficiently "level appropriate" to slot cleanly into tier three, whether it's by way of glibness or something else. Beheld seems to hold the opposing position to that, that glibness, more than not being good enough to conquer a kingdom, is also not good enough to make a serious contribution to a tier three party of seventh level. The bard not in tier three argument isn't strictly on a glibness basis, naturally. I wouldn't be so bold as to condense Beheld's bard argument to this one spell. But glibness is a factor that gives the bard a significant amount of power in this level range, and it is in that way that it is important to discussion.

I mean, jeez, if I were assuming that glibness is just uniformly destroying kingdoms and encounters in standard campaigns, with practically no defense, starting at seventh level and continuing onward for the rest of the game, I might well be arguing tier two right now. Cause that's an amazing power.

Fizban

2017-03-13, 01:21 AM

for over an hour, basically just lets you bypass encounters entirely,
This is the only part that's what I'd call objectively wrong.

I meant in the immediate sense, not long term.
It stops being immediate the moment you try to cover one lie with another lie, because now they're comparing the two lies.

You don't need evidence, because they believe you when you say the evidence isn't required for some reason.
Unless the DM disagrees with your assertion that the lie is in fact still possible to believe and rules that there's simply no way the NPC is going to believe it, that it is "too incredible to consider," which they are perfectly within their rights to do without breaking anything in the skill description. And you've not addressed the fact that a series of bluffs should pretty clearly count as a single elaborate bluff, making them a single check that is whole magnitudes less believable.

Here is the side you're adopting, verbatim: "Glibness is ass flavored ass that people only think is great because they forgot what bluff actually does."
Stretching a bit there mate, shouldn't have used the word "verbatim" because I never actually said Glibness was bad, just that it's overpowered due to lax DMing (with heavy implications that you are such a lax DM :smallamused:). The side I'm adopting is not Beheld's whole argument, just the "Glibness does not work that way" side (which I may be the only one adopting here). But I've made the same mistake in conflating multiple posters myself.

eggynack

2017-03-13, 01:48 AM

This is the only part that's what I'd call objectively wrong.
I think you can bypass at least a good number of them, and with relatively low party resource expenditure at that.

It stops being immediate the moment you try to cover one lie with another lie, because now they're comparing the two lies.
I guess. The sub-lies I've been proposing don't seem all that contradictory with the main lie they're supporting though. As long as you don't run into self-contradiction, it should be fine. It helps a lot here that you can use low plausibility lies. With highly plausible lies, you have a relatively narrow area of possibility space to work with.

Unless the DM disagrees with your assertion that the lie is in fact still possible to believe and rules that there's simply no way the NPC is going to believe it, that it is "too incredible to consider," which they are perfectly within their rights to do without breaking anything in the skill description. And you've not addressed the fact that a series of bluffs should pretty clearly count as a single elaborate bluff, making them a single check that is whole magnitudes less believable.
It's too incredible to consider that, say, the rules for identifying folks have changed, when that information is coming directly from your boss? I could totally see someone questioning that sorta thing, but that's why the bluff check is there in the first place. And, I implied above, while a lie pile could be less believable, I don't know that I'd agree that the sum total lie is an unbelievable one (in the literal sense of the word).

Stretching a bit there mate, shouldn't have used the word "verbatim" because I never actually said Glibness was bad, just that it's overpowered due to lax DMing (with heavy implications that you are such a lax DM :smallamused:). The side I'm adopting is not Beheld's whole argument, just the "Glibness does not work that way" side (which I may be the only one adopting here). But I've made the same mistake in conflating multiple posters myself.
I'm not saying you said that, obviously. I'm saying that this is the position I'm arguing against. It got kinda strained with all this specific stuff, but as long as you think it's, y'know, good in a 7th level party (and also rather good in a 9th level party, cause you're still relying on 3rd's at that point, even if you can cast a few different ones in a day), I don't see much cause to argue. The cases I was suggesting were relatively extreme ones, because the opposing claim was that they were without use. Also, if you establish a high end of borkedness, reasonable level appropriate stuff is easier to access through a ratcheting down than a ratcheting up. And that reasonable stuff is ultimately what we're aiming for. Because, again, I think the bard is very much in tier three, which requires only that glibness be good.

Hurnn

2017-03-13, 02:25 AM

Bard mid T3

6/9 casting off a decent list, good at skills, contributes in combat, pretty much the definition of T3.

Factotum T4

Never played one, but I feel the hype is over sold. There are people claiming to have played one were less than impressed. Everyone else seams to be arguing these theoretical builds that can do anything, and that's great but most of it seems to rely on stuff they get pretty late. My question is what do you do until then? They are obviously the best skill monkey in the game, and skills aren't totally negated until probably level 10 so they should stay reasonably relevant. Oh yeah, this has been ignored: the 2 most important saves in the game are both bad.

Jester bottom T3

Basically a weaker bard but that is still good enough.

Savant T4

Seams like a great skill monkey, with strictly worse casting than a bard basically online with paladin and ranger casting. Their spell list isn't awful, but the divine stuff looks like it comes on line way to late. The class would be way better if it had both progressions the same.

Troacctid

2017-03-13, 02:28 AM

They are obviously the best skill monkey in the game
Eh, I think Beguiler is better. Probably Bard too, honestly.

MHCD

2017-03-13, 02:51 AM

Savant T4

Seams like a great skill monkey, with strictly worse casting than a bard basically online with paladin and ranger casting. Their spell list isn't awful, but the divine stuff looks like it comes on line way to late. The class would be way better if it had both progressions the same.

For whatever reason, I missed or did not process the delayed divine spell progression, and I agree that that makes a big difference. My vote is changed to tier 4.

Fizban

2017-03-13, 03:38 AM

It's too incredible to consider that, say, the rules for identifying folks have changed, when that information is coming directly from your boss?
I should have been more clear: "I'm actually your boss" is the problem to begin with, it's unbelievable enough that the DM can and should shut it down on no other grounds. It might seem plausible to us modern folk with our fast mass travel, communication, and homogenization that make it so your boss actually could plausibly be standing right next to you without you knowing, but for a faux-medieval setting? You know who the king is because he's the guy in the most opulent clothing surrounded by the king's guard and the simpering nobles, and you obey them largely to avoid angering the king's guard and simpering nobles. You know who your boss is because you personally know your boss, and you know when he stops being your boss because either he tells you or an obvious public event makes it so, not on the word of some random guy (again, the chain of command). A lot of stuff runs on word of mouth, but that's based on trusting the mouths those words come out of which some guy making absurd claims does not have.

And even in real life: I go to work, I see a new guy who looks like a boss-type, maybe I think they're a new boss on my own initiative and check with my co-workers. Someone I don't know gives me an order, I check with my co-workers before I obey that order (unless it's sufficiently trivial or I was going to do it anyway). If your aim is to bluff me out of the way for minute, that's easily doable, but if you claim you're the CEO I'm not just gonna hand you the keys until I check with someone I actually trust, because that would be stupid.

In order to actually use bluff you need a very specific problem for which you can find a very specific solution, which is then adjudicated by the DM. There is most likely some sort of lie that would help any given situation, but there is no guarantee that you have any of the information or setup required to choose the right lie or make it stick. "I'm actually your boss" is the most obvious example of a lie that should fail automatically unless the situation is already set up for it.

I don't know that I'd agree that the sum total lie is an unbelievable one (in the literal sense of the word).
Dictionary.com: "Unbelivable; 1. too dubious or improbable to be believed, 2. so remarkable as to strain credulity; extraordinary." This is entirely subjective. A bluff that requires the target to believe more than one thing that strains credulity (I'm actually the one in charge here, they changed the password without telling you, it doesn't matter that no one else can confirm this, etc) on the other hand, is about as close as you can get to defining something as less credible. Either way, it doesn't matter if you think something's credible: it matters if that character thinks something is credible, as judged by the DM, and that there is a point at which the DM can (and should) simply say no because that's how bluff is supposed to work (in a non-game-breaking manner, as with all abilities).

as long as you think it's, y'know, good in a 7th level party (and also rather good in a 9th level party, cause you're still relying on 3rd's at that point, even if you can cast a few different ones in a day), I don't see much cause to argue. The cases I was suggesting were relatively extreme ones, because the opposing claim was that they were without use.
I don't think it's all that necessary or good really, it's just a crutch. If you have maxed bluff and know what you're doing, you should be fine bluffing without the spell. Glibness is basically there to let you go straight to the limit of what the DM will allow with bluff without actually trying to bluff, which is useful only if you have a good idea of the situation and how your DM works, which means you probably could have worked out a plausible bluff without the crutch. It's a large bonus that obviates the skill roll, which is stupid, but otherwise must still work within the skill's limits. More important is that it lets you slip through magical lie detection that is normally airtight for anyone who doesn't have access to this 3rd level Bard-only spell, so for world-building purposes a Bard can be built to get past a system that relies on that magical lie-detection.

I don't think Glibness factors into the Bard's tier at all, it's a side bit just like all other sufficiently grey/DM based areas. Bard can make tier 3 just fine without it and gains most of the benefit just from having the Bluff skill in the first place. Arguing against Beheld I'd focus on the demand that tier 3 be represented by the "level appropriate abilities" of what is accepted as a class higher than tier 3, which is simply illogical. Though, I'm again not sure if he started with a lower tier example and tried to push the Bard down from there or what.

For general purposes, note that all complaints against Glibness are actually complaints against Bluff itself. The value of Bluff, as well as the other social skills, is one of the greater grey areas to begin with, as they're what I've called an unsupported encounter type and are entirely reliant on DM adjudication. I believe I asked once how much skills are supposed to actually be worth, which is pretty important for the skill focused classes. They get all sorts of credit for these social skills that have almost no objective value. They're worth something, skillmonkey is a main role and social skills are among their options, but trying to actually compare them to spells for problem solving requires a lot more. They just don't seem to get discussed much since most classes that have some have them all and it's easier to pretend they all cancel out/lump them together as some vague glob of social abilities that has a vague but significant enough impact to count for some classes.

eggynack

2017-03-13, 04:21 AM

I should have been more clear: "I'm actually your boss" is the problem to begin with, it's unbelievable enough that the DM can and should shut it down on no other grounds. It might seem plausible to us modern folk with our fast mass travel, communication, and homogenization that make it so your boss actually could plausibly be standing right next to you without you knowing, but for a faux-medieval setting? You know who the king is because he's the guy in the most opulent clothing surrounded by the king's guard and the simpering nobles, and you obey them largely to avoid angering the king's guard and simpering nobles. You know who your boss is because you personally know your boss, and you know when he stops being your boss because either he tells you or an obvious public event makes it so, not on the word of some random guy (again, the chain of command). A lot of stuff runs on word of mouth, but that's based on trusting the mouths those words come out of which some guy making absurd claims does not have.

And even in real life: I go to work, I see a new guy who looks like a boss-type, maybe I think they're a new boss on my own initiative and check with my co-workers. Someone I don't know gives me an order, I check with my co-workers before I obey that order (unless it's sufficiently trivial or I was going to do it anyway). If your aim is to bluff me out of the way for minute, that's easily doable, but if you claim you're the CEO I'm not just gonna hand you the keys until I check with someone I actually trust, because that would be stupid.

In order to actually use bluff you need a very specific problem for which you can find a very specific solution, which is then adjudicated by the DM. There is most likely some sort of lie that would help any given situation, but there is no guarantee that you have any of the information or setup required to choose the right lie or make it stick. "I'm actually your boss" is the most obvious example of a lie that should fail automatically unless the situation is already set up for it.
My suggestion was actually intended to closely model to the game world, not our world. The idea was that you are here, or you look like this, because of magic of some defined or undefined variety. Maybe you have access to some magic that gives you this form, but you either can't or won't change back in the immediate future. You are literally the guy's boss, just looking like this for some weird reason. It's possibly a plan with flaws of his own (he might know a lot of stuff about his boss that you don't, though this could be possibly solved by going up a level or two to someone he isn't likely to know that well), but I don't think they're the flaw you're identifying here.

Dictionary.com: "Unbelivable; 1. too dubious or improbable to be believed, 2. so remarkable as to strain credulity; extraordinary." This is entirely subjective. A bluff that requires the target to believe more than one thing that strains credulity (I'm actually the one in charge here, they changed the password without telling you, it doesn't matter that no one else can confirm this, etc) on the other hand, is about as close as you can get to defining something as less credible. Either way, it doesn't matter if you think something's credible: it matters if that character thinks something is credible, as judged by the DM, and that there is a point at which the DM can (and should) simply say no because that's how bluff is supposed to work (in a non-game-breaking manner, as with all abilities).
I agree that this whole bluff becomes less credible with more things swirling around, but it's certainly nowhere near impossible. It's a thing that could be believed, even if it's a thing that's unlikely to be believed. And, in this context, rather than the degree of credibility context, I think that it makes sense to claim that, if you have N sub-lies that are individually believable, and no set of sub-lies features any sort of contradiction, then the entire lie is, at least theoretically, believable. It can be believed, even if it perhaps shouldn't be believed.

I don't think it's all that necessary or good really, it's just a crutch. If you have maxed bluff and know what you're doing, you should be fine bluffing without the spell. Glibness is basically there to let you go straight to the limit of what the DM will allow with bluff without actually trying to bluff, which is useful only if you have a good idea of the situation and how your DM works, which means you probably could have worked out a plausible bluff without the crutch. It's a large bonus that obviates the skill roll, which is stupid, but otherwise must still work within the skill's limits. More important is that it lets you slip through magical lie detection that is normally airtight for anyone who doesn't have access to this 3rd level Bard-only spell, so for world-building purposes a Bard can be built to get past a system that relies on that magical lie-detection.
I think that the skill roll skipping is pretty good on its own, and the ability to move from the normal area of the skill to the edges of it offers some expansion in terms of actual functionality, regardless of where the DM draws the specific lines on this stuff. Also, epic bluff for non-magic suggestion is kinda interesting. A person with limited sense motive would be within reasonable range of a mid-level bard investing into bluff. Not necessary, but quite good, from my perspective.

I don't think Glibness factors into the Bard's tier at all, it's a side bit just like all other sufficiently grey/DM based areas. Bard can make tier 3 just fine without it and gains most of the benefit just from having the Bluff skill in the first place. Arguing against Beheld I'd focus on the demand that tier 3 be represented by the "level appropriate abilities" of what is accepted as a class higher than tier 3, which is simply illogical. Though, I'm again not sure if he started with a lower tier example and tried to push the Bard down from there or what.
I don't disagree. Bard minus glibness is a bard with, say, haste, dispel, and/or slow. Which is still tier three. I'm positing this as a build that is tier three, not the build that is tier three, and this somewhat generic and malleable nature implies the wider set of tier three builds necessary to achieve actual tier three. We just got to this weird place off of the suggestion that glibness outright sucks.

For general purposes, note that all complaints against Glibness are actually complaints against Bluff itself. The value of Bluff, as well as the other social skills, is one of the greater grey areas to begin with, as they're what I've called an unsupported encounter type and are entirely reliant on DM adjudication. I believe I asked once how much skills are supposed to actually be worth, which is pretty important for the skill focused classes. They get all sorts of credit for these social skills that have almost no objective value. They're worth something, skillmonkey is a main role and social skills are among their options, but trying to actually compare them to spells for problem solving requires a lot more. They just don't seem to get discussed much since most classes that have some have them all and it's easier to pretend they all cancel out/lump them together as some vague glob of social abilities that has a vague but significant enough impact to count for some classes.
Yeah, it's an interesting situation. Bluff obviously does something. With glibness, I think that bluff does a decent amount more something, and frequently without a roll. What that something is is tricky, but I think it's pretty good, if difficult to precisely define.

Beheld

2017-03-13, 04:53 AM

I thought the whole point of CR being broken was that the books and books worth of encounters were too easy for people with the wizard's "level appropriate" abilities. Which would make them not level appropriate. You can only have one standard, and if you're setting your standard at the most overpowered wizard spells then it's your own fault that nothing matches up. Which was all the point I was trying to make with my jab.

I've never heard a single convincing argument that CR is broken. If a Wizard uses "the most overpowered wizard spells" to their full potential, then encounters are too easy, but since the most overpowered spells are charm, dominate, animate dead, lesser planar binding, planar binding, greater planar binding, and gate, those spells aren't level appropriate.

But the level appropriate spells that give Wizards actual contribution to CR encounters are things like Haste at 5 and EBT at 7, not Haste at 7 and EBT at 11.

And fighters are no where ever contributing at level appropriate levels.

eggynack

2017-03-13, 05:18 AM

ryu

2017-03-13, 05:29 AM

I think my core problem with this metric, whether a class' offerings are level appropriate, is that it implies a binary where there is truly a spectrum. Grease isn't just level appropriate or not level appropriate. It has a specific degree of efficacy in each encounter, and then you average that up, combine it with all the other stuff the bard is doing, and compare that to surrounding classes. That's how you tier. Whether the bard can provide meaningful offense against close CR encounters is important, but it's specifically important in the context of how meaningful the offense of other tier three classes is. The bard is less "level appropriate" than the wizard, but we'd expect that, because wizard is higher tier. I think they're more "level appropriate" than a barbarian, or, more obviously, an adept, so the bard is likely of a higher tier than those classes.

There's also the fact that even without using anywhere near the wizard's best tricks, but still having some competent build plan like mailman or similar, he'll look at pretty much the vast majority of encounters for an entire party of his level and be able to solo them without much trouble. Usually in a single turn where he was likely to go first at that. The simple fact is that even without using the ''overpowered'' spells the wizard can and regularly does obviate the very concept of the CR curve. That's not your measuring stick for tier 3. Neither is the sorcerer that can do the same thing. The measuring stick if you want anyone to take you seriously is other commonly agreed upon tier 3s. If we could make an argument that bard was comparable to wizard in any way we wouldn't be arguing for 3 let me tell you.

Beheld

2017-03-13, 05:59 AM

First: eggynack, I swear I still love you, I'm just busy and waiting to compose a more complete reply. :smalleek:

There's also the fact that even without using anywhere near the wizard's best tricks, but still having some competent build plan like mailman or similar, he'll look at pretty much the vast majority of encounters for an entire party of his level and be able to solo them without much trouble. Usually in a single turn where he was likely to go first at that. The simple fact is that even without using the ''overpowered'' spells the wizard can and regularly does obviate the very concept of the CR curve. That's not your measuring stick for tier 3. Neither is the sorcerer that can do the same thing. The measuring stick if you want anyone to take you seriously is other commonly agreed upon tier 3s. If we could make an argument that bard was comparable to wizard in any way we wouldn't be arguing for 3 let me tell you.

If your build is "I do tons of damage because Arcane Thesis and getting tons of extra feats to stack with Arcane Thesis" then it isn't the spells that are not level appropriate, it's the arcane thesis stacking. And any build can do that. Barbarians can just take a bunch of nonsense power attack multiplies and shock trooper and charge for "Enemies HPx3" at every level and one hit blow everything up. That tells you that stacking a bunch of power attack modifiers and then not taking the to hit penalty is "not level appropriate" (Although, more technically, it's hard to metric because of the thing eggy said, where you multiply the fact that it is super level inappropriate against a lot of things, with it being not actually worth anything against other enemies, and you say that regardless of what the average is, if in 100% of encounters it is not level appropriate, it's not level appropriate).

The ability to create a 1d2 Crusader doesn't mean that everything Crusaders or Clerics do is not level appropriate, it doesn't even mean that Surge of Fortune is not level appropriate. It means that one specific weird combo isn't.

So saying "Wizard attack/utility/not minionmancy spells of the appropriate levels are level appropriate" isn't contradicted by showing how 10 times Orb of Fire damage isn't level appropriate.

ryu

2017-03-13, 06:16 AM

Fizban

2017-03-13, 07:06 AM

My suggestion was actually intended to closely model to the game world, not our world. The idea was that you are here, or you look like this, because of magic of some defined or undefined variety.
The "knowing more about magic makes you more vulnerable to magic" problem does exist, but the counter is that it's much easier to disguise or magically manipulate someone than it is to be forced out of your own form-within the range of 1st level spells that can almost be called common. If your guards are savvy enough to consider magic making the bluff more believable, they should be savvy enough to know that it's even easier to use magic to make that sound plausible and double down on following their existing orders.

I don't think they're the flaw you're identifying here.
Nope, just hammering on the limits of "almost too incredible" vs "too incredible" with longer arguments.

at least theoretically, believable. It can be believed, even if it perhaps shouldn't be believed.
Which isn't how Bluff is defined. It uses a simple statement of "almost too incredible," and statements like that are why the DM exists in the first place, to arbitrate when you've passed almost and just gone too far. "Theoretically believable" is a player's justification of why they think it should work, to which the DM responds with the answer based on the NPC, not based on the theory in a vaccum. The vast, blinding majority of (if not literally all) people have things they simply won't believe, ranging from philosophical to political to whatever, to everyday things that their logic will simply refuse to process as believable. I posit that even in a world with magic, unless you have actually set up reinforcing circumstances (or luck into them already existing), the "I'm actually your boss" bluff will simply bounce off that vast majority of NPCs as flat out too incredible.

Not that those circumstances are difficult to engineer, but the bluff on it's own should never be enough to get more than that 1 round of hesitation. Which is itself a seriously powerful effect.

I think that the skill roll skipping is pretty good on its own, and the ability to move from the normal area of the skill to the edges of it offers some expansion in terms of actual functionality, regardless of where the DM draws the specific lines on this stuff. Also, epic bluff for non-magic suggestion is kinda interesting. A person with limited sense motive would be within reasonable range of a mid-level bard investing into bluff. Not necessary, but quite good, from my perspective.
I shouldn't have said not good in the same section as roll-skipping, true. But there are other spells for skill bonuses and rerolls that could do roll smashing and other things which I'd prefer if I was making a social skills build.

I've never heard a single convincing argument that CR is broken.
My apologies, I do have trouble keeping track of everyone so I default to assuming any given individual will claim CR is broken based on the majority and forgot that you're one of those who doesn't (and have probably done so a couple times by now). We can fight/continue fighting about the Fighter's contribution some other time.

Beheld

2017-03-13, 08:37 AM

If over over 90% of common, cohesive build concepts a class has can solo entire encounters without any real risk of losing, the class is not the benchmark of level appropriate. I didn't say mailman because it's the only way I can think of to end entire encounters before they begin as a wizard. I said mailman because it's a simple word that everyone here will be entirely familiar with without elaboration. I would go on to say that if you can't think of literally dozens of plausible wizard builds at any given level to obviate most ''level appropriate'' challenges you just aren't trying very hard. That's part of the power of tier 1. No matter what you do, you can be manifestly superior to every not tier 1 in all situations within a fairly short time in-game. And no, you don't have to compare to this to be tier 3. Not even slightly.

Well that's the point. Over 90% of the common cohesive build concepts don't do that. The ones that specifically rely on breaking the RNG do, and the ones that rely on breaking the, for lack of a better term, CR RNG, by having permanent minions today at the cost of spell slots yesterday along with all your spell slots today do, but those are the only ones.

If you are cohesive build who takes levels in Wizard and casts the best non minionmancy spells of every level, then you don't break the game, that's the point. This is part of the larger problem were people on this forum have this weird conception of level appropriate challenge that involves complaining CR is broken so you can't expect characters to live up to their CR expectation whenever that fits their current needs, and then to turn around and claim that all encounters are really easy (except the broken ones, which is all the ones that aren't easy) when that fits the narrative.

Wizards don't 100% the SGT, that's fundamentally the way the game works. Wizards and Druids and Clerics score slightly above 50%, and that's totally fine.

ryu

2017-03-13, 08:45 AM

Well that's the point. Over 90% of the common cohesive build concepts don't do that. The ones that specifically rely on breaking the RNG do, and the ones that rely on breaking the, for lack of a better term, CR RNG, by having permanent minions today at the cost of spell slots yesterday along with all your spell slots today do, but those are the only ones.

If you are cohesive build who takes levels in Wizard and casts the best non minionmancy spells of every level, then you don't break the game, that's the point. This is part of the larger problem were people on this forum have this weird conception of level appropriate challenge that involves complaining CR is broken so you can't expect characters to live up to their CR expectation whenever that fits their current needs, and then to turn around and claim that all encounters are really easy (except the broken ones, which is all the ones that aren't easy) when that fits the narrative.

Wizards don't 100% the SGT, that's fundamentally the way the game works. Wizards and Druids and Clerics score slightly above 50%, and that's totally fine.

Name a level and and a CR appropriate encounter that doesn't randomly murder approximately 9 in ten parties. I'll name a either a single spell, or a combination of spells that can be cast without the enemy being able to take meaningful action that will either literally end the encounter or render it harmless and a certain win. Just for kicks I won't even use feats. Just spells. Nothing that summons a minion or creates one. This happens more than five times you're objectively wrong.

Cosi

2017-03-13, 09:07 AM

A lot of my perspective is premised on the idea that factotums are usually mediocre but occasionally competent in combat (through the fact that your limited spells/day still represent combats where you're offering meaningful contribution), but really good out of combat. And not just really good out of combat in the sense that you can win social encounters through the use of the occasional spell for that purpose alongside skill use. Really good out of combat in an in-combat sense, weirdly. This was said, but it deserves repetition. The tenth level factotum can cast animate dead.

First, I don't think that "contributes outside combat, but not in combat" is good. Combat is a more important part of D&D than non-combat is by simple screen time. If you don't have something good to do in a fight, I don't think you can hit Tier Three. I don't think the reverse is (necessarily) true -- look at Sokka in Avatar.

Second, casting animate dead is good, but not super impressive at 10th level. A scroll of animate dead at CL 20 costs you 1,750 GP. At 10th level, that's about 4% of your WBL. I'm not 100% sure how a scroll of animate dead works for someone who doesn't have a caster level, but at the very least it works for anyone who does.

If it can get his damage to a reasonable level with natural attacks and jacked AC, and his bardic music over the course of the adventuring day then it might be a reasonable contribution

Possibly. I would like to see someone run numbers on it.

Edit I think most races you could choose from have good options to alter self to

I don't know. I never cared enough to figure out exactly how much power was nominally available via alter self.

Even if the factotum is getting them late, if they work, they work. It can get command undead at level 5, with a bit of luck he can start something there. I would only rule against actual game smashing things like chain binding

command undead is good when it works, but dead 99% of the time. That said, I'm generally unimpressed by minions because they're the one of the things most likely to get nerfed.

My basic premise is use SLA for 'two' encounters, UMD for 'one', and something else for the last. Facto doesn't have to be most important in all four encounters.

"SLAs" is doing a whole lot of work there. What is a 4th level spell and three 3rd level spells doing at 10th level? What spells are you casting that contribute to winning encounters more than a Barbarian smashing stuff?

Name a level and and a CR appropriate encounter that doesn't randomly murder approximately 9 in ten parties. I'll name a either a single spell, or a combination of spells that can be cast without the enemy being able to take meaningful action that will either literally end the encounter or render it harmless and a certain win. Just for kicks I won't even use feats. Just spells. Nothing that summons a minion or creates one. This happens more than five times you're objectively wrong.

The Same Game Test. (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:The_Same_Game_Test) In theory, you should beat five of those at each level with the same spell loadout.

bean illus

2017-03-13, 09:08 AM

Are we still debating if Bard is T3? lol.

I think i'm still at:

Bard: high 3
Facto: low 3
Jester: T4
Savant: possibly 5. Needs real story support, party support, etc. Can't even limp through a real campaign and have something to do every encounter. NPC, lol.

... but if facto landed in 4 (or etc) i think i understand the reasoning better (a little).

Dondasch

2017-03-13, 09:45 AM

Not sure about the other arguments, but mine have been pretty consistent with a single factotum. Single combat load out of spells, tailored to meet the situation if the possibility of that exists, and then you have this wide variety of out of combat support and power building things that are all accessible to any factotum regardless of build. I think you get a lot of out of combat utility from this stuff, alongside a set of out of combat tricks, increasing in quantity and quality alike at moderate to high levels, which serve to increase in combat power. It's a nice setup.

I find adventuring-day noncombat spells lackluster on a Factotum, because they are competing with your best option for combat over your very limited slots. I think we value off-day spells differently. The best of them are also the ones most likely to be nerfed by the GM. Plus, at many levels of optimization, these spells are unlikely to be used properly if at all. The same actually goes for some of the options being cited as good adventuring spells for them, like Alter Self.

As i said, your right about more than one thing. I just think it's enough for Tier 3 (and i almost stopped and checked my math before i posted. +10/11 is easier) My basic premise is use SLA for 'two' encounters, UMD for 'one', and something else for the last. Facto doesn't have to be most important in all four encounters.
But as i said, i usually think of it as a dip, and as we agree? DM style is important here.

When i think Tier 4, i think of someone who has nothing helpful to do several times a day. Facto is sorta a team player there, but should find something to do almost always.

See, the thing is that pretty much any class can find something to do, such as plinking with a (cross)bow when Ubercharging doesn't work, Aid Another in social encounters, etc. I'm just not convinced that the Factotum is bringing valuable actions most of the time. Even your arguments seem to be based on "1/encounter do something useful, spend rest of the encounter struggling to contribute", and that still leaves 25% of the encounters in a generic day where you are doing "something else", vague and undefined as your "1/encounter do something useful".

On Glibness: Remember, we need to consider how things will likely be ruled in play, not just by RAW. I generally side with Fizban here, but it's important to note that even if Bluff does work as eggynack believes, using it as such is likely to annoy the GM by trivializing a huge variety of situations.

Fizban

2017-03-13, 09:47 AM

I think at this point I'm simultaneously disagreeing and agreeing with all four people at once with how twisted this argument is becoming, but off the cuff responses abound!

This happens more than five times you're objectively wrong.
You've got it backwards actually. Name a prepared list of spells for a certain level, then we provide standard encounters by CR. If that list of spells does not automatically win five or more times then you're objectively wrong. Oh look, Schrodinger's Arbitrary Challenge cuts both ways.

Except you were saying that in response to eggy saying that level appropriate abilities are actually a spectrum in response to Beheld using wizard levels as the standard for level appropriateness, which seems to track all the way back to eggy saying that wizards get their spells faster than is actually level appropriate in response to Beheld saying Bard casting is a non factor (in the same post where the ass flavored ass showed up, aha!) which seems to fall all the way back to Beheld putting the fixed list full 9 casters on tier 3 which must then push Bard down to tier 4, which answers that question.

So now I'm caught between the fact that wizard spells are more than level appropriate in power, while still not breaking the CR system. Thankfully that's why there are whole monster types immune to swaths of spells specifically to keep those effects in check, so I'm not actually contradicting myself.

The Same Game Test. (http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/Dungeons_and_Dragons_Wiki:The_Same_Game_Test) In theory, you should beat five of those at each level with the same spell loadout.
Ignoring the (many) other problems, there's another one here: you've just told him in advance what all the challenges are so he can build the perfect character to match them. If you want an objective test they shouldn't be seeing anything before character creation, let alone scouting/divinations vs countermeasures. Also he's probably pulling the standard of 5 from the SGT, so you're basically just repeating his point, though that may have been your intent.

Beheld

2017-03-13, 09:52 AM

Name a level and and a CR appropriate encounter that doesn't randomly murder approximately 9 in ten parties. I'll name a either a single spell, or a combination of spells that can be cast without the enemy being able to take meaningful action that will either literally end the encounter or render it harmless and a certain win. Just for kicks I won't even use feats. Just spells. Nothing that summons a minion or creates one. This happens more than five times you're objectively wrong.

I think this is going to rapidly become something of a tangent that should be addressed to a new thread, but for now, naming a few encounters theoretically isn't:

Level 6: Babua or Bearded Devil Haunts a cathedral at night, Chain Devil guards a room by staying in hiding on the 80ft high roof with his chains until someone enters who shouldn't, A Young Blue Dragon ambushes the party as they cross the Desert, A pair of wolves attack from invisibility on the road, one of them is a Raging, Enlarged, Bull's Strengthed, Werewolf, and the other is Bull's Strengthed Blinking Greater Bargest, how you doing on those knowledge ranks?
Level 10: Vrock or Bone Devil slaughtered a cult who summoned it after it broke free, and has taken up residence in their former cave complex, a Juvenile Red strafes a small village the nearby, presumably your party might feel bad and try to save them, you broke the rules and so a Zelekaut is hunting you down, you are probably unaware of that. He may or may not have a CR 7 ally he's lesser geased into helping him, as you travel in the underdark the path opens into a large cavern, suddenly rocks start raining from above because a couple Stone Giants (one an elder) start throwing them at you from up on ledges.

EDIT: Also Devourer at level 10, missing some sweet undead.

Kurald Galain

2017-03-13, 11:26 AM

Well, it's all been said already, to reaffirm:

Bard - 3
Facty - 4
Savant - 5
Jester - unfamiliar with it but looks like a 3

bean illus

2017-03-13, 01:10 PM

.................................................. ..

.................................................. ....

I really want to add, that i appreciate that folks even bother to address me (lol), thanks. Seriously.

For just plain politeness, this has been a great thread.

I still think DM style can bring factotum into low 3, but agree that without FoI (and a person who really thinks 'like a factotum')/etc it is much more underwhelming.

I think i will go see some of the other re-tier threads.... I kinda wonder what y'all think is the line between 1 and 2, if bard and facto are T4.

Dondasch

2017-03-13, 01:48 PM

I think i will go see some of the other re-tier threads.... I kinda wonder what y'all think is the line between 1 and 2, if bard and facto are T4.

Well, I only think the Factotum is T4, but I'd say what gets you into T1 is being able to excel at things you didn't bother building for. Like how the Druid always has access to bear hordes, or Wizards just need to scribe the right spell into their book. T2 can still excel at pretty much anything, but you need to decide what will be "great" and what will be "really good" while building (some classes, like fixed-listers, effectively make these choices for you).

bean illus

2017-03-13, 04:09 PM

Well, I only think the Factotum is T4, but I'd say what gets you into T1 is being able to excel at things you didn't bother building for. Like how the Druid always has access to bear hordes, or Wizards just need to scribe the right spell into their book. T2 can still excel at pretty much anything, but you need to decide what will be "great" and what will be "really good" while building (some classes, like fixed-listers, effectively make these choices for you).

Oh, i've read a dozendozen peoples definitions of what the tiers are, and feel we all sorta agree, yet there still seems to be some disagreement, lol.

Zaq

2017-03-13, 04:42 PM

So when I posted last, I had pegged Bard at T3 and Factotum at T4. That still stands, I think. Bard is darn high at T3, but they have native access to significantly fewer game-breaking effects than the big-name traditional 9th level casters (both at mid levels and at high levels), so I think T3 is about where they belong, barring an unusually permissive GM.

Jester: Jester is really weird. It's basically a core-only Bard with less optimization potential.

The class features aren't awful, though I think the Bard's are better even without heavy ACFing. Jester's Performance is surprisingly decent early on, though I don't think it necessarily scales appropriately. Taunt has a lot of potential, though a pure-class Jester doesn't have all that many tricks geared towards actually surviving hard-aggroing something that's actually dangerous in the first place. (Works nicely on casting-type enemies if you can get past the Will save, though.) The 12th, 15th, and 18th level performances don't really seem to be level-appropriate, though the Bard's super-high-level music abilities aren't necessarily super hot, either. With no ACFs and no splat support, though, the performances don't have anywhere to go beyond their surface effects, for better or for worse. I don't think Audacity is a good trade for Bardic Knowledge, though, and even with Audacity, the Jester has a minor AC problem in that it doesn't have a "no ASF in light armor" clause like the Bard does.

The spell list is surprisingly robust. It's missing Glibness and does just have fewer options than the Bard, but it otherwise looks like a fair equivalent to the core-only Bard's list, and it does have a couple gems that the Bard lacks (Polymorph!). With splat support, the Bard obviously pulls ahead (Improvisation is amazing in the late game, for instance, and as a level 1 spell, it has a very reasonable cost), but if we count the Bard's spellcasting as being useful (and I certainly do), I think the Jester is at least decent, if not exactly overpowered.

So, time to put up or shut up. Where does the Jester fall? It's a toss-up between T3 and T4, but I'd be willing to call it a very low T3. It doesn't have the optimization potential of other T3 classes, and it just generally suffers from a low ceiling, but I think it's got a sufficiently tricky spell list to earn its share of the XP budget. I could still see an argument for high T4, since it's a little fragile and its combat contributions are a little bit enemy-dependent, but I think the spell list nudges it into T3.

Savant: What even is this class? I've looked at it before, but it's so good at not standing out that I basically forget about it whenever I'm not looking at it. It's like a parody of a character who multiclassed themselves into uselessness.

Okay, let's go one step at a time. All skills, so I guess it doesn't get better than that, and 6 + INT is respectable. A Savant can have whatever skill base you want, I suppose. They even get Trapfinding, if you feel like devoting about a quarter of your skill points to that sort of thing. Academic Knowledge is basically Bardic Knowledge that's slightly more difficult to boost (after all, there are several things that specifically affect BK, but nothing that specifically affects AK), and I do like BK, so that's good to start.

Skill Assistance is about the class's only unique ability, and it's a decent concept for making unskilled partymembers more skillful (and therefore opening up which skills can actually be used to affect the party's well-being), but the actual execution is a little bit timid. The range limitation seems downright unnecessary, and the ability seems difficult to use even under ideal circumstances. I've never seen a Savant in play, but listening to the testimony of those who have, this seems like an ability that is hamstrung by its own limitations. It also seems really obnoxious to adjudicate in actual play, since many of the skills on the list are movement-based, so you have to keep track of party movement (and therefore proximity to the Savant) as each character makes their own movement-based skill checks. And the fact that you get so few choices (both in terms of the list being small and the number of picks you get being small) doesn't help much. Good idea, but uninspiring execution.

Bonus feats are nice, but they aren't enough on their own to change a tier. A Savant's Sneak Attack might be useful for qualifying for something that needs exactly +1d6 SA (Craven, for instance), but it's already almost irrelevant by the time you get it, and the scaling is so poor as to be negligible.

So then we're left with the spells. I think we can safely ignore the divine spells, since they come so late (and so slowly after they even hit play) that they're functionally useless. The arcane spells are annoying in that you know spells (and don't have a way to expand the number of spells you know), but you still have to prepare them. Beyond that annoyance, the spells are fairly tame overall, and when you consider the fact that they come so late and still have a CL penalty, I'd trust a Rogue with halfway decent wand choice to be a magical problem-solver more than I'd trust the Savant to do the same.

I'm not sure what the Savant actually brings to the table. I feel like it's hard to place them above T5, since they don't actually bring any level-appropriate problem-solving abilities to the table. They have more in common with the Fighter than with the Rogue or even the Barbarian. I've seen a Savant used once or twice in an Iron Chef build as a way to qualify for something obnoxious (since it has whatever skills you want and a blank-check bonus feat early on), but as an actual class to take 6 or 9 or 16 or 20 levels in? Yuck.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-03-13, 06:47 PM

Savant: What even is this class? I've looked at it before, but it's so good at not standing out that I basically forget about it whenever I'm not looking at it. It's like a parody of a character who multiclassed themselves into uselessness.
I think that's my new favorite description of the class.

Also, I haven't been following all of the discussion, but are people seriously arguing that the Bard can't be Tier 3 because its spellcasting is weaker than a sorcerer's?

bean illus

2017-03-13, 06:58 PM

Also, I haven't been following all of the discussion, but are people seriously arguing that the Bard can't be Tier 3 because its spellcasting is weaker than a sorcerer's?

Yes, i think that's close.

Beheld

2017-03-13, 07:39 PM

Also, I haven't been following all of the discussion, but are people seriously arguing that the Bard can't be Tier 3 because its spellcasting is weaker than a sorcerer's?

I think so far literally zero people have claimed the Bard is not Tier 3.

Gnaeus

2017-03-13, 07:59 PM

Id list bard and factotum as T3. I haven't played with the others and don't have much of an opinion.

ryu

2017-03-13, 08:05 PM

I think at this point I'm simultaneously disagreeing and agreeing with all four people at once with how twisted this argument is becoming, but off the cuff responses abound!

You've got it backwards actually. Name a prepared list of spells for a certain level, then we provide standard encounters by CR. If that list of spells does not automatically win five or more times then you're objectively wrong. Oh look, Schrodinger's Arbitrary Challenge cuts both ways.

Except you were saying that in response to eggy saying that level appropriate abilities are actually a spectrum in response to Beheld using wizard levels as the standard for level appropriateness, which seems to track all the way back to eggy saying that wizards get their spells faster than is actually level appropriate in response to Beheld saying Bard casting is a non factor (in the same post where the ass flavored ass showed up, aha!) which seems to fall all the way back to Beheld putting the fixed list full 9 casters on tier 3 which must then push Bard down to tier 4, which answers that question.

So now I'm caught between the fact that wizard spells are more than level appropriate in power, while still not breaking the CR system. Thankfully that's why there are whole monster types immune to swaths of spells specifically to keep those effects in check, so I'm not actually contradicting myself.

Ignoring the (many) other problems, there's another one here: you've just told him in advance what all the challenges are so he can build the perfect character to match them. If you want an objective test they shouldn't be seeing anything before character creation, let alone scouting/divinations vs countermeasures. Also he's probably pulling the standard of 5 from the SGT, so you're basically just repeating his point, though that may have been your intent.

Actually I was just going to use any number of spells that were useful, then proceed to demonstrate the ability to afford knowing literally everything used, and the divinations used to bring everything useful to where it's useful. You have the power to afford more spells than you'll ever care to know with a fraction of WBL. This is what it means to have the entire wizard list at your beck and call. You have the solution to all problems given any real amount of time or simple preparedness. Feats and magic items just make this more efficient, easy, and generally simple.

Soranar

2017-03-13, 10:10 PM

I decided to do a quick rundown of the Savant class since a lot of people seem unfamiliar with it. I never bothered to really give it a look since it seemed too underwhelming

-it gets a low sneak attack progression (3d6 over 15 level, starting at level 3)
-it gets a low arcane casting progression (level 5+. half caster level, INT based)
-it gets a low divine casting progression (level 10+, half caster level, WIS based)
-it gets 3 bonus feats (any feat at that, which is obviously really good)

Medium BAB, 1 good save (will) 6 skillpoints per level, all skills

light armor, simple and martial weapons prof, all shields except tower shield (so exotic shields are in)

trapfinding

it does have a few gems on its spell list (alter self on the arcane side, divine power on the divine side) but you're better off using a wand of them since you get them so damn late (you get divine power at level 18!)

the one unique ability it has is to use it's own skill rank to replace that of allies that are close to him though it only works with certain skills and you only get to pick a few. You get 1 skill at level 1 and another at level 4 and then more at each 4 levels afterwards.

the obvious choice would be hide as your first skill and then move silently at level 4.

All in all this is a great class as a jump into a better prestige class (say a Chameleon). It can qualify for a number of difficult prestige classes due to its access to all skills and its limited spellcasting.

The problems with the class itself (if you intend to stay in it a while) is just the progression.

The sneak attack is ok at lower levels (1d6 is fine at level 3) but 3d6 won't get you too far at level 15.
Again, limited spellcasting still helps but it's too limiting to rely on it , you're better off with wands though you don't need to bother with UMD to activate alter self or divine power which is a plus

You are MAD as hell since you need physical stats to get stuff done and you need INT and WIS for spellcasting. In comparison a Factotum will use brain over brawns to compensate for his lower physical stats.

A Factotum will be better than you at basically everything (faster casting progression, higher level spells, stronger spells, better skill use)

A warlock with UMD can do almost everything you can do better than you, the same can be said of a bard or a rogue type

The one exception is the savant's ability to loan his skills but after you get hide and move silently, you don't really need anything else so dropping out of the class would make more sense. All in all it's a decent chassis to get into a stronger prestige class.

by level 5 you would get level 1 arcane spells, 1 bonus feat, 2 skill assistance (hide and move silently IMO) 1d6 sneak attack and trapfinding

Considering how difficult it would be to use this class well, I would put it in tier 4.

Beheld

2017-03-13, 10:15 PM

-it gets 3 bonus feats (any feat at that, which is obviously really good)

So it's Tier 0 then, because it can take Epic Spellcasting right?

Bucky

2017-03-13, 10:54 PM

What's Savant doing to get it out of tier 5?

Lans

2017-03-14, 12:07 AM

What's Savant doing to get it out of tier 5?

Looking mighty fine standing next to the expert.

Use its 3 bonus feats for craven and assassins' stance. 5d6+15 sneak attack at level 15 isn't too shabby. That is with the weaker interpretation of the bonus feats.

The useful combat spells it gets at 5th level, like grease, and actually just grease.

Soranar

2017-03-14, 12:11 AM

What's Savant doing to get it out of tier 5?

It can do 1 thing quite well : namely being a skillmonkey that helps the party do skillmonkey things

It's ability to help party members do hide and move silently checks alone should make that work (it's a fairly rare and unique ability that I could see use in every campaign)

Other than that it still has a little sneak attack so craven would pump it's damage output considerably as would knowledge devotion

It can also get a familiar through obtain familiar

The spellcasting is slow but it still has access to divine might (with no UMD roll) and alter self (again no UMD roll) which should be enough to keep it relevant at higher levels.

finally it has bonus feats (only 3 mind) that isn't restricted to any list so it's pretty versatile.

Hurnn

2017-03-14, 12:52 AM

I think i will go see some of the other re-tier threads.... I kinda wonder what y'all think is the line between 1 and 2, if bard and facto are T4.

I think the practical difference between 1 and 2 is almost nil and certainly less that the gap between any tier except maybe 4-5. hell i think some tiers have power gaps between the top and bottom greater than the gap between 1 and 2.

I made a post not long ago about the idea of rolling 1 and 2 into a new tier one and stretching the others out a bit with a new tier 2, and I will eventually respond to the questions asked about that thought.....

eggynack

2017-03-14, 01:31 AM

The "knowing more about magic makes you more vulnerable to magic" problem does exist, but the counter is that it's much easier to disguise or magically manipulate someone than it is to be forced out of your own form-within the range of 1st level spells that can almost be called common. If your guards are savvy enough to consider magic making the bluff more believable, they should be savvy enough to know that it's even easier to use magic to make that sound plausible and double down on following their existing orders.
I don't think the simple presence of bluff increasing spells can reduce the plausibility of a bluff to too incredible levels. Yes, it's a workable Occam's razor approach to someone telling you something really weird, but it's just an alternative to something that may or may not be already plausible, rather than something that discredits a whole class of bluffs on its own.

Which isn't how Bluff is defined. It uses a simple statement of "almost too incredible," and statements like that are why the DM exists in the first place, to arbitrate when you've passed almost and just gone too far. "Theoretically believable" is a player's justification of why they think it should work, to which the DM responds with the answer based on the NPC, not based on the theory in a vaccum. The vast, blinding majority of (if not literally all) people have things they simply won't believe, ranging from philosophical to political to whatever, to everyday things that their logic will simply refuse to process as believable. I posit that even in a world with magic, unless you have actually set up reinforcing circumstances (or luck into them already existing), the "I'm actually your boss" bluff will simply bounce off that vast majority of NPCs as flat out too incredible.
Eh, maybe. One interesting factor here that we've only barely delved into is that, "Almost too incredible," isn't actually an explicit limit on bluff. There's nothing saying that too incredible bluffs just don't work.

I shouldn't have said not good in the same section as roll-skipping, true. But there are other spells for skill bonuses and rerolls that could do roll smashing and other things which I'd prefer if I was making a social skills build.
Fair, I suppose. I think this discussion has gotten to a reasonable end state, personally. Especially because even Beheld is apparently not claiming tier four bards anymore. My initial stated perspective was a somewhat hyperbolic one in reaction to a hyperbolic claim in the other direction, that this spell could be described as sucking by the time 4th's and 5th's are coming online, rather than a fully accurate depiction of true play states.

Second, casting animate dead is good, but not super impressive at 10th level. A scroll of animate dead at CL 20 costs you 1,750 GP. At 10th level, that's about 4% of your WBL. I'm not 100% sure how a scroll of animate dead works for someone who doesn't have a caster level, but at the very least it works for anyone who does.
It's not a crazy thing, but when the alternative is the idea that factotums really lack combat potential, is strikes me as an important capability. It's a bit of a uniquely factotum approach to the problem, not in the sense that factotums are the only or best casters of animate dead, but in the sense that it compliments their few but high level daily spells.

I think i will go see some of the other re-tier threads.... I kinda wonder what y'all think is the line between 1 and 2, if bard and facto are T4.
One of the interesting things about having all this data in front of us is that the lines are positioned in a relatively clear way. When the thread is over, we'll be able to define some pretty solid tier dividing lines, places where anything below that line is probably in a lower tier. In fact, we can kinda do so right now. As it stands, going purely by the mean for each class (listing the floor for the top tier rather than the ceiling for the bottom tier, or both), the line between 1 and 2 is the spontaneous druid, with 1.31, the line between 2 and 3 is beguiler, with 2.28 (really weird that it's not the dread necromancer, but whatever), the line between 3 and 4 is factotum, with 3.35, the line between 4 and 5 is fighter, with 4.45 (both the fighter and ninja were once actually 4.5, but they've since moved over to 4), and the line between 5 and 6 is CW samurai, with 5.23 (it's the only class with a score below 5, which I expect to change at some point).

When we're done, we'll be able to get all kindsa data like that, stuff like median and standard deviation of tier, which classes have the widest score distribution (with an interesting metric for that being how many tiers people voted for for a given class), and, specifically because of that aforementioned line thing, we can use singular comparison classes for entry into a given tier instead of necessarily arguing over whether being better than this class over here actually merits a given position, or what class we should use for that discussion. Of course, I don't expect this to act as some kinda ultimate peacekeeper, because any tier list is going to be inevitably controversial, but there's some serious utility here that goes beyond a simple number. Oh, and thought I'd mention if it wasn't clear, all past threads are consistently open in terms of voting and discussion. So, if ya wanna do more than trawl through the already existing discussion, that's always an available option.

I think so far literally zero people have claimed the Bard is not Tier 3.
My impression was that you were, and that you just weren't voting that way because you never seem to vote on anything. Kinda had you in the same boat as Cosi in those non-voting personage terms.

Schattenbach

2017-03-14, 02:42 AM

About the whole bluff issue ...

From the SRD ...

Two circumstances can weigh against you: The bluff is hard to believe, or the action that the target is asked to take goes against its self-interest, nature, personality, orders, or the like. If it’s important, you can distinguish between a bluff that fails because the target doesn’t believe it and one that fails because it just asks too much of the target. For instance, if the target gets a +10 bonus on its Sense Motive check because the bluff demands something risky, and the Sense Motive check succeeds by 10 or less, then the target didn’t so much see through the bluff as prove reluctant to go along with it. A target that succeeds by 11 or more has seen through the bluff.

Bluff Examples Example Circumstances Sense Motive
Modifier
The target wants to believe you. -5
The bluff is believable and doesn’t affect the target much. +0
The bluff is a little hard to believe or puts the target at some risk. +5
The bluff is hard to believe or puts the target at significant risk. +10
The bluff is way out there, almost too incredible to consider. +20

The table only shows examples so circumstance modifiers beyond that might still be there (for example, someone who's highly suspicious or who's well-known for lying pretty much whenever that person says something would always get hit with some additional circumstances modifier, wouldn't that be the case? +10 or, in extreme cases, +20 to the DC as circumstances modifer because they don't want to believe the bluffer who's a well-known liar ... the same applies for highly suspicious people for some additional +5/+10/+20 depending on how suspicious they actually are ... so even if they're unknown, they have to face lack of trust due to people suspecting them to be untrustworthy/shady/ecetera or otherwise suspicious like because they sneaked into the prison at night). So if things are too risky ("puts the target at significant risk") to easily accept and "almost too incredible to consider" but "the target also wants to believe you", the circumstance modifiers should stack with each other just like usual, as long as they don't exclude each other, so ... yeah ... at least +25 to the Sense Motive DC/Sense Motive Check to beat (or +30 or higher if the bluffer is a well-known liar ((edit: or otherwise highly suspicious).

I still wouldn't say that something is too incredible to believe expect in cases like where there is absolute proof (i.e. intelligent construct that only follows the command of its creator ... if it isn't forced to follow those orders, then no matter how hard one tries to justify something, bluff doesn't work), though one (very reasonable way) to rule bluff is that it simply is the inverse-result of an failed sense motive check, i.e. it believes, at least for a short while, that the bluffer doesn't lie. One could also argue that the bluff and follow up-bluffs to make the entire thing more believable and to cover up loose ends in one's story are part of the original bluff check (though the rules for retries say pretty clearly: "Try Again: Varies. Generally, a failed Bluff check in social interaction makes the target too suspicious for you to try again in the same circumstances" so no retries to make the too hard to believe bluffs, but chaining bluff after bluff to keep the target from disbelieving the already made-up bluffs seems legit, but any excuses or inconsisty is bound to increase the circumstances modifier to some degree up to te point that the bluff is almost to incredible to believe or also putting the target into self-risk territory or making the target not want to believe you) so one could start the bluff with something quite a bit too hard to believe and patch up the holes with some follow up bluffs right after and, after the story has become sufficiently believeable, makes one bluff check for the whole thing (but that takes quite a bit of time, I guess).

Edit for the bluff related stuff ... that's something where social engineering (i.e. excellent RP and research put in beforehand) shines, I guess, as repeated bluffs (even within a single bluff check) might be able to improve several unfavourable circustance modifiers.

As for the topic on hand
... bard ... Low T2 (only in cases with reasonably early access to actual sorcerer spellcasting, though, which might proof difficult if one doesn't decide to take Sublime Chord ASAP, as the delayed access to potent spellcasting sucks quite a bit), High T3 otherwise.
... Jester seems like low T3 ...
... Factotum ... T4 ...
... Savant ... T5 ...

eggynack

2017-03-14, 02:53 AM

... bard ... Low T2 (only in cases with reasonably early access to actual sorcerer spellcasting, though, which might proof difficult if one doesn't decide to take Sublime Chord ASAP, as the delayed access to potent spellcasting sucks quite a bit), High T3 otherwise.
I'ma put you down for three then. We're not really considering PrC's or other base classes in tiering.

Beheld

2017-03-14, 07:04 AM

Especially because even Beheld is apparently not claiming tier four bards anymore.

...

My impression was that you were, and that you just weren't voting that way because you never seem to vote on anything. Kinda had you in the same boat as Cosi in those non-voting personage terms.

I haven't been voting, but literally my first post in this thread stated my position, let's see what it says:

I'm fairly certain Factotum belongs in Tier 4. I still have no feeling for Tier 3, but Bard probably is like, the very last person who belongs there (like the weakest Tier 3 who is still Tier 3) or maybe Jester if it's very close (too lazy to read up on it now) but if Jester can't provide a bunch of arbitrary bonuses of potentially RNG breaking amounts to his allies, then he probably belongs in Tier 4 with the Factotum.

HMMMMM. Am I changing my mind from my previous argument that Bard is Tier 4? Or did you just refuse to read what I actually said over and over and repeatedly assign an opinion I did not state or hold to me. Probably that second one.

If a class had only bard spellcasting and nothing else, it would belong in Tier 4, the Bard has something else, and belongs in Tier 3, as I said, the Jester who has similar casting, but (the impression I get is) worse other features is on the bubble.

But, as I noted elsewhere in my post, you didn't really have a good argument for lack of contribution from these spells. If we're asking whether this is level appropriate, it doesn't matter whether the spells can be gained by other classes at level one or level ten. All that matters is whether the ability itself is good.

Like I said, that's because I didn't think anyone was seriously going to contend that a level 1 Wizard is a really a level 4 character because Silent Image + Sleep + Alarm is what a level 4 character does.

I mean, if you are so committed I can do analysis of literally all the SRD CR 3-5 monsters and see how that goes.

Being pretty generous, I have Centuar, Large and Huge Animate Object, Ankeg, Juvenile Arrowhawk, Giant Eagle/Owl, Gargoyle, all 10 mephits, all 8 vermin, Ogre, all 3 Oozes, Pegasus, 3 Skeletons and 3 Zombies (as far as computing these, I usually just assign the ones that show up on d20 monster filter, since there are theoretically nearly as many of these as everything else combined, but people aren't going to use them to the exclusion) Ravid, and Spider Eater. Altogether, 39 of 153, or about 25%. Contributing equivalent to a 4th level character is 25% of 75% of encounters and (basically 100%) of 25% encounters, comes out to contributing at your level 43% of the time. That's not level appropriate, that's more than 50% of the time you aren't level appropriate. (This is, as I feel obligated to mention since you keep refusing to believe me when I say it, spellcasting alone.)

The second level spell is not 1/8th of the bard's casting contribution. If you don't include cantrips and assume second level spells hold equal value to firsts (why would you?), it's 1/4 of your spells/day, 2/5's of your spells known (not saying it's a great metric, just that it's a valid one that you could theoretically use that also doesn't lead to 1/8). Under the evaluation metric that's worst for the bard, where you count cantrips and evaluate all these spells as equal utility for some ungodly reason, you still get 1/7, or 2/11's by the weird spells known metric. It's never 1/8, as far as I can tell, and any reasonable analysis would find that you're replicating significantly less than the 1/4 I proposed, if you include the fact that glitterdust is presumably more valuable than 1st's to some meaningful degree.

Under the metric of "at least 8 rounds of combat a day" and the Bard being able to cast Glitterdust in only one of those 8 rounds, it follows that in 7 of the rounds he is using First level spells. (Hence why I assume such a character, Bard casting only, would use Silent Image a great deal, since that would allow him to stretch his 3 first level spells across 6 combat rounds in the three encounters he has each day without glitterdust.)

Why are we assuming the third first level spell is in any fashion useless? Grease is pretty useful, and scales up well.

Remember when I said "not level appropriate" that doesn't mean literally useless, it just means that you aren't level appropriate, and aren't contributing your fair share to encounters when you are using first level spells as your only input to an EL 4 encounter. Like, 25% of encounters contributing at level and 75% not at level contribution.

Also could be running the classic inspirational boost if we're running non-core.

Like I have said, bard casting. Not Bard.

As long as something is in the theoretical realm of possibility, it's not too incredible to consider. Besides which, bluff doesn't say anywhere that things that are too incredible to consider are automatically incapable of working

Those are both absolutely bat**** crazy interpretations that no one would ever make if they weren't committed to trying to weasel bluff into the most powerful thing in the universe. You are only advocating them because you want to defend bluff as actually crazy good, and you are willing to stab sense to death in a dark alley to do it.

You haven't really cited any new information in these cases. The king didn't present any information in their defense, in the example. They just kinda said you were wrong. And new information could just be met with an instant, "Nah, that information is false for whatever reason."

1) If you claiming to be king without evidence is new evidence, then him saying you aren't is also new evidence. If you have to present evidence for your claims, then you are up **** creak without a paddle, because the Bard never has evidence for any of his claims ever.

2) You can say "that information is false for whatever reason" and every time, the king can respond with "except it's true for whatever reason" and you are still trapped in the same inescapable loop of never being able to meaningfully convince someone for more than one round when they are in the presence of new information.

Eh, there might be defenses, but you don't necessarily have to go into a crazy defended kingdom. A deaf detect magic guy is such a weirdly specific defense too. Is that really expected to show up frequently? This isn't a perfect attack plan, in any case. If it were, jeez, this would be way way way better than a third level spell, as opposed to the just somewhat overleveled nature you're asserting. And I'm not even sure your assertion is correct. You could always make them doubt the veracity of the deaf guy.

1) I literally can't tell the difference between what you are saying here, and someone complaining that it's unfair that the enemy Wizard had cast Detect Scrying and responded to their Scry spell. You are mad that people respond to the abilities that exist in their world by protecting themselves against them?

2) No you can't, because literally by their nature, the veracity of the deaf guy is beyond question, and any attempt to doubt him is too incredible to consider, that's the point of procedures.

3) Please stop talking about the spell level. Glibness is an ability you get at 7th level. If it was a 4th level spell it would be an ability you get at 11th level. I mean, you might as well be talking about how Dispel Magic is way too good as a First level spell. Spell level only meaningfully effects Globe of Invulnerability and saving throw, so aside from being negated by Globe of Invulnerability placed in the right locations, it's spell level is meaningless in evaluating it's power, the relevant consideration is what level you get the spell. If you got the spell at level 11, that would be as singularly impressive as most of the other bard spells, instead of approximately nearly as good as what level appropriate casters are getting (but way fewer times per day).

Again, you can just paper over holes in your lies with more lies. If they demand a password, you can just bluff them further into thinking that the password is non-existent in some fashion. Defenses could theoretically proceed for a few layers, but 10 minutes/level is a lot of time to dig through them, and there are few things that can't be eliminated with a sufficiently audacious lie. I'm not even sure why they would ask for a password though. They believe completely that you're the boss.

"I'm not sure why my boss would expect me to follow proper procedures." Yeah, that might be your problem.

But really, if your argument is "my credibility is never affected by the fact that I've been wrong 100 times in a row" then sure, Bluff is godmode, but since in fact, credibility is affected by constantly being wrong, papering over your failed lies with more lies is a non-effective strategy. Whether this is evaluated as a single mega lie or a series of minor lies to cover for each previous lie being figured out as false, either of those things scales into "too incredible to consider."

First level wizards aren't great in fourth level situations, but their spells don't tend to lose their applicability much as you level. They tend to just kinda do the same things they always did. Greater levels increase the scale and potency, or offer completely new tricks, but they don't suddenly invalidate the old.

Except that the encounters do in fact scale with potency. First level Barbarians don't lose AB or damage as you level, they just face enemies with more HP and AC. It's the same thing. As evidenced by the 25% contribution rate of Bard with 3 spells and 3 spells known going into 3 encounters.

Schattenbach

2017-03-14, 08:54 AM

As mentioned before, nearly unbelievable stuff (+20 circumstances modifier) that involves significant risks to those involved (+10 circumstances modifier) might mandate +30 in terms of circumstances modifiers to the Sense Motive Check in and itself and if the one in question is sufficiently suspicious and/or well known for lying, then possibly even more for that, too (up to +20 for being to unbelievable in terms of that that bluffer is actually telling the truth - so up to at least +50 in terms of circumstances modifiers to the opposing Sense Motive check - seems perfectly acceptable here, I guess), because the opposing party simply isn't willing to believe the character (three different circumstances here that apply based on the listed exampls alone) ... moreover, the listed circumstances modifiers in the SRD are example circumstance modifiers for example situations, so they don't exclude other circumstance modifiers, as long as they aren't more or less the same.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-03-14, 09:13 AM

Beheld

2017-03-14, 09:17 AM

Also, c'mon. Glibness is a spell whose value ranges from "useful" to "overpowering" based on how the GM runs social stuff, but it's not going to make-or-break the Bard. I mean, hell, you've got Charm Monster and Lesser Geas at the same spell level; you got Suggestion one spell level earlier (and one level earlier via your music, potentially), and Dominate Person one level later. Not to mention a high Charisma, Diplomacy, and all the synergies. You've got lots of options for social command-and-control-- and even that is just one trick in your bag.

Well right, but eggy wants to bypass all the saving throws and able to be compared to level appropriate challenges by making the bluff skill work like Dominate Monster No Save when you cast Glibness so that he can bypass the fact that all those about or less level appropriate spells are limited by targets and saves and usage limits and effects and immunities that negate or prevent them.

Schattenbach

2017-03-14, 10:10 AM

Diplomancy is much stronger ... but doesn't really work in combat (expect for something like Half-Elves) ... and doesn't work on PCs. Glibness is very nice and helpful in that it allows to pretty much ignore that +30 penalty that applies due to the two major sources of making bluffing harder to pull off (the bluff being somewhat too unbelievable ... and someone being at significant risk for believing that bluff when it might be a lie ... being summed up to a hard to deal with +30 modifier to the opposing sense motion check), so using it for that might in fact have been the intented use for Glibness. Bluffing most certainly is pretty strong (and the wording of "indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe" makes it even stronger), but the effect of bluff isn't permanent because what a creature believes might change at any time once it has a reason to sufficiently question that believe. To be fair, the use of bluff that's been suggested by eggy might actually work against mentaly slow creatures that don't think too deep about something and might also be helpful in "confusing" more intelligent and/or challenging foes long enough to hinder their actions or make them stop combat for long enough to use Diplomancy against them ... excellent bluffs have always been pretty effective, after all, especially when it comes to buying time.

Beheld

2017-03-14, 12:16 PM

Actually I was just going to use any number of spells that were useful, then proceed to demonstrate the ability to afford knowing literally everything used, and the divinations used to bring everything useful to where it's useful. You have the power to afford more spells than you'll ever care to know with a fraction of WBL. This is what it means to have the entire wizard list at your beck and call. You have the solution to all problems given any real amount of time or simple preparedness. Feats and magic items just make this more efficient, easy, and generally simple.

Why did you decide not to? Too much of a tangent?

ryu

2017-03-14, 12:29 PM

Why did you decide not to? Too much of a tangent?

Not worth bothering if you aren't insane enough to argue bards are rogue tier? Also Hollow Knight demanded my attention. Priorities.

Beheld

2017-03-14, 01:25 PM

Not worth bothering if you aren't insane enough to argue bards are rogue tier? Also Hollow Knight demanded my attention. Priorities.

Argument had literally nothing to do with Rogues or Bards or Tiers and 100% to do with CR and Wizards. But sure, you were wrong and won't admit it okay.

eggynack

2017-03-14, 02:59 PM

HMMMMM. Am I changing my mind from my previous argument that Bard is Tier 4? Or did you just refuse to read what I actually said over and over and repeatedly assign an opinion I did not state or hold to me. Probably that second one.

If a class had only bard spellcasting and nothing else, it would belong in Tier 4, the Bard has something else, and belongs in Tier 3, as I said, the Jester who has similar casting, but (the impression I get is) worse other features is on the bubble.
It struck me as a somewhat ambiguous position, as it tends to be when you have a class right on the line, along with a probably. If you're that adamant on it, I should probably stick that down as a vote. This argument is probably pretty pointless if we all more or less agree. Maybe we should just start looking at the jester or something.

Like I said, that's because I didn't think anyone was seriously going to contend that a level 1 Wizard is a really a level 4 character because Silent Image + Sleep + Alarm is what a level 4 character does.
I don't think I've ever listed alarm. The third choice was generally charm person or grease. And, of course, in about 1/4 of these encounters, you have glitterdust too. I mean, yeah, on this allotment, silent image is clearly your only combat ready first level spell. With grease and/or charm person, maybe both if you ditch sleep (seems smart on a low spells known spontaneous caster), you have a decent variety of combat options.

I mean, if you are so committed I can do analysis of literally all the SRD CR 3-5 monsters and see how that goes.

Being pretty generous, I have Centuar, Large and Huge Animate Object, Ankeg, Juvenile Arrowhawk, Giant Eagle/Owl, Gargoyle, all 10 mephits, all 8 vermin, Ogre, all 3 Oozes, Pegasus, 3 Skeletons and 3 Zombies (as far as computing these, I usually just assign the ones that show up on d20 monster filter, since there are theoretically nearly as many of these as everything else combined, but people aren't going to use them to the exclusion) Ravid, and Spider Eater. Altogether, 39 of 153, or about 25%. Contributing equivalent to a 4th level character is 25% of 75% of encounters and (basically 100%) of 25% encounters, comes out to contributing at your level 43% of the time. That's not level appropriate, that's more than 50% of the time you aren't level appropriate. (This is, as I feel obligated to mention since you keep refusing to believe me when I say it, spellcasting alone.)
I'm honestly not sure at all what is acting as input to your decision that a given creature is one you're contributing to, or where your lines are for meaningful contribution to a combat, or anything, really. You kinda just listed a bunch of numbers and a percentage.

Under the metric of "at least 8 rounds of combat a day" and the Bard being able to cast Glitterdust in only one of those 8 rounds, it follows that in 7 of the rounds he is using First level spells. (Hence why I assume such a character, Bard casting only, would use Silent Image a great deal, since that would allow him to stretch his 3 first level spells across 6 combat rounds in the three encounters he has each day without glitterdust.)
I tend to go more by what the character is doing in a combat rather than what a character is doing in a round. Glitterdust doesn't take up multiple bard-rounds, but it takes up multiple enemy-rounds. Your mode of analysis would really weirdly overcount effects like silent image, as you say, just because they eat more of the bard's attention.

Remember when I said "not level appropriate" that doesn't mean literally useless, it just means that you aren't level appropriate, and aren't contributing your fair share to encounters when you are using first level spells as your only input to an EL 4 encounter. Like, 25% of encounters contributing at level and 75% not at level contribution.
As I noted above, it's not clear what you mean by not level appropriate.

Like I have said, bard casting. Not Bard.
I think it's useful to consider the intersection of these abilities, even when looking at just casting. Like, we can ferret out the +1 granted by inspire courage itself, and say, "Nah, this effect isn't coming from spells," but we can still assume inspire courage exists as a thing the bard has such that the bard can cast inspirational boost. In this context, we would still attribute the second +1 to spells, rather than class features. It's a model that allows for analysis of all of the bard's spellcraft, and not just the stuff that works if cast by a commoner.

Those are both absolutely bat**** crazy interpretations that no one would ever make if they weren't committed to trying to weasel bluff into the most powerful thing in the universe. You are only advocating them because you want to defend bluff as actually crazy good, and you are willing to stab sense to death in a dark alley to do it.
The second definitely isn't. You've constructed a restriction that doesn't exist in the text at all. The first, I don't think is all that crazy, given a direct reading of the text, but I don't care to argue it anymore. I don't need the spell to be crazy good. I don't even really need the spell to be good, though it helps. I think the spell is good enough to contribute to a party in this level range, and higher level ranges too. It is, in fact, more than enough.

1) If you claiming to be king without evidence is new evidence, then him saying you aren't is also new evidence. If you have to present evidence for your claims, then you are up **** creak without a paddle, because the Bard never has evidence for any of his claims ever.
Yeah, but if he says it, and you say he's lying, and everyone believes you (it's well within the realm of possibility), then repeating it is not new evidence.

2) You can say "that information is false for whatever reason" and every time, the king can respond with "except it's true for whatever reason" and you are still trapped in the same inescapable loop of never being able to meaningfully convince someone for more than one round when they are in the presence of new information.
In this case, and the previous case, the king has no manner by which to get people to automatically believe him like you do with bluff. Also, convincing the king himself seems like it would be helpful here, cause then he wouldn't present counter-evidence at all.

1) I literally can't tell the difference between what you are saying here, and someone complaining that it's unfair that the enemy Wizard had cast Detect Scrying and responded to their Scry spell. You are mad that people respond to the abilities that exist in their world by protecting themselves against them?
Mostly that it seems weirdly esoteric, and easier than you're claiming to bypass. Spells are cool cause they just do exactly what they say they do. Detect scrying is like that.

2) No you can't, because literally by their nature, the veracity of the deaf guy is beyond question, and any attempt to doubt him is too incredible to consider, that's the point of procedures.
I don't really know why the veracity of some arbitrary deaf guy would be beyond question. Maybe he was replaced by a spy. Procedures are generally not infallible.

3) Please stop talking about the spell level. Glibness is an ability you get at 7th level. If it was a 4th level spell it would be an ability you get at 11th level. I mean, you might as well be talking about how Dispel Magic is way too good as a First level spell. Spell level only meaningfully effects Globe of Invulnerability and saving throw, so aside from being negated by Globe of Invulnerability placed in the right locations, it's spell level is meaningless in evaluating it's power, the relevant consideration is what level you get the spell. If you got the spell at level 11, that would be as singularly impressive as most of the other bard spells, instead of approximately nearly as good as what level appropriate casters are getting (but way fewer times per day).
I'm talking about spell level because you were kinda talking about spell level. You were asserting that spells below a certain spell level at certain levels were not level appropriate. I was countering that the underleveled nature of some spells means that a certain spell means that those spells remain level appropriate even if your general claim holds accurate (which it isn't, in my opinion).

"I'm not sure why my boss would expect me to follow proper procedures." Yeah, that might be your problem.
They wouldn't think they need to follow proper procedures because you're telling them they don't, and you're the boss who implemented them in the first place.

But really, if your argument is "my credibility is never affected by the fact that I've been wrong 100 times in a row" then sure, Bluff is godmode, but since in fact, credibility is affected by constantly being wrong, papering over your failed lies with more lies is a non-effective strategy. Whether this is evaluated as a single mega lie or a series of minor lies to cover for each previous lie being figured out as false, either of those things scales into "too incredible to consider."
But you've never been wrong yet. All your bluffs have succeeded, which means that, while they might have doubts aligned with some particular evidence, you have thus far been right every time leading up to that moment. Less, "Hah, you're wrong, what of this password?" more, "I totally agree up to this point, but now let's assess this password issue."

Except that the encounters do in fact scale with potency. First level Barbarians don't lose AB or damage as you level, they just face enemies with more HP and AC. It's the same thing. As evidenced by the 25% contribution rate of Bard with 3 spells and 3 spells known going into 3 encounters.
Spells don't always, or even necessarily usually, interact with enemies the way stabbing does. As you note, there's obvious and direct statistical increases on both sides, and so the value of the monster relative to the value of the barbarian stays relatively constant, though not fully constant for various reasons. Saving throws, occasionally touch AC, and a variety of defenses that any given monster may or may not have are the things we're assessing here, and the first isn't always present, the second tends to not be a big issue, and the third is heavily dependent on specific situation rather than strict level analysis. A first level enemy and a fourth level enemy will have pretty similar reactions to silent image most of the time. If they're humanoid, then charm person will work on them only a bit worse than a second level spell. If they're on the ground, then that aforementioned only slightly higher saving throw from a second level spell is still in play, and the effects that don't require a save continue to be in play. Magic tends to be rooted in differences in kind, rather than differences in quantity, especially at higher levels but also frequently at lower levels.

ryu

2017-03-14, 11:06 PM

Argument had literally nothing to do with Rogues or Bards or Tiers and 100% to do with CR and Wizards. But sure, you were wrong and won't admit it okay.

Actually more like I put you on ignore a long time ago and thus only go through the mental effort to engage you in any way when you become a main contributer to conversation in threads I'm actually interested in. If we have the same vote anyway it's pointless and a waste of my valuable time.

Beheld

2017-03-15, 02:17 AM

Actually more like I put you on ignore a long time ago and thus only go through the mental effort to engage you in any way when you become a main contributer to conversation in threads I'm actually interested in. If we have the same vote anyway it's pointless and a waste of my valuable time.

Fine, I vote Bard is Tier 4 and Rogue is Tier 3, now you can follow through on the challenge you yourself made about me being "objectively wrong" that has nothing to do with Bards or Rogues but that you are running away from because you realized you couldn't follow through on your own challenge.

ryu

2017-03-15, 02:23 AM

eggynack

2017-03-15, 02:26 AM

Fine, I vote Bard is Tier 4 and Rogue is Tier 3, now you can follow through on the challenge you yourself made about me being "objectively wrong" that has nothing to do with Bards or Rogues but that you are running away from because you realized you couldn't follow through on your own challenge.
Honestly not sure whether to count weird spite votes. I'ma stick them in the sheet for now, particularly cause they don't make much of a difference to the result, but if our goal here is accurate tiering, and it is, then votes designed as a weird challenge to other users seem counterproductive. Like, do you actually think these things are the case, that bard is tier four and that rogue is tier three? I'd have to assume not, which means it was a vote explicitly in bad faith. So, don't be surprised if I ditch both votes (though I suppose I'd get rid of the votes entirely for the moment rather than switch the bard to its original tier three vote).

Edit: Yeah, decided to delete them, basically immediately. I can't in good conscience endorse this kinda weird, "Vote with an explicit non-tiering motive," thing. The actual numbers we have, not just the resulting tier, are important to me. It's not right to poison that with spite.

Beheld

2017-03-15, 05:22 AM

Yeah it doesn't work if everyone here knows you're just posturing. Come on. Get that grade school level mindgames we all learned to deal with a long time ago out of here.

The point is not to trick you, the point is to demonstrate that you are lying to back out of the challenge you proposed, because you looked at the list, and realized you lost.

ryu

2017-03-15, 06:00 AM

Actually I've already achieved my objective, because it's rare in internet debate to actually change the mind of someone blatantly opposed to you. Funny thing about that is that it wasn't the objective. The objective was to get you to throw away the last of your credibility on a shortsighted spite play just like I thought you would. Now they aren't even paying attention to your votes, and while I gave you the conversational rope to metaphorically hang yourself, I certainly never once suggested I'd alter my vote to something I didn't believe just to spite someone. So go on, think that you won. Your opinion was never even on the list of priorities.

Beheld

2017-03-15, 06:12 AM

ryu

2017-03-15, 06:15 AM

eggynack

2017-03-15, 06:28 AM

Now they aren't even paying attention to your votes.
I wouldn't necessarily rule anything out. If Beheld makes some votes that seem to be made in good faith, those'll get counted unless things change pretty radically. This particular case was a bridge too far regarding this vote pair, because we can look upon the votes and say that they don't even accurately reflect the opinions of the user making them, but I'd assume that most votes Beheld would make wouldn't be in the context of a weird spite conflict, y'know? I can't disregard people's votes just cause I might disagree with them. At that point, I might as well be setting myself up as this weird arbiter of whether someone is credible as a voter, ultimately allowing my bias to hurt how closely we're modelling the thread to the opinions of the forum. Wouldn't be any better than Jormengand was when they effectively banned me and maybe also banned Beheld (they indicated that they did, but responded to him later, so I dunno) from the thread, which was a big reason I started this one, because the personal opinions of a user shouldn't be a weird voting gate. Big reason I didn't count this one was because there's essentially an explicit claim that the vote is going against Beheld's actual opinions.

and you therefore claim the moral high ground because the votes I never made aren't getting counted?
I mean, I would assume your bard 4 rogue 3 vote was meant to be counted. Such is the nature of votes. You definitely made that vote, at the very least. Maybe you didn't intend to make the tier three bard vote. I took it as implied, because I tend to, as a general rule, take absolute statements of a tiering as a vote. I think that's how people intend them, and I like to count things that are intended as votes. If ya want me to add back in the bard for tier three vote, I very likely would. Not cause it matches up with my opinion, but because it seems to match up to your opinion. I ended up not including the three as opposed to the switching to the old vote option primarily out of respect for your seeming desire to at least not vote the bard tier four. Not gonna force folks to contribute, y'know?

Beheld

2017-03-15, 06:29 AM

Nah. I would've been prepared to. It's not hard to do. The only stipulations were no minion-mancy and no feats. Minionmancy is less than half the scary broken spells that exist at any given level. It's only bad faith if under no scenario are you prepared to follow through.

Scenario A: You present challenge. It is accepted. Monsters are presented. You back out because you know you can't do it, but make up some dumb lie about how now that the person who said in his first post that the Bard is probably Tier 3 is Tier 3, the challenge designed to prove your claim about Wizards is no longer relevant because you personally don't like the poster in question.

Scenario B: You present challenge. It is accepted. Monsters are presented. All 5 monsters are mindless zombies. You say "Silent Image x5" and win the challenge.

Your actions in Scenario A are not in good faith just because Scenario B could have existed but didn't.

ryu

2017-03-15, 06:40 AM

Scenario A: You present challenge. It is accepted. Monsters are presented. You back out because you know you can't do it, but make up some dumb lie about how now that the person who said in his first post that the Bard is probably Tier 3 is Tier 3, the challenge designed to prove your claim about Wizards is no longer relevant because you personally don't like the poster in question.

Scenario B: You present challenge. It is accepted. Monsters are presented. All 5 monsters are mindless zombies. You say "Silent Image x5" and win the challenge.

Your actions in Scenario A are not in good faith just because Scenario B could have existed but didn't.

That's an interesting moral stance. I think you'll find the common parlance on such is that the faith of an offer or action is based entirely on preparedness to perform, as opposed to expectation. Car dealerships generally expect you to try to haggle the price of your purchase. That doesn't mean they aren't prepared to honor any deal they give you. This is why claims of bad faith are hard. It's a VERY specific accusation. I thought, correctly, that you were the type of person who'd cut off his metaphorical nose to spite his face. Banking entirely on that and having no list of safe encounter lines of spells would've been bad faith. I didn't do that though.

Fizban

2017-03-15, 06:40 AM

The objective was to get you to throw away the last of your credibility on a shortsighted spite play just like I thought you would.
Funny thing, I still count Beheld as more credible than you.

I would further move that "spite" votes ought to be counted. After all, if someone's making an argument just to spite a particular position, doesn't that make the position valid? There's obviously some sort of dispute, which is the whole point of the voting. Ryu, who's idea of a "normal" game state has been shown to be woefully abnormal, has just openly admitted attempting to manipulate another poster specifically to get the judge to disqualify their position, which is the actual spite here. Does that not make it obvious this position is significant and ought be counted? If Beheld had presented it independently it would have been, but disqualifying the vote just because ryu kicked up a fuss is rather poor on multiple levels.

Or is any dissent now invalid as long as ryu surrounds it with his own garbage? Because that's gonna require throwing out a lot of votes.

ryu

2017-03-15, 06:45 AM

eggynack

2017-03-15, 07:06 AM

Funny thing, I still count Beheld as more credible than you.

I would further move that "spite" votes ought to be counted. After all, if someone's making an argument just to spite a particular position, doesn't that make the position valid? There's obviously some sort of dispute, which is the whole point of the voting. Ryu, who's idea of a "normal" game state has been shown to be woefully abnormal, has just openly admitted attempting to manipulate another poster specifically to get the judge to disqualify their position, which is the actual spite here. Does that not make it obvious this position is significant and ought be counted? If Beheld had presented it independently it would have been, but disqualifying the vote just because ryu kicked up a fuss is rather poor on multiple levels.

Or is any dissent now invalid as long as ryu surrounds it with his own garbage? Because that's gonna require throwing out a lot of votes.
This tiering system does not have the goal of fulfilling any arbitrary goal a person has. In the arguments, you can have whatever wacky spite goals you want, I guess, but the vote is meant to be a representation of what tier you think the class should have. Nothing more, nothing less. If your justification for a vote is something like, "I think this class is tier one, but all the people saying it's tier one are jerks, so I'm gonna vote tier three to screw with them," that person is not voting in accordance with the core goal of this thread. They're voting in accordance with some weird other goal, explicitly acting in contravention of this thread's intent to measure how forumites feel about the class. I don't give a crap about how forumites feel about each other. Why would I? So I can say afterwards, "Yeah, we were trying to get an accurate reflection of, first, how playgrounders think classes should be tiered, and, second, what random issues they had with each other at that moment in time,"? No, cause that's ridiculous.

This vote is not being discounted because of anything Ryu said. It's being discounted exactly because of what Beheld said. If he instead had posted something like, "Y'know, I was pretty convinced of tier three, but all of these arguments in favor of tier three have really shown me the flaws in that position, so I'm changing my vote to four," I would have counted that in a heartbeat. You can argue that Beheld's intention could have been the same behind each post, but I'm inevitably limited to the information before me. And, while you might not agree with Ryu or how he tiers, I don't think there's any doubt that his votes thus far have been completely consistent with how he views the game, and premised entirely on his feelings about the tiers rather than on some wacky feud.

And, again, I'm not disqualifying Beheld. I'm pretty unlikely to count any bard for tier four argument from him at this point, but if he wants to toss out anything else outside the norm, and justify that with his personal opinions on the game, then that'll be counted whether or not I consider those opinions particularly valid. I'm not even really disqualifying Beheld's position on bards. To all appearances, he put forth this bard vote specifically and only because he wanted Ryu to continue with this weird off-topic wizard thing, so while I am absolutely disqualifying that position, his actual apparent opinion, that bards are tier three (stated a couple of times in this thread), would be respected if he wants it to be. Only reason I wouldn't respect a future Beheld post giving a real justification for bards in tier four is because I think that that particular well is poisoned.

Fizban

2017-03-15, 07:07 AM

And yet, when I openly admitted I was downshifting from my normal position in voting wizard at tier 2, it was counted. See what we have here is me voting based on a lower op than I would actually desire to play, (Ryu) voting based on a higher op that nobody actually thinks is normal, and Beheld casting a vote which is. . . ? There is no defined game state for these tiers, and a game state can be set in which bard is tier 4 and rogue is tier 3. Is it a "normal" game? Because your game state isn't normal, my game state isn't even normal by my own standards, why should Beheld be penalized for casting a vote that doesn't match his own views?

Because (Ryu) and eggy argued with him a bunch and his first official voting interaction was in that context.

Which is why I say to eggy, that labeling these as spite votes and then deliberately discarding them is bs. The moment you consider them potential votes you give up the authority to ignore them, period. If you wanted to ignore Beheld for not being a regular voter or casting a vote out of context, you shouldn't have considered it in the first place. Allowing some posters to push agendas that clearly don't match your own and then refusing another just because they didn't submit it properly is bogus. Because make no mistake, there are plenty of votes being cast in these threads that ignore the principles in the mission statement.

Edit: so the only qualification for voting is "convince eggy you're voting for what you believe in." Because to be clear on that last claim, we have people voting in all sorts of ways based on ACFs and dips and wildly divergent op levels and level ranges that I don't think can really be called moderate. That's been obvious from the get go, and they've all been counted, and it's been fairly obvious that's your metric even though it wasn't quite outright stated, but "vote for what you believe in" does not move towards the goal of accurate tiers. It moves towards the popularity contest where a bunch of inaccurate but popular claims are still accepted.

Beheld

2017-03-15, 07:23 AM

Maybe you didn't intend to make the tier three bard vote. I took it as implied, because I tend to, as a general rule, take absolute statements of a tiering as a vote. I think that's how people intend them, and I like to count things that are intended as votes.

A brief statement on not voting in tier threads: I am sure this is the reason I don't vote, and I suspect it is the reason Cosi I doesn't vote. Voting in tier threads is meaningless. In a Jaronk or jormuneg (phone can't go find spelling) thread the entire definition of the tiers is meaningless gobblygook designed to prevent real analysis. In eggy's tier definitions tiers are rated based on "situations" that someone can handle. I think those situations are better called encounters, and that further, we should acknowledge that contributing to nonlevelappropriate encounters above the rate of a character of that level is worth approximately nothing. Presumably failing against lower level challenges is bad.

So from that, it follows that what we are really measuring is contribution to level appropriate encounters. Now what people vote based on their own ignorance without having a method of testing their assumptions is then merely an incorrect estimate. Better then to present an actual argument about level appropriate results based on actual effects than to just have another evidenceless assertion based on the fact that they heard it once, like ryu's complete inability to back up his claim and challenge.

The new consensus is just going to be a new thing people believe without evidence because they heard it once, but be unable to back up when it comes down to it.

ryu

2017-03-15, 07:25 AM

Beheld

2017-03-15, 07:36 AM

I'm willing to use the age old debate tactic of getting the person on the other side to say something untenable to lower their aggregate credibility.

"Something untenable" here being attempting to get you to back up your own claim.

I agree you have definitely demonstrated that you backing up your claim is untenable.

I question however if outside your own head that when you presented a challenge and I followed through, and then you backed out after you looked at the monsters and couldn't come up with spells that met your criteria, that perhaps that might have effected your credibility.

eggynack

2017-03-15, 07:37 AM

And yet, when I openly admitted I was downshifting from my normal position in voting wizard at tier 2, it was counted.
Well, yeah. Because I thought that was an accurate representation of what you thought the wizard's tier should be. This still reflects your views on the wizard given what you perceived as the premises of this thread. I thought, anyway.

There is no defined game state for these tiers, and a game state can be set in which bard is tier 4 and rogue is tier 3. Is it a "normal" game? Because your game state isn't normal, my game state isn't even normal by my own standards, why should Beheld be penalized for casting a vote that doesn't match his own views?
Why shouldn't he be penalized for casting a vote for a tier that he explicitly doesn't agree with? This isn't a vote reflecting a play style different from Beheld's usual style that required some mental stretching to get into, thus causing the vote swap. It's a vote made because he was mad at Ryu.

Which is why I say to eggy, that labeling these as spite votes and then deliberately discarding them is bs. The moment you consider them potential votes you give up the authority to ignore them, period.
He pretty explicitly said that he was voting this way to goad Ryu into participation in this challenge. It reflected no goal with any connection to the tier system as it exists.

If you wanted to ignore Beheld for not being a regular voter or casting a vote out of context, you shouldn't have considered it in the first place.
Non-regular voters can absolutely vote. Beheld can vote for stuff right now if he wants. Not sure what you mean by casting a vote out of context. Is that specifically referring to the way he, again, voted with a weird agenda? I considered including that for a few minutes, because I really don't like throwing away votes, and then I recognized that doing so would be a betrayal of the very fundamental principle of the thread, which is something I thought might happen when I made the post. Am I not allowed some time to consider, the capacity to reconsider?

Allowing some posters to push agendas that clearly don't match your own and then refusing another just because they didn't submit it properly is bogus.
I can't stop people from pushing agendas. But you can't push agendas with votes. At least not when I'm made aware of it. Does this incentivize being more sneaky about actual agendas? Sure, but not much we can do about that. Honestly, this wasn't something I'd ever expected to come up. It'd be kinda hard to push this strange person manipulation agenda with a completely standard bard for tier four vote though. Kinda hard to push any agenda beyond, y'know, moving the tier of a class in a desired direction.

Because make no mistake, there are plenty of votes being cast in these threads that ignore the principles in the mission statement.

Yeah, probably. As long as they're honestly meant as far as I'm aware though, they're at least focusing on the core mission statement, to accurately tier. Or apparently focusing on it.

Edit: so the only qualification for voting is "convince eggy you're voting for what you believe in." Because to be clear on that last claim, we have people voting in all sorts of ways based on ACFs and dips and wildly divergent op levels and level ranges that I don't think can really be called moderate. That's been obvious from the get go, and they've all been counted, and it's been fairly obvious that's your metric even though it wasn't quite outright stated, but "vote for what you believe in" does not move towards the goal of accurate tiers. It moves towards the popularity contest where a bunch of inaccurate but popular claims are still accepted.
Yes, that is more or less the only baseline qualification. If you say you have a particular explicit vote, and then give some reason for that vote that is non-trivial and/or participate in the thread some, then I'm so far 100% likely to include that vote, as far as I can recall.There were some votes I was going to ditch for lack of any justification, but then the user justified some, so I kept them in. If you want to appeal any particular vote because their explicitly stated premises fail to match up with what we're doing (an assessment only at level 20, or one heavily reliant on prestige classes, for example), then I might well remove that vote.

However, weird optimization levels or ACF use are unlikely to be the premise for that removal, so appealing a vote like that would be kinda pointless. Dips are currently not allowed, so I'm at least likely to remove those votes going forward if a particular case is brought to my attention and not sufficiently refuted by the voter. I'm wary of removing votes on that basis retroactively though, so bringing up votes from before pretty late in the fighter thread aren't that likely to get me to wipe the vote. In those cases, you might do better bringing the issue up to the voter in question, get them to make a vote more aligned with what they think in this new context.

I don't think we're necessarily going to get perfectly accurate here, in any case. Voting has flaws. I think we're reasonably close to it though. We've had a ton of detailed discussion. A system where I discount votes that lack "proper" justification sounds good in theory, but that's a surefire path to just turning my personal tier views into a new tier system by discounting anyone that disagrees with me as not really being based on the nature of the system, because if it were based on the nature of the system then they'd agree with my clearly superior opinion. Really not what I'm interested in here. I like that I have your votes included, even the ones I disagree with. It's valuable to me. A system where I turn aside anything I consider wildly divergent might well not include that data.

Edit:
"Something untenable" here being attempting to get you to back up your own claim.

Attempting to get him to back up his claim is theoretically fine, though it might make more sense in the wizard thread. Trying to get him to back up his claim by using my voting data as a weapon is not fine. I value that data. You were very much willing to hurt something I value in pursuit of your goals.

ryu

2017-03-15, 07:41 AM

"Something untenable" here being attempting to get you to back up your own claim.

I agree you have definitely demonstrated that you backing up your claim is untenable.

I question however if outside your own head that when you presented a challenge and I followed through, and then you backed out after you looked at the monsters and couldn't come up with spells that met your criteria, that perhaps that might have effected your credibility.

Interesting hypothetical. Guess we'll never know what would've happened in that situation because you didn't follow through, and with access to WBL, ACFs, race choices, and literally any spells available at the level natively that don't summon or create minions the challenge is easy.

eggynack

2017-03-15, 07:46 AM

The entirety of my votes, including tier 3 across the board for everything in this thread's roster except for savant which I've never seen used.
That a new vote? Don't seem to have it included yet. Either way they're included now.

Beheld

2017-03-15, 07:46 AM

Interesting hypothetical. Guess we'll never know what would've happened in that situation because you didn't follow through, and with access to WBL, ACFs, race choices, and literally any spells available at the level natively that don't summon or create minions the challenge is easy.

Except that literally is the situation, because that is explicitly what happened in this thread. I get it, the challenge is so easy that you refuse to do it but it is just so easy. It would only take you 30 seconds, but you are willing to spend hours of your time refusing to do it. But its totally easy.

ryu

2017-03-15, 07:55 AM

That a new vote? Don't seem to have it included yet. Either way they're included now.

Totally is. Technically three if you count classes separate. Mostly based on those three classes meeting the criteria of being pretty obvious better than rogue, but pretty well below sorcerer. It's a pretty simple system I use. For any given class not likely in tiers one or six just compare the class to be evaluated to the poster child of those tiers adjacent to the proposed possible vote. Keep doing that until you find a tier the class matches. Tiers one and six are even simpler because you've half the work. For those wondering the poster children are commoner without chicken superpowers, fighter, rogue, bard, sorcerer, and wizard. Why get specific with commoner? Because the build excluded is the only not tier 6 build by the methodology we're using, and it's an anomaly at tier 3.

weckar

2017-03-15, 07:56 AM

Bard: T2
Jester: T3
Factotum: T3
Savant: T4

Bard sits for me at the bottom of T2, for many of the same reasons Beguiler made it up there earlier. What they relatively lose in spell levels they make up for in genuine versatility - which is frankly what high-tier gaming is all about.

Beheld

2017-03-15, 08:08 AM

It's a vote made because he was mad at Ryu.

Actually it was "vote" "made" to satisfy the precondition "you must disagree with me about Bards even though my claim has nothing to do with Bards before I follow through on my own challenge." Knowing that literally as soon as he actually followed through I could you know, revoke my vote, since you allow vote changes.

But yes, taking away his patently untrue excuse for refusing to follow through was the reason for the vote, I question why you think people refusing to have dicussion unless someone votes a specific way is something you don't mind though.

Attempting to get him to back up his claim is theoretically fine, though it might make more sense in the wizard thread.

I asked if the reason he was refusing to follow through on his challenge was because of tangent, and he said "Nope, I just refuse to follow through at all!" If he had said it was because he thought it didn't belong in this thread, I would have moved it. Although it doesn't belong in the Wizard thread, probably the best thread would be home base, since it's about what constitutes a measurement system, not about the Wizard's Tier.

ryu

2017-03-15, 08:22 AM

Ah ah ah. I specifically stated that the specific reason that would no longer be necessary was because you clarified your position. This was, after all, related to the main discussion about bard spellcasting stating that I agreed with eggy that bard casting is entirely level appropriate across the vast vast majority of the CR system. That they can contribute meaningfully in any common CR encounter through spell. That thing about wizards? That challenge was in relation to your contention that wizard casting was the benchmark when it is, in fact, well above par.

eggynack

2017-03-15, 08:24 AM

But yes, taking away his patently untrue excuse for refusing to follow through was the reason for the vote, I question why you think people refusing to have dicussion unless someone votes a specific way is something you don't mind though.
It's not really up to me what catalysts will or won't drive someone to discussion. I'm not Ryu's boss. I can't and won't force Ryu's reasons for not arguing to match up to my desires. Besides, the current vote someone has is a perfectly reasonable reason not to spend a bunch of time arguing with them. If they have the same tier vote as you, then your opinion is reasonably similar in the broad strokes. It's logical to spend your time on people that will actually be convinced into changing their vote. Anyway, doesn't really matter whether the precondition is "right" or "wrong". Not up to me, especially cause I have no authority to make people argue against their will or whatever.

I do have the authority and drive to not allow votes that are being made for a reason besides you thinking the class should be tiered a certain way. So I acted on that authority and drive. It's not like he forced you to change your vote. He just said he didn't want to do this thing with someone with the vote you had at the time. Someone telling you they only want to hang out with murderers isn't forcing you to murder, and it is, in the same way as this vote altering situation, a far more morally neutral act than the murder itself.

Beheld

2017-03-15, 08:28 AM

That thing about wizards? That challenge was in relation to your contention that wizard casting was the benchmark when it is, in fact, well above par.

So you reiterate the claim you know you can't prove, but refuse to follow through on your own proposed method of supporting the claim you are restating because a completely different unrelated claim exists? And you reiterate you position, that you will always and forever refuse to follow through on your own proposed method of supporting your claim, regardless of where or when it is presented?

If they have the same tier vote as you, then your opinion is reasonably similar in the broad strokes. It's logical to spend your time on people that will actually be convinced into changing their vote.

FIGHTERS ARE TIER 1 I REFUSE TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE BECAUSE WE AGREE ABOUT BARDS!

I question the logic of such a claim.

ryu

2017-03-15, 08:34 AM

It's not really up to me what catalysts will or won't drive someone to discussion. I'm not Ryu's boss. I can't and won't force Ryu's reasons for not arguing to match up to my desires. Besides, the current vote someone has is a perfectly reasonable reason not to spend a bunch of time arguing with them. If they have the same tier vote as you, then your opinion is reasonably similar in the broad strokes. It's logical to spend your time on people that will actually be convinced into changing their vote. Anyway, doesn't really matter whether the precondition is "right" or "wrong". Not up to me, especially cause I have no authority to make people argue against their will or whatever.

I do have the authority and drive to not allow votes that are being made for a reason besides you thinking the class should be tiered a certain way. So I acted on that authority and drive. It's not like he forced you to change your vote. He just said he didn't want to do this thing with someone with the vote you had at the time. Someone telling you they only want to hang out with murderers isn't forcing you to murder, and it is, in the same way as this vote altering situation, a far more morally neutral act than the murder itself.

Hey, eggy, considering we've both seen fighters solve level appropriate encounters through the use of UMD and activated spell items, do you find it even slightly implausible that a wizard could accomplish the same task bolstered by the ability to freely activate all wizard items, and save money by simply naturally casting the vast majority of spells used? As we've established I value your opinion rather more than his.

Fizban

2017-03-15, 08:38 AM

I also take issue with the statement "I don't care how forumites feel about each other." Ryu, gloating about his accomplishment (even if you say he had no part in it), is empowered by the act of throwing out those votes. He is encouraged to continue his intimidation and empty argument tactics in the future, knowing that he will suffer no reprisal, while other posters who might have voted against him know the same and have less incentive to bother bringing their arguments to the thread. It doesn't matter if you're swearing up and down to count their votes when they know that ryu can shout "nuh uh" over and over without presenting evidence. It's why I try not to bother arguing with him in the first place, and I clearly have more fortitude than many. If your goal is more accurate tiers, you should want to hear from the voices who normally aren't heard, and bluntly it's crap like this that keeps a lot of them away.

So you should care how forumites feel about each other, because that's what shapes your voting pool.

Well, yeah. Because I thought that was an accurate representation of what you thought the wizard's tier should be. This still reflects your views on the wizard given what you perceived as the premises of this thread. I thought, anyway.
The premise of the thread seems to be mutable. You say it's for accurate tiering, but votes only require the voter's belief regardless of their accuracy, making shared belief the only "accuracy."

Not sure what you mean by casting a vote out of context. Is that specifically referring to the way he, again, voted with a weird agenda? I considered including that for a few minutes, because I really don't like throwing away votes, and then I recognized that doing so would be a betrayal of the very fundamental principle of the thread, which is something I thought might happen when I made the post. Am I not allowed some time to consider, the capacity to reconsider?
I think you posted hastily, should have kept it under your hat so you wouldn't have had a retraction. If you'd instead presented a solid "take your fight to the wizard thread" and silently ignored the faux votes, that would have been neutral, though I'd prefer if the implied authority would call him out on backing out of his own challenge so as to discourage it in the future.

I can't stop people from pushing agendas. But you can't push agendas with votes. At least not when I'm made aware of it.
Did you forget my whole reminder of why protest votes exist as a reason to even bother casting votes you know won't affect the outcome? It is my "agenda" to get people to lower their expected optimization, player skill, and other expectations to a point where the tiers are actually useful for the "average" table (accurate) rather than the "forumite char-op" table. I have pushed that agenda with my votes for Warmage and Wizard both at tier 2, and I was open about it the whole time.

Does this incentivize being more sneaky about actual agendas? Sure, but not much we can do about that. Honestly, this wasn't something I'd ever expected to come up. It'd be kinda hard to push this strange person manipulation agenda with a completely standard bard for tier four vote though. Kinda hard to push any agenda beyond, y'know, moving the tier of a class in a desired direction.
To be clear, I doubt ryu has much of an agenda other than "argue down people who say wizards aren't the best." But his arguments, which I often find entirely empty, are still counted because he has faith in them. If Beheld's agenda is "get someone to actually back that up," well he's still being honest. And that exchange would have much more value than ryu's usual fare, if by some miracle it actually went off properly. I'd rather incentivize that then give him something to gloat over, and upholding the vote does so with the authority of the vote-taker.

If you want to appeal any particular vote because their explicitly stated premises fail to match up with what we're doing (an assessment only at level 20, or one heavily reliant on prestige classes, for example), then I might well remove that vote.

However, weird optimization levels or ACF use are unlikely to be the premise for that removal, so appealing a vote like that would be kinda pointless. Dips are currently not allowed, so I'm at least likely to remove those votes going forward if a particular case is brought to my attention and not sufficiently refuted by the voter.
And we run back into the problem of relatively lax definitions and unspecified vote counting procedures. You avoid certain arguments but end up with votes that are mostly just personal opinion.

In those cases, you might do better bringing the issue up to the voter in question, get them to make a vote more aligned with what they think in this new context.
There have been a handful of vote changes, but you know perfectly well that anyone who's actually arguing has almost no chance of changing their vote, else they wouldn't be arguing it.

A system where I discount votes that lack "proper" justification sounds good in theory,
Just pointing out that you are throwing out votes for something that sounds good in theory (a theory which I've already disagreed with).

Attempting to get him to back up his claim is theoretically fine, though it might make more sense in the wizard thread. Trying to get him to back up his claim by using my voting data as a weapon is not fine. I value that data. You were very much willing to hurt something I value in pursuit of your goals.
Your voting data remains entirely under your control, as you have demonstrated. The fact that ryu has once again taken the momentum of a thread without providing any actual arguments, and his opponent's votes were thrown out, regardless of reason, hurts the tone of the thread which is something I value and I think you should value too. It's a free board, can't stop anyone from posting, can't stop anyone from dragging arguments into the wrong threads, but we do control the response.

Here indeed, he has accomplished his goals as gloated, taking up space and getting attention for refusing to actually engage with Beheld at no cost to himself. This displeases me and makes me less inclined to participate in the future, presumably the same for Beheld and who knows who else is watching, and that should displease you. But the moment has passed so there's naught to do but say it and move on.

eggynack

2017-03-15, 08:39 AM

FIGHTERS ARE TIER 1 I REFUSE TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE BECAUSE WE AGREE ABOUT BARDS!

I question the logic of such a claim.
Pretty sure the wizard thing was originally a weird rhetoric outcropping of the bard argument. So, not really a non sequitur, as you're indicating. As far as I can tell, he was saying, "I was going to make this wizard argument to support bards being tier three, but it turns out you already think that, so I don't care."

Hey, eggy, considering we've both seen fighters solve level appropriate encounters through the use of UMD and activated spell items, do you find it even slightly implausible that a wizard could accomplish the same task bolstered by the ability to freely activate all wizard items, and save money by simply naturally casting the vast majority of spells used? As we've established I value your opinion rather more than his.
Hmm? Oh, no, it's obvious to me you could do whatever this weird wizard thing is.

Beheld

2017-03-15, 08:46 AM

To be clear, I doubt ryu has much of an agenda other than "argue down people who say wizards aren't the best." But his arguments, which I often find entirely empty, are still counted because he has faith in them. If Beheld's agenda is "get someone to actually back that up," well he's still being honest. And that exchange would have much more value than ryu's usual fare, if by some miracle it actually went off properly. I'd rather incentivize that then give him something to gloat over, and upholding the vote does so with the authority of the vote-taker.

I do want to briefly point out that eggy accepting or not accepting the vote is literally meaningless as far as Ryu backing up his challenge. Ryu is already trying to lie about what his challenge is while still refusing to put forward an argument as we speak. He won't accept his own challenge, because he already evaluated the monsters, and knows he will fail. If he hadn't come up with the meaningless "Arguments about Wizards are meaningless because we agree about Bards" nonsense, then he would have come up with whatever other dumb excuse he could think of to back out, as we know, because he's steadfastly refusing to follow through on his challenge in any other thread too.

Hmm? Oh, no, it's obvious to me you could do whatever this weird wizard thing is.

"I don't even know what the challenge is, but I'm sure you could do it!"

.................................................. ..............................................

Yes, I'm sure you are being totally objective in all your opinions.

ryu

2017-03-15, 08:47 AM

Pretty sure the wizard thing was originally a weird rhetoric outcropping of the bard argument. So, not really a non sequitur, as you're indicating. As far as I can tell, he was saying, "I was going to make this wizard argument to support bards being tier three, but it turns out you already think that, so I don't care."

Hmm? Oh, no, it's obvious to me you could do whatever this weird wizard thing is.

It was. Specifically the argument centered around wizard being the ''fair'' point in CR balance, which I was saying was complete and utter tosh. Also shut up Microsoft tosh is actually a legitimate phrase in common versions of English.

Also thanks for demonstrating just how far the common, reasonable opinion supports the claim made.

Beheld

2017-03-15, 09:03 AM

This is the challenge Ryu proposed and is now trying to back out and lie into being a different challenge (which he will also refuse to do):

All about Wizards, nothing to do with Bards at all.

Name a level and and a CR appropriate encounter that doesn't randomly murder approximately 9 in ten parties. I'll name a either a single spell, or a combination of spells that can be cast without the enemy being able to take meaningful action that will either literally end the encounter or render it harmless and a certain win. Just for kicks I won't even use feats. Just spells. Nothing that summons a minion or creates one. This happens more than five times you're objectively wrong.

Level 6: Babua or Bearded Devil Haunts a cathedral at night, Chain Devil guards a room by staying in hiding on the 80ft high roof with his chains until someone enters who shouldn't, A Young Blue Dragon ambushes the party as they cross the Desert, A pair of wolves attack from invisibility on the road, one of them is a Raging, Enlarged, Bull's Strengthed, Werewolf, and the other is Bull's Strengthed Blinking Greater Bargest, how you doing on those knowledge ranks?
Level 10: Vrock or Bone Devil slaughtered a cult who summoned it after it broke free, and has taken up residence in their former cave complex, a Juvenile Red strafes a small village the nearby, presumably your party might feel bad and try to save them, you broke the rules and so a Zelekaut is hunting you down, you are probably unaware of that. He may or may not have a CR 7 ally he's lesser geased into helping him, as you travel in the underdark the path opens into a large cavern, suddenly rocks start raining from above because a couple Stone Giants (one an elder) start throwing them at you from up on ledges.

EDIT: Also Devourer at level 10, missing some sweet undead.

Uh what challenge. I feel no need to follow through, because it would be soooo easy. So easy that I will spend hours bragging about how easy it is, without every doing it. Also now I need WBL and ACFs, probably specifically an ACF that replaces a feat, so I probably need feats too.

Also I'm now going to claim that "solve level appropriate encounters" is the same thing as "I'll name a either a single spell, or a combination of spells that can be cast without the enemy being able to take meaningful action that will either literally end the encounter or render it harmless and a certain win."

eggynack

2017-03-15, 09:14 AM

I also take issue with the statement "I don't care how forumites feel about each other." Ryu, gloating about his accomplishment (even if you say he had no part in it), is empowered by the act of throwing out those votes. He is encouraged to continue his intimidation and empty argument tactics in the future, knowing that he will suffer no reprisal, while other posters who might have voted against him know the same and have less incentive to bother bringing their arguments to the thread. It doesn't matter if you're swearing up and down to count their votes when they know that ryu can shout "nuh uh" over and over without presenting evidence. It's why I try not to bother arguing with him in the first place, and I clearly have more fortitude than many. If your goal is more accurate tiers, you should want to hear from the voices who normally aren't heard, and bluntly it's crap like this that keeps a lot of them away.
It's so ridiculously easy to not say, "I'm making this bard vote for a reason completely separate from the bard's tiering." I don't really see Ryu as a credible threat to someone's ability to give a vote that matches their opinion. Also didn't seem to do all that much, except in this weird retroactive mode where we're apparently supposed to assess it all in the context of this devious plan or something. I definitely don't consider him anywhere close to the most disruptive person hanging out in these threads.

The premise of the thread seems to be mutable. You say it's for accurate tiering, but votes only require the voter's belief regardless of their accuracy, making shared belief the only "accuracy."
I think that including these votes broadly, which would indeed reflect the shared belief of forumites, is a reasonable path to accuracy.

I think you posted hastily, should have kept it under your hat so you wouldn't have had a retraction.
I really don't see an issue with the retraction, especially because I clearly stated the possibility of that. Even had I not made the initial segment of the post, I would have felt compelled to state explicitly that a vote is not being included and why. I value transparency, including in my thought process.

If you'd instead presented a solid "take your fight to the wizard thread" and silently ignored the faux votes, that would have been neutral, though I'd prefer if the implied authority would call him out on backing out of his own challenge so as to discourage it in the future.

Did you forget my whole reminder of why protest votes exist as a reason to even bother casting votes you know won't affect the outcome? It is my "agenda" to get people to lower their expected optimization, player skill, and other expectations to a point where the tiers are actually useful for the "average" table (accurate) rather than the "forumite char-op" table. I have pushed that agenda with my votes for Warmage and Wizard both at tier 2, and I was open about it the whole time.

My impression was that those votes, whatever your reason for casting them, reflected an opinion of yours with regard to the classes in question. That the model we're using, that the discussion we're having, creates a context in which this tiering makes sense. Not necessarily trying to get the final number to change, but saying it anyway because you want your feeling to be known. If my impression was wrong, if you were instead just trying to stick it to the people discussing by posting numbers in strict contravention of your own views, then I may have been wrong to include them.

To be clear, I doubt ryu has much of an agenda other than "argue down people who say wizards aren't the best." But his arguments, which I often find entirely empty, are still counted because he has faith in them. If Beheld's agenda is "get someone to actually back that up," well he's still being honest. And that exchange would have much more value than ryu's usual fare, if by some miracle it actually went off properly. I'd rather incentivize that then give him something to gloat over, and upholding the vote does so with the authority of the vote-taker.
I value the accuracy of my numbers to the opinions of the people voting over someone getting an opportunity to gloat. Beheld was being honest that the numbers he was providing were dishonest. Really don't think that should count for much of anything. You can value what Beheld was trying to do. You may note that he is still very much being allowed to vote and such in spite of what he said. However, I am not going to value what he was doing in the form of a vote on the spreadsheet.

And we run back into the problem of relatively lax definitions and unspecified vote counting procedures. You avoid certain arguments but end up with votes that are mostly just personal opinion.
I don't see an issue with just assessing these kindsa situations if/when they come up, allowing people besides me to evaluate whether or not a vote should be included. My list wasn't an absolutely strict one. Just one dictated by likelihood. My vote counting procedure is incredibly slightly unspecified. Basically, if you post an explicit vote, and something crazy like this doesn't happen, then I'll include it. Simple as that. If I see a reason

There have been a handful of vote changes, but you know perfectly well that anyone who's actually arguing has almost no chance of changing their vote, else they wouldn't be arguing it.
I don't necessarily agree here. Yes, most of the time, if someone claims a particular tier, they're gonna stick to it come hell or high water. However, if you can explicitly point to a way that their justifications differ from existing premises within the system

Just pointing out that you are throwing out votes for something that sounds good in theory (a theory which I've already disagreed with).

A single vote, because it explicitly doesn't match what the person actually thinks about the tier. Seems like a thing good in fact, rather than theory, to me.

Your voting data remains entirely under your control, as you have demonstrated. The fact that ryu has once again taken the momentum of a thread without providing any actual arguments, and his opponent's votes were thrown out, regardless of reason, hurts the tone of the thread which is something I value and I think you should value too. It's a free board, can't stop anyone from posting, can't stop anyone from dragging arguments into the wrong threads, but we do control the response.

Here indeed, he has accomplished his goals as gloated, taking up space and getting attention for refusing to actually engage with Beheld at no cost to himself. This displeases me and makes me less inclined to participate in the future, presumably the same for Beheld and who knows who else is watching, and that should displease you. But the moment has passed so there's naught to do but say it and move on.
I'm not going to invisibly disregard votes, giving no room for rebuttal or collective input. As you yourself point out, the things I do may not necessarily have a perfect basis. I want people to have the room to disagree with the way I do things, as you are doing now. And, jeez, if you want Ryu to not have gloating momentum, not talking about the issue a bunch is a good path to that. If Beheld cared so much about Ryu's gloating momentum, he too could stop talking to him about this stuff. It always strikes me as really strange when people, very possibly including myself, try to stop the spread of argument fire by tossing argument fuel onto it.

"I don't even know what the challenge is, but I'm sure you could do it!"

.................................................. ..............................................

Yes, I'm sure you are being totally objective in all your opinions.
I know that it was about a wizard attempting to beat encounters relatively close to CR. I've seen Ryu say wizard stuff. It's pretty high optimization, even absent minion stuff. I have no doubt a wizard he constructs would be more than capable of reaching claimed benchmarks. And of course I'm not totally objective in my opinions. That's a ludicrous contradiction in terms.

Edit: Obviously that post isn't going to look like it's about bards when you remove the context, specifically your post that he quoted and the surrounding conversation of your post, that shows that it's about bards.

ryu

2017-03-15, 09:27 AM

And in the same vein, if I see Eggy getting into a challenge with someone on whether a druid can do something? I bet on him in almost all reasonable situations. Not because I know, but I do. Not because I like him, but I still totally do. Actually because the man has written a comprehensive, regularly expanding, compilation novel about how to completely and utterly wreck house with druids. He's literally the person I'd send someone who didn't understand druids, but wanted to.

Honestly the fact that he has the level of confidence in me he does despite the fact he has only seen a few optimization exercises from rather than literally writing a book is a humbling compliment.

Beheld

2017-03-15, 09:39 AM

Edit: Obviously that post isn't going to look like it's about bards when you remove the context, specifically your post that he quoted and the surrounding conversation of your post, that shows that it's about bards.

Look, I mean, if you are going to keep defending ryu, at least do us the courtesy of going back and reading the thread. Ryu literally never once posted in the thread until the conversation was about Wizards, and then he very specifically started posting solely in response to my points about Wizards, and solely about Wizards:

The post he quoted in making the challenge

Well that's the point. Over 90% of the common cohesive build concepts don't do that. The ones that specifically rely on breaking the RNG do, and the ones that rely on breaking the, for lack of a better term, CR RNG, by having permanent minions today at the cost of spell slots yesterday along with all your spell slots today do, but those are the only ones.

If you are cohesive build who takes levels in Wizard and casts the best non minionmancy spells of every level, then you don't break the game, that's the point. This is part of the larger problem were people on this forum have this weird conception of level appropriate challenge that involves complaining CR is broken so you can't expect characters to live up to their CR expectation whenever that fits their current needs, and then to turn around and claim that all encounters are really easy (except the broken ones, which is all the ones that aren't easy) when that fits the narrative.

Wizards don't 100% the SGT, that's fundamentally the way the game works. Wizards and Druids and Clerics score slightly above 50%, and that's totally fine.

About Wizard's not bards.

The post that was in response to:

If over over 90% of common, cohesive build concepts a class has can solo entire encounters without any real risk of losing, the class is not the benchmark of level appropriate. I didn't say mailman because it's the only way I can think of to end entire encounters before they begin as a wizard. I said mailman because it's a simple word that everyone here will be entirely familiar with without elaboration. I would go on to say that if you can't think of literally dozens of plausible wizard builds at any given level to obviate most ''level appropriate'' challenges you just aren't trying very hard. That's part of the power of tier 1. No matter what you do, you can be manifestly superior to every not tier 1 in all situations within a fairly short time in-game. And no, you don't have to compare to this to be tier 3. Not even slightly.

Wizards not Bards.

The post that was in response to:

First: eggynack, I swear I still love you, I'm just busy and waiting to compose a more complete reply. :smalleek:

If your build is "I do tons of damage because Arcane Thesis and getting tons of extra feats to stack with Arcane Thesis" then it isn't the spells that are not level appropriate, it's the arcane thesis stacking. And any build can do that. Barbarians can just take a bunch of nonsense power attack multiplies and shock trooper and charge for "Enemies HPx3" at every level and one hit blow everything up. That tells you that stacking a bunch of power attack modifiers and then not taking the to hit penalty is "not level appropriate" (Although, more technically, it's hard to metric because of the thing eggy said, where you multiply the fact that it is super level inappropriate against a lot of things, with it being not actually worth anything against other enemies, and you say that regardless of what the average is, if in 100% of encounters it is not level appropriate, it's not level appropriate).

The ability to create a 1d2 Crusader doesn't mean that everything Crusaders or Clerics do is not level appropriate, it doesn't even mean that Surge of Fortune is not level appropriate. It means that one specific weird combo isn't.

So saying "Wizard attack/utility/not minionmancy spells of the appropriate levels are level appropriate" isn't contradicted by showing how 10 times Orb of Fire damage isn't level appropriate.

All about Wizards, not at all about Bards.

The quote that was in response to:

There's also the fact that even without using anywhere near the wizard's best tricks, but still having some competent build plan like mailman or similar, he'll look at pretty much the vast majority of encounters for an entire party of his level and be able to solo them without much trouble. Usually in a single turn where he was likely to go first at that. The simple fact is that even without using the ''overpowered'' spells the wizard can and regularly does obviate the very concept of the CR curve. That's not your measuring stick for tier 3. Neither is the sorcerer that can do the same thing. The measuring stick if you want anyone to take you seriously is other commonly agreed upon tier 3s. If we could make an argument that bard was comparable to wizard in any way we wouldn't be arguing for 3 let me tell you.

All about Wizards, not about Bards.

The quote that was in response to:

I think my core problem with this metric, whether a class' offerings are level appropriate, is that it implies a binary where there is truly a spectrum. Grease isn't just level appropriate or not level appropriate. It has a specific degree of efficacy in each encounter, and then you average that up, combine it with all the other stuff the bard is doing, and compare that to surrounding classes. That's how you tier. Whether the bard can provide meaningful offense against close CR encounters is important, but it's specifically important in the context of how meaningful the offense of other tier three classes is. The bard is less "level appropriate" than the wizard, but we'd expect that, because wizard is higher tier. I think they're more "level appropriate" than a barbarian, or, more obviously, an adept, so the bard is likely of a higher tier than those classes.

Actually mentions the bard class at all! Except only at the very end, and tangential to both what you were responding to (metric to be applied: Wizards) and Ryu's response to that same point (Wizards are really good).

And the post that was a response to:

I've never heard a single convincing argument that CR is broken. If a Wizard uses "the most overpowered wizard spells" to their full potential, then encounters are too easy, but since the most overpowered spells are charm, dominate, animate dead, lesser planar binding, planar binding, greater planar binding, and gate, those spells aren't level appropriate.

But the level appropriate spells that give Wizards actual contribution to CR encounters are things like Haste at 5 and EBT at 7, not Haste at 7 and EBT at 11.

And fighters are no where ever contributing at level appropriate levels.

Not about Bards! About CR and Wizards.

And going back farther, (though this is already before Ryu ever posted in the thread) that was in response to Fizban talking about CR being broken, which was in response to my claim about Wizards not being broken which was in response to your claim that Wizards were broken.

Ryu literally never once had anything to say about Bards and you have to go back 5 posts before the challenge to find him even quoting a single person who even mentioned the bard, and even that is tangentially.

Spoiler alert, the guy who only posted after the discussion became about Wizards and CR, only ever talked about Wizards and CR, never once said the word Bard at all, and then made a challenge about Wizards and CR was actually talking about Wizards and CR.

And the Bard negation was just a painfully transparent attempt to back out of a challenge he can't meet that he offered.

But if you are so sure that Wizards are just the best and that Ryu is totally acting in good faith in proposing and then refusing to follow through with the challenge for an unrelated reason, maybe you can read the actual words of the challenge and comply with them. Or you can read them and be like "Yep, I can't do that." and then Ryu can either put up, or admit fault.

Or you can both keep saying "Wizards can totally do X no problem, but why would we present any evidence for our position, evidence is for smucks."

Fizban

2017-03-15, 10:49 AM

If my impression was wrong, if you were instead just trying to stick it to the people discussing by posting numbers in strict contravention of your own views, then I may have been wrong to include them.
My point is that I think there are a large number of "the people" that avoid these threads either because they see them as unnecessary or because they've been shouted down a dozen times past, as well as the new players who supposedly should benefit most from a tier list, who are most emphatically not represented by the sample voting. "The people' voting do not represent the people, in my view. I'm not sticking it to the people, I'm standing up for them. If anyone's doing the sticking. . .

The doggedness with which people refuse to consider the possibility that their op level could possibly be above average is profound. I've yet to see anyone seriously consider a "mid-op" or "low-op" build. There was a run of deliberately sabotaged, but otherwise the assumption is always positive optimization and skilled players. That's not average, that's the definition of above average. Almost no one has actually considered the effects of adjusting their assumed optimization level towards an actual average (read: something below their own obviously above average skill) rather than just sweeping everything below their vision under the rug.

A new vote on the current faiths of the elite voting sample might produce new tiers, but that doesn't imply accuracy at all for anything other than what the elite voting sample currently believes. I'm certain this is not a representative sample, and many of them fully admit they're only considering their personal experience and ignoring all else.

And, jeez, if you want Ryu to not have gloating momentum, not talking about the issue a bunch is a good path to that. If Beheld cared so much about Ryu's gloating momentum, he too could stop talking to him about this stuff. It always strikes me as really strange when people, very possibly including myself, try to stop the spread of argument fire by tossing argument fuel onto it.
Ignoring people can work when the words disappear after being spoken. In a medium where those words never disappear, they must be properly opposed with greater fervor and even then the fact that the response comes after means some people who needed to hear it will have stopped reading without seeing it. It's natural attempt to smother the fire, and if you only work to smother it works out well enough. If it was just us it probably would have died down, but Beheld hasn't given up and is thus feeding the fire at the same time. Though I do quite admire the post by post proof that ryu was never interested in Bards at all.

I'll admit I am curious as to who is actually the most disruptive to the threads. Obviously I could bill myself as a candidate, you've made a point of saying you valued my input but that doesn't exempt it from being classified as disruptive. More importantly, being disruptive isn't the problem-it's what I see as a pattern of non-contributing negativity in response to quality disruption. Presumably the most disruptive spot goes to the infamous poster formerly known as draco, who's point is rather undermined by now,.

ryu

2017-03-15, 11:08 AM

Nope. The more it is talked about, the longer it remains in public consciousness, and the more people will talk about it. If you want a conversation to die be it in letters, youtube comments, in person, on forums, over email, or really any number of places you STOP PARTICIPATING IN IT. Because there is no possible series of words you can say that will ''smother'' anything. They're all various stages between fuel and wonderful catalysts like gasoline. You know why that is? People are more likely to respond to something if they're regularly reminded of it. The more they're reminded by spectating or more strongly by participating the longer they'll remember. You want it to die? Stop talking about it and let people forget. These are the benefits of a healthy knowledge of psychology and the biology of the human brain. You predict people better. Not perfectly mind. No system of prediction is flawless. You can be right more often though.

Cosi

2017-03-15, 11:11 AM

Why is everyone on this forum so insistent on not presenting builds that do the things they say classes do? First, all the people defending the Truenamer in the other tiering thread refusing to put up an actual Truenamer because reasons. Now Ryu seems totally unwilling to show us a Wizard build that does the things he says it does. That, plus the fact that most of his conversations about Wizards tend to include various weird higher optimization things (like Abrupt Jaunt, FMI, or Spontaneous Divination + Versatile Spellcaster), leads me to believe he's wrong and has just played high-OP Wizards for so long he thinks that's normal.

Seriously, this is not hard. Pick a level. Write up a Wizard. Stomp some encounters.

Also Eggynack, you're making some strange assumptions here. If someone is refusing to rise to a challenge they themselves proposed, your response should probably be "this person was not arguing in good faith" not "I've seen this person post vaguely related stuff, so they're probably right".

Fizban

2017-03-15, 11:19 AM

Nope. The more it is talked about, the longer it remains in public consciousness, and the more people will talk about it.
You mistake my goal. I don't want people to stop talking about "it." I want them to keep talking, about how you're wrong. The fact that you showed up to a bard thread to argue about wizards, then ran away from arguing about wizards. The conversation has shifted now: a reader who's stuck with it sees you go from gloating about your "victory," to having your behavior denounced by myself and argued with at length to the thread leader, followed by blow by blow evidence that you only had one goal from the beginning. It's not about you winning, now you're trying to claim that by acknowledging your existence you've won, something?

But there's a whole extra page on top of your so-called "victory." Anyone skipping to the end will simply be puzzled by your response, and have to track back through the demonstration of your failure in order to figure it out. Anyone reading from earlier will see you being called out immediately after. In short, the problem has been smothered.

ryu

2017-03-15, 11:30 AM

You mistake my goal. I don't want people to stop talking about "it." I want them to keep talking, about how you're wrong. The fact that you showed up to a bard thread to argue about wizards, then ran away from arguing about wizards. The conversation has shifted now: a reader who's stuck with it sees you go from gloating about your "victory," to having your behavior denounced by myself and argued with at length to the thread leader, followed by blow by blow evidence that you only had one goal from the beginning. It's not about you winning, now you're trying to claim that by acknowledging your existence you've won, something?

But there's a whole extra page on top of your so-called "victory." Anyone skipping to the end will simply be puzzled by your response, and have to track back through the demonstration of your failure in order to figure it out. Anyone reading from earlier will see you being called out immediately after. In short, the problem has been smothered.

You don't seem to understand what the word smothered means do you? Smothering does not, has not, and never will involve continuous action from the thing being smothered. It means cutting off the air supply, watching the fire, or living thing die, and being done with it. That is what that phrase means. So you're either being disingenuous with Eggy about your desire to smother anything, or you're simply incapable of using language. Pick one.

Beheld

2017-03-15, 11:30 AM

Now Ryu seems totally unwilling to show us a Wizard build that does the things he says it does. That, plus the fact that most of his conversations about Wizards tend to include various weird higher optimization things (like Abrupt Jaunt, FMI, or Spontaneous Divination + Versatile Spellcaster), leads me to believe he's wrong and has just played high-OP Wizards for so long he thinks that's normal.

Seriously, this is not hard. Pick a level. Write up a Wizard. Stomp some encounters.

Technically, his test is even harder than that, because his own challenge (in response to my claims about OP Wizard Builds existing, but, aside from minionmancy, not being based on spells) that he would do it without feats, and that he would render the encounter a certain win before the opposition could even take meaningful action.

Now, while I don't particularly care if he takes Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, and Spell Focus, that does mean that if his trick requires Versatile Spellcaster or Uncanny Forethought, it's right out, so he does have to actually list prepared spells (Or alternatively, suggest spells that he believes wizards would prepare).

But all of that is somewhat moot, since several key parts of his claim "before the enemy can take meaningful action" he would "render it certain win" are basically not accomplishable by level appropriate spells. Some of the monsters take meaningful actions before the Wizard even knows they exist :smallbiggrin:

You don't seem to understand what the word smothered means do you? Smothering does not, has not, and never will involve continuous action from the thing being smothered. It means cutting off the air supply, watching the fire, or living thing die, and being done with it. That is what that phrase means. So you're either being disingenuous with Eggy about your desire to smother anything, or you're simply incapable of using language. Pick one.

The thing he is smothering is your evidenceless claims backed with lies.

Since you have now stopped making them and started pleading for people to please stop talking about them, it seems to be working.

bean illus

2017-03-15, 12:58 PM

Am i in the right place? 'cause i was lookin' for a thread on bard, facto, jester, and savant.

Bard: T2
Jester: T3
Factotum: T3
Savant: T4

Bard sits for me at the bottom of T2, for many of the same reasons Beguiler made it up there earlier. What they relatively lose in spell levels they make up for in genuine versatility - which is frankly what high-tier gaming is all about.
I see it similarly.

For me, part of the question is (sorta) can 4 bards handle all CR?, When i look at that i think yes, bard can. That makes them T3 at the minimum (by that standard).
I actually think they float near T2, in as that 4 highly optimized bards would be somewhere between good and able to break the game with ease.

When voting, i think we accept RAW? The fact that diplomacy is broken is not our current debate, right? So minionmancy almost certainly boost the level of power that a class sit in, to the next level. Minionmancy more or less breaks the action economy.

Somewhat true of facto also. Could 4 facto be optimized to handle CR? I think quite possibly. Would they beat 4 bard? no. But are they T4, with nothing to do? not really.

To say that spending gold on magic ammo is below T1 has little to do with how the game is designed. Though not T1 or T2, facto has minionmancy, and action economy, UMD, all skills, lotsa frills, and something to do.
A facto will only be the mvp for some of the situations, but that's what T3 is, 4 players that can do CR together.

I still feel that facto is 3 with FoI, but really only 4 without it.

With similar application, can 4 jesters handle CR? hmm... ... kinda doubt it. I still say savant is a T5 npc. lol

(hopefully someone talking about tiering facto and bard finds this)

ryu

2017-03-15, 01:04 PM

Am i in the right place? 'cause i was lookin' for a thread on bard, facto, jester, and savant.

I see it similarly.

For me, part of the question is (sorta) can 4 bards handle all CR?, When i look at that i think yes, bard can. That makes them T3 at the minimum (by that standard).
I actually think they float near T2, in as that 4 highly optimized bards would be somewhere between good and able to break the game with ease.

When voting, i think we accept RAW? The fact that diplomacy is broken is not our current debate, right? So minionmancy almost certainly boost the level of power that a class sit in, to the next level. Minionmancy more or less breaks the action economy.

Somewhat true of facto also. Could 4 facto be optimized to handle CR? I think quite possibly. Would they beat 4 bard? no. But are they T4, with nothing to do? not really.

To say that spending gold on magic ammo is below T1 has little to do with how the game is designed. Though not T1 or T2, facto has minionmancy, and action economy, UMD, all skills, lotsa frills, and something to do.
A facto will only be the mvp for some of the situations, but that's what T3 is, 4 players that can do CR together.

I still feel that facto is 3 with FoI, but really only 4 without it.

With similar application, can 4 jesters handle CR? hmm... ... kinda doubt it. I still say savant is a T5 npc. lol

(hopefully someone talking about tiering facto and bard finds this)

Don't worry Eggy's probably got ya covered, though I'm guessing he'll probably still be off for a few hours yet.

eggynack

2017-03-15, 07:30 PM

It's about the time to post results. So I'ma do that, especially cause things here have gotten weird. Bard, factotum, and jester all landed about where I expected them to, up to and including the individual decimal variations. Savant, I had no idea where it would land, but it is where it is. Expect a ToB thread tomorrow.

Anyway, I think it'd be actively counterproductive to add too much to this crazy argument that has nothing to do with bard tiering. I'll put in some quick responses though.

@Beheld: The bardic context for the wizard stuff is that you were asserting that, because wizards are level appropriate with their magic, bards, with less magic, are not level appropriate by way of magic. Thus, wizards. I'm not saying this was the most on-topic conversation, but it did have a fundamental attachment to bards. If it didn't, I'd have probably asked you folks to move it to wizard world (and not home base world, because whether it holds relation to our overall notion of tiering, it does so through an intensely wizardly lens) a lot sooner.

@Fizban: On protest voting, I get some of the underlying principle here, but it's still unclear how much you actually want wizard to be pushed a bit down for its own sake, y'know? As I, I'ma just leave it alone. I think your reasoning has enough to do with tiering and your goals there to not fall into this clear other purpose category. As I noted, I was temporarily a bit hesitant about removing a vote at all. One that's on the line will generally tend towards inclusion. On keeping the argument flame alive, if your goal is indeed to highlight this stuff, then Ryu is correct that your original statement of intent, to remove the gloating or whatever, was somewhat inaccurate. And, as I've said, if Beheld is the one feeding the gloating fire in your view, and if he's the primary "victim" of this gloating, then not really sure what I'd do or even care about there.

On disruptive folks. You do indeed rank somewhat highly there, due to that weird argument that hung out on the wizard and home base threads about stuff that I really don't want to go into. Pretty sure that was the argument which I eventually threw up my hands and removed myself from, which is a bad (good?) sign for anyone's position on this non-existent meta-ranking system. I would count Beheld as rather disruptive as well, going more by what went on in the wizard thread than on what's going on now. Though the fact that he managed to do something to get his vote discounted by me speaks to some pretty crazy stuff. Might seem biased that the folks I suggest hold this position are on the opposite side from Ryu, but it's pretty accurate as well, I think. It's based on stuff that predates this whole issue.

@Cosi: I don't think Ryu was arguing in particularly good faith on this one. Which isn't great. I do think that Ryu could argue the exact same point in good faith, if he wished to, which is premised not on his claims here, but on my assessment of his doings as an optimizer elsewhere. The two have nothing to do with each other. If someone on this thread were like, "I bet Ryu couldn't construct a wizard capable of beating the vast majority of reasonable CR encounters," then even without Ryu saying something opposed to that, I would disagree with such a claim. And arguing in bad faith does not disqualify a more or less unrelated vote, just like Beheld voting in bad faith does not disqualify his unrelated votes. Had Ryu said, "I can do this challenge, in actual fact, right now, if there are any takers, and as a result I think this tiering," then that'd be a more plausible path to vote removal. Not sure if it'd lead to actual removal, because the initial statement still speaks to something more tier related and less completely unrelated thing related, but it'd be closer to a thing worth talking about.

@bean illus:I kinda like the four of the same class take on challenges model, though it's far from perfect. It definitely puts emphasis on spontaneous casters, because you can all do different list stuff, and that capacity isn't necessarily aligned with our expectations of the game because we don't assume games are going to have four sorcerers or bards or whatever. In terms of diplomacy and our evaluation thereof, I think it's theoretically part of the landscape, but that usage is kinda borked so it might take on a high optimization position and get somewhat discounted in value as a result. Also, not like bard is the only class with diplomacy on their list, which would discount the relevance further.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-03-15, 07:39 PM

When voting, i think we accept RAW? The fact that diplomacy is broken is not our current debate, right? So minionmancy almost certainly boost the level of power that a class sit in, to the next level. Minionmancy more or less breaks the action economy.
I think we generally discount Diplomancy cheese, as it's sort of an unfortunate intersection of "largely class-independent power" and "so borked most DMs will change it." Many classes can do a bit of work and make high Diplomacy checks-- hell, probably the one who does it best is the Marshal, and we don't exactly count them as Tier 2 because of it. Having Dipomacy on your class list as a mark of your favor because it increases your ability to function in social scenes; saying it's a game-breaking element is like saying WBL is a game-breaking element because you could buy a Candle of Invocation and wish-loop your way to godhood.

Beheld

2017-03-15, 07:44 PM

@bean illus:I kinda like the four of the same class take on challenges model, though it's far from perfect.

Wow 85% of the classes scored the same 100% rating. I guess that means that they are all equal, and not that our testing metric is flawed!

eggynack

2017-03-15, 07:49 PM

Wow 85% of the classes scored the same 100% rating. I guess that means that they are all equal, and not that our testing metric is flawed!
Whaddya mean? Presumably you'd ask how well the party does against challenges of higher CR, maybe mark a point of failure and use that as the metric. The interesting part of the model is the one class party, not the specific CR part which would necessarily change based on optimization level anyway.

Beheld

2017-03-15, 07:54 PM

Whaddya mean? Presumably you'd ask how well the party does against challenges of higher CR, maybe mark a point of failure and use that as the metric. The interesting part of the model is the one class party, not the specific CR part which would necessarily change based on optimization level anyway.

Uh.....

................

.............................

.......................................

I don't know which part of that is the dumbest, where you want to face parties against higher CR monsters as a test or the part where you want to vary the CR for each test.

EDIT: Nevermind, I figured it out, you don't actually want a meaningful test, you just want an excuse to circle jerk about versatility. Makes sense now.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-03-15, 07:58 PM

Wow 85% of the classes scored the same 100% rating. I guess that means that they are all equal, and not that our testing metric is flawed!
Isn't that sort of the point? These classes are at least Tier 3, because they have the tools to handle all sorts of problems.

eggynack

2017-03-15, 08:08 PM

I don't know which part of that is the dumbest, where you want to face parties against higher CR monsters as a test or the part where you want to vary the CR for each test.

EDIT: Nevermind, I figured it out, you don't actually want a meaningful test, you just want an excuse to circle jerk about versatility. Makes sense now.
This isn't actually the model we're using, but you are incorrect about its plausible usefulness. We wouldn't just be arbitrarily varying CR. Theoretically, every four of same class party would start off against some set of equal CR encounters. We then gauge their ability to handle those encounters, perhaps by way of the percent that manages to succeed at all perhaps with some daily resource loss included. Classes that do sufficiently well would get bumped up a CR, and run the test again in that bracket. Classes that do sufficiently poorly get bumped down a CR. This model would continue that process until each party does "normally" against their encounters. That could be going by percent success, or it could be going by some resource depletion threshold, or both, or whatever. That same threshold would act as the bumping up or down factor, incidentally. When the parties all do normally, we see what CR they ended up at, and that is our end numerical result for that class at that level at that optimization level.

It's pretty similar to the core model of the thread, except with four of the same class instead of one character going alone or one character of the class with three arbitrary rubes, and with the rules underlying how we assess what a challenge is more systematized. Of course, we'd have to have something for non-combat challenges as well, because that's explicitly part of our system, but that's how this would work in a combat sense.

Beheld

2017-03-15, 08:13 PM

Isn't that sort of the point? These classes are at least Tier 3, because they have the tools to handle all sorts of problems.

1) Tier 3 classes will probably get stomped by higher CR opposition, since they pretty much universally aren't even level appropriate in the first place, and higher CRs pose all kinds of problems, like requiring spells the PCs don't even have, or just RNG breaking, so I doubt they will be solving many problems.

2) If a single character can solve lots of problems, that is already reflected in the SGT, because they get to solve all the problems they can solve. The only "advantage" to having four members of the class facing encounter levels 4 higher, is that classes like the Sorcerer, where your ability to make 4 different characters, an ability which is literally useless to you as a player making a single PC, now becomes a benefit.

It's the same fake versatility that put the Sorcerer above the Beguiler in JaronK's Tiers even though the Beguiler is objectively better, "If I had been a completely different character, I would have completely different abilities (but the same class name) so I'm more versatile than you, because if you were a completely different character, you would have completely different abilities (but the same class name)."

eggynack

2017-03-15, 08:17 PM

2) If a single character can solve lots of problems, that is already reflected in the SGT, because they get to solve all the problems they can solve. The only "advantage" to having four members of the class facing encounter levels 4 higher, is that classes like the Sorcerer, where your ability to make 4 different characters, an ability which is literally useless to you as a player making a single PC, now becomes a benefit.
This is the issue I explicitly pointed out, yes. I don't know why you're being combative about this.

Grod_The_Giant

2017-03-15, 08:44 PM

1) Tier 3 classes will probably get stomped by higher CR opposition, since they pretty much universally aren't even level appropriate in the first place, and higher CRs pose all kinds of problems, like requiring spells the PCs don't even have, or just RNG breaking, so I doubt they will be solving many problems.
That's not the most useful metric, because "how well can I stomp a higher CR opponent" is pretty much entirely a question of how optimized a build is-- I think most people posting in this thread could make a Warrior that can one-shot a higher-CR monster and a Wizard that would lose to one. I've certainly run Tier 3ish parties at mid-op levels and routinely had to throw >ECL encounters at them to create the correct challenge.

2) If a single character can solve lots of problems, that is already reflected in the SGT, because they get to solve all the problems they can solve. The only "advantage" to having four members of the class facing encounter levels 4 higher, is that classes like the Sorcerer, where your ability to make 4 different characters, an ability which is literally useless to you as a player making a single PC, now becomes a benefit.

It's the same fake versatility that put the Sorcerer above the Beguiler in JaronK's Tiers even though the Beguiler is objectively better, "If I had been a completely different character, I would have completely different abilities (but the same class name) so I'm more versatile than you, because if you were a completely different character, you would have completely different abilities (but the same class name)."
I am with you that "four of the same character" isn't a very representative metric, but it sounded like you were attacking the result's validity rather than the test's. If that's the case, I apologize.

bean illus

2017-03-15, 09:27 PM

Wow 85% of the classes scored the same 100% rating. I guess that means that they are all equal, and not that our testing metric is flawed!
No, it means that slightly more than three/fifths of the classes are low T-3 or higher, and that some folks exaggerate.

Isn't that sort of the point? These classes are at least Tier 3, because they have the tools to handle all sorts of problems.

That is my general point T1-2 of course could likely increase CR, T4-5etc would likely have trouble. T-3 would handle most challenges, but

This isn't actually the model we're using, but you are incorrect about its plausible usefulness. We wouldn't just be arbitrarily varying CR. Theoretically, every four of same class party would start off against some set of equal CR encounters. We then gauge their ability to handle those encounters, perhaps by way of the percent that manages to succeed at all perhaps with some daily resource loss included. Classes that do sufficiently well would get bumped up a CR, and run the test again in that bracket. Classes that do sufficiently poorly get bumped down a CR. This model would continue that process until each party does "normally" against their encounters. That could be going by percent success, or it could be going by some resource depletion threshold, or both, or whatever. That same threshold would act as the bumping up or down factor, incidentally. When the parties all do normally, we see what CR they ended up at, and that is our end numerical result for that class at that level at that optimization level.

It's pretty similar to the core model of the thread, except with four of the same class instead of one character going alone or one character of the class with three arbitrary rubes, and with the rules underlying how we assess what a challenge is more systematized. Of course, we'd have to have something for non-combat challenges as well, because that's explicitly part of our system, but that's how this would work in a combat sense.

Thank you.

That's not the most useful metric, because "how well can I stomp a higher CR opponent" is pretty much entirely a question of how optimized a build is-- I think most people posting in this thread could make a Warrior that can one-shot a higher-CR monster and a Wizard that would lose to one. I've certainly run Tier 3ish parties at mid-op levels and routinely had to throw >ECL encounters at them to create the correct challenge.

I am with you that "four of the same character" isn't a very representative metric, but it sounded like you were attacking the result's validity rather than the test's. If that's the case, I apologize.

I want y'all to know, i don't think of the 4 of a kind model as my only metric, but it does float in the back of my mind for T3

Fizban

2017-03-16, 02:57 AM

On keeping the argument flame alive, if your goal is indeed to highlight this stuff, then Ryu is correct that your original statement of intent, to remove the gloating or whatever, was somewhat inaccurate.
As usual, both? I wouldn't have been posting if you hadn't implied support of him by removing Beheld's vote, and turning the conversation to that point also serves to squelch his momentum. Without the vote issue I'd have just let them burn themselves out, but once ryu got you involved the issue became larger.

Pretty sure that was the argument which I eventually threw up my hands and removed myself from, which is a bad (good?) sign for anyone's position on this non-existent meta-ranking system.
Pretty sure we both threw up our hands, as I haven't seriously caught up on the base thread since. Though I can't be sure which part you're saying you threw up your hands at, neither of us seem interested in reopening it.

Might seem biased that the folks I suggest hold this position are on the opposite side from Ryu, but it's pretty accurate as well, I think. It's based on stuff that predates this whole issue.
It does seem pretty biased to me, yes. You blamed Beheld for attacking your voting system when it's clear that ryu brought up the votes in the first place, even though you agree he's been arguing in bad faith. He gets a pass because of his optimization ability even though he's just sniping at people to rile them up? Because you agree with his position? That's pretty wack. Not saying Beheld is going about it right, or that I'm squeaky clean myself, but the usual negative connotation of the word "disruptive" implies that ryu's. . . stuff up there, is more valuable.

eggynack

2017-03-16, 03:31 AM

As usual, both? I wouldn't have been posting if you hadn't implied support of him by removing Beheld's vote, and turning the conversation to that point also serves to squelch his momentum. Without the vote issue I'd have just let them burn themselves out, but once ryu got you involved the issue became larger.
Not sure why I have to keep clarifying this. My removal of that vote had nothing to do with Ryu. If that exact voting post had existed in a vacuum (though perhaps not a vacuum in the sense that my awareness of Beheld's claimed stance on bards was possibly important in determining the purpose of the vote), I would have still not included it. This wasn't a move in support of Ryu, or against Ryu. Ryu did not get me involved. I got involved because I would necessarily have to get involved in that vote post, because it was a vote post, and I always have to do something with those, whether it's inclusion or explicit non-inclusion. In this case, it was the latter, again, because of the specific nature of that post. Had Ryu not said anything about it, I still would have ultimately not included the vote, because I came to the conclusion that such votes are poison to the statistics I'm putting together, even when the big tier number is unchanged.

I have opinions of Ryu in a variety of contexts (as an optimizer, through his more general posts, as a voter, and so on and so forth), and when explicitly asked I sometimes share those opinions, which may in fact be more positive than yours. This opinion had no bearing on my decision. Completely separate from anything going on in this thread, voting or otherwise, I happen to think he'd be capable of doing this thing. So I said so. If I thought he would utterly fail, I would have still ruled against this vote's inclusion.

Pretty sure we both threw up our hands, as I haven't seriously caught up on the base thread since. Though I can't be sure which part you're saying you threw up your hands at, neither of us seem interested in reopening it.
Thought I said at some point that I just wasn't going to continue talking about the issue in explicit fashion. Might be that you did the same thing in less explicit fashion.

It does seem pretty biased to me, yes. You blamed Beheld for attacking your voting system when it's clear that ryu brought up the votes in the first place, even though you agree he's been arguing in bad faith.
As I pointed out, he wasn't really trying to force people to change their votes. He just didn't want to spend a lot of time arguing about bards with someone that agrees with him about bards. I don't necessarily agree with the way the specific set of interactions went, but he wasn't doing harm to my voting system with his actions. Beheld was. Arguing in bad faith hurts the argument, which isn't the best, but voting in bad faith hurts my beautiful beautiful spreadsheet, with all its possibilities for data analysis and potential as the basis for a more numerically oriented tier system. And that sucks. Turning away that Beheld vote wasn't something I view as a punishment. I view it as protecting the data, first and foremost, because if everyone thinks bards are exactly tier three, or if it's all tier three with the occasional tier two, or if there actually is the occasional four, then I want that precise truth, and no other truth related to thread arguments, hanging out in my data.

He gets a pass because of his optimization ability even though he's just sniping at people to rile them up?Because you agree with his position?
What pass? The pass on my disruptiveness opinion? That stance was predicated not strictly on this thread, but on the various arguments that have gone on in various threads. Moreover, that disruptiveness opinion has pretty limited bearing on anything that goes on. You're still very much allowed to post and vote here. So are Ryu and Beheld. All I was trying to point out is that, if I were somehow trying to disinclude more disruptive voices from the conversation to make it a more peaceful place, Ryu would not be anywhere near the top of my list.

I don't really want to disinclude those voices though. Disruptive people disrupt things. Sometimes they disrupt things I like, and sometimes they disrupt things you like, but either way they cause conversation to go down roads we wouldn't necessarily expect. I obviously don't love it when the disrupted things are the ones I like, but I still value the disruption.

That's pretty wack. Not saying Beheld is going about it right, or that I'm squeaky clean myself, but the usual negative connotation of the word "disruptive" implies that ryu's. . . stuff up there, is more valuable.
But, like, just talking about you here, you've been involved in this thing just now, and also a buncha stuff in the wizard thread, and also a buncha stuff in the home base thread, and probably some stuff in yet another thread that I'm forgetting. It's not all about this weird issue.

ryu

2017-03-16, 03:34 AM

Precisely because I will never even for a moment allow myself to cast a vote that doesn't align with my views. To allow your vote to be corrupt for any reason is to lesson its power even if Eggy leaves it up. This is because once you give someone the power to control or manipulate your vote you've given them some measure of your power. In all forms of discussion, voting, and similar the path to power is to say precisely mean and mean precisely what you say. That's step one. Step two is packaging your argument in such a way that it's persuasive. That's what got the majority to move up beguilers and dread necros. Take that into consideration whenever you're in an argument with me or anyone else. There's a good chance that if you can examine what you're saying and realize you're being lead you're being set up to lose.

weckar

2017-03-16, 03:50 AM

Guys! It's been nearly two pages! Can we all agree we hate each other and make up?

eggynack

2017-03-16, 03:51 AM

Guys! It's been nearly two pages! Can we all agree we hate each other and make up?
Sure. We gonna be starting up the next thread in like eight hours anyway.

weckar

2017-03-16, 03:53 AM

I thought threads stayed open for voting indefinitely?

Also, will you ever be releasing the full vote tally, for the curious?

eggynack

2017-03-16, 04:01 AM

I thought threads stayed open for voting indefinitely?
They do. But new threads tend to attract attention away from old ones. Good opportunity to start anew a bit, y'know?

Also, will you ever be releasing the full vote tally, for the curious?
Bottom of the first post of every thread has a link to the fancy spreadsheet I'm using. Has the votes of everyone, along with mean, median, mode, and the number of votes for each tier (excluding fractional tier votes). Not sure if you want something beyond that, but I dunno why stuff beyond that would be necessary.

weckar

2017-03-16, 04:04 AM

eggynack

2017-03-16, 04:24 AM

Ah, sorry, missed that spreadsheet. I guess the only missing variable is order of votes/vote time, to see if there is a changing trend due to discussions and the like. But that would be a ton more bookkeeping. Awesome for stats geekery though.
Yeah, seems like a pretty difficult thing to add, both in terms of time to add, and space on sheet. The sheet's actually become one of my favorite things about the move from the community tiering thread. It makes keeping track of votes a rather trivial and constant thing, the increase in transparency means that people know exactly what I'm adding such that they can either dispute a vote's credibility or note the lack of presence of a given vote if I didn't know how or whether to include it for whatever reason, people get to broadly know how far a class' tier is from switching, and I get to do various stat stuff, both now and in more detail when the project is over. Even lets me do weird stuff like Troacctid's fighter vote, which is whatever keeps the score at 4.5 (which kept the score there for a surprising amount of time). Could never do stuff like that if I were tiering the Jormengand way.

Beheld

2017-03-16, 05:25 AM

That's not the most useful metric, because "how well can I stomp a higher CR opponent" is pretty much entirely a question of how optimized a build is-- I think most people posting in this thread could make a Warrior that can one-shot a higher-CR monster and a Wizard that would lose to one. I've certainly run Tier 3ish parties at mid-op levels and routinely had to throw >ECL encounters at them to create the correct challenge.

1) That's... my point? How well they can handle higher CR is as function of luck and monster chosen more than anything. So any test that requires that as a balance point create a measurement difference is going to fail in an exceedingly predictable way.

2) I have never run a 3.5 party in which I had to use CR > ECL to present a challenge ever. Because the only things that do that are dumb RNG breaking (Power attack multipliers, arcane thesis stacking free metamagics, Tainted Casting), dumb spells per day breaking (free Persists/Plane shift to a timeless Plane), and Minionmancy. And I don't have fun playing or DMing any of that. And since a party that doesn't use those things can be challenged by CR = ECL regardless of optimization (except if they are deliberately anti-optimized) that's not a problem that I have ever had.

Fizban

2017-03-16, 05:25 AM

Not sure why I have to keep clarifying this. My removal of that vote had nothing to do with Ryu.
He brought up the votes as justification for breaking off the argument with Beheld. Beheld made a straw vote to cut him off. You responded, and then ryu claimed that was his plan all along. He got you involved.

This wasn't a move in support of Ryu, or against Ryu.
To you, sure. To an outsider with no context other than "this guy's saying the other guy's wrong and the OP just threw out the other guy's vote?" That's why I said you should have kept it under your hat for a minute and presented it differently, because appearances matter. You tried to remain impartial and refuted the claim that he had anything to do with it, but the damage was done. I expect someone will say that's a straw position, but this is the internet: anyone can be watching at any time in any context, and I can easily reflect from personal experience that it turns off potential participants.

Thought I said at some point that I just wasn't going to continue talking about the issue in explicit fashion. Might be that you did the same thing in less explicit fashion.
Less explicit by not returning.

I don't necessarily agree with the way the specific set of interactions went, but he wasn't doing harm to my voting system with his actions. Beheld was. Arguing in bad faith hurts the argument, which isn't the best, but voting in bad faith hurts my beautiful beautiful spreadsheet, with all its possibilities for data analysis and potential as the basis for a more numerically oriented tier system.
Which is something we'll probably have to disagree on, since I see arguing in bad faith as significantly more damaging to a discussion thread, which is the part where my participation actually counts knowing that as a minority my vote is just data which won't change the result. And that sucks.

I view it as protecting the data, first and foremost, because if everyone thinks bards are exactly tier three, or if it's all tier three with the occasional tier two, or if there actually is the occasional four, then I want that precise truth, and no other truth related to thread arguments, hanging out in my data.
Which is why I keep pointing out that you aren't just a record keeper, you're a de-facto leader, also that your voting pool is rather specific and I think you need more than just votes to make anything out of that data.

I don't really want to disinclude those voices though. Disruptive people disrupt things. Sometimes they disrupt things I like, and sometimes they disrupt things you like, but either way they cause conversation to go down roads we wouldn't necessarily expect. I obviously don't love it when the disrupted things are the ones I like, but I still value the disruption.
Sometimes a leader has to lead. Did ryu's sudden interest in arguing about wizards, again, in this thread, lead to an unexpected discussion? I could tell within a couple posts that it was not. I'd say the only truly unexpected discussion here is this one, though Beheld's wizard=level appropriate standard vs other tiers could have been interesting if it was cleaned up before it was diverted, by ryu wanting to argue about wizards.

But, like, just talking about you here, you've been involved in this thing just now, and also a buncha stuff in the wizard thread, and also a buncha stuff in the home base thread, and probably some stuff in yet another thread that I'm forgetting. It's not all about this weird issue.
You keep saying weird issue and all it does is make it unclear what you're talking about. I can speak plainly: I think many of ryu's posts, including those regarding this argument with Beheld, are void of merit and do nothing but drag down the threads they appear in. I find the idea that you rank me as more "disruptive" than him, when I'm trying to improve the thread rather than just yell "nuh uh wizards are best" (as I see it), insulting. Be it by presenting an alternative tier, discussing tier definitions, voting procedure, expectations of leadership, or people's behavior, I feel that my posts are sufficiently on topic and disruptive in a positive way, while his are often not. It seems probable that you disagree with my opinion of him, which is unsurprising given you share similar views and you're pretty thick skinned yourself, but it remains.

I do not expect an apology or condemnation, I'm just making it clear. I consider ryu one of the toxic posters who push away new posters and new ideas, as I have seen in past threads and in this one. You can remain impartial, but that means acknowledging that some people, such as myself, might decide it's not worth bothering with your threads. Which as I said above, you should care about, because your voting pool is already fairly small and fractured by missing votes, so losing potential votes is huge. Will you fill in all the votes for people that only voted in one thread but not others for analysis? Apply some sort of statistical normalization? What about for new players and people that just don't like tier threads who aren't represented by definition but obviously exist? What if I decide I've lost faith in the voting system and demand my votes be removed, do they stay because removing them would damage your data? What if I demand they be changed out of spite?

There are a lot of holes, is what I'm saying. Trying to be the all-impartial collector of golden data only takes you so far. All you had to do, ironically, was maintain that impartiality a bit harder and tell them both to take it to the wizard thread and sort out the votes later, and I'd have had nothing to say. But I didn't think you handled it the best way, so I spoke up, and you're also still here, involved in this thing. I think I have sufficiently explained my position by now, as have you. I dislike the phrase "agree to disagree," but as in previous arguments it is unlikely either of us is going to bend.

Guys! It's been nearly two pages! Can we all agree we hate each other and make up?
Sorry, I don't hate you, we can't make up. Unless I do hate you. Can't remember, too many fights, that means you're on the good list until I see reason to put coal in your stockings.

eggynack

2017-03-16, 05:38 AM

Not going to respond to the other stuff, cause I really want to get off this stuff, but the following specifically seems to demand something of a response, in my opinion.

To you, sure. To an outsider with no context other than "this guy's saying the other guy's wrong and the OP just threw out the other guy's vote?" That's why I said you should have kept it under your hat for a minute and presented it differently, because appearances matter. You tried to remain impartial and refuted the claim that he had anything to do with it, but the damage was done. I expect someone will say that's a straw position, but this is the internet: anyone can be watching at any time in any context, and I can easily reflect from personal experience that it turns off potential participants.
You keep saying stuff like this. That people are going to see my actions in a certain light, and that I should somehow corral that image. But I don't see any indication that people think that, and I can't see anything in the post that would be read that way. My post where I initially said I'd keep them for the moment and then ditch them later, and finally said that I'd just be ditching them, happened within a two minute window where not much in the way of Ryu stuff popped up. I don't see anything I did as the least bit problematic. At least not in this form, where I was somehow convinced by Ryu pushing me into turning down the vote. Jeez, Ryu never even said the vote should be removed. That was all me.

Beheld

2017-03-16, 05:51 AM

Give it up Fizban. Wizards are too good is too important a point to allow it to be compromised by being reasonable.

If only one person specifically posts about how his repeated defense of Ryu and support of Ryu in all positions he ever takes and repeated lies about what Ryu was arguing might possibly cause people to believe that he supports the person he defends and lies on behalf over the person he constantly **** talks, then it can't really be a problem. Wizard Uber Alles. If he can get the votes down to just him and Ryu he can have his dream of the perfect Tier system voted on by "the people."

ryu

2017-03-16, 05:53 AM

Not going to respond to the other stuff, cause I really want to get off this stuff, but the following specifically seems to demand something of a response, in my opinion.

You keep saying stuff like this. That people are going to see my actions in a certain light, and that I should somehow corral that image. But I don't see any indication that people think that, and I can't see anything in the post that would be read that way. My post where I initially said I'd keep them for the moment and then ditch them later, and finally said that I'd just be ditching them, happened within a two minute window where not much in the way of Ryu stuff popped up. I don't see anything I did as the least bit problematic. At least not in this form, where I was somehow convinced by Ryu pushing me into turning down the vote. Jeez, Ryu never even said the vote should be removed. That was all me.

Indeed. The best plans require convincing the smallest number of people of the smallest number of things possible. I didn't have to collaborate with you at all, because I know your character to a decent extent. I KNOW that you'd never stomach someone deliberately messing with your data. I just didn't have a specific prediction of just how far you'd go in response. If it makes you feel any better this was on the far mild side of reasonable reaction extrapolations.

Fizban

2017-03-16, 06:12 AM

You keep saying stuff like this. That people are going to see my actions in a certain light, and that I should somehow corral that image. But I don't see any indication that people think that, and I can't see anything in the post that would be read that way.
Think more like a politician. Alternatively think more like a rube. Or, ya'know, Ryu, who took that post and used it to fuel the phrase "now they're not even paying attention to your votes," like it was a victory.

As for the lack of indication from other posters: we've got me, and oddly enough Cosi again in the "not directly agreeing but aimed at the same target," and any potential posters scared off by that exchange obviously aren't posting (which in principle, over time and multiple threads, are important).

My post where I initially said I'd keep them for the moment and then ditch them later, and finally said that I'd just be ditching them, happened within a two minute window where not much in the way of Ryu stuff popped up. I don't see anything I did as the least bit problematic.
Nothing you did was problematic, just not as effective as it could have been. As I told the sub-boss today, while his argument to my co-worker wasn't wrong, it was made without considering all the angles and would almost certainly not be viewed as impartial, probably undermining the point he was trying to make. The editing time doesn't matter, the thread remains. It also happens that your direct rebuttal (post #136) went up while I was composing my own, but as I believe it required more chastisement I probably would have posted something anyway. I think you're taking my criticism a bit more sharply than intended in this case.

Jeez, Ryu never even said the vote should be removed. That was all me.
It's called "spin," or so I've heard. You did something he could spin into something useful, despite how impartial you tried to make it. You didn't see it because you don't see it as a problem, hence my explaining why it's a problem.

Pre-edit: and uh, yeah. Right there again. Gloating about how he's manipulating people into arguing, using you as the backstop. And this is the guy you want to impartially keep around?

Beheld

2017-03-16, 06:14 AM

And this is the guy you want to impartially keep around?

Not impartially keeping around, he's totally willing to lie about the thread to defend Ryu for backing out of his challenge.

Fizban

2017-03-16, 06:20 AM

Mind you Beheld has still gone of the deep end, but as his advocate I'm not supposed to acknowledge that (shush you, wait until the trial's over).

ryu

2017-03-16, 06:25 AM

Mind you Beheld has still gone of the deep end, but as his advocate I'm not supposed to acknowledge that (shush you, wait until the trial's over).

And even he acknowledges it and you know full well our opinions of each other Eggy.

Beheld

2017-03-16, 06:33 AM

Mind you Beheld has still gone of the deep end, but as his advocate I'm not supposed to acknowledge that (shush you, wait until the trial's over).

Nah, eggy definitely lied to defend him.

Before it became important to pretend the conversation was about Bard's in order to defend Ryu from the obvious fact that he was arguing in bad faith by backing out of the challenge he proposed, after he saw that he can't actually manage it:

Attempting to get him to back up his claim is theoretically fine, though it might make more sense in the wizard thread.

After he realized that to defend Ryu from the obvious fact that he was arguing in bad faith, that he needed to pretend that it was really about Bards:

Pretty sure the wizard thing was originally a weird rhetoric outcropping of the bard argument. So, not really a non sequitur, as you're indicating. As far as I can tell, he was saying, "I was going to make this wizard argument to support bards being tier three, but it turns out you already think that, so I don't care."

Edit: Obviously that post isn't going to look like it's about bards when you remove the context, specifically your post that he quoted and the surrounding conversation of your post, that shows that it's about bards.

Keeping in mind of course, that in reality, that claim there is a blatant lie, and that actually going back and reading what Ryu actually said and quoted, that he never once said the word Bard, implied he was talking about the Bard class, mentioned even the concept of Tier 3, and that he spent literally 100% of his time talking about the Wizard, and that specifically, the post of mine that he quoted (and the surrounding conversation of like 8 straight posts) that was literally 100% about Wizards and 0% about Bards.

Now, he was only willing to dive down into lying about the thread contents after he had committed himself to defending Ryu to the death to prove that he was therefore completely in the right before.

But I don't much care the reason why he felt it necessary to lie in defense of Ryu, just that this is where we are at.

eggynack

2017-03-16, 06:43 AM

Think more like a politician. Alternatively think more like a rube. Or, ya'know, Ryu, who took that post and used it to fuel the phrase "now they're not even paying attention to your votes," like it was a victory.
I tend to highly value the principle of glasnost, transparency, over turning things into this fight for image. That people know exactly what goes into my decisions, that I give full and honest responses, I think it's important, even in a thread I'm leading. It means that, when I say Ryu didn't have significant influence over my decision, I feel like you, and by extension the thread, can trust that position. Cause I say stuff I mean, and leave as little out as possible.

As for the lack of indication from other posters: we've got me, and oddly enough Cosi again in the "not directly agreeing but aimed at the same target," and any potential posters scared off by that exchange obviously aren't posting (which in principle, over time and multiple threads, are important).
I think Cosi actually took issue with me later saying that I thought Ryu could do the challenge if so inclined, rather than my vote removal. My response at the time is the same as my response now.

Nothing you did was problematic, just not as effective as it could have been. As I told the sub-boss today, while his argument to my co-worker wasn't wrong, it was made without considering all the angles and would almost certainly not be viewed as impartial, probably undermining the point he was trying to make.
I think it's notable here that my method might not have been as ineffective as you think. I consider it a necessity that I eventually tell Beheld that his vote isn't counted if it, in fact, isn't counted, so either I was going to say it then, or I was going to say it later. Your suggestion is that the later version would have lacked the need for editing, and so would have been superior. However, had I waited, Ryu and Beheld would have likely continued their back and forth, creating several posts between the vote in question and my response. Which would quite possibly mean a post where Ryu specifically said that the vote should be removed. Waiting, therefore, could have made me appear even more biased, because now I'm basing my stance on this Ryu/Beheld argument post-vote, rather than on my personal stance on the vote. Something to think about.

I think you're taking my criticism a bit more sharply than intended in this case.
Fair enough. I take this kinda thing seriously, y'know? As I noted above, I'm not really convinced that people besides you and Beheld think I'm biased on the basis of this vote removal, but this is one of those things where I have to be really frigging clear with people that I'm not biased, and that the level you have to be at where the vote will be removed is really high. It's why my original post was keeping the vote around despite its nature, because votes should count in the vast vast majority of cases. I can't be some kinda vote tyrant, shoving out votes for whatever reason I want.

Pre-edit: and uh, yeah. Right there again. Gloating about how he's manipulating people into arguing, using you as the backstop. And this is the guy you want to impartially keep around?
Absolutely. I'm also cool with keeping Beheld around, despite whatever it is he's saying right now. Even if you think Ryu's behavior is worse, I really don't think it can be argued as that much worse, and I doubt you think for a second that I'm weirdly biased in favor of Beheld. I don't think it's right to let my personal opinions bar people, in either case. You leave out a whole bunch of knowledge that way, at the hands of some random guy's (my) arbitrary opinions.

Also, thought I'd note, while your votes that go way against the grain are obviously not likely to make the big numbers change, they do still have value. The little numbers, particularly the mean but also maybe some later stuff like standard deviation, will be impacted by these votes. A lot of people will only see that warmage is tier three, but unlike with the original tier system, or even the community tiering thread, the fact that it's currently a 3.24 is probably relevant to some people. It's relevant to me, at least. And if you get some of these close enough to the bar without going over, they might wind up as the border classes, the worst class in a given tier such that being better or worse than them can plausibly fully determine a class' tier. Which I think it neat. Wizard is the third worst tier one right now. That's a thing of some kind.

ryu

2017-03-16, 06:59 AM

I tend to highly value the principle of glasnost, transparency, over turning things into this fight for image. That people know exactly what goes into my decisions, that I give full and honest responses, I think it's important, even in a thread I'm leading. It means that, when I say Ryu didn't have significant influence over my decision, I feel like you, and by extension the thread, can trust that position. Cause I say stuff I mean, and leave as little out as possible.

I think Cosi actually took issue with me later saying that I thought Ryu could do the challenge if so inclined, rather than my vote removal. My response at the time is the same as my response now.

I think it's notable here that my method might not have been as ineffective as you think. I consider it a necessity that I eventually tell Beheld that his vote isn't counted if it, in fact, isn't counted, so either I was going to say it then, or I was going to say it later. Your suggestion is that the later version would have lacked the need for editing, and so would have been superior. However, had I waited, Ryu and Beheld would have likely continued their back and forth, creating several posts between the vote in question and my response. Which would quite possibly mean a post where Ryu specifically said that the vote should be removed. Waiting, therefore, could have made me appear even more biased, because now I'm basing my stance on this Ryu/Beheld argument post-vote, rather than on my personal stance on the vote. Something to think about.

Fair enough. I take this kinda thing seriously, y'know? As I noted above, I'm not really convinced that people besides you and Beheld think I'm biased on the basis of this vote removal, but this is one of those things where I have to be really frigging clear with people that I'm not biased, and that the level you have to be at where the vote will be removed is really high. It's why my original post was keeping the vote around despite its nature, because votes should count in the vast vast majority of cases. I can't be some kinda vote tyrant, shoving out votes for whatever reason I want.

Absolutely. I'm also cool with keeping Beheld around, despite whatever it is he's saying right now. Even if you think Ryu's behavior is worse, I really don't think it can be argued as that much worse, and I doubt you think for a second that I'm weirdly biased in favor of Beheld. I don't think it's right to let my personal opinions bar people, in either case. You leave out a whole bunch of knowledge that way, at the hands of some random guy's (my) arbitrary opinions.

Also, thought I'd note, while your votes that go way against the grain are obviously not likely to make the big numbers change, they do still have value. The little numbers, particularly the mean but also maybe some later stuff like standard deviation, will be impacted by these votes. A lot of people will only see that warmage is tier three, but unlike with the original tier system, or even the community tiering thread, the fact that it's currently a 3.24 is probably relevant to some people. It's relevant to me, at least. And if you get some of these close enough to the bar without going over, they might wind up as the border classes, the worst class in a given tier such that being better or worse than them can plausibly fully determine a class' tier. Which I think it neat. Wizard is the third worst tier one right now. That's a thing of some kind.

No I wouldn't have said any such thing. Like I said the best plans require convincing the fewest number of people of the fewest number of things. Directly asking the closest thing to a thread ruler to act in a case usually directly harms one's conversational capital. Even if I had done so through PM to keep it private, which I wouldn't do because that's the second lowest form of misinformation right above lying and well below me, you're the type of honest that wouldn't be claiming I had nothing to do with your decision even if you'd ignored it. Even if you had we both know I value your opinion more than pretty much any ten people here and wouldn't want to damage it that way.

On the subject of wizards fourth place is hardly a bad spot when there are six classes and an admitted protest vote.

eggynack

2017-03-16, 07:12 AM

No I wouldn't have said any such thing.
Either way, having the post-vote discussion go in directions before responding holds risks. Whatever happens between the vote and my comments on it could be said to have some influence on my position. If that's a thing we're valuing as negative (not even sure if it should be, cause this is a thing very much open to input), then a fast response strikes me as ideal. Had I come into the thread like an hour later, I probably would have taken more time with my response because the utility of a fast response would already have been lost.

On the subject of wizards fourth place is hardly a bad spot when there are six classes and an admitted protest vote.
Sure. Wizards have a score pretty close to one. I find the placement of these classes interesting in general though. What the wizard numbers mean to me is, "Just about everyone thinks wizards are tier one, but there does exist the occasional dissenting opinion," while the cleric numbers mean, "No one disputes the tier oneness of this class."

Fizban

2017-03-16, 07:16 AM

However, had I waited, Ryu and Beheld would have likely continued their back and forth, creating several posts between the vote in question and my response.
True, hence the suggestion to send them over to the other thread. If on the off chance they complied, and carried out the test, you could then collect the vote, otherwise the vote is indefinitely discounted without need for a later comment (using an initial phrasing of "take it over there and I'll count it if you sort it out" or somesuch").

You leave out a whole bunch of knowledge that way, at the hands of some random guy's (my) arbitrary opinions.
As long as you're aware it may be costing you a whole bunch of other knowledge, at the hands of his opinions.

Also, thought I'd note, while your votes that go way against the grain are obviously not likely to make the big numbers change, they do still have value. . . Wizard is the third worst tier one right now. That's a thing of some kind.
The spreadsheet is nice, but as with the broader system so with the spreadsheet: the people looking at it are the least likely to need it. I also wonder what would happen to the little and big numbers if all those empty spots were filled, if the non-voters could be enticed to vote and the voters were actually held to a standard other than personal opinion. Establishing the wizard as less than the top tier 1, if it was actually put into common use, would indeed be a significant accomplishment. More likely people would only acknowledge it offhandedly as a low-op outlier that technically pushed the vote down, reference the median or the mode instead of the mean, and continue pushing that wizards are always the best.

EldritchWeaver

2017-03-16, 07:17 AM

Think more like a politician. Alternatively think more like a rube. Or, ya'know, Ryu, who took that post and used it to fuel the phrase "now they're not even paying attention to your votes," like it was a victory.

As for the lack of indication from other posters: we've got me, and oddly enough Cosi again in the "not directly agreeing but aimed at the same target," and any potential posters scared off by that exchange obviously aren't posting (which in principle, over time and multiple threads, are important).

You keep saying stuff like this. That people are going to see my actions in a certain light, and that I should somehow corral that image. But I don't see any indication that people think that, and I can't see anything in the post that would be read that way.

I'm one of those people who don't participate because of how eggynack handles things. I have read the thread and I view eggynack as protecting ryu, which is inacceptable, if you claim to be impartial. ryu's behavior is immature and anything but conductive to any kind of sensible discussion. Also, considering my views on tier system itself - which challenge the actual way how the current tiering is done - have been ignored by the supporters. As long I remain unchallenged, my view of the issue is how I interpret the votes. So I don't believe you actually measure what you want to measure which results in me not being interested in casting a vote in the first place.

ryu

2017-03-16, 07:18 AM

Either way, having the post-vote discussion go in directions before responding holds risks. Whatever happens between the vote and my comments on it could be said to have some influence on my position. If that's a thing we're valuing as negative (not even sure if it should be, cause this is a thing very much open to input), then a fast response strikes me as ideal. Had I come into the thread like an hour later, I probably would have taken more time with my response because the utility of a fast response would already have been lost.

Sure. Wizards have a score pretty close to one. I find the placement of these classes interesting in general though. What the wizard numbers mean to me is, "Just about everyone thinks wizards are tier one, but there does exist the occasional dissenting opinion," while the cleric numbers mean, "No one disputes the tier oneness of this class."

Oh I'm not disputing your methods. Your decision was well reasoned. Just shooting down an inaccurate extrapolation of my expected behavior.

eggynack

2017-03-16, 07:41 AM

True, hence the suggestion to send them over to the other thread. If on the off chance they complied, and carried out the test, you could then collect the vote, otherwise the vote is indefinitely discounted without need for a later comment (using an initial phrasing of "take it over there and I'll count it if you sort it out" or somesuch").
Whether I sent them off or not, I'd still have to explicitly state the non-inclusion and why. And I have and had no intention of changing that decision premised on the resolution to a wizard argument. Beheld said the bard vote was one being made in bad faith. I can't trust that the same vote made in the future won't be for the same reason. Your solution here doesn't really match the reality of what I was going for.

As long as you're aware it may be costing you a whole bunch of other knowledge, at the hands of his opinions.
Least that way winds up costing a reasonable distribution of people, rather than just everyone I disagree with.

The spreadsheet is nice, but as with the broader system so with the spreadsheet: the people looking at it are the least likely to need it. I also wonder what would happen to the little and big numbers if all those empty spots were filled, if the non-voters could be enticed to vote and the voters were actually held to a standard other than personal opinion. Establishing the wizard as less than the top tier 1, if it was actually put into common use, would indeed be a significant accomplishment. More likely people would only acknowledge it offhandedly as a low-op outlier that technically pushed the vote down, reference the median or the mode instead of the mean, and continue pushing that wizards are always the best.
I'm actually pretty likely to include some of this data in the end. The border classes at least seem worth inclusion, cause it's useful information, and my specific ordering within a tier might wind up with mean based ordering. Right now things are focused on getting the votes and getting them right. Once all the data is there, emphasis will shift more towards analysis. Maybe some measure of the whole, "Why each class is in its tier," thing, and with some room for folks to talk about various cool things in the data.

I'm one of those people who don't participate because of how eggynack handles things. I have read the thread and I view eggynack as protecting ryu, which is inacceptable, if you claim to be impartial. ryu's behavior is immature and anything but conductive to any kind of sensible discussion.
What am I protecting ryu from, precisely? People who aren't me get to have whatever opinion of him they want. The cost to saying things that people dislike is having the things you say disliked. It's really as straightforward as that. I am fully impartial in whether I include votes, with this current discounting based purely on the vote post itself. I am also fully impartial in whether I include voters. I do include them, whether I like them or not. I am not, and will never be, fully impartial in my opinions on various people, or in my opinions on various arguments. In the first two cases, and in the case of thread maintenance, I consider my position to be something of a thread leader, and I say things in accordance with that, impartiality and all. When I talk about what tier I think a class is, how I evaluate posts, people, and claims, I am generally doing so in the role of thread participant. My personal opinion on ryu's actions, in this context, is about as relevant as yours is.

Fizban

2017-03-16, 08:10 AM

Almost tapped out-

Least that way winds up costing a reasonable distribution of people, rather than just everyone I disagree with.
. . . Wha? I don't see how the distribution of people who leave/never show up due to ryu's opinions is any different from if you removed people based on your own, it's still one person's opinion.

Except I would actually expect your distribution to be significantly more focused, as you'd be doing it intentionally. If you censured a limited number of people for behavior, which you would do with great clarity of purpose, it would be only those people (and maybe those like them who realize their shenanigans won't be had) lost. And others could be encouraged to join based on that. Rather than simply letting the winds of rage drive off whoever they drive off. I'm not going to convince you to tell ryu off, but a leader making principled decisions is infinitely better than writing off people who avoid the place because of you refuse to make that decision. It's kinda the whole principle of moderating a forum, or in this case the discussion within the forum (which would easy merit its own sub-forum on boards that do that).

eggynack

2017-03-16, 08:47 AM

. . . Wha? I don't see how the distribution of people who leave/never show up due to ryu's opinions is any different from if you removed people based on your own, it's still one person's opinion.
Well, any one person leaving is that one person's opinion, but the collective people leaving presumably have a variety of opinions on other stuff. I'd just have my one set of opinions, y'know? Also, I appreciate that the decisions made by others to leave reflect their personal freedom, while decisions made by me to force people out would reflect me taking on command. I don't like that EldritchWeaver is leaving, but I'd prefer a universe where that's the case to one where I kick him out.

Except I would actually expect your distribution to be significantly more focused, as you'd be doing it intentionally. If you censured a limited number of people for behavior, which you would do with great clarity of purpose, it would be only those people (and maybe those like them who realize their shenanigans won't be had) lost.
I get that perspective, but it's a tricky thing. Like, you were talking bias before, how I could either be viewed as letting it cloud my judgement, or how I actually am letting it cloud my judgement, regarding some particular issues. But if I were kicking people out, as I already noted, I'd likely kick Beheld before I'd kick ryu. In my personal opinion, and I'm aware it doesn't likely match yours (though maybe that's less the case now than it was before), he's represented a larger disruptive element. Do I think that because he's actually more disruptive, or because I like ryu more? I dunno. I'd obviously say the former, but maybe I would indeed be allowing preference to cloud my judgement. And, critically, you would quite possibly think the latter, and maybe rightly so. This kinda thing is dangerous like that. Moreso when you're trying to collect votes. There're always problems when you have someone or some group from on high making decisions about whose votes count, least in my opinion.

Keep in mind here that a big part incident you're citing as plausibly (and apparently actually) pushing people away is me showing that kind of preference, either in fact or by way of appearance. As a result, we could lose voters both ways, first from my booting, and second from people getting pissed at the booting. I know I'd be wary of a thread like this where someone is doing things like you're saying. I know that because it was one of the big final straws that caused me to start up this thread as a replacement for Jormengand's thread. It was partially because I specifically was getting kicked, but there was another big part which was incredibly skeptical of a thread like this that would deliver a booting because of someone questioning how things were operating too much.

Anyway, whether or not this is a thing that I could make use of in principle (leaving aside someone like Lord Drako, who is blanket excluded from voting premised largely on his ridiculous ban avoidance and also cause he's a spammer), I don't really see this situation as sufficient to actually bring me to do it. Maybe something will come up down the line where someone is seriously problematic, in a way that makes him a danger to the thread in my opinion. Honestly though, something that would be bad enough is probably something we'd be better off just reporting to the actual moderators. The rules on this forum are tight enough that I don't think I necessarily need an extra set of even tighter rules to handle trouble makers.

Fizban

2017-03-16, 09:11 AM

]But if I were kicking people out, as I already noted, I'd likely kick Beheld before I'd kick ryu.
This is why I used the word censure rather than kick (aside from neither of us being mods, and I may be misusing the word a bit). Asking someone to knock it off and play nice is not booting them.

eggynack

2017-03-16, 09:12 AM

This is why I used the word censure rather than kick (aside from neither of us being mods, and I may be misusing the word a bit). Asking someone to knock it off and play nice is not booting them.
Ah. Fair enough, I suppose.

EldritchWeaver

2017-03-16, 09:43 AM

What am I protecting ryu from, precisely?

ryu literally stated that he could a wizard build so easily, that instead doing the build they just gloat instead about how easy it is to create a wizard build. Someone doing stating this has no credibility. At. All.

It doesn't matter that you think of him being a good optimizer, at this point ryu has to provide a build or to admit that they can't. The fact that they claim that providing a build isn't necessary any longer, despite people wishing that ryu should still post a build (I'm curios as well), should be called out by the thread leader. Which is you.

I don't know if you ignored this deliberately or not, but fact is that ryu hasn't suffered any repercussions. That is detrimental to your own credibility.

Also, considering your past behavior, it is not surprising that you ignore most of my post. The lack of willingness to address my concerns doesn't speak for you being impartial in the first place. At least I refrain from participating in the tiering threads because of this. I expect that other people ceased participating, too. Which means that the people with the highest chance to change the tiering results do not cast their votes. This bias turns the data from a community view into eggynack's opinion. It doesn't matter, if the community view would actually mirror the current results. The well has been poisoned already.

(BTW, I cut the rest of your post, because it has nothing to do with my reasons which I stated above.)

ryu

2017-03-16, 09:49 AM

A hit to my credibility from people most of which are knowingly on my ignore list and the last someone I don't even know? Can you even fathom how little I care?

eggynack

2017-03-16, 10:01 AM

ryu literally stated that he could a wizard build so easily, that instead doing the build they just gloat instead about how easy it is to create a wizard build. Someone doing stating this has no credibility. At. All.

It doesn't matter that you think of him being a good optimizer, at this point ryu has to provide a build or to admit that they can't. The fact that they claim that providing a build isn't necessary any longer, despite people wishing that ryu should still post a build (I'm curios as well), should be called out by the thread leader. Which is you.

I don't know if you ignored this deliberately or not, but fact is that ryu hasn't suffered any repercussions. That is detrimental to your own credibility.
The repercussions exist absent myself, just like the repercussions for Beheld saying what he's been saying exist absent myself. If ryu has lost credibility in your eyes and the eyes of others, then his future tiering arguments will hold less sway for you folks, limiting his capacity to affect change. That's the cost of losing credibility. I don't have to enforce or call out credibility loss. It just kinda happens. I can't really force the guy to finish the challenge he agreed to, and I don't have any real interest in doing so.

I mean, just think about it, even from your perspective. Ryu stated a challenge majig, which he'd hope would have the influence of causing people to agree with his stance, but because he failed to fulfill that challenge, the actual impact is probably the inverse of what he may have hoped, causing more people to disagree with his stance. He didn't even impact Beheld's voting overmuch, cause Beheld can reinstate his original bard vote any time. There wasn't that much upside to the whole thing, and there was a decent amount of downside.

Again, these downsides are all intrinsic. I don't have to be part of their application. They just happen.

Also, considering your past behavior, it is not surprising that you ignore most of my post. The lack of willingness to address my concerns doesn't speak for you being impartial in the first place. At least I refrain from participating in the tiering threads because of this. I expect that other people ceased participating, too. Which means that the people with the highest chance to change the tiering results do not cast their votes. This bias turns the data from a community view into eggynack's opinion. It doesn't matter, if the community view would actually mirror the current results. The well has been poisoned already.

It seemed kinda off the topic we're on, first of all, and you were and are being pretty unclear about which specific posts you were referring to, second of all. And you have tons of power, if you want it. If you think your arguments are convincing, go out and try to convince people. Holding a dissenting opinion has a lot of weight behind it, because it gives you a way bigger pool of people you can convince. You have the exact same power that I have in this sense, and indeed you have the same power I have in the sense above. If you think people are tiering wrong, you can tell them that and you can tell them why. I don't have to be on the other end of that interaction. Similarly, if you think people are acting wrong, in a way that should reduce their credibility, then you can say that, and indeed have said that.

ryu

2017-03-16, 10:12 AM

At any rate, continuous demands, ultimatums, accusations and similar are actually some of the worst ways to get someone to do something you want. People are naturally rebellious, and the harder you push something that way the less likely they are to do it if they hadn't already agreed at the first request. As Rick and Morty have taught us all the most effective method, known in slang as incepting, involves any series of actions likely to make the person think it was their original, or at least best for self interest, idea. Shouting at Eggy is never going to make anything happen in all likelihood, because it's a terrible strategy.

Dondasch

2017-03-16, 11:13 AM

Well, this is apparently a thing. I suppose I'll offer my opinion as someone who is more-or-less an outsider.

The repercussions exist absent myself, just like the repercussions for Beheld saying what he's been saying exist absent myself. If ryu has lost credibility in your eyes and the eyes of others, then his future tiering arguments will hold less sway for you folks, limiting his capacity to affect change. That's the cost of losing credibility. I don't have to enforce or call out credibility loss. It just kinda happens. I can't really force the guy to finish the challenge he agreed to, and I don't have any real interest in doing so.

I mean, just think about it, even from your perspective. Ryu stated a challenge majig, which he'd hope would have the influence of causing people to agree with his stance, but because he failed to fulfill that challenge, the actual impact is probably the inverse of what he may have hoped, causing more people to disagree with his stance. He didn't even impact Beheld's voting overmuch, cause Beheld can reinstate his original bard vote any time. There wasn't that much upside to the whole thing, and there was a decent amount of downside.

Again, these downsides are all intrinsic. I don't have to be part of their application. They just happen.

See, the thing is that ryu has been behaving horribly, and you're "in charge" of these threads. People can very well expect you to take disciplinary action against someone who is pretty much a pure negative to the discussion, or at least denounce their behavior. By not doing so, you can give people the impression that this sort of thing is acceptable in your threads. So basically, you're protecting him from official disapproval, whereas Beheld did get "punished" by having his vote removed. So while there are long-term costs, it looks like you are biased towards ryu. He's going around boasting about psychologically manipulating other posters, yourself included. Does that not strike you as something harmful to discussion?

ryu

2017-03-16, 11:21 AM

Well, this is apparently a thing. I suppose I'll offer my opinion as someone who is more-or-less an outsider.

See, the thing is that ryu has been behaving horribly, and you're "in charge" of these threads. People can very well expect you to take disciplinary action against someone who is pretty much a pure negative to the discussion, or at least denounce their behavior. By not doing so, you can give people the impression that this sort of thing is acceptable in your threads. So basically, you're protecting him from official disapproval, whereas Beheld did get "punished" by having his vote removed. So while there are long-term costs, it looks like you are biased towards ryu. He's going around boasting about psychologically manipulating other posters, yourself included. Does that not strike you as something harmful to discussion?

Poster, singular. Eggy required no interaction, and no one else besides beheld was even involved. Further this couldn't possibly have occurred had he not had such a penchant for spite AND showed it extensively enough that I knew it was there.

eggynack

2017-03-16, 11:38 AM

See, the thing is that ryu has been behaving horribly, and you're "in charge" of these threads. People can very well expect you to take disciplinary action against someone who is pretty much a pure negative to the discussion, or at least denounce their behavior. By not doing so, you can give people the impression that this sort of thing is acceptable in your threads. So basically, you're protecting him from official disapproval, whereas Beheld did get "punished" by having his vote removed. So while there are long-term costs, it looks like you are biased towards ryu. He's going around boasting about psychologically manipulating other posters, yourself included. Does that not strike you as something harmful to discussion?
Again, getting the vote removed wasn't precisely a punishment for bad behavior. It was fundamentally linked to the fact that the vote expressly did not reflect the opinion of the person making it. I can't include votes like that, regardless of the surrounding behavior. Had ryu done the same, his vote would not be included right now. And if he wants his original vote back, he can have it, free of charge. I didn't give much in the way of official disapproval to Beheld either, except in this kinda form, indicating that I certainly don't consider him less culpable for what's went on. That sort of thing is what would act as a true parallel to your advised ryu punishment, and it hasn't really happened.

But fine. Whatever. I shall deliver unto you your demanded punishments. For ryu's role in what occurred, he receives one black star. Beheld, for his participation, gets an upside down smiley face. Fizban, for his responses after the fact, is the recipient of a spoiled cabbage. This, and no less, is the cost of angering me, leader of the thread. So it is written, so it is done.

ryu

2017-03-16, 11:47 AM

Again, getting the vote removed wasn't precisely a punishment for bad behavior. It was fundamentally linked to the fact that the vote expressly did not reflect the opinion of the person making it. I can't include votes like that, regardless of the surrounding behavior. Had ryu done the same, his vote would not be included right now. And if he wants his original vote back, he can have it, free of charge. I didn't give much in the way of official disapproval to Beheld either, except in this kinda form, indicating that I certainly don't consider him less culpable for what's went on. That sort of thing is what would act as a true parallel to your advised ryu punishment, and it hasn't really happened.

But fine. Whatever. I shall deliver unto you your demanded punishments. For ryu's role in what occurred, he receives one black star. Beheld, for his participation, gets an upside down smiley face. Fizban, for his responses after the fact, is the recipient of a spoiled cabbage. This, and no less, is the cost of angering me, leader of the thread. So it is written, so it is done.

Damn. Minus one star! Now i'll have to hope to get either the coin or minigame stars to win the board. Truly the harshest of punishments. In other news I love your sense of silly.

eggynack

2017-03-16, 11:50 AM

Damn. Minus one star! Now i'll have to hope to get either the coin or minigame stars to win the board. Truly the harshest of punishments.
I was thinking of it more like a sticker at the top right of a test paper. But denoting badness.

Edit: Might've shoulda gone with a garbage star, for the sick Adventure Time reference. Maybe next time.

Dondasch

2017-03-16, 11:55 AM

Again, getting the vote removed wasn't precisely a punishment for bad behavior.

Thus my use of quotation marks.

But fine. Whatever. I shall deliver unto you your demanded punishments. For ryu's role in what occurred, he receives one black star. Beheld, for his participation, gets an upside down smiley face. Fizban, for his responses after the fact, is the recipient of a spoiled cabbage. This, and no less, is the cost of angering me, leader of the thread. So it is written, so it is done.

Excellent. Now let us consider this matter settled and return to arguing about how powerful various characters in our magical fantasy-land are.

ryu

2017-03-16, 11:56 AM

I was thinking of it more like a sticker at the top right of a test paper. But denoting badness.

Edit: Might've shoulda gone with a garbage star, for the sick Adventure Time reference. Maybe next time.

Nah, adventure time is much more recent and common. You get points for using mario party from back when mario party was still mario party and not.... 9 or 10. Ew.

eggynack

2017-03-16, 11:57 AM

Excellent. Now let us consider this matter settled and return to arguing about how powerful various characters in our magical fantasy-land are.
Cool beans. Currently writing up the ToB thread. Separately, I'm seriously considering adding a second sheet to my spreadsheet for the tracking of these demerits.

ryu

2017-03-16, 12:03 PM

Cool beans. Currently writing up the ToB thread. Separately, I'm seriously considering adding a second sheet to my spreadsheet for the tracking of these demerits.

I mean are you thinking full text which would be more space consuming or images that would take a second to search for and be likely harder to make out? I'd probably use a word or well made powerpoint first. Oh wait you were using not windows right? If so perhaps photoshop or that other one that focuses more on shapes.

eggynack

2017-03-16, 12:07 PM

I mean are you thinking full text which would be more space consuming or images that would take a second to search for and be likely harder to make out? I'd probably use a word or well made powerpoint first. Oh wait you were using not windows right? If so perhaps photoshop or that other one that focuses more on shapes.
Probably the former. The text wouldn't actually eat that much space. Well, maybe the smiley face would. Making that emoticon style would be workable though, just by making the standard smiley and then rotating it.

Troacctid

2017-03-16, 12:10 PM

Make it a third sheet. Second sheet should be a summary, with results for all the classes.

eggynack

2017-03-16, 12:26 PM

Make it a third sheet. Second sheet should be a summary, with results for all the classes.
That about what you're looking for? Also, made the new thread hereabouts (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?518495-Retiering-the-Classes-Crusader-Swordsage-and-Warblade&p=21815193#post21815193).

Shackel

2017-03-16, 01:55 PM

ryu

2017-03-16, 01:58 PM

Troacctid

2017-03-16, 02:14 PM

That about what you're looking for?
Sort of, but it's sideways—it would be better with the classes in the rows and the numbers in the columns, to take up less horizontal space. Also, I'd sort the classes either alphabetically or by mean ranking.

ryu

2017-03-16, 02:17 PM

Sort of, but it's sideways—it would be better with the classes in the rows and the numbers in the columns, to take up less horizontal space. Also, I'd sort the classes either alphabetically or by mean ranking.

I'd say mean ranking. It's always best to suit the organization to how people think of these things on average. I really rather doubt people group classes by letter proximity in their minds when compared to the tiering the threads are based on.

Dgrin

2017-03-16, 03:22 PM

As another outsider I am genuinely dumbfounded on how not counting a vote that is put up solely to be disruptive, start conflict and does not genuinely represent the person's views is some kind of partial support to ryu. That doesn't make sense, and I dare say it never will, to me.

As a third outsider who has read this thread series from the beginning, I absolutely agree with this. Eggynack was not defending anyone. The only vote he removed was the vote which was explicitly stated to be a spite vote vote cast for the sake of winning an argument instead of evaluating the classes in question by a person who cast that vote. For the record, I think that both ryu and Beheld were behaving quite immaturely in that argument, and both of them were disruptive to the thread in this particular case. And I feel like eggynack was being impartial by not trying to "punish" any of them for their behaviour. Apart from this particular case which I view as completely justified for reasons stated above.

@Fizban: Honestly, it sounds like you dislike ryu personally, so you call him out on his behaviour while ignoring Beheld's personal attacks. That's surely not a way to mediate the conflict. Which is actually surprising to me cause I usually see you trying to be constructive in your arguments, even if I may disagree with them.

@Everyone: Can we please try to be polite and constructive? Personal attacks on other posters will never lead to anything other that negativity from others. And those certainly do not help you prove whatever you're trying to prove. If someone refuses to agree with your opinion, this does not make them a terrible person. This is obvious stuff but I feel it needs to be said here.

Beheld

2017-03-16, 03:57 PM

The only vote he removed was the vote which was explicitly stated to be a spite vote by a person who cast that vote.

At least if you are going to be wrong about why I voted you could not cite the incorrect reason to me. Cite it to the two people who actually said it.

I mean I did post my actual reason if anyone actually cared what it was. But like, be wrong about it, sure, just don't cite to me for it.

bean illus

2017-03-16, 04:38 PM

I struggle to find the right words to communicate my wish that this thread had stayed the wonder of civility that it was on page 4ish, when i complimented folks for it.

As a weaker member of this team, i admit that i often lurk for fear of being attacked. When not being attack i have sometimes felt ignored and invisible (of course most folks are usually nice). I just say that in case you internet anarchy theorist care.

I sometimes see myself playing an illusion of 'right' on my interaction. A popular working theory is 'if you can't prove i'm wrong, i've won the fight'. But in reality, beating your friends, mates, peers, and acquaintances to a pulp (but fairly!) is not really winning.

Eggy, if you get this, perhaps you could just direct extended conversations to a new thread until they are resolved (like they do on the Simple Answers thread). These threads are nearly historical, especially with the database (voters could change their vote?), and it's a shame that the world can't simply come here and enjoy them. I would frankly see if i could have the moderators hide all that .... extra stuff.

OTOH, i admire your reserve, and sometimes that's just what the situation needs.

Dgrin

2017-03-16, 04:43 PM

At least if you are going to be wrong about why I voted you could not cite the incorrect reason to me. Cite it to the two people who actually said it.

I mean I did post my actual reason if anyone actually cared what it was. But like, be wrong about it, sure, just don't cite to me for it.

It was a vote meant to make ryu follow through on his challenge, or demonstrate he's not going to do it, cast for the sake of you winning the personal feud. If you don't want it to be called "spite vote", provide a better name, I just used one coined earlier in this thread cause I feel it's reasonably accurate. At least you admit it was not a real attempt to evaluate those classes' tiers. And please, stop accusing people who tell you that you're wrong of not reading your posts or not caring about your opinion. I can respect your opinion and disagree with it. If I am wrong here, tell me why and how, don't just shout "No, you're wrong!".

Beheld

2017-03-16, 05:06 PM

It was a vote meant to make ryu follow through on his challenge, or demonstrate he's not going to do it, cast for the sake of you winning the personal feud. If you don't want it to be called "spite vote", provide a better name, I just used one coined earlier in this thread cause I feel it's reasonably accurate. At least you admit it was not a real attempt to evaluate those classes' tiers. And please, stop accusing people who tell you that you're wrong of not reading your posts or not caring about your opinion. I can respect your opinion and disagree with it. If I am wrong here, tell me why and how, don't just shout "No, you're wrong!".

Aside from the fact that I've already made a post that explains why you were wrong, and that I tell people why they are wrong all the time, in this case the very specific thing I was making a point of is you falsely attributing someone else's claim to me. Please don't claim that I said myself the thing other people said about me. That's really not too much to ask, and if I had gone into any more detail about specifically what I did say, you would alternatively be criticizing me for not dropping a dead issue.

But here:

The only vote he removed was the vote which was explicitly stated to be a spite vote by a person who cast that vote.

You are wrong. The reason you are wrong is because I did not say that. It is incorrect when you state that I said that, because, I did not say that.

There. I have now explained the reason you were wrong.

More detailed, how on earth is spite supposed to be my motive, that never even made sense in the first place when eggy said it, or when ryu bragged about his masterful manipulations of my spite afterword. Was I supposed to be spiting my own previous nonvote? Ryu clearly never gave a **** what Tier the Bard was in, which is why he never even voted until someone pointed out that his failure to vote undermined his made up justification for backing out. It's no skin off his nose if someone votes Bard differently.

I suppose if I went and voted Wizard Tier 6, that could have actually been to spite Ryu, since that's the only thing he actually cares about.

Dgrin

2017-03-16, 05:30 PM

Aside from the fact that I've already made a post that explains why you were wrong, and that I tell people why they are wrong all the time, in this case the very specific thing I was making a point of is you falsely attributing someone else's claim to me. Please don't claim that I said myself the thing other people said about me. That's really not too much to ask, and if I had gone into any more detail about specifically what I did say, you would alternatively be criticizing me for not dropping a dead issue.

You made the post that explains that your votes were made to win an argument tangent to the thread, or, more specifically, to demonstrate that ryu is badwrong.

The point is not to trick you, the point is to demonstrate that you are lying to back out of the challenge you proposed, because you looked at the list, and realized you lost.

Actually it was "vote" "made" to satisfy the precondition "you must disagree with me about Bards even though my claim has nothing to do with Bards before I follow through on my own challenge." Knowing that literally as soon as he actually followed through I could you know, revoke my vote, since you allow vote changes.

More detailed, how on earth is spite supposed to be my motive, that never even made sense in the first place when eggy said it, or when ryu bragged about his masterful manipulations of my spite afterword. Was I supposed to be spiting my own previous nonvote? Ryu clearly never gave a **** what Tier the Bard was in, which is why he never even voted until someone pointed out that his failure to vote undermined his made up justification for backing out. It's no skin off his nose if someone votes Bard differently.

I suppose if I went and voted Wizard Tier 6, that could have actually been to spite Ryu, since that's the only thing he actually cares about.

Well, I am ready to change the wording, I already did it to better reflect my position. But, to answer your question - the vote, and a couple pages of arguments after it were made as a direct attack on another poster, to make them look bad/wrong. That was not a constructive vote, which is the point of the thread - the reason was literally to show that he's lying. As something done to harm or discredit another person, that seems to be the very definition of spite.
Regardless of you being correct or incorrect in that particular case, I feel like there is a difference between showing you're correct to find the truth/consensus and showing that the other person is incorrect to expose him as a liar.

EDIT: Although you're correct that I misattributed the exact claim of it being a spite vote to you. I still feel that was quite an accurate label for the situation, but I apologise for labeling that as your own words. I assumed that the context for the claim was more important than the exact name for it.

eggynack

2017-03-16, 05:39 PM

Eggy, if you get this, perhaps you could just direct extended conversations to a new thread until they are resolved (like they do on the Simple Answers thread). These threads are nearly historical, especially with the database (voters could change their vote?), and it's a shame that the world can't simply come here and enjoy them. I would frankly see if i could have the moderators hide all that .... extra stuff.

I dunno. The tricky thing is that a conversation like this one in particular should be associated with this thread in one of a few ways. If we consider it a wizard based argument, then we should move it to that tiering thread, if we consider it an argument about how votes should be counted (this seems likely), then we should move it to the home base thread, and if it seems completely off of either of those topics or our bard tiering topic, I'd probably ask it not continue before I'd make a new retiering thread for dumb arguments. there's not quite as much room for extra spin off threads in cases like this, is what I'm getting at, and most solutions that don't involve applying a great stopping heave would just result in a different thread getting poisoned.

More detailed, how on earth is spite supposed to be my motive, that never even made sense in the first place when eggy said it, or when ryu bragged about his masterful manipulations of my spite afterword. Was I supposed to be spiting my own previous nonvote? Ryu clearly never gave a **** what Tier the Bard was in, which is why he never even voted until someone pointed out that his failure to vote undermined his made up justification for backing out. It's no skin off his nose if someone votes Bard differently.
I don't currently read spite as your motive, but at the time I thought the tiering was meant to hurt ryu in some fashion, even if it went against your true views. Less, "I am fulfilling the terms that you have put forth for the continuance of this conversation," more, "I am goading you into continuing this conversation by changing up my tier ranking or something." I wouldn't think doing so would actually hurt ryu, but I certainly do not exist within your head, such that I could make determinations of what you think the results of your actions will be. In hindsight, the term fulfilling thing seems more consistent with what you said, both at the time and later, but either way such a vote isn't going to be counted, so it doesn't make much difference to me. Votes have to reach the ridiculously low threshold of being in accordance with the opinion of the person making them.