I know this was not for me, but I normally have to see it in play first. Another factor is whether I would do it to my PC's. If I can't do it to them, then they can't do it to my NPC's.I have banned Avasculate from my games. Broken, broken, -broken- spell.I'm kind of curious, and I apologize for the threadjack, but I was kind of wondering if you banned this spell when you first read it, after someone used it, or after someone used it multiple times?
I am all for people leaving things out of their games that they don't want to deal with. A GM has a lot of variables to deal with, and cutting them down helps make a campaign easier to run with.
However, I have also seen powers/abilities/spells and the like be deemed "broken" after one use that worked out spectacularly well in context, without seeing it long term.
I'm not saying that happened in your case, I'm just curious to see how this actually comes about in most people's games.
I like that general rule.
I know this was not for me, but I normally have to see it in play first. Another factor is whether I would do it to my PC's. If I can't do it to them, then they can't do it to my NPC's.
Well, its more or less for anyone that wants to answer . . . ;)
I hope this "avasculate" isn't a big letdown like the warlock was.
"Oh.....teh warlock's so broken. Oh,....he can do this....oh,...he can do that."
Put him up against teh characters and......*splap* he's wasted.
touch attack that flat out 1/2ed someones HP with no save (lvl 7 I think). Not bad against normal monsters, but if you custom design things with 1000s of hp like Loopy, it was dumb. We used it on him once, and now he no longer allows spells from the spell compendium without GM approval.
I hope this "avasculate" isn't a big letdown like the warlock was.
"Oh.....teh warlock's so broken. Oh,....he can do this....oh,...he can do that."
Put him up against teh characters and......*splap* he's wasted.
LoL. The spell drops half of you hit points, whether you make the save or not.
I do think that is a little to much.
We used it on him once, and now he no longer allows spells from the spell compendium without GM approval.
Heh, I made the same mistake, that was bad. The book has some good stuff, the other half of the book however......
touch attack that flat out 1/2ed someones HP with no save (lvl 7 I think). Not bad against normal monsters, but if you custom design things with 1000s of hp like Loopy, it was dumb. We used it on him once, and now he no longer allows spells from the spell compendium without GM approval.I hope this "avasculate" isn't a big letdown like the warlock was.
"Oh.....teh warlock's so broken. Oh,....he can do this....oh,...he can do that."
Put him up against teh characters and......*splap* he's wasted.
Yeah. Well, actually, now with Pathfinder and seeing what a bow Fighter can do, I think I'd rather face Clerics with Avasculate.
Yeah. Well, actually, now with Pathfinder and seeing what a bow Fighter can do, I think I'd rather face Clerics with Avasculate.touch attack that flat out 1/2ed someones HP with no save (lvl 7 I think). Not bad against normal monsters, but if you custom design things with 1000s of hp like Loopy, it was dumb. We used it on him once, and now he no longer allows spells from the spell compendium without GM approval.I hope this "avasculate" isn't a big letdown like the warlock was.
"Oh.....teh warlock's so broken. Oh,....he can do this....oh,...he can do that."
Put him up against teh characters and......*splap* he's wasted.
1000's of hit points. How long do those fights take?
D&D is two games. It is storytime and it is wargame.
It's apparent that you and I have very different opinions of what the game is and should be. I'm glad that there's room for a variety of opinions at the "table". However I'm beginning to sense that the math/no math argument is just a rendition of the version wars. Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake :)
Anyway, I'm going to stop posting on this subject as it doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than making people feel defensive. To each his own.
Zo
D&D is two games. It is storytime and it is wargame.It's apparent that you and I have very different opinions of what the game is and should be. I'm glad that there's room for a variety of opinions at the "table". However I'm beginning to sense that the math/no math argument is just a rendition of the version wars. Maybe I'm a little slow on the uptake :)
Anyway, I'm going to stop posting on this subject as it doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than making people feel defensive. To each his own.
Zo
He was not being defensive. He was trying to explain what I have been explaining, but its easier to post a link. Link
Edit:His post is not exactly like men, but I think mine covers the other half to an extent.
Yeah. Well, actually, now with Pathfinder and seeing what a bow Fighter can do, I think I'd rather face Clerics with Avasculate.
Bow Fighter, hell. Try a bow Paladin against an undead, evil outsider, or evil dragon, such as the Balor in FighterMan's challenge. They put FighterMan to shame; on the other hand, FighterMan wins out dramatically against anything non-evil, and they're roughly equivalent against anything evil that doesn't qualify for double damage.
He was not being defensive. He was trying to explain what I have been explaining, but its easier to post a link. [urk=http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/weKnowItsNotJustAboutTheNumbers] Link [/url]
I didn't say he was being defensive, I said that it makes people feel defensive. That they have to defend their point of view. That they feel that someone else's posted opinion is an attack on their own point of view.
Zo
EDIT:
I'm more proposing a continuum which (I believe) includes all forms of D&D, of pretty much any edition.
Now this I can agree with. Not a dichotomy, rather aspects of the same game. No argument here.
I didn't say he was being defensive, I said that it makes people feel defensive. That they have to defend their point of view. That they feel that someone else's posted opinion is an attack on their own point of view.
Most of the time opposing view points are expected to be defended here. It's not personal at all. If I say that druids are better than wizards, and he does not beleive me, he would offer a counterpoint, and he might even ask me to explain my viewpoint. In the end I see these debates as more about finding the truth, or leading others to truth, than winning an argument. If I thought your opinion was wrong on an issue I would think I would try to sway you, and when I have have been wrong others have swayed me. In the end, we are friends here, even though things do get heated at times.
That is how I see it anyway.
Click on the link in the post above this one. If you got it then you would not be calling us min-maxers.Lots of us get it. We just don't like it. Just because someone doesn't agree with you and your methods doesn't mean that they don't understand you or your methods.I am glad somebody gets it.
As TM says: the OP has the wrong end of the stick. The tier project was about trying to gauge a means of balancing classes - not about "elitism". Pretty much the opposite.
Re-read what I wrote. I called no one in this thread a min-maxer (and I read your other thread before you pointed it out, thanks for linking anyway).
What I DID say was that what you do is used by min-maxers. Believe it or not, min-maxers actually exist and I can refer to them without referring to you!
Now sit back, relax and take your words out of my mouth... again.
Click on the link in the post above this one. If you got it then you would not be calling us min-maxers.Lots of us get it. We just don't like it. Just because someone doesn't agree with you and your methods doesn't mean that they don't understand you or your methods.I am glad somebody gets it.
As TM says: the OP has the wrong end of the stick. The tier project was about trying to gauge a means of balancing classes - not about "elitism". Pretty much the opposite.Re-read what I wrote. I called no one in this thread a min-maxer (and I read your other thread before you pointed it out, thanks for linking anyway).
What I DID say was that what you do is used by min-maxers. Believe it or not, min-maxers actually exist and I can refer to them without referring to you!
Now sit back, relax and take your words out of my mouth... again.
Then you should have been more clear. Even if you did not actually say it, it still sounds like an insinuation.
If you did something and I said it's a method used by idiots, I am sure you would have felt like I called you an idiot.Another point is I had said that things are not created equal, so what was the point in you asking me to accept something that I had already stated?
When did I say min-maxers did not exist?
You not liking something does not make it untrue or invalid.
When making comparisons there has to be a common ground. The only thing that is common are the rules. You know what I am not repeating this again. It has been said by enough people in enough ways that if you don't understand it by now then you won't understand.
Lots of us get it. We just don't like it. Just because someone doesn't agree with you and your methods doesn't mean that they don't understand you or your methods.Don't like what?
Balancing classes like one would a checkbook.
Don't like that there is a project among posters on another forum to rebalance 3.5?
Nope, that's fine. I think that they're going about it the inaccurately by only focusing on the numbers. But that's neither here nor there.
Don't like as part of their project that they are discussing class balance? (in addition to all sorts of other subjects)
Don't like that someone made a post about it here on these boards and asked for the opinions of others?
OK, complete left field if you look at my other posts. I have no response these statements simply I have, as yet, not said anything about them.
The OP's posts, and your earlier posts address none of these issues, surely since you haven't you can understand why someone might suspect you don't know what placing 3.5 classes into "tiers" on the BG forums was about in the first place.
I do because I've read several of the threads about it.
You discuss "your methods", who are you speaking to? I've never even seen JaronK make a post on the Paizo boards, I thought the rebalance project was because he was interested in continuing with 3.5.
I was speaking to Wraithstrike, it was he whom I quoted. So I was speaking of the methods that he has stated, implicitly or otherwise, he employs. I don't care for number-crunching. I know that others love it and I don't have a problem with that.
I sense agression from you, and from the OP, but it seems like blind agression. Who are you even mad at, and why? (since you apparently already knew that Tier rankings had nothing to do with optimization, powergaming, etc.)
Of course there was aggression from me after my first post. I was annoyed at Wraithstrike for putting words into my mouth and then doubly annoyed at the idea that I, and others who do not agree with him, are unable to "get it" because we don't like it. That's a simple debate faux pas as far as I'm concerned.
Wraith, man, you have too much of a chip on your shoulder about this subject. I lost a long post to the system but it boiled down to.
I don't agree with you. It's ok that I don't agree with you. It doesn't make your point invalid or false. I just don't do things they way you do.
I never called you an idiot, or agreed with the idiot statement.
Oh, and I don't think that the rules are a common enough ground with all the other variables that occur during play to achieve class balance through number crunching.
I understand. I just don't agree.
Don't put words in my mouth and tell me that your play style is more conducive to having fun as a universal play style.
I never said that. I was only stating that assuming the DM holds no punches a well built character will have a better chance at living than one that is not well built. Maybe when you said works you meant enjoyment, but the tier thing is not about enjoyment*. It's mostly mechanical. If that(misunderstanding of the word "works") was the case we have been going back and forth over nothing. If that is not the case then we are arguing apples and oranges and have no idea what the "works" means in that context.
By you disagreeing with that idea(when I changed your post) I assumed you thought you could throw random feats on a character and expect it to live under any DM.
*Well the end result is enjoyment, but that is not what the initial idea was about.
Wraith, man, you have too much of a chip on your shoulder about this subject. I lost a long post to the system but it boiled down to.
I don't agree with you. It's ok that I don't agree with you. It doesn't make your point invalid or false. I just don't do things they way you do.
I never called you an idiot, or agreed with the idiot statement.
Oh, and I don't think that the rules are a common enough ground with all the other variables that occur during play to achieve class balance through number crunching.
I understand. I just don't agree.
I have not chip on my shoulder. I did not even get annoyed until you said don't put words in your mouth, but it seems we both misunderstood the others intent, which reminds me I need to try to get emoticons on this site.
Wraith,
To summarize my argument, the tiers fail to hold up during actual play in my experience, and the only purpose they serve is to show theoretical game imballences that aren't really there.They don't always hold up, but that is due to the DM, and people, but no class will perform the same in different groups. A lot of the number crunching done on the boards is theoretical too since DM's will fudge dice, and strategy will come into play. I do see your point though. If WoTC had not lost so many post I would direct you to complaints of caster breaking people's games. There are probably post on here that show it.
My group is like yours in the sense that we don't have the issue that would show up in a tier system because we moderate ourselves but some players don't do that. I was not stating that it always happens, only that it can, and DM's should be ready for it. :)
See, I completely agree with Caine and Wraith is ok without what Caine said. I just didn't communicate as well as Caine did.
Don't put words in my mouth and tell me that your play style is more conducive to having fun as a universal play style.I never said that. I was only stating that assuming the DM holds no punches a well built character will have a better chance at living than one that is not well built. Maybe when you said works you meant enjoyment, but the tier thing is not about enjoyment*. It's mostly mechanical. If that(misunderstanding of the word "works") was the case we have been going back and forth over nothing. If that is not the case then we are arguing apples and oranges and have no idea what the "works" means in that context.
By you disagreeing with that idea(when I changed your post) I assumed you thought you could throw random feats on a character and expect it to live under any DM.
*Well the end result is enjoyment, but that is not what the initial idea was about.
Oh hell no. I thought that YOU were saying "well built" meant "completely optimized" as opposed to my idea of "not stupidly built". If a character built with some logic to it is "well built" then yeah, I totally agree with you.
As for what I don't agree with: The tiering of the PFRPG classes which I conflated with the other threads saying this or that class sucks because (tons of math).
Howerver, after unconflating (is that a word?)I feel that it's far to early to accurately Tier the PFRPG classes.
As for what I don't agree with: The tiering of the PFRPG classes which I conflated with the other threads saying this or that class sucks because (tons of math).
Howerver, after unconflating (is that a word?)I feel that it's far to early to accurately Tier the PFRPG classes.
I agree that math alone does not cut it. I think examples are needed also.
1000's of hit points. How long do those fights take?Yeah. Well, actually, now with Pathfinder and seeing what a bow Fighter can do, I think I'd rather face Clerics with Avasculate.touch attack that flat out 1/2ed someones HP with no save (lvl 7 I think). Not bad against normal monsters, but if you custom design things with 1000s of hp like Loopy, it was dumb. We used it on him once, and now he no longer allows spells from the spell compendium without GM approval.I hope this "avasculate" isn't a big letdown like the warlock was.
"Oh.....teh warlock's so broken. Oh,....he can do this....oh,...he can do that."
Put him up against teh characters and......*splap* he's wasted.
That was a long battle with a level 19 average party level at the end of the campaign. There've been 2 other battles like that since, both at the end of the LAST campaign. One was a Lich with odd combat rules involving his undead horde and the other was the final battle at the end of the campaign as well - they fought an entire city... like as a massive construct.
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2102&id=100000095680047&l=be1 3f4009f
Yeah. Well, actually, now with Pathfinder and seeing what a bow Fighter can do, I think I'd rather face Clerics with Avasculate.Bow Fighter, hell. Try a bow Paladin against an undead, evil outsider, or evil dragon, such as the Balor in FighterMan's challenge. They put FighterMan to shame; on the other hand, FighterMan wins out dramatically against anything non-evil, and they're roughly equivalent against anything evil that doesn't qualify for double damage.
Wait wait wait wait. FAAAAIIIILLLL!!!!! I've failed to see my own point. If I allowed Avasculate, I wouldn't be facing 4 to 6 CLERICS. I'd be facing a party consisting of a Cleric and, theoretically, Archerman.
Avasculate + Archerman = BBEG dead in 1 round.
:,(
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.
Adventures, in theory atleast, are ment to be tailored to the party for which they are run.
If you choose to play play a 'low-tier' or 'Sub-optimal' character, you are not dragging down the party, but rather setting the baseline to which the the adventure will be set. If you play a well rounded dabbler in the arcane, rather than Raistlin Majere, you are not dragging the group down, unless the DM has set out with the express purpose of running the worlds most deadly adventure, regardless of what the individual players might wish to play.
Not all choice in life are equal, they never can be. To attempt within a roleplaying system to achieve that kind of balance by blunt force results in something that feels more like an abstract board game than a system designed to addudicate dramatic events within a story.
I know this was not for me, but I normally have to see it in play first. Another factor is whether I would do it to my PC's. If I can't do it to them, then they can't do it to my NPC's.
This rule has resolved so many potential conflicts for me. Most of my players know it, and will first ask themselves if they'd like to face a villain with the same power/spell/etc.
I know this was not for me, but I normally have to see it in play first. Another factor is whether I would do it to my PC's. If I can't do it to them, then they can't do it to my NPC's.This rule has resolved so many potential conflicts for me. Most of my players know it, and will first ask themselves if they'd like to face a villain with the same power/spell/etc.
That is a great rule, and one that leads to most of the stuff I have banned
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.Adventures, in theory atleast, are ment to be tailored to the party for which they are run.
If you choose to play play a 'low-tier' or 'Sub-optimal' character, you are not dragging down the party, but rather setting the baseline to which the the adventure will be set. If you play a well rounded dabbler in the arcane, rather than Raistlin Majere, you are not dragging the group down, unless the DM has set out with the express purpose of running the worlds most deadly adventure, regardless of what the individual players might wish to play.
Not all choice in life are equal, they never can be. To attempt within a roleplaying system to achieve that kind of balance by blunt force results in something that feels more like an abstract board game than a system designed to addudicate dramatic events within a story.
Respectfully, I disagree. A player with below-average skills playing a sub-optimal character (say, a Samurai) can drag down the party if they're not having fun because the clas leaves them extremely few options at the table, and they get frustrated as a result, and it slows everything down.....I've seen it happen. My group had a player who was a fanatic adherent to the Stormwind Fallacy, and felt compelled to create deliberately underpowered characters in the mistaken belief that they were more "interesting".
Granted, that's more an example of a problem player, but it illustrates the worst-case scenario of what can happen when characters get dramatically outshined. Yes, the tier system is not hard and fast, and can be subverted by smart players....we had a player using a Goliath who was a HOLY terror, just as a Fighter. What I fail to understand is what's remotely constructive about ragging on a system you don't subscribe to. Don't like the Tier System? Don't pay any attention to it....that's your right. But don't start threads with titles like the original title of this thread....that's just juvenile and elitist.
But what defines "below-average"? Or better yet, what defines the Average, where is the centerline? Does the expertly-Treatmonked character designate it? Because if that's so then you're playing a very restrictive style of campaign where everyone is a combo of super-maxed key stats and dump stats of 8, 7, or less.
I think the point that is being missed through most of this discussion that there is or should be a workable middle ground between Super-TM and Lovable But Fail.
I would consider a "below-average" player somebody who has a shaky grasp on the rules and/or has a hard time making a character that serves the purpose of what they'd like to do in the game. I'm tempted to include players who make deliberately contrary characters in there, but that's more stubborn than anything else.
I agree. For the most part, I haven't seen balance as a HUGE problem in 3.5, and I suspect that will be less so with the amping up of the melee classes in Pathfinder. But certain classes to have strong potential to go nova in the hands of certain players, overshadowing others.
Basically, it boils down to you understanding intuitively about the logic underlying the tiers, and consciously shaping your game to reflect them. This is a very good thing. The fact that you need to do this is not obvious, however. The tier lists are intended both to educate players and GMs on why you need to shape the game in this way, and provide a rough common consensus from...
So the Tier lists do not take into account any basis on reality and usage, but condense the classes into pure numbers?
My assessment hasn't changed. In fact, it stresses how it is a pointless exercise.
"If the DM is a robot with no imagination and the players are too, this is what you get."
I don't think that helps anyone do anything of value. Usage and real-life experience in-game MUST be a factor in game balance... a MAJOR factor... the MOST IMPORTANT factor.
Basically, it boils down to you understanding intuitively about the logic underlying the tiers, and consciously shaping your game to reflect them. This is a very good thing. The fact that you need to do this is not obvious, however. The tier lists are intended both to educate players and GMs on why you need to shape the game in this way, and provide a rough common consensus from...So the Tier lists do not take into account any basis on reality and usage, but condense the classes into pure numbers?
My assessment hasn't changed. In fact, it stresses how it is a pointless exercise.
"If the DM is a robot with no imagination and the players are too, this is what you get."
I don't think that helps anyone do anything of value. Usage and real-life experience in-game MUST be a factor in game balance... a MAJOR factor... the MOST IMPORTANT factor.
You're applying greedy reductionism to the philosophy behind the Tier System. Usage and real-life experience are considered in the Tier System:
"Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier in terms of tier descriptions, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level. As a rule, parties function best when everyone in the party is within 2 Tiers of each other (so a party that's all Tier 2-4 is generally fine, and so is a party that's all Tier 3-5, but a party that has Tier 1 and Tier 5s in it may have issues)."
So it's very clearly acknowledged here that not all players are created equal.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Loopy, I think you're misunderstanding AMIB. He's not arguing that tiers reduce classes into numbers at all. Entirely the opposite, in fact, he is presenting the case that tiers are a way to express reality and use.
I would expand upon this, but I'd just be copying his own words. I don't know how I could make them clearer.
I have banned Avasculate from my games. Broken, broken, -broken- spell.I'm kind of curious, and I apologize for the threadjack, but I was kind of wondering if you banned this spell when you first read it, after someone used it, or after someone used it multiple times?
I am all for people leaving things out of their games that they don't want to deal with. A GM has a lot of variables to deal with, and cutting them down helps make a campaign easier to run with.
However, I have also seen powers/abilities/spells and the like be deemed "broken" after one use that worked out spectacularly well in context, without seeing it long term.
I'm not saying that happened in your case, I'm just curious to see how this actually comes about in most people's games.
Actually I banned it after a player used it repeatedly in an epic game that my wife was running in conjunction with a rod of quickening to drop a monster that had 1200 hp to 300 in one round. It's the "no save" aspect that's broken in my opinion. Therefore, after that I decided that in my games the spell would be forbidden.
1000's of hit points. How long do those fights take?Yeah. Well, actually, now with Pathfinder and seeing what a bow Fighter can do, I think I'd rather face Clerics with Avasculate.touch attack that flat out 1/2ed someones HP with no save (lvl 7 I think). Not bad against normal monsters, but if you custom design things with 1000s of hp like Loopy, it was dumb. We used it on him once, and now he no longer allows spells from the spell compendium without GM approval.I hope this "avasculate" isn't a big letdown like the warlock was.
"Oh.....teh warlock's so broken. Oh,....he can do this....oh,...he can do that."
Put him up against teh characters and......*splap* he's wasted.
When you have someone dual wielding flaming-shocking-frosting pistols being guarded by a Paladin/Monk/Devoted Defender/Iajitsu Master with a 40 touch AC before full expertising, it does not take as long as you might think to kill a god.
As a note, this is in a VERY high magic campaign started in 3.0 and partially converted to 3.5 with some custom things. People had prestige classes not brought over.
1000's of hit points. How long do those fights take?Yeah. Well, actually, now with Pathfinder and seeing what a bow Fighter can do, I think I'd rather face Clerics with Avasculate.touch attack that flat out 1/2ed someones HP with no save (lvl 7 I think). Not bad against normal monsters, but if you custom design things with 1000s of hp like Loopy, it was dumb. We used it on him once, and now he no longer allows spells from the spell compendium without GM approval.I hope this "avasculate" isn't a big letdown like the warlock was.
"Oh.....teh warlock's so broken. Oh,....he can do this....oh,...he can do that."
Put him up against teh characters and......*splap* he's wasted.
That was a long battle with a level 19 average party level at the end of the campaign. There've been 2 other battles like that since, both at the end of the LAST campaign. One was a Lich with odd combat rules involving his undead horde and the other was the final battle at the end of the campaign as well - they fought an entire city... like as a massive construct.
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2102&id=100000095680047&l=be1 3f4009f
Wait wait wait wait. FAAAAIIIILLLL!!!!! I've failed to see my own point. If I allowed Avasculate, I wouldn't be facing 4 to 6 CLERICS. I'd be facing a party...Yeah. Well, actually, now with Pathfinder and seeing what a bow Fighter can do, I think I'd rather face Clerics with Avasculate.Bow Fighter, hell. Try a bow Paladin against an undead, evil outsider, or evil dragon, such as the Balor in FighterMan's challenge. They put FighterMan to shame; on the other hand, FighterMan wins out dramatically against anything non-evil, and they're roughly equivalent against anything evil that doesn't qualify for double damage.
That is an great land sculpture you made.
What I fail to understand is what's remotely constructive about ragging on a system you don't subscribe to. Don't like the Tier System? Don't pay any attention to it....that's your right. But don't start threads with titles like the original title of this thread....that's just juvenile and elitist.
Wise words. I think you put to words what I was thinking better than I could have.
It's one thing to not like a thread topic and therefore choose to not participate in the discussion.
It is another thing entirely to start a new thread just to put it down.
Or you could... you know... just make the save also be for half damage >.>
Or cap it. 10 hp/level max or something to that effect.
|
It's one thing to not like a thread topic and therefore choose to not participate in the discussion.
It is another thing entirely to start a new thread just to put it down.
Though in a forum that designers read it behooves some to give their opinions even when not asked for... Such as when someone decides to post that they think a tier system would be a good idea. This is just a counter example. Whether I want to hear it or not, he's pointing out what he finds as problems with that system in a manner that won't derail other threads. This is the General Discussion area isn't it?
|
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.
+1.
But what defines "below-average"? Or better yet, what defines the Average, where is the centerline?
Respectfully, I disagree. A player with below-average skills playing a sub-optimal character (say, a Samurai) can drag down the party if they're not having fun because the clas leaves them extremely few options at the table, and they get frustrated as a result, and it slows everything down.....I've seen it happen. My group had a player who was a fanatic adherent to the Stormwind Fallacy, and felt compelled to create deliberately underpowered characters in the mistaken belief that they were more "interesting".
I think that varies according to the party. Some groups play at a higher level than other groups.
Basically, it boils down to you understanding intuitively about the logic underlying the tiers, and consciously shaping your game to reflect them. This is a very good thing. The fact that you need to do this is not obvious, however. The tier lists are intended both to educate players and GMs on why you need to shape the game in this way, and provide a rough common consensus from...So the Tier lists do not take into account any basis on reality and usage, but condense the classes into pure numbers?
My assessment hasn't changed. In fact, it stresses how it is a pointless exercise.
"If the DM is a robot with no imagination and the players are too, this is what you get."
I don't think that helps anyone do anything of value. Usage and real-life experience in-game MUST be a factor in game balance... a MAJOR factor... the MOST IMPORTANT factor.
No it's not pure numbers, but options* also. I think it was stated you can't really assign numbers to things like teleport.
*The ability to potentially handle a wide variety of situations.
Whether I want to hear it or not, he's pointing out what he finds as problems with that system in a manner that won't derail other threads.
and gives him a chance to refer to those who are participating in said thread whiners (as the post following yours highlights).
This isn't just a way to say, "I have problems with the system others are discussing"
It's a way to put down the others who are discussing it.
This is a dumb, pointless exercise that doesn't help anyone make or play their character better. It's just creates reasons to whine...
Could you see how someone might find that offensive? He's not just discussing ranking class by tier.
He's discussing those who rank classes by tier.
|
|
Whether I want to hear it or not, he's pointing out what he finds as problems with that system in a manner that won't derail other threads.and gives him a chance to refer to those who are participating in said thread whiners (as the post following yours highlights).
This isn't just a way to say, "I have problems with the system others are discussing"
It's a way to put down the others who are discussing it.
This is a dumb, pointless exercise that doesn't help anyone make or play their character better. It's just creates reasons to whine...Could you see how someone might find that offensive? He's not just discussing ranking class by tier.
He's discussing those who rank classes by tier.
I'm not defending what he said at all, however I don't really find that all that offensive either. However, he has an opinion in there as well. You could both ignore each other and just discuss the ideas.
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 agree with the tiering of players and not classes.
I agree with the tiering of players and not classes.
Mr. Fishy can play any class and stomp it.
Players should be tiered not classes.
Mr. Fishy has been threaten with an ECL +1.
Tiering of players is VERY important, make no mistake.....but there are classes that even the most gifted players would have difficulty getting to work well. Not many, but they're there.