Sure.
For me, "a group who knows how things really are" will work actively to make the experience good for everyone. In the definition where tiers are applicable, "a group who knows how things really are" means players who find exploits and use them because they believe the game must be beaten.
It is a philosophical difference. If that is what delineates those who find tiers useful from those who do not, I must be in the latter camp. Until there's an application of tiers that serves the latter camp in some way, then it is of no interest to me.
I have suggested that there is a missing component to tier analysis that would fill this gap: rate encounter types by tier in a ballpark fashion, much like classes were rated. That would be of some interest to me in helping to balance my campaign. Most respondents seemed to believe this was foolish or impossible. I think it would be a good deal of work, but I have no impulse to advocate tiers, so it is best left to someone who understands their application.
I'm still interested in this question, but I fear I've been dominating the discourse. I'll keep reading as long as the thread doesn't deviate too much from the topic.
That's quite a domino effect. I have never heard of either of those spells. What if we merely nerf the spells, as was done with Ray of Enfeeblement? I mean, I'm not overjoyed with that example, but at least it behaves like a first level spell now, and it does still change a first through third level fight. I have no illusions that any balanced system can be created if you allow spells from all the splats. Unless your players are absolutely not jerks.
Second and third (maybe fourth?) respectively, actually. And it's not about the splats. Even core, mages bypass challenges. Teleport skips the trips through the forest of death. Pair Fly with Wind Wall and they're pretty much untouchable to anything that can't fly or cast spells. Pair Fly with Invisibility and they're nigh undetectable without magic or supersenses. If the zombie hoard has a big, fun zombie T-Rex, Command Undead makes it the level 3 Wizard's pet for three days with no save.
This is precisely the sort of thing that doesn't work. If you start culling and nerfing the spell list like that, even in just core, it'll be a vast amount of work that ultimately ends you with a pile of shambles.
The splats are no more broken than core. It's just that a lot of folks refuse to acknowledge the situation in core.
For me, "a group who knows how things really are" will work actively to make the experience good for everyone. In the definition where tiers are applicable, "a group who knows how things really are" means players who find exploits and use them because they believe the game must be beaten.
It is a philosophical difference. If that is what delineates those who find tiers useful from those who do not, I must be in the latter camp. Until there's an application of tiers that serves the latter camp in some way, then it is of no interest to me.
There may be a philosophical difference, but you're missing the frame.
It's not, "exploit the game to win D&D versus try to have fun." The group you're claiming philosophical differences with is the camp that says, "A game should be fun to play in and of itself." A game where you have to actively ignore your options and refuse to actually play in order to have fun is a broken game. You should be able to play to your full tactical limits without the game snapping in two.
I can bring my own roleplay. I can bring my own awesome, fun roleplay. When I'm putting a game system to that roleplay, I want the game to be good and fun and fair on its own merits, to enhance the experience as a whole, rather than just be a cruddy peripheral you can't actually play with for fear of ruining the roleplay.
Even core, mages bypass challenges. Teleport skips the trips through the forest of death. Pair Fly with Wind Wall and they're pretty much untouchable to anything that can't fly or cast spells. Pair Fly with Invisibility and they're nigh undetectable without magic or supersenses. If the zombie hoard has a big, fun zombie T-Rex, Command Undead makes it the level 3 Wizard's pet for three days with no save.
Any DM worth his bag can account for teleport and teleport has a miss radius on a fail or has that been removed.
Ok, wind wall are 3rd level plus spells. How may of those do you have. Level is a major factor.
Fly is 3rd and see invisiblity is 2nd, level is a factor. Also invisibility prevents attacking(spell ends). You could use that combo to sneak for a few rounds but listen checks can be made to to find you and a bag of flour to spot you.
Yes but if I had a Giant T-rex zombie I would keep him under control, roll Cha please.
Mr. Fishy excepts his player to work Mr. Fishy and Mr.Fishy does the same back. You fly fine so do harpies, dispel magic, a cave of tunnel, if fly is your default defence there are ways around it magical and otherwise, nets, weight, what's your CMD. Magic is a power tool or a weakening crutch, use with caution and wisdom.
Even core, mages bypass challenges. Teleport skips the trips through the forest of death. Pair Fly with Wind Wall and they're pretty much untouchable to anything that can't fly or cast spells. Pair Fly with Invisibility and they're nigh undetectable without magic or supersenses. If the zombie hoard has a big, fun zombie T-Rex, Command Undead makes it the level 3 Wizard's pet for three days with no save.Any DM worth his bag can account for teleport and teleport has a miss radius on a fail or has that been removed.
Ok, wind wall are 3rd level plus spells. How may of those do you have. Level is a major factor.
Fly is 3rd and see invisiblity is 2nd, level is a factor. Also invisibility prevents attacking(spell ends). You could use that combo to sneak for a few rounds but listen checks can be made to to find you and a bag of flour to spot you.
Yes but if I had a Giant T-rex zombie I would keep him under control, roll Cha please.
Mr. Fishy excepts his player to work Mr. Fishy and Mr.Fishy does the same back. You fly fine so do harpies, dispel magic, a cave of tunnel, if fly is your default defence there are ways around it magical and otherwise, nets, weight, what's your CMD. Magic is a power tool or a weakening crutch, use with caution and wisdom.
Houserules do not equate to good balance. In the contrary, it does quite the opposite. I suppose you could spend lots and lots and lots of time trying to find every single niggling problem with wizards and sculpting the entire setting and campaign specifically to deal with them...or you could just say "Hey, no wizards."
Houserules do not equate to good balance. In the contrary, it does quite the opposite. I suppose you could spend lots and lots and lots of time trying to find every single niggling problem with wizards and sculpting the entire setting and campaign specifically to deal with them...or you could just say "Hey, no wizards."Even core, mages bypass challenges. Teleport skips the trips through the forest of death. Pair Fly with Wind Wall and they're pretty much untouchable to anything that can't fly or cast spells. Pair Fly with Invisibility and they're nigh undetectable without magic or supersenses. If the zombie hoard has a big, fun zombie T-Rex, Command Undead makes it the level 3 Wizard's pet for three days with no save.Any DM worth his bag can account for teleport and teleport has a miss radius on a fail or has that been removed.
Ok, wind wall are 3rd level plus spells. How may of those do you have. Level is a major factor.
Fly is 3rd and see invisiblity is 2nd, level is a factor. Also invisibility prevents attacking(spell ends). You could use that combo to sneak for a few rounds but listen checks can be made to to find you and a bag of flour to spot you.
Yes but if I had a Giant T-rex zombie I would keep him under control, roll Cha please.
Mr. Fishy excepts his player to work Mr. Fishy and Mr.Fishy does the same back. You fly fine so do harpies, dispel magic, a cave of tunnel, if fly is your default defence there are ways around it magical and otherwise, nets, weight, what's your CMD. Magic is a power tool or a weakening crutch, use with caution and wisdom.
Or you could realize that wizads don't actually break a game unless you let them. Mr. Fishey didn't mention any house rule.
Many, many players attain the same knowledge without tiers,..That is true, but sometimes they stumble along the way for years or they never notice the difference in power. Then they end up in a game with a group that knows how things really are, the their awesome ______ becomes useless, as an example. I don't think the tier is a needed for everyone to read, but there was a recent post putting the fighter and the wizard on equal ground. The tier posting gives you the information up front without having to find out the hard way. I don't think all of us agree with the entire article, but the section on relative power is pretty accurate. As far as how to adjust things, I think think that should be left to each group.Makes sense to me. As a GM, I would describe the conditions of relevance described above ("a group that knows how things really are") as a situation that myself and my experienced players explicitly avoid. I know not everyone is afforded the same luxury, so I recommend Maptool and VTT — get the right players even if you're on different continents.
Anyway, that's really all I have to contribute here. Good day to you all!
Did you edit this post or did I miss the statement? All I really remember is "makes sense to me" before I left.
Fly is 3rd and see invisiblity is 2nd, level is a factor. Also invisibility prevents attacking(spell ends). You could use that combo to sneak for a few rounds but listen checks can be made to to find you and a bag of flour to spot you.
And now you have casters countering casters, which is part of the problem.
Do note that Wizards don't have to attack in order to kill people. Summoning a bear to eat peoples' faces isn't an attack.
Mr. Fishy excepts his player to work Mr. Fishy and Mr.Fishy does the same back. You fly fine so do harpies, dispel magic, a cave of tunnel, if fly is your default defence there are ways around it magical and otherwise, nets, weight, what's your CMD. Magic is a power tool or a weakening crutch, use with caution and wisdom.
And while you have to work to make sure the enemies can threaten the Wizard, it's the reverse for Fighters; you have to work to make sure the Fighter can threaten the enemies. While you have to send the harpies to counter the Wizard, you have to work to make sure the landlocked, low-Dex greatsword Fighter actually has a way to threaten those same harpies (or just let him be irrelevant). Which isn't easy to do while threatening the Wizard at the same time.
Or you could realize that wizads don't actually break a game unless you let them. Mr. Fishey didn't mention any house rule.
And how many challenges are ruled out because you're explicitly tailoring the encounters to account for the Wizard?
And do note that part of the tier system is how much the DM has to explicitly account for whatever class. There's a lot to explicitly account for with the Wizard.
Also, the 'they only break your game if you let them' argument is bunk. Just because the DM can change stuff or actively screw one player all others does not mean the game is balanced. A DM shouldn't have to explicitly screw one person over all others; the game should be balanced out of the box under a fair DM.
Sure.
"a group who knows how things really are"
Instead of just assuming you know what I mean you could just ask.
As an example you know rogues can detect traps, but another class can't. If you know this, but the new guy does not you really know how things are, as a simple example.Another one is that unless a DM pulls punches or the player is allowed splat material monks don't tank well.
That is they what I was trying to say.
|
sneaking another post in this morning while my kids are still asleep.
Personally, a better option for helping DM's design games around the percieved power imbalance is to identify the major issues with casters, ie the game breaking spells.
One thing I notice here is casters seem to use metagame knowledge to take down opponents. A specific example is the wizard casting shiver or whatever the spell was to drop the huge dragons dex to zero. How does the player actually know it has a dex of 10?
One of the things I ensure happens in my games is to introduce unique creatures, or describe creatures differently to what they are in the core books (for my setting only obviously, if you're using an established campaign setting you may be stuck slightly). This has curbed the type of metagame thinking that many casters use to auto win fights significantly.
I also make a knowledge check of over 20 take a standard action, as this is rare and hard to get to knowledge. Think of it as dredging up knowledge from the depths of your mind. This only applies the first time you encounter something rare enough to need that kind of test. When people are fighting things they don't know about, its much harder to utilize the creatures weaknesses.
I think by explaining some of the more powerful spell effects, you can make it easier for GM's to cater for these in games, and make situations more equally challenging. If people understand teh flying invisible caster is tough to beat for low level parties, then GMs can plan appriopriately.
I'm not suggesting they always put in situations that mitigates the players powers, that would "suck" for lack of a better word. I'm suggesting that they mix up their encounters to ensure that some of them need new tricks or plans to counter them.
I think this tier discussion has been great. There are power differences, no doubt. I just feel the tier option of planning, as suggested amongst many here, is too limited in its usefulness. Identify the problem spells (lets start with core only since the mirriad books around present thousands of possibles.) Lets also remember pathfinder really reduced the effectivness of many of the issues spoken aobut in this thread. If you're playing pathfinder using "splatbooks" (don't like that term really), then you need to be willing to bring those spells in alignment with pathfinder spells.
Shameless thread plug : I started an alternate thread in this section that discusses ways of mitigating power imbalance due to magic use. Its based around campaign themes and the nature of how magic works in your games. It even encompasses DMing style and game design. Reumere's idea above is a perfect example of the type of thing that closes the powergap you're talking about, without introducing the idea of restricting character choices to "Tier 2 or 3 only" for an easier to balance game.
Cheers
Fly is 3rd and see invisiblity is 2nd, level is a factor. Also invisibility prevents attacking(spell ends). You could use that combo to sneak for a few rounds but listen checks can be made to to find you and a bag of flour to spot you.And now you have casters countering casters, which is part of the problem.
Do note that Wizards don't have to attack in order to kill people. Summoning a bear to eat peoples' faces isn't an attack.
Mr. Fishy excepts his player to work Mr. Fishy and Mr.Fishy does the same back. You fly fine so do harpies, dispel magic, a cave of tunnel, if fly is your default defence there are ways around it magical and otherwise, nets, weight, what's your CMD. Magic is a power tool or a weakening crutch, use with caution and wisdom.And while you have to work to make sure the enemies can threaten the Wizard, it's the reverse for Fighters; you have to work to make sure the Fighter can threaten the enemies. While you have to send the harpies to counter the Wizard, you have to work to make sure the landlocked, low-Dex greatsword Fighter actually has a way to threaten those same harpies (or just let him be irrelevant). Which isn't easy to do while threatening the Wizard at the same time.
Or you could realize that wizads don't actually break a game unless you let them. Mr. Fishey didn't mention any house rule.And how many challenges are ruled out because you're explicitly tailoring the encounters to account for the Wizard?
And do note that part of the tier system is how much the DM has to explicitly account for whatever class. There's a lot to explicitly account for with the Wizard.
Also, the 'they only break your game if you let them' argument is bunk. Just because the DM can change stuff or actively screw one player all others does not mean the game is balanced. A DM shouldn't have to explicitly screw one person over all others; the game should be balanced out of the box under a...
The wizard still makes noise while invisible, and only gets a +20 to stealth checks. You can still identify his square. I saw a player try to use that tactic in a game before, and he got shot out of the sky by annother PC without ever making him visible.
As for the low dex fighter, its his fault for not getting a decent ranged weapon. I'm not going to change the encounter because he can't fight it. I'm going to kill him because he can't handle the situation. Its no different than Wail of the Banshee traps against lvl 10 parties without a rogue. If they don't have a rogue, its their fault.
Who said anything about changing stuff to screw mages. You don't have to, you can just follow the rules and screw them over pretty easily. They have a lot of built in restrictions that are easy to exploit.
I suspect that tiers are similar to martial arts styles. It's not really the style that dominates so much as it is the individual fighter.
My brother is a smart guy, so he builds powerful characters. I've seen him dominate with a barbarian, with a rogue, and with the more obvious wizard and cleric. It's all about knowing your options and optimizing (if that's what you want).
Also, consider a campaign as a whole. Sure, at 15th level, most games will become "The Wizard (and friends) Show!" But the wizard would have been dead meat without the fighter, cleric, etc. prior to being able to cast 3rd level spells (once you can fly around invisibly until you feel like fireballing the crap out of something, you are pretty self-sufficient).
At higher levels, it is not uncommon for a fighter, rogue, or other supposedly inferior class to be able to fly or heal themselves as needed, and I believe the game was designed so that by cooperating (spellcasters buff non-spellcasters to make them more effective), the power (and therefore, in the eyes of many, the fun) can be equally shared.
Powergaming tier 1s can be put in their place easily enough. SR (not uncommon at high levels) and antimagic fields can turn "tier 1" characters into old guys with sticks.
I suspect that tiers are similar to martial arts styles. It's not really the style that dominates so much as it is the individual fighter.
My brother is a smart guy, so he builds powerful characters. I've seen him dominate with a barbarian, with a rogue, and with the more obvious wizard and cleric. It's all about knowing your options and optimizing (if that's what you want).
Also, consider a campaign as a whole. Sure, at 15th level, most games will become "The Wizard (and friends) Show!" But the wizard would have been dead meat without the fighter, cleric, etc. prior to being able to cast 3rd level spells (once you can fly around invisibly until you feel like fireballing the crap out of something, you are pretty self-sufficient).
At higher levels, it is not uncommon for a fighter, rogue, or other supposedly inferior class to be able to fly or heal themselves as needed, and I believe the game was designed so that by cooperating (spellcasters buff non-spellcasters to make them more effective), the power (and therefore, in the eyes of many, the fun) can be equally shared.
Powergaming tier 1s can be put in their place easily enough. SR (not uncommon at high levels) and antimagic fields can turn "tier 1" characters into old guys with sticks.
??
As for the low dex fighter, its his fault for not getting a decent ranged weapon. I'm not going to change the encounter because he can't fight it. I'm going to kill him because he can't handle the situation. Its no different than Wail of the Banshee traps against lvl 10 parties without a rogue. If they don't have a rogue, its their fault.
Having a ranged weapon and being relevant with it are two different things. One of the problems with Fighters is that they have to really focus to be good at anything, and they have to really spread out to be at all adaptable, so their options are to be good at one singular thing that can easily be rendered moot (as with the greatsword Fighter who can't afford flight yet), or spread themselves so thin that it doesn't matter anymore because they suck at everything.
Who said anything about changing stuff to screw mages. You don't have to, you can just follow the rules and screw them over pretty easily. They have a lot of built in restrictions that are easy to exploit.
Having to design a scenario to specifically screw the Wizard does not mean changing the rules, no, but it means you have to explicitly design the scenario to screw the Wizard. It means specifically warping the world so that there are harpies attacking when harpies are what would counter the Wizard. It isn't breaking the rules, but it means you had to specifically select harpies to counter the Wizard. If you have to actively warp reality to beat down on a single class but not the rest, that class is overpowered.
I suspect that tiers are similar to martial arts styles. It's not really the style that dominates so much as it is the individual fighter.
Yet at the same time, style is important. If you have a talented martial artest employing a performance style against a talented martial artist employing a combat style, the one who's actually using a combat style is going to win.
Also, tiers are about the classes. That players can be of varying levels of abilities is meaningless. It's not about the players. You can take an engine and rate its performance and quality on its own merits without knowing what car it's going into or who's going to drive it. Likewise, you can rate a class on its own merits, but the player and their build choice are going to matter as much as car and driver. It's just not the part of the game being discussed.
Powergaming tier 1s can be put in their place easily enough. SR (not uncommon at high levels) and antimagic fields can turn "tier 1" characters into old guys with sticks.
Again, neither of those are a fix. There are so many spells that ignore spell resistance that even spell immunity doesn't matter very much.
As for Antimagic Field? If you have Superman and The Shoveler on the same team is unbalanced. Saying that you can just drop kryptonite everywhere and The Shoveler suddenly becomes useful is absurd, because it means the two can't work together and they're not a team. Without kryptonite, Superman eclipses The Shovel completely. With kryptonite, Superman can't do anything. Likewise, the Antimagic Field doesn't fix anything, it doesn't balance anything. It's just slapping the Wizard in the face and saying, "Screw you, you're not allowed to play anymore."
And it's not about powergaming. Send a Wizard in with a problem-solving attitude and a character who's more worried about fixing things than the Fighter's ego, and they'll find that the most efficient way to solve problems is generally pulling out the right spell at the right time to fix things in one fell swoop. They're not powergaming. They're gaming. A game that can be broken not through focused and resolved concentration on exploitation, but by the merest act of paying attention to playing? There's a word for that. That game is broken, and needs some accounting for so that you actually can play it.
I suspect that tiers are similar to martial arts styles. It's not really the style that dominates so much as it is the individual fighter.Yet at the same time, style is important. If you have a talented martial artest employing a performance style against a talented martial artist employing a combat style, the one who's actually using a combat style is going to win.
Also, tiers are about the...
But if you have two martial artist both employing a combat style, the better fighter is going to win, which is my point. I understand that you are comparing non-tier-1 classes with a performance style of MA, but in my experience, that isn't necessarily the case. A good player with a good build can make a lower-tier character who is effective in combat, just as a not-so-good player can make a wizard or cleric who isn't very effective.
Often, the easiest and best way to solve a problem is for the spellcaster to cast a spell that directly solves it; I'm not arguing against that, but I think it is also worth noting that sometimes the BEST choice to solve a problem IS to buff another party member and let them do THEIR job.
??I suspect that tiers are similar to martial arts styles. It's not really the style that dominates so much as it is the individual fighter.
My brother is a smart guy, so he builds powerful characters. I've seen him dominate with a barbarian, with a rogue, and with the more obvious wizard and cleric. It's all about knowing your options and optimizing (if that's what you want).
Also, consider a campaign as a whole. Sure, at 15th level, most games will become "The Wizard (and friends) Show!" But the wizard would have been dead meat without the fighter, cleric, etc. prior to being able to cast 3rd level spells (once you can fly around invisibly until you feel like fireballing the crap out of something, you are pretty self-sufficient).
At higher levels, it is not uncommon for a fighter, rogue, or other supposedly inferior class to be able to fly or heal themselves as needed, and I believe the game was designed so that by cooperating (spellcasters buff non-spellcasters to make them more effective), the power (and therefore, in the eyes of many, the fun) can be equally shared.
Powergaming tier 1s can be put in their place easily enough. SR (not uncommon at high levels) and antimagic fields can turn "tier 1" characters into old guys with sticks.
Did you have a question about my post? Was some part of it confusing? Usually, an actual question precedes question marks, but the ?? by themselves seems like a lazy attempt at being condescending.
Did you have a question about my post?
I did, but I think I figured it out.
Edit: To show which part I was responding to.
No, they reduce it for casting attributes, since permanent bonuses count for determining what levels of spells can be cast.You're wrong.
Please read pg. 555 of the Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook:
"Permanent Bonuses: Ability bonuses with a duration greater than 1 day actually increase the relevant ability score after 24 hours. Modify all skills and statistics related to that ability."
Black. And. White. Unless you have another interpretation of "actually increase the relevant ability score" and "all skills and statistics."
<other stuff>
What makes the mystic theurge viable or non-viable, in your opinion? From the comments of those who hold it non-viable, it's that it can't cast as well (spell level, CL) as a straight cleric or wizard (tier 1) of the same level. If you compare the cleric 3/wizard 3 to a cleric 6 or wizard 6, you are comparing a tier 3 (which is how I see the mystic theurge at this stage) to two tier 1 classes. If you compare the cleric 3/wizard 3 to a bard 6, instead, which would be the appropriate "applying the lessons of tiers," you'll see a much closer correlation (more spell slots, better spell selection, fewer skills, different abilities).
By the time play reaches high level, a mystic theurge is a tier 1, by JaronK's definition: "Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party." Show me a straight wizard who can buff and heal as often/well as a mystic theurge; or a straight cleric who can provide battlefield control and movement as well as a mystic theurge, either. The "often capable of solving encounters" is enhanced tremendously by the ability to draw on two different spell lists, especially with the ability to increase CL (Practiced Spellcaster in 3.5 or Magic Knack in PF).
Also, arguing that "The only reason the theurge was mentioned at all is because it has an exaggerated version of the usual caster power curve, and the usual caster power curve is dumb," 1) is completely irrelevant to "viability," unless "viability" depends solely on spell progression and 2) misses the whole point of tiering in the first place, which is by definition the ability of the character to affect the campaign world over sustained play.
You don't like the mystic theurge. Fine. I'm not telling you to like it, just to give it consideration on it's own merits within the tiering structure, instead of knee-jerk reactions.
Knee jerks aside, the main complaint about the Mystic Theurge is that his spells, while plentiful, are falling short against appropriate CRs.
So while he has a lot of options, they might not be CR appropriate.
Look at the Bard. He can fill many roles, and has an answer to practically every situation. However, they take into account that he's not going to be "the best" at all of those things, so he's bumped down to Tier 3.
However, unless you really shot yourself in the foot (5 cleric/ 5 wizard/ 10 MT, so barely 8th lvl spells), the MT will have access to at least one set of 9th level spells.
You might not have as many, and your DCs might not be as high, but the Mystic Theurge is still just within the boundries of Tier 1.
If you compare the cleric 3/wizard 3 to a cleric 6 or wizard 6, you are comparing a tier 3 (which is how I see the mystic theurge at this stage) to two tier 1 classes. If you compare the cleric 3/wizard 3 to a bard 6, instead, which would be the appropriate "applying the lessons of tiers," you'll see a much closer correlation (more spell slots, better spell selection, fewer skills, different abilities).
Comparing a Wizard 3/Cleric 3 vs. a Wiz or Clr 6 is like comparing a puppy to a T-Rex.
Comparing a Wizard 3/Cleric 3 vs. a Bard 6 is like comparing a puppy to a Gorilla.
The Gorilla may be less scary than the T-Rex, so technically the correlation is "much closer", but that doesn't mean that we are in the same ball park here.
Wizard or Cleric 6 are very tough. Bard 6 is a very workable and viable character. Wiz 3/Clr 3 is going to be a drain on the party.
If Mr. Fishy has a fighter that can throw 13 damage/hit and he uses tougher monsters is he screwing the fighter? If Mr. Fishy uses higher CR creatures on a high level party is that a work? Or should Mr. Fishy only throw goblins and the odd goat so as to challenge the fighter in melee? High CR monsters have SR and some can fly so Mr. Fishy should maybe not use them as a favor to the fighter. Mr. Fishy would hate for the fighter to have to wait for it to get done eating the invisible flying wizard before he can fight it. But at least he'd get to watch.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Just thought I'd share my tier 'fix':
Players are allowed to play the following classes:
...
'Support':
Bard
Factotum
Totemist
Incarnate (with a few adjustments)
I'm surprised to see the Rogue missing there. What are your adjustments to the Incarnate, if you don't mind my asking.
If Mr. Fishy has a fighter that can throw 13 damage/hit and he uses tougher monsters is he screwing the fighter? If Mr. Fishy uses higher CR creatures on a high level party is that a work? Or should Mr. Fishy only throw goblins and the odd goat so as to challenge the fighter in melee? High CR monsters have SR and some can fly so Mr. Fishy should maybe not use them as a favor to the fighter. Mr. Fishy would hate for the fighter to have to wait for it to get done eating the invisible flying wizard before he can fight it. But at least he'd get to watch.
Mr.Fishy has a nice fantasy going.
|
If Mr. Fishy has a fighter that can throw 13 damage/hit and he uses tougher monsters is he screwing the fighter? If Mr. Fishy uses higher CR creatures on a high level party is that a work?
Depends. Is the fighter getting nothing but higher CR enemies because he kills them too fast? I'd be surprised because that means the CR system is working. Is he fighting the same CR monsters, but with a hundred extra bonus HPs tacked on? Yeah, that's screwing the fighter for being good at direct damage.
More like trenches were dug, bullets were fired, and everyone refused to leave the battlefield, amirite? :P
We might agree that it seemed like a point was getting across Mirror, but we probably disagree on which one. XD
LOL. Great observation. As I said, unfortunate. I had wanted to hear from more saying that the class powers themselves were a bigger factor to the game balance than the players/setting/DM. My experience has always been the opposite, which relates to my limited use for the tier system. I was hoping the thread would be a detailing of how people found the info useful and how it improved their campaigns.
Instead, we have a MyTh discussion??
The DM, players, and setting can negate any powers a class may have. It's normal, but it can happen.
Which is dissapointing, since it seemed for a while that a point may actually get across. Alas, it was not to be so...
I'm still reading in the hopes that the conversation might move on from specific instances and provide some general applications. If someone wants to take me up on that, the conversation will likely move forward.
I'm still reading in the hopes that the conversation might move on from specific instances and provide some general applications. If someone wants to take me up on that, the conversation will likely move forward.
Which is dissapointing, since it seemed for a while that a point may actually get across. Alas, it was not to be so...
Such as?
Well, I really want to step back and let others discuss it. So far, the answers I have received to specific questions have only reinforced my opinion that tiers are not practical as an applied tool. They are an estimate of the general utility of classes relative to eachother, but advocates are reluctant to classify the situations/encounters that enable that utility.
When people have tried to apply these estimates constructively as advice, the results have varied from what I know to work in my own game. I suspect they are useful in defensive GMing against a hostile player, something I never encounter.
What's more, there seems to be little agreement amonsgt advocates of the tool as to its application. The most compelling results seem to stem entirely from a thorough look at interpersonal psychology at the gaming table, and that analysis would be equally effective with or without tiers.
I am open to contrary evidence, but it has to offer me something beyond an estimate that varies widely in interpretation.
Well, I really want to step back and let others discuss it. So far, the answers I have received to specific questions have only reinforced my opinion that tiers are not practical as an applied tool. They are an estimate of the general utility of classes relative to eachother, but advocates are reluctant to classify the situations/encounters that enable that utility.
When people have tried to apply these estimates constructively as advice, the results have varied from what I know to work in my own game. I suspect they are useful in defensive GMing against a hostile player, something I never encounter.
What's more, there seems to be little agreement amonsgt advocates of the tool as to its application. The most compelling results seem to stem entirely from a thorough look at interpersonal psychology at the gaming table, and that analysis would be equally effective with or without tiers.
I am open to contrary evidence, but it has to offer me something beyond an estimate that varies widely in interpretation.
Not just hostile players, but when you have someone that is not as good at building as another player you can help them have fun.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Evil Lincoln, I think that's a nice idea.
Well, then, let's look at something more specific. We should decide which game system we're talking about (D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder), pick a representative character level, and then pick a module and analyze each encounter to see what each character class could do.
You pick the game system and the level. I'll pick the adventure.
Well, I really want to step back and let others discuss it. So far, the answers I have received to specific questions have only reinforced my opinion that tiers are not practical as an applied tool. They are an estimate of the general utility of classes relative to each other, but advocates are reluctant to classify the situations/encounters that enable that utility.
Stepping outside of Monster books, whether the Bestiary or some other repository of CRs and challenges, I think the best way to categorize encounters would be as follows:
Environment -- That which must be endured and affects the entire party. This can be a desert or artic tundra, a windstorm, snowstorm or forest fire, or planar environments/bottom of the sea; alternately, this can include afflictions, like contagious diseases or poisonous mists. Some of these challenges are impossible to overcome without spell access. Since all characters can access magic items or friendly DM NPCs with SLAs or spells, those characters or parties with spellcasters who have access to those resources as class options come out generally ahead. Characters who can bypass the environmental challenge and allow the entire group to bypass the entire challenge come out the clear winners, but generally, only casters can access the class features which allow the group to bypass a challenge.
Resistance -- These are challenges that target individual saves/defences, rather than the collective abilities of the group. Most traps and combat encounters can be considered resistance challenges. Characters with features like Evasion come out ahead here, as do characters with immunities. Combat challenges are resistance challenges, as the challenge is to end the encounter before the defences are depleted. Most resistance challenges can be bypassed, by staying outside of combat, disarming traps, or setting up defences that cannot be bypassed by the source of the challenge. As resources must be consumed regardless, Resistance challenges are specifically challenge defence vs. the defence of the party. I would consider a good offence a type of defence.
Skill -- These are challenges that target specific skills or abilities. Typically, these do not target a defence, but rather target a DC number. Like resistance encounters, these challenges can often be bypassed by specific abilities.
Roleplay -- These challenges are the ones where skill use or the bypasses to skill use are inappropriate. In some cases, all characters can overcome these challenges. Some characters have abilities which allow them to turn these encounters into other encounter types.
Some encounters are mixed types, like Environment/Resistance, or Roleplay/Skill, or Environment/Skill.
Higher Tier characters have broadest set of resources to bypass the broadest spectrum of encounters. As you go down in Tiers, the ability to bypass challenges is reduced, and Resistance and Environment challenges become more difficult. Spellcasters can often convert between encounter types, by using finite resources, making them a variety of Resistance challenge (deplete defences to bypass a challenge).
I'd like to diverge slightly for a second.
I'm wondering if this whole argument and people's viewpoints therein can't really just be explained by DMing style.
What I mean to say is that classes like the Warrior are like an awesome ergonomic hammer with shock resistance you just bought. Classes like the monk are a standard tool belt your dad gave you. Classes like the Wizard are like a giant truckload of your grandpa's tools - maybe the hammer and screwdriver aren't as good as the Warrior or the Monk's, but you got all these other things you could bring into the house with you as long as you know the job you're gonna do.
For some DMs, most of their encounters are nails with a few screws, ungrounded plugs, leaky faucets and other such home improvement obstacles thrown in for good measure.
For other DMs, well, you'd better have your contractor license ready.
I'd say I fall into the first category.
Evil Lincoln, I think that's a nice idea.
Well, then, let's look at something more specific. We should decide which game system we're talking about (D&D 3.5 or Pathfinder), .....
You pick the game system and the level. I'll pick the adventure.
I agree. The classes are not the same for both systems. We should also agree if we have to stay in PF core if we choose PF, or if we allow splats.
I am glad some people support the idea of defining the encounters which define tiers.
I think Pathfinder Core (+ the PDF spells) + Bestiary is what needs to be done. No splats. I think this is also the recommended setups for most new GMs who ask on the boards what to start with, so that makes it a good starting point for us as well.
For Encounter analysis, I recommend we use the Adventure paths, as they are long and varied enough. It is important to account for things like downtime in the calendar, cash availability, spell availability, traps, and social encounters that affect gameplay. This can be done within the confines of an AP. I'd prefer Rise of the Runelords, or Legacy of Fire, because I own those two, but they are 3.5 books which would mean updating (which messes with our projections a bit).
The ideal end (in my mind) is something like a CR "Plus" that GMs can use to indicate whether a given encounter is appropriate for their tiers in the party.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
... I think Pathfinder Core (+ the PDF spells) + Bestiary is what needs to be done. No splats. I think this is also the recommended setups for most new GMs who ask on the boards what to start with, so that makes it a good starting point for us as well.
...I'd prefer Rise of the Runelords, or Legacy of Fire, because I own those two, but they are 3.5 books which would mean updating (which messes with our projections a bit).
1) An AP is a lot of encounters and situations.
2) Ixnay on the PDF spells, unless you want to list the spells you want to include.3) I'm growing stronger in my conviction that a responsible translation from D&D 3.5 to Pathfinder is a serious undertaking. It's one thing to just treat a 3.5 stat block as if it were Pathfinder-legal in a one-off NPC encounter. But if you want to see what characters can actually do in a situation, and what dangers an NPC actually poses, you need to sit down, re-write the characters' stat blocks, and use the creatures from the Bestiary.
So the only AP available for Tier analysis at the moment is the unfinished "Council of Thieves".
Could we start with something smaller? Say, a Pathfinder Society scenario?
I think Pathfinder Core (+ the PDF spells) + Bestiary is what needs to be done. No splats. I think this is also the recommended setups for most new GMs who ask on the boards what to start with, so that makes it a good starting point for us as well.
Splats are an unreliable variable when it comes to class balance, IMO. I often wonder whether some splat classes and PrCs have even been playtested before they are published.
Could we start with something smaller? Say, a Pathfinder Society scenario?
Yes, absolutely, although I do want to look at a whole campaign eventually. I think some of the tier analysis gets thrown off when things become laissez faire between adventures.
Even so, any rigorous work at all would be a welcome change to the speculation we have been working with hitherto.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hap,
(nod) You're exactly right. But what you're saying is that a good DM gives everybody a chance to shine, and the tier analysis is a tool that good DMs use to determine how to do that.
Wizards are Tier 1 and no one gets close to them? But how can that be when they don't have any spells? or they're taken down in the first round of the fight? or the spells they do have are often being stolen? or much more simply, when the types of things the party has to do actually have some things that only other classes can do, like disable traps, climb walls, heal people, grapple things.
Those accomodations are what the original article on tiers was all about. Notice: you don't talk about how to mess with the monk's dominance of the game, or how to provide opportunities to make sure the druid gets her turn to shine.
Incidentally, the wizard might be able, with a little forethought, or fifteen minutes' prep time, or a scroll, or (under Pathfinder rules) her arcane-bonded object, cast knock, spider climb, or web.
--+--+--
It's simplistic to say that "a Wizard is Tier 1". Better: "a Wizard can easily collect a tremendous variety of spells in his repertoire. A 5th Level Wizard with 50 spells available is Tier 1. A 5th-Level Wizard with 15 spells in his spellbook is, like the Sorcerer, Tier 2."
But what you're saying is that a good DM gives everybody a chance to shine, and the tier analysis is a tool that good DMs use to determine how to do that.
Dear Chris,
Prove it!
Lovingly,
E. Lincoln
But what you're saying is that a good DM gives everybody a chance to shine, and the tier analysis is a tool that good DMs use to determine how to do that.
Dear Chris,
Prove it!
Lovingly,
E. Lincoln
Give us a situation at any level and one of the tier 1 or 2 classes can take care of it.
The fact that you need them, and not any of the tier 3 or lower classes to run through an adventure should be proof enough.
The examples given across both threads should be proof, but I guess that is not good enough. I guess before Chris or anyone else tries to prove it, you should state what you would accept as proof.