I didn't want to derail other threads or go off-topic by imposing my feelings rather than adding to the discussion, so here I give my opinion. This is a dumb, pointless exercise that doesn't help anyone make or play their character better. It's just creates reasons to whine and dud ammunition to detractors of certain classes.
I hate it.
A little haiku...
First Tier Optimized
Ur last tier suboptimal
I R Winz, u looz!
When players start building optimized tier characters instead of creating balanced characters, that's when the parties start to become hard to manage, a Goliath Barbarian with a Huge Greatsword is always going to dominate combat. I had one power gamer in my group...he always played these wild characters. It became increasingly difficult to run the game.
I had another character in one of my games that was focused on Turn undead...He would wipe out undead, completely wreaking them...no challenge. (Though it was funny he could never turn the Vampire!! Who was actually a changeling).
My wizard is better that your fighter is stupid and achieves nothing.
Well it irritates the crap out of Mr. Fishy, so it does do that.
Feed back could be giving in a more productive way. A new feat suggestion thread or a alternate class feature thread would be more constuctive that another "Monks and Barbarians suck, and if your not fireballing your enemies your a loser" thread.
Difficultly of play yes, wizards are hard to play they require a level of expertise and skill to play effectively. However to say that any non wizard is a weaker character is unfair and untrue. Classes are powerful in their own right. A wizard can clear a room with a spell. A fighter can fight a room. The fighter takes longer but he doesn't run out of ammo or have to pick "clear a room" at the beginning of the day. A fighter can just do it.
Mr. Fishy can play any class and stomp it.
Players should be tiered not classes.
Mr. Fishy has been threaten with an ECL +1.
I didn't want to derail other threads or go off-topic by imposing my feelings rather than adding to the discussion, so here I give my opinion. This is a dumb, pointless exercise that doesn't help anyone make or play their character better. It's just creates reasons to whine and dud ammunition to detractors of certain classes.
I hate it.
100% agreement with you.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
For what it's worth... the bold part of the italicized statement pretty much proves a limited understanding of the overall class power.
Feed back could be giving in a more productive way. A new feat suggestion thread or a alternate class feature thread would be more constuctive that another "Monks and Barbarians suck, and if your not fireballing your enemies your a loser" thread.
and grammar... ;-)
I didn't want to derail other threads or go off-topic by imposing my feelings rather than adding to the discussion, so here I give my opinion. This is a dumb, pointless exercise that doesn't help anyone make or play their character better. It's just creates reasons to whine and dud ammunition to detractors of certain classes.
I hate it.
I agree with you 100%
I didn't want to derail other threads or go off-topic by imposing my feelings rather than adding to the discussion, so here I give my opinion. This is a dumb, pointless exercise that doesn't help anyone make or play their character better. It's just creates reasons to whine and dud ammunition to detractors of certain classes.
I hate it.
I do beleive however that by by accepting this a DM can houserule things so those characters contribute more, once he realizes how they should be contributing that is. The DM, can always adjust things so a class has the spotlight, but he should not have to do so. I would rather take the time to make a house rule than restructure an adventure for a player, plus the house rule makes them more useful on a consistent basis, assuming it's done correctly anyway.
Summary:Not liking a tier listing does not mean liking the fact that some classes are better than others, but it does show relative power of the classes to one another, all other things being equal of course.
It's not a guide to making better characters. It's not a guide on how to powergame. It's not like a fighting game tier list. It's a guide to understand how often one character will overshadow another, and how difficult it is to give a character their time in the sun. Ranking characters by tier is very valuable because it helps people understand how and why cleric/wizard/sorcerer/monk is leading to the monk player getting ticked off, or why fighter/marshal/healer/wizard is leading to bad feelings towards the wizard player.
The extreme problem with this is the assumption that such a list can be remotely accurate based solely on character class, rather than DM style, Player Style, group dynamics, campaign setting, campaign level, campaign length, and many many other factors.
If you feel that assumption is valid in the least, fine, enjoy your tiers. I for one will not be promoting the idea that if player A picks a wizard, and player B picks a fighter, that player A can say "hey, you might want to go up a tier or two, or you're probably not going to have much fun."
Just because a PC is down a tier or three doesn't mean his player can't be having fun with the character. Roleplaying, interactive tactics, and a host of other things come into play.
I've also thought about this, however, we all know most topics here are about min/maxing and optimizing.
I see a minimal amount of topics concerning roleplaying ... since roleplaying is a personal preference.
Stats, feats, tiers and the like are all optimizable. Roleplaying is not.
So, I understand the "I hate tiers" statement made by the topicstarter, but if you don't like it ... don't read it ... and don't use it :)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not here to flame the TS ... but I remember a topic not too long ago made by Wraithstrike which addressed this point far better than I can ;)
I've been there, I've played the Fighter or Barbarian or Monk, and it can be a lot of fun. But I'm not going to lie, there have been MANY times I've looked over as the casters 'won D&D' for lack of better terms, and sighed.
See, and here I differ (as most players differ since it's a personal matter and play style) I actually LIKE getting into the thick of melee and open up a can of whoop@ss. And I've played my share of wizards, thiefs, clerics and the like. Nothing gives me greater joy than slicing and dicing :)
-TDL
The extreme problem with this is the assumption that such a list can be remotely accurate based solely on character class, rather than DM style, Player Style, group dynamics, campaign setting, campaign level, campaign length, and many many other factors.If you feel that assumption is valid in the least, fine, enjoy your tiers. I for one will not be promoting the idea that if player A picks a wizard, and player B picks a fighter, that player A can say "hey, you might want to go up a tier or two, or you're probably not going to have much fun."
For what it's worth... the bold part of the italicized statement pretty much proves a limited understanding of the overall class power. I can guarantee you nobody who supports tiering (and the subsequent balancing of said tiers so the damn things are no longer true) wouldn't advocate fireballs as a wizard strategy.It's called hyperbolism, Mr. Fishy understands it is a means of over simplifing a character to a collection of numbers on a page. Not an accurate measure of the classes.
Or does Majuba pretty much not understand either?
"The extreme problem with a list of cars by top speed is the assumption that such a list can be remotely accurate based solely on top speed, rather than road conditions, traffic, the amount of time spent driving, the amount of gas in the tank, the weather, and the condition of the tires." This doesn't mean that it's a good idea to bring an F-1 racer to a street race, even if it is just a race between friends.
*chuckle*
Or more accurately:"The extreme problem with a list of how comfortable a car will be to drive today is the assumption that such a list can be remotely accurate based solely on top speed, rather than road conditions, traffic, the amount of time spent driving, the amount of gas in the tank, the weather, and the condition of the tires. Not to mention if I even *drive* at all."
Of course not every game is the same. But if player A picks a wizard, and player B picks a fighter, it's going to be very difficult to give player B a game-mechanical challenge that player A isn't better at handling more or less by default. That leads to friction. It takes a lot of work for the GM...
To this I simply say, "BS". As for "it takes a lot of work", you better darn believe it - but it's not lop-sided as to whom is skewing the challenges.
In *my* experience, of years of low and high level play using core rules, it's the Fighters who dominate and the wizards who I need to work at to provide good challenges for. I don't then say "Fighters are Tier 1, Wizards and Druids Tier 4", because I don't claim that experience to be universal.
It might help to be clear that, with Pathfinder, I don't believe that I need to change the classes or manipulate my encounters to provide a reasonable challenge to a mixed party of adventurers. I think that each class has strengths and weaknesses. Some classes have a large number of diverse options at the cost of preparedness. Some have a small number of options that are valuable in a wider variety of situations. Some classes are somewhere in-between.
Or it creates feedback for creators on what classes should be upgraded with feats etc in the future. Or it creates meaningful talk for those who want to have fun without dragging the rest of the party down. Or it tells people which classes are more of a challenge to play.
I really don't think an arbitrary tier system does this at all. I also don't see a single class in the book that "drags the party down". Maybe we bought different books. Mr.Fishy explains it best...
Feed back could be giving in a more productive way. A new feat suggestion thread or a alternate class feature thread would be more constuctive that another "Monks and Barbarians suck, and if your not fireballing your enemies your a loser" thread.
Exactly. If you think that a class is missing something you were hoping for, I do suggest bringing it up. I probably won't agree with you, but who the hell am I? :D
But do you like cheesecake?
love,
malkav
You bet your ass I do.
Mr. Fishy ask that the problem be turned around. Wizards have a lot of power to burn, key word burn. If a spell fails or doesn't work its gone. Take a wizard and ask him to block for the cleric or flank for the rogue and he will refuse or burn resourses to do what the fighter does by showing up. The wizard and cleric have a limit to their spells non casters can energizer bunny as long as they have HP. No resting to regain spells or running out of spells. Wizards are powerful but the other classes can and do carry the game just as far just differently.
The fighter climbs the wizard flys.
Same out come different path.
Thats why Mr. Fishy dislikes tiers as it is a form of elitism. If you're so much better then Mr. Fishy will wait he until you're done.
Heal your self and don't come to me to help your tier one butt with that balor, the Monk and Mr. Fishy are playing cards.
(GO FISH)
Mr. Fishy believes that the teir system unable to account for canny players or bad ones. Just becuase you the party's wizard that Doesn't make you the strongest character.
Mr. Fishy accepts pie.
Mr.Fishy is wise, has horrible grammar, and is hilarious. Would it offend Mr.Fishy if, when I read his posts, assume he is speaking with a heavy Spanish accent? Perhaps insinuating that Mr.Fishy might be from South America, swimming the treacherous Amazon River?
In *my* experience, of years of low and high level play using core rules, it's the Fighters who dominate and the wizards who I need to work at to provide good challenges for. I don't then say "Fighters are Tier 1, Wizards and Druids Tier 4", because I don't claim that experience to be universal.Your wizards are not being played to their full potential, while your fighters are. That the street racers are beating the F-1 does not mean that the street racers are faster, even if your personal experience sees them winning a lot of races.
The only time my spellcasters badly outstripped the warriors in my games was when I allowed that awful Tome of Magic. Evasculate can go f*%# itself.
You mean spell compendium lol, the Tome of Magic was all about variant casting classes.
Yeah, that son of a b*t@# right there. I don't think there was a save for it.
Avasculate.EvasculateEviscerate
Hehe
|
I haven't read through this thread - but the OP's statement sums it up. Not even sure who the hell cares about ranking classes - its like a million kids suddenly forgot that the game is collaborative and imaginative, not competitive.
But anyhow - thanks for sharing your opinion. Its like... instead of being somebody's wing man and having fun on the town with the ladies.... some would rather just stay home and analyze their own relative sizes... for what purpose, I don't know.
After i read this thread, if I'm mistaken, I'll apologize... but based on the OP's comment, I say +1. Its not the tier of the PC that matters is the magic you make with it :p
I haven't read through this thread - but the OP's statement sums it up. Not even sure who the hell cares about ranking classes - its like a million kids suddenly forgot that the game is collaborative and imaginative, not competitive.
But anyhow - thanks for sharing your opinion. Its like... instead of being somebody's wing man and having fun on the town with the ladies.... some would rather just stay home and analyze their own relative sizes... for what purpose, I don't know.
After i read this thread, if I'm mistaken, I'll apologize... but based on the OP's comment, I say +1. Its not the tier of the PC that matters is the magic you make with it :p
I would compare it more to a bunch of buddies going out to fish for Swordfish or some other big adventurous target.
And then comparing those relative sizes.
Tier one wins out... Tier 6 didn't catch anything at all.
Except that I believe all the fish are roughly the same size and difficulty to land, they just have different strengths and respond to different lures and tricks.
"The extreme problem with a list of cars by top speed is the assumption that such a list can be remotely accurate based solely on top speed, rather than road conditions, traffic, the amount of time spent driving, the amount of gas in the tank, the weather, and the condition of the tires." This doesn't mean that it's a good idea to bring an F-1 racer to a street race, even if it is just a race between friends.*chuckle*
Or more accurately:
"The extreme problem with a list of how comfortable a car will be to drive today is the assumption that such a list can be remotely accurate based solely on top speed, rather than road conditions, traffic, the amount of time spent driving, the amount of gas in the tank, the weather, and the condition of the tires. Not to mention if I even *drive* at all."Of course not every game is the same. But if player A picks a wizard, and player B picks a fighter, it's going to be very difficult to give player B a game-mechanical challenge that player A isn't better at handling more or less by default. That leads to friction. It takes a lot of work for the GM...To this I simply say, "BS". As for "it takes a lot of work", you better darn believe it - but it's not lop-sided as to whom is skewing the challenges.
In *my* experience, of years of low and high level play using core rules, it's the Fighters who dominate and the wizards who I need to work at to provide good challenges for. I don't then say "Fighters are Tier 1, Wizards and Druids Tier 4", because I don't claim that experience to be universal.
I would need to sit at your table to see this. How is a wizard(casters in general) not owning things at high level?
Mr. Fishy ask that the problem be turned around. Wizards have a lot of power to burn, key word burn. If a spell fails or doesn't work its gone. Take a wizard and ask him to block for the cleric or flank for the rogue and he will refuse or burn resourses to do what the fighter does by showing up. The wizard and cleric have a limit to their spells non casters can energizer bunny as long as they have HP. No resting to regain spells or running out of spells. Wizards are powerful but the other classes can and do carry the game just as far just differently.
The fighter climbs the wizard flys.
Same out come different path.
Thats why Mr. Fishy dislikes tiers as it is a form of elitism. If you're so much better then Mr. Fishy will wait he until you're done.
Heal your self and don't come to me to help your tier one butt with that balor, the Monk and Mr. Fishy are playing cards.(GO FISH)
Mr. Fishy believes that the teir system unable to account for canny players or bad ones. Just becuase you the party's wizard that Doesn't make you the strongest character.
Of course the tier system can't account for bad players, but as a general statement it works. He could have done a tier for every scenario, but I think that is too much to ask.
I haven't read through this thread - but the OP's statement sums it up. Not even sure who the hell cares about ranking classes - its like a million kids suddenly forgot that the game is collaborative and imaginative, not competitive.
But anyhow - thanks for sharing your opinion. Its like... instead of being somebody's wing man and having fun on the town with the ladies.... some would rather just stay home and analyze their own relative sizes... for what purpose, I don't know.
After i read this thread, if I'm mistaken, I'll apologize... but based on the OP's comment, I say +1. Its not the tier of the PC that matters is the magic you make with it :p
Incorrect, its the tier + player ability(or lack of), but the tier thingy assumes all players are equal and competent. If you have a skilled player with a fighter, and a new guy casting spells then the veteran player will still, most likely, be more valuable.
I would need to sit at your table to see this. How is a wizard(casters in general) not owning things at high level?
The exact same way you trip up Superman. You have him tripping over kryptonite and misdirect his powers. So give the Wizard a red herring to go after, slap in few magic dead zone traps, some anti-magic monsters and creature with high SR.
So if you have a Wizard that is tackling what the player perceives that the big problem then the wizard isn't owning things at high level.
Tiers aren't for players to decide what class they want to play. It's for the DM to decide how to handle the class present in his game. By that I mean it's much easier to challenge a group of martial characters than it is to challenge a group of casters. Both can be done just the top tier take more work.
If I'm winging something off the cuff won't allow caster over a certain level. They are just too hard to handle on the fly.
I would need to sit at your table to see this. How is a wizard(casters in general) not owning things at high level?
The exact same way you trip up Superman. You have him tripping over kryptonite and misdirect his powers. So give the Wizard a red herring to go after, slap in few magic dead zone traps, some anti-magic monsters and creature with high SR.
So if you have a Wizard that is tackling what the player perceives that the big problem then the wizard isn't owning things at high level.
Tiers aren't for players to decide what class they want to play. It's for the DM to decide how to handle the class present in his game. By that I mean it's much easier to challenge a group of martial characters than it is to challenge a group of casters. Both can be done just the top tier take more work.
If I'm winging something off the cuff won't allow caster over a certain level. They are just too hard to handle on the fly.
Going out of your way to slow them down, and saying they are naturally handicapped are two different things. The other posted tried to make it sound like casters just can't make the cut, not even at high levels.
Mr.Fishy is wise, has horrible grammar, and is hilarious. Would it offend Mr.Fishy if, when I read his posts, assume he is speaking with a heavy Spanish accent? Perhaps insinuating that Mr.Fishy might be from South America, swimming the treacherous Amazon River?
Mr. Fishy is indeed wise...and he accepts pie.
Have we learned nothing from The Fellowship of the Rings, when in combat with a Balor the "tier one" wizard slams down his staff and yells "YOU SHALL NOT PASS" then dies horribly while the rest of the party runs like hell. Mr. Fish's mama didn't raise no fool. Then Mr. Fishy laughs at the wizard for believing that "we'll hold off the goblins" crap.
Mr. Fishy is tier fishy.
In the interest of fairness the Balor is a tier one monster.
|
|
You know what's REALLY stupid?
When someone offers in-game experiences, and someone else didmisses the experience by saying things like:
"Your wizards are not being played correctly"
"The GM must be going easy on you"
"You were inefficient and just didn't know it"
To this I say "I have a 1st Ed module dungeon crawl that anyone is welcome to see if they can defeat 'optimally'".
Are you seriously suggesting that high level wizards don't own encounters without ease?
Oh look, some giants. Fighter gets to die against them, while wizard gets to Time Stop loops, Wishes, Wail of the Banshee, Teleport away because he's not ready for it, casts some illusions to fool them, and etc. In order to stop wizards, the DM has to basically do things to specifically stop them, and if it is not done well, it punishes the wizard for FOLLOWING THE RULES. I don't even know all the really good tricks. I just know that a wizard played properly doesn't need to be a munkin. It's built into the class. And punishing that player is wrong. There needs to be a better balance in design so DMs don't have to think of ridiculous ways to handle these problems.
1st ed is almost like s+%$. There is nothing that Gygax brought that was great other than the idea of role-playing. Everything is a total death trap of retardedness that forced players to optimize to stay alive. Those early adventures were great for their times, but they were designed expressly to kill players in a trial and error fashion almost. "You do something wrong, so you DIE!"
I am yet one more voice that falls on the side of breaking the classes down into a stack of numbers and seeing "whose is longest" is a bad thing for my style of play.
I'll go one further and say that it was this style of thinking that led to 4E. Good for some, but I don't like playing Warhammer, let alone Warhammer Lite.
A character works because of how it's played. A player has fun based on his interaction with the people he plays with, not on how optimized his character is. Unless I've been having "bad-wrong fun" for 25 years.
I also take issue with the fact that most optimizations and tiered character lists assume that the GM is unable to moderate, challenge and entertain their players.
Removed "is Really Freaking Stupid" from the thread title to curtail the antagonism that was causing anti-this-thread threads to start.
A character works because of how it's played, and how its built.
Now it's more accurate.
With that out of the way, when did anyone say a DM was incapable? The Tier thingy is nothing more than letting DM's know how the classes stand assuming all things are equal. Being incapable of DMing, and not having a full grasp of relative class power are two different things.
As for optimization guides they are mostly to help the community as a whole. Not everyone has time to read through the books to find the best option, but that does not mean they don't want the best option.
They also allow people to know how much power a certain option(s) has. If your group operates at a certain power level you may find its better not to combine options A, B, and C in order to not have your group mad at you.
I would need to sit at your table to see this. How is a wizard(casters in general) not owning things at high level?"The extreme problem with a list of cars by top speed is the assumption that such a list can be remotely accurate based solely on top speed, rather than road conditions, traffic, the amount of time spent driving, the amount of gas in the tank, the weather, and the condition of the tires." This doesn't mean that it's a good idea to bring an F-1 racer to a street race, even if it is just a race between friends.*chuckle*
Or more accurately:
"The extreme problem with a list of how comfortable a car will be to drive today is the assumption that such a list can be remotely accurate based solely on top speed, rather than road conditions, traffic, the amount of time spent driving, the amount of gas in the tank, the weather, and the condition of the tires. Not to mention if I even *drive* at all."Of course not every game is the same. But if player A picks a wizard, and player B picks a fighter, it's going to be very difficult to give player B a game-mechanical challenge that player A isn't better at handling more or less by default. That leads to friction. It takes a lot of work for the GM...To this I simply say, "BS". As for "it takes a lot of work", you better darn believe it - but it's not lop-sided as to whom is skewing the challenges.
In *my* experience, of years of low and high level play using core rules, it's the Fighters who dominate and the wizards who I need to work at to provide good challenges for. I don't then say "Fighters are Tier 1, Wizards and Druids Tier 4", because I don't claim that experience to be universal.
Talking as a player in Loopy's games, I can say that the casters often sit there twiddling their thumbs against SRs they can't beat, ACs they can't hit, monsters who pass DC30 saves, and things immune to much of the caster's arsenal, while the Fighters sit and pound out the damage. Sure at low levels a glitterdust or 2 is great, but when the fighters are doing there job and taking out an enemy a round, the casters fall behind. Add in the fact that they are always the first to go down and run out of useful spells 1/2 way through the day, they just don't have the staying power of a good fighter.
As far as out of combat, casters don't get nearly enough skill points to be as useful as everyone says. I have a human Ranger with 16 int and still don't get enough skill points.
As for the Evasculate or whatever its called, I'm so glad that hit. I would have hated to be there annother 2 hrs to do the 5000 damage that did. The psion boiled down to summoning monsters to aid annother.