|
Wizard can know the perfect spell at the perfect time. Or his slots could be full of the wrong spell for the situation at hand. Or with only one of the right spell memorized when they need it many times.
In game, if you DM is halfway decent, both things occur with regularity.
Well, no: that implies the mindset where the DM is out to beat the players and/or willing to change things on the fly for no reason other than to screw them.
Maybe the intrepid PCs invading the castle of the giants that have been raiding the local villages, and maybe they'll ultimately discover that drow are pulling the strings -- but they're still going to find a bunch of giants in the castle, and spells picked with the idea that that was going to be a lot of the day are still good. (You wouldn't go all-in on giant-fighting, to be clear -- you're always trying to cover contingencies that may or may not arise.)
It's a fair point that the "high tier" classes have a more volitile power level than the lower tier classes, assuming the character is built decently. You can take a player new to the game, have them make a barbarian, suggest stat placement, feat choices, and starting equipment and they'll be able to contribute right away in combat. You do the same thing with a cleric and if you're lucky you'll get a healbot (which isn't a particularly superior way to play cleric.)
Yes, if you are dealing with the castle full of Giants, you take spells that will work on giants.
But what spells are those, and how many times do you memorize them? How many Giants are you fighting…let’s look at book 4 of RoTRL for a perfect example.
1st encounter you know at some point you are likely going to be fighting Giants and Ogres. But you don’t know that one morning they will be attacking where you are at, as you wake up. So you are 9th level, just got 5th level spells and there are 13 Stone Giants, 3 Dire bears and a dragon, which you were not expecting.
The 4 ogres on the way are much more predictable, as are the 4 stone giants on the storval stairs. But the rock throwing is still inconvenient for your likely poor AC and low hit points. The Taiga Giant and Ettins are also predictable, even if not by type.
Depending on approach, the harpy monks and mummy monk are hard to predict and prepare for. And the Wyverns aren’t foreshadowed either. Deathwebs are a unique monster, so you aren’t preparing for that.
Going down into the bowels, obviously the giants are predictable, and maybe you should have expected the Lamia from previous encounters, but the Trolls are a bit of a surprise and that Stone Golem is going to be a pain. The undead Zombie Giants also probably were not on your radar, and Scanderig and the Shining Child are unique creatures, so you didn’t see them coming.
Mokmurian is of course a wizard himself, so anything you can do…including scrying you back if you retreat and come back. Or just getting reinforcements since the whole area is surrounded by an army of Giants.
Yes there are very clear advantages for Wizards with the right spells, but there are also many opportunities for the Wizard to be caught with his pants down. Not to mention being basically toast if exposed to a full attack from pretty much anything in the adventure.
The AP isn't trying to "screw" players. It's trying to challenge them. Like any good DM would.
That's why "let's show how smart we are" tier threads don't work here - it's enough to mention Wizard a tier higher than Sorcerer and it becomes a "LT vs. The World" Sorcerer thread. :)
So I wasn't the only one who thought, "Not the planar binding thing again."?
|
That's why "let's show how smart we are" tier threads don't work here - it's enough to mention Wizard a tier higher than Sorcerer and it becomes a "LT vs. The World" Sorcerer thread. :)So I wasn't the only one who thought, "Not the planar binding thing again."?
Your forgot "Sorcerers have better class skill list" and CHA > INT. I'm off for the popcorn.
I would put all of the prepared full casters at tier 1. While not as dominating as some like to make them out to be, they do have the most versatility built into the class. All of the spontaneous full casters as well as summoner I would put at tier 2. They still have a lot of power and even versatility, but a lot of their versatility comes from being able to take advantage of magic items, so it isn't as hard wired into the class. I would also put summoner at tier 2, just because the eidolon opens up a lot of options that 3/4 casters don't usually have. The rest of the 3/4 casters I would put at tier 3. Still powerful and adaptable, but they rely on forewarning and proper equipment more so than the higher tiers, but still have reasonably decent access to scrolls and wands to cover at least some situations. I would put alchemists here, as they tend to be highly item dependent for most builds. Cavaliers, Fighters, Barbarians, Rogues, Monks, and Rangers coud be tiers 3, 4, or 5, depending on the build and the campaign specifics, but average out to be tier 4.
The Tier's are theory-craft, so arguing "Well in the real world ..." isnt useful.
The tier's are a way to look at the classes, it isn't meant to be some exhaustive system. The characters in it exist in a state of limitless freedom, and as such it will tend to favor casters, but all systems have there flaws.
Something I think would be interesting is the opposite. Instead of assuming that the character had a close to accurate idea of what the specific adventure was about, what if the character's idea was wrong? How long would it take the character to become fully effective given the party is ambushed by a tough spell-casting critter who is nothing like the character expected?
Fighters, I think, would require the least time to adjust while wizards would require the most. But are the tiers exactly the opposite?
I think it's implicit in the way the tiers were originally laid out (but a detail that's easy to lose) that this is pretty true as far as combat is concerned -- if a player totally misguesses what kind of combat to expect, the strong tier 3s have an excellent chance to outperform the tier 1s.
However, also keep in mind that:
1) The lower end of the tier system does still pretty well hold up in those situations, e.g. the tier 3 fighter is still likely to outperform the tier 4 or 5 cavalier, and
2) Combat isn't everything; a tier 2 oracle likely has more tools to deal with an unexpected non-combat challenge than the tier 4 barbarian does. I mean, maybe it's Raging Swimmer's time to shine, but if I have to bet I'm betting on the oracle.
Honestly I think the tier layout as originally proposed is more about noncombat than combat, but combat always seems to be what people end up talking about. That the druid can have crop-growing spells one day and all murder spells the next day is why it ends up high.
|
|
The Tier's are theory-craft, so arguing "Well in the real world ..." isnt useful.
The tier's are a way to look at the classes, it isn't meant to be some exhaustive system. The characters in it exist in a state of limitless freedom, and as such it will tend to favor casters, but all systems have there flaws.
If theorycraft has no real world application...
Something I think would be interesting is the opposite. Instead of assuming that the character had a close to accurate idea of what the specific adventure was about, what if the character's idea was wrong? How long would it take the character to become fully effective given the party is ambushed by a tough spell-casting critter who is nothing like the character expected?
Fighters, I think, would require the least time to adjust while wizards would require the most. But are the tiers exactly the opposite?
This is also problematic. The hypothetical here actually works against you, and makes for a rough game. Sure the fighter can still fight (provided the spell-casting critter in question allows him to), but the wizard (and every wizard that lives for very long), has a change in plans that takes a little time. Sure. But what about the sorcerer?
If a whole adventure is on a surprise twist that the characters, and indeed the players, are unaware of, one that makes many spell choices irrelevant, which of the two is more screwed, sorcerer or wizard? A wizard can swap out his whole list the next day, and be right back on track to whooping the critter, but the same can't be said of a sorcerer with the wrong spells known.
The sorcerer has a little trouble adapting, though it's not that heavy of a burden to bear as sorcerers are actually still awesome.
And, as mentioned above, tiers aren't everything, anyone can shine in the right light, etc.
|
Alchemist - 3
Barbarian - 4
Bard - 3
Cavalier - 4
Cleric - 1
Druid - 1
Fighter - 4
Inquistor - 3
Magus - 3
Monk - 4
Oracle - 2
Paladin - 4
Rogue - 3
Sorcerer - 2
Summoner - 2
Witch - 2
Wizard - 1
1 - as usual they have the most spells, and they all prepare.
2 - lots of power and versatility, but usually much limited in spell selection. Witches just have a lot less useful utility spells than a wizard. Lots of Save or <blank> is pretty powerful.
3 - some versatility. Way less than tier 2.
4 - very limited. Usually these are the fighting classes that are designed to fight and that's about it. Cavalier still doesn't escape this tier. More skills doesn't swing it enough.
5 - pretty much unusable without a specific reason like commoner, anti-paladin in a normal party, etc.
Wizard can know the perfect spell at the perfect time. Or his slots could be full of the wrong spell for the situation at hand. Or with only one of the right spell memorized when they need it many times.
Yes, of course.
And the wizard can have a bonded item to dredge the one perfect spell out of his spellbook even though he doesn't have it prepared. Or the wizard can have an open slot and bring in the necessary spell (with fifteen minutes, of course). Or the wizard can have and use a scroll with the right spell. Or, if he can get away with a day, he can come back tomorrow with the as many of the right spell as he needs.
Now, sure, you can contrive things so that in an entire campaign there's never any obstacle that can be overcome by one casting of the appropriate spell, and there's never anything that can ever wait a day to load up on multiples of a spell, and there's never any forewarning that allows the wizard to select his spells for the day any better than random chance.
In that case, you've managed to reduce the wizard to the level of the fighter, who also started the day with a static list of options for handling encounters.
Wizard can know the perfect spell at the perfect time. Or his slots could be full of the wrong spell for the situation at hand. Or with only one of the right spell memorized when they need it many times.Yes, of course.
And the wizard can have a bonded item to dredge the one perfect spell out of his spellbook even though he doesn't have it prepared. Or the wizard can have an open slot and bring in the necessary spell (with fifteen minutes, of course). Or the wizard can have and use a scroll with the right spell. Or, if he can get away with a day, he can come back tomorrow with the as many of the right spell as he needs.
Now, sure, you can contrive things so that in an entire campaign there's never any obstacle that can be overcome by one casting of the appropriate spell, and there's never anything that can ever wait a day to load up on multiples of a spell, and there's never any forewarning that allows the wizard to select his spells for the day any better than random chance.
In that case, you've managed to reduce the wizard to the level of the fighter, who also started the day with a static list of options for handling encounters.
I don't think that it's likely to happen for an entire campaign, but it is certainly plausible for large chunks of it. The complaint many seem to be having is that some people are trying to put the wizard on a tier that is higher than all of the other tiers combined, which is a major stretch. They are definitely tier 1, but still have to deal with the practical limitiations of the campaign and world.
Some people on this thread just really do not want to get into a long discussion about Wizards vs. Sorcerers and I'm trying to respect that. When someone posts an argument as to why they feel that Wizards are better, it tempts me to make a counter argument (and I've certainly got one vs. the point you just made), but I'm trying to respect the desire of some people on this thread not to get into a wizard vs. sorcerer debate. So, I'm not going to put my counter arguement forward unless other people keep...Something I think would be interesting is the opposite. Instead of assuming that the character had a close to accurate idea of what the specific adventure was about, what if the character's idea was wrong? How long would it take the character to become fully effective given the party is ambushed by a tough spell-casting critter who is nothing like the character expected?
Fighters, I think, would require the least time to adjust while wizards would require the most. But are the tiers exactly the opposite?This is also problematic. The hypothetical here actually works against you, and makes for a rough game. Sure the fighter can still fight (provided the spell-casting critter in question allows him to), but the wizard (and every wizard that lives for very long), has a change in plans that takes a little time. Sure. But what about the sorcerer?
If a whole adventure is on a surprise twist that the characters, and indeed the players, are unaware of, one that makes many spell choices irrelevant, which of the two is more screwed, sorcerer or wizard? A wizard can swap out his whole list the next day, and be right back on track to whooping the critter, but the same can't be said of a sorcerer with the wrong spells known.
The sorcerer has a little trouble adapting, though it's not that heavy of a burden to bear as sorcerers are actually still awesome.
And, as mentioned above, tiers aren't everything, anyone can shine in the right light, etc.
Point taken. I was actually just trying to help. I like wizards personally, but I'm actually trying to make the point that the fact that I like wizards doesn't change anything on an objective, factual basis (which such theory-craft claims to be). I could go on until I'm blue in the face (and I'm sure you can, too) as to why I like one over the other, but I like to take things in as exactly they are/seem, quirks, flaws and all. If there's anything wrong with wizards, it's that "just the wrong spells today" feeling, where you just fire off a crossbow or something every round 'cause it's the best you got.
Put it this way: one of my favorite classes in 3.5 was the shadowcaster. Despite all its quirks and flaws, I liked it.
The complaint many seem to be having is that some people are trying to put the wizard on a tier that is higher than all of the other tiers combined, which is a major stretch. They are definitely tier 1, but still have to deal with the practical limitiations of the campaign and world.
When somebody says "most of this tier stuff" is dependent on "a fail DM who has predictable conflicts on a 15 minute fighting day", it sure doesn't look like a nuanced complaint that wizards are being overvalued relative to other full casters.
The complaint many seem to be having is that some people are trying to put the wizard on a tier that is higher than all of the other tiers combined, which is a major stretch. They are definitely tier 1, but still have to deal with the practical limitiations of the campaign and world.When somebody says "most of this tier stuff" is dependent on "a fail DM who has predictable conflicts on a 15 minute fighting day", it sure doesn't look like a nuanced complaint that wizards are being overvalued relative to other full casters.
That's also just one person.
What's an example of a spell which the Wizard doesn't normally memorize, but may need every now and then?
A couple that come to mind for me: Break Enchantment, Contact Other Plane, Control Water, Comprehend Languages, Contingency, Gentle Repose, Locate Object, Water Breathing.
Those are all spells that I have a really hard time picking as a Sorcerer (Contigency might eventually get the nod, but at a much higher level than I'd be using it as a Wizard); some are even spells I'd have a hard time justify paying for a scroll of as a Wizard.
Incidentally, this is also the kind of area where I think Oracle struggles a bit relative to a Cleric; I can't justify something like Cure Disease as a pick as a level 6 Oracle, but a Cleric of the same level is always only a day away from it.
(And none of that is to say that there aren't situations in which the spontaneous casters look better.)
|
|
That's also just one person.The complaint many seem to be having is that some people are trying to put the wizard on a tier that is higher than all of the other tiers combined, which is a major stretch. They are definitely tier 1, but still have to deal with the practical limitiations of the campaign and world.When somebody says "most of this tier stuff" is dependent on "a fail DM who has predictable conflicts on a 15 minute fighting day", it sure doesn't look like a nuanced complaint that wizards are being overvalued relative to other full casters.
Namely me, and I stand behind it.
Prepared casters have two advantages over spontaneous casters.
1. They can access more spells.
2. They get those spells sooner.
And prepared casters have two disadvantages over spontaneous casters.
1. Memorizing any spell takes up a slot that can only be occupied by that spell for that day.
2. If you don’t memorize a spell more than once a day, you can basically (see below) only cast it once a day.
Arcane bond is nice, but it is also a weakness that the FAQ recently clarified can be identified and therefore exploited. Good luck with a wizard who loses his arcane bonded item.
I didn’t post a random “anti-wizard” scenario. I posted a description of the events from a book from an adventure path related to knowing an encounter will involve Giants, but still not automatically having the right spells memorized, let alone enough of the right spells. If you didn’t read it because of the spoilers, I’ll sum up.
It had a number of battles in a row, often coming in waves, one a complete ambush. The meat of the major fight had an army of reinforcements available at all times if you were to retreat, and a constant risk of being followed if you were to retreat since BBEG has the same resources as your wizard. It had many, many, unexpected encounters, including several unique monsters. And it had an intelligent BBEG who would adjust tactics and set traps. It wasn’t “Anti-Wizard”. It was just a well written quest.
The “Leave and come back” or “Take 15 minutes” argument assumes the enemy won’t also adjust to your tactics, or get reinforcements, or come after you. These are solutions you cited, not me. And if your DM lets you run away without consequences, your DM is fail.
Again, the Wizard with the right spells is the most powerful class in the game for a single encounter. The wizard with the wrong spells is the least powerful class in the game for a single combat.
The issue with the tier discussion is exactly what someone on your side said above. It is theorycraft that doesn’t apply to the game.
What makes the game fun is the variety of combinations and options available. Wizards are the most versatile class, no doubt about it. I love playing Wizards, actually. But they are the most vulnerable to the “Uh…I got nothing and I’m totally going to get squished” moments in the game, since they have 2 bad saves, no armor, d6 hit points, and can have the perfect spell, cast it, and then not have any more of that perfect spell memorized for the rest of the things they have to fight that day.
I agree the wizards are versatile, ciretose, but no more so than any other prepared full caster. That seems to be the sticking point for many. They are definitely tier 1, but all the talk about about scrolls, wands, and such that many were discussing earlier gets beyond straight class comparisons, especially when people assume that the wizard, but somehow not anyone else, is going to have an nearly unlimited budget to work with.
It had a number of battles in a row, often coming in waves, one a complete ambush. The meat of the major fight had an army of reinforcements available at all times if you were to retreat, and a constant risk of being followed if you were to retreat since BBEG has the same resources as your wizard. It had many, many, unexpected encounters, including several unique monsters.
Without having read or played that adventure, I have to assume most groups won't manage to do all of that in one day.
At least, my experience is that groups will usually run out of HP/healing before anything else, (or have some other healing-limitation-ish problem like too much stat damage or a condition they can't immediately fix be what calls it a day) unless they have a vat of CLW wands.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are we arguing the tiers, or are we assigning classes to them as we (individually) think appropriate?
Here's a tip: stop responding and post your own list, sorted by tier with definition. These topics get so ugly...
Tier 1 — . Flexible by design, these classes can fill in for any other role in the party, and with good intelligence will dominate most encounters.
Tier 2 — . These classes can be flexible with advance notice and gold, or they might luck out and face situations that play to their strengths (paladin/inquisitor in a murder mystery, bard in a political intrigue, fire sorcerer/oracle vs. white dragon, etc). Outside these situations, they function as tier 3.
Tier 3 — . These guys work as advertised. They bring the damage. Unlike tier 2, their situational advantages are more like restrictions — barbarians pay a price for their iconic ability, cavaliers don't require their mount to function, but seriously. Monk powers are great when they are called for, but it's nothing as versatile as the tier 2's situational powers.
As you can see, I've rated them based on a problem-solving context. If you were hoping to see an inverse relationship with direct damage output, huzzah! There appears to be one.
I can't justify creating a whole tier for "well-played wizard". I have seen wizards played perfectly and just have rotten luck or smart NPCs, I've seen wizards played badly, and I've seen lucky wizards played well completely dominating the game. Taking the mean of all wizards I've seen, I put them comfortably among the other Tier 1 classes here.
When it comes to flexibility, one thing I often see missed is the flexibility provided by a good Cha. As I saw happen in computer classes back in school, the hot chick didn't need to know how to write a functional program, because she could sweet talk one of the geeks into doing it for her.
Is that the result of high charisma or low wisdom on the nerd's part? ;)
PS: Ok, so probably it is a combination of both, but you(ok us) nerds shouldn't let low cut blouses sap your(our)will.
PS2(off-topic):Why would someone take a class that led to programming if they had no intention to do the programming?
PS2(off-topic):Why would someone take a class that led to programming if they had no intention to do the programming?
This comment has plunged me into an existential crisis.
When it comes to flexibility, one thing I often see missed is the flexibility provided by a good Cha. As I saw happen in computer classes back in school, the hot chick didn't need to know how to write a functional program, because she could sweet talk one of the geeks into doing it for her.Is that the result of high charisma or low wisdom on the nerd's part? ;)
PS: Ok, so probably it is a combination of both, but you(ok us) nerds shouldn't let low cut blouses sap your(our)will.
PS2(off-topic):Why would someone take a class that led to programming if they had no intention to do the programming?
Plenty of reasons. Parents and the lure of apparently easy money/fame/attention/prestige despite a complete lack of aptitude in the subject are the two that come to mind immediately.
On topic, CHA based flexibility really isn't class based so tends to be a different discussion.
|
|
A wizard can readily adapt and alter to face any challenge (barring bizarro wizard-hating scenarios).That is, of course, assuming that the wizard's spell selection for the day fits the actual events of the day. If it doesn't, he ranges from occasionally useful to utter dead weight.its not that hard to pick spells that cover 90% of situations for the day, and a few select wands and or a decent staff prevent the wiz from ever being dead weight.
plus as you hit mid to high levels the sheer number of spells you can memeorise allows you to cover even more possibilities.
usually the dead weight feel is due to a players bad choices and not the class itself. if you play a wizard long enough you get a feel for picking the "right" spells even without foresight.
Plus some spells are so versatile they're always useful.
e.g. wall of force = split a fight, instant bridge, block a door, ramp up or down, create a choke point etc etc
You mean that the Sorcerer is identical to the wizard 90% of the time with the added bonues of the bloodline powers and on the fly application of metamagics?
Stuff I genereally agree about
I'm not sure about Paladins. You can play around with the healing side a lot more (with UM they can, somewhat, cast a resurrect, as an example).
Spells increase their flexibility and they know the whole list. You can find cures and buffs and stuff to tank.
I'd goo with 3. The rest, I agree 100%.
AND one more thing about wizards: after UM and one specific arcane discovery, they are "tier wizard". Fullstop.
Fast Study.. what the heck?
When it comes to flexibility, one thing I often see missed is the flexibility provided by a good Cha. As I saw happen in computer classes back in school, the hot chick didn't need to know how to write a functional program, because she could sweet talk one of the geeks into doing it for her.Is that the result of high charisma or low wisdom on the nerd's part? ;)
PS: Ok, so probably it is a combination of both, but you(ok us) nerds shouldn't let low cut blouses sap your(our)will.
PS2(off-topic):Why would someone take a class that led to programming if they had no intention to do the programming?
"low wisdom" is relative. There's a sucker born everey minute.
And it was well-known that some people would attend programming cvlasses in order to find a potential spouse (such spouse being likely to make a good salary).
So if I want a trophy wife take a programming class. :)
edit:trophy girlfriend.
Don't forget that summoners aren't actually completely 2/3 casters. They get MANY important spells at a discounted spell level (haste as a level 2 summoner spell anyone?) and their summon monster is up to par.
I would personally argue that a master summoner would be tier 1, because their Eidolon (albeit terribly nerfed because of the archetype) can be fully devoted to skill monkeying (often times BETTER than the rogue) and they can perform multiple roles at once, just using summon monster.
Oh, we're being surrounded? Summon monster
Oh, it's a buncha giants? Summon monster
Oh, we have to distract the room of guards while we run past? Summon monster
So if I want a trophy wife take a programming class. :)
edit:trophy girlfriend.
As someone with a computer science degree I don't recommend this course of action. I honestly don't think my comp-sci-major-only classes were even 2% female.
As someone with a computer science degree I don't recommend this course of action. I honestly don't think my comp-sci-major-only classes were even 2% female.So if I want a trophy wife take a programming class. :)
edit:trophy girlfriend.
That and the entire premise is fundamentally stupid for all imaginary involved parties.
That and the entire premise is fundamentally stupid.
Well, sure, if you're going to be all smart about it and ruin everyone's fun.
On topic, CHA based flexibility really isn't class based so tends to be a different discussion.That's not really true. A Bard is likely to have a higher Cha than a Monk, forex.
With that in mind, Cha based flexibility is a boost to Bards and Sorcerers.
But it's not exclusive to those classes. At least as far as this discussion is concerned, I, at least, am considering access as part of the criteria, and everyone has equal access to CHA, even if some people have more reasons than others to take tap into it. I am also looking at mostly class abilities with more or less consistent interpretations across multiple DMs and games where the type of thing you seem to be getting at is more RP dependent and variable over the course of different DMs. So it tends to be a related, but parallel, conversation that requires different parameters to accurately account for.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That and the entire premise is fundamentally stupid.Well, sure, if you're going to be all smart about it and ruin everyone's fun.
We're talking about going to programming classes to meet women, or women going to programming classes to meet men. This has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I am stupider for having read it. I'd rather listen to more of the bickering about the tiers.
That and the entire premise is fundamentally stupid for all imaginary involved parties.As someone with a computer science degree I don't recommend this course of action. I honestly don't think my comp-sci-major-only classes were even 2% female.So if I want a trophy wife take a programming class. :)
edit:trophy girlfriend.
You are supposed to be evil lincoln, not ethical lincoln. Now help me think of a way to trick a girl(s) into taking a class she can't pass so she will have to come to me for help.