Shea Kauffman 806's page

@Kolokotroni

I'd define the tiers as:
T1 - Capable of doing almost everything better than almost everyone for the majority of levels. (Wizard, Druid, Summoner)

T2 - Capable of doing everything, though not necessarily as well as a specialist. Or capable of doing most things quite well. (Sorcerer, Psion)

T3 - Capable of doing one thing Exceedingly well. Or Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate. Or capable of doing most things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. (Bard, Ninja)

T4 - Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining. (Barbarian, Samurai)

T5 - Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. (Fighter, Monk)

---

So tiers are about being good at your niche (excepting tier 1), but the flexibility has to come with a trade off. If you are going to be hyper focused, then you should at least "steal the scene". Also, again, with what I'm proposing a fighter could branch out a little, or become a better specialist.

As far as whether this works, the general consensus on this thread seems to be that it wouldn't come close to closing the gap, but it also wouldn't hurt. Which strikes me as a Pareto efficient change, thus a good idea.

@kyrt-ryder
I'm not super excited about solving the problem by giving people more magic items...

@Shea: Kolokotroni's tiers are a nice case in point: opinion varies wildly about what should be in which tier and why.

I'd generally leave it up to the particular group to decide how to tier the classes, of course with some help from the internet.

Personally I really don't believe a wizard can do the solo campaign. I like playing wizards, and I like to believe I'm doing alright, but I don't see myself surviving alone. I've got nowhere near the tanking power of a fighter, nor the damage-dealing potential. That means that if I come up against a nasty monster I can't simply evade, that I can't kill it before it'll kill me. Now this may be because we tend to play in the 1-8th level range, but at that range, a wizard can't do it alone. So if you wanted to fix tiers, pick wisely at what level you start implementing changes.

Yeah, in the 1-8 range a Wizard can't. I don't even think a wizard holds his ow vis-a-vis a fighter until level 3, and doesn't really start becoming noticeably more powerful until 6+. At lower levels Wizards are very limited in the spells they have memorized, and can't teleport away to go rest before teleporting back.

That's the reason I front loaded tier 1 and 2 with an extra feat at first level. (Though, Druids are pretty much always better than fighters, I'm trying to have a quick fix instead of a rules overhaul)

I think fighters are boringly specialized, that's true. Wizards get to involve themselves in almost everything in the game, because higher Int means more skills (= not staying behind in skill-driven parts of the game), and Detect Magic means you get to analyze the random magical phenomena too. It's kind of like being an engineer in Star Trek, vs. being a foot soldier. The amount of plots where you'll have something to do is a lot bigger.

It's like being Scotty vs a Red Shirt. I'd be fine if it was La-Forge vs Warf. But it's not. Fighters beyond 10th level get less and less screen time, and the screen time they have is less and less dramatic. The fighter attacks and attacks, and the Wizard Chromatic Sprays and does far more.

If I had to divvy up classes into tiers, based on how good/fun I think those classes are, I'd use different criteria too.

* Does the class do something very valuable, fill a role which the party really needs? This is okay for most classes, because the many different problems a party faces, you need different "food groups" (arcane problem-solving casters, divine status-repairing casters, martial monster-destroyers etc.). Some classes perform poorly in this aspect though (*cough*monksandrogues*cough*).

Again, it's really screen time. No one wants to play Dr. Crusher, because she's a 5 minute character. She heals, or analyzes, and then the other characters go solve problems. Filling a niche is insufficient unless that niche comes up frequently, or unless when it comes up it's very dramatic.

Wizards and Druids at higher levels are definitively yes on both those counts.

/edit
The idea here is to make every class /at least/ good at what they specialize in.

@kyrt-ryder
A +1 stat and +1 feat compared to a wizard would compensate for the loss of playing a human vs say an elf. That means an extra known spell, which to some extent compensates. I'd definitely put Sorcerers in Tier 2 because being a Charisma based class give the character access to the social realm (a whole other aspect of play) in a way that other classes have trouble keeping up with. In other words, Sorcerers are boosted a little in terms of flexibility because they're granted that by synergy with being a social character.

@Kolokotroni
You think Rogue is that low, or fighter that high? I'm surprised...

Thanks.
I think a group can probably agree to tiers. Determining T1 v T2 or T2 v T3 can be tricky, but T1 v T5 is unlikely to be a problem. However this does bring up one question, is a +5 and +1 feat going to make one class unbalanced vs another because of misranking. For example, many people thing Monk, Fighter, and Gunslinger are T5. If Fighter is actually T4 (which some people also thing), is the boost from being misranked going to make him unbalanced vs a Cavalier?

Classes aren't just strong at different things. A Wizard is good at everything. A high level solo Wizard can go through an entire campaign. He doesn't need the fighter. If there's a lot of combat, he'll end up dealing with it more slowly than the fighter.
Don't get me wrong, situations come up in play where the fighter is invaluable. Time, speed, anti-magic, or unending combat can combine into a Wizard s$+* storm, but those things come up infrequently (unless the DM is after the Wizard) compared to general play. Most of the time at high levels the wizard will outshine the rest of the party in all situations.
Another way to think of this, is there are published modules that require a wizard (or similar spell caster) be in the party, there are no modules that require a fighter.

Have I seen the tier differences come up in actual play. Yes. Absolutely. More obviously in 3.5 (polymorph alone was game breaking at lvl 5) than in PF, but nonetheless also in PF. In my opinion in high level games there is no point trying to play a non-magic using character, or if you do you need to follow a strict op-build.

One complaint about the system I proposed is that it won't increase the versatility. I think that's partly true. A whole other feat branch will help increase the versatility some. You can beat an archer and a shield for example. Though, without a doubt it will primarily just make certain classes better at what they're already good at. I'm actually fine with that. Right now a fighter is at best /as/ good as a Wizard in combat (at high levels). If someone is going to be a specialist they should be significantly better.

So most of the posts seem to revolve around the problem not existing. Which I expected there would be some of.

My experiencing doing a lot of high level gaming is that the tiers are very real. A wizard can not only deal more damage per round, s/he can also do everything else. That being said, if the problem doesn't seem to apply to your games, then fine. I haven't even seen a 20th level straight fighter stated out before, but I have seen 20th level wizards. That to me is indicative of a problem. Maybe it's not in your game, I don't know. I think PF made the classes more equal, but I don't think PF got even close to balancing them. I'd be curious to know whether people who don't have this problem now had it while playing 3.5; there are a large number of changes I can point to in PF that were clearly balancing.

I think it does depend somewhat on how one plays. Specifically DM's are often consciously aware of the power imbalance and design encounters and treasure to create more balance.

Also, if you don't think tiers are a problem, can you point out a way that the proposal I made would therefore give a fighter (tier 5), or any other class an unfair advantage?

Really the question is /if/ you think that tiers are a problem, /then/ does this help balance it and does this cause any breakage?

@The Terrible Zodin
"Compared to spells (the real source of Tier disparity)feats are narrow and kinda weak."
Yes, indeed they are. I certainly didn't anticipate this solving the disparity. I wonder though is it sufficient to collapse the 5 tiers into say 3 tiers? A straight fighter and a straight wizard in a party is a much bigger problem than a straight wizard and a straight rogue, or a straight ninja and a straight fighter.

"The stat bonus sounds like a good idea, but it will only work if the player spreads them around. Most players won't do that. They just spike out whatever thier prime stat is."
I can see that. Spiking the prime stat doesn't bother me too much. The fighter getting a +7/+7 over what they used to have at least closes that gap some. Any thoughts on how much?

@ Seranov
"And OP, I honestly don't think this will solve the problem. The solution to class tiers, as it was in 3.5, was that everyone should agree on a level of power, and everyone should stick to it. No Wizards in parties with Fighters, no Monks in parties with Summoners."
Fair enough. However it's kind of crappy to ban classes because of this. Does it level the playing field sufficiently for a fighter to feel "in the game" at 15+ level?

If you need to be caught up:

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214108

My idea is to give classes in each tier the following:
Tier 1 - Feat at 1st level, +1 to any attribute at 4th and every 4th level thereafter*.
Tier 2 - Feat at 1st and 10th level, +1 to any attribute at 3rd and every 3rd level thereafter*.
Tier 3 - Feat at 5th level and every 6th level thereafter, +1 to any attribute at 2nd and every other level thereafter*.
Tier 4 - Feat at 5th level and every 4th level thereafter, +1 to any attribute at 2nd level and every level thereafter skipping every 4th (like the medium BAB progression)*.
Tier 5 - Feat at 4th level and every 4th level thereafter, +1 to any attribute every level*.

*replaces standard 4th level advancement

Rationale:
Tier 1 and Tier 2 classes already tend to be weaker at lower levels, making them even weaker at those levels doesn't solve the problem. Instead this actually gives those classes a small bonus at level 1.

Tier 5 now could have an effective +1 to attack and damage (increasing focused power), and a whole other feat branch (increasing versatility).

It seems to pass simple measures. It makes a sorcerer with +1 attribute and +1 feat over a wizard, seem about commiserate.

A rogue with +4 attributes and +1 feat might still not quite be able to square off with a sorcerer, but close.

A Barbarian with +5 attributes and +1 feat compared to a rogue is perhaps slightly ahead of a rogue.

A Fighter with +5 attributes and +1 feat compared to a Barbarian, is perhaps slightly ahead of the Barbarian.

I wouldn't say it's perfectly balanced, but it seems to put the classes much closer together.

Can anyone see how it unbalances or breaks things?