You mean that thing that is 200' large, 200' long and 40' high at level 20?
I am used to larger churches.
And it last 1 day level unless you use a permanency spell.I would prefer spending my days chasing wenches.
BTW: I suspect that chasing "winches" will not be that fun. ;)
I don't mean this with any disrespect, but if you do not feel that creating a new plane from nothing is an awesome accomplishment in of itself then I do not believe we could have any common ground to reach an agreement. Creating the plane has an intrinsic value well beyond any mundane act.
As for which activities have a larger impact on the world, the army/guild would for sure have more of an impact than the demiplane but at that point the cleric/wizard is moving beyond the interests of the material world.
|
Never underestimate the importance of training an army (ask Corwin of Amber!), running a guild, or gathering fame. Any of those can be just as interesting or even more so than casting a Create Demiplane spell.While building an army, running a guild or being famous can all be useful, they're not very useful as a measurement tool of class ability. A level 1 aristocrat can raise an army, run a guild, or become famous, but only a 13th level caster can create a demiplane.
That's the point. It's not what they can do, it's what they can't. The fighter, rogue and bard have all accomplished amazing things that a person in real life would be incredibly proud of, but they failed to cross out of the mundane.
Who would be more influential/respected/powerful in the real world: Justin Timberlake or a man who created a new plane of existence?
I don't know...Justin Timberlake is bringing sexy back...
While building an army, running a guild or being famous can all be useful, they're not very useful as a measurement tool of class ability. A level 1 aristocrat can raise an army, run a guild, or become famous, but only a 13th level caster can create a demiplane.
That's the point. It's not what they can do, it's what they can't. The fighter, rogue and bard have all accomplished amazing things that a person in real life would be incredibly proud of, but they failed to cross out of the mundane.
Who would be more influential/respected/powerful in the real world: Justin Timberlake or a man who created a new plane of existence?
Unless you did something particularly notable and noticable with the new plane, Justin Timberlake. Just becuase raising an army doesn't involve magic, I don't think anyone who has ever tried to it would call it particularly "mundane" either. A famous and successful general is only more likely to get noticed by the populace at large, but they are just as likely to view him as being just as potent on the wizard, since people in very large numbers are just as hard or harder to control as the magical forces the wizard is trying to corral.
I do agree that as a useful measure of the mechanical class, such "mundane" things don't work mostly because they aren't something quantified in a rulebook somewhere, but to discount them completely is equally dangerous and foolish, as they are important in defining what the tier system can't measure and require adjustment when applied to a real situation.
Just as a note, in our playtests Fighters end up with some of the highest strait (progression style) damage output of any class when factored across the board. Utility wizards and other spellcasters are more deadly sometimes but when it comes down the strait (raw number) damage Fighters get SCARY. When you use the APG (furious focus and the two-handed fighter alternate class in particular) the Fighter gets strait TERRIFYING. We actually don't use the two-handed build in playtests because it skews our numbers so bad.
(+# Great Axe, vital strike, furious focus, power attack + 2 handed fighter alt class)
And if we are looking at the APG, you need to look at the fighter's other alternate class. We always joke (with tears in our eyes...) that "fighter does it better". Wanna do a 2 weapon character? Fighter does it better than rangers or rogues. (As a note, two weapons + sunder stuff = multi-chance progressing damage values vs. the static hardness of a weapon. It screws over other melee characters.) Bow? Great, screw ranger. It's fighter's turn to shine. Want some AC? Sweet. Shield time until I can get to Stalwart Defender. Why go paladin or cavalier for that riding character you have? Just go with the fighter alternate and lance it up! You've got feats to blow too and you're armor mastery will ensure you won't get any of those pesky ride checks.
Tier 1 or 2. (I'd say 2 because utility spell casters are more nasty)
While building an army, running a guild or being famous can all be useful, they're not very useful as a measurement tool of class ability. A level 1 aristocrat can raise an army, run a guild, or become famous, but only a 13th level caster can create a demiplane.
That's the point. It's not what they can do, it's what they can't. The fighter, rogue and bard have all accomplished amazing things that a person in real life would be incredibly proud of, but they failed to cross out of the mundane.
Who would be more influential/respected/powerful in the real world: Justin Timberlake or a man who created a new plane of existence?
Unless you did something particularly notable and noticable with the new plane, Justin Timberlake. Just becuase raising an army doesn't involve magic, I don't think anyone who has ever tried to it would call it particularly "mundane" either. A famous and successful general is only more likely to get noticed by the populace at large, but they are just as likely to view him as being just as potent on the wizard, since people in very large numbers are just as hard or harder to control as the magical forces the wizard is trying to corral.
I do agree that as a useful measure of the mechanical class, such "mundane" things don't work mostly because they aren't something quantified in a rulebook somewhere, but to discount them completely is equally dangerous and foolish, as they are important in defining what the tier system can't measure and require adjustment when applied to a real situation.
Granted. I do tend to take things a bit too far. Those material accomplishments should not be dismissed but I do think they begin to look hollow compared to the caster's accomplishments.
As for the respect thing, I meant respected and powerful by those who matter. That is, kings, queens, demi-gods, demons, angels, etc. All he has to do is plane shift the king to his realm to demonstrate his power. The army's general is more respected by the populace, but I don't think the wizard would even want to be. The general is exposed and famous, the wizard does not want to be seen that much.
Tiers measure how many answers to a question you have within your class abilities.
That last part is usually just implied, but an important factor to remember. Not all answers have to come from raw class abilities. Ones that come from other sources simply take more time and effort to develop.
RD, did you use scroll prices to get the 52k figure? I've seen other, higher numbers used...also, the cost of the Blessed Books or spellbooks to put them in...and the latter will have scribing costs. Blessed Books can fill up fast, too.
And where's your backup copies?
===Aelryinth
I calculated the costs of paying a wizard for the privilege of looking at his spellbook as well as the costs of crafting the blessed book.
Scrolls costs and scribing costs didn't come into it at all.
Backup blessed books full of your spells will costs 6,250gp each (and you would need 2 to backup up ALL the core spells), but it's well worth the cost.
Keep in mind that I'm only discussing costs. Scribing every core spell in the game does take a fair amount of time, though no more than crafting a powerful magical item would.
Access to spells should be as readily available in most campaigns as a fighter's magical weapons. Anyone saying otherwise is holding a grudge against wizards.
As for which activities have a larger impact on the world, the army/guild would for sure have more of an impact than the demiplane but at that point the cleric/wizard is moving beyond the interests of the material world.
If the ability to move beyond the interests of the material world is the criteria a vow of poverty monk is top tier, which doesn't sound quite right.
|
RD, did you use scroll prices to get the 52k figure? I've seen other, higher numbers used...also, the cost of the Blessed Books or spellbooks to put them in...and the latter will have scribing costs. Blessed Books can fill up fast, too.
And where's your backup copies?
===Aelryinth
I calculated the costs of paying a wizard for the privilege of looking at his spellbook as well as the costs of crafting the blessed book.
Scrolls costs and scribing costs didn't come into it at all.
Backup blessed books full of your spells will costs 6,250gp each (and you would need 2 to backup up ALL the core spells), but it's well worth the cost.
So you calculated the conditions most favorable to your argument assuming a passive DM who will allow you open access magic mart from high level wizards who will shares spells with you no questions asked.
Now to post on topic.
My assumptions: Magic is more flexible in solving all manner of challenges (combat, skill, social, etc.) than non-magical means. Magic is a finite resource but that does not automatically discount it; for example, a fly spell negates the climb/stealth/swim skills even though it is a limited resource. That said, if one does not have magic, it is best to have skills.
***If you do not agree with my assumptions you might wish to stop reading here.
Tier 1: Most access to versatile magic. The ability to swap out spell lists to meet a given challenge and/or to diversify your portfolio.
Tier 2: Access to versatile magic but less flexible in adapting to different situations.
Tier 3: Access to magic but even less flexible than Tier 2.
Tier 4: No or limited access to magic but compensated by a high number of skills points or unique class features.
Tier 5: Uni-taskers. Classes built to do one thing well and generally only one thing.
T1: Cleric, Druid, Witch, Wizard
T2: Oracle, Sorcerer, Summoner
T3: Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus
T4: Paladin (Anti), Ranger, Rogue
T5: Barbarian, Cavalier, Fighter, Monk
So you calculated the conditions most favorable to your argument assuming a passive DM who will allow you open access magic mart from high level wizards who will shares spells with you no questions asked.
I posted the ideal numbers, yes. To do anything else would be conjecture and a waste of everyone's time.
In reality, I would fully expect a GM to raise the price over the listed cost for powerful spells (say, anything 7th, 8th, or 9th-level for example) and to even require minor quests for exceptionally powerful spells (like wish). In the end, this will vary from GM to GM, which is precisely why I DIDN'T bring it up.
I am merely using the minimums as it's the only basis within the RAW that can be used in a discussion such as this. Otherwise, nobody will ever be on the same page.
It's plenty hard enough educating the masses to use viewing costs and scribing costs over scroll costs (which shouldn't come into play unless you are buying scrolls) in regards to learning new spells. That is the way it was always intended, which is why the UM sample spellbooks are prices the way they are.
Never underestimate the importance of training an army (ask Corwin of Amber!), running a guild, or gathering fame. Any of those can be just as interesting or even more so than casting a Create Demiplane spell.
Probably, using a literary fighter who creates essentially planes and molds realities in his image and such isn't the best argument in favor of the value of training an army. :P
Tiers measure how many answers to a question you have.
A Fighter has "Stab it" and "Intimidate it" in varying numbers.
A Wizard has more answers than I care to type right now.
If you have "Perfect Knowledge/Limitless Time" to set up then the guy with UMD is likely as good as the wizard, probably better because he has more then just spells.
And if you don't have 'Perfect Knowledge/Limitless Time" then it doesn't mater what a Wizard can do, only what they are going to do. And what they are going to do isn't that different then what a Sorcerer, Rogue or Bard will do.
|
If you have "Perfect Knowledge/Limitless Time" to set up then the guy with UMD is likely as good as the wizard, probably better because he has more then just spells.
Irrelevant to the tiers. If something can be had by EVERY class (feats, magic items, roleplay, NPC contacts) then it does not change the final total of 'what you can do'.
And if you don't have 'Perfect Knowledge/Limitless Time" then it doesn't mater what a Wizard can do, only what they are going to do. And what they are going to do isn't that different then what a Sorcerer, Rogue or Bard will do.
Tiers don't measure what you do, they measure what you can do. They are used to make sure you don't end up with a party that has one guy able to do one thing, and one guy able to do a thousand things. Because in actual play, the guy with only one thing to do is eventually going to notice the difference.
Irrelevant to the tiers. If something can be had by EVERY class (feats, magic items, roleplay, NPC contacts) then it does not change the final total of 'what you can do'.
If you have "Perfect Knowledge/Limitless Time" to set up then the guy with UMD is likely as good as the wizard, probably better because he has more then just spells.
I think it is relevant to the tiers, and I think it does, in an actual game, change the total of "what you can do".
Tiers don't measure what you do, they measure what you can do. They are used to make sure you don't end up with a party that has one guy able to do one thing, and one guy able to do a thousand things. Because in actual play, the guy with only one thing to do is eventually going to notice the difference.
And if you don't have 'Perfect Knowledge/Limitless Time" then it doesn't mater what a Wizard can do, only what they are going to do. And what they are going to do isn't that different then what a Sorcerer, Rogue or Bard will do.
But the tiers don't actually measure what you can do, they measure how much you can prepare with a full loadout of gear.
They don't take into account defenses, they don't take into account anything social, they don't take into account the ability to bounce back from debilitating attacks and they don't take into account limited use vs at will.
It as if someone set the tiers up solely to value wizards above all others. Which is fine, but don't promote this as something useful.
I just want to point out that those who say a fighter can raise an army, or a rogue a guild, which puts them on par with the wizard, are missing the point. The wizard can also raise an army, just as good as a fighter can actually. Heck, because there are no class specific rules for raising armies a commoner or expert would be just as good at raising an army as a fighter or wizard. Similarly, a wizard can run a guild as effectively as a thief, or any other form of character, while also crafting his own demiplane.
What tiers are about is how many solutions a character has to as many potential problems as possible. For example, think of crossing the grand canyon. The fighter has climb ranks hopefully, so they can climb all the way down, walk across, and climb all the way up, while a rogue could do the same or maybe use UMD to get a helpful spell. A druid can wildshape into something that can climb down, or fly across, or use spells to move on the wind, and a wizard can teleport, use overland flight, use spider climb and feather fall, summon an outsider who can fly to carry him across, or a flying mount. The difference is that the wizard and druid have choices, the fighter, and even rogue, have 1 choice(the choice to walk around the chasm applies to every single class equally so is ignored).
That is what the tiers are about. Yes a fighter is going to do more damage in a fight than a wizard, and yes in an ambush when the wizard has the wrong spells his choices will be more limited. But the fighter will be limited to damage or 1-2 maneuvers every day all day, as well as possibly 3-4 skills. He just flat out does not have as many options for things outside of combat, where a wizard, or especially cleric or druid with their automatic access to full spell lists, have an abundance of options for every situation other than combat, and have combat options as well.
This does NOT mean that fighters are worthless, or that wizards are the perfect class that everyone should play. It just means that wizards are more likely to have a tool to bypass a challenge, whether that challenge is physical, social, environmental, or political, than a lower tier class like a fighter. I hope nobody argues that a wizard, cleric, or druid has more options for every kind of challenging situation than a fighter or rogue does.
|
|
You mean that thing that is 200' large, 200' long and 40' high at level 20?
I am used to larger churches.
And it last 1 day level unless you use a permanency spell.I would prefer spending my days chasing wenches.
BTW: I suspect that chasing "winches" will not be that fun. ;)
I don't mean this with any disrespect, but if you do not feel that creating a new plane from nothing is an awesome accomplishment in of itself then I do not believe we could have any common ground to reach an agreement. Creating the plane has an intrinsic value well beyond any mundane act.
As for which activities have a larger impact on the world, the army/guild would for sure have more of an impact than the demiplane but at that point the cleric/wizard is moving beyond the interests of the material world.
I would be much more interested in crating a permanent magnificent mansion.
It is better in several ways to the demiplane a caster can create with a level 7 spell.Probably my problem with the spell is it that it don't do what it advertise in its name.
It don't create a demiplane. It create a small, temporary, refuge.
"Create demiplane" make me think about the tropical island in "Isle of the Ape" or the small world in the Legacy of fire AP, not to something that cam be crammed in the smallest of my city cathedrals leaving room to spare.
Call it "Create planar refuge" and it can amaze me, call it "Crate demiplane" it sound like failed advertising.
Who would be more influential/respected/powerful in the real world: Justin Timberlake or a man who created a new plane of existence?
Who is more influential/respecte/powerful in the real world:
Justin Timberlake or the 2010 Nobel Prizes for Physics?Sorry, but is Justin. 99,99% of the Earth population don't know and don't care about "groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene".
Sure in 20 or more years those research, after having been expanded and refined by thousand of people, will probably produce new materials and new uses for them, but even then it is more probable that people will still remembering more Justing Timberlake than Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov.
|
For everyone putting anti-paladin in the lowest tier, I suggest you re-read fiendish boon. At 11th level, an anti-paladin can use fiendish boon to gain an advanced succubus as a permanent companion. That ability alone has extremely wide-ranging campaign ramifications that allow the anti-paladin to overcome numerous non-combat challenges.
In an evil campaign an Anti-Paladin would be a strong tier 3 maybe even tier 2. In a typical campaign or adventure path an Anti-Paladin is going to have a hard time contributing.
In an evil campaign an Anti-Paladin would be a strong tier 3 maybe even tier 2. In a typical campaign or adventure path an Anti-Paladin is going to have a hard time contributing.
Eh. Even in a decently run evil campaign, you're probably not spending all that much time specifically fighting good-aligned opponents. It's not like you're the guys in black hats out to kill the guys in the white hats; you're the guys in the black hats out to accomplish whatever your goals are through any means necessary. (Which probably involves killing neutral and evil stuff as much as good.)
I really want to like the anti-paladin but "Like a paladin, but evil and destructive" does not a powerful class without further tweaking make.
In an evil campaign an Anti-Paladin would be a strong tier 3 maybe even tier 2. In a typical campaign or adventure path an Anti-Paladin is going to have a hard time contributing.
Eh. Even in a decently run evil campaign, you're probably not spending all that much time specifically fighting good-aligned opponents. It's not like you're the guys in black hats out to kill the guys in the white hats; you're the guys in the black hats out to accomplish whatever your goals are through any means necessary. (Which probably involves killing neutral and evil stuff as much as good.)
I really want to like the anti-paladin but "Like a paladin, but evil and destructive" does not a powerful class without further tweaking make.
Antipaladins get some good spells, like animate dead and greater invisibility.
|
|
Antipaladins get some good spells, like animate dead and greater invisibility.Eh. Even in a decently run evil campaign, you're probably not spending all that much time specifically fighting good-aligned opponents.In an evil campaign an Anti-Paladin would be a strong tier 3 maybe even tier 2. In a typical campaign or adventure path an Anti-Paladin is going to have a hard time contributing.
I will admit that detect good != detect evil but other than that i dont think the anti-paladin takes that much of a hit non-combat wise.