Why the hate for "win buttons"?

[digiman619]

That's a radical departure from how the level system is normally thought of as working, and it means that you don't get any options until 11th, which is dumb. Also, you would probably like monsters with strategic abilities, which necessitate strategic counters, which means there is still going to be content in the "versatility" levels. Also, this means you can't have any kind of trade off spectrum between power and options. Overall, this seems like another suggestion that demands that the game bend over backwards so you can get your underpowered character.
No, because you could have this sort of "take a buff and strike before it wears off" technique at 1st level, too (assuming a relatively good short-term buff exists at that level). Just sneak near the target, drink a potion of the buff and attack. The problem is that once teleport hits the table, you hit the counter-counter-countermeasure state of affairs. It'd be like I built a machine to throw basketballs at the exact height and speed to hit a basket 99.999%+ of the time, and then threw a jersey on it and included it my basketball team. The optimal move is to always pass the ball to the robot, but that kills the fun for everyone else, especially if not every team has access to a basketball robot.

I suppose that the problem is that if this was real life and the powers in the game were really real, then I would absolutely agree that this is the proper tactics to take, as they are the most effective at keeping you alive. The problem that you can't seem to grasp is that since it isn't real life and is only a game, the enjoyment of the players is the ultimate priority rather than staying alive long enough to pass on your genes.


How could I possibly prove the Wizard can't do something? The way to do that is to fail in an earnest effort to prove he can.
You don't have to; the analysis has already been done for you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System) Of the 17 possible party roles for a character, the Wizard is the ideal character for 9 of them, is effective for 5, 3 it can do, but not very well, and 0 that it can't do. I repeat, of the possible 17 positions, the Wizard is one of, if not the best choice, for 14 of them. The only thing it struggles with is healing, being a party face, and trapfinding. The first one is due to healing being a semi-protected niche of divine casters, the second because it has no social skills and has virtually nothing that needs Cha, so it's a common dump stat, and the third is moot because, at later levels, the most common way to deal with traps is "throw the summoned monster at it". And, I lest I forget, there were a grand total of 0 roles they couldn't do. Unless you think that "can act in an antimagic field" is supposed to be common enough to be a party role.


Which also doesn't really work. You can still find stuff out, and people will still try to. I suppose after a certain number of hoops it technically becomes balanced, but I'd rather just fix the problem at its root.
The problem is that instead of having to sneak into bad guy's fortress to pull off a short-term buffed assault, you just teleport there. The first can be a great adventure in and of itself. The last one... isn't.


I think you are misremembering the incident. I've never had a problem with fixed-list casters expanding their lists.
Really? Then explain this exchange about a dozen pages ago:


Seeing as one of your fixes is "make a bunch of fixed list casters", I fail to see how this is a problem.
Because fixed list casters have the ability to add new spells to their lists in ways that are, largely, arbitrary. Nothing stops a Beguiler/Rainbow Servant who happens to want zone of truth from swapping to a domain that grants it.


Yes, that would be combining traits of multiple tiers. Which is what I said you should do.
Except that if the fixed list martials (FLMs) can and will have previously exclusive caster abilities, you get rid of one of your major reason to suggest playing a T1 caster other than the increased power level.


I don't think the imbalance is good, I just think the imbalance isn't proof the Wizard is not a specialist. Consider a simpler analogy. Presumably, the Rogue is whatever level of specialist it is throughout the whole game. So a 11th level Rogue isn't any less of a specialist than a 1st level one. But if you dropped that 11th level Rogue into a 1st level party, it would out-perform every character in that party in their niche, not because it isn't a specialist but because it's simply much more powerful. To be clear, you shouldn't do that, and the fact that the game does something similar with the Wizard (claiming power equivalence between imbalanced characters) is bad, but it's bad because of power level concerns, not anything about specialization.
Yes, the Wizard is intended to be a generalist. That's why it being able to do just as well as or even outperform intended specialists at their own gimmick is such a huge problem.


I don't think there's anything about casters, particularly less infinite loops, that the game can't handle. Also, I think it's super weird that you consider me making a variety of arguments in favor of my position a problem. Do you not do everything you can to justify the things you believe? Are there arguments in favor of Spheres of Power you're just not trotting out because you don't want to seem like you care too much?
It's the favorable opinion on Vancian casting and virtually nothing else. Combined with the fact that you apparently feel the necessity to bash any other subsystem for having the audacity to exist when you've already got Vancian magic that's off-putting.


I would think that much is obvious -- just give them more spells known. The Sorcerer's premise, trading off a smaller set of overall options for a larger set of ones at any given time is viable, it's just skewed too low (and it gets even worse from various splat content eating away at other niches -- hey, it's another nerf-ish thing I want).
Another one for the "Good idea, but balancing it will be tricky" column.

[digiman619]

That's a radical departure from how the level system is normally thought of as working, and it means that you don't get any options until 11th, which is dumb. Also, you would probably like monsters with strategic abilities, which necessitate strategic counters, which means there is still going to be content in the "versatility" levels. Also, this means you can't have any kind of trade off spectrum between power and options. Overall, this seems like another suggestion that demands that the game bend over backwards so you can get your underpowered character.
No, because you could have this sort of "take a buff and strike before it wears off" technique at 1st level, too (assuming a relatively good short-term buff exists at that level). Just sneak near the target, drink a potion of the buff and attack. The problem is that once teleport hits the table, you hit the counter-counter-countermeasure state of affairs. It'd be like I built a machine to throw basketballs at the exact height and speed to hit a basket 99.999%+ of the time, and then threw a jersey on it and included it my basketball team. The optimal move is to always pass the ball to the robot, but that kills the fun for everyone else, especially if not every team has access to a basketball robot.

I suppose that the problem is that if this was real life and the powers in the game were really real, then I would absolutely agree that this is the proper tactics to take, as they are the most effective at keeping you alive. The problem that you can't seem to grasp is that since it isn't real life and is only a game, the enjoyment of the players is the ultimate priority rather than staying alive long enough to pass on your genes.


How could I possibly prove the Wizard can't do something? The way to do that is to fail in an earnest effort to prove he can.
You don't have to; the analysis has already been done for you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System) Of the 17 possible party roles for a character, the Wizard is the ideal character for 9 of them, is effective for 5, 3 it can do, but not very well, and 0 that it can't do. I repeat, of the possible 17 positions, the Wizard is one of, if not the best choice, for 14 of them. The only thing it struggles with is healing, being a party face, and trapfinding. The first one is due to healing being a semi-protected niche of divine casters, the second because it has no social skills and has virtually nothing that needs Cha, so it's a common dump stat, and the third is moot because, at later levels, the most common way to deal with traps is "throw the summoned monster at it". And, I lest I forget, there were a grand total of 0 roles they couldn't do. Unless you think that "can act in an antimagic field" is supposed to be common enough to be a party role.


Which also doesn't really work. You can still find stuff out, and people will still try to. I suppose after a certain number of hoops it technically becomes balanced, but I'd rather just fix the problem at its root.
The problem is that instead of having to sneak into bad guy's fortress to pull off a short-term buffed assault, you just teleport there. The first can be a great adventure in and of itself. The last one... isn't.


I think you are misremembering the incident. I've never had a problem with fixed-list casters expanding their lists.
Really? Then explain this exchange about a dozen pages ago:


Seeing as one of your fixes is "make a bunch of fixed list casters", I fail to see how this is a problem.
Because fixed list casters have the ability to add new spells to their lists in ways that are, largely, arbitrary. Nothing stops a Beguiler/Rainbow Servant who happens to want zone of truth from swapping to a domain that grants it.


Yes, that would be combining traits of multiple tiers. Which is what I said you should do.
Except that if the fixed list martials (FLMs) can and will have previously exclusive caster abilities, you get rid of one of your major reason to suggest playing a T1 caster other than the increased power level.


I don't think the imbalance is good, I just think the imbalance isn't proof the Wizard is not a specialist. Consider a simpler analogy. Presumably, the Rogue is whatever level of specialist it is throughout the whole game. So a 11th level Rogue isn't any less of a specialist than a 1st level one. But if you dropped that 11th level Rogue into a 1st level party, it would out-perform every character in that party in their niche, not because it isn't a specialist but because it's simply much more powerful. To be clear, you shouldn't do that, and the fact that the game does something similar with the Wizard (claiming power equivalence between imbalanced characters) is bad, but it's bad because of power level concerns, not anything about specialization.
Yes, the Wizard is intended to be a generalist. That's why it being able to do just as well as or even outperform intended specialists at their own gimmick is such a huge problem.


I don't think there's anything about casters, particularly less infinite loops, that the game can't handle. Also, I think it's super weird that you consider me making a variety of arguments in favor of my position a problem. Do you not do everything you can to justify the things you believe? Are there arguments in favor of Spheres of Power you're just not trotting out because you don't want to seem like you care too much?
It's the favorable opinion on Vancian casting and virtually nothing else. Combined with the fact that you apparently feel the necessity to bash any other subsystem for having the audacity to exist when you've already got Vancian magic that's off-putting.


I would think that much is obvious -- just give them more spells known. The Sorcerer's premise, trading off a smaller set of overall options for a larger set of ones at any given time is viable, it's just skewed too low (and it gets even worse from various splat content eating away at other niches -- hey, it's another nerf-ish thing I want).
Another one for the "Good idea, but balancing it will be tricky" column.

[Kallimakus]

That's a radical departure from how the level system is normally thought of as working, and it means that you don't get any options until 11th, which is dumb. Also, you would probably like monsters with strategic abilities, which necessitate strategic counters, which means there is still going to be content in the "versatility" levels. Also, this means you can't have any kind of trade off spectrum between power and options. Overall, this seems like another suggestion that demands that the game bend over backwards so you can get your underpowered character.

Only some characters expand on both Power and versatility. Casters, mostly. So choosing that to be the paradigm is arbitrary (though not necessarily wrong)


How could I possibly prove the Wizard can't do something? The way to do that is to fail in an earnest effort to prove he can.

I don't think the imbalance is good, I just think the imbalance isn't proof the Wizard is not a specialist. Consider a simpler analogy. Presumably, the Rogue is whatever level of specialist it is throughout the whole game. So a 11th level Rogue isn't any less of a specialist than a 1st level one. But if you dropped that 11th level Rogue into a 1st level party, it would out-perform every character in that party in their niche, not because it isn't a specialist but because it's simply much more powerful. To be clear, you shouldn't do that, and the fact that the game does something similar with the Wizard (claiming power equivalence between imbalanced characters) is bad, but it's bad because of power level concerns, not anything about specialization.


You don't have to; the analysis has already been done for you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System) Of the 17 possible party roles for a character, the Wizard is the ideal character for 9 of them, is effective for 5, 3 it can do, but not very well, and 0 that it can't do. I repeat, of the possible 17 positions, the Wizard is one of, if not the best choice, for 14 of them. The only thing it struggles with is healing, being a party face, and trapfinding. The first one is due to healing being a semi-protected niche of divine casters, the second because it has no social skills and has virtually nothing that needs Cha, so it's a common dump stat, and the third is moot because, at later levels, the most common way to deal with traps is "throw the summoned monster at it". And, I lest I forget, there were a grand total of 0 roles they couldn't do. Unless you think that "can act in an antimagic field" is supposed to be common enough to be a party role.

If you are good at everything, you are not a specialist. Inability to do one or two things also doesn't make you a specialist. So what is a Wizard specialized in?


The problem is that instead of having to sneak into bad guy's fortress to pull off a short-term buffed assault, you just teleport there. The first can be a great adventure in and of itself. The last one... isn't.

Hypothetically, assuming that the game is scaled up to the point that evil guy with a fortress is a roadbump, I'd say you might as well teleport straight to the guy and be done with it, which I think is Cosi's point. That ultimately The traps, locks and henchmen just don't matter. The only question is how powerful PC's ought to become.

[Florian]

Hypothetically, assuming that the game is scaled up to the point that evil guy with a fortress is a roadbump, I'd say you might as well teleport straight to the guy and be done with it, which I think is Cosi's point. That ultimately The traps, locks and henchmen just don't matter. The only question is how powerful PC's ought to become.

This has the nasty tendency to transform the game away from D&D and over to some form of MtG where two sides match spells and counters until one makes a fatal mistake and the battle is over instantly. Can be fun, sure, but begs the question why you´re not playing MtG then.

[Kallimakus]

This has the nasty tendency to transform the game away from D&D and over to some form of MtG where two sides match spells and counters until one makes a fatal mistake and the battle is over instantly. Can be fun, sure, but begs the question why you´re not playing MtG then.

That is an eloquent way to put my point. D&D is not supposed to be a system where wizards are basically gods. The ones that are, I think, are generally Epic level, or very close. So wizards should reach power like that at level 20, rather than 10 (actually, probably 15+ would be appropriate)

[Max_Killjoy]

This has the nasty tendency to transform the game away from D&D and over to some form of MtG where two sides match spells and counters until one makes a fatal mistake and the battle is over instantly. Can be fun, sure, but begs the question why you´re not playing MtG then.

Yeap -- the aforementioned "5d chess" or "counter-counter-counter-counter-spell dueling".

[Cosi]

There were no full casters or bland martials published in the last few years of the game's life. Instead we get fixed list casters and martial initiators, all of which are firmly in the T3 category.

The fixed list casters are Tier Two. They're just Sorcerers who are forced to pick a thematic list of good spells, except they get more spells known and also class features and also a more favorable casting mechanic. The only one that isn't good is the Warmage, and the original printing on that predates the edition. Also, Archivist is in the same book as Dread Necromancer.


The problem is that once teleport hits the table, you hit the counter-counter-countermeasure state of affairs.

And you can't do that with dimension door because?


I suppose that the problem is that if this was real life and the powers in the game were really real, then I would absolutely agree that this is the proper tactics to take, as they are the most effective at keeping you alive. The problem that you can't seem to grasp is that since it isn't real life and is only a game, the enjoyment of the players is the ultimate priority rather than staying alive long enough to pass on your genes.

Or, maybe, I like different things than you do. But, y'know, it's probably more likely I'm too stupid to understand why people play D&D.


You don't have to; the analysis has already been done for you. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System)

You understand that compresses the entire range of performance to four numbers, right? Obviously that's going to miss some nuance. FFS, you've got Ardent (which can get psionic charm) on the same level as Aristocrat (which ... has Diplomacy as a class skill).


The problem is that instead of having to sneak into bad guy's fortress to pull off a short-term buffed assault, you just teleport there. The first can be a great adventure in and of itself. The last one... isn't.

I still don't see why it's a problem that high level adventures are different from low level ones.


Really? Then explain this exchange about a dozen pages ago:

If you read the context, that's referring to the problems with Fixed List Casters as an implementation of themed casters because they can expand their lists.


Only some characters expand on both Power and versatility. Casters, mostly. So choosing that to be the paradigm is arbitrary (though not necessarily wrong)

It's not like there are "only versatility" classes.


This has the nasty tendency to transform the game away from D&D and over to some form of MtG where two sides match spells and counters until one makes a fatal mistake and the battle is over instantly. Can be fun, sure, but begs the question why you´re not playing MtG then.

"If you want to play a Cyberpunk game, why not just watch Ghost In The Shell? All genres are the same, right?"

[Segev]

If nothing else, this thread has made me less trepidatious about the "power level" of a couple WIP protagonists... sheesh.

I have recently seen several works which demonstrate, conclusively, to me that the power level of the protagonist, even relative to the rest of the setting, doesn't determine the quality of the story. If there is no conflict because the protagonist can just give any problem one punch to end it, then that just means the story has to be about something other than "will he win the fight?" The tension, the suspense, might come from HOW he'll do it, if he's got varied means. It might come from the interpersonal drama; sure, we know the protagonist will beat up any foe, but what if fighting isn't the right solution? Is he sure he's fighting the RIGHT foe? How does he deal with his cousin having cancer, which is a problem his overwhelming power isn't geared to fix?

One Punch Man is the easiest example of professional fiction to point to. Fanfics (for the Worm setting) include Taylor Varga and It Gets Worse..., wherein the main character of Worm (a web serial novel, now complete) has different powers than canon, and those powers are ludicrously overwhelming. But the amusement value doesn't come from the tension of whether she'll win a fight. It is in what she does with her power. Or, in the latter story's case, HOW what we're seeing her power set up will achieve whatever goal it has set...and what that goal might even be.

It might be HARDER to write a story about an OP protagonist that remains interesting, but the main trick is to make sure you're not relying on the traditional drama-drivers. The story might include foes who come against him, but the actual drama arises from how others react to his power, how his foes try to figure out how to overcome it (even as they fail), whether he can reassure his friends and allies that he's okay to be around, etc.

[Florian]

"If you want to play a Cyberpunk game, why not just watch Ghost In The Shell? All genres are the same, right?"

Very bad example. Gits might not be as radical as Takeshi Kovacs/Altered Carbon, but they plumb the depths of what it actually means to be "human" in sufficient detail.

Still a straw man, tho.

[Cosi]

Very bad example. Gits might not be as radical as Takeshi Kovacs/Altered Carbon, but they plumb the depths of what it actually means to be "human" in sufficient detail.

Still a straw man, tho.

I misspoke. I said "genre" when I mean "medium". That said, this is definitely not a strawman, and your position is definitely insane. MTG is a competitive CCG. D&D is a cooperative TTRPG. The idea that you could just substitute them represents a fundamental lack of understanding of how either works.

[digiman619]

The fixed list casters are Tier Two. They're just Sorcerers who are forced to pick a thematic list of good spells, except they get more spells known and also class features and also a more favorable casting mechanic. The only one that isn't good is the Warmage, and the original printing on that predates the edition. Also, Archivist is in the same book as Dread Necromancer.
Have you ever actually read the tier list (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Tier_System)? Because that's completely wrong. Tier 2 consists of the psion (and its alternate class the erudite (the non-spell-to-power version, at least)), the sorcerer, the favored soul, and the binder with the web enhancement vestige that gave it summon monster. And the Artificer is Tier 1. Maybe you should actually do some research as to what the tiers really mean and why each class is where it is (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?269440-Why-Each-Class-Is-In-Its-Tier-(Rescued-from-MinMax)) before you make such obviously false statements.


Or, maybe, I like different things than you do. But, y'know, it's probably more likely I'm too stupid to understand why people play D&D.
Obviously, because you fail to realize that your 'T1's only' game style is a minority. See, I can be hyperbolic, too.


You understand that compresses the entire range of performance to four numbers, right? Obviously that's going to miss some nuance. FFS, you've got Ardent (which can get psionic charm) on the same level as Aristocrat (which ... has Diplomacy as a class skill).
Yeah, the rank of 3 is the most ambigous. Too bad there were only 3 things a Wizard had at that rank. The vast majority of things he can do are as good if not better than the supposed specialists in that field. That's a problem.

Also, while rank 3 can be ambigous, 4 is not. 4 is "cannot do this party role thorugh its class features alone", things like a Barabarian being unable to heal. THERE IS NOTHING A WIZARD CANNOT DO UNLESS THE SCENARIO IS SPECIFCALLY DESIGNED TO COUNTER THEM!


If you read the context, that's referring to the problems with Fixed List Casters as an implementation of themed casters because they can expand their lists.
Okay. You could have meade that clear earlier, though.


"If you want to play a Cyberpunk game, why not just watch Ghost In The Shell? All genres are the same, right?"
He's talking about mechanics, not theme... which you answered as I was typing my relpy, so feel free to ignore this one.


I misspoke. I said "genre" when I mean "medium". That said, this is definitely not a strawman, and your position is definitely insane. MTG is a competitive CCG. D&D is a cooperative TTRPG. The idea that you could just substitute them represents a fundamental lack of understanding of how either works.
This is a valid point, but the problem is that it ignores one of the major problems of Tier 1 casters and therefore the power level you want: Each character will have the power to do the entire adventure themselves, so why bother being in a party?

[Lord Raziere]

One Punch Man is the easiest example of professional fiction to point to. Fanfics (for the Worm setting) include Taylor Varga and It Gets Worse..., wherein the main character of Worm (a web serial novel, now complete) has different powers than canon, and those powers are ludicrously overwhelming. But the amusement value doesn't come from the tension of whether she'll win a fight. It is in what she does with her power. Or, in the latter story's case, HOW what we're seeing her power set up will achieve whatever goal it has set...and what that goal might even be.

It might be HARDER to write a story about an OP protagonist that remains interesting, but the main trick is to make sure you're not relying on the traditional drama-drivers. The story might include foes who come against him, but the actual drama arises from how others react to his power, how his foes try to figure out how to overcome it (even as they fail), whether he can reassure his friends and allies that he's okay to be around, etc.

I don't care.

Give me the uncertainty of the fight. Thats what I want. Consider me Khornate on this.

[Cosi]

Have you ever actually read the tier list (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Tier_System)? Because that's completely wrong. Tier 2 consists of the psion (and its alternate class the erudite (the non-spell-to-power version, at least)), the sorcerer, the favored soul, and the binder with the web enhancement vestige that gave it summon monster. And the Artificer is Tier 1. Maybe you should actually do some research as to what the tiers really mean and why each class is where it is (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?269440-Why-Each-Class-Is-In-Its-Tier-(Rescued-from-MinMax)) before you make such obviously false statements.

I'm saying JaronK's rankings are wrong. I suppose "should be" might have been better language than are.


Obviously, because you fail to realize that your 'T1's only' game style is a minority. See, I can be hyperbolic, too.

Any particular style of play is going to be a minority. That's why I'm suggesting that we don't dedicate the whole game to one particular style of play.


Yeah, the rank of 3 is the most ambigous. Too bad there were only 3 things a Wizard had at that rank. The vast majority of things he can do are as good if not better than the supposed specialists in that field. That's a problem.

Yes, but it doesn't make the Wizard not a specialist. You're compressing information.


Also, while rank 3 can be ambigous, 4 is not. 4 is "cannot do this party role thorugh its class features alone", things like a Barabarian being unable to heal. THERE IS NOTHING A WIZARD CANNOT DO UNLESS THE SCENARIO IS SPECIFCALLY DESIGNED TO COUNTER THEM!

Yes, that is a good thing. Remember, these aren't abilities, they are niches. This doesn't mean the Wizard will solve every problem that arises, it means that for every problem that arises there is something that the Wizard can do. That is a good thing.


This is a valid point, but the problem is that it ignores one of the major problems of Tier 1 casters and therefore the power level you want: Each character will have the power to do the entire adventure themselves, so why bother being in a party?

For the same reason you form a party despite each character's manifest ability to win fights, or purchase gear. Competence and optimality are different.

[Lord Raziere]

I'm saying JaronK's rankings are wrong.


and now your stubbornly arguing against the tier list itself. Look I may hate that thing, but at least I acknowledge that its an accurate reading of the system, I don't go plugging my ears and saying that wrong for my own arbitrary arcane reasons where you split hairs over whether this or that is or isn't optimal or whatever and stubbornly cling to the stupidest of semantics just because you think the way things are is so great for no apparent reason I can discern.

[Cosi]

and now your stubbornly arguing against the tier list itself. Look I may hate that thing, but at least I acknowledge that its an accurate reading of the system, I don't go plugging my ears and saying that wrong for my own arbitrary arcane reasons where you split hairs over whether this or that is or isn't optimal or whatever and stubbornly cling to the stupidest of semantics just because you think the way things are is so great for no apparent reason I can discern.

If you think a class that is just "a Sorcerer, but instead of picking which good spells you get, you get a fixed list of good Sorcerer spells" is meaningfully worse than a Sorcerer, you are wrong, and the way fixed list casters work makes Beguilers and Dread Necromancers better than that. The literal reason that the Dread Necromancer is in Tier Three is that JaronK thinks you can't use planar binding as one, because he is an idiot who doesn't know that magic items, Prestige Domains, or Arcane Disciple exist.

Those classes are Tier Two (insofar as the Tiers are useful at all, which is admittedly not very), and it's not remotely close.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm saying JaronK's rankings are wrong. I suppose "should be" might have been better language than are.


OK, but understand that most people you talk to on the subject of 3.5 and "class tiers" are going to be using those tier meanings and assignments, and using your own meanings and assignments is just going to make the discussions more convoluted and circular.

[Segev]

I don't care.

Give me the uncertainty of the fight. Thats what I want. Consider me Khornate on this.

That's fine; everyone has their own taste.

Though consider this: did you enjoy Road Runner cartoons?

How do you feel about romantic comedies? How would you feel about a romantic comedy staring silver-age superman? Would silver-age Superman's OP powers-on-demand actually reduce the conflict in a romantic comedy where he has to juggle Lois and Lana while Lex and Bruce try to woo them as well?

[Lord Raziere]

If you think a class that is just "a Sorcerer, but instead of picking which good spells you get, you get a fixed list of good Sorcerer spells" is meaningfully worse than a Sorcerer, you are wrong, and the way fixed list casters work makes Beguilers and Dread Necromancers better than that. The literal reason that the Dread Necromancer is in Tier Three is that JaronK thinks you can't use planar binding as one, because he is an idiot who doesn't know that magic items, Prestige Domains, or Arcane Disciple exist.

Those classes are Tier Two (insofar as the Tiers are useful at all, which is admittedly not very), and it's not remotely close.

Wow, now your just calling the person who pointed this out in the first place as an idiot. your outright doing that, I mean, I don't like the fact that it exists, but you have to admit a guy has to be pretty intelligent to figure all this out in the first place yes? just because you disagree with him on a couple points doesn't mean he is an idiot.

Edit:

That's fine; everyone has their own taste.

Though consider this: did you enjoy Road Runner cartoons?

How do you feel about romantic comedies? How would you feel about a romantic comedy staring silver-age superman? Would silver-age Superman's OP powers-on-demand actually reduce the conflict in a romantic comedy where he has to juggle Lois and Lana while Lex and Bruce try to woo them as well?

1. pretty sure there is an rpg for that that I just haven't bothered to get yet.

2......yes? take Lex and Bruce and put them on the moon, they can't breathe in space, then make up a new hypno-ray to shoot from my eyes, because silver age superman literally makes up new powers all the time and hypnotize both Lois and Lana to get along and be my harem, have fun being evil silver age superman, because we all know silver age superman is a jerk anyways. what? you never said I had to be moral in the use of my powers of reducing the conflict. the conflict is gone, its not a moral way of doing that, but its gone.

as for romantic comedies in general, I dunno how to feel about them. mainly because of the romance thing. I just don't know how to feel about romance in general, I've been experimenting writing couples here and there but I'm not sure if they are any good, and I've never experienced anything close to romance in real life. okay there was this one fleeting crush on a girl I had but that was like a long time ago, and I had other issues to work out at the time, but other than that....nope.

[Forum Explorer]

I don't care.

Give me the uncertainty of the fight. Thats what I want. Consider me Khornate on this.

For One Punch Man, the uncertainty of the fight is for other characters. Well, that and every once and a while you get this build up of maybe this guy will be an actual challenge.


If you think a class that is just "a Sorcerer, but instead of picking which good spells you get, you get a fixed list of good Sorcerer spells" is meaningfully worse than a Sorcerer, you are wrong, and the way fixed list casters work makes Beguilers and Dread Necromancers better than that. The literal reason that the Dread Necromancer is in Tier Three is that JaronK thinks you can't use planar binding as one, because he is an idiot who doesn't know that magic items, Prestige Domains, or Arcane Disciple exist.

Those classes are Tier Two (insofar as the Tiers are useful at all, which is admittedly not very), and it's not remotely close.

Note that the Tier list is before any optimization for most of it. Prestige classes, feat selection and levels of optimization can effectively change what tier you are in.

[Cosi]

Wow, now your just calling the person who pointed this out in the first place as an idiot. your outright doing that, I mean, I don't like the fact that it exists, but you have to admit a guy has to be pretty intelligent to figure all this out in the first place yes? just because you disagree with him on a couple points doesn't mean he is an idiot.

Suffice it to say, I largely disagree with the thesis that JaronK did anything particularly original or impressive with his tiers. That said, the problems with them in general are pretty far off topic for this thread.

[Kallimakus]

Yes, but it doesn't make the Wizard not a specialist. You're compressing information.

Can you explain what makes a Wizard (or any other T1 caster) a Specialist? What are they specialized in as a class? What can an individual wizard be considered a 'Specialist' in over other wizards? Please keep it pure Wizard, as this argument is about them, and not the various prestige classes.

[Cosi]

Can you explain what makes a Wizard (or any other T1 caster) a Specialist? What are they specialized in as a class? What can an individual wizard be considered a 'Specialist' in over other wizards? Please keep it pure Wizard, as this argument is about them, and not the various prestige classes.

First, I reject the notion that you should argue about purely base classes. People don't purely play base classes, they play characters who have one or more base classes, and some number of feats, PrCs, or items. Rejecting those things means that your analysis fails to reflect the game as it is actually played.

That said you don't need to go there, and I should think it obvious what the Wizard is a specialist in. Compared to, say, the Cleric he's better at battlefield control and worse and buffing (particularly at self-buffing when you consider e.g. DMM: Persist). Out of combat, he he has a variety of situations where he is more competent (e.g. teleport is more useful for long distance travel) or less competent (e.g. he doesn't get raise dead) than the Cleric.

[Lord Raziere]

For One Punch Man, the uncertainty of the fight is for other characters. Well, that and every once and a while you get this build up of maybe this guy will be an actual challenge.


I know. I've watched it. I like it.

Its just not a replacement for what I want.

[digiman619]

I'm saying JaronK's rankings are wrong. I suppose "should be" might have been better language than are.
Then how do you define the power difference between the classes? Using the same classes, tell me your definition of the tiers and why your analysis is the proper one. Once I can assess how you define classes, we can come to an agreement on what needs boosting and what needs nerfing.


Any particular style of play is going to be a minority. That's why I'm suggesting that we don't dedicate the whole game to one particular style of play.
Except that any game that doesn't reach ultra-cheese levels of character power is insufficient for you. And while I have problems with ultra-high power games, I don't talk crap about it all the time like you do.


Yes, but it doesn't make the Wizard not a specialist. You're compressing information.
I was using the term "universal specialist" as a term for "is as good or better than multiple specialists at their own specialty". Which is a bad idea.


Yes, that is a good thing. Remember, these aren't abilities, they are niches. This doesn't mean the Wizard will solve every problem that arises, it means that for every problem that arises there is something that the Wizard can do. That is a good thing.
Don't you remember to agreeing that a paradigm that everyone should have answers to about 70% problems:

It seems like this is intentionally creating more work for DMs. Wouldn't it be simpler to present a list of appropriate non-combat challenges at each level, give classes enough tools to solve 70% of them each (which means a random group will have an answer for more than 99% of them), and then plug-and-play? That's the way monsters work, and it's pretty great for DMs.
Why is it then okay that Wizards to have a solution to everything then?


For the same reason you form a party despite each character's manifest ability to win fights, or purchase gear. Competence and optimality are different.
With respect, you're talking about the difference between 99.9% and 99.999%.

[Segev]

Wow, now your just calling the person who pointed this out in the first place as an idiot. your outright doing that, I mean, I don't like the fact that it exists, but you have to admit a guy has to be pretty intelligent to figure all this out in the first place yes? just because you disagree with him on a couple points doesn't mean he is an idiot.

Edit:


1. pretty sure there is an rpg for that that I just haven't bothered to get yet.

2......yes? take Lex and Bruce and put them on the moon, they can't breathe in space, then make up a new hypno-ray to shoot from my eyes, because silver age superman literally makes up new powers all the time and hypnotize both Lois and Lana to get along and be my harem, have fun being evil silver age superman, because we all know silver age superman is a jerk anyways. what? you never said I had to be moral in the use of my powers of reducing the conflict. the conflict is gone, its not a moral way of doing that, but its gone.

as for romantic comedies in general, I dunno how to feel about them. mainly because of the romance thing. I just don't know how to feel about romance in general, I've been experimenting writing couples here and there but I'm not sure if they are any good, and I've never experienced anything close to romance in real life. okay there was this one fleeting crush on a girl I had but that was like a long time ago, and I had other issues to work out at the time, but other than that....nope.
Given that the question was about Superman, not about hypothetical-villain-with-superman's-powers...


But, like I said, to each his own.

Though I'm not sure what Road Runner cartoons have to do with RPGs.

[Florian]

I misspoke. I said "genre" when I mean "medium". That said, this is definitely not a strawman, and your position is definitely insane. MTG is a competitive CCG. D&D is a cooperative TTRPG. The idea that you could just substitute them represents a fundamental lack of understanding of how either works.

I just take your position and bring it to a point.

[Kallimakus]

First, I reject the notion that you should argue about purely base classes. People don't purely play base classes, they play characters who have one or more base classes, and some number of feats, PrCs, or items. Rejecting those things means that your analysis fails to reflect the game as it is actually played.

That said you don't need to go there, and I should think it obvious what the Wizard is a specialist in. Compared to, say, the Cleric he's better at battlefield control and worse and buffing (particularly at self-buffing when you consider e.g. DMM: Persist). Out of combat, he he has a variety of situations where he is more competent (e.g. teleport is more useful for long distance travel) or less competent (e.g. he doesn't get raise dead) than the Cleric.

Being able to do things does not make you a specialist. A specialist, literally, is this:
a person who concentrates primarily on a particular subject or activity; a person highly skilled in a specific and restricted field.
How does a Wizard qualify, when they are expert in battlefield control, buffing, debuffing, domination, game-changing, mobility, information, damage... That sounds like more than a single narrow field my friend. And it isn't as though a wizard speciaizes in any of these fields. They are the masters of each. Also decent at literally any other field (assuming that a solution exists in the world, a wizard can probably get their hands on it).

A specialist does not mean 'best'. The fact that cleric heals better than a wizard and can resurrect people earlier does not remove wizard's ability to do so. If you wish to argue that Prestige classes specialize wizard, please elaborate. What can they do better than another wizard, and what do they give in return? Because a character that is good at everything and exceptional in one area is still a generalist. And keep in mind that comparing wizard exclusively to other T1 classes is disingenuous and proves little except that other things are also better than the majority of the game.

[Forum Explorer]

I know. I've watched it. I like it.

Its just not a replacement for what I want.

Not suggesting it is a replacement, just wanted to make sure you didn't have the wrong impression of it. :smallsmile:

[Talakeal]

The fixed list casters are Tier Two. They're just Sorcerers who are forced to pick a thematic list of good spells, except they get more spells known and also class features and also a more favorable casting mechanic. The only one that isn't good is the Warmage, and the original printing on that predates the edition. Also"

The tier list defines tier 2 as having game breaking power. Sorcerers have access to game breaking spells by default; beguilers, healers, dread necromancers, and warmages do not.

True, you can access game breaking powers as a T3 character through the right feats, magic items, and prestige classes; but then again so can a commoner, and such an assessment has no real place in a ranking of class power.

If you are using your own personal definition of tiers you probably should have mentioned that before page 42 of the thread.


Also, I have already stated many times that if you fix the truly broken spells and the broken nature of iterative attacks and cross class skills then 3.5 sorcerers are a fine class to balance against martials. Formerly T1 classes still kind of break the whole "specialist vs. generalist" thing, but so long as you don't play with an extreme 15 minute work day it is the fixed list casters whom they are overshadowing, not the martials.


Also, Archivist is in the same book as Dread Necromancer."

3.5 ran from 2003-2007.

Heroes of horror was published in 2005, and does indeed contain the archivist, the only T1 class printed that year and the last T1 class ever published. 2005 also saw no T2s.

2006 saw a single T2 character. Aside from that every character published in 2006 and 2007 was T3.

[Pex]

Suffice it to say, I largely disagree with the thesis that JaronK did anything particularly original or impressive with his tiers. That said, the problems with them in general are pretty far off topic for this thread.

He only wrote it because he was in a heavy debate in Ye Olde WOTC Forums insisting that fighters suck with people who were saying otherwise and showing proof. I know because I was there. It was acknowledged fighters didn't have the diversity that spellcasting can bring, but fighters were proven they could kill monsters and have decent skill use for out of combat doings. Being able to kill was a thing because people were saying casting a buff spell on the fighter was a wasted action and spell slot which was proven wrong. They were saying fighters would die quickly in one-on-one fights. A gauntlet was set up and fighters were phenomenal in victories even when it was agreed they didn't have to win, just prove viable enough to put up a good fight. As for skills, it was shown that while fighters could use more skill points and class skills, for what they got they could still be useful in out of combat scenarios. Not the only point, but a major point was that skill DCs/opposed rolls were not outrageously high at the appropriate level to be impossible for a fighter to accomplish. The fighter couldn't do everything at once, but that wasn't the purpose. The purpose was to prove the fighter wasn't useless out of combat being able to contribute meaningfully in various things.

What particularly got JaronK's goat was his insistence that fighters couldn't be leaders because Knowledge (History) wasn't a class skill and some book somewhere allowed a successful Knowledge (History) check for battles in the past to give a +2 to morale checks for underlings.

[Florian]

YIt seems like this is intentionally creating more work for DMs. Wouldn't it be simpler to present a list of appropriate non-combat challenges at each level, give classes enough tools to solve 70% of them each (which means a random group will have an answer for more than 99% of them), and then plug-and-play? That's the way monsters work, and it's pretty great for DMs

Ok, I can slowly see why you didn't get the MtG analogy. Notice that instead of improving "meaningful interaction/agency", all you do is creating more "interaction points", but at the same time locking them away behind having the player enable the key first, by getting the right feat, spell or item. (Side note: IMHO one of the primary failures of d20 is the "everything a feat"-mentality that has you enable some of the most basic things first...)
This accomplishes nothing beyond having a steady race for having the most keys and the illusion of increasing complexity, especially when you build everything in a way that it can be "beaten" or "countered" by any given group. This is a deadly approach when you lean more on the simulation side of things.

[Cosi]

Then how do you define the power difference between the classes? Using the same classes, tell me your definition of the tiers and why your analysis is the proper one. Once I can assess how you define classes, we can come to an agreement on what needs boosting and what needs nerfing.

With respect, I again don't see how that matters. The map is not the territory. If I defined WIzards as Tier F and Fighters as Tier S because all I was ranking off was BAB, that would not and should not change which classes required changes. The only reason to look at existing classes when asking what the game should look like is if we want to make an efficient fix, and even then Tiers wouldn't matter because we'd be trying to maximize usable content, not pick some particular Tier.


Except that any game that doesn't reach ultra-cheese levels of character power is insufficient for you. And while I have problems with ultra-high power games, I don't talk crap about it all the time like you do.

My problem is not that some particular game should not reach the power I want, it is that the game should not reach the power I want.


I was using the term "universal specialist" as a term for "is as good or better than multiple specialists at their own specialty". Which is a bad idea.

Is an 11th level Rogue a "universal specialist"?


Why is it then okay that Wizards to have a solution to everything then?

Again, there is a difference between "have a solution" and "have the best solution" or "not need help". A Fighter can win fights (exactly what fights and with what kinds of handicaps being a matter for debate, but everyone acknowledges the idea on some level), but that doesn't mean he won't benefit from the aid of a Wizard or a Rogue or a Ranger or a Bard or a Crusader, or vice versa. Similarly, if your travel power is tree stride you have a solution to any travel challenge, but for some of them (for example, cross a desert), enlisting the aid of someone with teleport will improve your position.


I just take your position and bring it to a point.

That point being that you don't know the difference between a TTRPG and a CCG?


The tier list defines tier 2 as having game breaking power. Sorcerers have access to game breaking spells by default; beguilers, healers, dread necromancers, and warmages do not.

planar binding and dominate person break the game. Like, a lot. Those spells are poster children for the most broken category of spells in 3e.

[Satinavian]

Note that the Tier list is before any optimization for most of it. Prestige classes, feat selection and levels of optimization can effectively change what tier you are in.No, not really.

Cleric is T1 because of (amongst others) Divine Metamagic with multiple Nightstick and the Artificer entry basically assumes tricks to ignore crafting costs talking about Ambrosia and similar broken stuff. At least in the linkes explanation.

Even JaronKs first wizard example uses a spell combination with a broken spell out of Frostburn, which is really an obscure source. Followed by Mind Rape as second option and Genesis with time flow cheese as third. And yes, Gate abuse and even the Locate City Bomb isn't missing either.


While prestige classes are usually not considered(because that would be way to complex), ridiculous optimisation is assumed. As well as not using all those very common houserules to limit this kind of cheese.

[Amphetryon]

No, not really.

Cleric is T1 because of (amongst others) Divine Metamagic with multiple Nightstick and the Artificer entry basically assumes tricks to ignore crafting costs talking about Ambrosia and similar broken stuff.


While prestige classes are usually not considered(because that would be way to complex), feats and ridiculous optimisation are assumed. As well as not using all those very common houserules to limit this kind of cheese.

Optimization is merely assumed to be roughly equal across all Classes, since a very good understanding of the system can* obviously allow a Player to outperform the baseline with a Class of any Tier, and a very poor understanding of the system can obviously allow a Player to under-perform those same baselines.

*"Can". Not "will." "Allow." not "guarantee."

[Satinavian]

The optimization might be equal in different classes, but the examples are exclusively about extremely high optimization. And using broken abillities/combos that won't even fly at most tables.

And yes, if fixed list casters can get feat that significantly enhance the number of known spells, it should be assumed they take those feats.

[Cosi]

The tiers are supposed to be equal across optimization, except that's obviously wrong because e.g. the Warblade has a dramatically higher floor than e.g. the Artificer, so in practice what that means is that equal optimization is defined to mean "whatever level of optimization makes the tiers true". Also it excludes feats, except Clerics take DMM and Factotums take Font of Inspiration (and a bad interpretation of it to boot). And it excludes items, except Artificers are allowed to craft whatever they want. And it excludes PrCs, but it assumes that Erudites and Archivists will randomly be able to loot PrC lists for spells. Really, it's a ranking of how good JaronK allows classes to be in his games, so it's mostly accurate (it's really hard to credibly set things up so that the Wizard looks worse than the Fighter, or anything else dramatic), but there are a bunch of edges where things are super wrong (the fixed list casters and Rogues are better than he thinks, Factotums are way worse, Erudites and Archivists are too DM dependent to rank). Also, people keep forgetting that it is supposed to describe the system and keep insisting that we should write new content that is "Tier Three" or "Tier One" instead of thinking about the properties content should have.

[Talakeal]

planar binding and dominate person break the game. Like, a lot. Those spells are poster children for the most broken category of spells in 3e.

Yeah, those are pretty good spells, especially if your DM has a fairly permissible opinion of what counts as "unreasonable" or "one task." I never noticed that dominate lasted 1 day/level in 3.5, that is pretty crazy.

Even so, they aren't in the same league as the big boys like Gate, Shapechange, PoA, Genesis, etc.

Still, if you want to argue that those classes should be T3 because of them I don't really have a horse in that race, I am not the one who came up with the tiers, I am merely using them as shorthand.


He only wrote it because he was in a heavy debate in Ye Olde WOTC Forums insisting that fighters suck with people who were saying otherwise and showing proof. I know because I was there. It was acknowledged fighters didn't have the diversity that spellcasting can bring, but fighters were proven they could kill monsters and have decent skill use for out of combat doings. Being able to kill was a thing because people were saying casting a buff spell on the fighter was a wasted action and spell slot which was proven wrong. They were saying fighters would die quickly in one-on-one fights. A gauntlet was set up and fighters were phenomenal in victories even when it was agreed they didn't have to win, just prove viable enough to put up a good fight. As for skills, it was shown that while fighters could use more skill points and class skills, for what they got they could still be useful in out of combat scenarios. Not the only point, but a major point was that skill DCs/opposed rolls were not outrageously high at the appropriate level to be impossible for a fighter to accomplish. The fighter couldn't do everything at once, but that wasn't the purpose. The purpose was to prove the fighter wasn't useless out of combat being able to contribute meaningfully in various things.

What particularly got JaronK's goat was his insistence that fighters couldn't be leaders because Knowledge (History) wasn't a class skill and some book somewhere allowed a successful Knowledge (History) check for battles in the past to give a +2 to morale checks for underlings.


Its funny; Cosi insists that the game is balanced around T1, while you are arguing that a T5 can perform just fine, all in the same thread; and here I am as a moderate I have to debate against both sides :)

I agree that fighters are not nearly as useless as many people make them out to be, but its hard to argue that they aren't among the worst class. You can build them to be decent in a few very limited areas, but once you take them out of their areas they do little else but sit around looking bored, and even in an area where you specialized them they seldom perform nearly as well as a member of a different class would if taken in the same direction.

[digiman619]

The tiers are supposed to be equal across optimization, except that's obviously wrong because e.g. the Warblade has a dramatically higher floor than e.g. the Artificer, so in practice what that means is that equal optimization is defined to mean "whatever level of optimization makes the tiers true". Also it excludes feats, except Clerics take DMM and Factotums take Font of Inspiration (and a bad interpretation of it to boot). And it excludes items, except Artificers are allowed to craft whatever they want. And it excludes PrCs, but it assumes that Erudites and Archivists will randomly be able to loot PrC lists for spells. Really, it's a ranking of how good JaronK allows classes to be in his games, so it's mostly accurate (it's really hard to credibly set things up so that the Wizard looks worse than the Fighter, or anything else dramatic), but there are a bunch of edges where things are super wrong (the fixed list casters and Rogues are better than he thinks, Factotums are way worse, Erudites and Archivists are too DM dependent to rank). Also, people keep forgetting that it is supposed to describe the system and keep insisting that we should write new content that is "Tier Three" or "Tier One" instead of thinking about the properties content should have.

I was really asking for your list of the classes and where they ranked. I mean, even if they had a strata (high-end Factotums are T3, low-end ones are T5), I'd at least have a benchmark to judge by. As it stands, you're kind of vague on your analysis.

And when we say we want things to be balanced to Tier 3, we mean that we want characters who can do one thing very well and are decent at most other things, or generalists who can do everything, but not as well as the specialists. That's the power level we want.

[Mechalich]

I agree that fighters are not nearly as useless as many people make them out to be, but its hard to argue that they aren't among the worst class. You can build them to be decent in a few very limited areas, but once you take them out of their areas they do little else but sit around looking bored, and even in an area where you specialized them they seldom perform nearly as well as a member of a different class would if taken in the same direction.

Fighters - and by extension most other martials and also Rogues, perform very well in a box. As in, like a literal box that's something like 40' x 40' x 10' - which would be a good sized medieval room. In a traditional dungeon crawl, or in tightly contained combat tests that happen in a limited space, then a martial optimized to output decent dps can do just fine, especially if the 15 minute adventuring day is blocked by the GM and minions are curtailed (which GMs also often do because keeping track of minions is annoying). This should surprise no one who ever played Baldur's Gate or any other Infinity Engine D&D game. However, once you get outside the box, the flying wizard starts dropping fireballs from 600' in the air and the fighter can't do anything but try to take cover.

A lot of D&D games are run in a box. The traditional dungeon crawl is very much this and a huge proportion of published modules assume such measures. However, agreements to keep the game in a box are dependent on either the players acceding to just constraints, or the GM railroading like crazy. That can, and does, work just fine, but of course it creates problems of its own and completely fails to address any of the world-building issues and represents a massive nerf on certain casters in its own right because it requires the hyper-intelligent or hyper-wise characters to go about matters in an exceedingly inefficient way.

[Pex]

Its funny; Cosi insists that the game is balanced around T1, while you are arguing that a T5 can perform just fine, all in the same thread; and here I am as a moderate I have to debate against both sides :)

I agree that fighters are not nearly as useless as many people make them out to be, but its hard to argue that they aren't among the worst class. You can build them to be decent in a few very limited areas, but once you take them out of their areas they do little else but sit around looking bored, and even in an area where you specialized them they seldom perform nearly as well as a member of a different class would if taken in the same direction.

Remember, I'm not a Disciple of the Tier System. I'm one of those "lucky people" who has played in several campaigns where druids and wizards play along with fighters and rogues where everyone has a great time, do not resent other players' characters, and all contribute meaningfully in their own way with their own moments to shine. Sometimes a spellcaster is MVP and sometimes it's the warrior. The Tier System is meaningless.

[Max_Killjoy]

Fighters - and by extension most other martials and also Rogues, perform very well in a box. As in, like a literal box that's something like 40' x 40' x 10' - which would be a good sized medieval room. In a traditional dungeon crawl, or in tightly contained combat tests that happen in a limited space, then a martial optimized to output decent dps can do just fine, especially if the 15 minute adventuring day is blocked by the GM and minions are curtailed (which GMs also often do because keeping track of minions is annoying). This should surprise no one who ever played Baldur's Gate or any other Infinity Engine D&D game. However, once you get outside the box, the flying wizard starts dropping fireballs from 600' in the air and the fighter can't do anything but try to take cover.

A lot of D&D games are run in a box. The traditional dungeon crawl is very much this and a huge proportion of published modules assume such measures. However, agreements to keep the game in a box are dependent on either the players acceding to just constraints, or the GM railroading like crazy. That can, and does, work just fine, but of course it creates problems of its own and completely fails to address any of the world-building issues and represents a massive nerf on certain casters in its own right because it requires the hyper-intelligent or hyper-wise characters to go about matters in an exceedingly inefficient way.


Yeap.

Of course there are those who insist that all that world-building stuff is silly, and that the game rules don't tell you anything about the setting... that the combat in an RPG is like the "fade to combat" setup of something like a Final Fantasy iteration...

...the tabletop equivalent of gameplay/story segregation (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation) or "cutscene awesome (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutscenePowerToTheMax)" / "cutscene inept (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CutsceneIncompetence)", all of which have made me quit, uninstall, and ditch video games.

[Max_Killjoy]

Remember, I'm not a Disciple of the Tier System. I'm one of those "lucky people" who has played in several campaigns where druids and wizards play along with fighters and rogues where everyone has a great time, do not resent other players' characters, and all contribute meaningfully in their own way with their own moments to shine. Sometimes a spellcaster is MVP and sometimes it's the warrior. The Tier System is meaningless.

Then you really have been lucky enough to have gamed only with people who through conscious decision or lack of analysis haven't taken the rules of the game to their logical conclusions.

It's as if, having never been robbed yourself, you're poo-pooing people for debating home security measures.

[Cosi]

And when we say we want things to be balanced to Tier 3, we mean that we want characters who can do one thing very well and are decent at most other things, or generalists who can do everything, but not as well as the specialists. That's the power level we want.

But that is, of course, not a power level. Even if you don't think Wizards do so given the expected challenges in the game, surely you would concede that it is theoretically possible to have characters who were more competent across the board than, but still comparably specialized to, Warblades or Bards, right? At minimum, you could presumably have the "double Bard" which was just a Bard that had the abilities of a Bard twice his level. That wouldn't be any less specialized, but it would be more powerful.

[Max_Killjoy]

Could we stop conflating the D&D-esque notion of "level as a progressing measure of power" on one hand, with "depth and breath of abilities" on the other hand?

It makes the discussion harder to follow, and several of you keep talking past each other because of a basic mismatch of terminology.

Of course, part of the issue is that for some classes, that "progressing measure of power" is increasing just their depth, while for other classes that supposedly-the-same "progressing measure of power" is increasing their depth and breadth.

[Pex]

Then you really have been lucky enough to have gamed only with people who through conscious decision or lack of analysis haven't taken the rules of the game to their logical conclusions.

It's as if, having never been robbed yourself, you're poo-pooing people for debating home security measures.

I know, I know I'm playing the game wrong.

I still fondly remember playing a cleric with Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell back when Persistent Spell was only a +4 spell level cost. The rogue and fighter we quite happy having me by their side. They enjoyed my Extend Heroes' Feast for breakfast everyday.

I know and use the tricks.

[Florian]

Yeap.

Of course there are those who insist that all that world-building stuff is silly, and that the game rules don't tell you anything about the setting... that the combat in an RPG is like the "fade to combat" setup of something like a Final Fantasy iteration...


Then you really have been lucky enough to have gamed only with people who through conscious decision or lack of analysis haven't taken the rules of the game to their logical conclusions..

I´ve been introduced to the hobby very young and have stayed with it for three decades now. Honestly, in all that time, I´ve mostly played with people who see it as a fun game and a good chance to socialize, spent some quality time rolling dice, eating pizza and having a couple of beers while having "an adventure", but nothing to explore, think about or speculate about how the rules that we use to play the game will affect anything.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Then you really have been lucky enough to have gamed only with people who through conscious decision or lack of analysis haven't taken the rules of the game to their logical conclusions.


I agree on the larger topic (3.5 is too easy to break and that's bad), but do want to caution that "taking the rules of a game to their logical conclusion", like taking anything except a formal logical statement to it's logical conclusion, will probably result in at least some absurdity.

Every statement has a region of applicability. Applying it out of that region is expecting a fish to breathe air because both air and water are fluids.

Game rules should be interpreted in context of the game.

[Segev]

Eh, I play with people who analyze and rules munchkin almost as much as I do, and in all honesty, actual play doesn't seem to lead to the extrema of imbalance between classes. How frequently the white room auto-win solutions actually can be applied successfully is grossly overstated in actual play. I can't, unfortunately, put my finger on "why," other than the assumptions about being able to do a Matrix-style "We need guns" and just trade gp for custom gear/spells/whatever doesn't ever seem to work out. Rarely due to the GM being obstinate, though that happens; more often, it's just that a world for gameplay doesn't have the infinite downtime and infinite Wal-Mart style shelves of items fresh from a catalogue that we tend to assume.

Even Clerics wind up less than almighty, though, but I suspect that's at least in part a lack of sufficient omniscient planning for spells to prepare.

(Druids, on the other hand, I have seen be the all-level dominant force in a party, between their pets and their high combat stats and their shapeshifting and their near-Wizard flexibility for utility spells.)

[Max_Killjoy]

I know, I know I'm playing the game wrong.



I didn't say you were playing the game wrong. I said you were lucky enough to have not played with a certain sort of player.


Why is it that no matter that the discussion is actually about, it's better than 50/50 that you will reply with a sarcastic claim that you're being accused of "playing the game wrong", even if it's total non-sequitur to that you're replying to?

[Segev]

Why is it that no matter that the discussion is actually about, it's better than 50/50 that you will reply with a sarcastic claim that you're being accused of "playing the game wrong", even if it's total non-sequitur to that you're replying to?

I'd guess Pavlovian conditioning: he's been told it so often he assumes that's what he'll be told again.