[3.5] Classes that are terrible

[bekeleven]

I tell my party where we can find the spellbook of Fistandantalus. I know right where it is because I read these novels. It doesn't say in the description of Speak that I have to know what I am saying in character.

It doesn't say in the description of polymorph that you are instantly aware of every creature in all the monster manuals and all their powers. You know what you know. Knowing that a Green Hag has mimicry as an EX or that a red dragon is fire immune is clearly defined by a rule.

So characters in games you run are regularly unaware of their own special abilities?

If I adopted a baby green hag and raised it, how long until it realized it had this power?

[Gnaeus]

So characters in games you run are regularly unaware of their own special abilities?

He isn't unaware of his own special abilities. He knows what his spell does. What he doesn't know is every monster in the world. The spell lets him turn into any aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. It doesn't tell him what they all are. Or what powers they get. So he can:
1. restrict himself to the forms he has seen in play
2. optimize himself to pick up some knowledges to make some better use of his power.
3. make use of time in play to give himself actual knowledge of this stuff. He could turn into a white dragon and hit himself with elemental spells until he figures out what they are immune to, and repeat a lot. He could travel to a huge library in some big city and bribe a librarian to help him research strange stories of monsters. What exactly that would give him would be DM's call of course, and other PCs may be doing useful things with THEIR downtime as well.
4. Ask another PC. Polymorph IS less restrictive than Wildshape. It's not so much that he can't turn into a red dragon, as that why would he turn into a red dragon when confronted with fire attacks without an IC reason? That doesn't mean that the cleric standing next to him can't make an Arcana check, and use that speak action to convey information that he now actually knows IC.

Just because the fighter needs a large winged form with hands doesn't mean that anyone in the group has ever heard of an Abeil. Unless someone can make a knowledge Nature check at least.

If I adopted a baby green hag and raised it, how long until it realized it had this power?

An intriguing, if irrelevant question.

[ShurikVch]

I wonder - what's happen if we take all those terrible classes and make one big gestalt?

Enchantment being a good drop choice has everything to do with mind-effecting immunity being extremely common. In a world without rampant immunity to the entire school* enchantment would be a powerful option. Crazily so, perhaps. A lot of the school's more reasonable effects suffer from enemies (and allies) needing to be immune to dominate and friends. :/

Illusion is gutted by Truesight. The shadow stuff can ignore / be empowered by Truesight, which is about the only high-op illusionist stuff you see running about.

*There is, to my knowledge, only one enchantment spell that doesn't have the descriptor - but that might not even matter as the description of the enchantment school says ALL enchantment spells are mind-effecting and the one exception never says it isn't mind effecting.

Enchantment can affect Intelligence Undead via Song of the Dead metamagic

Illusion vs Truesight:
1. Truesight range is limited by 120'
2. Do You forget about the whole Phantasm sub-school?
3. Such spells as Dark Way, Hidden Ward, Nystul's Magic Aura, Silence, Khelben's Suspended Silence, and Misdirection are completely unaffected by Truesight; Screen may be at least partially effective, and Scintillating Pattern may work too

[Gnaeus]

I wonder - what's happen if we take all those terrible classes and make one big gestalt?

Been there. Discussed that.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...l+tier+classes

Edit: I'd skip to about page 5. Thats pretty much when we stopped talking in circles and began hammering out examples. My first concrete build was on page 7 & level 10 appears on page 9

I'd play it before a T1. Whether it IS T1 or whether it is better or worse depends a lot on how you define those terms.

[bekeleven]

He isn't unaware of his own special abilities.

Well, if he turns into a green hag, then he has Mimicry (Ex) under his special attacks header for the next minute/level. So it is, in fact, his own special ability.

An intriguing, if irrelevant question.

If the answer is "one minute" then your polymorph caster learns 1m into his spell that he can mimic sounds.

If the answer is "1 year" then a character reincarnated into Green Hag form has that long to realize it.

Rules - yes, even house rules - have consequences.

Out of curiosity, what is the reason in your games that I can't polymorph into a creature with a template?

[Gnaeus]

Well, if he turns into a green hag, then he has Mimicry (Ex) under his special attacks header for the next minute/level. So it is, in fact, his own special ability.

If the answer is "one minute" then your polymorph caster learns 1m into his spell that he can mimic sounds.

If the answer is "1 year" then a character reincarnated into Green Hag form has that long to realize it.

Rules - yes, even house rules - have consequences.

If you don't know what a Green Hag is, why did you polymorph into one?

Out of curiosity, what is the reason in your games that I can't polymorph into a creature with a template?

Same reason as in the rules I guess. Polymorph works like Alter Self and alter self says no templates IIRC.

[bekeleven]

If you don't know what a Green Hag is, why did you polymorph into one?



Same reason as in the rules I guess. Polymorph works like Alter Self and alter self says no templates IIRC.

So the reason that you can't turn into a green hag is completely IC while the reason I can't turn into a draconic green hag is completely OOC.

If my character had encountered a draconic green hag, does that give me the knowledge to turn into a normal green hag, or no new forms at all?

[sleepyphoenixx]

So the reason that you can't turn into a green hag is completely IC while the reason I can't turn into a draconic green hag is completely OOC.

If my character had encountered a draconic green hag, does that give me the knowledge to turn into a normal green hag, or no new forms at all?

Not turning into something you have no way of knowing about IC is pretty standard no-metagaming rules. It's not explicit RAW, just common sense (though a lot of tables ignore metagaming to a greater or lesser extent).
Theorycrafting is based pretty much entirely on metagaming though, so nobody cares if God-Wizard #11 knows IC what he wants to turn into when discussing it here.

The rule about no templated creatures is RAW though, from Alter Self. Alternate Form has the same rule, and pretty much all shapechanging references one of the two (though there are exceptions).

Personally i'd say just encountering something isn't enough to polymorph into it. You need to study it, which is represented by knowledge checks (though i'd let you take 10 because presumably your PC looks up that stuff in his downtime). That's just a houserule though.

[Gnaeus]

So the reason that you can't turn into a green hag is completely IC while the reason I can't turn into a draconic green hag is completely OOC.

If my character had encountered a draconic green hag, does that give me the knowledge to turn into a normal green hag, or no new forms at all?

The reason you can't turn into a draconic green hag is because it is beyond the abilities of polymorph. The reason, in this example, you can't turn into a green hag is that you have no idea what it is, and even if you had heard that there was a creature called a green hag, you have no reason to think that it has the particular ex you want in this situation. If you are fighting a green hag, and you think, "hey, that thing looks mean" and you polymorph your fighter into one now you have some IC knowledge. Heck, as you point out, it isn't wild shape. It is a lower standard. If some old fisherman tells you the coast is infested with green hags, and shows you a body, or a picture, maybe even gives a good description, you turn the fighter into a green hag. Then start working out what they can do. I'll buy that. Thats a mountain different than looking through the monster manual for specific forms with a character with average int and likely no relevant knowledges (or only Arcana).

As to your second question, maybe, I guess? Ask your DM. You certainly have a vastly better argument to make than "I have polymorph, now hand me that stack of monster manuals." Which, fundamentally, the WIZARD is able to do, because he is likely to have the character sheet that justifies it.

While we are on the subject, how many splat books do you get to dig through before it becomes equal optimization for the beguiler to pick up CDiv? Because the moment arcane disciple pops up I can copy your trick only better.

[bekeleven]

The reason you can't turn into a draconic green hag is because it is beyond the abilities of polymorph.

So you're justifying your IC delineation with OOC concepts. Cool. If a coast is infested with feral green hags, though, I'm out of luck.

While we are on the subject, how many splat books do you get to dig through before it becomes equal optimization for the beguiler to pick up CDiv? Because the moment arcane disciple pops up I can copy your trick only better.

What trick?

Since we've been tap-dancing around this issue, Let me get philosophical for a moment and explain how I run polymorph. And summons.

Spoiler: On the Nature of the World

Show

A dragon's flying is (Na) and the tyrannosaurus's ability to swallow is (Ex). As the MM reminds us, (Ex) abilities are allowed to break the laws of physics. Natural abilities, however... there's a wrinkle. Because a dragon's wings can't possibly support him any more than his chest could actually safely combust, or freeze the air, or whatever else each flavor can do.

So D&D doesn't run on the laws of physics; the commoner railgun told us that already. Parts of it - elemental rules in particular - seem to point to a more platonic universal system.

Akasha, also known as The Root, The Origin or (if shifting philosophies) Taiji, created and continues to define the world. It's basically the source code to the universe. While most spells alter some corner of the universe, a Truenamer can access Akasha to change the nature of a thing, what it is and how it works. The Wish spell (among others) gives brief, unrestricted access to a wizard. The contact is too fast to change much, and certainly too fast to learn information incidental to the goal of the casting.

Templates, Summoning, and Polymorph

Every race has an entry in Akasha. For instance, every orc is essentially an instantiation of the platonic ideal of Orc, defined by its differences from that ideal than its differences from, say, a human. Another campaign setting could have this defined by one or more deities.

Conjurations bring manifestations of objects, creatures, or some form of energy to you (the summoning subschool), actually transport creatures from another plane of existence to your plane (calling), heal (healing), transport creatures or objects over great distances (teleportation), or create objects or effects on the spot (creation).

The summoning subschool doesn't summon an existing creature; we know that already, too. When you summon a bearded devil, you aren't literally grabbing one from hell. Instead, you're shaping aether into the form of a bearded devil. This is why they're always exactly the same. The prototypical bearded devil doesn't change. The only exception is fiendish and celestial animals, which are slightly altered based on the infusion of elemental evil or good.

Incidentally, this is why summoning a devil is an evil act: It's not that you're teleporting a devil from hell, getting him killed, and helping angels. It's that you're explicitly and tangibly increasing the amount of evil in the world, by creating a new form for evil to inhabit.

Back to Polymorph.

Polymorph allows a wizard (or sorcerer, shaman, Wu Jen, Hexblade...) to briefly touch Akasha. You can't touch it for long enough to take any information back with you; however, you can say, "I want a form that can fight." "I want a form that can fly and hold something." "I want a form that can eat a man." From that, Akasha shapes you - or allows you to shape yourself - into a Green Hag's platonic form, or an Abeil. Of course, if he knows what he's looking for, a mage can ask for a specific form. In fact, if you don't know what you're getting, you may not even know the name of the species you just turned yourself into (although you may get a bonus on any future knowledge checks!)

This neatly explains why you can't turn into a creature with a template. Templated creatures are not stored in Akasha; only plantonic forms of each race exist there.

And yes, I'm aware that this is a mishmash of half-baked philosophical ramblings. I've repurposed some existing concepts for my own worldbuilding and I'm fine with that.

A player in my games doesn't have to know any of that.

They just have to know "I should turn into an Abeil."

You seem content to rule that these spells work how they work through some mishmash of IC and OOC restrictions that step all over each other's toes and, man, more power to ya. But that's not how I run my games and it's not because I'm Cheating At D&D.^TM

[ExLibrisMortis]

A wizard's education suggests that they've had plenty of time to review a bestiary, or even just snatch a '10 monster powers you won't believe are real' pamphlet off a circus worker or whatever.

The problem with not using OOC knowledge of what monsters exist, is that your character has no reason to try to turn into something that doesn't exist, but that they believe exists (and is incredibly powerful). "I hear that the six-headed shattersnipe can shoot giant rock barrages through an at-will portal ring with 500 mile range! Also, they somehow always seem to know where there target is! Yes, my nanny always warned me of the six-headed shattersnipe, most dangerous of all shattersnipes!".

[Brova]

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but it seems kinda unrealistic to rank the power of a class on the assumption you'll get to use polymorph but not feats.

[Grim Reader]

What list of broken tricks do you have that doesn't include "diplomacy"?

Genesis shenanigans. Loves Pain. Chain-gating. Flesh-to-Salt. Etc. I'm sure people can list a lot more.

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but it seems kinda unrealistic to rank the power of a class on the assumption you'll get to use polymorph but not feats.

All classes get feats. Not all classes get polymorph. Remember, we are comparing classes. Also, feats tend to cancel out. Fighters, Barbarians and Rangers can all get Power Attack. It does not change their tier relative to each other. Beguilers, Sorcerer and Warmages can all get bloodline feats.

I'll leave that to Brova. Our positions are different. My position is that if Sorcerer is T2, so is Beguiler and DN.

Here is the tier system. Here is why the Sorcerer is tier 2, and why the Beguiler is tier 3. Again, the Beguiler and the Sorcerer both have the versatility for tier 3, and the Sorcerer has the break-the-game potential to take it to tier 2.

Now, if you take away the game-breakers, the question of weather the Beguiler or the Sorcerer is more versatile becomes more interesting. The Beguiler is certainly better at the start of the game, level 1. Also, the Beguiler has a much higher floor than the Sorcerer. You can definitely fail to match the Beguiler through poor spell picks with a Sorcerer. The Beguiler is much harder to screw up. However, as the levels advance, the Sorcerer get more and more powerful spell options that the Beguiler do not get, while the Beguiler have a selection of solid spells that is a bit wider than what the Sorcerer can have, within a much more restricted area.

Basically, I'd say the Beguiler starts out more versatile but the better the player is at picking spells, the more the Sorcerer pulls away. You could probably make a skill of player vs power of character graph with the Sorcerer starting out lower than the Beguiler but having a much steeper curve past a certain level.

[Brova]

Genesis shenanigans. Loves Pain. Chain-gating. Flesh-to-Salt. Etc. I'm sure people can list a lot more.

That doesn't answer the question. The fact that there are broken tricks other than diplomacy doesn't mean diplomacy isn't a broken trick. Also, the Beguiler's charm into diplomacy trick is more broken than those (in actual play) because it happens at a lower level. Messing around with genesis or gate requires 9th level spells (even chain binding requires 6th), love's pain requires either 9th level spells (mindrape, programmed amensia) or the massive legwork of finding someone who's dearest love is your target, flesh to salt is an infinite gold trick so it's only broken if items are broken and we can't rank items and it's a 5th level spell. On the other hand, the Beguiler can start making permanent minions of comparable or greater power than himself at level 2.

And of course, "how hard can you break the game" is an incredibly stupid way to rank classes. Both because nobody lets you break the game in actual play and because all classes are equally broken as long as candles of invocation exist.

All classes get feats. Not all classes get polymorph. Remember, we are comparing classes. Also, feats tend to cancel out. Fighters, Barbarians and Rangers can all get Power Attack. It does not change their tier relative to each other. Beguilers, Sorcerer and Warmages can all get bloodline feats.

A couple of things. First, this ivory tower "the class, the whole class, and nothing but the class" ranking strategy fails to capture how classes are actually played. Nobody takes more than 5 levels of Wizard, more than 6 levels of Fighter, or more than 6 levels of Sorcerer. I would point blank never play a Beguiler that didn't expand his spell list somehow, either by taking Arcane Disciple, becoming a Rainbow Servant, buying Runestaves, or becoming a Shadowcraft Mage. Or something else I'm forgetting. Second, even if we accept that we shouldn't count anything other than the class in general, the Beguiler has unique synergy with feats like Arcane Disciple or PrCs like Rainbow Servant. His casting mechanic makes certain choices more powerful, just like the Cleric's does (for example, it costs the Cleric nothing to be able to cast remove disease whereas it costs the Favored Soul a spell known, making remove disease a more powerful option for the Cleric). Finally, applying this ranking is massively misleading for a number of classes. For example, without feats the Incantatrix is a worse Wizard. He gives up an extra school of magic for literally nothing (okay, Seize Concentration at 6th).

[Grim Reader]

....And of course, "how hard can you break the game" is an incredibly stupid way to rank classes. Both because nobody lets you break the game in actual play and because all classes are equally broken as long as candles of invocation exist.....

What I am getting from all that is that you do not contest that under the tier system, the Sorcerer is Tier 2 and the Beguiler tier 3, but that your objection is that the tier system is not an adequate simulation of how classes perform in actual play.

It would be interesting to make a thread that compares the Beguiler and the Sorcerer level-by-level. If the Sorcerers bag of gamebreakers get left at the door, the classes are much closer. I'm quite short on time this close to the summer, but I'll see if I can get my home computer to get me logged into the forums, and at least start one.

[Gnaeus]

Here[/URL] is why the Sorcerer is tier 2, and why the Beguiler is tier 3. Again, the Beguiler and the Sorcerer both have the versatility for tier 3, and the Sorcerer has the break-the-game potential to take it to tier 2.

Now, if you take away the game-breakers, the question of weather the Beguiler or the Sorcerer is more versatile becomes more interesting.

Yes, Reaper, we know what the tier system says.

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

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

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

Now, are they tier 1 and 2 because Red or because Green? For all the listed tier 1s and 2s, they are both. If Tier 1 & 2 are distinguished because nukes, tier system is irrelevant in 98% of games. If Tier 1 and 2 are distinguished by power and versatility in play (like the ability to obsolete many normal encounters or to do many things better than T5 classes specialized in that thing), I think Beguiler and DN are at least equal to Sorcerer at all but the absolute highest levels of optimization.

Somewhere, on brilliantgameologists, there is a conversation between JaronK and I where I bring up Arcane Disciple and he answers with Dragonwrought Kobold Loredrakes. My disagreement is not so much "what is Tier 1 and 2" and more "What is equivalent optimization between these two classes"

The stupid thing here is that this entire discussion just shows that I have too much time on my hands. The tier system is pretty good at what it is for. It shows that tier 1s and 2s are better than 4s and 5s and explains why. Talking about single tier gaps, it gets blurry around the edges. Equivalent optimization, which is unmeasurable and entirely opinion, is tough to quantify. Default tier system assumptions (like an inability to buy magic items freely, or the T1 ability to estimate their next days challenges with some accuracy) become a bigger issue in campaigns where those assumptions are not accurate.

[Brova]

What I am getting from all that is that you do not contest that under the tier system, the Sorcerer is Tier 2 and the Beguiler tier 3, but that your objection is that the tier system is not an adequate simulation of how classes perform in actual play.

Well, yah. I've basically been saying that. But I think it is also true that the Beguiler is at least tier two, given the whole "legion of minions" and "best spellcasting mechanic". But yes, I think any system purporting to rank character power should absolutely not put Beguiler and Factotum in the same tier. Frankly, the defenses I've seen of the tier system in this thread have given me even less faith in it than I had to begin with.

[Grim Reader]

@Gnaeus, well thats more something you need to harsh out with JaronK

@Brova power is only an issue at the gates of T2, as I understand it. Below that, it is about versatility. The number of roles you can fill well, situations where you can contribute.

[Rubik]

@Brova power is only an issue at the gates of T2, as I understand it. Below that, it is about versatility. The number of roles you can fill well, situations where you can contribute.

Power is also an issue below T4, but on the other end of the spectrum, since most of those classes have trouble doing much of anything properly. Not that that's of interest to the discussion at hand.

[Gnaeus]

@Gnaeus, well thats more something you need to harsh out with JaronK

We didn't agree 10 years ago. Unless his opinion has changed (and I'm pretty sure it hasn't), I don't think anything really new or different has come up. He knows what is mid-op/high-op/TO in his games, I know it for mine. With regards to anyone else, if they care, they should read the system, and the why each class is in its tier thread, and make their own decisions.