I don't have a huge pool of 3.x experience to pull from, but in the games I've played in mismatched tiers haven't been a problem. The issues we HAVE had in terms of game play balance have been caused by prestige classes.
Given the huge differential between many 3.5 prestige classes (you named two of the worst offenders, BTW), the tier system can (and probably should) be applied to them, as well as base classes. There are many examples of 3.5 prestige classes making characters who were already tier 1 even more powerful. There are also many examples that didn't change where a character fell within the tiers, but "broke" specific mechanics. The frenzied berserker is probably one of the most unbalanced examples, since it takes a class (barbarian) that already only does just about one thing well (hit things for damage) and simply boosts that to obscene levels, without adding any other functionality.
Tiers are not intended as much more than a "rule of thumb" or general guidance, IMO. Magic, as presented in 3.5 and Pathfinder, is a powerful and versatile thing. Classes that can cast spells, especially higher level spells, are (generally speaking) more powerful and versatile than classes that can't. This doesn't mean that non-spellcasters and lower-powered spellcasters can't contribute or be effective, because they most definitely can. It just means that spellcasters have more (and possibly/probably better) tools to deal with different circumstances.
Skills are another thing that should be considered when eye-balling tiers. They are an important part of the versatility (and possibly power) of a class.
As to how I see the tiers in Pathfinder (spoilered, because it's tangental to the topic):
Tier 2- Druid, Sorcerer; IMO, the druid has dropped to Tier 2 from the way Animal Companion and Wildshape have been scaled back, which leaves little that can't be done by the cleric (Animal domain) or wizard/sorcerer (beast shape); the sorcerer gets bloodlines, but remains fundamentally limited compared to the wizard
Tier 3- Bard, Paladin, Ranger; the bard is a little stronger and more versatile, but not a huge amount (mostly, it's just more effective at what it already had in 3.5); the paladin has gained a lot with Smite Evil, Lay On Hands/Channel Positive Energy, and Divine Bond on top of the combat ability and spells; the ranger gained a few goodies like Favored Terrain and Hunter's Bond, but they are already quite versatile (full BAB, 6 + Int mod skill ranks, spells), especially with the new skill system
Tier 4- Fighter, Rogue; the fighter no longer needs to worry about being overshadowed in pure combat and can be effective at more outside of combat with the new skill system; the rogue picked up Rogue talents, but it's easier for other classes to "fill in" for many roles that the rogue normally covers
Tier 5- Barbarian, Monk; both are IMO overly focused and a little weak in what's supposed to be their role; the barbarian has trouble matching the damage output of the fighter, and doesn't have much else; the monk has been an under-achiever since 3.0 IMO (without the "official house-rule," as I call it, allowing a flurry with one "hand" when two-weapon fighting), but is close enough to Tier 4 that increasing skill ranks to 6 + Int mod and expanding on the fighting style concept from UA (with different weapons, feat chains, "disciplines," etc. for each style, similar to sorcerer bloodlines or wizard schools) would move it up
As far as applying the tier concept to a game session, there are a few options:
1) Have all players create characters within the same tier or within a one tier difference (Tier 1-2, Tier 2-3, etc.). The difference between tiers in Pathfinder is closer than in 3.5, so you may be able to allow one character to have a two tier difference without too many problems. This can be something that's applied at the start of the campaign or something that occurs as characters are replaced due to character death or retirement, player turnover, etc.
2) Have players that deliberately "share the wealth" (cast buff spells, craft items "at cost," etc.) with lower tier characters to help them contribute in their areas of expertise, instead of "stealing their thunder." This can narrow the perceived difference between the tiers even further and extend the period where widely varying tiers can comfortably coexist.
3) Provide multiple different types of challenges in a session, allowing many different characters to shine at various points. This includes mixing up the opponents, tactics, and terrain in combat, providing various environmental challenges (traps, warded areas, etc.), and including opportunities for information gathering and social interaction, among others.
4) Occasionally, set things up so that the abilities of the higher tiers are constrained in some fashion. This can include magical (or anti-magical) protection, planar properties or separation, legal/social factors, etc. Be careful not to over-use this, since it can breed resentment.
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?
To bring things back onto track with "specific examples", here's how I used the Tiers concept to make gaming easier as a DM.
I'm currently running a published campaign. It's srd rules D&D (which I'm converting into pathfinder as I go).
As DM, I'm a firm believer of the original 3e DMG's comment on tailoring classes. I far prefer the idea of a player playing a concept, instead of a bag of classes. So I'm very much into the idea of altering a class ability or two to fit what the player wants to do.
Our group consists of 3 players, in a rather hardcore game. I've personally played through most of it as a player (in a group of 4, failry optimized characters with a smart wizard player), and read some other group's experiences with TPK's with a group of 6 in as early as the third adventure.
So, I told the group as a whole, that in order to pull off this campaign without TPK after TPK, we are going to need to meet the gaming's assumptions: a certain level of magic and bases covered.
I gave the option of either semi-gestalting to basically get more abilities that would cover the bases they needed, or to have hirelings/DMPCs to cover some of those areas.
Personally, I prefer not having to play DMPCs (I'm playing everyone else already), and pushed for them to gestalt, so they did so.
I have one player trying out the Oracle. We added the Summoner's Eidolon, only made it thematic (oracle of bones, so an undead cohort), however I toned back some of the features available, made additional requirements (he is treated as having the Leadership feat to get this, and must make Heal checks to modify his beast), and warned about the roleplaying rammifications of having an undead creature walking around.
A second player is playing a Ranger. Since the only other player was fairly new to D&D, we tacked on the half-caster (bard spells per day) spellcasting with wizard/sorcerer spell list.
Also, to give the group another melee character, he has the Druid progression (full level) for his animal companion.
The final player, who is a bit new to the math of D&D, is playing a Rogue. To keep competitive with the rest, I upped the combat ability (full BAB, one feat to get full TWF), and gave a couple of normally prestige class abilities as they gain levels (ranged legerdemain and hide in plain sight).
So far, all three players have handled their own against things that have killed a group of 6 players before, so I think I did my job well.
The fact that they have companions, making their group a full 5 units, helped.
Fully finishing adventure 1, I discovered a problem that directly ties into the tiers.
The campaign assumes a certain level of magic, so there are number of situations that could be handled a lot better if higher level magic is allowed. And by higher level, I mean even a single level higher opens up a lot more doors to change events.
Considering the Oracle was the only primary spellcaster, and who's utility was going to be expected fairly shortly into the campaign, I decided to alter his spellcasting progression to be quicker than the sorcerer progression.
This meant he got his spell levels as quickly as primary tier1 casters (cleric being his direct analogue). This allowed him to keep his flavour (oracle/almost necromancer style of caster), and still keep up with the campaign's expectations.
When it comes to a 12 adventure campaign that spans levels 1-21+, it's far easier to raise the players capabilities to the game's assumption, rather than altering every aspect of the game. I'm already converting to Pathfinder, I don't need the tiers headache on top of this.
.
So, here's an example of how keeping the tiers in mind really helped me as a DM be prepared for what was coming.
As for actual, in-game experience between the characters, here's what I've found:
- The non-caster of the group has helped alleviate some of the spellcasting needs of the others by being extremely skilled in many party roles.
When you don't need to keep casting Knock and Invibility and such, it lets the spellcaster focus on areas that the skilled warrior can't handle.
- The healer having a melee-monster cohort gives him something to do in combat. He's built more for having the right roleplaying skills (Cha and Knowledge skills), so in-combat, he does maybe a cause fear and a bunch of healing.
And yet, he can still tear it up in melee with the rest of the group because of his access to his Eidolon.
- The ranger hasn't had a chance to shine with his arcane magic yet, mostly due to the lack of utility spells needed at this level. The rogue can do most things an unlimited times per day, so he can focus on tossing a magic missile at a Lantern Archon (where his normal ranged attack wouldn't do much damage at all).
However, when scrying and travel becomes an issue later in the game, Overland Flight and Mage's Mansion will make him invaluable.
So far, everyone has contributed quite well in most situations. Which is great, considering they are only 3 people facing a tough campaign.
At the present time I would consider this 'Tier' system outdated. Is there a post buried somewhere within the nearly two thousand posts on that thread that addresses these tiers specifically for Pathfinder?
So far, with limited anecdotal evidence available from playing and running Pathfinder the few months' time that has passed since its release, I am very hesitant to categorically 'Tier' the 11 core classes.
Uhh, what about Pathfinder invalidates the tier system? Pathfinder is still pretty much standard 3rd edition D&D, so the tier system is still perfectly applicable.
I think what you mean is that Pathfinder has altered the tier classification of the classes. Is that correct? I don't think anyone's debating that seriously, if so.
Yep, you got it right: "tier classification" is what I meant to say.
Why the hell are we still awake????
I am sleepy, but I can't sleep. I hate that.
My point is that you had to design the campaign with the casters in mind. Why not just design a fight/situation without regard to the party makeup?Don't get me wrong, I really don't do SPECIFIC preparations unless the BBEG knows the PCs are coming.
What I do more commonly is put up the most blatant defenses the BBEG or their organization can afford.
For example, most organizations won't be able to ward their entire lair against teleportation, but some mid level groups might line their vault with Cold Iron or something like that. Most groups, even at the lower levels, would hire a mage to befuddle any weak-willed characters who might try to take their crap.
I will read the rest of the post, but I won't respond until tomorrow. I just put this here as a place holder.
Cleric has kinda been downgraded, and kinda been upgraded, in that it has only medium armor now, but the biggest two issues with Cleric are still there, and they are, in fact, better. They are named Righteous Might and Divine Power. Why two spells that should've been removed were instead made even MORE powerful makes my brain want to vomit in protest.
As for the monk, I honestly don't know what could be done to fix the poor class. I've mostly given up trying to houserule stuff for it. I typically just point would be bards at either the unarmed swordsage or a tashalatora monk/psywar and leave it at that.
They are named Righteous Might and Divine Power. Why two spells that should've been removed were instead made even MORE powerful makes my brain want to vomit in protest.
Err, what? Both spells were nerfed.
In 3.5, divine power set your BAB to full BAB, gave a +6 enhancement bonus to strength, and gave 1 temp hp per caster level. In PF, divine power gives +1/3 level luck bonus to attack rolls, damage rolls, and Strength-based checks, 1 temp hp per caster level, and a haste attack which doesn't stack with haste. The major net change is the alteration from getting an extra iterative attack to getting no extra attack at all (because let's face it, haste is going to be cast on the party anytime there's a non-trivial fight).
In 3.5, righteous might gave a +4 size bonus to Strength and a +2 size bonus to Constitution, a +2 enhancement bonus to natural armor, DR 3 to 9/alignment, and reach. PF righteous might grants a +4 size bonus to Strength, a +2 size bonus to Constitution, a -2 penalty to Dexterity, a +2 enhancement bonus to natural armor, and DR 5 or 10/alignment. The major net change is the -2 to Dex and the loss of reach.
Cleric has kinda been downgraded, and kinda been upgraded, in that it has only medium armor now, but the biggest two issues with Cleric are still there, and they are, in fact, better. They are named Righteous Might and Divine Power. Why two spells that should've been removed were instead made even MORE powerful makes my brain want to vomit in protest.
How are they better, the spells I mean? The ones that used to stack now give the same bonus type. Righteous Might combined with the other two made the fighter not have a job.
Edit: Divine power and Divine Favor
Edit: divine might changed to divine favor
What page of the core rulebook has the tiers listed on it?
What page of the core rulebook has the tiers listed on it?
They are not, they have nothing to do with the core rules. Some one made em up, kinda spread sheet like for 3.5. I am sure the guys here have a link somewhere
Edit, it's on the first post
What page of the core rulebook has the tiers listed on it?
The link is one the first page of this thread. Tiers link
There are also two other links in the first post that discuss them.
Edit:ninja'd, 3rd time in 4 hours.
ha! I Ninjaed* ya
By Ninja I mean rogue :)
Throws down smoke sticks
Ninja vanish!**
ha! I Ninjaed* ya
** spoiler omitted **
Throws down smoke sticks
Ninja vanish!**** spoiler omitted **
It worked for his mini-onions. ^_^
HAH HAH I HAD A LONG POST HERE I JUST DELETED 'CAUSE I DIDN'T READ PROPERLY
HEYOOOOOOOOO
Righteous Might was buffed. Old Righteous Might only gave +2 con and +3 DR every three levels. New one gives +4 con (And -2 dex, but war clerics stomp in big heavy armor and don't care about dexterity) and +5 DR every three levels.
Divine Power was nerfed...kinda. It lost the flat +6 strength. But now, 1) the bonuses are luck and thus stack with a belt of giant's strength instead of Divine Favor(old one did not), it gained a haste effect, and it gained +1 damage every three levels which actually goes past the +3 that the strength bonus would've given. It loses the "gain fighter BAB," but gets +1 attack every three levels...which would, you guessed it, give it standard fighter attack bonuses (though it loses the extra attack at, admittingly, lowest BAB, which may not even matter). And while in 3.5 extra attack bonus = moar power attack, with the changes in power attack, it's not nearly as important. So in total, it loses a flat +6 strength and stacking with Divine Favor, but gains a haste effect, stacks with gear, and gains higher damage...eventually.
In the end?
Righteous Might was buffed for reasons I will never understand. Divine Power was taken down a notch, but then brought right back up a notch, and then the notches were blindfolded and spun around in circles and expected to hit a pinata, and I don't have the leet mechanical knowledge to know whether it's a an up, a down, or a draw. I'd say it's slightly weaker in early levels (but still stupidly strong), and even stronger at higher levels.
Righteous Might though, there's no excuse for that one >:|
ha! I Ninjaed* ya
** spoiler omitted **
Throws down smoke sticks
Ninja vanish!**** spoiler omitted **
LOL - great post!
Uhh, what about Pathfinder invalidates the tier system? Pathfinder is still pretty much standard 3rd edition D&D, so the tier system is still perfectly applicable.
I think the whole thing is very condensed in Pathfinder. There is nowhere near the disperity between a Wizard and a Monk in Pathfinder that there was between a Wizard and a Soul Knife in 3.5. Not that there isn't a disperity, nor that it hurts to know that the disperity exists. If a player in my group selects a Monk - I will probably help him optimize to ensure he can contribute, that's really the extent of the value of tier ranking for Pathfinder I think.
I don't see a case where one player makes a Wizard and another is going to make a Monk and I, as DM, should discourage the mix. In fact, that Monk player is way better off having a Wizard in the party for the buffing/battlefield control/debuffing that can be so helpful to a melee character.
Furthermore, I'm not sure "tier 1" exists at all in Pathfinder. Covering all roles is something I haven't found any classes capable of in Pathfinder.
In 3.5 the Druid can cast off an awesome casting stat, then leap into melee in a fashion that makes the fighter blush. Wizards can do the same thing. In Pathfinder a Druid needs to bump Str and Dex if he wants to play in melee, leaving offensive casting in the dust. A Pathfinder wizard who wades into melee is going to die.
Not saying tiers don't exist in Pathfinder, or that being aware of tiers isn't a useful exercise, but using 3.5 tiers really doesn't do much good.
I think it's very interesting that "tier" threads have gotten so many hits in the past week or so, and we haven't even really defined where Pathfinder class tiers would be. A few ideas were tossed around in the original thread before it became more interesting to discuss if tiers exist at all.
However, whether they are official or not, there is no question that perfect "balance" does not exist in Pathfinder. It's more balanced than 3.5, but classes that do different things are hard to balance. Overconcentrating on balance lead to 4e - so it's not all it cracked up to be.
Just because tiers exist though doesn't mean they need to wreck your game. The party Wizard may be the highest tier, but when he uses his dimension door to get the party fighter and rogue past the wall of force, or his mass fly spell to help them fight an airborne foe, the tiers aren't really a problem, even if they exist.
|
honestly, as theoretical exercises, i see this as useful...when it comes to Sunday and we're sitting at the table, not so much.
my long-term group is very much full of optimizers, and whenever we're starting a new game, there's at LEAST a couple of months of debating just what kind of characters we'll all play. (it should be noted that we don't generally play with new people, and are all experienced in both playing and DMing)
that being said, we usually don't end up with 4 wizards and a druid, or 3 clerics, a druid, and some crazy paladin/fighter/barbarian/etc. melee build.
we have used most of the "tricks" in various one-shot games (Healing/Buffing druid with Warforged Juggernaut/Reforged cohort, Divine Metamagic Cleric, non-wildshaping-Druid with animal companion from hades and monk/ranger class abilities...and those are just mine) and high-level intended games. I've seen the various Charger and Tripper builds and other melee tricks employed.
when it comes down to game-day, however, we all have fun playing what we brought. if that means Bard, Monk, Ranger, Oracle, Beguiler, so be it; we will adapt our tactics and play style to better capitalize on the abilities we do have.
so, long story short, the Tier-Class-System doesn't really see USE in our games, other than as "back of the mind" knowledge when creating characters.
-t
I would like to think that players experimenting with character builds and 'testing' them in play - whether they under-perform or not - is the best way to do so. There is a reason that the APG base classes are being requested to be play-tested 'live' (during a game) rather than during theoretical exercise.
Think of it as the difference between the design phase of a ship and the prototype / shakedown phase. The blueprints and theoreticals are all good and well on Spiffy Destroyer Model 375, but until you crew her and put her through the paces on a shakedown cruise, no one really knows how well the ship will perform. CAD (good character design) can eliminate a lot of the simpler problems in advance, but you still need that shakedown cruise.
An example in play is the oft-maligned bard. As an NPC they have so far proven to be Primary Target of the player characters. It seems no one wants to have to deal with the "buff machine" that requires both silence and some form of visual obfuscation to otherwise take out of play. The simpler solution I routinely hear about in dealing with bards in the support role: 'a yard of steel in his belly shuts him up PDQ'.
A fascinating discussion (or series of discussions)! Anyone who thinks roleplayers aren't capable of serious debate and reasoned analysis should be made to read some of the work that has taken place on this subject.
I've spent days catching up on all the posts and although I've got 30+ years of gaming under my belt, my 3.5 experience is fairly limited and my old group's play style was, as far as I can see, arguably atypical which probably helps explain why we've rarely had the sort of issues that I can now see could come up on a regular basis.
Warning: brain dump ahead. Spelling, grammar and non-sequiturs highly likely!
We played the majority of our 3.5 games in one of the 'living' campaigns, and at levels < 10 because they fit in with the other demands of the players (lack of prep time, adventures fitting the time available and allowing for rotating GM to 'spread the load' etc).
Unfortunately, for the most part, the adventures could be summed up as a series of combats with only about half a dozen skills ever having any serious impact on the course of events - Diplomacy, Gather Info, Search, and sometimes Disable Device and Survival.
Given the game had almost been reduced to a contest rather than 'proper' roleplaying ie if you wanted to 'succeed' at the module you had to beat the combat challenges, the focus on 'roles' was somewhat skewed. In fact, in the 3 parties we had playing at various points, with the exception of 1 player who had a bard and a druid, I pretty much monopolised the spellcasters; I had the only 2 pure arcane casters, and played a cleric for 9 levels before rebuilding into something else under the campaign rules.
Those same campaign rules did put something of a limiter on prepared arcane casters in terms of restricting access to spells, often restricting cash flow, nerfing some spells etc so I wouldn't say I ever found myself feeling sorry for the other players!
- Everyone else wanted to play fighter types, and although there was a fair bit of dabbling in campaign specific classes, at the level we played I doubt any of them affected the tier so were largely comparable to the core fighter classes.
- Nobody wanted to play arcane casters which is why I ended up jumping in. Furthermore, in the local groups I occasionally came across at minicons and game days I struggle to think of *any* serious arcane casters. An artefact of living games?
- Nobody wanted to play clerics as they were seen as boring. The main reason we had them was because the group felt we couldn't do without the healing so someone (usually grudgingly) eventually played one. Honestly, it was almost a case of 'whose turn is to play the cleric this time?'.
- Rogues occupied a similar lowly position as they were thought of as only there to trapfind (so the party NPC or cohort often ended up with that role).
Maybe it was the prevelance of fighters that accounts for not seeing any tier issues; one or two stand out as more efficient but mostly any differences in class power was overcome by the 'better' players. Robert's post before mine resonated, particularly the bit about people thinking they've come up with clever ideas but are in fact terrible builds; this has led to some frustration, particularly in the guy who played a monk (and about as badly optimised a monk as you would care to see...). Most of the time, a bit of in game assistance helped out weaker PCs - the poorest fighter was the first to get a buff etc
I suppose I should take a bit of comfort from the fact I generally played my spellcasters in an 'optimal' way ie almost no blasting, most of my spells were for buffing the other PCs to allow *them* to kill the opponents, battlefield control or getting round environmental or other hazards. In fact, at one point we had a debate about whether it was 'fair' that while the fighters were out buying 'toys' to help them kill the monsters, the 'poor' wizard was being expected to use their share of loot to buy spells which were then used to buff the fighters so they could kill the monsters even quicker. I even asked for a handout at one point saying if they wanted me to be casting Haste/Fly/Freedom of Movement then they could damn well pay for the scrolls and ink so I could write them in my book. Or just hire a cohort wizard as I felt had been relegated to position of supporting cast for them!
My cleric had a similar support role (campaign specific god, my main combat tactic for about 2 years was Shield Other on the biggest party fighter who then wailed away on the main bad guy while I hung at the back and healed myself - believe me that gets wearing after a while, but it got us through some mods that we might not have managed otherwise as that party had no arcance support). Of the other clerics, one is the very definition of faceless (it is played by a live person but it could be an NPC for all the thought that goes into it!) and the third is more of a self-buffing fighter type (which to be fair is not only more effective than most of the group fighters, but also very in character for the campaign/god).
I'm relegated to pbps at the moment as I stepped away from the group a few months back. Reason? The living format just ground me down. Same old, week in, week out, and often the railroading was such that I wanted to get up and leave the table as it was so ludicrous. But then the others might have 'lost' that adventure so I stuck around...
If I do get back with my old group or find a new one I'm very tempted by E6 as it sounds like the linear/log power idea hasn't got out of control by that point. But having gone through the threads, it does strike me that the game I grew up with and have seen go through 4 incarnations + PF seems to me to be fundametally 'broken' - at a much higher level than can be fixed by tinkering with a few classes here and there. And yet, we're all still playing it, and finding ways round the problems.
To change tack slightly, can I ask what sort of effect on the tiers things like specialist wizards and domains for clerics has made/might make? Without a lot of first hand evidence, having skimmed some of TM's optimisation guides, I'm wondering if you decide to play, for example, an Evoker you are basically throwing the wizard optimisation out of the window and so must be reducing the tier of the character.
- Do all specialists suffer equally (assuming you play up the specialism beyong just grabbing the extra spells)?
- I assume clerics it's less of a change as the domains only add to the core spell list so the base flexibility remains?
- And on the great Mystic Theurge issue - the consensus seems to be it's a trap PrC (and a big, bad one at that). If it seriously depowers a spellcaster, doesn't it (in a wholly unintentional way) bring it back to a more manageable power level compared to the other core classes? A sort of reverse gestalt.
- And on the great Mystic Theurge issue - the consensus seems to be it's a trap PrC (and a big, bad one at that). If it seriously depowers a spellcaster, doesn't it (in a wholly unintentional way) bring it back to a more manageable power level compared to the other core classes? A sort of reverse gestalt.
I think one of the biggest problems with the MT is that it weakens the caster at the wrong point.
Level 6 is going to be Wizard 3/Cleric 3 - which is honestly not only near useless, but also very difficult to keep alive. The MT PrC doesn't catch it up right away - but around Wiz 3/Cl 3/MT 4 has caught up and is doing decently.
In order to be an effective "balancer" the MT would need to weaken the caster later on in the game.
The PrC's that give non-full spell progression would be more effective "balancers" than the MT IMO.
Though I don't think it's necessary to balance the classes more than they already are.
The only time a DM should need to worry is if:
a) He's dealing with a powergamer (in which case class balance doesn't solve the problem)
b) All the players choose low tier classes (in which case, if running a published adventure path, the DM could find that the players don't have the ability to deal with some challenges that the adventure may assume characters of the level could deal with - like planar shifting or teleporting, etc)
No one is going to take me up on the fact that these tiers are arbitrarily chosen?
I understand they derive from personal play experiences about who can contribute most easily, but my own experience tells me that they are not a good tool. In my party right now, with no house rules, I am attempting to compensate for an ineffectual wizard and an over-competent fighter. How can a tier system help with this? What use is it?
We should perform some whole campaign analysis and get the actual numbers. I don't think wizards are nearly as good in the field as they are theoretically. The tiers seem to rate absolutely rational players, which is not a very accurate depiction of how the game is played. If we want a useful tool for GMs to balance games, it should be measured against performance in actual campaigns.
No one is going to take me up on the fact that these tiers are arbitrarily chosen?
I understand they derive from personal play experiences about who can contribute most easily, but my own experience tells me that they are not a good tool. In my party right now, with no house rules, I am attempting to compensate for an ineffectual wizard and an over-competent fighter. How can a tier system help with this? What use is it?
We should perform some whole campaign analysis and get the actual numbers. I don't think wizards are nearly as good in the field as they are theoretically. The tiers seem to rate absolutely rational players, which is not a very accurate depiction of how the game is played. If we want a useful tool for GMs to balance games, it should be measured against performance in actual campaigns.
The tier idea assumes the players know how to play the class. If the wizard can't do anything that is already off the baseline. Remember we have already said not all games are the same, and the ability of a player will affect the effectiveness of any class. To use one of my previous examples I would choose the veteran player with a fighter, over the new guy with a caster.
We have already listed reasons why the tier system can't account for everyone's games in the other thread. We have also said DM's should adjust things based on his group, not just make blind adjustments.Edit: A lot of the stuff I just said was common sense, so many of us were adjusting things before we ever heard of the tiers. However, a lot of these things are not thought about by many people until after the fact such as when a DM first has to deal with scry and die.
I don't think wizards are nearly as good in the field as they are theoretically.
We are not saying wizards own the game all the time, but they have abilities that can catch people off guard, especially if someone is dealing with one for the first time. You have to find a way to make sure they don't trivialize encounters(not just fights).
PS: What spells is your player choosing, and how is he not being affective if the reason is something other than spells?
|
No one is going to take me up on the fact that these tiers are arbitrarily chosen?
I understand they derive from personal play experiences about who can contribute most easily, but my own experience tells me that they are not a good tool. In my party right now, with no house rules, I am attempting to compensate for an ineffectual wizard and an over-competent fighter. How can a tier system help with this? What use is it?
We should perform some whole campaign analysis and get the actual numbers. I don't think wizards are nearly as good in the field as they are theoretically. The tiers seem to rate absolutely rational players, which is not a very accurate depiction of how the game is played. If we want a useful tool for GMs to balance games, it should be measured against performance in actual campaigns.
Everybody knows magic is stronger. If it wasn't, we'd wouldn't have all these books saying how wizards become gods, create and rule empires, and are basically better than everybody else. The game simply create a rules set where in the end, wizards are better. Even if we take Wish out of it, what other high spell levels are there that just utterly blows most other classes out of the water?
It is okay to say magic is stronger and the make rules around that. But the fact is that at higher levels, the party become bodyguards to protect the wizard so he may do his reality altering stuff. What's worse is that the game pretends this is not the case, and that at higher levels, classes all shine, and are all masters of whatever they do. That is simply not true. More often than not, the wizard has the right tool to resolve issues, and that's frustrating far too often.
If magic is not stronger, it is because the DM says so, or if the world is actually devote of magic, and then it wouldn't be 3.5, Pathfinder, or D&D.
I've used wizard in my post, but the other tier 1s all can be used for the example.
In my party right now, with no house rules, I am attempting to compensate for an ineffectual wizard and an over-competent fighter. How can a tier system help with this? What use is it?
I was told the tiers do not appear in the core rulebook. Since you are not using any house rules, feel free to ignore them. That's how we do it in my campaign.
I was told the tiers do not appear in the core rulebook. Since you are not using any house rules, feel free to ignore them. That's how we do it in my campaign.
Mage, your missing the point.
Lucky for me then, that you're helping me to find it. :-)
These aren't rules of any kind, they are just guidelines to help DM's in handling the baseline assumptions of the game.
Baseline assumptions of whose game?
As for your ineffectual wizard Lincoln, a link to TreantMonk's guide to being a god might help.
It did! Thanks TM
But anyway, it didn't help him get more power out of the class, just to adopt the right attitude of not affecting things directly. It's interesting to me that the game mechanics basically force a wizard to act like Gandalf all the time, but it's not what all players are expecting by default. The great virtue of Treantmonk's guide in my opinion is that it sets an expectation of behavior/outlook.
Still, I think a lot of tier analysis glosses over things like spell selection. It really does feel like we're assuming the wizard has the correct spells prepared every day, and in my experience that has been the real balancing factor.
I worry that much of this "glossing over" derives from people simply parroting the analysis of others, and without real numbers to examine, it is hard to prove otherwise. Before Treantmonk and MiB and the latest crew of optimizers arrived on the boards, there were at least two incendiary types who showed up during the beta playtest and started citing tiers as the reason that they were right and everyone else was wrong. It has very much colored my expectations on the issue. They are gone now because they acted like jerks, BTW.
I maintain that the tiers are somewhat arbitrary in reaching their central conclusion. The concept could be useful, but I don't think the assignation has been rigorous enough for my taste.
I was told the tiers do not appear in the core rulebook. Since you are not using any house rules, feel free to ignore them. That's how we do it in my campaign.Mage, your missing the point.Lucky for me then, that you're helping me to find it. :-)
These aren't rules of any kind, they are just guidelines to help DM's in handling the baseline assumptions of the game.Baseline assumptions of whose game?
It would take a lot of explaining. As of now it's taking 3 threads. Jaron K's thread and the last thread(not this one) are good places to start. The last thread has about 10 pages, but a lot of the information is repeated. If you read every other page you will probably get the basic idea behind it.
As for your ineffectual wizard Lincoln, a link to TreantMonk's guide to being a god might help.It did! Thanks TM
But anyway, it didn't help him get more power out of the class, just to adopt the right attitude of not affecting things directly. It's interesting to me that the game mechanics basically force a wizard to act like Gandalf all the time, but it's not what all players are expecting by default. The great virtue of Treantmonk's guide in my opinion is that it sets an expectation of behavior/outlook.
Still, I think a lot of tier analysis glosses over things like spell selection. It really does feel like you're assuming the wizard has the correct spells prepared every day, and in my experience that has been the real balancing factor.
I maintain that the tiers are somewhat arbitrary in reaching their central conclusion. The concept could be useful, but I don't think the assignation has been rigorous enough for my taste.
Power to me is being effective, but some people want to be the one that produces the numbers. If he wants to be a blaster he should probably be a sorcerer.
Casters don't always have the best spell, sometimes not even a decent spell, but most of the time they will have a way to handle a situation if another party member doesn't. Another point to remember, even though we keep going back to the wizard is that a group normally has 2 full casters, and between the two of them there is normally an answer.
Off-topic: I can't see any of Ryder's post unless someone they are included in someone else's response.
Is that normal?
That is odd, did you somehow ignore me? lolOff-topic: I can't see any of Ryder's post unless someone they are included in someone else's response.
Is that normal?
For wraithstrike
That is odd, did you somehow ignore me? lolOff-topic: I can't see any of Ryder's post unless someone they are included in someone else's response.
Is that normal?
I can see this post, but I still can't see the others.
Edit: It is here now. I know its not me because I tried using the search function before. Maybe you are a real ninja.
For wraithstrikeThat is odd, did you somehow ignore me? lolOff-topic: I can't see any of Ryder's post unless someone they are included in someone else's response.
Is that normal?
You are welcome, but Ryder has suppressed his ninja powers and allowed me to see him again.
|
|
As for your ineffectual wizard Lincoln, a link to TreantMonk's guide to being a god might help.It did! Thanks TM
But anyway, it didn't help him get more power out of the class, just to adopt the right attitude of not affecting things directly. It's interesting to me that the game mechanics basically force a wizard to act like Gandalf all the time, but it's not what all players are expecting by default. The great virtue of Treantmonk's guide in my opinion is that it sets an expectation of behavior/outlook.
Still, I think a lot of tier analysis glosses over things like spell selection. It really does feel like we're assuming the wizard has the correct spells prepared every day, and in my experience that has been the real balancing factor.
I worry that much of this "glossing over" derives from people simply parroting the analysis of others, and without real numbers to examine, it is hard to prove otherwise. Before Treantmonk and MiB and the latest crew of optimizers arrived on the boards, there were at least two incendiary types who showed up during the beta playtest and started citing tiers as the reason that they were right and everyone else was wrong. It has very much colored my expectations on the issue. They are gone now because they acted like jerks, BTW.
I maintain that the tiers are somewhat arbitrary in reaching their central conclusion. The concept could be useful, but I don't think the assignation has been rigorous enough for my taste.
See this is what I don't understand. In my campaigns, we have our own ideas what is powerful, and what is not. So we memorize those spells basically everyday.
The wizard in our party memorize these EVERY day:
Magic Missile
Overland Flight (and then cast immediately for 12 hours of flight a day)
Improved Mage Armor (same as previous, cast, and get 12 hours a day)
Enveration
Evard's Black Tentacles
Glitterdust
Fireball
Haste
Stoneskin
Dimension Door
These things work in our campaign, and they work a lot. So the wizard memorized them everyday. If we're expecting a lot of fights, he memorizes some extra Stoneskins. If we're expecting a lot of different terrain, multiple Overland Flight. Magic Missile and Fireball because our game has lot of chumps. Invisibility is often memorized because it is very useful.
Unless your games have no pattern, I cannot fathom why the wizard does not memorize what he himself has witnessed spells that work for him.
Lots of 3.5 gaming that's been posted shows that spells that diable or heavily debuff opponents are powerful. These can include Stinking Cloud, Web, Glitterdust, Evard's Black Tentacles, and many other spells. If the opponent cannot save, they are basically helpless.
In 3.0, if I remember correctly, Harm (opposite of Heal), had no cap on the damage it dealt, no save, and it only required a touch attack. Because of that, clerics often memorized it, and used it to deal with BBEG or other powerful enemies. It quickly got house ruled in many games because it was unbalancing. Spellcasters should look for spells of this nature to memorize, spells that end fights and encounters with ease.
Baseline assumptions of whose game?
The baseline for every game, as the baseline is determined by the system, rather than any one specific game or table. That is what's most important to understand. The tier system is about D&D 3.5. Not Roger and his group. Not your table, not my table, but the system. This does not mean no testing or play experience has gone into the tier system, nor that it has no backing, but that it is not fundamentally about any one table. This is, perhaps, one of the two biggest, most glaring misconceptions people have about the tier system, that it's about their game. (The other being that it's saying, 'Tier 1 is the best, only play that.)
That also does not mean every game perfectly displays pronounced tiering, only that it's the system's baseline. Personal playstyles, differences in each player's abilities, details of the campaign and encounters, the random number god, DMing style, houserules, individual bias. All of these factor in to shift things from that baseline, often to the point where it is difficult to recognize or even unrecognizable, but all games work off of it.
Baseline assumptions of whose game?
The baseline for every game, as the baseline is determined by the system, rather than any one specific game or table. That is what's most important to understand. The tier system is about D&D 3.5. Not Roger and his group. Not your table, not my table, but the system. This does not mean no testing or play experience has gone into the tier system, nor that it has no backing, but that it is not fundamentally about any one table. This is, perhaps, one of the two biggest, most glaring misconceptions people have about the tier system, that it's about their game. (The other being that it's saying, 'Tier 1 is the best, only play that.)
That also does not mean every game perfectly displays pronounced tiering, only that it's the system's baseline. Personal playstyles, differences in each player's abilities, details of the campaign and encounters, the random number god, DMing style, houserules, individual bias. All of these factor in to shift things from that baseline, often to the point where it is difficult to recognize or even unrecognizable, but all games work off of it.
If I may rephrase this back, so I can be sure I am understanding you correctly?
The game; without players, without a campaign, without encounter details, without dice, without a DM, without house rules, and without individual bias.
Upon what then, is this baseline, well ... based?
|
|
Baseline assumptions of whose game?The baseline for every game, as the baseline is determined by the system, rather than any one specific game or table. That is what's most important to understand. The tier system is about D&D 3.5. Not Roger and his group. Not your table, not my table, but the system. This does not mean no testing or play experience has gone into the tier system, nor that it has no backing, but that it is not fundamentally about any one table. This is, perhaps, one of the two biggest, most glaring misconceptions people have about the tier system, that it's about their game. (The other being that it's saying, 'Tier 1 is the best, only play that.)
That also does not mean every game perfectly displays pronounced tiering, only that it's the system's baseline. Personal playstyles, differences in each player's abilities, details of the campaign and encounters, the random number god, DMing style, houserules, individual bias. All of these factor in to shift things from that baseline, often to the point where it is difficult to recognize or even unrecognizable, but all games work off of it.
If I may rephrase this back, so I can be sure I am understanding you correctly?
The game; without players, without a campaign, without encounter details, without dice, without a DM, without house rules, and without individual bias.
Upon what then, is this baseline, well ... based?
Are you being dense on purpose? The baseline is playing 3.5 or Pathfinder straight out of the box. No house rules, no changes, straight by the book.
That also does not mean every game perfectly displays pronounced tiering, only that it's the system's baseline. Personal playstyles, differences in each player's abilities, details of the campaign and encounters, the random number god, DMing style, houserules, individual bias. All of these factor in to shift things from that baseline, often to the point where it is difficult to recognize or even unrecognizable, but all games work off of it.
If I may rephrase this back, so I can be sure I am understanding you correctly?
The game; without players, without a campaign, without encounter details, without dice, without a DM, without house rules, and without individual bias.
Upon what then, is this baseline, well ... based?
Are you being dense on purpose?
I am asking simple questions so that I can be sure we are talking about the same thing. Otherwise, I may misunderstand you and contribute nothing of value.
The baseline is playing 3.5 or Pathfinder straight out of the box. No house rules, no changes, straight by the book.
Playing Pathfinder without changes, but "personal playstyles, differences in each player's abilities, details of the campaign and encounters, the random number god, DMing style, houserules, individual bias" are not included in that playing?
I don't understand this definition of the baseline. What am I missing?
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.
This is a very good point. I totally understand the why people have measured classes by tier, and I understand why people want to find solutions to this issue, but its only an issue when its an issue.
Not entirely unlike the discussion on sexism in gaming in the "Adult Gaming Themes" thread, its bad when this comes up, and you may need to figure out what you are going to do about it, but if you don't come across disgruntled character disparities, just like if you don't come across blatant sexism or uncomfortable content for everyone, then its not really something that needs to be dealt with at that moment.
Again, if it is a problem, its great to have tools to hash out what to do about them. Just sometimes we spend a lot of time trying to tackle issues long before they actually occur.
That also does not mean every game perfectly displays pronounced tiering, only that it's the system's baseline. Personal playstyles, differences in each player's abilities, details of the campaign and encounters, the random number god, DMing style, houserules, individual bias. All of these factor in to shift things from that baseline, often to the point where it is difficult to recognize or even unrecognizable, but all games work off of it.
Playing Pathfinder without changes, but "personal playstyles, differences in each player's abilities, details of the campaign and encounters, the random number god, DMing style, houserules, individual bias" are not included in that playing?I don't understand this definition of the baseline. What am I missing?
an underlying assumption of pathfinder is that if you take two players with an equal knowledge of and understanding of the rules, they could each pick a different random class to play, and both of their characters should, on average over the long term, contribute equally to the effectiveness of a party. agree/disagree?
I agree that this is "an assumption". It may or may not be sound, but it is one set of assumptions from which to work. If sound, indicates that all classes are roughly equal.
I am also told there is another set of assumptions about the system. And these assumptions, if sound, stratify classes into tiers.
However, my underlying question: Assumptions over what? Assumptions in what domain? Assumptions as the starting values or fixed constants in what domain (what set of functions)?
If I'm talking about Baseline A (defined as X), and ryder is talking about Baseline B (defined as Y), and Viletta is talking about Baseline C (defined as Z), I think it will be difficult to arrive at any conclusion that we agree upon, let alone that is useful to somebody else.
I don't understand this definition of the baseline. What am I missing?
If you look at the rules as written, the numbers a class gets towards a particular role, the number of different abilities they get, etc, then you are looking at the baseline.
The reason you take out an individual group's experience is because this is a tool to help a DM recognize where they need to focus their attention.
To say "I think Tiers is useless because I already do X in my game to handle how people play their characters"... well, you are correct. Tiers wasn't meant for you.
The Tiers post was a tool for a DM who wasn't necessarily aware of all the disparities between classes and who wasn't prepared to handle how some of the classes do things.
I don't know how many times JaronK says "make sure the DM isn't caught off guard by a class ability he wasn't prepared for", or words to that effect.
It's not about telling you how to play your game. It's about telling you what to expect from the mechanics in the game, and hopefully make you an informed DM so you know what you are stepping into.
.
To reiterate my earlier example in this thread (when I was still trying to be on topic):
I have a published campaign that is too large (and I have too little time) to vastly alter based on what the group chooses to play.
The Tiers post helped me narrow down what the campaign was going to expect from a group, and since we only had 3 players, I knew what kind of changes on the group level I'd have to make to make sure they could handle what they were going to face.
On the flip side, if I were making a sandbox game (or at least a homebrew setting), the Tiers system would let me know what my group was going to be capable of, so I wouldn't be surprised when my BBEG can't scry the group because the Wizard memorizes Mage's Mansion for every rest period, etc.
.
Honestly, it's just a tool to make sure DM's are better prepared for what the classes are capable of.
*Edit*
If the DM wants to make changes to his setting (there's a whole section on making a low magic game in JaronK's original post), then the Tiers will help him figure out what rammifications these changes will have.
If the DM knows how veteran or new the players are to the game, then knowing the Tiers as they are based on no player experience, will help him understand what to expect from the players.
A newby playing a Wizard will likely not cause huge DM headaches most of the time. Similarly, a veteran player playing a Fighter will not necessarily be falling behind as much.
However, with inverse, the newby Fighter (or Soulknife) might get disheartened and walk away from the game because he feels he isn't really contributing (actual examples earlier this thread, or another thread if I recall).
If I may rephrase this back, so I can be sure I am understanding you correctly?
The game; without players, without a campaign, without encounter details, without dice, without a DM, without house rules, and without individual bias.
Upon what then, is this baseline, well ... based?
The system. The rules. The abilities, the averages, the options. What does everyone get?
Yes, play experience is a factor, but everything returns to that united core for all play experience, the system. What does the system give to all these classes, and how does that stack up to the defined parameters of play (which include such things as high market access, such and such a rate of encounters at so and so a difficulty, and so on).
A lot of people don't operate under defined parameters (be it by limiting market access, or having more encounters per day, or fewer encounters per day, or houseruling this, that, or the other), but all are deviations from the same baseline, with effects relative to the system's own baseline.
It is worth noting that there's some wiggle room in base-line play. A LOT of wiggle room actually.
For example, taking the Pathfinder core rules, you can roll up how many magic items there are in a given settlement — and while that might have a standardizing effect across campaigns with diligent GMs, no longer can you roll up random weapon and armor types for magic arms and armor. Goodbye standardized process, hello GM arbitration.
At some stage, every GM has to take things into their own hands, and that's not a choice. It is actually cripplingly difficult to play the game exactly to the letter of all the rules. One might think it impossible. So that's all the good that the "baseline" does for us.
These discussions are rather like a group of architects arguing how best to lay the foundation for a huge tower that is already built and sinking slowly into a swamp.