Yes, those are things you calculate when tracking someone by something as flimsy as their hair.
Rules citation?
Because I want characters in my campaign to be able to do this stuff, following actual rules (not just GM fiat).Also, is it rules-legal to demolish stone walls by shooting them with arrows?
And so now you're fighter is now also a forensic scientist? This is rich, Because you know, air currents don't exist Golarion, so there's no chance a super light hair follicle which you found with your +infinity search check could have changed as it fell off the wizard's head. ^o^ I find your off the wall mary-sue fighter very amusing. Really though, you've been watching to many criminal investigation shows if you think that's how forensics work in real life.No, he's a tracker, that's why he has survival. Forensics are a mix of survival, first aid, and a few other skills (like craft fire arms) most of which he doesn't have. Yes, those are things you calculate when tracking someone by something as flimsy as their hair. Don't use a phrase if you don't even know the meaning of it, especially when it's already inaccurate to begin with.
The banshee can hear his heartbeat. Makes her count as having blindsight 60 feet, neat huh? There's always some form of trail, even if it's just some bumpkins living out in the woods. Heck, there's even a way to track teleportation, it's just that there's basically only 1 species that can do it.
The rules don't support real life science. By the rules you check the ground for tracks. By tracks they mean things like footprints, or hard ground would not matter in the case of feathers which has a higher DC than soft ground. Otherwise you would need rules to determine shedding and so on. The way someone hair lands is no way to tell which way they went.
edit-removed wiki quote. It has no bearing on game rules.
Yes, those are things you calculate when tracking someone by something as flimsy as their hair.Rules citation?
Because I want characters in my campaign to be able to do this stuff, following actual rules (not just GM fiat).Also, is it rules-legal to demolish stone walls by shooting them with arrows?
I thought it was possible, but maybe not:
Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.
Ineffective Weapons: Certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, a bludgeoning weapon cannot be used to damage a rope. Likewise, most melee weapons have little effect on stone walls and doors, unless they are designed for breaking up stone, such as a pick or hammer.
But... what is Superfighter supposed to do if he can't ambush all his enemies by shooting down the wall with one arrow and catching them unaware with his extra shots?
For a high enough level fighter to overcome the hardness of the wall, I could be convinced that a kinetic energy weapon (bow & arrows) was able to damage/destroy a stone wall. At that level of skill, its all about hitting the wall in just the right place with an enormous amount of force. At these levels, we're well into the realm of superhuman/demigod-like feats.
I agree with your basic premise, but without any guidelines for "high enough level," this falls completely under the DM Handwave class feature, and is no more legitimate than saying the arrows in the fighter's quiver just automatically launch themselves and kill anyone the PC looks at, because that's how awesome he is. You do mention demigod-like feats; I'd suggest that maybe one of those should be written for this purpose (or an existing feat draftied into extra duty). For example, one could add this caveat to the Cluster Shot feat: "If your base attack bonus is +16 or higher, your total damage is applied against hardness as well as damage reduction, and your ranged weapons can damage objects normally unaffected by them (for example, arrows against a stone wall)."
That's the difference between a dice-based RPG and a story circle.
o be clear, my criteria for doing damage to the wall with an arrow is "Can the damage from the bow and arrow attack overcome the DR/hardness?" If the DR/hardness can be overcome, it deals damage to the wall.
-True, but a lot of that damage was elemental in nature. The arrow itself and the fire/electricity/cold/acid damage it was doing were seperate... and objects by raw take less damage from energy sources, and take the hardness off of it to boot.
|
Still gets knocked down rather quickly, now here's a question: is an arrow that different from a warhammer or a pick? Doesn't the military use a type of slug (called breaching rounds) to destroy doors?
The answer: yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaching_round
Now admittedly they use those for popping open doors, but you fire a few of those at a wall, and it too will fall apart pretty quickly, especially after you magic it up 7-ways to Sunday like in this example, and even more so if you can literally see it's supports. Like with a ring of x-ray vision.
Only 14(average, again) of the damage is actually energy-based, doesn't acid have something different for walls? Either way, 7 points off each shot, still means a very quickly knocked-down wall.
Doesn't the military use a type of slug (called breaching rounds) to destroy doors?
The answer: yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaching_round
So, to be clear, you're introducing a new sort of equipment into the game rules, since breaching rounds =/= regular rounds; similarly, normal arrows are not "breaching arrows."
You just made my list of top posters. It might not mean much to you, but I had to mention it.
Thank you. You aren't too bad yourself :)
|
|
So, to be clear, you're introducing a new sort of equipment into the game rules, since breaching rounds =/= regular rounds; similarly, normal arrows are not "breaching arrows."Doesn't the military use a type of slug (called breaching rounds) to destroy doors?
The answer: yes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaching_round
The principle is the same: hit it really, really hard. My standard arrows bypass adamantine DR, so they should go clear through this, while it is hardness-based (which it would still get), I could still accomplish it, in theory. I could buy adamantine bludgeoning arrows. A breaching arrow would require some serious mojo and it would probably be easier to just use the helm of teleportation.
This is all in theory, I wouldn't waste my time doing that, he's either stuck, by himself, on the other side of the wall of force, with no way of attacking me, or we can both get around it, and we fight it out.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that ranged weapons like bows can indeed be used to pierce through objects of unusual durability if they are unusually strong. The problem comes in the fact you first halve damage from ranged weapons before even applying hardness. That means if you have a +20 to damage with your bow (giving an average of 24.5 damage) and attack a steel plate (hardness 10), you first drop it to 12 damage and then knock off another 10 points for a total of 2 damage. In short, you might be able to tear through it with enough arrows, but even with a full attack it's going to be difficult to get through objects.
However, I think Kais86 is flat out wrong on most things. Not everything. It is important to be prepared for spellcasters as best as you can (having items for things like freedom of movement, deathward, mind blank, flight, planar travel, teleportation, and so forth) even if the items are for a limited number of rounds/minutes/charges per day, because it's better to have it an not need it than need it and not have it.
However, I run an online persistent world for a fairly large group of people, with different adventures going on at different times. Fighter-types in my online game are extremely buffed compared to PF-Core (full-attacks as standard actions, capping iterative penalties at -5, allowing stacking of Keen and Improved Critical ala 3E, the ability to pickup differently sized weapons like in 3E, etc). Despite this, there is a bit of a running challenge that started as part of a discussion of this very sort in our OpenRPG room...
Long story short, we have a mascot named Knot Opey the Wizard (for those that don't get the joke, his name is pronounced "Not-OP") who was born from someone saying that Fighter-types were amazingly strong and wizards were so limited/not-powerful, etc. Wouldn't accept 11+ years of gaming experience on the issue, so Knot Opey stepped in. Now Knot Opey is a 15th level conjurer wizard using NPC wealth (not even close to PC wealth) and has participated with various challengers in the group who have built 15th level characters to fight him (with PC wealth I might add). Despite the fact my online group uses some 3.x material and homebrew stuff, Knot Opey is PHB + APG only.
Knot Opey has thus far not actually been damaged during a duel. Likewise, he has not even taken time to buff with anything longer than hour/level spells. The challenger chooses the battleground. Caves, cliffs, dungeons, plains, elemental voids, whatever. So far, Knot Opey has yet to be defeated. Most foes don't last six rounds. Everything that Kais86 has said his Fighter would do to defeat Knot Opey basically fails against Knot Opey. In many cases, Knot Opey has merely let his minions and creations deal with his opponents. Not Knot Opey has yet to need to pull out all the stops. Usually 2 celestial t-rex / round plus his actions are enough to make most challengers back down and/or forfeit. There was even a ninja who ended up right next to Not Opey and full-attacked him, to no avail ('cause Not Opey cannot be harmed by 90% of the enemies he will face if he cares). The ninja was promptly petrified thereafter (not even spell-turning would have effectively countered it).
Mind you, Knot Opey has never used more than 6 spells during a combat. His spells prepared however are a fine selection of useful nick-knacks for different occasions. In fact, he's not even designed as a duelist but a generic adventuring wizard. I don't swap Knot Opey's spells around before he engages in a challenge. Part of being a wizard is thinking on your feet of course (even though he steamrolls most opponents). He has taken on entire groups of people before, and I'll probably use him as a big-bad during the actual campaign when the party members are around level 15 themselves.
I'm with WPharolin, Wraithstrike, and the others on this one. Kais just doesn't sound convincing to me after reading through multiple pages of his argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Knot Opey
This made me smile. In fact, most your posts make me smile.
Ashiel, most of the crap I have, isn't just for casters, in fact the only things I have going for me against them, is the chime, and one of my ioun stones. Just putting that out there. The other 700K or so of my gear, is generic equipment anyone with half a brain would take.
That's cool. I agree that Fighters should indeed be heavily geared. They kind of need a few custom items using the standard guidelines. Stuff like death-ward armor, mind-blank helmets, teleportation items, freedom of movement, and a few other things to be on the safe side just for standard adventuring. If specifically dueling with wizards, I'd definitely want a lot of other specialty items at least on a 1/day charge as well.
Please note, however, that I didn't claim you were building your hypothetical fighter specifically to kill a wizard. Merely that, nothing you have said actually sounds very impressive as far as making someone an effective wizard slayer unless the wizard was being played by someone very inexperienced with wizards and what they are capable of. Which is what I said. I don't find your arguments very convincing.
This made me smile. In fact, most your posts make me smile.
Thanks WPharolin. ^.^
Same here actually. You're one of my favorite posters (along with TOZ and Professor Cirno, and Wraithstrike is pretty cool too from what I've seen). *brofist*|
|
Ashiel, that's basically what I was going for. To prove that a properly geared fighter, using everyday stuff, would be able to take a wizard
in most fields that matter to an adventurer. They got real up in arms when I started talking about custom items. Arrows of silence, which are cheap, a pair of goggles that gave me arcane sight, and darkvision. Things like that, so I said "Screw it, they want to wine and moan about me doing what the rules say I can do, then fine, I'll use a generic fighter to outright kill their precious wizard."
There are a few other things of course, this isn't the bland edition, in fact I think it's one with the most divergences in classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel, that's basically what I was going for. To prove that a properly geared fighter, using everyday stuff, would be able to take a wizard
in most fields that matter to an adventurer. They got real up in arms when I started talking about custom items. Arrows of silence, which are cheap, a pair of goggles that gave me arcane sight, and darkvision. Things like that, so I said "Screw it, they want to wine and moan about me doing what the rules say I can do, then fine, I'll use a generic fighter to outright kill their precious wizard."There are a few other things of course, this isn't the bland edition, in fact I think it's one with the most divergences in classes.
Oh don't get me wrong. I don't agree with that at all. Fighters can no more take a wizard in most adventuring fields than a commoner can. Fighters by default have very little in problem solving capabilities, scarcely anything in support (such as buffs and/or protections), less in battlefield control (having little more than combat maneuvers or just being in the way), is very poor at AoE, and is generally pretty poor at combining abilities with his allies to create the "dream super combos" (anyone who played Saga Frontier might get the reference).
He has a fairly specific role. Kill stuff with excessive direct damage. There are other classes that are similar in this (ranger, paladin, etc) in many ways, but they give up kill-power for more versatility (more skill points, spells, special powers, etc). The Fighter is a valued member of the party for exterminating enemies. He has the highest raw potential of any character pre-buffs, which means when he is wielded as a weapon by the rest of the party, he is a devastating weapon indeed. A fully buffed Fighter is a terrifying thing to behold. A wizard tossing a Fighter at an enemy via telekinesis is likewise frightening (the wizard deals a bit of damage, and now hit or miss the Fighter is within 5ft of the big bad for a full-attack). Given a life-drinker, a Fighter can even set up the ball for a big finish (smack a dude 5 times with a life-drinker and he has a -10 to all attacks, saves, and checks).
Ultimately, a Fighter cannot compete with a wizard or most other classes on merit of being a fighter. Instead, he can buy equipment that might help him deal with some of the issues, but then again so can the commoner, and so can any class. The Fighter will never by virtue of being a Fighter be able to shift roles fluidly, nor can he compete with the wizard on an adventuring level.
In short, I believe that a Fighter being a Fighter is a valued member of a party. A Fighter trying to be a Wizard is a joke member of the party (and an insult to the rest of the party). Unless I've misunderstood what you meant.
|
|
I disagree, I've come to a conclusion after a few years. Most of life's problems begin and end with fire, in fact, if you try hard enough, all of life's problems can be solved with fire. Now, is it perfect? Well, yes, for varying degrees of perfect, you might end up having to burn a few more things than you thought you would initially, but the end result is the same: you solved all of your problems with fire.
Same thing with damage. Hit it. Is it still a problem? If yes, congratulations, no more problem. If No, then you obviously didn't hit it hard enough, go back to the start. Very simplistic view on these things, but efficient. I have actually seen this in action, I know it works, now I don't recommend this method unless you can hit ridiculously hard, and some things (like wizards or land slides) involve waiting. Seems crazy, but from a very detached, don't really care about anything but the results standpoint, it's very effective. At the end of the day, there isn't a problem in the world you can't solve by hitting something or lighting something on fire.
Now, in real life I typically try words first, doing otherwise is silly, hitting things takes far more energy than talking does. Unfortunately I've found you can't always talk your problems out, which has two responses: hit it or walk away. Well, in most roleplaying games, you can hit hard enough to solve most of your problem.
Now here's the other part, with the you talk, you seem like you value each member, and each class in the party equally, correct? I agree. Yet the other people participating in this conversation disagree for the most part (they also disagree that Prestidigitation is the best spell ever, but I guess that's because they don't think about it's many and varied uses in their every day lives), they honestly think the wizard is better in every way possible. In combat, out of combat, anywhere. The. Wizard. Is. Simply. Superior. That's what the tier system means and I'm not even sure they realize it. Tier systems mean that whoever is in the top tier is better than everyone else, in all aspects covered by the tier system, well the current tier system in use is an all-or-nothing deal, either you are better than the other classes or you aren't. Otherwise their system is wrong, it has to be rigid, or it doesn't mean anything, because they don't have brackets on it, or anything saying that X is best at Y.
I think you misunderstand the way the tier system works. It is not, nor has it even, been to describe characters as being the absolute best. It is a measure of both raw power and versatility. Many classes can have raw power in one area and score low on the tier system because they lack options. Wizards are Tier 1 because they have raw power and supreme versatility. Most tier 3 classes (often noted as the most balanced tier) are classes that are rarely out of the loop. They can participate in combat, out of combat, and have options. Tier 2 is potentially game breakingly powerful without being as versatile, while Tier 1 like clerics, druids, and wizards can break the game on accident using their given abilities and have the most versatility (often able to cover multiple party roles or sometimes all party roles at once).
You really should read what the tiers really mean.
Likewise, I simply have had different experiences. Hitting stuff harder or setting stuff on fire doesn't fix everything. You sure as hell won't grow food that way, or build a house that way, or play music that way, or solve a puzzle that way, or even kill many monsters that way. I realize that when all you have is a hammer everything begins to look like a nail, but sometimes the tool for the job is important too. A screwdriver makes make for a great screwdriver, a decent ice pick, a poor hammer, and a terrible microwave.
You just haven't really displayed anything that appears worthwhile. Your arguments about fighting a wizard seem flawed from my experiences (and others have pointed out multiple problems with your understanding of how combat works, and so forth), and your examples for how being a Fighter means you can cover different roles of the party as good or better seem bizarre and without merit or even logical reasoning. At least, I hope you won't ever try to save a burning person by murdering them or pouring gasoline on them. :o
Likewise, I cannot help but to question a game where "hit it harder or walk away" are the ideal options in every situation.
Don't ranged attacks deal half damage against objects? Sorry, but there's no way an archer is going to take down a wall of force quickly.
Also, any wizard worth his salt would win initiative and cast fickle winds the moment he saw a fighter with a bow pointed at him. Fighter can't fly over that.
Wizard would probably follow in the following round up with a quickened dispel magic and a heightened shatter to destroy the bow.
Round three the fighter get's petrified by flesh to stone or dominated by dominate person with unstoppable DCs.
Judging two classes by PvP is like judging car speed by color. You've SO missed the point it's not funny. Yes PvP happens. No the game isn't built around it.
Mostly 4 adventures (give or take) battle either A) much larger groups B) one much more powerful foe or C) some combination. Classes that can end encounters to fast aren't fun, be that a min/maxed melee character that destroys Big Bads 1st round, or some two spell kill every crowd gimp. Those are OP. Someone who makes reasonable player(s) and/or other characters feel he's a drain is UP. But by the logic you guys are using every support character is UP since he can't kill any of his buddies and every sneaky character is OP since he could take them out while they sleep. Or is OP only determined by being able to kill party members in a stand up fight?
The way to judge power isn't some game of who wins in PvP it's "what effect does this bring to game play?"
That being said, has anyone got to see if Ultimate Combat brings power creep in their games? I haven't got to use it much as of yet.
Judging two classes by PvP is like judging car speed by color. You've SO missed the point it's not funny. Yes PvP happens. No the game isn't built around it.
Mostly 4 adventures (give or take) battle either A) much larger groups B) one much more powerful foe or C) some combination. Classes that can end encounters to fast aren't fun, be that a min/maxed melee character that destroys Big Bads 1st round, or some two spell kill every crowd gimp. Those are OP. Someone who makes reasonable player(s) and/or other characters feel he's a drain is UP. But by the logic you guys are using every support character is UP since he can't kill any of his buddies and every sneaky character is OP since he could take them out while they sleep. Or is OP only determined by being able to kill party members in a stand up fight?
The way to judge power isn't some game of who wins in PvP it's "what effect does this bring to game play?"
That being said, has anyone got to see if Ultimate Combat brings power creep in their games? I haven't got to use it much as of yet.
I agree but Kaius had some idea that if in combat the fighter had a chance, but it didn't. He even claimed it could do other things as well as other classes, which is something that matters in a game. That did not happen either.
I don't even remember how the topic came up now that I think about it.
The last thing, that I was glad he did not argue was the value of presdigitation. It is a useful spell, but for the most part it involves a lot of "GM may I".
Example:Some invisible stalkers were kicking the party's butt so I let them use it to "color" the stalkers. Now this spell can not, and was not intended to replace glitterdust or faerie fire, but I let it go that one time. Had the party been winning I would have denied them that use of the spell.
Judging two classes by PvP is like judging car speed by color. You've SO missed the point it's not funny. Yes PvP happens. No the game isn't built around it.
Mostly 4 adventures (give or take) battle either A) much larger groups B) one much more powerful foe or C) some combination. Classes that can end encounters to fast aren't fun, be that a min/maxed melee character that destroys Big Bads 1st round, or some two spell kill every crowd gimp. Those are OP. Someone who makes reasonable player(s) and/or other characters feel he's a drain is UP. But by the logic you guys are using every support character is UP since he can't kill any of his buddies and every sneaky character is OP since he could take them out while they sleep. Or is OP only determined by being able to kill party members in a stand up fight?
The way to judge power isn't some game of who wins in PvP it's "what effect does this bring to game play?"
That being said, has anyone got to see if Ultimate Combat brings power creep in their games? I haven't got to use it much as of yet.
Yeah it does. Every book does. The thing to remember is that power creep is not always a bad thing. I don't think archers needed anymore help, but TWF could have used a boost, and so could rogues. I have yet to do my cover to cover reading of it to see if TWF got a boost.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Judging two classes by PvP is like judging car speed by color.
The red ones go faster.
On the question of fire: What about Red Dragons?
Yeah it does. Every book does. The thing to remember is that power creep is not always a bad thing. I don't think archers needed anymore help, but TWF could have used a boost, and so could rogues. I have yet to do my cover to cover reading of it to see if TWF got a boost.
I have read it, but I mean has anyone got to play with it, and actually see the in game results?
I agree but Kaius had some idea that if in combat the fighter had a chance, but it didn't.
That would be a whole different thread.
@ Rex - IRL wouldn't the white ones go faster? And you judge dragon speed by age not color.
Sadly, that's been my experience with most games. 'Have the fighter kill it' is the one and only plan. Alternate strategies don't get used much. :(
Heh. You've seen how well that works in my games! Especially against NPC druids. Or nymphs, for that matter...
Spoiler, for everyone other than TOZ:
When it does not work, we certainly have alternate strategies. 'Go the other way', usually.
You really should read what the tiers really mean.
I think after a very long conversation with aMiB like 2 years ago, I arrived at a definition that was useful to me:
Tiers are the character classes ranked by single-encounter utility.
This includes a very loose definition of encounter, but still, the higher-tier classes are most likely to provide something helpful, and the lower tier classes are increasingly less helpful to level-appropriate encounters as level increases.
Mind you, martials are still "useful" for endurance contests with many encounters. They generally allow a caster to extend their usefulness if everyone is playing well, and that's the type of game I spend most of my energy as a GM creating.
That's why I say "single-encounter" utility — as the number of consecutive encounters increase, the benefits of having a martial PC around increase proportionally. It's still all about the caster, mind you, when it comes to high level encounter problems, but the martials get precisely the illusion of utility that they want — hitting things and making them die. The wizard saves his best spells for the big bad. Everyone has fun!
Tiers can be a very useful way of thinking if your aim is to balance the encounters in this way!
Sadly, that's been my experience with most games. 'Have the fighter kill it' is the one and only plan. Alternate strategies don't get used much. :(
Likewise, I cannot help but to question a game where "hit it harder or walk away" are the ideal options...
It can be a good strategy. Fighters are the quintessential damage dealers of the game. Almost nothing can stand up to the raw punishment a Fighter can dish out short of avoiding it completely (damage reduction merely slows a Fighter's murder-protocols a bit at higher levels). It's just not always the best strategy.
I just don't really believe in blanket statements. Blanket statements are almost always wrong (I've never actually seen one that wasn't, but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here). I've never seen a single strategy that always works since this game (3E D&D and all its latter incarnations) came out. Perhaps it's because I stopped using single monsters of CR X and began using multiple monsters of a lower CR, and had enemies use tactics like they actually cared to survive past the encounter.
You really should read what the tiers really mean.I think after a very long conversation with aMiB like 2 years ago, I arrived at a definition that was useful to me:
Tiers are the character classes ranked by single-encounter utility.
This includes a very loose definition of encounter, but still, the higher-tier classes are most likely to provide something helpful, and the lower tier classes are increasingly less helpful to level-appropriate encounters as level increases.
Mind you, martials are still "useful" for endurance contests with many encounters. They generally allow a caster to extend their usefulness if everyone is playing well, and that's the type of game I spend most of my energy as a GM creating.
That's why I say "single-encounter" utility — as the number of consecutive encounters increase, the benefits of having a martial PC around increase proportionally. It's still all about the caster, mind you, when it comes to high level encounter problems, but the martials get precisely the illusion of utility that they want — hitting things and making them die. The wizard saves his best spells for the big bad. Everyone has fun!
Tiers can be a very useful way of thinking if your aim is to balance the encounters in this way!
This isn't how the tier system was gauged either. It's not about utility only in combat encounters. Most of the martial characters score at tier 4 or even tier 5 (with some NPC classes) because they cannot meaningfully contribute or have enough options to be relevant except in their narrowly defined niche, and some aren't very strong to begin with. Meanwhile, tier 3 (often known as the ideal tier in terms of class balance) is filled with hybrid casters and martial adepts not because they are insanely powerful but because they have options.
For example, back on the WotC boards, the almighty Tempest Stormwind (one of the best posters ever) did a comparison of Barbarian vs Warblade in terms of damage and raw damage soaking ability. They mostly tied at low levels (the warblade inched ahead at 5th level where they get a sudden spike but were then overshadowed by barbarian at 6th level onwards). In short, Barbarian dealt more damage than the Warblade. However, the Warblade is tier 3 and the Barbarian is tier 4. Why? Because the Warblade has options. During combat he might decide that he needs to charge through enemies defenses and throw them off a cliff. He might suddenly spend an immediate action to attempt to parry an incoming attack or brace against a spell (but not both during the same round). He might hit and enemy and pin his weapon so the party's rogue can get inside and play "stabby-rip-stab-stab" with him.
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.
Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite
Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.
Examples: Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges)
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.
Examples: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior
Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.
Examples: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Dungeoncrasher Variant)
Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the rest of the party is weak in that situation and the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.
Examples: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight
Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.
Examples: CW Samurai, Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner
And then there's the Truenamer, which is just broken (as in, the class was improperly made and doesn't function appropriately).
Now, obviously these rankings only apply when mechanical abilities are being used... in a more social oriented game where talking is the main way of solving things (without using diplomacy checks), any character can shine. However, when the mechanical abilities of the classes in question are being used, it's a bad idea to have parties with more than two tiers of difference.
It is interesting to note the disparity between the core classes... one of the reasons core has so many problems. If two players want to play a nature oriented shapeshifter and a general sword weilder, you're stuck with two very different tiered guys in the party (Fighter and Druid). Outside of core, it's possible to do it while staying on close Tiers... Wild Shape Variant Ranger and Warblade, for example.
Note that a few classes are right on the border line between tiers. Duskblade is very low in Tier 3, and Hexblade is low in Tier 4. Fighter is high in Tier 5, and CW Samurai is high in Tier 6 (obviously, since it's pretty much strictly better than the same tier Warrior).
Ash, I took pains not to limit my definition of encounter to combat.
Anyhow, yes, I'm sure my definition of tiers is not the same as the theory the created them. My definition is prescriptive, the original is descriptive.
If tiers don't tell me anything about how to GM for different characters, they are useless. Luckily, tiers actually tell me quite a bit about making the game work, and so that's how I choose to consider them.
Comparing classes to pick the best one is a player's attitude, and a rather poor one. Comparing classes to make sure all of them are fun to play for any player seeking the role that comes with a class — that's GMing.
Tiers: Informative. Adversarial Class Analysis: beyond useless.
Aye, very good talk about the Tiers. They are all based on the 15 minute work day, and because longer time horizons are best avoided, they aren't talked about.
They are also based on unlimited access to spells, especially expanded spell lists from splat books, so the most useful spells are always handy and can be applied to a situation.
In a real game, neither of those situations occur. Too often the casters do not have access to the right spell, or do not have it memorized. They don't take into account things like anti-magic, they don't include standard defenses, and most of all, they aren't high enough level to have access to all those Sooper Killer Options to begin with.
Wizards are the poster boy for this. I did a 1-10 system for alternate Tiering that included resource expenditure, basic defenses, and the like, and wizards actually started rating low...when wizards run out of spells, or don't have the right spell, they are a waste of breathing space. The fighter can always be a meat shield, shoot something, or so forth. If wizards have every spell in their spellbooks, and are given the time to prepare for a specific foe and a specific scenario, yeah, they are gods. But when they unexpectedly have to do it twice...they suck.
People just focus on the oober ownage times instead of the 'stand back and let fighter smash' times instead.
===Aelryinth
Aye, very good talk about the Tiers. They are all based on the 15 minute work day, and because longer time horizons are best avoided, they aren't talked about.
They are also based on unlimited access to spells, especially expanded spell lists from splat books, so the most useful spells are always handy and can be applied to a situation.
No, they aren't. I could elaborate on why, but conveniently enough, I just did.
Spellcasters sometimes have the right spell. Nonspellcasters never have the right spell. You keep banging on that "Well, what if the spellcasters don't have the right spell? That makes them much weaker than classes which can't ever change their toolset!" drum and it still doesn't make a lick of sense.
Your 1-10 system for alternate tiering was not very good, for many, many reasons.
I will also add the "right spell" argument is misleading, since it makes people believe that you must have a specific spell prepared to bypass a specific situation. Many times creative(non standard) uses of a spell are what get casters by.
Casters don't need the "right spell" they just need one that will work. The chance of running out of spells at higher levels is low also. Unless the player is one that insist on casting a spell every round just because that is what a caster has to do it should not happen.If my level 3 party runs into some mooks I might just use my crossbow. I save the spells for when I need them.
If I am level 9, and the party runs into 3 CR 4 monsters, twiddling my thumbs is an option. Barring the dice gods interfering the frontliners will probably not be hurt, and if they get hit it will be for a small amount.
If the wizard sucks just because he can't prep for a specific scenario the player in question needs to stick to a class he knows how to play.
Aye, very good talk about the Tiers. They are all based on the 15 minute work day, and because longer time horizons are best avoided, they aren't talked about.
On the contrary! I hope you mean "best avoided" from a caster-player standpoint, because the 15-minute workday is the thing that is best avoided if you are a GM.
The game and all its class niches work pretty well† if you enforce timers and active NPCs to eliminate the 15-minute workday. They fall apart very quickly if you do not.
†even so, a caster is a caster and martial is martial. Martials don't solve problems, they hit stuff. The game is working right if the martial player knows that's his job, and gets to do it, and has fun.
IMHO, the 15-minute workday is a result of lazy, uncreative GMing. Once in a while, it's okay to let the caster go nova and call it a day*, but you have a responsibility to the non-casters to build an adventure that stretches out a bit, so that they serve a purpose.
*just as once in a while, it's okay to steal a spellbook or have marathon encounters until the wizard is tapped out. All of these things should happen at least once in a campaign, but the majority of encounters shouldn't thwart the PCs like that. The majority should be encounter sites with timers that force the casters to think about spell use, but ultimately prevail.
You can disregard this and run the game however you want, but if you want to play with the RAW and see it work, this is mandatory.
That's a fair description of the consequences of JaronK's tier list, but not quite its intent. I mentioned before that breadth of ability, reliability, and invulnerability to mishap are the three factors of class balance; JaronK's essay places relatively little weight on invulnerability.
Wouldn't someone having an ability to do something be more reliable then a spell caster possibly having a spell? If a Commmoner has profession(ditch digger) he will more reliably be able to dig a hole then a caster who needs to have Expeditious Excavation 'readied'.
The tier system doesn't take invulnerability or reliability into account, just each classes potential in a vacuum.
If a Commmoner has profession(ditch digger)
No such skill. It would be Craft (trenches and excavations).
Profession is for when you're not actually making something.
What Is Creep exactly
Reliability doesn't have to do with power though, use another word. And the chance of a caster not having a spell is often times greater then the chance of failure of someone who simply possesses the ability to achieve a desired result.
What Is Creep exactly
Its someone who leers at school girls and watches them at the play ground. OH! You meant power creep! :P
Anyway, its kind of a stupid term really. Any option that is more powerful than a previous one is power creep. Unfortunately there is no standard. Often time people will cry foul when a feat come out and over shadows a previous feat, but that completely ignores whether or not that previous feat was even any good to begin with. For example, if a feat came out that gave you +1 to hit with all weapons you were proficient with, people would call it power creep because its better than weapon focus, even though both feats suck.
Most of what we have been debating (Caster vs Martial) is in answer to an unspoken question that is raised when someone asks whether or not there IS power creep in the UC. That is, "Should there be power creep in the UC?" Obviously some of us believe that answer is "yes, quite a bit actually."