APL and tiers

[n o 417]

Why isn't class tier accounted for in the APL ?
For instance, a party with a few full casters is much more powerful than a party without rhem

[Kalridian]

Not necessarily. Full casters are more powerful if they can nova every fight and the get to rest, but if you force them to stretch their resources, the whack-stuff-with-a-pointy-stick-guy suddenly becomes the hero of the day.

[Ron Lundeen]

Because "tiers" of classes aren't a formal part of the game, and actual "tiering" is highly subjective for many classes. Because the classes are intended to be balanced against each other for typical adventuring (whether you agree or not), we're not likely to get a formal adjustment of the APL based on tiers.

[blackbloodtroll]

As far as Pathfinder rules are concerned, class tiers do not exist.

You are looking for rules, that don't exist, for things, that don't exist.

[Atarlost]

blackbloodtroll wrote:

As far as Pathfinder rules are concerned, class tiers do not exist.

You are looking for rules, that don't exist, for things, that don't exist.

CR is a guideline anyways and classes certainly aren't equal so it's a reasonable question.

The CR of a group of PC classed NPCs the size of a typical party with PC wealth is their APL+2. (a single NPC with NPC wealth and a PC class has a CR equal to his level. Add 1 for using a party sized group and add 1 more for using the PC wealth table)

If you have some particularly weak builds you can calculate the party's CR as though they were NPC classes and subtract 2 to get an effective APL. If the party is, on average, highly optimized or has a high point buy you may want to treat their APL as one higher. Possibly 2 higher if both are true. Using the group CR calculations also gives better numbers for groups with sizes far from 4 since the table for party size and APL doesn't go as high or as low as the table for the CR of groups of monsters. It's probably best to include pets and certainly cohorts in your calculations.

You should never use monsters with CR higher than the party's real APL+4 without auditing them to make sure everyone in the party who needs to make attack rolls can hit them and that neither fighting them effectively nor cleaning up after the fight require any abilities the party lacks. If you want a challenging fight for a large and/or high point buy and/or munchkin party you should use multiple opponents rather than single opponents that can be unassailable.

If you lack full casters you may need to audit every monster that possesses spells or SLAs or flight or supernatural abilities or that can inflict any conditions. The CR guidelines assume a party will have certain abilities at certain levels and without both arcane and divine full casters you may not. I think divine full casters are more critical. Some method of flight is critical at some point, but there are alternate sources for that. See invisibility can be critical, but that's on some hybrid lists at a reasonable level and a couple other classes have workarounds. On the divine side lesser restoration and restoration can be critical, as can other condition removers, and no less than full caster gets restoration on schedule.

The CR system still works without casting, there are just monsters you can't use at all unless you provide items to make up for spells that aren't available.

None of this has anything to do with the tier system. Tiers aren't about power, they're about versatility. Rogues are higher tier than fighters, but a less than optimized rogue should be counted as an NPC class while a less than optimized fighter, as long as he's not terrible, would be counted normally. Wizards are at the top of the tier system, but a wizard that habitually prepares poor or noncombat spells can have less power than a well built warrior even while he blows your skill challenges away.

[drbuzzard]

n o 417 wrote:

Why isn't class tier accounted for in the APL ?

For instance, a party with a few full casters is much more powerful than a party without rhem

Yes, but a party with all full casters and no front line martials can be in trouble.

There's also the issue of comparable build strength. I know people who can't build particularly powerful characters, but make casters. I make some pretty damned tough martials. A table is usually better off with me present.

You can't make generalized assumptions about party strength really and expect it to be very accurate. A GM has to gauge based on knowing what his party can do.

If it happens to be PFS, you let the players decide to play up or down. Advising them can be helpful if they ask, but do it on the basis of the apparent class balance of the party (and knowledge of individual players if you know them), not on scenario knowledge.

[Fayteri]

Atarlost wrote:

CR is a guideline anyways and classes certainly aren't equal so it's a reasonable question.

The CR of a group of PC classed NPCs the size of a typical party with PC wealth is their APL+2. (a single NPC with NPC wealth and a PC class has a CR equal to his level. Add 1 for using a party sized group and add 1 more for using the PC wealth table)

An NPC with a PC class and NPC wealth has a CR equal to his level-1.

You don't add 1 CR if you quadruple the count. You add 4.

Thus a 4-person party of 10th level NPCs with PC classes and PC wealth would be EL 14.

Not to be argumentative, I just don't want you accidentally murdering your party with overpowered NPCs.

[gustavo iglesias]

n o 417 wrote:

Why isn't class tier accounted for in the APL ?

For instance, a party with a few full casters is much more powerful than a party without them

Because it's hard to gauge and balance the real value of a class without knowing the composition of the party. And you can't have a chart with every single possible combination.

For example, a Wizard is powerful. A party of 4 wizard is much less powerful than a balanced party of Wizard, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, even if individually the members are stronger.

Also, the balance of power isn't constant, it vary with level. At 18th, a wizard is worth much more than a barbarian. At 1st level, it's the other way around.

[Atarlost]

Fayteri wrote:

Atarlost wrote:

CR is a guideline anyways and classes certainly aren't equal so it's a reasonable question.

The CR of a group of PC classed NPCs the size of a typical party with PC wealth is their APL+2. (a single NPC with NPC wealth and a PC class has a CR equal to his level. Add 1 for using a party sized group and add 1 more for using the PC wealth table)

An NPC with a PC class and NPC wealth has a CR equal to his level-1.

You don't add 1 CR if you quadruple the count. You add 4.

Thus a 4-person party of 10th level NPCs with PC classes and PC wealth would be EL 14.

Not to be argumentative, I just don't want you accidentally murdering your party with overpowered NPCs.

I believe there's an updated table in the gamemastery guide, though I can't find the section on encounter building in the OGL copies and my brother-in-law has our shared hard copy. I may be remembering it wrong, but I do know it had the "Don't use a monster more than APL+4 " bit that isn't in the gamemaster section of the CRB. Quite a lot of the gamemastery guide isn't OGL, though I'm not sure why the encounter stuff isn't when it's an expansion on content in the CRB that is OGL.