It's not about who is best. It's about where the power is, and what the state of balance within the game as a whole is. If the Commoner were listed as a serious and balanced PC class, the fact that it has zero power is a Big Deal. Likewise, it's of vital importance to understand the state of balance within the game as a whole to give perspective when the inevitable houserules start rolling.I guess... if you're an obsessive compulsive who is playing the game in some vain attempt to 'win'.
People claim 'balance this' and 'balance that', but honestly all I see is a ton of people who are looking for issues. When you look for a problem you will always find one. All in all the classes aren't bad at all and compliment each other rather well.
Much like the current, and completely ignorant, 'Detect Magic' debate. Why does it matter? My players will use detect magic, and if the illusion/invisibility/immunity/WTFever/Loop issue comes up then I will handle it as I see fit. I see no reason to type up some 20,000 word diatribe that is either telling all of you why I'm right, or attempting to sway you to my point of view.
Good luck trying to be right on the internet guys, I'm sure this debate shall earn you much prestige from the gaming community. Frankly, all it's done for me is bore me to tears.
Just play the game and have fun.
You and your "party tier" and "play to have fun".
We must argue. Otherwise the internet is wasted. Stop being smart and stuff.
Honestly,
Tier's are more for a game design than a game playing perspective. The reason I say that is, everything is relative once you get people involved. Prior to that, it's all mathematics and statistics. Once you put a person in though, all the math goes out the window. A really good, clever player can take a 'tier 4' and outdo a novice or casual player using a 'tier 1'.
For example, my wife plays in my monster campaign. She plays a woodling catfolk druid.
I would never let certain players play this character, not because they couldn't do a good job, but because they would do too good a job. She rolled really really good stats, but that's not the issue, it's the synergy between the woodling template and the druid class. She's, quite literally, the most powerful fighter in the group, by raw numbers. But she doesn't like to get up in the middle of the fight, she prefers to stay in the background and heal or cast mass snakes swiftness, or buff.
|
It's not about who is best. It's about where the power is, and what the state of balance within the game as a whole is. If the Commoner were listed as a serious and balanced PC class, the fact that it has zero power is a Big Deal. Likewise, it's of vital importance to understand the state of balance within the game as a whole to give perspective when the inevitable houserules start rolling.I guess... if you're an obsessive compulsive who is playing the game in some vain attempt to 'win'.
People claim 'balance this' and 'balance that', but honestly all I see is a ton of people who are looking for issues. When you look for a problem you will always find one. All in all the classes aren't bad at all and compliment each other rather well.
Much like the current, and completely ignorant, 'Detect Magic' debate. Why does it matter? My players will use detect magic, and if the illusion/invisibility/immunity/WTFever/Loop issue comes up then I will handle it as I see fit. I see no reason to type up some 20,000 word diatribe that is either telling all of you why I'm right, or attempting to sway you to my point of view.
Good luck trying to be right on the internet guys, I'm sure this debate shall earn you much prestige from the gaming community. Frankly, all it's done for me is bore me to tears.
Just play the game and have fun.
So do you find a character fun if he can't contribute much to the party? If you guys were all a certain level, and you came across a group of enemies that needed to die, would it be fun if they all died before you can do anything? All the time?
Cause at higher levels this can happen, far too often.
It's not about who is best. It's about where the power is, and what the state of balance within the game as a whole is. If the Commoner were listed as a serious and balanced PC class, the fact that it has zero power is a Big Deal. Likewise, it's of vital importance to understand the state of balance within the game as a whole to give perspective when the inevitable houserules start rolling.I guess... if you're an obsessive compulsive who is playing the game in some vain attempt to 'win'.
People claim 'balance this' and 'balance that', but honestly all I see is a ton of people who are looking for issues. When you look for a problem you will always find one. All in all the classes aren't bad at all and compliment each other rather well.
Much like the current, and completely ignorant, 'Detect Magic' debate. Why does it matter? My players will use detect magic, and if the illusion/invisibility/immunity/WTFever/Loop issue comes up then I will handle it as I see fit. I see no reason to type up some 20,000 word diatribe that is either telling all of you why I'm right, or attempting to sway you to my point of view.
Good luck trying to be right on the internet guys, I'm sure this debate shall earn you much prestige from the gaming community. Frankly, all it's done for me is bore me to tears.
Just play the game and have fun.
So do you find a character fun if he can't contribute much to the party? If you guys were all a certain level, and you came across a group of enemies that needed to die, would it be fun if they all died before you can do anything? All the time?
Cause at higher levels this can happen, far too often.
Sometimes players just want to do something, and they don't realize they are not contributing or contributing enough, maybe it's because the DM is covering for them, or there is the super character in the group. Now if the player is doing pretty much nothing, that is when the fun stops.
If you want a better balanced game, play 4e. d20/Pathfinder are built around the same "Linear fighter, quadratic wizard" problem that plagues D&D from 1st edition.
I wrote a better balanced game - though balanced in different ways. It prints on 4 pages - shorter than some D&D character sheets.
This is actually a nice way to GENERATE characters and character concepts for D&D-esque games. Certainly, it gets people focused on who their character is, rather than what pile of dice modifiers they're accumulating.
Of course, it still won't make your Gnome Ranger-Bard-Mystic Theurge able to handle a CR20 encounter, either. (Might make him more fun to play, though...)
I removed an offensive post.
And also the replies to it. (Please, when you see a post like that, don't try to call the poster on it. Flag it an move on.)
As usual, we don't see eye to eye, and as usual, you drop into a denegrating mode when you post to people you don't agree with, making snide remarks, telling them they are wrong, just wrong, etc. This will be my last response to your posts, here or elsewhere. Our personalities appear to be designed to feel like acid soaked sandpaper on each other's sensitive areas.
I'd like to remind you that most of the comments that you've singled out as acid-soaked sandpaper on your sensitive areas were actually your creations, rather than anything I ever actually said, and oftentimes, you're yelling precisely what I said five posts earlier at me as if it refutes itself.
And they don't have to spam detect magic in a combat, That's sort of my point, it's an at will ability that lasts N minutes.
Concentration, chief.
You sort of missed my scenario, I'm talking about monstrous NPC's trying to pass themselves off as human or elf or whatever. No amount of physical disguise is going to make a 7 and a half foot gnoll pass for a 5 foot 8 Farmer Todd. No matter how specialized you are in disguise, a 3 foot tall goblin can't be made to look like 5 foot 8 Farmer Todd.
If it's a human bandit, yes, you can do it with disguise, but that's what I said in my post, you can only do it using disguise the skill, not magic, and that's no longer an option, unless everyone casts non-detection every time they do something. That's a spell tax all caused by a cantrip. That just seems too powerful for me, to force a spell tax on everyone. And sorcerers have limited spells known in the first place.
So?
You're talking like not being able to easily pawn an ogre off as a little old lady is some big, massive constraint that absolutely ruins gameplay when really, the assertion is just plain silly. It's a situation so niche and extreme as to hold no value. It's like saying Resist Energy is broken because you can't have a thousand kobolds throwing alchemist's fire kill the subject.
I'm glad to see someone at least gets that the problem is mainly that it's at will and usable 24/7. Thanks.
...
You...
Seriously, what in the world have you been reading? I've been saying that Detect Magic should be a first-level spell. In fact, I was the first person to make that suggestion in this thread, and have repeated that suggestion multiple times. Bloody Hell.
And you wonder why you keep earning the snide remarks?
What on earth does arguing about Detect Magic have to do with tier lists?
Detect Magic is a significant element of mages' power, an example of their ability to do pretty much anything, an aspect of the vast, sweeping nature of their abilities. It then spiraled off from there when I actually stated the spell's function and the implications thereof.
As far as the greater thread, I think 1 of the past 10 campaigns I've been in had both a full arcane and full divine caster in it. I don't think there is such a thing as a mandatory class.
Tiering has nothing to do with labeling one class or another as 'mandatory.' It's not about saying one class is better than another. It's only about identifying where the power is. You could have an all-Bard party if you wanted, and it wouldn't even be particularly hard.
Most times, I see a wizard contributing 1 or 2 major things to a combat, and having the meelee characters doing the real dirty work.
That is a common structure, however, in many of those cases, while melee gets the glory shot, they don't actually win the fight; the Wizard cripples the enemies so much that anyone could do mop-up. The Druid or Cleric could mop up just as easily and still bring a full battery of spells.
What about Resist Energy trumping Meteor Swarm?
Protection from Evil trumping Dominate Monster?
Or even True Seeing, trumping higher-level illusions?
Death Ward trumping Energy Drain?
Dispel Magic trumping a higher-level spell?
Thank you. I was about to make the same point myself.
It detects illusion effects if you spend three rounds concentrating on the effect. It's nearly useless against invisibility or any other mobile effect because the first round only detects the presence or absence of auras within the 60' cone; it doesn't tell you where those auras are. You don't find that out until the third round. You don't even know how many auras there are until the second round.
Er... yeah? I've been saying that. In my own words from earlier, "Detect Magic is useless as an in-fight anti-invisibility measure; the Wizard who's using Detect Magic is spending three rounds doing almost nothing while the invisible character is free to go stab-happy."
Doesn't change the fact that it detects illusions, if given the time. Detect Magic functions within the constraints of Detect Magic; that includes needing concentration, taking multiple rounds, and detecting illusion effects. But if you spend that time and maintain that concentration, it can detect illusion effects.
People claim 'balance this' and 'balance that', but honestly all I see is a ton of people who are looking for issues. When you look for a problem you will always find one.
Destructive playtesting is the path to fixing games and designing quality games. You won't be able to make a decent and highly playable game if you always treat it like a Faberge egg. You'll never understand what a car is capable of if you refuse to take it above fifteen miles an hour. If you're designing a concrete column, you're not interested in how it acts free-standing and looking pretty.
You're interested in the loads where it breaks and fails, so that you can make a column that won't break and fail under the loading it's actually designed for. Likewise, if you want to understand and fix a system that will withstand regular and focused use, you have to beat the crap out of it until it snaps.
I see no reason to type up some 20,000 word diatribe that is either telling all of you why I'm right, or attempting to sway you to my point of view.
Being right is not the purpose of logical discourse. Swaying people is not the purpose of logical discourse. Finding and illuminating the truth is the ultimate goal. That's not about being right or wrong or persuading anyone. It's about the facts as they stand.
Much like the current, and completely ignorant, 'Detect Magic' debate. Why does it matter? My players will use detect magic, and if the illusion/invisibility/immunity/WTFever/Loop issue comes up then I will handle it as I see fit.
[...]
Just play the game and have fun.
The entire point of settling these things beforehand is so that everyone can actually know and use the rules that the group is coming together to play under. If you suddenly decree that Detect Magic doesn't work as written because you don't want the player spotting your illusion, they have every right to get ticked off at you over it and it's liable to become an inflamed situation that will ruin the fun. If you actually resolve the situation beforehand and pass any desired houserules, that argument never happens. The fun is not ruined because those rules arguments and changes are being settled before they can even bother the group, because those arguments aren't happening mid-session.
And in the immortal words of Socrates, the unexamined game is not worth playing.
Tier's are more for a game design than a game playing perspective.
Yes, that's a part of their purpose. Which is why it's so vitally important to understand them. Very few games are truly run by strict RAW; rather, every group has their own houserules. These houserules are an element of game design. These class tiers are system design tools. Understanding that Wizards are at the top of the food chain and muggles kinda get the shaft will guide who gets favored with the houserules to help balance things out.
A really good, clever player can take a 'tier 4' and outdo a novice or casual player using a 'tier 1'.
That's a stated aspect of the tier system, chief. Beast master Commoners can clean house through level 11 or so. Doesn't mean the Commoner class doesn't suck.
If you want a better balanced game, play 4e. d20/Pathfinder are built around the same "Linear fighter, quadratic wizard" problem that plagues D&D from 1st edition.
If you understand where the power is in the 3.5 expanded game, it's extremely easy to get a balanced party simply by seeking to create a balanced party. This is, in fact, one of the purposes of the tier list; if you have players who all understand the tiers and the balance of power, you can work together to make a party that's balanced out of the box.
When everyone's on the same page, you won't have the well-made Bard next to the urgrosh-wielding Fighter next to a venerable Dragonwrought loredrake kobold Sorcerer with Greater Draconic Rite of Passage.
Instead, you may get a two-hander Warblade, a Factotum/Chameleon, a conjuration-focused Sorcerer, and a support-focused Favored Soul. Or perhaps that urgrosh Fighter next to a feinting Rogue/Swashbuckler, a Healer, and a Warlock. Or maybe that superkobold alongside a fully tricked-out Artificer, an almighty Druid20, and a DMM: Persist Archivist/Sacred Exorcist.
You get balance not because the game is balanced, but because the players worked together to make a team that can work together and is balanced against each other. Sure, the urgrosh Fighter isn't going to be much good, but neither is anyone else on the team, so it's fine. Sure, the VDK loredrake kobold is ridiculously overpowered, but so is everyone else on the team, so it doesn't matter; they're all on the same plane, and they're all capable of working together as true equals.
Hmm. You have inspired a challenge. I'll create a separate topic.
You get balance not because the game is balanced, but because the players worked together to make a team that can work together and is balanced against each other. Sure, the urgrosh Fighter isn't going to be much good, but neither is anyone else on the team, so it's fine. Sure, the VDK loredrake kobold is ridiculously overpowered, but so is everyone else on the team, so it doesn't matter; they're all on the same plane, and they're all capable of working together as true equals.
To me that's exactly what's important about the Tier system. I've literally played a game where everyone was a Mage except for one Monk. Despite our best buffs the Monk didn't perform well, he didn't kick ass like the player wanted and ultimately that player had a rotten time while everyone else had a good one.
It's also good if you have players with a greater disparity of skill. You can take the really cunning ones and ask them to play Fighters, and let the ones still learning use something like a Warblade. It makes the DM's life a lot easier because the cunning players aren't wish-looping efreets and the learners get their quota of cool stuff to do.
THere's also a major denial of logical reality here.
IF your wizard is on a Det Magic loop, then it should be assumed every wizard has access to this. People are NOT stupid. If Det Magic is everywhere, then the means to foil it are everywhere, done by those interested in foiling it. The trick will be known and worked around, and those people who attempt to rely on it should be laughed at by the "thousands of years of spellcasters doing the same thing before them."
Overwhelming, blinding auras of magic should be routine traps for mages who keep the spell up. Getting blinded over and over again is exactly what I'd do to a wizard using the spell around my abode. If I had any money at all, Interdiction fields to stop dimension-hopping and A-M fields should be all over the place. Most campaigns are thosuands of years old, and people are not stupid. If the trick is obvious to the players, it should be equally obvious to those who are going to find it being used against. And thousands of years is a LOT of time for magic items, permanent magical spells, and such defenses to get into place.
As for Tiers, wizards and sorcs' power is based entirely on spells. Don't give them unlimited spell access, and you shaft their power accordingly. The Fighter's ability to excel in his role has received a major boost. The fact he doesn't move much outside it is irrelevant...he is nigh irreplaceable in his role. The magic buffs and boosts used to replace him would be far better off used on him in the first place.
==Aelryinth
Being right is not the purpose of logical discourse. Swaying people is not the purpose of logical discourse. Finding and illuminating the truth is the ultimate goal. That's not about being right or wrong or persuading anyone. It's about the facts as they stand.
This sounds like something I might have said about 5-10 years ago. I've since learned that logic and facts never get anywhere.
Back to the original subject, AD&D relied on the concept of wizards advancing in levels more slowly than everyone else. Perhaps that's not such a bad idea after all? Or perhaps slow down spell progression?
|
Back to the original subject, AD&D relied on the concept of wizards advancing in levels more slowly than everyone else. Perhaps that's not such a bad idea after all? Or perhaps slow down spell progression?
Hm, yeah, this is something to think about, especially as Pathfinder's different xp-progressions seem to present an easy way to do so. If the fighter is allowed to use the fast progression and the wizard has to use the slow progression, the latter will be at level 17 when the fighter hits level 20, so this would at least limit his daily spells. One the other hand, the wizard gets his first level 9-spell at level 17 so I'm not sure if this difference would to much to help alleviate this problem.
Which poses another question: How would the wizard's and the cleric's tier change if you'd ban, say, level 8 and level 9 spells from the game altogether?
Just play the game and have fun.
Problem with doing that without considering ability to contribute is:
Despite our best buffs the Monk didn't perform well, he didn't kick ass like the player wanted and ultimately that player had a rotten time while everyone else had a good one.
So if our goal is to play the game and have fun, sometimes talking about things like class tiers enables that to happen.
Which poses another question: How would the wizard's and the cleric's tier change if you'd ban, say, level 8 and level 9 spells from the game altogether?
They wouldn't, until maybe level 15.
Hm, yeah, this is something to think about, especially as Pathfinder's different xp-progressions seem to present an easy way to do so. If the fighter is allowed to use the fast progression and the wizard has to use the slow progression, the latter will be at level 17 when the fighter hits level 20, so this would at least limit his daily spells. One the other hand, the wizard gets his first level 9-spell at level 17 so I'm not sure if this difference would to much to help alleviate this problem.
The problem with varying XP tables or axing spell levels is it's a clunky solution that just doesn't address the heart of the issue.
On the high end? The Sorcerer is not a problem. The Sorcerer is fine. They have some harsh limiters on them to keep 'em in line. However, the Wizard has a severe, fundamental design flaw in that it's capable of going out and learning every spell on their spell list, which is a good seventy to a hundred pages in the core rulebook. Or rather, every spell worth having. Specialization is meaningless; a specialist Wizard gains superpowers and loses nothing, she retains full ability to cast every spell on their entire list. Without some severe restrictions on the spells they can know, you cannot add more sources without handing the Wizard more power, rather than just more options. The Cleric and Druid have this problem on steroids, as they get their spells automatically. The problem has nothing to do with the rate at which they get their spells and everything to do with the vast number and variety of spells they're capable of accumulating.
|
|
Which poses another question: How would the wizard's and the cleric's tier change if you'd ban, say, level 8 and level 9 spells from the game altogether?They wouldn't, until maybe level 15.
Hm, yeah, this is something to think about, especially as Pathfinder's different xp-progressions seem to present an easy way to do so. If the fighter is allowed to use the fast progression and the wizard has to use the slow progression, the latter will be at level 17 when the fighter hits level 20, so this would at least limit his daily spells. One the other hand, the wizard gets his first level 9-spell at level 17 so I'm not sure if this difference would to much to help alleviate this problem.The problem with varying XP tables or axing spell levels is it's a clunky solution that just doesn't address the heart of the issue.
On the high end? The Sorcerer is not a problem. The Sorcerer is fine. They have some harsh limiters on them to keep 'em in line. However, the Wizard has a severe, fundamental design flaw in that it's capable of going out and learning every spell on their spell list, which is a good seventy to a hundred pages in the core rulebook. Or rather, every spell worth having. Specialization is meaningless; a specialist Wizard gains superpowers and loses nothing, she retains full ability to cast every spell on their entire list. Without some severe restrictions on the spells they can know, you cannot add more sources without handing the Wizard more power, rather than just more options. The Cleric and Druid have this problem on steroids, as they get their spells automatically. The problem has nothing to do with the rate at which they get their spells and everything to do with the vast number and variety of spells they're capable of accumulating.
I was playing around with some ideas of nerfing the wizard. I dislike DMing and do not have any modern experience on DMing, so I am unsure if these nerfs are effective.
Keep them at d4 hit dice.
Increase Overland Flight and Contingency to level 7 and 8 respectively.
Enervation does not stack with itself.
Remove their bonus spells for high abilities scores COMPLETELY.
The problem is that really harsh on the wizard. A friend of mine says he would still play a wizard under those restrictions. These are direct shots telling the wizard player "you're too good, now eat it". In my campaigns, we're already restricting the spell list outside of Player's Handbook (for 3.5 obviously), and going by spell-by-spell basis on non-PHB spells.
I had a friend try and use Wizard's PHB2 spells as a cleric and that threw up some serious red flags. Like there's a spell that surrounds the cleric with daggers and throw one of them every turn. I think it's second level, but it's a nuke spell. For clerics.
Then he started casting a spell. He could cast it as long as he wanted and could stop casting as an immediate action, and then would get a different amount of benefits based on how long he took to cast it. Could be cast as a swift action (a quickened spell that took up a level 2 slot!) as well.
Yeah, I quickly banned PHB2 because that was nuts.
Wizards on the other hand... They generally have one spell per level that "wins" the combat. Sleep at level 1. Totally rocks low level encounters. Web at level 2, throw that down and now you're fighting 2 monsters instead of 4. Monsters have to make 2 CMD checks to get out, possibly more. One to get out of a failed save, one to move, and they only get to move half their movement and may have to make another CMD if they're still in the web. Level 3 they get slow, fly, halt undead (conditional), hold person (conditional), sleet storm.
There's a great way to fix the Wizard.
1) Any spell NOT prepared with the Spell Mastery feat takes a full round to cast; if it's normally a full round action to cast, it's now a three round action.
2) All spells now have an "F" limitation: The correct spell book must be open to the right page, and the Wizard must be able to see the writing in it. The ones known by Spell Mastery do not have this limitation.
The Wizard is still capable of jaw-dropping flexibility, but he'll rarely get more than three or four spells off in a combat, and has an immediate, obvious target for EVERYONE to aim at.
There's a great way to fix the Wizard.
1) Any spell NOT prepared with the Spell Mastery feat takes a full round to cast; if it's normally a full round action to cast, it's now a three round action.
2) All spells now have an "F" limitation: The correct spell book must be open to the right page, and the Wizard must be able to see the writing in it. The ones known by Spell Mastery do not have this limitation.
The Wizard is still capable of jaw-dropping flexibility, but he'll rarely get more than three or four spells off in a combat, and has an immediate, obvious target for EVERYONE to aim at.
Uh... That would give sorcerers such a huge advantage over wizards. And sorcerers can, if called upon, still use scrolls for utility spells.
I was going to reply but the forum thought necessary to eat my post. I've better things to do than re-write it.
I had a friend try and use Wizard's PHB2 spells as a cleric and that threw up some serious red flags. Like there's a spell that surrounds the cleric with daggers and throw one of them every turn. I think it's second level, but it's a nuke spell. For clerics.
Clerics have blasting spells, ya know. Even some iconic blasts, like Flamestrike. And mind, blasting ain't even very good.
The spell you're talking about, Cloud of Knives? It's 1d6+CL/3 damage per round requiring an attack roll against full AC every time and is subject to damage reduction. That's pathetic against anything but the weakest of foes.
If you consider that broken, you really need to step back and reassess your notions of what balance and power even are, because that spell is pitifully weak.
Then he started casting a spell. He could cast it as long as he wanted and could stop casting as an immediate action, and then would get a different amount of benefits based on how long he took to cast it. Could be cast as a swift action (a quickened spell that took up a level 2 slot!) as well.
A spell you can cast as a swift action is not the same as a quickened spell. Those swift-action spells are often markedly, severely, and deliberately much weaker than alternative spells of the same level. Close Wounds is an instantaneous-action spell that heals people. However, when you cast it, you're spending a third-level spell slot to heal 2d4 damage. That's paltry.
These swift/immediate action spells have their use, but very often pay for it by being pathetically weak.
Yes, PHB2 has a number of spells that have different effects based on how long you spend to cast them, ranging from a swift action to two full rounds. I can't find a second-level version at the moment, but take a look at the fourth-level Channeled Divine Health. If you cast that thing as a swift action, you're talking a fourth-level spell to heal 1d8 damage, touch range. Pitiful. Useless. Garbage. Yes, Quickened Cure Light Wounds would be a 6th-level spell, but that's an even more useless ability that no one ever prepares for very good reason.
If you take it up to a standard action, it's a close-range Cure Light Wounds as a standard action. Also pathetic.
Full round? Medium-range Cure Moderate Wounds. The amount of healing is still cruddy, and the range is only of circumstantial benefit, especially since healing is a noncombat action.
And finally, if you use the full two rounds, it actually heals as much as the same-level Cure Critical Wounds. At long range, sure, but it'll never be wise to prepare it anyways because you can spontaneously cast the Cure series which does the same amount of healing and there are very few cases where being able to spend two whole rounds to cast a cure spell at range is actually a good idea.
Yes, you can get a swift-action casting, and have other options besides, but the effect is so pitiful and the alternative casting times are so useless that it's utterly absurd to get worked up over it.
I was going to reply but the forum thought necessary to eat my post. I've better things to do than re-write it.
I hate when that happens. Got a short version?
As far as the greater thread, I think 1 of the past 10 campaigns I've been in had both a full arcane and full divine caster in it. I don't think there is such a thing as a mandatory class.
Tiering has nothing to do with labeling one class or another as 'mandatory.' It's not about saying one class is better than another. It's only about identifying where the power is. You could have an all-Bard party if you wanted, and it wouldn't even be particularly hard.
A number of people above had said both cleric and wizard were mandatory classes in every party.
Most times, I see a wizard contributing 1 or 2 major things to a combat, and having the meelee characters doing the real dirty work.
That is a common structure, however, in many of those cases, while melee gets the glory shot, they don't actually win the fight; the Wizard cripples the enemies so much that anyone could do mop-up. The Druid or Cleric could mop up just as easily and still bring a full battery of spells.
In my experience, the wizard does crowd control to allow the fighters to do the heavy damage to critical targets. I have seen cleric and druid builds that could theoretically replace warriors, but in practice have never seen one work, despite seeing them attempted numerous times and attempting them myself. They take too much preparation/resources to be effective over a long game and are much beter off spending those resources on others.
Then again, I find the game breaks after lvl 10, even without casters.
There's also a major denial of logical reality here. IF your wizard is on a Det Magic loop, then it should be assumed every wizard has access to this. People are NOT stupid. If Det Magic is everywhere, then the means to foil it are everywhere, done by those interested in foiling it. The trick will be known and worked around, and those people who attempt to rely on it should be laughed at by the "thousands of years of spellcasters doing the same thing before them."
And the point is: Then why, for the love of Pete, do the rules not reflect what you're saying?!
Yeah, I can sit there and think through every logical use of every ability and come up with every logical endpoint, but that's not my JOB. My job is to write adventures (often) and to run the game (every week). Making the rules reflect the game world's reality is the game designer's job. I shouldn't have to do it for him for every single class, spell, and ability.
|
When you cast detect magic you have to concentrate ON THE SAME AREA for a number of rounds to get more than "there are magic auras int eh area" You also can only move at half speed while concentrating and every time you move while it is up, you have a new area to look at.
Problem solved. And using RAW to boot.
A bit of a shameless plug, but I thought of an idea to combat the exclusiveness of the Wizard. In the homebrews forum I have started a thread which was inspired by this one, a high magic campaign setting in which the sorcerer class does not exist but each Pc and NPC cast spells like a sorcerer of their level, or Challenge rating, would.
I don't know about everyone, but at least PCs being able to do so. This already exists in a form, and it's called gestalt multiclassing.
Clerics have blasting spells, ya know. Even some iconic blasts, like Flamestrike. And mind, blasting ain't even very good.The spell you're talking about, Cloud of Knives? It's 1d6+CL/3 damage per round requiring an attack roll against full AC every time and is subject to damage reduction. That's pathetic against anything but the weakest of foes.
If you consider that broken, you really need to step back and reassess your notions of what balance and power even are, because that spell is pitifully weak.
Then he started casting a spell. He could cast it as long as he wanted and could stop casting as an immediate action, and then would get a different amount of benefits based on how long he took to cast it. Could be cast as a swift action (a quickened spell that took up a level 2 slot!) as well.A spell you can cast as a swift action is not the same as a quickened spell. Those swift-action spells are often markedly, severely, and deliberately much weaker than alternative spells of the same level. Close Wounds is an instantaneous-action spell that heals people. However, when you cast it, you're spending a third-level spell slot to heal 2d4 damage. That's paltry.
These swift/immediate action spells have their use, but very often pay for it by being pathetically weak.
Cloud of Knives sounds pretty pitiful, yes, but it's very anti-clerical in theme. And at low levels where an orc or hobgoblin might be running around in 14 AC, I could see it as a domain spell, perhaps... If I recall, I compared it to spiritual weapon and it did better than spiritual weapon did in many cases. It's been a long time since I've read the PHB2, but I recall the spells being pretty out there.
Close wounds sounds expensive, but keep in mind, it's a quickened spell that stops bleed effects, cures caltrop damage, and comes with a host of other benefits. It's a way to bypass having to use a 5th level spell slot for the same benefit. Or even a 4th if one applies it to cure minor wounds. As for the other spells, I don't remember which one it was... Certainly not a healing spell (this player was playing as a battle cleric), but the point of the matter is the spell gave a class that already has a lot of versatility even more, a dangerous thing to game balance.
WotC has a habit in their other popular game of releasing other stuff that is better than what has come out before to push sales. And PHB2 seemed to be that sort of material. To be fair, fighters needed the boost because they ran out of feats to take at level 12. Not necessarily number of feats, but anything for high-level fighters or melee specifically. But spellcasters didn't need any kind of boost.
As for blasting spells... Consider that Flamestrike is level 5, has a 10 foot radius, does the same damage as fireball, though with a higher max. A wizard could do better with a level 3 spell. Or at level 5 have even better options. Sure, a cleric can nuke, but it's not very much their niche.
The main use I can see for this tier ranking system is to show which class could make a good BBEG. Wizards are a prime example of the power hungry BBEG. Good system for how to use NPCs. Stupid for somebody to worry about when Roleplaying. Power Gaming is really for computer/console games.
This tier system says only one thing to me: Your DM isn't trying hard enough.
Or that we've become so accustomed to it being the DM's job to fix everything, all the time, that it never even occurs to people that the system itself can be improved. We excuse any rules deficiencies, no matter how egregious, by saying "well, my DM's good enough to fix them!" But we don't intentionally buy leaky plumbing as an excuse to brag about our plumber. I often wonder why this is different.
|
Tier 1: Wizards
Tier 2: Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers
How are sorcerers possibly below wizards? The only benefit they have is in number of spells known (which also depends on DM generosity/stinginess). But the ability of the sorcerer to spontaneously cast as opposed to preparing spells more than makes up for that, in my opinion.
How are sorcerers possibly below wizards? The only benefit they have is in number of spells known (which also depends on DM generosity/stinginess). But the ability of the sorcerer to spontaneously cast as opposed to preparing spells more than makes up for that, in my opinion.
Tier 1: Wizards
Tier 2: Druids, Clerics, Sorcerers
Having almost unlimited access to any spell(arcane) in almost like having unlimited power. You really can't compete with it. Another point is that if you have to go out of the way to hold a class down, it just lends more credibility to the power of that class.
One other thing to add, is the Sorcerer's delayed spell progression, that's a pretty heavy handicap on the sorcerer's part and does a great deal to push him down to the next tier.
At just about any point between levels 3 and 18 or 19 the Wizard has a huge power gap. The very last few levels help make it up partially, but those levels don't see play enough to make a difference.
Sad fact of the matter is, during most of play a specialist wizard has more spells per day than an equal level sorcerer.
(Also, a little secret. Preparing spells isn't a big handicap at all. There is a ton of versatility and power in spells, enough so that you could use the exact same spell prepared list every day of a given level and never regret it if you chose wisely.)
Which is why I never saw a problem of having the bonus spells from a Sorcerer's actual Charisma score (as opposed to any adjustments from spells/items) giving him/her bonus spells known.
|
|
I think the Blaster master's, of late, have taken a little too much slack. Yes I know that Treatmonk says they are not "optimal" (and for the most part, he is right). What isn't accounted for is metamagic rods, which do far more for the blaster master than anyone else.
An 11th level wizard with arcane type and a wand of maximize (least) can Maximized Empowered Scorching Ray (72 + 8d6) as a 3rd level spell. That's pretty significant. Also, that same rod can be made to drop 60 points down ae.
It doesn't have the sexiness of seeing many opponents stuck down by tentacles et not, but rest assured, it does make a good build. I believe the god is very good, but even my god would keep a fireball or two around when there's a good ae setup.
Though in fairness the campaign I am about to start is disallowing metamagic rods for allowing access to magic of too high level for the party. I never allowed Divine Metamagic either.
I'm not a big fan of tier ratings, mostly because they're irrelevent in the context of the game. There are only two tiers that actually matter: classes that can contribute, and classes that can't. In 3.5, spellcasters were in the first, nonspellcasters were in the second. While Pathfinder has helped shore up the difference a little, by and large the classes have remained pretty much the same relative to each other.
Agreed. What is this tier stuff? It's for min-maxers...
|
First, thank you for your helpful answer.Second, I actually don't mind those classes being in tier 4 and 5, as this is the power level I tend to like best in my games. In fact, I'm trying to figure out which spellcaster classes to allow in future games and which not and which classes can be nerfed to be useful as a pc class without destroying inter party balance at high levels.
And it may well be that part of my future games' strategy is to cut the level progression at around level 10. But I have yet to clearly define what it is I want to get out of my games, so at the moment, I'm doing kind of a brainstorm. The only thing I know for sure is that I'm not willing to learn a new game system though this would probably be the easier way.
WormysQueue, I don't know if this has been suggested to you yet, but you may want to consider the E6 rules. I wouldn't do it justice in trying to explain it, but I think this may be close to what you want.
Thanks for the link, i dont know how i missed that. Too early still i guess.But i dont think giving someone the area negates the invisibility spell. They can be targeted directly, you are still flatfooted too them and take the penalty to AC. And they can move, and you'd have to focus for another round to know their general area. See invisibility you just see them.
Wizard : "Oh, I see an aura over there." Points to 5 foot square, or 10x10 square. "I put a fireball on the center of the aura." [BOOM]
Rogue : "Ah, I toss bottle of acid into the center of the area he pointed at, splash damage hits everything in 10 feet." [SHATTER]
Cleric : Runs close to where fireball went off. "Ah, I channel negative energy to harm, but exclude my friends." [ZOTT]
Or, another way, which is even worse.
Wizard : "Oh, I see an aura over there." Points to the location. "I cast glitter dust." [Invisible guy becomes visible]
Fighter : "I charge him." [WHAM]
Rogue : "I run over to the other side as the fighter and flank." [STABBEY STAB STAB!]
Cleric : "I move up and smite him with my mace in my gods name!" [CLONK]
I've experimented with allowing detect magic to figure out the general area of the invisible person, and it just kills the spell. Utterly. As seen above. Instead of having to cast see invisibility and then glitterdust, the wizard can get the same effect for free with a cantrip.
True but with a descent perception score a similar result can be achieved. Unless the creature is making a concious effort to hide, he is likely to be found out by a party with someone with a good perception check.
Also when I give the location its more, down the hall, at the other end of that room, past that wooded clearing, not a specific square or set of squares.
Why is a caster wasting one of his precious spells on attacking a magical aura? I find that Detect Magic, if kept up all the time, can be used to set-up another spell, but doesn't necessarily negate higher level spells, as the information you get back is extremely limited.
If my wizard is walking around with DM up, and I detect a magical aura, and wait a round or two to determine both where it is and what school it belongs to (and the approximate level of the spell) I still don't know if I'm sensing an invisible item, an invisible person, a section of illusory terrain, etc... I don't even know whether See Invisibility is necessarily the spell I should be following up with.
I do feel that the various Detect spells tend to interfere with the game too much, both in terms of slowing down play and in negating too much of the DM's planning.
I'm not a big fan of tier ratings, mostly because they're irrelevent in the context of the game. There are only two tiers that actually matter: classes that can contribute, and classes that can't. In 3.5, spellcasters were in the first, nonspellcasters were in the second. While Pathfinder has helped shore up the difference a little, by and large the classes have remained pretty much the same relative to each other.Agreed. What is this tier stuff? It's for min-maxers...
You have just been given an invitation. click here to accept
The main use I can see for this tier ranking system is to show which class could make a good BBEG. Wizards are a prime example of the power hungry BBEG. Good system for how to use NPCs. Stupid for somebody to worry about when Roleplaying. Power Gaming is really for computer/console games.
Except playing a Wizard sensibly and logically yields phenomenal, world-changing cosmic power and can pull out abilities so perfectly suited to various situations as to suddenly make a daunting challenge trivial.
This is not power gaming. This is about making moves that make sense. If a player has to regularly and deliberately ignore their character's abilities just to avoid breaking the game, then the game is already broken.
]Or that we've become so accustomed to it being the DM's job to fix everything, all the time, that it never even occurs to people that the system itself can be improved. We excuse any rules deficiencies, no matter how egregious, by saying "well, my DM's good enough to fix them!" But we don't intentionally buy leaky plumbing as an excuse to brag about our plumber. I often wonder why this is different.
*Applauds.*
Equally I've seen wizards destroy the party by being too trigger happy and being reduced to limited capability as they'd run out of spells.
That's called playing a Wizard badly, chief. The wise Wizard casts what spells are necessary, when they're necessary, and nothing more. Which is why blasting is bad. That some players don't know how to properly use a Wizard has absolutely zero bearing on the power that Wizards wield.
If every encounter you run is the only one for the day, spellcasters tend to be pretty powerful! What happens when their rest is broken, what happens when they can't get their spell components, what happens when, fighting the big tribe of Orcs the word goes round to "Kill da Wizard furst"?
The Wizard's power is assessed assuming multiple encounters. A typical fight in D&D (and Pathfinder) is decided within three rounds. That's a total of three spells, tops. Twelve spells are more than enough to get a Wizard through a hard day of combat, and they can secure many, many fights for the party with only one.
What if a Wizard's rest is broken? It won't be. Wizards have all the spells to secure rest, including the classic unimpeachable Rope Trick.
What if they can't get spell components? That's a non-issue. They're a silly, trivial abstraction. A spell component pouch has an infinite supply of all unpriced spell components as a matter of course. If your DM is really a dick about it and regularly goes after the spell component pouch, carry two. Carry three. Carry twelve. Or just beat it outright with a single feat: Eschew Materials.
If the orcs go straight for the Wizard? Stop them. Web, Sleet Storm, a nice summon at a chokepoint, or just go ahead and win the fight with Confusion and get the orcs to take care of themselves.
Agreed. What is this tier stuff? It's for min-maxers...
*Sigh.*
There is absolutely nothing wrong with actually thinking about, discussing, understanding, and utilizing the game everyone's agreed to come together to play. Playing the game is not a sin.
Besides, min/maxing is simply the act of making the character good at what they're supposed to be good at, and bad at what they're supposed to be bad at. If you don't min/max, it's a detriment to roleplay because the game doesn't support the character. The game and the roleplay become enemies, and everything is diminished for it.