| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Not at all. They may be the same franchise, there may be a logical progression from one to the next, but you may as well be comparing Mario Party to Mario Galaxy as far as similarities are concerned. The game, the mechanical system of Pathfinder, is far more closely related to Mutants and Masterminds than red box D&D. To bring up 1e in a discussion of mechanics has about as much relevance as bringing up Shadowrun.
And 3.5/Pathfinder isn't even designed to do the same thing as 1e, nor to run the same kinds of games.
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.
Min-maxers do indeed exist.
Min-maxing is nothing more than 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 someone's supposed to be very good at lying, but very bad at stabbing, then it only makes sense to lower (min) their 'stab things' stat and raise (max) their 'lie good' stat. Min-maxing is nothing more, nothing less.
If you build your character to be good at what they're supposed to be good at, and bad at what they're supposed to be bad at, then you are min-maxing, no matter how much you deny it or how much you claim not to be. You are a min-maxer. If your gruff dwarven warrior has high strength, low charisma, and Weapon Focus: Axe, you are a min-maxer. Even if you have six or eight charisma instead of five. No two ways about it.
And if you're not min-maxing, then your character is not good at what they're supposed to be good at, and they may or may not be bad at what they're supposed to be bad at. The mechanics fail to represent the character, and it becomes a roleplaying fault. The game and the story are now at odds, and the entirety of the gaming experience is now diminished. Congratulations.
If you're not min-maxing, you're dragging the roleplay down.
Now, if you want to talk about sheets that look something like this, you're not talking about min-maxing anymore. You're talking about powergaming. Completely different beast. And not min-maxing.
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.
Except... they aren't. And I have absolutely no idea how anyone can even get this impression. Making a list of, "this class needs help, this class needs toned down, this class is more or less okay," (which is all the tier list is with regards to balance) does not mean you're only looking at the numbers in order to determine who needs help.
The tiers are about far, far more than numbers. You can't put a number on the ability to teleport from New York to Ontario. Or the combination of Invisibility and Fly. Or on the ability to open any door. Or on mind-reading. These are all qualitative attributes that make up the basis of the tier 1 classes' power. They're not labeled the most powerful in the game because they dish out 87% mean HP DPR at all levels against like-CR foes. They're in tier 1 because their vast, sweeping qualitative abilities are just so tremendously powerful that there's little they can't do within the world, few obstacles they can't overcome, and many adventure types that they can just destroy in an instant with a single ability. After all, a 'cross the evil forest' quest becomes incredibly easy when you can teleport to the other side of the evil forest. Even their abilities that actually win fights are oftentimes more qualitative. It's hard to put a number on, 'erect a giant steel wall within six seconds.'
On the other side of the equation, the numbers are of vital importance in the analysis of a Fighter because they don't have anything else. Their only class abilities, the only strength the system gives them, is combat. Assessing how they fare in a straight fight is all you can do to appraise their abilities, because they completely lack qualitative abilities. Yes, in a game, there are all kinds of roleplaying things you can do, but they have absolutely zero to do with the system and have no bearing on game balance.
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.
"You don't get it because you don't like it," is wildly different from, "You don't get it because your every objection stems from a massive and wild misinterpretation of the fundamental premises, modes, and purpose of the system as a whole." Whether or not you like it makes no difference when you're arguing from factually incorrect premises.
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 disagree with you," is an absolutely useless statement that should never be brought up in logical discourse, ever.
"I disagree with you for reasons X, Y, and Z," is an extremely useful statement that promotes healthy discussion.
"X and Y are factually incorrect for reasons A, B, and C," is perfectly valid and ain't getting worked up on the matter. It's just productive conversation. It does not mean disagreement is inherently wrong. It's that premises X and Y are factually incorrect.
Everything in the universe is subject to logic. That includes opinions. A good opinion has premises and evidence. Those premises and evidence are as subject to logic as anything else. If you hold an opinion for five reasons, and four of them are factually incorrect, that opinion needs to be reexamined.
That is a great rule, and one that leads to most of the stuff I have bannedI 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.
Though you still have to be mindful. Some things function differently in the hands of the enemy than in the hands of the PCs. In the hands of a horde of 1HD Elan Warriors who are only expected to get one attack in before they die, that +2d6 damage from Psychic Weapon on a single attack in the fight means a lot more than it does on the party beater who may be getting off a couple dozen attacks over the course of the fight.
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.
Adventures are indeed meant to be tailored to the party for which they are run. Which is precisely why the party members should be in the same ballpark range; to make it possible to effectively, reliably, and easily tailor the adventure to the party.
Imagine a band of superheroes consisting of Superman, Doctor Strange, and Thor. All three wield massive, cosmic-level power. Against something with enough raw power to get in a fist-fight with Superman, Thor and Doctor Strange are still powerful enough to tango. They're perfectly capable of standing together on pretty much any adventure of such scope that it demands their tremendous power.
Now, imagine a trio of 'superheroes' that are all on the order of The Shoveler. A guy whose power is that he has a shovel. The scope of the threats are definitely getting scaled way back, since Team Shoveler would get utterly annihilated if they had to break up that kegger Darkseid and Galactus are holding in downtown L.A., but a bank robbery? They can handle that. Adventures that aren't so cosmic in scope, that don't demand the godly superpowers, they're quite capable of handling.
Now, imagine a superhero team that has Superman standing next to The Shoveler. How do you keep balancing adventures for that duo without it being so blatantly contrived that you just can't reasonably keep it up game after game? The Shoveler doesn't really bring anything to the table that Superman can't already trump. You pretty much have to have kryptonite rain from the heavens, or railroad the two down completely separate paths each designed for their own individual abilities. In either case, the two cannot work together; with kryptonite, you make Superman stop working entirely in order to give The Shoveler some screen time, while with the twin paths, they quite literally can't work together, and instead have to work separately.
And it's a lot more work for the DM than just making sure everyone was on the same page to begin with and brought characters to the campaign that can actually work on the same team, and allows for far more freedom.
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."
Except that's not what the tier system is. If anything, it's designed for assisting DMs in running the game.
From the Tier 1 description: "These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party."
From the Tier 5 description: "DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below."
The tiers are largely about how much the DM has to adapt the world to accommodate the classes' individual power, as well as a tool for making parties that can work well together. If the party's a bunch of mid-to-high-level tier 1's, the DM can throw out pretty much any ridiculous situation without bothering to even think how it could possibly be resolved, and clever players will probably be able to fix it. If the party's a bunch of tier 4's and 5's, the DM really needs to adapt the situations specifically to their abilities, like orc mooks for the Great Cleave Fighter.
However, when you start mixing tier 1's and tier 5's, it becomes more and more difficult to balance encounters without actively designing the universe to screw over the tier 1's while dropping goodies in the tier 5s' laps. A practice that many have come to consider the norm and houseruled up while declaring it the norm within the rules. Part of why, 'Personal experience means nothing.'
Wow....well put, Viletta.
Wow....well put, Viletta.
QFT.
I think I'm done with this thread. VV has said it all.
Except for:
...are all on the order of The Shoveler. A guy whose power is that he has a shovel.
If I remember correctly, he also claimed to be good at shoveling. He also wore a helmet - that deserves mention.
Viletta, you obviously have max ranks in the debate skill... so why then don't I like what you have to say about saying "I disagree"? At the point someone says "Let's agree to disagree", it's usually gotten to the point where it's obvious that both parties are too stubborn or just unwilling to be swayed by the other party. Both parties can have debated with the utmost logic (though I'm not sure I agree that opinion should always be based on logic... that's a cold, clinical way to look at life imo) and it's still not clear who's "right". The whole point of debate is not to "win" the argument, but rather to provide your stance in an insightful way so that others reading the debate might be swayed to your way of thinking. In my forumite experience, if you're debating with someone, 90% of the time he or she is not going to be swayed... people online are notoriously stubborn after all. Anyway, my point is that "I disagree" can be a perfectly valid statement in a debate that's gone on for too long.
|
Wow....well put, Viletta.
Yeah, she does that. Way better than I ever could, so I just kick back and watch. ^^
Now, if you want to talk about sheets that look something like this, you're not talking about min-maxing anymore. You're talking about powergaming. Completely different beast. And not min-maxing.
I WISH someone would bring a character like that to my game. I'd find a monster that did ability damage to INT or CHA and see how well he fared. Powergamers like that give honest min-maxers a bad name.
Anyway, my point is that "I disagree" can be a perfectly valid statement in a debate that's gone on for too long.
Agreeing to disagree is something that usually happens after everyone has defended their point of view and been unable to find common ground.
However, if one side just says, "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."
and doesn't say why, then there has been not only been no effort to find common ground, they have ensured that their position has no backing at all, so nobody else can find common ground either.
|
|
dot dot dot......
wow... a FOUR cha AND six int... poor guy really left himself vulnerable on that one. (Not many creatures do cha or int damage though, but I can think of a few to slam him with. Also... ray of stupidity for the win)
Or just some allips to tackle that 8 wisdom.
Edit: o.O Which does Wisdom DRAIN, permanently removing that 1st level PC until someone can whip up a Restoration spell.
Viletta, you obviously have max ranks in the debate skill... so why then don't I like what you have to say about saying "I disagree"? At the point someone says "Let's agree to disagree", it's usually gotten to the point where it's obvious that both parties are too stubborn or just unwilling to be swayed by the other party. Both parties can have debated with the utmost logic (though I'm not sure I agree that opinion should always be based on logic... that's a cold, clinical way to look at life imo) and it's still not clear who's "right". The whole point of debate is not to "win" the argument, but rather to provide your stance in an insightful way so that others reading the debate might be swayed to your way of thinking. In my forumite experience, if you're debating with someone, 90% of the time he or she is not going to be swayed... people online are notoriously stubborn after all. Anyway, my point is that "I disagree" can be a perfectly valid statement in a debate that's gone on for too long.
Now, "Let's agree to disagree," is very different from putting forth, "I disagree," as a premise unto itself. A debate that doesn't end in agreement has to stop somehow, sure, but 'agreeing to disagree' (a term I'm not fond of, but that I'm not gonna ramble about right now) is not a part of a debate so much as a way of saying, "Okay, we're done here." Or, "Okay, I'm done here."
Now, if you want to talk about sheets that look something like this, you're not talking about min-maxing anymore. You're talking about powergaming. Completely different beast. And not min-maxing.I WISH someone would bring a character like that to my game. I'd find a monster that did ability damage to INT or CHA and see how well he fared. Powergamers like that give honest min-maxers a bad name.
Heh. Actually, I am bringing that character to a game, but it's a joke character in a joke game. The topic of the killer housecat came up the other day, where a few housecats actually stand a legitimate chance of killing a level 1 adventurer (and one housecat can kill a commoner), and a friend of mine brought up the idea of a kitty apocalypse. And at that point, he was given no choice but to actually run it. :P
So, we're all bringing these super high-powered level 1 characters (with the constraint, 'no damage reduction') to see how long they last against wave after wave of bloodthirsty housecats. (Which, thankfully, don't do ability damage. :P)
I should be able to roast at least thirty kitties with that flame mantle before the end. :D
Wow.. I have to say that I think Viletta Vadim pretty much summed up my feelings on the situation as eloquently as possible.
About the only thing I think can't be stressed enough to the opposing viewpoint is that this is absolutely NOT about numbers crunch.
When someone says the Wizard is more "capable" than the Fighter, it's because he has tools that apply to far more situations, not because he does X damage per round, or has a save DC of Y on his spells.
For a more personal example, every time I've made suggestions on how to fix the Fighter, it wasn't to give more pluses or extra damage. That is the one thing he's already good at.
My suggestions have always been to make his current abilities more flexible and variable, and give him more skillpoints and class skills so he has more options.
This is what the Tier system does.
If you think the Tier system was designed to place classes on a podium of encounter killing, then your feelings are misplaced.
The Tier system is used for exactly the things I've used it for (my Fighter example), to find the real reason a class feels like it is lagging behind, and to find the right fix for it.
.
If anything, I think the game designers could have been influenced more by the Tier system. The Fighter was given a lot of nice boosts, that's for sure... but he still really hasn't changed his position in the Tiers. He's still stuck in the same limited options he had before.
I would have much preferred seeing more tactics abilities and skillpoints being added to the Fighter than a general +hit and better armor usage.
That isn't to say that I feel that Pathfinder isn't good though.. far from it, I feel it's at least better than 3.5e.. and a lot of other changes made to the system helped (skill changes being the big one). I'm not a total negative nelly. ;)
|
|
Actually, Allips do Wisdom damage in PF. They're in the bonus bestiary.
Good to know, but then I'm not playing Pathfinder. >:3
I should be able to roast at least thirty kitties with that flame mantle before the end. :D
As a cat-lover, I would berate you for imaginary cat-abuse but I'm laughing too hard. XD
|
I don't really like words like broken or class tiers and I kinda loathe hearing about the Stormwind Fallacy, but the only thing I really strongly dislike is the preponderance of threads telling me what sort of gaming is badwrongfun.
I just don't care. If people are having fun min-maxing and playing arena challenges with their optimized beasties, good for them. If others are having fun pure role-playing and having touched a die all session, good for them.
They may be veering towards one extreme or the other (and 'missing the point of the game' in the eyes of the other side), but neither group is doing it wrong.
Actually, Allips do Wisdom damage in PF. They're in the bonus bestiary.
Good to know, but then I'm not playing Pathfinder. >:3
I should be able to roast at least thirty kitties with that flame mantle before the end. :DAs a cat-lover, I would berate you for imaginary cat-abuse but I'm laughing too hard. XD
You could use the 2nd level psion/wilder power Ego Whip for a sound mental lashing.
The target takes 1d4 points of Charisma damage, or half that amount (minimum 1 point) on a successful save.
So the Tier lists do not take into account any basis on reality and usage, but condense the classes into pure numbers?
No. Very nearly 100% the opposite. The tier system doesn't really involve numbers at all. The tier system is based around two things: how many different types of challenges a class can solve, and how "well" the class can solve those challenges (ie, how many resources does the class have to spend to solve the challenge). The only time math and numbers enter the picture is when you have a difference of opinion regarding whether a class can do enough damage to be competitive in combat (which is just one type of challenge), such as when AMiB challenged me to make FighterMan.
Howerver, after unconflating (is that a word?)I feel that it's far to early to accurately Tier the PFRPG classes.
No, it isn't "too early to accurately tier the PFRPG classes". For one thing, PFRPG has been available for over a year now, and only a couple classes received major tier-relevant changes since the Alpha tests. For another, the core classes aren't generally that different from the 3.5 core classes in terms of tiering, so we've already got a base point to work off of; it's fairly easy to tell whether a class has improved or been weakened in the tier system.
So the Tier lists do not take into account any basis on reality and usage, but condense the classes into pure numbers?No. Very nearly 100% the opposite. The tier system doesn't really involve numbers at all. The tier system is based around two things: how many different types of challenges a class can solve, and how "well" the class can solve those challenges (ie, how many resources does the class have to spend to solve the challenge). The only time math and numbers enter the picture is when you have a difference of opinion regarding whether a class can do enough damage to be competitive in combat (which is just one type of challenge), such as when AMiB challenged me to make FighterMan.
That's far more sensible. It pales pitifully, however, when compared with real playtesting. An example of this is that, on face value, due to their massive spell lists, one could easily argue that Clerics and Wizards eventually have an answer to every single problem you could think of. In practice, however, this is a bunch of monkey poop.
In fact, the whole idea that level X ~= level X is one of 3e's greatest strengths. There are many, many RPGs, each of them more realistic or streamlined or genre-appropriate or creative or whatever than D&D, but they all rely heavily on a social contract that one player won't make a character that breaks the game or overshadows the rest of the party.
I agree completely. It is one of the reasons we use this system. Systems which rely on point-buy or another similar open character creation method are, more often than not, VERY under-playtested and, if they aren't, still suffer from an inability to consider most or all ability synergies which can smash a game into small bits of logic.
|
|
As usual, Viletta Vadim and A Man in Black are my heroes.
I was actually thinking of the Justice League to use as a comparison the other day until I got sidetracked.
There are all these powerful beings, and then there's Batman and Green Arrow. Superman often has to be written as a chump in order for Batman's intelligence to come into play. Ignoring the fact that Superman has light speed reactions, and it takes an extremely heavy force or a plot device in order to put him out of the fight. Green Arrow is even worse. He's a dude whose really good at aiming/shooting. Except that it doesn't matter. Flash, Superman, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter all are super fast and can physically deliver a bullet, arrow, or projectile to the destinations better, faster, and more safely than any arrow Green Arrow can shoot.
In a somewhat recent issue, Amazo showed up, and he even ranked Green Arrow's threat level has minimal. Amazon beatup on the JLA until another plot wise, Zatanna, said "POTS OZAMA", and then they teleported him into a black hole or something where Amazo will take a long time to escape.
It is unfair to ask the DM to create such plots that basically shuts down all other classes in order for a lesser class to get his time in the limelight. Sadly, even if a campaign was geared towards fighting, the fighting classes would still be behind compared to spellcasters.
As a cat-lover, I would berate you for imaginary cat-abuse but I'm laughing too hard. XD
Fear not. Rargath shall die in a frenzy of feline fury soon enough. :P
That's far more sensible. It pales pitifully, however, when compared with real playtesting. An example of this is that, on face value, due to their massive spell lists, one could easily argue that Clerics and Wizards eventually have an answer to every single problem you could think of. In practice, however, this is a bunch of monkey poop.
Again, personal experience means nothing. Every instance of playtesting needs to be unpacked and analyzed, compared to design parameters, and every occurrence needs to be broken down to its base elements. Every element of gameplay needs to be assessed, every aspect's cause identified.
An unexamined playtest is less than useless. "Yeah, we had fun," is a useless statement.
The entire tier system is based on playtesting that has been extensively analyzed.
"This is a bunch of monkey poop," is not worthwhile analysis, particularly if it stems from personal experience alone. What do the mages in your games do? How do they operate? Do the Wizards focus on pure-combat, possibly even blasting, while ignoring their non-combat options? How well do they know their spell lists? Do they frequently forget they have certain spells? Do the Clerics consider healing their primary role? Do they consider it their primary role in combat? Do they tend to spend all their time buffing? Do they even consider other applications of their spells? How well do the Cleric players even know the Cleric spell list?
How many new spells does the Wizard get? Do the mages get an equal cut of the loot, or do the melee types take a double cut? Are the Wizards allowed to buy scrolls freely? Or are there constraints placed on scroll purchases that don't have a basis within the rules themselves? Does the DM explicitly design situations to mess with the magic users? After all, many DMs do that as a matter of course. Do very powerful magic items suitable for non-casters fall far more frequently than for casters?
A major part of the tier system is that its big assumption is that a DM is being fair. That the DM is treating all players equally, and that all players know what they're doing, know all their character's abilities. An unfair DM makes for an unfair test, which is a large part of why 'Personal experience means nothing.' Many, many DMs have become so hard set in unfairly bogging down the mages that they don't even know they do it anymore. They don't even recognize their breaking of rules, nor that their myriad unstated anti-mage houserules are even houserules. Possibly houserules imported from a system from the seventies. That's precisely why you always have to go back and look at the system itself to get anything useful. And that's all the tier list does.
...which has included as example characters Ghandi, an intelligent rabbit, a sentient and non-mobile tree, King Arthur, and the Metatron.
Best. Party. Ever.
A Man In Black wrote:
...which has included as example characters Ghandi, an intelligent rabbit, a sentient and non-mobile tree, King Arthur, and the Metatron.Best. Party. Ever.
Actually GURPS was a pretty good system. Pre-3e, 3rd ed GURPS was probably the best system out there.
Especially for fantasy. The GURPS system would fall down a bit for high tech settings since STR pretty much became a universal dump stat.
Ghandi, an intelligent rabbit, a sentient and non-mobile tree, King Arthur, and the Metatron. be a very odd party. Awesome, but odd
Gods how I hated GURPS, not sure why But I hate it. Great, great source books, but hate the system
GURPS isn't a balanced system, though, or even really intended to be one.
Nor was any roleplaying game at the time, nor is balance required for a roleplaying system to be good.
There is little doubt that many aspects of GURPS were inspiration for much of what we saw in the changes in D&D between 2nd and 3rd ed (and still see in Pathfinder)
Even limiting it to GURPS Fantasy, spell effects are vague, Magery way too necessary and cheap,
Admittedly, it's been awhile since I've played GURPS (when we switched to 3rd ed, our GURPS books got shelved permanently), but from memory, I thought magic was not as good in GURPS as it was in D&D. It took several "spell skills" to build up any decent effects, giving you a great deal less versatility, and there wasn't much spectacular for magical effects that I can recall.
it's easy to get discounts for not doing things you don't intend to do anyway, it's way too easy to make someone so good with a weapon that they'll never face a challenge that won't one-shot the rest of the party,
I don't remember that working that way. Of course, everyone was a novice-optimizer in our group at the time.
it's yet another Master-Swordsmen-Poke-Each-Other-In-The-Eyes combat system,
That I do remember - and yes, it was silly.
I remember playing a superhero campaign where the enemy had minions who shot M60's full auto "at the eye". LOL.
Eyeshots were actually much harder if I remember correctly in fantasy. Helmets increased difficulty, and there were shield parries and such that became much easier when faced against difficult called shots.
I remember lots of called shots for the vitals though.
I also remember that a piercing weapon for some reason was great against chainmail and bashing blunt weapons were really bad - I would think the opposite would be true.
racial templates are either completely pointless or free build points depending on which edition you're using, etc.
They were a mixed bag. You could use them to get a high attribute score cheaper (The racial point cost of attribute modifiers didn't effect the cost of you raising those same attributes - much like how in Pathfinder, if you are raising Dex, it doesn't cost you more if you are getting +2 for being an elf for example)
Most races had some stupid stuff added on, so it wasn't a no-brainer to be non-human.
GURPS is a framework for players to resolve disagreements, and not much more. You already need to have the social contract in place, so everyone agrees to not break the game in any way that annoys the rest of the players.
That may be true, I played GURPS over a period of about 10 years (a bit less), and the group I played with was all very good friends, and we had played D&D together for many years before that.
This discussion actually brings back some pleasant memories. Many of those friends I've lost contact with, or they've moved away many years ago.
3e promises to not need that social contract,
If so, then it's a broken promise. We both know that 3e is a very breakable system.
and tier lists are one of the ways to analyze and consider how to eliminate the effects that require such a social contract in your game of D&D.There are lots of breakable classes in the lower tiers.
Trying to fit unlimited-knowledge spellcasters and fighters in the same game leads to GMs and players needing such a social contract, either to not break the setting or not leave the fighter behind or sometimes both.4e achieved that. The cost was too high though.
Again, personal experience means nothing. Every instance of playtesting needs to be unpacked and analyzed, compared to design parameters, and every occurrence needs to be broken down to its base elements. Every element of gameplay needs to be assessed, every aspect's cause identified.
How can you do that without playtesting?
An unexamined playtest is less than useless. "Yeah, we had fun," is a useless statement.
I agree.
The entire tier system is based on playtesting that has been extensively analyzed.
The Pathfinder rules itself is a system based on playtesting that has been extensively analyzed.
"This is a bunch of monkey poop," is not worthwhile analysis, particularly if it stems from personal experience alone.
It stems from personal experience with Pathfinder, 15 or so years of RPG experience, trust in the Paizo designers, and my own assessment of the classes.
What do the mages in your games do? How do they operate? Do the Wizards focus on pure-combat, possibly even blasting, while ignoring their non-combat options? How well do they know their spell lists? Do they frequently forget they have certain spells?
All three of the people in my game who play spellcasters with any regularity are different. One enjoys a great deal of utility and problem-solving. Another is an optimizer who looks for great combos and "perfect" spells. The third is a pure mage-lover who knows every spell far better than I do.
Do the Clerics consider healing their primary role? Do they consider it their primary role in combat?
Only the character I play from time to time in a friend's campaign. He is fisking AWESOME at it, too.
Do they tend to spend all their time buffing? Do they even consider other applications of their spells? How well do the Cleric players even know the Cleric spell list?
The cleric spell list is very straightforward. My players aren't dunces. My wife had a Cleric back in 3.0 who ruined my day with simple dispel magic. In the last campaign, she did the same with dismissal or banishment spell. I was like "You do NOT have that prepared," and she was all "Yes I DO!" and I was like, "Give me your sheet....... Well, monkey crap."
My players do amazing things with spellcasters, but they can't be relied upon because they TRY to do amazing things far more often than they actually DO amazing things. When spells don't work, there's always a combat character to do some stabbity.
How many new spells does the Wizard get?
I don't understand this question.
Do the mages get an equal cut of the loot, or do the melee types take a double cut?
Why would melee types get more lewt?
Are the Wizards allowed to buy scrolls freely? Or are there constraints placed on scroll purchases that don't have a basis within the rules themselves?
Haha. If you go to the right city, you can practically buy anything in my campaign. COMMONERS have magic items to help them in their daily lives.
Does the DM explicitly design situations to mess with the magic users? After all, many DMs do that as a matter of course.
I design dungeons in the mindset of the builder. I do not fudge situations to make spellcasters less useful for the sole purpose of allowing the melee to shine. Quite the contrary, life is much easier in my adventures with a caster than without. However, if a powerful BBEG Wizard builds himself a palace, you bet your butt it's gonna be warded from teleportation. That's common sense, not metagaming against spellcasters. At the same time, I wouldn't set an arbitrarily high SR on the same BBEG Wizard just to mess with the PC casters.
Do very powerful magic items suitable for non-casters fall far more frequently than for casters?
Not a chance in heck.
A major part of the tier system is that its big assumption is that a DM is being fair. That the DM is treating all players equally, and that all players know what they're doing, know all their character's abilities. An unfair DM makes for an unfair test, which is a large part of why 'Personal experience means nothing.'
Playtesting involves more than one DM and more than one party. Anecdotal evidence means something regardless of what you say. If Personal experience meant nothing, why did you insinuate that this silly exercise is based on playtesting (see above)? Seems to me you're just not interested in personal experience that disagrees with your assessment of the situation at hand.
Many, many DMs have become so hard set in unfairly bogging down the mages that they don't even know they do it anymore. They don't even recognize their breaking of rules, nor that their myriad unstated anti-mage houserules are even houserules. Possibly houserules imported from a system from the seventies.
I think you are underestimating people a great deal. The one time I personally burned spellcasters was after the Spell Compendium created terrible imbalance in my game. After a time, I realized that the problem wasn't spellcasters but that damnable sourcebook, so I reigned in my houserules and vowed to simply stay vigilant against even "official" rulebooks.
That's precisely why you always have to go back and look at the system itself to get anything useful. And that's all the tier list does.
I agree that we must continue to look at the system, but only to rein in any changes that are made in subsequent sourcebooks and keep them from over-synergizing with current rules or pointlessly duplicating current content (like the call for a "Swashbuckler" base class).
Nor was any roleplaying game at the time, nor is balance required for a roleplaying system to be good.
I'd have to disagree, here. Balance isn't required for a game to be fun, but fun does not equate to quality. I'd say that a game that isn't balanced is a game that does not assist you in any way in getting a party that can work together and aid each other on even footing, and is thus a low-quality game, even if it can be fun.
The Pathfinder rules itself is a system based on playtesting that has been extensively analyzed.
That doesn't mean they balanced the game, nor that the logic in the process was entirely sound, nor that they diagnosed and effectively treated all major problems, nor that the analysis process should end. "The product is released, so stop thinking about it," isn't a very productive path.
It stems from personal experience with Pathfinder, 15 or so years of RPG experience, trust in the Paizo designers, and my own assessment of the classes.
In other words, personal experience (which means nothing), irrelevant, nothing, and an assessment method that you've all but admitted is centered on personal experience (which means nothing).
Playtesting involves more than one DM and more than one party. Anecdotal evidence means something regardless of what you say. If Personal experience meant nothing, why did you insinuate that this silly exercise is based on playtesting (see above)? Seems to me you're just not interested in personal experience that disagrees with your assessment of the situation at hand.
An anecdote, by its very nature, is useless without complete context, to the point where the entire case study can very nearly become a scientific case study (which is impossible to get, and the very reason it's useless), as well as full analysis. An anecdote must never be taken at face value. Ever.
While playtesting is a part of the entire tiering method, it is not the entirety of it, nor even the bulk, nor even the basis.
Again, "Personal experience means nothing," is much the same as, "Correlation does not imply causation." A strong correlation is not in any way proof of a causal relationship. It can suggest that a causal relationship might be worth investigating, but it's the results of the investigation that's the proof, not the correlation. Likewise, personal experience can suggest the possibility of problems that can warrant further investigation and analysis, but they are not in any way proof in any form. You have to analyze the situation and identify the true source and causes of the situation in question to get to anything real, and in that case, it's the analysis that provides the proof, not the initial anecdote.
I think you are underestimating people a great deal. The one time I personally burned spellcasters was after the Spell Compendium created terrible imbalance in my game. After a time, I realized that the problem wasn't spellcasters but that damnable sourcebook, so I reigned in my houserules and vowed to simply stay vigilant against even "official" rulebooks.
...
So when adding hundreds of new spells to a game with casters who automatically or almost automatically gain access to their entire lists, you decree the problem the spells and not the system that automatically or almost automatically grants them access to all of them? Or even that it's a problem with specific spells rather than the book as a whole?
...Yeah.
I agree that we must continue to look at the system, but only to rein in any changes that are made in subsequent sourcebooks and keep them from over-synergizing with current rules or pointlessly duplicating current content (like the call for a "Swashbuckler" base class).
You're working under the faulty assumption that the current system must, by necessity, have gotten everything right and there are no imbalances in need of fixing. A sweeping premise that needs more support than just assumption.
All three of the people in my game who play spellcasters with any regularity are different. One enjoys a great deal of utility and problem-solving. Another is an optimizer who looks for great combos and "perfect" spells. The third is a pure mage-lover who knows every spell far better than I do.
I think she wanted an answer similar to the one I received from your group. When I was told about the player that likes blasters and is not content to do nothing even though its better in the long run.
The funny thing about anecdotes is that they go both ways.
I'm in a game right now in which I am a Kobold Factotum. Recently, our Xeph Soulknife left. Why?
He couldn't do anything.
Not because of bad roleplaying. Not because he made a bad character. But because the class couldn't do anything. Between a bad BAB, bad skills, and no actual class ability other then "you get a free weapon that's levels behind everyone else," there were little to no situations in which he could do much.
So you can claim "It's about players, not classes!" until your face goes blue, but it doens't change the fact that classes are mechanically limited. Not numerically limited, mind you, but mechanically. Factotum can do a lot of cool stuff that isn't limited to numbers. I'm pretty much pure utility. But the soulknife...can't.
Alternate response: There's something hilairous aobut people claiming that all the tier system is about is numbers, and then tries to prove that fighters are good based on combat.
Nor was any roleplaying game at the time, nor is balance required for a roleplaying system to be good.I'd have to disagree, here. Balance isn't required for a game to be fun, but fun does not equate to quality. I'd say that a game that isn't balanced is a game that does not assist you in any way in getting a party that can work together and aid each other on even footing, and is thus a low-quality game, even if it can be fun.
Now I have to totally disagree with this one. There are plenty of games which openly admit they are not ballanced for all players, but that doesn't mean they are low quality. Ars Magica comes to mind, where it specifically states that people not playing mages are weaker, and tells the GM not to let more than 2 players play mages at a time. That being said, its a very high quality system that does exactly what it intends to do.
That being said, Pathfinder doesn't have this problem at all. You claim that tiering is to measure ballance between the classes, and that higher tiers will overrun the game. If players don't experience this behavior, how can your assertions be accurate?
The Pathfinder rules itself is a system based on playtesting that has been extensively analyzed.That doesn't mean they balanced the game, nor that the logic in the process was entirely sound, nor that they diagnosed and effectively treated all major problems, nor that the analysis process should end. "The product is released, so stop thinking about it," isn't a very productive path.
It stems from personal experience with Pathfinder, 15 or so years of RPG experience, trust in the Paizo designers, and my own assessment of the classes.In other words, personal experience (which means nothing), irrelevant, nothing, and an assessment method that you've all but admitted is centered on personal experience (which means nothing).
Playtesting involves more than one DM and more than one party. Anecdotal evidence means something regardless of what you say. If Personal experience meant nothing, why did you insinuate that this silly exercise is based on playtesting (see above)? Seems to me you're just not interested in personal experience that disagrees with your assessment of the situation at hand.An anecdote, by its very nature, is useless without complete context, to the point where the entire case study can very nearly become a scientific case study (which is impossible to get, and the very reason it's useless), as well as full analysis. An anecdote must never be taken at face value. Ever.
So, what we are saying is that the tier system is a false hypothosis based off of a method that does not reflect actual gameplay. To support our argument, we use personal experience of gameplay, as the only evidence of actual gameplay is such, and it cannot be reflected by number crunching. If a model fails to be accurate most of the time, its a bad model. The tier system fails to account for the important variables, like people actually playing the game.
think you are underestimating people a great deal. The one time I personally burned spellcasters was after the Spell Compendium created terrible imbalance in my game. After a time, I realized that the problem wasn't spellcasters but that damnable sourcebook, so I reigned in my houserules and vowed to simply stay vigilant against even "official" rulebooks....
So when adding hundreds of new spells to a game with casters who automatically or almost automatically gain access to their entire lists, you decree the problem the spells and not the system that automatically or almost automatically grants them access to all of them? Or even that it's a problem with specific spells rather than the book as a whole?
...Yeah.
A. Who says its only spells that get banned? There are plenty of busted feats that have been as well. Any non-core ability should be passed by a DM, as not all went through playtesting before publication.
B. A class that has the same number of new abilities added as everyone else, but has access to all of those new abilities while others have a limitted selection, has greater power creep. That is why additions need to be monitored. That does not mean it is busted at the start. Its the opposite reason special spell lists for alternate casters suck, as they never get updated and they fall behind.
All three of the people in my game who play spellcasters with any regularity are different. One enjoys a great deal of utility and problem-solving. Another is an optimizer who looks for great combos and "perfect" spells. The third is a pure mage-lover who knows every spell far better than I do.I think she wanted an answer similar to the one I received from your group. When I was told about the player that likes blasters and is not content to do nothing even though its better in the long run.
That's Player #3. He's extremely knowledgeable about the spell lists and his penchant for explosions has earned him an undeserved characterization as being single-minded in his spell selections. He really isn't.
The Pathfinder rules itself is a system based on playtesting that has been extensively analyzed.That doesn't mean they balanced the game, nor that the logic in the process was entirely sound, nor that they diagnosed and effectively treated all major problems, nor that the analysis process should end. "The product is released, so stop thinking about it," isn't a very productive path.
I'm sorry if you feel it's unproductive, but I'm very concerned about the impact this sort of discussion has on actual revisions. I will continue to fight any changes which I feel are wrongheaded.
It stems from personal experience with Pathfinder, 15 or so years of RPG experience, trust in the Paizo designers, and my own assessment of the classes.In other words, personal experience (which means nothing), irrelevant, nothing, and an assessment method that you've all but admitted is centered on personal experience (which means nothing).
Playtesting involves more than one DM and more than one party. Anecdotal evidence means something regardless of what you say. If Personal experience meant nothing, why did you insinuate that this silly exercise is based on playtesting (see above)? Seems to me you're just not interested in personal experience that disagrees with your assessment of the situation at hand.An anecdote, by its very nature, is useless without complete context, to the point where the entire case study can very nearly become a scientific case study (which is impossible to get, and the very reason it's useless), as well as full analysis. An anecdote must never be taken at face value. Ever.
Again, "Personal experience means nothing," is much the same as, "Correlation does not imply causation." A strong correlation is not in any way proof of a causal relationship. It can suggest that a causal relationship might be worth investigating, but it's the results of the investigation that's the proof, not the correlation. Likewise, personal experience can suggest the possibility of problems that can warrant further investigation and analysis, but they are not in any way proof in any form. You have to analyze the situation and identify the true source and causes of the situation in question to get to anything real, and in that case, it's the analysis that provides the proof, not the initial anecdote.
Sometimes life isn't that cut and dry. It can't be. Personal experience, playtesting, and anecdotal evidence should be at the heart of balance, not numbers. How people ACTUALLY play these classes is more important, in my eyes, to balance than how they COULD be played, all other things being equal.
So when adding hundreds of new spells to a game with casters who automatically or almost automatically gain access to their entire lists, you decree the problem the spells and not the system that automatically or almost automatically grants them access to all of them? Or even that it's a problem with specific spells rather than the book as a whole?
I love it when I admit a mistake I made in an argument and someone jumps me because of it to expose it as some kind of weakness on my part. How very... well, I'll leave political television out of this. At any rate, yes, I did, and it was a mistake I learned from. This does not weaken my argument in the least. I am now allowing spells from this book as the players request them, making adjustments where necessary.
You're working under the faulty assumption that the current system must, by necessity, have gotten everything right and there are no imbalances in need of fixing. A sweeping premise that needs more support than just assumption.
I can't provide more support than the countless hours of playtesting that went into the product. I don't know what more I could provide that I would presume to be more powerful evidence than that. I certainly haven't seen or heard anything that makes me think the classes are out of balance.
Do classes have weaknesses? Of course they do. This game wouldn't be worth playing if they didn't. If a Fighter were, right out of the box, as resistant to mental attacks as a Monk or a Wizard, I would be rather put off by that. What the heck is the point of playing a class with no weaknesses?
It is true that there are no absolutes. It is impossible to make any two classes absolutely equal in numbers against each other. There are far too many variables to put into the equation to allow for such a thing to exist. Sometimes a class will shine, other times a different class will. Sometimes, a class will cheerfully provide a consistent role and therefore actually shine in that capacity.
The human element cannot be ignored. How the classes are played IS important. Remaining ignorant of that fact is a mistake.
Mr. Fishy feels that tiers are just a way for the "I'm smart than you" group to have something to argue about.
Wizards and Clerics can solve every problem, over come every challenge and are the LORDS of the MULTIVERSE.
So...Mr. Fishy still thinks you're nailing jello to a tree.
That, or you think that we are to stupid to realize that casters have spells and fighters don't. Or are you suggesting we should all play mages and clerics, try it Mr. Fishy will wait while you "playtest" it.
That, or you think that we are to stupid to realize that casters have spells and fighters don't. Or are you suggesting we should all play mages and clerics, try it Mr. Fishy will wait while you "playtest" it.
Well, at least with a party of 2 wizards and 2 clerics, they could prepare more spells and actually be close to the promise of actually being prepared for EVERYTHING.
At LEAST once per day. :D
Mr. Fishy feels that tiers are just a way for the "I'm smart than you" group to have something to argue about.
Wizards and Clerics can solve every problem, over come every challenge and are the LORDS of the MULTIVERSE.
So...Mr. Fishy still thinks you're nailing jello to a tree.
That, or you think that we are to stupid to realize that casters have spells and fighters don't. Or are you suggesting we should all play mages and clerics, try it Mr. Fishy will wait while you "playtest" it.
The point of the tier thing is to help everyone. Not everyone has time to sit and down and analyze the system, and some that do have time, don't care to do so, but that does not mean you can't benefit from it.
Loopy seems to be able to keep things running without having ever read it so he understands how it works, or is really lucky. I think I will assume he knows what he is doing, since luck eventually runs out. Some people however when faced with a the character that can to X, Y, and Z, and a character than can only do X find themselves frustrated, and have no idea why one person is helpful, while another is not.
The Samurai as an example is a terrible class, and the DM should be prepared to find a way to make it useful, unless the player is really really good at making and playing characters.
Mr. Fishy doesn't swim that way. Mr. Fishy should no need a SR to protect him from his own party.
CO-op Diablo flash-back------
Mr. Fishy's partner "OK," door opens, "Chain lighting"
Mr. Fishy "SON OF A..."
Mr. Fishy's partner "I'll res you as so as I finish here."
Mr. Fishy had 115% resistance to everything and a crappy AC. Monsters don't scare Mr. Fishy, getting fry into Fishy sticks, that bothers Mr. Fishy.
The point of the tier thing is to help everyone. Not everyone has time to sit and down and analyze the system, and some that do have time, don't care to do so, but that does not mean you can't benefit from it.
I'm all about helping people. I guess I'd see more use of it if it ranked classes or, more appropriately, builds by encounter or situation. That way, DMs could look at it and say, "Yes these situations are likely to come up in my game and some classes or builds would be preferable to others." Or, maybe more importantly, a player could look at it and say, "Yes that is what I'd like to be able to do. I'll pick that class/build to play."
Now that would be helpful.
Loopy seems to be able to keep things running without having ever read it so he understands how it works, or is really lucky.
Read what? Are you saying only someone who'd never read the Pathfinder rules would declare it balanced? Yeeeaaahhh no.
I think I will assume he knows what he is doing, since luck eventually runs out. Some people however when faced with a the character that can to X, Y, and Z, and a character than can only do X find themselves frustrated, and have no idea why one person is helpful, while another is not.
I haven't seen it yet from this system. My wife is a little disappointed with her Bard right now, but she's the type of person that's used to putting up the big numbers but refuses to use any of Treatmonk's suggestions. She doesn't want to play 2nd fiddle to anyone's DamagePerRound nor does she want to do controller stuff. We're working on a fear and demoralization build right now along with, of course, skillz and I think it'll work for her. We'll see how it goes.
The Samurai as an example is a terrible class, and the DM should be prepared to find a way to make it useful, unless the player is really really good at making and playing characters.
You mean the Fighter with Bastard Sword Specialization, Mounted Combat, and Mounted Archery???? He's so AWESOMMMEEEEEE!!!!!!!! :)
The point of the tier thing is to help everyone. Not everyone has time to sit and down and analyze the system, and some that do have time, don't care to do so, but that does not mean you can't benefit from it.I'm all about helping people. I guess I'd see more use of it if it ranked classes or, more appropriately, builds by encounter or situation. That way, DMs could look at it and say, "Yes these situations are likely to come up in my game and some classes or builds would be preferable to others." Or, maybe more importantly, a player could look at it and say, "Yes that is what I'd like to be able to do. I'll pick that class/build to play."
Now that would be helpful.
Loopy seems to be able to keep things running without having ever read it so he understands how it works, or is really lucky.Read what? Are you saying only someone who'd never read the Pathfinder rules would declare it balanced? Yeeeaaahhh no.
nope. That is not what I am saying. I am saying you don't have to read the teir guide to know the game well enough to compensate. Some people do it subconsciously. Of course sometimes things just fall into place, and the DM never has to worry about adjusting anything.
I think I will assume he knows what he is doing, since luck eventually runs out. Some people however when faced with a the character that can to X, Y, and Z, and a character than can only do X find themselves frustrated, and have no idea why one person is helpful, while another is not.I haven't seen it yet from this system. My wife is a little disappointed with her Bard right now, but she's the type of person that's used to putting up the big numbers but refuses to use any of Treatmonk's suggestions. She doesn't want to play 2nd fiddle to anyone's DamagePerRound nor does she want to do controller stuff. We're working on a fear and demoralization build right now along with, of course, skillz and I think it'll work for her. We'll see how it goes.
I was including 3.5 also. I have not seen it in my games either, but I saw enough complaints on the WoTC boards that I know it happens.
MIB,
I disagree that adding balanced spells to increase the wizard or cleric spell list inherently unbalances them. They can still only take so many per day. The problem is that it becomes increasingly hard to keep spells balanced, and things that look balanced may not be. Then its the spell that is not balanced, not the class.
Now I have to totally disagree with this one. There are plenty of games which openly admit they are not ballanced for all players, but that doesn't mean they are low quality. Ars Magica comes to mind, where it specifically states that people not playing mages are weaker, and tells the GM not to let more than 2 players play mages at a time. That being said, its a very high quality system that does exactly what it intends to do.
That's more a case of, 'What is balance?' Because Ars Magica is actually quite well-balanced. In this case, balance doesn't mean swordsmen and chefs and mages are all comparably effective, but rather, that they address and deal with the immense power of magic-users. Magic reigns supreme, so playing the mage is pass-the-stick, and everyone gets to wield the phenomenal cosmic power as the game goes along. At the same time, the mightiest mages have all these drawbacks and have to invest so much in their magic that they can't do a lot of things the muggles are going to be able to just by default, such that they actually have to depend on their lackeys.
They took their starting assumption, 'Magic reigns supreme,' and went from there to make a balanced game in its own way. It's a very different kind of balance than, say, a Warblade/Dread Necromancer/Shugenja/Beguiler party, but it's balance all the same.
That being said, Pathfinder doesn't have this problem at all. You claim that tiering is to measure ballance between the classes, and that higher tiers will overrun the game. If players don't experience this behavior, how can your assertions be accurate?
That's not what I'm claiming at all. Going back to JaronK's most excellent recent post on the matter, which I quoted earlier... it's really a matter of the power to break the scope of the game. About how much the DM has to account for the class's abilities in order to keep things going smoothly and make sure everyone can contribute. For low-tier classes, it's about making sure they're capable of contributing to overcoming obstacles.
A Barbarian is going to have a hard time helping to overcome an obstacle that can't be resolved by hitting something really hard in the face. On the flip side, the high-tier classes are ones that the DM is going to have to work to challenge at all, as their abilities are so diverse and sweeping as to allow them to do very nearly anything, and may even completely circumvent some adventures entirely. "We must hurry to the grand spire of royalness, but there's an orc army between here and there," becomes a trivial obstacle when the Wizard can just use her bonded item to spontaneously teleport everyone there, and if the DM was counting on getting through the orc army taking up the bulk of the session that night, it can go so far as to cut a session in half or even ruin a whole night if the DM hasn't made sufficient contingency plans.
It is not and has never been, "These classes will always overshadow those classes in every way every single time, no matter what you do, no matter how they're built, ha ha ha," but rather, it's about where the powers that can really impact the world lie, and what to be wary of on one side, and which classes ultimately aren't have much power to influence things in any meaningful way, and may be utterly impotent against obstacles that don't play to their narrowly defined strengths.
So, what we are saying is that the tier system is a false hypothosis based off of a method that does not reflect actual gameplay. To support our argument, we use personal experience of gameplay, as the only evidence of actual gameplay is such, and it cannot be reflected by number crunching. If a model fails to be accurate most of the time, its a bad model. The tier system fails to account for the important variables, like people actually playing the game.
No, I'm saying the tier system actually uses the data that matters. An anecdote has no actual value, other than as an arrow that says, "There may or may not be a problem over there." That arrow doesn't necessarily mean there is a problem over there, and until proper analysis is done (which may reveal misapplications of the rules within the group, or problems with houserules, or problems with DMing style just as easily as problems with the system), that arrow contributes nothing. After the analysis, the anecdote itself still isn't anything more than a sign pointing 'thataway.'
A. Who says its only spells that get banned? There are plenty of busted feats that have been as well. Any non-core ability should be passed by a DM, as not all went through playtesting before publication.
A. Playtesting doesn't mean major flaws didn't get through unchecked.
B. You single out non-core, but what about all the out-there and broken crap in core? Going back to the splattastic 3.5, the core Druid was dramatically more powerful than even a splat Fighter. In fact, the expanded game was dramatically more balanced than core. Those splats served as balance patches; look at the classes in Complete Arcane. They are tremendously and deliberately weaker than the Wizard and even the Sorcerer, which helps bring balance to the game. Of the six most brokenly overpowered classes in the entire game, three were core and one is practically in an appendix.
Everything is pending DM approval. That ain't anything special about splats. If there's something broken in core (like, say, an ill-conceived class or three that automatically gets access to over a hundred spells plus everything in every allowed source), that oughta get shot down just as fast as a broken splat mechanic.
B. A class that has the same number of new abilities added as everyone else, but has access to all of those new abilities while others have a limitted selection, has greater power creep. That is why additions need to be monitored. That does not mean it is busted at the start. Its the opposite reason special spell lists for alternate casters suck, as they never get updated and they fall behind.
Chief, you're agreeing with me. You're admitting that the fundamental problem is not the spells, but with the infinite-access mechanic, that the problem is in the PHB, not the Spell Compendium, because of the ill-conceived mechanic that gives Clerics, Druids, and Wizards more power with every added splat rather than just more options, like Bards or Sorcerers get.
And power creep is largely a myth. Throw out the mistakes core 3.5 made, take up the fixes offered in the splats, and the game is dramatically more balanced.
Sometimes life isn't that cut and dry. It can't be. Personal experience, playtesting, and anecdotal evidence should be at the heart of balance, not numbers.
TIERING STILL ISN'T ABOUT NUMBERS! GAH!
How many times do we have to say it? You can't put a number on the power to turn a burrito into a Chippendale dancer. Have you even been listening to what the tier system's even about? How it works? How it's determined? Numbers are ultimately a minute aspect of what makes the most powerful classes so powerful.
I can't provide more support than the countless hours of playtesting that went into the product. I don't know what more I could provide that I would presume to be more powerful evidence than that. I certainly haven't seen or heard anything that makes me think the classes are out of balance.
Playtesting does not necessarily improve quality. It's all about how the data is assessed and used. There are also some major controversies from the playtest era that generally brings the process as a whole into question. I really don't want to open that can of worms. However, the playtest itself isn't even evidence that anything was fixed at all.
The human element cannot be ignored. How the classes are played IS important. Remaining ignorant of that fact is a mistake.
You are aware that, "How the classes are played is important," is itself a part of the tier system, right? The tier system assumes equal mechanical skill under a fair DM and explicitly states, "Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, 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." In other words, a Fighter in the hands of a very skilled player will fare considerably better, while a Wizard played poorly is probably still going to suck. This is an admitted fact of the tier system, but doesn't change that in the hands of equally skilled players, the Wizard's going to be more powerful and more capable of influencing the world around her.
I'm all about helping people. I guess I'd see more use of it if it ranked classes or, more appropriately, builds by encounter or situation. That way, DMs could look at it and say, "Yes these situations are likely to come up in my game and some classes or builds would be preferable to others." Or, maybe more importantly, a player could look at it and say, "Yes that is what I'd like to be able to do. I'll pick that class/build to play."
The sheer mass of data you're talking about is immense, as being fairly far outside the scope of the system as a whole.
However, there are things like, oh... 1 2 3a 3b 4 5 6.
And if you're interested in more in-depth information on the classes themselves, on what they can do, and what they're good at? You have things like this or this or this and let's not forget the venerable Treantmonk's works. Which are distinct from tiering as a whole, but contribute to the process.
The tier system is a high-end overview, not a complete guide to every class, and criticizing the tier system for not providing that in-depth information on every class is like criticizing a globe for not including a detailed road map of Detroit.
I disagree that adding balanced spells to increase the wizard or cleric spell list inherently unbalances them. They can still only take so many per day. The problem is that it becomes increasingly hard to keep spells balanced, and things that look balanced may not be. Then its the spell that is not balanced, not the class.
Imagine a Wizard who knows Protection from Evil and Sleep. We'll call her Alice.
Now, imagine a Wizard who knows Protection from Evil, Sleep, Protection from Law, and Grease. We'll call him Bob.
Alice knows her party is going to be attacking the temple of generic orderliness on the top of mount icy-cold tomorrow, and it's full of big, clunky, lawful-aligned priests in full plate with big will saves, but low reflex saves and big armor check penalties. While today against the low-will goblin mobs, her spells where extremely useful, tomorrow, she really doesn't have much to bring to the plate. The best she can do is throw out a bunch of Sleep spells against the priests' best saves and hope they roll badly.
Bob, on the other hand, has more spells, and they include the two perfect spells for the job. Protection from Law can offer some party-members protection from those lawful priests, and Grease is very likely to stop the enemies in their tracks. Because Bob has more spells, more options immediately no hand, he has more power and will perform more effectively than Alice in the temple assault.
Now, start piling on more and more spells, all with their own unique applications and unusual circumstances in which they're perfectly suited. Eventually, Bob's Swiss army knife of a spellbook is so loaded that he's a god who has the tool to solve anything. If he has any idea what the day will hold, he can build his spell prep specifically to deal with it, or (more wisely) build half his spell prep specifically to deal with it while filling the other half with more general-purpose spells for the unexpected, and still have that bonded item or Alacritious Cogitation to pull out the one perfect tool for the job once a day. The fact that he gets so many spells so easily mean that expanding the spell list doesn't merely give him options, it gives him power. The power to always have the right tool for any situation.
It's like having a Fighter who could change her feats every day, or a Rogue who could change her skills every day. If you then start adding more feats and skills to the game, those ever-changing Fighters and Rogues will become more powerful with every toy they get their hands on, because none of them have a significant opportunity cost anymore. Even fairly niche, crappy feats that rarely offer any real benefit become power boosts for those rare occasions where they are useful.