We play gestalt with high stat generation (latest campaign was 4d6 drop the lowest reroll 1s, roll twice and take the preferred set of stats, arrange as you wish), and no one we play with is so anti-optimization (or clueless) that they can't come up with a T3+ character using those generation rules, so it's not too much of a practical issue for us. We do use a "no gestalting two full spellcasters" social contract, though, and there's a softer "no gestalting two spellcasters at all" social contract.
Personally, I'm a huge fan of gestalt. It increases the power level of the game, yes, but not all that much honestly (I as the DM find that just maximizing the HP of the enemies evens things out), and it dramatically increases character concept flexibility and viability.
|
Tiers, never understood the need for them, never will(unless a simple explantion can be provided).
Tier 1: Classes that can do anything.
Really? Can they sneak attack? Can they talk their way out of
potentially deadly fights? Can the solo Tiamat, Bahamut, or IO!?
Outburst is over now. ;)
I have never seen high tiers classes dominate the games I've played(and these games have players that scare me when they show me possible builds). The Druid didn't outshine the Fighter and the Wizard didn't outshine the Rogue. I think everyone I play with understands the game is supposed to be fun for all, and play their characters with that in mind.
|
|
I have never seen high tiers classes dominate the games I've played(and these games have players that scare me when they show me possible builds). The Druid didn't outshine the Fighter and the Wizard didn't outshine the Rogue. I think everyone I play with understands the game is supposed to be fun for all, and play their characters with that in mind.Why do you suppose that you've seen no problems?
The bolded text is my answer.
EDIT: Of course, I may have missed the point of your question. Please elaborate if this is so.
|
So here we are. What do you do about tiers? If you don't think that high-tier classes dominate your game, what is it that you're doing that's keeping that from happening? If you have had problems, what did you do to try to fix them?
I've been following the discussions (sic) with some interest (sic) for some time. I've avoided them for obvious reasons, and prior commitments to disagree with people in other threads.
Anywho, moving on, my opinion...
The way I see it, the tiers are only a problem when someone makes them a problem; just because a player in control of a Wizard can do anything doesn't mean that the player will. With my Elf Wizard I just stick to my desired role - Diviner. I do the magic stuff, like making scrolls and summoning magic disks and divining things. I don't step on anyone elses' toes. I guess that's the crux. I've seen/been in a few games here and there where one player purposefully goes to great length to hog the spotlight, and that can cause a bit of unrest if the other players aren't all that interested in doing more than just playing the game, but that's more of a munchkin/min-maxer with poor social skills than a tier ranking issue.
Really, truly, the most conflict I've ever seen on the subject is the conflict that happens on Gaming Forums, as far as I know the issue isn't really as prevalent as its made out to be.
edit: It is 5 am and I totally misused at least three words.
Tiers, never understood the need for them, never will(unless a simple explantion can be provided).
Tier 1: Classes that can do anything.
Really? Can they sneak attack? Can they talk their way out of
potentially deadly fights? Can the solo Tiamat, Bahamut, or IO!?Outburst is over now. ;)
I have never seen high tiers classes dominate the games I've played(and these games have players that scare me when they show me possible builds). The Druid didn't outshine the Fighter and the Wizard didn't outshine the Rogue. I think everyone I play with understands the game is supposed to be fun for all, and play their characters with that in mind.
To answer your questions: yes, yes, and maybe.
Also, personal anecdotes are, in fact, neither the plural nor singular for "fact" or "data."
Lastly, the purpose of the tiers is...well, let's read the thread itself. I have a feeling pasting it here is the only way some people will read it. And possibly not even pasting it will help.
"
1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group
2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.
3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).
4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a Fighter, and a Rogue, maybe you shouldn't let that fly.
5) To help homebrewers judge the power and balance of their new classes. Pick a Tier you think your class should be in, and when you've made your class compare it to the rest of the Tier. Generally, I like Tier 3 as a balance point, but I know many people prefer Tier 4. If it's stronger than Tier 1, you definitely blew it.
"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for me:
I've personally found more issues with low tiers then high ones. Most players that actually know how to be jerks with high tiers tend not to do so. But inexperienced players can fall into some major traps that render their character useless in just about anything. That's when the game stops being fun.
|
|
Tiers, never understood the need for them, never will(unless a simple explantion can be provided).
Tier 1: Classes that can do anything.
Really? Can they sneak attack? Can they talk their way out of
potentially deadly fights? Can the solo Tiamat, Bahamut, or IO!?Outburst is over now. ;)
I have never seen high tiers classes dominate the games I've played(and these games have players that scare me when they show me possible builds). The Druid didn't outshine the Fighter and the Wizard didn't outshine the Rogue. I think everyone I play with understands the game is supposed to be fun for all, and play their characters with that in mind.
To answer your questions: yes, yes, and maybe.
Also, personal anecdotes are, in fact, neither the plural nor singular for "fact" or "data."
Lastly, the purpose of the tiers is...well, let's read the thread itself. I have a feeling pasting it here is the only way some people will read it. And possibly not even pasting it will help.
"
1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.
3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).
4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a Fighter, and a Rogue, maybe you shouldn't let that fly.
5) To help homebrewers judge...
Actually in this case, personal anecdotes are the singular of data (datum if you were curious). Unless you want to set up a randomised, double-blind system of several thousand gamers, remembering to control for their various ages, experiences, genders, nationality, personality traits and other relevant features, there is going to be no 'data' to work with. Thus, your personal experience that tiers are useful is as valid as dragonborn's that they're useless. This is not a scientific enquiry, it's a bunch of people who have different experiences, and expectations from the look of things, of the game.
Actually in this case, personal anecdotes are the singular of data (datum if you were curious). Unless you want to set up a randomised, double-blind system of several thousand gamers, remembering to control for their various ages, experiences, genders, nationality, personality traits and other relevant features, there is going to be no 'data' to work with. Thus, your personal experience that tiers are useful is as valid as dragonborn's that they're useless. This is not a scientific enquiry, it's a bunch of people who have different experiences, and expectations from the look of things, of the game.
...Dude, I work with statistics for a living. I know what datum is, and how statistics works :p
The playing experiences of a small handful of specific people on one (or two) threads on one website in the internet does not make for...well, anything.
|
|
Actually in this case, personal anecdotes are the singular of data (datum if you were curious). Unless you want to set up a randomised, double-blind system of several thousand gamers, remembering to control for their various ages, experiences, genders, nationality, personality traits and other relevant features, there is going to be no 'data' to work with. Thus, your personal experience that tiers are useful is as valid as dragonborn's that they're useless. This is not a scientific enquiry, it's a bunch of people who have different experiences, and expectations from the look of things, of the game.Every single sentence of this paragraph is incorrect, save possibly the last sentence and the fact that datum is the singular form of data. More importantly, this is not a productive line of discussion. Arguing about why someone's argument about someone else's statement (about someone's statement, about someone's statement, repeat until dead) is unhelpful noise.
Right now, let's focus on things people can actually use in their games to address the issues that the tier system identifies. If you don't have these issues in your game, rather than coming and griping about the tier system, you could share with us why it isn't an issue in your game.
Yes, what do I know about statistics, I'm only a statistician, after all. Perhaps you'd like to explain what you would consider a valid data point if personal play experience isn't it?
|
|
...Dude, I work with statistics for a living. I know what datum is, and how statistics works :p
The playing experiences of a small handful of specific people on one (or two) threads on one website in the internet does not make for...well, anything.
Perhaps you'd like to explain what you would consider a valid data point if personal play experience isn't it?Both of your willies are impressive and manly.
Thank you for noticing.
Can we talk about tiers now please?
No, we can't. I think the other two tier threads should prove that. But I'll stop derailing this one.
To answer the question as best I can. As tiers don't play a role in my game, I don't know why my game works without them. Probably because it's a relaxing bit of fun. none of my players take it that seriously. If one person starts to overshadow everyone else, they tend to tone it down so that everyone has fun. That's it.
|
|
Unless you kindly elaborate, the bolded text is my answer.I was asking you to elaborate on the bolded text.
That is a hard thing to elaborate, but I will try. My group(s) players tend to go with the classes they can handle. For instance, the people who are new usually pick the melee classes because, for them, they are easy to handle and fun. Later, the branch out and experiment with the other classes, and find those the are good with fairly quickly. Once their niche is found, the group settles down and works together in a way that makes everyone shine(in combat and out) often.
Of course, after a while they may/will want to try and be better than the other PCs, but something I've noticed is the lack of fun when that occurs. It does not last long.
I don't really know why my group(s) work like that, but they do, and I wouldn't change that because fo "tiers."
|
I rank class in three tiers.
T1 - The class fully succeeds at giving the player what he expects and enjoys. Wizards/Clerics - spell bonanza. Fighters (PF) - damage numbers fly like crazy. Paladins - have at thee, evil scum !
T2 - The class requires house rules/3pp material/DM intervention to give the player what he expects and enjoys. Monks - I want to Kung Fu Panda, why is it that it doesn't work ? Mystic Theurge - I want to have a viable cleric/wizard, why am I inefficient ?
T3 - The class fails hard on the face to deliver any enjoyment whatsoever. Swashbuckler - Errol Flynn, on paper. Truenamer - cool idea butchered by stupid rules.
|
|
1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group.
Because of course every single player belongs to a tier and only plays that teir. Not everyone ranks the classes the same way too.
2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.
So... to help power-gamers become more power-gamey? Why don't they go play an MMORPG?
3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).
Personally? Never. Heard plenty of people complaining though...
4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games.
So one person's experiance is the basis for all other games?
5) To help homebrewers judge...
This is the only one I could possible agree with you on.
|
|
Sorry for the double post.
Monks - I want to Kung Fu Panda, why is it that it doesn't work ? Mystic Theurge - I want to have a viable cleric/wizard, why am I inefficient ?
Monk: You are not an anthropomorphic panda. Please discuss it with the DM and watch a non-animated martial arts(not just kung fu) movie.
Mystic Theurge: Inefficient? What are you playing?
|
|
MAD is easy to avoid though. Cleric3/Sorcerer4/Mst? with Dex over Con(and possible Str and Int). I also fail to see how playing something challenging(like an Mst) means you are inefficient.
Of course, it could just be(and probably is) that our respective veiws and experiences differ greatly enough that we may not be able to reach an agreement.
|
|
a list of stuffDB3, don't. Just...don't. We've been over these arguments about 17 million times and you're offering a bunch of fairly weak arguments to counter some copy-pasted arguments. Talking about your own game and why these issues don't crop up is helpful, but getting into it with Cirno over incomplete arguments isn't helpful. It might be helpful if it were in any sense a dialogue, but a shouting match over dusty old talking points isn't helping anyone.
Understood. Sorry.
|
|
That's what I meant - you can have a kick out of your Mystic Theurge BUT it requires:
1) understanding the tradeoff (caster levels)
2) understanding that unless you hit the capstone, the action economy works against you
3) taking non-core feats such as Practised Spellcaster to compensate
So yes, MTs can be fun for a player who wants a big variety of spells or to fill both divine and arcane roles in one character, and who is prepared to go thru the three steps outlined above, but it's *not* a class for a random person who asks "hey, how can I get to be a cleric and a wizard at same time ?"
And that's my T2, which I define as "can be fun, but some assembly required, not valid in Minnesota."
"So... to help power-gamers become more power-gamey?"
Not even remotely. In terms of being helpful to players, I feel that the tier system is more helpful to players in avoiding classes that are traps(in 3.5). Let's say you have a player who wants to play a samurai like Toshiro Mifune's character in the Yojimbo movies. The justification lists as to why certain classes are in certain tiers could help the player come to the conclusion that maybe they'd be better off making a samurai with a Fighter, instead of a CW Samurai, because the Fighter is a bit more focused towards what the player wants to do, ergo the player will have more FUN with the character.
And you can ALWAYS pull back with a powerful class to avoid cheese, you can't "pull forward" with a limited class.
I'm running a PF campaign this coming year that addresses tiers as follows:
(1) No full casters.
(2) Boosts to the Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Monk and Ranger.
(3) Reins on the Paladin.
(4) Minimum 4 skill points.
(5) A group-brewed dovetailing of the Iron Heroes feat mastery system into PF.
(6) Low magic item accumulation.
A pretty extreme solution, really.
Having said that, I hadn't heard of the tier system when I began mulling over this campaign: this game wasn't intentionally designed to balance the tiers as presented elsewhere, though that is what it's doing. The houserules above are a response to our own group experiences and inclinations. In other words, we're doing what many groups do - we've come to the same conclusions as the tier system independently, and continually tinker with a homebrew system to deal with it. Our tinkerings evolve and change, and the tier project seems to me a useful check-point when making such adjustments.
Some observations:
(1) Removing full casters makes the Bard more tier-solid, even without any other changes being made. This is partly setting flavour (Bards are the most powerful casters in the region; if you're playing a Bard, folks are going to respect you), but it's also supply and demand. If your character is the only PC who can cast X, Y and Z, you feel more useful, and indeed you are.
(2) Iron Heroes has had a big influence on us. We had a blast playing without casters, and with minimal magical kit-bags. The feat mastery system is excellent, and the IH core classes are comparatively well balanced (as long as no one tries to play the optional caster class). The above houserules are an attempt to import some of these good qualities into our first Pathfinder game.
(3) Even with only the 7 combat classes (barbarian, bard, fighter, monk, paladin, rogue, ranger) I feel there remains balancing to be done...but not much. The Paladin needs a slight take-down, the Barb, Bard and Monk legs up. I've given slight boosts to the Fighter and Ranger, too, but all these are small, fairly 'normal' houserule adjustments. The Pathfinder Rogue is pretty much the mean level I'd like the game to run at.
(4) Iron Heroes feat masteries are a major import, and a lot of work. The upside is that they make all the classes more versatile in combat, and - after some discussion - we're giving these 7 classes equal mastery access levels. This is a significant leveller for the Bard and Monk (and a nice filip for the Rogue). It means everyone can contribute meaningfully in combat, and in an exciting way. The minimum skill points, meanwhile, give the Fighter a bit more versatility outside combat.
**
Why are we still considering playing Pathfinder? Well...personally I'm very fond of 3.5, in its various incarnations. I'm comfortable tinkering with it extensively, and as a group we understand its strengths and weaknesses. I'd also like to run a PF game that makes higher level play a possibility, even if we never get there. In five years playing together, we've never had a campaign run beyond 11th level. In part this has been because of the power of the full casters. We play nicely together (after 5 years that's kind of a given), but we've seen the potential of Wizards, Druids and even Psions in the past. Much as I enjoy playing those classes, they do make the game beyond 10th a right headache. Frequently, our campaigns wind up around 10-11th because the strain between full casters and Fighters/Rogues is becoming problematic, and the problem is clearly going to become more exaggerated in the future.
**
Final note: I've been keeping an eye on the new prototype PF classes. The half-caster classes are quite appealing for our kind of game. I'm quite tempted to bring in the Witch and/or the Inquisitor at some point. If the final revisions tone them down slightly, all the better (for us).
Mystic Theurge: Inefficient? What are you playing?
D&D 3.5 and/or Pathfinder.
Mystic Theurges have alot of cards up their sleeves, and compensate for their reduced power somewhat by having an increased chance of having just the right trick, but being 1 and a half spell levels behind level appropriate (meaning half the time your one spell level too low, the other half your two spell levels too low) is a serious hurt on the value of your actions in combat.
You only get to cast as a single caster, regardless how many spells per day or spell lists you have.
Also, Multiple Attribute Dependency sucks.
Then ask your DM for a mulligan and be done with it.
I am currently running a Mystic Theurge-type build and I have no problems with "efficiency". I rolled a high Int and Wis, and pretty good Con so as far as "multiple stat dependency" I'm fine. It's just like ANY other class out there; you have to have an idea of what you want to do before you start doing it. If you want to use a lot of damage dealing spells, prepare them accordingly. I'm more of a generalist, because the party is severely lacking in the magic department, so I carry lots of scrolls and lots of multi-purpose spells. I leave the damage to the damage-dealers. Prepare for the lack of caster levels accordingly. There are multitudes of ways to beef up your caster level; feats, items, racial features(Illumians with the Krau sigil), etc.
Also, I see what you mean about only getting a single action to cast as spell, regardless of how many lists you have access too, but a little trick I've found that works for me is to not think about 2 completely separate lists. Prepare your spells so that they compliment each other if possible. I like to think of it as casting a spell from one huge list, even though mechanically it's two. MT is definitely one of those classes that has to do a little more homework when it comes to preparing, but that's part of the fun of the class. You can go spontaneous casting if the homework is too much.
In short, being an efficient MT requires a little homework. If you aren't willing to take a few steps to sure up your weaknesses, then you have no business preparing two separate lists of spells each day.
If you roll crappy stats, ignore your weaknesses, and just grab random spells that sound cool, then yeah, that makes for an inefficient character. But that's also true of ANY class.
Thanks. I keep thinking she's another part-caster, actually. A shame, for us, since the concept's nicely done.
What do you do about tiers?
I stay aware of them. I ensure if I'm playing the higher tier class (and I often am, I love playing Wizards) that I share the power.
If you don't think that high-tier classes dominate your game, what is it that you're doing that's keeping that from happening?
Well, 90% of the time (actually probably 100%), the higher tier classes are spellcasters capable of buffing the other party members.
This effectively increases the tier of the non-casters. A fighter's primary disadvantage is lack of maneuverability, but a bit of attention from the wizard can solve this problem.
In addition, although you might say that battlefield controls are more powerful than straight attacks - this is an apples/oranges comparison - both have a vital role.
True inequity is a result of selfish play or powergaming, which I don't run across much. When we do...(next question)
If you have had problems, what did you do to try to fix them?
When we have the problem of a selfish style player who powergames, we stop inviting them to play.
"So... to help power-gamers become more power-gamey?"
Not even remotely. In terms of being helpful to players, I feel that the tier system is more helpful to players in avoiding classes that are traps(in 3.5). Let's say you have a player who wants to play a samurai like Toshiro Mifune's character in the Yojimbo movies. The justification lists as to why certain classes are in certain tiers could help the player come to the conclusion that maybe they'd be better off making a samurai with a Fighter, instead of a CW Samurai, because the Fighter is a bit more focused towards what the player wants to do, ergo the player will have more FUN with the character.
And you can ALWAYS pull back with a powerful class to avoid cheese, you can't "pull forward" with a limited class.
I agree with this. I look at the tier system with a lot of leeway, just as a very general overview of classes. I don't hold any of them up as any sort of "end-all be-all gospel" of classes power ratings. It's all up to the player. I have seen(and played) some ridiculously weak wizards, and then seen a Swashbuckler that took the campaign by the throat, and dominated. I think the tiers are slightly useful, more so if there's a class someone is curious about playing but has no idea of what it does. That's how I am with classes like Beguiler and Spirit Shaman, so it's helpful if used sparingly. If you let the tier system run your game for you, then there are probably other issues at hand.
Basically, just take it as loose advice.
So here we are. What do you do about tiers? If you don't think that high-tier classes dominate your game, what is it that you're doing that's keeping that from happening? If you have had problems, what did you do to try to fix them?
I have rarely played in games that have "tier" problems.
The vast majority of games that I've played in over the past 5 years have been (a) level 5 or lower, and (b) mostly dungeon crawls of some sort. If you're low level and fighting four or five encounters in fairly rapid succession, the versatility of a wizard or druid doesn't amount to much, IMO.
With one exception, the higher level games I've played in have sort of imploded due to the fact that the time spent preparing to do something interesting (e.g. buffing, collecting information, planning strategy) is much higher than the time spent doing something interesting (e.g. fighting, acting on the information you've collected, putting your strategy into action).
In the one exception (a game that took place from levels 11-14, roughly), there were definintely some "low-tier" characters (a monk, a few fighters) and "high-tier" characters (a wizard, a sorcerer and a cleric). In the end, the DM got frustrated by trying to challenge everyone at once, and he rebooted the game as a low-level 4E campaign.
Unless you kindly elaborate, the bolded text is my answer.I was asking you to elaborate on the bolded text.That is a hard thing to elaborate, but I will try. My group(s) players tend to go with the classes they can handle. For instance, the people who are new usually pick the melee classes because, for them, they are easy to handle and fun. Later, the branch out and experiment with the other classes, and find those the are good with fairly quickly. Once their niche is found, the group settles down and works together in a way that makes everyone shine(in combat and out) often.
Of course, after a while they may/will want to try and be better than the other PCs, but something I've noticed is the lack of fun when that occurs. It does not last long.
I don't really know why my group(s) work like that, but they do, and I wouldn't change that because fo "tiers."
My group functions that exact same way.
Now I've played in groups where there were problems. Never in 3.5 or Pathfinder but in 2E. In these groups the party was their own worst enemy. I'm not saying this wasn't fun but you have to go into a game like that with the most powerful character you make or you will be owned and back then that meant not playing fighter. A fighter/mage sure but not straight fighter. But for the most part those games got old really quick and never lasted but were fun while they lasted. That's my experience at least.
Now my players work as team and boost each other. The tiers don't really mean much to them as players. Now as DM I do use the tiers to judge what kind of encounters they can handle. This usually isn't so much on the creatures but on the terrain and setting. Certain tier classes can turn an encounter upside down or even whole dungeon if you don't take their powers into consideration.
We have less of a problem in terms of tiers in my group then we do players. A couple of the players in my group know the ins and outs of the game thouroughly. They pour through the books and understand the various combos and what does or doesnt make an effective character. It doesnt matter what class these players play, they are likely to be stronger then those made by other members of the group. The best example was in a recent game where one of these 'top tier players' made a reach weapon battlefield control trip/standstill (in 3.5) monkey. He had a marshall there with a trip aura and pretty much owned everything with 15 feet (when enlarged) that was on the ground.
Then there is a portion of our group that just likes making something flashy. The character may not be powerful in the traditional sense but there will be something very dramatic that they can do. Best example was one player made a rogue with a whole bunch of skill tricks, that would dodge, crawl, leap, and then huddle up in a corner of the cealing and fire a bow for 1d8 damage. He didnt really do anything but he really enjoyed doing it.
Then there is the last tier in our group who really dont know that much about the game, they arent interested in looking through the splat books, or 3rd party material, and really play their classes in a straight foward and simple way. Often they either say away from casting classes, or when they do play a caster they dont give alot of thought to their spells. One of them for instance was playing a good cleric and actually prepared cure spells. When we tried to explain this was unneccesary he said he knew but wanted to be a healer, so thats what he chose.
So I guess in general tiers of classes have never been an issue, it's been tiers of players. Over the years though things are evening out. The tier one players are optimizing less, the tier 3 players are learning to make better characters, but the difference is still very much there.
I have learned to keep an eye on game balance for the classes by only allowing expansions or third party content with intense scrutiny and making it absolutely clear that any houserules or homebrew are subject to change at any time if a loophole or game balance issue shows up.
I suppose my "Tier 1 Classes" are kept in check through common sense application of their Tier 1-iness by the NPCs. I use logic and common sense in my world and dungeon design. Any dungeon or city builder is going to be aware of spells which might infiltrate or harm their structures and they are built to resist such incursions. Mid- to High-level characters know to expect magic use and Big Damn Swords to ruin their day from time to time and they prepare for such things as best they can. Any high-level character (or lower level character in an important position of power) will have casters on retainer, magic items, enchanted zones, magic aura, traps of various and sundry nature, or Cold Iron employed to resist scrying, teleportation, and other more obvious things that they would know about.
If someone wants to call this me "subconsciously DMifying the Tiers" then that's cool with me. I see it as in-character common sense decision making by the denizens of my campaign world.
Do I tailor the NPCs to fight powerful abilities of classes? Short answer: no. Long answer: if the NPC has foreknowledge of the PCs (especially a Bard), they will be more than prepared for any encounter with the PCs. So, I sometimes prepare my NPCs to fight the PCs, not their classes. A smart NPC will, of course, have contingency plans if their experience has given them reason to have one and if they have the means to prepare one.
Sometimes my players trounce my encounters. Sometimes they fail. Most of the time, it's somewhere in between. I have no problem with any of these outcomes.
EDIT: Do I tailor my encounters to the specific PCs in the party? No way, not unless the adventure is tied to one or more PCs specifically in the story. This has raised the hackles of one or two of my players who have balked at having to overcome traps when there is no Rogue in the party. Overall, though, this does not affect their willingness to participate in my games, fortunately. I think that, deep down, even they appreciate the organic nature of my games.
In my experience, skill points in non-active and social skills tend to dominate games outside combat, while brutes dominate most level appropriate combats (up to CR+3). Casters are best at handling high CR+6 encounters, especially illusionists, because they get the most croud control and can misdirrect. In all areas, you need an effective party to deal with things.
Charisma is a terrible dump stat.
I have seen several examples of full casters turning everyone else into their sidekicks. Usually it involves few encounters per day, and the caster not doing much to buff the other party members.
I have also seen the raging, power attacking, enlarged Barbarian types dominating combats, but that is a different set of issues. (Destroying All/ then needing rounds of assistance to recover)
House Rules:
Only one Summon spell active at a time.
Dominated/Controlled Undead creatures don't stay around for days.
Tone down planar ally spells.
Keep a sharp eye on anything that trades wealth for power.
Some limits on teleporting all over the place.
Edit: Oh yeah, Also making sure that everyone has access to cold iron and silver, align weapon oils, backup weapons, and other things to overcome DR. Access to movement enhancing items or equipment is also a must for non-casters after level 6~8. (As DM, I will remind them and press players to acquire these items.)
If someone builds a character (especially a full caster) they should start about 1 level down from the wealth by level chart.
I would also question the wisdom of some of the statements made as "facts", especially with the update from 3.5 to pathfinder. For example, "healing in combat is a waste of actions". I think that may have been true in 3.5, but I think that Channel Energy made healing, and a more defensive play style a great option under the Pathfinder rules.
I'm not sure I do anything about the tiers. Spotlight inequities tend to be a problem in my games, and I think they're greatly exacerbated by the style of it, namely that very open-ended sandbox games seem to heavily favour divine spellcasters given that my players generally know what they'll be up against because they get to choose what they'll be up against. There will always be surprises (especially since I tend to use a ton of custom creatures) but it's not quite the dungeon crawl where every room is a mystery.
My games tend to be fairly low combat too (they happen when it's storyline appropriate) and light on the dungeon crawls. I groan when someone wants to play a fighter, or another class that doesn't have much going for it than hitting stuff. Incidentally I've always thought the Monk was a bit "better" than the fighter if, for no other reason, a bit more skill-points allows the Monk to do more things out of combat.
Having that said I don't know if my players have ever cared about combat and out of combat inequalities as much as I do. Generally the point of contention is how the group decides what they're going to do; it's an argument that I've never seen pop up in a dungeon delve where the only choice is "go deeper". My sandbox games tend to get dominated by players who are extroverted or have a very well developed sense of their character's motivations. When the de facto party leader is pulling the group to do something solely in his character's interest, resentment flares.
In combat is easy to fix. Historically the fighter ends up over-geared, the monk gets some nifty gloves that function like weapons for his unarmed strikes, etc. Storyline spotlight is always a tricky balancing act, but I work character's backgrounds into the setting, everyone gets at least a single storyline that pertains to them, and acting as an ooc mediator usually works out pretty well. It's the out of combat bit that perplexes me. Giving the fighter more skill points doesn't seem to affect much when even the rogue seems superfluous in the face of utility spells.
Ignoring DB3's post, as I said earlier, my biggest problem has not been high tiers, but low ones. It's much easier to reign in a player then to boost him up.
For example, let's take...well, a party I'm in now. Fightan cleric, wizard, factotum, soulknife. Or rather, fightan cleric, wizard, and factotum. See, the soulknife stopped playing. Not because he disliked the game, but because there was almost nothing for his character to do. He couldn't really fight. He didn't really have skills. His class feature only came in handy once when we were ambushed and kidnapped, and even then I, the factotum, had to constantly reign myself back to let him have some moments of glory.
It's not because he's a bad player. It's because he choose a bad class.
3.5 HAS traps. The old Toughness feat was a huge trap. Certain classes are traps. Some PrCs actively make your character WORSE. One of the purposes of making the tiers is to help characters who want to make a type of character do it without taking a crappy class. The guy who watches Samurai Jack and wants to make the wicked cool samurai character can be shown the swordsage and warblade instead of the actual samurai class. Someone who wants to be Indiana Jones can be shown the factotum instead of the rogue. This way, they not only get to make the character they want, they also get to play the actual game.
Wonderful post, Treantmonk.
Why thank you!
For example, let's take...well, a party I'm in now. Fightan cleric, wizard, factotum, soulknife. Or rather, fightan cleric, wizard, and factotum. See, the soulknife stopped playing. Not because he disliked the game, but because there was almost nothing for his character to do. He couldn't really fight. He didn't really have skills. His class feature only came in handy once when we were ambushed and kidnapped, and even then I, the factotum, had to constantly reign myself back to let him have some moments of glory.
I've never played with psionics, but there is a player who I play with who has a story VERY much like this one - again regarding the SoulKnife.
That class was just rotten I think.
I don't think Pathfinder has that kind of junk with classes. I believe that class tiers still exist - but not to the extremes we saw in 3.5.
To answer the question as best I can. As tiers don't play a role in my game, I don't know why my game works without them. Probably because it's a relaxing bit of fun. none of my players take it that seriously. If one person starts to overshadow everyone else, they tend to tone it down so that everyone has fun. That's it.
Which is a Big Deal. Tiers occur when you push she system. If nobody pushes the system, and everyone's actively trying not to push the system, they don't really show up much.
So... to help power-gamers become more power-gamey? Why don't they go play an MMORPG?
GAH! Does it say that? Unless you consider Pun Pun to be a better character than, say, a Lliiran Bard, I have no idea where you're getting "powergame more" from "better build characters that fit with their group."
Did you even look at the tier system? JaronK even encourages a Fighter/Rogue/Healer/Barbarian team. All lower-tier classes, but they're of similar power levels and can all walk down the road together. Building a character that fits with the party does not mean building a tremendously powerful demigod. It means building a character that better fits with the party.
If the rest of the party roster reads 'Monk, Ninja, Warmage,' then a Wizard played to the hilt is probably a bad idea. If the party roster reads, 'Sorcerer, Warblade, Artificer,' then a Samurai would probably be ill-advised.
If someone wants to call this me "subconsciously DMifying the Tiers" then that's cool with me. I see it as in-character common sense decision making by the denizens of my campaign world.
In other words, it's common sense to design the world to explicitly screw the most powerful classes because they're the most powerful classes.
Do note that this is, quite blatantly, not fair DMing (do note the difference between 'not fair' and 'bad'). It's tailoring the world to counter a single class, and that you have to do it is proof that the single class you're explicitly tailoring the world to counter is in fact so powerful that you have to very pointedly create an entire world that counters them. It's an open admission of the tier system you've been railing against.
Part of the tier system is, "These powerful classes require a lot more attention and action to manage," which is exactly what you're doing. It's not even subconscious.
I've never played with psionics, but there is a player who I play with who has a story VERY much like this one - again regarding the SoulKnife.
That class was just rotten I think.
The Soulknife doesn't really count as a psionic class. It doesn't get any powers or anything. In fact, pretty much its sole class ability is 'has a weapon.' And it's not even a particularly good weapon. It's a short sword. One. At level 5, he can make it a longsword or a bastard sword (but isn't automatically proficient with said bastard sword), or split it into two short swords by reducing the enhancement by one. And the list of enhancements available kinda sucks.
It has a decent skill list, but only 4+ skill points and nothing really keyed off of intelligence. It kinda looks like a skill monkey class, but doesn't get any real abilities there. It also kinda looks like a combat class, but it has medium BAB and its sole damage booster takes a move action to charge and only applies to a single attack, so no real benefits to full attacks.
Its only really unique and useful special ability comes in at level 13, where the class can start dealing damage to mental stats, but by that point, the class is already so far behind that it doesn't really mean much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, it's just a full out rotten class, which is sad, because I always liked the idea of the mindblade.
Untapped Potential has a new, better soulknife, but in my mind, it still doesn't take it far enough to be either skill monkey type or fighting type, so I've personally taken the upgraded soulknife and then basically gestalted it with monk, AND allowed the use of feats from another Dreamscarred book.
But really, that the class requires me to make use of multiple third party materials to get any use...that says a lot. 3.5 was built with system mastery in mind. Some feats, and some classes, and some spells...well, they just flat out suck.
That's why my issue has always been with lower tiers then higher ones. Someone in the higher tier is already having fun, and it's generally easy to make the gentleman's agreement to ensure they don't steal the thunder from everyone else. I have a transmuter in another game, but I'm all about buffing or debuffing, so I only add to everyone else's thunder. But lower tiers aren't having fun. Nobody enjoys playing a character who can't contribute.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody enjoys playing a character who can't contribute.
I don't necessarly agree that nobody enjoys playing a character who can't contribute.
However, all you need is for one player who doesn't enjoy playing a character who can't contribute being able to use tier ranking to prevent that from happening, and tier ranking has served its purpose.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been thinking a lot about statistical analysis of Pathfinder lately. I have a weird stance because I firmly believe in the validity of mathematical analysis and its ability to improve many aspects of life, but I also believe that tabletop RPGs defy such analysis in many ways.
Let me state at the outset, I am not an advocate of GM fiat as a solution to design problems (except in my own game of course), and I really do think that designers should aim to make the game as functional as possible for as many people as possible.
That said, the tier systems I have seen seem flawed to me, and that is why I don't use them. They do not meaningfully include social situations and many non-combat situations. The analysis is flawed because combat is too often taken as a closed system, when the game is in no way limited to combat interactions. The analysis I see on these boards is usually combat centric, and is useless to the way I play the game. In addition, analysis of certain classes routinely overlooks planning and timing limitations inherent in that class, substituting a completely rational player (in game theory terms) for the actual play experience.
Incedentally, I try to play the game in the way prescribed by the core rulebook, with traps and environmental hazards, plus social encounters that can make a real and meaningful difference in the life expectancy of the characters. If I'm not playing in exactly the prescribed manner, I'm pretty damn close too it.
Now, the combat centric analysis of Pathfinder especially disappoints me, because the flagship product of this game is WHOLE, STANDARDIZED CAMPAIGNS, which in my mind offers opportunities for analysis that encompasses the above facets of gameplay. How many groups have played Rise of the Runelords over how many iterations? How many are playing Legacy of Fire right now? Compared to collecting play reports from these people, one individual's mathematical analysis holds zero value to me.
This is also the first time in the history of the hobby that we have had so many people playing standardized campaigns over a wide spectrum of levels. We can seriously reduce the guesswork using these products.
So I guess that's the aim of this rant: Tier Analysis and other optimization fails me, not because the closed-system math is wrong as it pertains to battle, but because it fails to encompass the whole game — and in an iteration of the game that lends itself more readily to robust analysis than any prior version.
One approach that would highly interest me is to track the interactions that occur between classes and the encounters included in a given Adventure Path. Those familiar with experimental design will recognize that there is a meaningful pool of data there, and it had a much higher validity than the conjecture we so often see in these discussion.
I really do not mean this as an attack on any person or play style, rather I mean to express what bothers me about the analysis I have seen. I find it unscientific and unappealing as a GM, and disappointing given the obvious potential for a systematic analysis.