House Rules for Low Tier Classes (3.5)

[Endril]

Tiers has been a topic of discussion for a while now, but I feel it could use more ideas for DM's that want to balance their game. The class tiers I'm referring to can be found here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?138013-D-amp-D-3-5-tiers (spoiler, 5th post).

Most posts I've seen discuss why classes are in their tiers, but no suggestions to keep parties balanced. Sometimes, that's OK. The players can usually have fun even when they're out of balance, but what if we want to keep each player class relevant? One suggestion I saw is to keep them within a tier or two of each other, but that would probably make the game worse. After all, telling a player they can't play a wizard or fighter because the game is tier 2-4 is going to make it less fun for that player.

So what I'm looking for is ways to house rule the classes closer to each other in power. I don't want to bring core classes (cleric, druid, wizard) down, so I'd be looking for ways to bring lower tiers up. With a bit of control over the abusive supplemental stuff (divine metamagic, celerity, etc), I think it would be OK to let players play 1st tier classes in a game with 2nd-3rd tier classes. But I'd want to get the 4th-5th tier classes up to 2nd-3rd tier by giving them benefits that balance them out.

My question is this... what would you give the tier 4 and tier 5 classes to make them roughly 2 tiers better?

For example, a monk with full base attack might be 4th tier. Or using pathfinder rules for fighter (effectively +1 att/dam every 4 levels, and higher dex mod in armor) could make them 4th tier.

The idea I'm leaning towards is just giving them extra feats. That way, I don't have to write up a whole new class for each low tier class, and the players don't have to learn them (instead of just reading the player's handbook). I think this idea would be easier, and clutter up the rules less. But how often would you give them an extra feat for the desired power increase? Would 1 feat every 3 levels be enough? Is there another option you think is better than extra feats, and why?

[Troacctid]

No solution is going to be very effective if your tier list is calibrated incorrectly, as the one you linked is.

[Cosi]

If you're willing to have people read entire new classes, you can use the Tomes by Frank and K (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=48453), which contain fixes for most core classes aimed at the power level you seem to be targeting (roughly, fair Wizard builds).

Obviously it means a higher power level, but you could do something like "every character gestalts a full caster and a non-full caster together". You could also do something less extreme like "everyone plays a full caster that gets Gestalt progression for the first three levels". In that case you'd probably want to extend the various Theurge classes to run as long as people want so that the girl playing a Wizard/Barbarian isn't screwed when she runs out of Rage Mage levels.

If neither of those is appealing, I think the only solution that really works under your constraints is to give pity buffs to weak characters. Give the Barbarian a magic hammer that lets him shoot lightning and fly. Give the Fighter a magic sword that makes him unkillable. Give the Monk an amulet that turns her into a tiger. You can use the Weapons of Legacy rules for this (though I would drop the penalties because they are dumb), and give people scaling slots by tier to make it seem fair (though, yes, you need to make sure you use a tier list that is good).

[Karl Aegis]

To get to tier three you need to be able to interact with all facets of the core system, including skill and saves. In order to get to tier two, you need abilities that stop the system from interacting with you, like immunities and just saying "no" to certain types of encounters/abilities.

[DeTess]

No solution is going to be very effective if your tier list is calibrated incorrectly, as the one you linked is.

I assume you have a link to a correct list that you just forgot to post?

I'd consider allowing T5 classes to gestalt with other T5's. This should help both the power and versatility metrics.

[Cosi]

I'd consider allowing T5 classes to gestalt with other T5's. This should help both the power and versatility metrics.

Not really. Getting a bunch of abilities that suck is not as good as getting a small number of abilities that are good. There is nothing any class on the level of the Fighter does that is useful in a mileu where people are throwing around teleport and fabricate, so getting several sets of those abilities doesn't do enough. You basically need spells to compete with the Wizard, because there is no other source of content that has the range spells have or interacts with the parts of the game spells do. What are you giving someone that is on par with plane shift that isn't either plane shift, a homebrewed ability, or a citation to plane shift?

[DeTess]

Not really. Getting a bunch of abilities that suck is not as good as getting a small number of abilities that are good. There is nothing any class on the level of the Fighter does that is useful in a mileu where people are throwing around teleport and fabricate, so getting several sets of those abilities doesn't do enough. You basically need spells to compete with the Wizard, because there is no other source of content that has the range spells have or interacts with the parts of the game spells do. What are you giving someone that is on par with plane shift that isn't either plane shift, a homebrewed ability, or a citation to plane shift?

Right, but how do you solve this issue, apart from playing a wizard? I know no combination of martial abilities will match up with a wizard, but if the player wanted to play a wizard, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Giving them more to do will at least increase the amount of time they can be relevant.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Troacctid
No solution is going to be very effective if your tier list is calibrated incorrectly, as the one you linked is.

No comment is going to be very effective if all you do is claim that someone’s source is incorrect, without explaining why or providing a link to a better one.

[Cosi]

Right, but how do you solve this issue, apart from playing a wizard? I know no combination of martial abilities will match up with a wizard, but if the player wanted to play a wizard, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Giving them more to do will at least increase the amount of time they can be relevant.

That is the solution. Or rather, you broaden the set of "people who can have fabricate" to include people who aren't Wizards. Because the problem isn't really that the Fighter doesn't have stuff to do. He does, and if you really wanted to you could keep contriving situations where his Jump check was relevant as often as the Wizard's Spellcraft check. The problem is that the Fighter doesn't have stuff to do in the kinds of encounters you solve with teleport or major creation. So either the Fighter sits out those encounters (which sucks for the Fighter's player) or there are no encounters like that (which sucks for the Wizard's player). You need to give the Fighter something to do when the problem is something like "there is an entire army for which we need to provide logistical support" or "the enemy's base is in a location we can't feasibly reach by mundane means". And that means either writing a bunch of new abilities, or giving the Fighter (access to) spells.

[Gnaeus]

Not really. Getting a bunch of abilities that suck is not as good as getting a small number of abilities that are good. There is nothing any class on the level of the Fighter does that is useful in a mileu where people are throwing around teleport and fabricate, so getting several sets of those abilities doesn't do enough. You basically need spells to compete with the Wizard, because there is no other source of content that has the range spells have or interacts with the parts of the game spells do. What are you giving someone that is on par with plane shift that isn't either plane shift, a homebrewed ability, or a citation to plane shift?

Well, he asked for things that make them not suck, and specifically said he wanted them to operate at Tier 2-3.

Honestly, almost any 2 Tier 5 classes are Tier 4. For Tier 4 you need to be versatile or good at combat. Most T4 combos get there.

Any 3 Tier 5 classes with good synergy are probably Low T3. Most T4s with a T5 with decent synergy make a T3.

ALL the Tier 5 classes together are a playable high T3.

ALL the Tier 4-5 classes together make something that isn’t technically a T1 but is powerful and versatile enough that it can perform in a T1 environment with what I consider to be parity.

[Urudin]

What i did in my campaign, and it worked wonders:

1. I've banned every tier 1 class - if you want to play cleric, you play spontaneous one
2. Went with gestalt rules for every class. Sure, while it makes your job as a DM a little bit harder, it makes huge difference. Why? If sorcerer wants to be fighting in meele, gestalt will not help him that much. However, if you pair fighter with rogue and right prcs, you are going to have powerful tier 3 build
4. Do something about the polymorph school. Limit it and if you are running longer campaign which will allow you to achieve higher levels, increase statistics of players to resemble monster ones so that polymorph will stop being answer for everything. Then limit the statistics they can get by tomes so at mid-high level everything goes back on track.

One of my players, who dislikes 3.5 because of balance problems said, that it is the first game he played where everything seems balanced and everyone has his chances to have fun.

[BassoonHero]

The easiest way to empower the weaker classes is to replace them with better ones that are already available. Specifically, virtually all of the tier 5-6 classes and some of the tier 4 classes can be replaced by the tier 3 Swordsage, Crusader, and Warblade.

This is a middle ground. It won't bring fighter-types up to tier 2, but it will bring them much closer than they were. The classes already exist and are both popular among experienced players and accessible to new ones. You don't have to homebrew anything.

[TotallyNotEvil]

Encourage ToB use. Encourage Incarnum use. Encourage XPH use. Encourage the use of PrCs, and be reasonable when considering prereqs for classes and feats. Really, the wonder of 3.5 is that you have meaningfully different systems all playing together, mostly in harmony.

Perhaps allow for mundanes to get a couple free points of LA, or simply make it harder to level up as T1 casters than it is to level up as T2 casters than it is to level up as T3 anything. Say, keep mundanes a couple levels higher than full casters.

Curbing the really broken spells, i.e., stuff that isn't just "strong" but truly game-breaking, would do wonders if those are being abused. Things like Shivering Touch, Celerity, Polymorph. There aren't that many truly broken spells.

Maybe keeping them a bit ahead of WBL? Having, say, Anklets of Translocation, swarm bane clasp/bracer/amulet thing, Scout's Headband, etc, go a long way.

Perhaps reduce the costs of magic arms and armour.

In a more general "fix", try introducing enemies with high saves and SR. There are a bunch of creatures where the one reliable way to deal with them is melee damage, or the magical equivalent that is Orb of Force.

[emeraldstreak]

Sorry but to a large extend the answer is learn to optimize non-casters properly.

[Endril]

No solution is going to be very effective if your tier list is calibrated incorrectly, as the one you linked is.
As someone else mentioned, this isn't all that helpful without making suggestions of your own. JaronK's lists are actually just examples to illustrate the method he uses for putting his classes into tiers, while what is more important to note is the standards he describes for putting classes into those tiers. However, I think the examples he gave are pretty close to where I would rate them as well. And the question I was asking here is how you might add to a class to increase its tier; I'm comfortable with calibrating them myself, although I'm open to reading suggestions.


If you're willing to have people read entire new classes, you can use the Tomes by Frank and K, which contain fixes for most core classes aimed at the power level you seem to be targeting (roughly, fair Wizard builds).

Obviously it means a higher power level, but you could do something like "every character gestalts a full caster and a non-full caster together". You could also do something less extreme like "everyone plays a full caster that gets Gestalt progression for the first three levels". In that case you'd probably want to extend the various Theurge classes to run as long as people want so that the girl playing a Wizard/Barbarian isn't screwed when she runs out of Rage Mage levels.

If neither of those is appealing, I think the only solution that really works under your constraints is to give pity buffs to weak characters. Give the Barbarian a magic hammer that lets him shoot lightning and fly. Give the Fighter a magic sword that makes him unkillable. Give the Monk an amulet that turns her into a tiger. You can use the Weapons of Legacy rules for this (though I would drop the penalties because they are dumb), and give people scaling slots by tier to make it seem fair (though, yes, you need to make sure you use a tier list that is good).

I've been considering something like this. I don't want to totally re-make the classes, but I'm considering adding to what they already have. And your source has some ideas I could consider, like a monk with full BAB. I've also considered gestalt with the lower tiers, as someone else mentioned, and I'll be giving that more thought. I like the idea of giving them access to spells, but I'm wondering if it would be better to do it through feats rather than items. I'm not fully versed on Weapons of Legacy, but can't the items be shared?


What i did in my campaign, and it worked wonders:

1. I've banned every tier 1 class - if you want to play cleric, you play spontaneous one
2. Went with gestalt rules for every class. Sure, while it makes your job as a DM a little bit harder, it makes huge difference. Why? If sorcerer wants to be fighting in meele, gestalt will not help him that much. However, if you pair fighter with rogue and right prcs, you are going to have powerful tier 3 build
4. Do something about the polymorph school. Limit it and if you are running longer campaign which will allow you to achieve higher levels, increase statistics of players to resemble monster ones so that polymorph will stop being answer for everything. Then limit the statistics they can get by tomes so at mid-high level everything goes back on track.

I'm dying to know what #3 is. As for the rest, I'm trying to avoid banning core classes, to be more accommodating to the players, but I think I can keep them balanced. But if I'm going to use gestalt, then maybe I can kind of mix your methods and allow any class that isn't full progression caster to be gestalt. Thoughts on that? As for polymorph, I think it was slightly improved by the rules in the PHB2, and tbh, my players don't break it that often. It's something I'm on the look out for, though.


The easiest way to empower the weaker classes is to replace them with better ones that are already available. Specifically, virtually all of the tier 5-6 classes and some of the tier 4 classes can be replaced by the tier 3 Swordsage, Crusader, and Warblade.

This is a middle ground. It won't bring fighter-types up to tier 2, but it will bring them much closer than they were. The classes already exist and are both popular among experienced players and accessible to new ones. You don't have to homebrew anything.

I like using ToB, but I'd like players to still be able to choose Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, or Paladin. Making it easier for them to get maneuvers, or just giving them some, is something I've considered.


Encourage ToB use. Encourage Incarnum use. Encourage XPH use. Encourage the use of PrCs, and be reasonable when considering prereqs for classes and feats. Really, the wonder of 3.5 is that you have meaningfully different systems all playing together, mostly in harmony.

Perhaps allow for mundanes to get a couple free points of LA, or simply make it harder to level up as T1 casters than it is to level up as T2 casters than it is to level up as T3 anything. Say, keep mundanes a couple levels higher than full casters.

Curbing the really broken spells, i.e., stuff that isn't just "strong" but truly game-breaking, would do wonders if those are being abused. Things like Shivering Touch, Celerity, Polymorph. There aren't that many truly broken spells.

I was planning to encourage helpful supplements. I'm writing a guide for my campaign, and I'd like to have a section for each class they can look over when they make their character that includes house rules (if any) and suggestions. Tying low tiers to LA is an interesting thought. Like, maybe that +3 level adjustment you take for being a half-dragon can go in to fighter. It's not *as bad* as losing 3 levels. And I've looked at curbing certain spells. Celerity, for example, only grants a move action (but no daze).


Sorry but to a large extend the answer is learn to optimize non-casters properly.

This is what I've been doing for years, but it creates more problems. New characters might not know how to optimize characters, and then feel useless. Or if I force them to play optimized characters, they may not enjoy playing a character with 5 different classes and feats from 12 different books when they just wanted to play a PHB monk. While I think they should be willing to do some amount of reading in the supplements and/or accept some degree of unbalance, I don't think the game is enjoyable unless we meet them half way. Another issue is a declining number of optimal builds. Once we study every option in every book we use, we eventually settle on the same dozen or so character builds that work the best. Then it seems like every campaign is a party with the same 5 characters, but with different names.

[Urudin]

I'm dying to know what #3 is. As for the rest, I'm trying to avoid banning core classes, to be more accommodating to the players, but I think I can keep them balanced. But if I'm going to use gestalt, then maybe I can kind of mix your methods and allow any class that isn't full progression caster to be gestalt. Thoughts on that? As for polymorph, I think it was slightly improved by the rules in the PHB2, and tbh, my players don't break it that often. It's something I'm on the look out for, though.

I made a typo with #3.
About gestalt handling, what i did, was go with limit of "total casting" one character had as base class - it could be 1.5 total. What it meant? Well, for example, sorcerer had score of 1, warlock and binder had 0.75, duskblade, mystic ranger, bard, had 0.5. Then i said that if prestige class could be achieved before level ~8, then we would work with it so that players would be able to take it from level 5 - giving 16 prestige class levels to take for everyone. Then i said that almost every prestige class which was losing caster levels would not lose them if it wasn't too powerful. I have also disencouraged picking prcs from tier +2 except the shadowlord. And bonus feats from any character? Players can pick whatever feat they want, not only the ones from the list.
What happens if you won't allow full progression caster to be gestalt? Game will be more balanced (but not that much, well optimized caster will still get almost everything he could get from gestalting), but it will be less fun for that person, because he's going to loose interesting options. For me, it personally wouldn't matter if character would do 500 dmg from mailman build without gestalt or with some gestalt combo giving variety.
What would I do, if at the start of my campaign i wouldn't have 3 new rpgs players for the d&d?
The same, but i would allow to use "early" prestiges from level 1

Considering the mechanics, i would love to play the game i've set up. Second game (the first was 4 wizards party) that fun and balanced for players I am seeing.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Sorry but to a large extend the answer is learn to optimize non-casters properly.

This made me chuckle in appreciation. My single biggest complaint for ToB is the fact it basically killed the discussion around non-caster optimization altogether. There was a little discussion about ToB itself immediately after its release but once that was all sorted, non-caster optimization just kind of... stopped. :smallfrown:

On topic: I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that the existence of low-tier options is a feature of the system, not a bug. They offer optimization puzzles you can't get out of stuff with way more options (iron chef, anyone?) as well as something simple for people who don't want to, or can't, invest the time to master more complex classes and just want to smack something with a pointy stick between plot-points.

That said, even I find the samurai classes unbearably sad and advise folding the two versions together into one class.

[Troacctid]

No comment is going to be very effective if all you do is claim that someone’s source is incorrect, without explaining why or providing a link to a better one.
Well I'm on my desktop so I can actually search and link now. For "Why?" it's pretty simple: because it was made by JaronK, who knew some of the classes pretty well, but pretty much had no idea about others, so he basically shot from the hip and ended up missing the mark. As a result, a lot of the classes are off by a full tier or more in his rankings. For example, he more or less glossed right over the Healer's crazy overpowered companion ability, he appeared to labor under a misconception that Beguilers have nothing but mind-affecting spells on their list, and he somehow came to the conclusion that the Truenamer doesn't even work at all in the rules (in fact it works fine, it's just underpowered). I could go on.

For a better one: This project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?515845-Retiering-the-Classes-Home-Base) represents an updated crowd-sourced tier list that reflects a healthy discussion backed by the wisdom of like an extra decade of collective optimization knowledge. The rankings are much more accurate, and you can even look at the more detailed breakdown to get a look at which direction the votes were leaning in and the relative ranking within that tier. There are also discussion threads covering all the classes, so that you can get an idea of the reasoning behind each ranking.

[AvatarVecna]

If you're looking for a quick-and-dirty fix that doesn't require you to overly homebrew a bunch of classes, try this:

Classes T4 and lower get to gestalt with each other. T3 classes get a bonus feat every fourth level, and a bonus attribute bump every fifth level. T4 classes get a bonus feat every third level, and a bonus attribute bump every fourth level. T5 classes get a bonus feat every odd level, and a bonus attribute bump every third level. T6 classes get a bonus feat every level, and a bonus attribute bump every even level. And they all still have access to ACFs as normal.

EDIT: For example, based off the re-tiering linked in the previous post, here's what a Fighter-Monk would be looking like:

HD: d10

Skill points at 1st lvl: 4 x (4+Int mod)
Skill points/level: 4+Int mod

BAB: Full
Fort: Good
Ref: Good
Will: Good



Level
Tier Bonus Feats
Tier Bonus Attributes
Special
Flurry Of Blows
Unarmed Damage
AC Bonus
Unarmored Speed


1
1

FBF, MBF, Unarmed Strike, Flurry Of Blows
-1/-1
1d6
+0
+0


2


FBF, MBF, Evasion
+0/+0
1d6
+0
+0


3
2
1
Still Mind
+1/+1
1d6
+0
+10


4

1
FBF, Ki Strike (Magic), Slow Fall 20 ft
+2/+2
1d8
+0
+10


5
1

Purity Of Body
+4/+4
1d8
+1
+10


6
1
1
FBF, MBF, Slow Fall 30 ft
+5/+5/+0
1d8
+1
+20


7
1

Wholeness Of Body
+6/+6/+1
1d8
+1
+20


8

1
FBF, Slow Fall 40 ft
+7/+7/+2
1d10
+1
+20


9
2
1
Improved Evasion
+9/+9/+4
1d10
+1
+30


10


FBF, Ki Strike (Lawful), Slow Fall 50 ft
+10/+10/+5
1d10
+2
+30


11
1

Diamond Body, Greater Flurry
+11/+11/+11/+6/+1
1d10
+2
+30


12
1
2
FBF, Abundant Step, Slow Fall 60 ft
+12/+12/+12/+7/+2
2d6
+2
+40


13
1

Diamond Soul
+13/+13/+13/+8/+3
2d6
+2
+40


14


FBF, Slow Fall 70 ft
+14/+14/+14/+9/+4
2d6
+2
+40


15
2
1
Quivering Palm
+15/+15/+15/+10/+5
2d6
+3
+50


16

1
FBF, Ki Strike (Adamantine), Slow Fall 80 ft
+16/+16/+16/+11/+6/+1
2d8
+3
+50


17
1

Timeless Body, Tongue of the Sun and Moon
+17/+17/+17/+12/+7/+2
2d8
+3
+50


18
1
1
FBF, Slow Fall 90 ft
+18/+18/+18/+13/+8/+3
2d8
+3
+60


19
1

Empty Body
+19/+19/+19/+14/+9/+4
2d8
+3
+60


20

1
FBF, Perfect Self, Slow Fall any distance
+20/+20/+20/+15/+10/+5
2d10
+4
+60





EDIT 2: Of course, this won't really fix the tier disparities, particularly if there's a T1 (or multiple T1s) in the party, but this gives low-tier builds a nice bump in power and build-to-build versatility (although individual builds can't change themselves up very much, so that's still a bit of a problem).

[DMVerdandi]

Scratching off the top of my head...

- All non caster classes get +6 Skill points. Don't necessarily change their class skills per-say, but even having that extra set of skill points to spend on either all their class skills, or on cross class skills, will definitely help.

- If a base class has a more powerful derivative, axe the mundane one. (Warblade,Swordsage,Crusader,Psychic warrior, Psychic rogue/lurk/Spell-thief, ETC as the new core)

-Make 6/9 and 4/9 partial casters have wizard progression, and give them all spells known. Now paladins and rangers get their spells at level 1, and by level 8 have at least 4 levels of spell casting. Nothing balances their delayed acquisition of spells and it makes them worse.

-Get rid of slots, and use spell point system, but don't have spell casters make any changes for damage spells. Spells cost [level x2] -1. Period.
Everyone gets wizard spell point progression

-Allow Gestalt as an option for +1 LA. One side must remain static.

-Use Pathfinder rules for magic item creation[No experience cost for items].

-Normal Armor grants AC and DR/Magic= AC. Enchanted Armor Grants DR/- = AC +Enhancement Bonus.




The skill point and spell point/progression changes alone generally should allow those middle way half casters to have a lot more versatility and at least in the early game have a varied list that is competitive. In the long game, 9/9 casters will pull ahead, but only because of spells known, not due to the amount of spells they can cast.

[mabriss lethe]

I've used partial gestalt rules to pretty good effect before. (simple version, T1-2 do not gestalt. T3-4 may gestalt with an NPC class. T5s can freely gestalt with each other or with an NPC class. ) A good example here would be something like a Monk//Adept. Good wisdom synergy. A decent spell list. Adequate chassis. It's flexible, durable, and strong enough to contribute without access to any of the really game breaking stuff. You can still make ineffective characters this way, sure. But even then they will be more effective than their individual classes

[AnimeTheCat]

I've toyed with creating an aggro system within the game that would give T4-T5 classes some additional utility, especially considering most of the T4-T5 classes are the melee brutes that don't do much else.

Besides that, changes to the classes I've been messing around with (an ultimately abandoning wrt 3.5) were an adrenalin point system for the fighter granting them EX abilities that used adrenalin points (similar toblending a fixed list spontaneous caster with a power point pool of a Psion), A Ki Point system for Monk (and revised for Ninja) to actually give them some EX and SU abilities at the cost of Ki points (similar to what the Ninja already has, but more robust and fleshed out), and expanded skill points/lists/uses for all of the "less Fortunate" classes.

Barbarians already have ok skill points (I don't think a barbarian should be particularly learned or skillful) but they needed class features other than rage that identified them. For this, I introduced alternative ways to use rage by creating "rage abilities" and made the class a bit more robust overall. Since Barbarians focus on strength and speed, I actually removed their medium armor proficiency, but granted them a scaling dodge bonus to AC (1+1/3 Barbarian Level) to compensate (and also mark that they are not just difficult to hit toe to toe, but difficult to surprise). I felt like it coupled with Uncanny Dodge nicely. As for "rage" abilities, I gave them additional options to use while raging that they could use otherwise, I increased the number of times rage could be used, but I decreased the overall power of rage and had it scale more regularly with the level (increasing a total of 5 times over 20 levels as opposed to 1 time with a capstone at 20). There are Least Rage, Lesser Rage, Rage, Improved Rage, Greater Rage, and Mighty Rage at levels 1, 4, 7, 10, 13, and 16 and you start with a base 3/day and that increases by 1 every 3 levels all the way to 9/day at 19th level. Options that you had while raging included moving as a free action (allowing for full attacks), getting a free action extra attack (at no penalty), getting an immediate action turn (without changing your initiative), and similar (I'm not at my notes or build thought at the moment). The cost for the actions were turns of rage. you could feasibly burn up your entire rage in one round by using rage abilities.

Without fully reworking classes, simple band aids (houserules) aren't really going to solve the problem if you're trying to get wizards, clerics, and druids on the same level as fighters, monks, and knights. If you're seeking total party balance, you'll really need a total system rework, and if that's what you're doing you may as well just make the entire system exactly what you want.

[Lans]

You can have all prestige classes advance the entering classes base mechanics instead of just spell casting and monk mechanics.

[Crichton]

For a better one: This project (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?515845-Retiering-the-Classes-Home-Base) represents an updated crowd-sourced tier list that reflects a healthy discussion backed by the wisdom of like an extra decade of collective optimization knowledge. The rankings are much more accurate, and you can even look at the more detailed breakdown to get a look at which direction the votes were leaning in and the relative ranking within that tier. There are also discussion threads covering all the classes, so that you can get an idea of the reasoning behind each ranking.


That tier list is better, and I like it a lot. A lot of folks put a lot of work into it. BUT. It seems to have left out most all psionic classes completely. I'm not sure if any other major types of classes didn't get put in, but that's a pretty big hole.

[Cosi]

ALL the Tier 5 classes together are a playable high T3.

ALL the Tier 4-5 classes together make something that isn’t technically a T1 but is powerful and versatile enough that it can perform in a T1 environment with what I consider to be parity.

I think insofar as those claims hold they are more revealing of the flaws of the tiers system than any real improvement. Lots of chaff abilities are simply not the same as a few good ones, and the returns to combat skill go to zero quite rapidly. Such a character is good (perhaps "the best") at martial combat and skill checks, but it still does nothing in the face of plane shift.

The fundamental problem is not that these classes are bad at the things they do, even in aggregate. You can build a threatening Fighter (e.g. Uberchargers). You can make skill checks as a Fighter. You can make these classes better by letting them do more of those things, but the real issue is still that the Wizard can do strategic actions (e.g. gate your army from point A to point B) and they can't.


The easiest way to empower the weaker classes is to replace them with better ones that are already available. Specifically, virtually all of the tier 5-6 classes and some of the tier 4 classes can be replaced by the tier 3 Swordsage, Crusader, and Warblade.

As far as combat goes, I think "gestalt non-ToB class + ToB class, take Races of War feats at level up" is a reasonable approach. Give those characters a couple of Legacy items with powers like "charm person everyone you meet" and "some kind of restricted teleport" and you have something reasonable.


I like the idea of giving them access to spells, but I'm wondering if it would be better to do it through feats rather than items.

You get like seven feats. Any setup where feats give you enough magic to matter is going to make those the best feats in the entire game.


I'm not fully versed on Weapons of Legacy, but can't the items be shared?

I can't say with 100% certainty off the top of my of my head, but I'm fairly sure you can't because they're tied to activation rituals (which cost money and do something with feats I don't quite remember but you should probably make just fluff). Instead, just cap the number of Legacy items you can use in some way that scales inversely with your personal mojo.


On topic: I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that the existence of low-tier options is a feature of the system, not a bug. They offer optimization puzzles you can't get out of stuff with way more options (iron chef, anyone?) as well as something simple for people who don't want to, or can't, invest the time to master more complex classes and just want to smack something with a pointy stick between plot-points.

Regardless of whether this is true in general, I think is clearly a problem that there are no high-tier non-casters.


That tier list is better, and I like it a lot. A lot of folks put a lot of work into it. BUT. It seems to have left out most all psionic classes completely. I'm not sure if any other major types of classes didn't get put in, but that's a pretty big hole.

I think that particular project died partway through.

[johnbragg]

OP

First of all, what levels are you playing at, what levels do you plan to get to. Because the game changes, and the relationships between the classes change.

E6 is a thing because the problem isn't as big at lower levels. Monks still usually struggle, but there are blunt fixes available there--gestalt Monk-NPC Warrior for d10 HD full BAB, up Fighters from 2 to 4 skill points, and a 3rd level druid, fighter and monk can work as equals (assuming that the Druid isn't getting too fancy with his or her build choices).

It's when teleportation, polymorphing/wildshaping come online that the problem becomes visible. (That's also when CoDzilla, full plate version, starts having enough spell slots to really come online.)

Captain America, Hawkeye, Black Widow and even the Hulk can work together as a team. But at higher levels, you move into problems you can't solve by punching them. At higher levels, the game becomes a Nick Fury/Tony STark/Dr Strange game. At that point, Black PAnther's claws and agility don't mean squat--his relevant abilities now are control of the world's vibranium supply and Wakanda's magitech.

Conan the Barbarian is relevant when the problem is a big demon showing up in the middle of the city and wrecking things. When the problem is that the city's population is slowly being corrupted by an eldritch abomination bound beneath the city's sewers that has been partially awakened, Conan's sword is not much good. Conan the King might be a player in that game, however.

So I'd say that around 7-10 level is where to deal with the problem. The old-school games stopped there--9th level is Name Level, here's a castle. Also notice that organized-play games don't go much further. But if you're going further, what can we do to help Steve Rogers interact meaningfully with Ultron and with Loki and with Thanos?

Beatstick options: You're not just a warrior anymore. You're a Hero, and people treat you as such. Congratulations, you now stop levelling as a Fighter and start taking levels in some sort of homebrewed Aristocrat thing, or the Miniature's Handbook Marshal, or you start using the Stronghold Builder's Guide as your PHB or something. You're now the Director of SHIELD, using the MCU analogy.

Or the beatstick is chosen by any of various Greater Powers to be their champion. Either start taking templates instead of levels (Half-Celestial gives flight, stat boosts, DR and SR for LA+4, you can probably break that up into levels if someone already hasn't.) Or the gods give him a spellcasting cohort that the player controls (pseudodragon with caster levels and a shared HP pool with the beatstick, or an intelligent item with caster levels). Enjoy your magitech suit.

[Gnaeus]

I think insofar as those claims hold they are more revealing of the flaws of the tiers system than any real improvement. Lots of chaff abilities are simply not the same as a few good ones, and the returns to combat skill go to zero quite rapidly. Such a character is good (perhaps "the best") at martial combat and skill checks, but it still does nothing in the face of plane shift.

The fundamental problem is not that these classes are bad at the things they do, even in aggregate. You can build a threatening Fighter (e.g. Uberchargers). You can make skill checks as a Fighter. You can make these classes better by letting them do more of those things, but the real issue is still that the Wizard can do strategic actions (e.g. gate your army from point A to point B) and they can't.


First, they can. Truenamer gets Gate. Tier 5.

You would be surprised how many things pop up in a low tier class. Mountebank can teleport. Rangers Tree Stride. Adepts get commune, true sight. Raise dead. Polymorph. Hexblades get scrying. You mentioned Fabricate and Major Creation in your earlier posts. Magewright spells available to someone gestating with a tier 5.

But pretending you were correct. So how many guys with Gate do you need in your party? Presumably none since the wizard doesn’t get it until 17, but even then. Transporting an army has minimal relevance to most games, and you sure don’t need everyone to have that ability.

Most D&D games I’ve seen or heard of are basically dungeon crawls or special ops. In a typical D&D environment a gestalt of all tier 4 and 5 classes will outperform a Tier 1. Earthquake and control weather and Gate are ultimately less important than locating enemies, blocking their attacks, and putting them on the floor while responding flexibly to surprises. Low tier gestalts are actually fantastic at that. No individual T5-4 class may be able to. There’s classes with amazing utility that can’t fight (Magewright, Adept, Mountebank) and classes that fight with poor utility. Paladin and monk give immunities and saves of yes. CW samurai gives intimidate lockdown. Marshal dragon shaman soulbourn give AOE buffing. Fighter Barbarian can deal hurt. Ranger Paladin Lurk Hexblade adept magewright shadowcaster spellthief all get spells or spell likes. The feeble soul knife and battle dancer likely save us 50% of WBL in weapons and armor, while making us less reliant on specific gear than a high tier counterpart.

[Cosi]

First, they can. Truenamer gets Gate. Tier 5.

The Truenamer gets gate at 20th level (3 levels behind the Wizard).


Mountebank can teleport.

Self-only teleport.


Rangers Tree Stride.

At 14th level (5 levels behind the Druid).


Adepts get commune, true sight. Raise dead. Polymorph.

Adepts get commune, true seeing, and raise dead at 16th level (7 levels behind the Cleric), polymorph at 12th level (5 levels behind the Wizard)


Hexblades get scrying.

At 14th level (5 levels behind the Wizard).


You mentioned Fabricate and Major Creation in your earlier posts. Magewright spells available to someone gestating with a tier 5.

Available at 16th level (7 levels behind the Wizard).

So yes, they do get them at all. But they get them an average of six levels behind when the Wizard or Cleric gets them, at which point you could have a cohort, and that cohort could have a cohort, and that cohort's cohort could have a cohort, and that cohort's cohort's cohort would have as much magic as you. You are really, really reaching when you try to sell that as a contribution, particularly because it requires you to put up 14s or 15s in all your mental stats (and even then you need more to get them on your nominal schedule, because those slot numbers are zero). major creation when people are throwing down true creation is not viable utility magic any more than color spray when people are throwing down cloudkill is viable combat magic.


Most D&D games I’ve seen or heard of are basically dungeon crawls or special ops.

Yes, and they are that way because that is the only environment where the Fighter is merely "bad" rather than "totally worthless".

[Gnaeus]

No, it’s because D&D is a ****ty mass combat game and not many people want to run battles with 20 followers, let alone 200. The Tier 1 is better at things that are of minimal value in any adventure path. The gestalt is better at things that are common in games. If the DM makes a giant dungeon and the Druid casts earthquake, then either the DM fiats it to not work or gets pissed that his work was ruined and everyone plays a boardgame.

Yeah. They get a lot of things later. So? No single tier 1 can even do all the things the gestalt can do. Is Sorcerer unplayable because it gets Gate later than wizard? Is cleric bad because it can’t cast Polymorph? I get major creation well after the wizard, but before the Druid or cleric. Hell, 90% of the time when some weird thing comes up the wizard won’t even have the right spell memorized, he’ll pull out a scroll. A tactic which the gestalt will be better at than the tier 1.

[Cosi]

Yeah. They get a lot of things later. So? No single tier 1 can even do all the things the gestalt can do.

Again, doing lots of bad things is not as good as doing a small number of good things. Getting both the Monk's sucky abilities and the Ranger's sucky abilities does not make you not suck.


Is Sorcerer unplayable because it gets Gate later than wizard?

Yes, the Sorcerer getting spells later than the Wizard is exactly identical to the Adept getting spells later than the Wizard because 1 and 7 are the same number. Exactly the same. No one could possibly tell the difference.

[Gnaeus]

Again, doing lots of bad things is not as good as doing a small number of good things. Getting both the Monk's sucky abilities and the Ranger's sucky abilities does not make you not suck..

And most of the things you have suggested are generally useless in game, so that means you are good at doing lots of bad things, and I am good at doing a small number of good things, like killing enemies and resisting their attacks and finding traps and not setting off alarms and sneaking around.

Hell, the REASON T1s are decent is because they have dozens of potential options, which usually suck but which are great when they work and you can cherry pick. That’s the whole fricking point of being a T1 not a T2 or 3.

What you fail to understand is that most T5s have great stuff. Monk has gems, as does Ranger. Evasion and Wis to AC and all good saves and immunities are all neat, and T1s jump through hoops to get similar abilities. Monks suck because passable defenses aren’t enough on an otherwise worthless character. Fighters suck because they have no utility and bad defenses. Magewright sucks because it can’t fight. A fighter//monk//magewright is better than a wizard in most circumstances until 7-10.

And as has been pointed out before, many of the low tier abilities are additive. Improved initiative is meh. It’s no better than nerveskitter. But improved initiative and 2 other initiative boosts and cha to initiative combine to “I win initiative”. Which is a fantastic ability that Druids turn into turtles for and wizards duplicate with 9th level spells. All good saves is good. Evasion is good. Mettle is good. All good saves +cha + evasion and mettle is amazing.

[EnnPeeCee]

Here’s what I’m currently doing at my table. It’s really only a small patch on the tier issue, but I’ve found it makes the lower tier classes more accessible for my players.

Point buy is based on class tier, and rate of feats gained is based on class tier.
T1: 24pt, standard feats
T2: 28pt, standard feats
T3: 32pt, standard feats
T4: 36pt, accelerated feats
T5: 40pt, accelerated feats
T6: 44pt, accelerated feats

Accelerated feats being feats at 1st and every even level (1, 2, 4, 6, etc).

[Troacctid]

That tier list is better, and I like it a lot. A lot of folks put a lot of work into it. BUT. It seems to have left out most all psionic classes completely. I'm not sure if any other major types of classes didn't get put in, but that's a pretty big hole.
The forum went down for a while and the interruption killed a lot of momentum for the project. There's a few classes that never got finished. Eggynack is still around, though, maybe he'd be up for finishing it.

[Bucky]

I second the extra skill points.

You can also simply allow mundane actions more utility as a matter of refereeing. Saying something like "sure, a monk ought to be able to wall-run across that gap, call it a DC 14 Jump check to get close enough that your slow-fall can take you the rest of the way" or allowing Pathfinder-style dirty tricks like "make a touch attack to slip the bag over its head" benefits your low-option characters more.

[Cosi]

And most of the things you have suggested are generally useless in game, so that means you are good at doing lots of bad things, and I am good at doing a small number of good things, like killing enemies and resisting their attacks and finding traps and not setting off alarms and sneaking around.

Yes, as we all know, "casting teleport" is bad and "having trapfinding" is good. This is why the Rogue is Tier One and the Wizard is Tier Four. The reason (the literal reason given by JaronK) why the Wizard is Tier One are the abilities I am describing. If you think those abilities are bad, you are saying you do not think the Tier System is valid. Which, sure, but that seems like an argument that will lead to conclusions you don't want.


Monk has gems, as does Ranger. Evasion and Wis to AC and all good saves and immunities are all neat, ... All good saves +cha + evasion and mettle is amazing.

Yeah, that sounds totally reasonable to do with a normal stat distribution. Good WIS, good CHA, and good physical stats for the actual fighting you plan to be doing. That'll work.

[Karl Aegis]

I guess the first thing you need to do is figure out exactly what the tiers mean to you.

[Zombulian]

What i did in my campaign, and it worked wonders:

1. I've banned every tier 1 class - if you want to play cleric, you play spontaneous one
2. Went with gestalt rules for every class. Sure, while it makes your job as a DM a little bit harder, it makes huge difference. Why? If sorcerer wants to be fighting in meele, gestalt will not help him that much. However, if you pair fighter with rogue and right prcs, you are going to have powerful tier 3 build
4. Do something about the polymorph school. Limit it and if you are running longer campaign which will allow you to achieve higher levels, increase statistics of players to resemble monster ones so that polymorph will stop being answer for everything. Then limit the statistics they can get by tomes so at mid-high level everything goes back on track.

One of my players, who dislikes 3.5 because of balance problems said, that it is the first game he played where everything seems balanced and everyone has his chances to have fun.

Haha... what?

[martixy]

Tiers has been a topic of discussion for a while now, but I feel it could use more ideas for DM's that want to balance their game. The class tiers I'm referring to can be found here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?138013-D-amp-D-3-5-tiers (spoiler, 5th post).

Most posts I've seen discuss why classes are in their tiers, but no suggestions to keep parties balanced. Sometimes, that's OK. The players can usually have fun even when they're out of balance, but what if we want to keep each player class relevant? One suggestion I saw is to keep them within a tier or two of each other, but that would probably make the game worse. After all, telling a player they can't play a wizard or fighter because the game is tier 2-4 is going to make it less fun for that player.

So what I'm looking for is ways to house rule the classes closer to each other in power. I don't want to bring core classes (cleric, druid, wizard) down, so I'd be looking for ways to bring lower tiers up. With a bit of control over the abusive supplemental stuff (divine metamagic, celerity, etc), I think it would be OK to let players play 1st tier classes in a game with 2nd-3rd tier classes. But I'd want to get the 4th-5th tier classes up to 2nd-3rd tier by giving them benefits that balance them out.

My question is this... what would you give the tier 4 and tier 5 classes to make them roughly 2 tiers better?

For example, a monk with full base attack might be 4th tier. Or using pathfinder rules for fighter (effectively +1 att/dam every 4 levels, and higher dex mod in armor) could make them 4th tier.

The idea I'm leaning towards is just giving them extra feats. That way, I don't have to write up a whole new class for each low tier class, and the players don't have to learn them (instead of just reading the player's handbook). I think this idea would be easier, and clutter up the rules less. But how often would you give them an extra feat for the desired power increase? Would 1 feat every 3 levels be enough? Is there another option you think is better than extra feats, and why?

When I began making tweaks I was very much in the same position. I did not want to mess with the power of the high tier classes too much, so the obvious answer was to elevate the lower tiers.

What I realized eventually is that this is impossible without a major overhaul of the game, but also unnecessary. Because what makes a class fun to play is the ability to make decisions. Being in a situation and being able to choose more than "I go there and hit it with a stick" and still be effective.

As it stands, most mundanes right now have to spend most of their character building resources just to remain competitive within a very limited part of their niche, which leaves nothing for the more fun, tactical options.

The changes I've made are too numerous to list, but I borrow heavily from pathfinder, I've nixed feat taxes, use tons of variant rules, extra skill points(+pf skill system). The result of this are martial characters where being effective is cheap, and you are left with options to add variety and versatility to your toolset.

[eggynack]

The forum went down for a while and the interruption killed a lot of momentum for the project. There's a few classes that never got finished. Eggynack is still around, though, maybe he'd be up for finishing it.
Kinda got bored of running it, but I could see running a new thread in a bit. It's pretty close to done, I think.

[Troacctid]

Kinda got bored of running it, but I could see running a new thread in a bit. It's pretty close to done, I think.
You should go for it! It's already almost finished.

[Lans]

I don't understand the hang up on plane shift, how often does that even come up? but the all tier 4 and lower gestalt gets access to plane shift 4 levels earlier than the wizard through shadow caster.

[Karl Aegis]

I don't understand the hang up on plane shift, how often does that even come up? but the all tier 4 and lower gestalt gets access to plane shift 4 levels earlier than the wizard through shadow caster.

You get to reroll characters because your current characters are no longer relevant to the adventure OR you can make one creature unlootable if you have a proper focus component, succeed on a touch attack, overcome spell resistance, and they don't pass their will save. It's one of those abilities that are so bad they aren't really relevant to tier discussions.

[Dr_Dinosaur]

The only options I know of to really balance 3.5 at all are:
* Use Spheres of Power and Spheres of Might: Not the included classes (those are for Pathfinder) but the basic rules fix most problems with martials and cut casters down to size
* Play e6: Removes most of the threats non-casters can’t beat and makes 3rd-level spells impressive feats.
* Ban Tiers 1-2 and allow 4-6 to gestalt among those three tiers: This makes for a roughly tier-3 balance point in my experience, with the fixed-list casters as the most powerful mages

[Cosi]

The only options I know of to really balance 3.5 at all are:
* Use Spheres of Power and Spheres of Might: Not the included classes (those are for Pathfinder) but the basic rules fix most problems with martials and cut casters down to size
* Play e6: Removes most of the threats non-casters can’t beat and makes 3rd-level spells impressive feats.
* Ban Tiers 1-2 and allow 4-6 to gestalt among those three tiers: This makes for a roughly tier-3 balance point in my experience, with the fixed-list casters as the most powerful mages

You can also just have people play full casters. Maybe Gestalt Caster/Non-Caster if you're really attached to Binding or Incarnum or something. Or are you claiming that no game that includes Wizards can be balanced? Because that is a stupid claim.

[Zombulian]

You can also just have people play full casters. Maybe Gestalt Caster/Non-Caster if you're really attached to Binding or Incarnum or something. Or are you claiming that no game that includes Wizards can be balanced? Because that is a stupid claim.

I think most people here are simply claiming that for ease of balance enforcement, a conservative approach towards full casters is easier than hoping your players can gauge the general balance level of the group and build accordingly.
And this thought seems to offend you on a personal level.

It's not your game dude. We're not telling you what to do.

[Cosi]

And this thought seems to offend you on a personal level.

What "offends me on a personal level" is someone saying that the only way to balance the game is by balancing it at their preferred balance point (preferably with their preferred subsystems). You'll notice that I didn't say Dinosaur's suggestions wouldn't work, just that he had missed something. Do you think I wouldn't have gotten a similar response if I had suggested that the only ways to balance the game were:

1. Require everyone to play a full caster other than Warmage or Healer, or a Wilder, or a Psion, or an Artificer.
2. Require everyone to gestalt with Sorcerer.
3. Use Frank and K's Tomes (a series of fan supplements aimed at a balance point approximating the Wizard).

Is that a reasonable position to stake out? Or am I excluding some things because I don't personally like them?

[Malroth]

how i would balance things.

Tier 1: you're single classed that level
Tier 2: you many gestault with a tier 5 or 6 if you wish
Tier 3: You may gestault with a tier 4 5 or 6
Tier 4: you may gestault with another tier 4 5 or 6 class if you do you gain +1 to all 6 stats every 4 levels instead of to 1 stat
Tier 5: If you gestault with another tier 5 or 6 class you gain a bonus feat every other level and the improved stat advancement the tier 4's get
tier 6: sorry you don't get any additional bonuses for being silly.

[EldritchWeaver]

What "offends me on a personal level" is someone saying that the only way to balance the game is by balancing it at their preferred balance point (preferably with their preferred subsystems). You'll notice that I didn't say Dinosaur's suggestions wouldn't work, just that he had missed something. Do you think I wouldn't have gotten a similar response if I had suggested that the only ways to balance the game were:

1. Require everyone to play a full caster other than Warmage or Healer, or a Wilder, or a Psion, or an Artificer.
2. Require everyone to gestalt with Sorcerer.
3. Use Frank and K's Tomes (a series of fan supplements aimed at a balance point approximating the Wizard).

Is that a reasonable position to stake out? Or am I excluding some things because I don't personally like them?

You are correct that the balance point can be basically chosen anywhere on the continuum. Still, if you are happy with the middle, then it is easier to remove/replace the options, which are at the extreme end of the spectrum.

[johnbragg]

2. Require everyone to gestalt with Sorcerer.


I've been turning this over in the back of my head now for a few days.

How good or bad a tier-balance quick-and-dirty fix would "gestalt all Tier 3-5s with battle sorcerer" be? You get some arcane spells and light armored casting. Take Battlecaster as a feat and you get Medium armored casting.

You could even open up access to divine spells if players want them.

COSI: Please leave the validity of JaronK's Tier system out of it, just for this part of the argument.

If you're really bad at google, the UA Battle Sorcerer can be found here (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm) if you scroll down far enough.

If you trust randos to copy and paste correctly, it's also here. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/community-creations/ogreslab/battle-sorcerer/)

[Endril]

I appreciate the responses. They've been giving me some ideas. I might reply to some individual suggestions as I have time.

In the meantime, I've been giving some thought to giving each character access to spells from one domain (either as spells or spell-like abilities). It would fit with my campaign world since it has an outsider theme and the outer planes are tied to religions (planar philosophies). It would also be similar to the idea of letting everyone gestalt with sorcerer, just in a more limited capacity. Even the fighters will have access to spells like teleport if they choose the right domain (or all spells up to level 7 if they choose luck). Has anyone tried something similar to that?

[Zombulian]

I appreciate the responses. They've been giving me some ideas. I might reply to some individual suggestions as I have time.

In the meantime, I've been giving some thought to giving each character access to spells from one domain (either as spells or spell-like abilities). It would fit with my campaign world since it has an outsider theme and the outer planes are tied to religions (planar philosophies). It would also be similar to the idea of letting everyone gestalt with sorcerer, just in a more limited capacity. Even the fighters will have access to spells like teleport if they choose the right domain (or all spells up to level 7 if they choose luck). Has anyone tried something similar to that?

Oo that's a neat idea.

[Bucky]

In the meantime, I've been giving some thought to giving each character access to spells from one domain (either as spells or spell-like abilities). It would fit with my campaign world since it has an outsider theme and the outer planes are tied to religions (planar philosophies).
....

Has anyone tried something similar to that?

If you search the homebrew forum you'll find my aborted attempt to do exactly this for Pathfinder Monks, and a related idea for Pathfinder Ninjas with limited Arcane spellcasting.

Basically, the Monks get each domain spell once per day, as a cleric of the same level, and could spend their Ki (Monk level /2 + Wis mod) as psionic power points to get extra castings. And replace stunning fist with the domain power.

The main problem was getting it to play nicely as a Pathfinder Archetype, but as a homebrewed 3.5 variant you wouldn't need to worry about that.


Ninjas were less fleshed out but would cast spontaneously from a Sorcerer bloodline and gain related bloodline powers. (example bloodline (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/elemental-bloodline/))

[Lans]

I was doing some thinking on this thread.



Regardless of whether this is true in general, I think is clearly a problem that there are no high-tier non-casters.



What are your thoughts on the Binder? It gets put into tier 2 with the online vestiges, mainly the summoning one, but I have seen arguments for the other ones.






Yeah, that sounds totally reasonable to do with a normal stat distribution. Good WIS, good CHA, and good physical stats for the actual fighting you plan to be doing. That'll work.

With standard point buy 8 strength, 12 dexterity, 11 con, 14 in mental stats works.




So yes, they do get them at all. But they get them an average of six levels behind when the Wizard or Cleric gets them, at which point you could have a cohort, and that cohort could have a cohort, and that cohort's cohort could have a cohort, and that cohort's cohort's cohort would have as much magic as you. You are really, really reaching when you try to sell that as a contribution, particularly because it requires you to put up 14s or 15s in all your mental stats (and even then you need more to get them on your nominal schedule, because those slot numbers are zero). major creation when people are throwing down true creation is not viable utility magic any more than color spray when people are throwing down cloudkill is viable combat magic.
.

How much of a delay would you find acceptable considering the class has a number of other abilities, a better chasis, and the like. What if its 3 levels behind like teleport, scry, and dimension door on the shugenja? Would having a few abilities on level, like freedom of movement and gate off of healer, or before like plane shift and shadow evocation off shadowcaster change things?

[ericgrau]

Mostly just play nice. That's it. "Tiers" aren't really a problem in every group I've ever seen. That doesn't mean "holding back" if you're a caster. It means not actively trying to break things with loops and so on, which most people don't do anyway.

But:
1: There is more power creep towards casters as you allow more books. People can unintentionally get more power with casters this way. Especially in forums people tend to push the limits and blur the line between high OP and broken. Again, depends on how much you know about the system. Don't worry about it with more casual players.
2: Once you've played a lot, casual or not, it becomes boring to play without magic.

For 1: It's hard to balance without making something unplayable for those who play nice. But you can give 1 or bonus levels to encourage something without screwing up balance for anyone else. And unlike feats or numerical bonuses this provides power across the board so it doesn't break one thing while failing to address another thing.

For 2: Magic items are my favorite way without any changes to the system. But this comes with knowledge that not everyone has. You can aid in magic item selection, give out more random treasure so people can experiment, and/or optionally give out more WBL to everyone (regardless of class). Include "toys" and not just numerical needs, but also help get the boring numerical bonuses out of the way. For casters it's just more of the same, so it's not like they're getting much more fun. Not distinguishing makes handling multi-classing simpler. For power see #1.

So that's it, just give a level bump or two to those who you think will need it. Simple, and won't break anything. Don't base "those who need it" on tier lists. (1) The lists are a bit wonky and (2) what's weak depends on your group. For example both groups I've played in have had trouble doing well with druids and bards and those two have been the weakest. While they had no problem doing ok with druids, they both had trouble doing well with them. Even those who loved druids and played them for the flavor. And bards... no one has time to dig through books and even knows what DFI is, nor is the greatest at spell selection on a limited list so everyone has done poorly. They've all played for years if not decades, they just don't have that kind of free time to dedicate to D&D. For those with more online browsing it may be different.