
Coriat |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Coriat wrote:Lemmy wrote:Oddly enough I find a measurement of character/class effectiveness based 99% on DPR/AC (and that's all Fighters have going for them) to be incredibly narrow-minded and completely useless. And any argument that references such measure to be completely and utterly devoid of value.IMO, few things on these boards are as systematically misguided as the way in which board theorycrafting so often treats DPR as a shorthand for combat effectiveness. As a statistic, it does have a few things to say, but the way in which it is typically wielded in board arguments is so oversimplified as to be greatly misleading.But the supposed "tier" system considers DPRs value as essentially Zero.
Should combat be considered 99% of the chart? No. But when it is considered valueless that's no less reductive/biased and most importantly completely and utterly WRONG.
"Combat" isn't valueless, and the tier system does not (as far as I can tell; I don't hang out on the boards where it is more frequently discussed) actually consider combat valueless. Do you have a basis for asserting that it does consider combat valueless?
But anyway, I hang out on these boards, where DPR has been king, or at least amongst the dukes, of balance discussions for a while. And I hate the way it is used. So, excuse me if I tilt at that windmill and not whatever other ones may be available ;)
As a system of analysis, DPR isn't valueless either. It has some things to say, as I noted before. But it also has a lot less really to do with combat than many posters here seem to think. I mean, at a basic level, it doesn't actually exist within the game, it's a derived statistic with only an indirect, several steps removed relationship to anything one will actually see happen at any table.
So saying that these boards (writ large) severely overplay their hand with DPR isn't saying that combat is valueless, it's just saying that that "DPR" isn't shorthand for "combat" and in fact for many combats (particularly at high levels where complicated tends to be the name of the game) "DPR" isn't necessarily even next door to "combat," nor on the same street, and it may not even be in the same neighborhood.
As far as I can tell the tier system has useful things to say. It certainly isn't the last word on anything. Much like DPR in that respect, though I would grant the tier system the benefit of seeming to be based on direct analysis - analysis of powers that actually exist in the game, rather than on analysis of indirect simplifications of averages that do not.
The only other observation I will make is that I see DPR presented as an absolute measure of effectiveness a lot, with no acknowledgment of its limitations, whereas when I see the tier system discussed in depth I see a lot of even its proponents who go out of their way to explain its assumptions, strengths, weaknesses, what it is and is not intended to be. That's not to say that there aren't some people who (to borrow a phrase from another poster in this thread) are basically full faith tier missionaries who don't do that. Just that I see it a lot more often with DPR.

Lemmy |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

I've never really understood the argument that everybody should play casters because <whatever>
Dude... I don't think anyone in this thread ever said that.
You can play whatever class you want. I don't care. I never accused anyone of having badwrong fun. (Honestly, I've very, very rarely even seen anyone around here accusing anyone of that, what I often see is people playing the victim card and saying they have been accused of having Badwrond Fun when they can't prove their point).
Saying "Rogues are underpowered." is completely different from saying "You can't have fun playing Rogues, and if you do, you are doing it wrong!".

Squirrel_Dude |

The tier system counts "being really good at dealing and surviving damage" as one thing, then assigns that as essentially the lowest level/tier.
That is essentially saying it is valueless.
And yet the Tome of Battle classes are in Tier 3 specifically because of their extremely high combat proficiency. Psychic Warrior too.

Anzyr |

No it's just evaluating it properly in the scope of the game as a whole, which despite the argument you appear to be making is not as much about about combat as you'd like. Or rather even when it is about Combat, your options in combat matter far more then your ability to deal damage and survive. A class that can't never fly can deal as much damage with a melee weapon as it wants, its not going to be a good. That's an objective standard, not a subjective one like "fun", which you can have with anything, even a Commoner.

Lemmy |

The tier system counts "being really good at dealing and surviving damage" as one thing, then assigns that as essentially the lowest level/tier.
That is essentially saying it is valueless.
When the tier systems considers combat, it's more about "defeating enemies" and "surviving. period." Those are not the same as "dealing damage" and "absorbing damage".

aegrisomnia |
aegrisomnia wrote:I've never really understood the argument that everybody should play casters because <whatever>Dude... I don't think anyone in this thread ever said that.
You can play whatever class you want. I don't care. I never accused anyone of having badwrong fun.(Honestly, I've very, very rarely even seen anyone around here accusing anyone of that, what I often see is people playing the victim card and saying they have been accused of having Badwrond Fun when they can't prove their point).
Saying "Rogues are underpowered." is completely different from saying "You can't have fun playing Rogues, and if you do, you are doing it wrong!".
First, while *you* may not be making that claim, it doesn't take a lot of reading into some of the other posts to get that impression. I can dig up examples or we can just agree on that one.
Second, to avoid these protracted debates about the merits of classes, it would probably be best for the theory crowd to soften up the language when criticizing other classes, just generally tone it down. Whenever people start talking smack about another's pet class, feathers might get ruffled. I mean, it goes both ways - when I get involved in discussions where I say that barbarian mechanics are dumb from a fluff perspective, all the rage cycling spreadsheet masters get defensive, too. In fact, when I joked about how dumb casters probably look waving their hands around, you wouldn't believe the ensuing butthurt.
Mentioning AMF/dead magic? Big mistake, unless you want to see how quickly caster fanboys can type.

Anzyr |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |

Nathanael Love wrote:And yet the Tome of Battle classes are in Tier 3 because they're so much better at melee combat than just any other class.The tier system counts "being really good at dealing and surviving damage" as one thing, then assigns that as essentially the lowest level/tier.
That is essentially saying it is valueless.
Despite how naysayers try to paint it, the Tome of Battle classes actually can do much more then just melee combat. Mountain Hammer is an easy way to break doors/walls, the Shadow line has a number of teleports, there's a variety of sense gaining powers across the schools, a variety of debuffs across the schools, ways to move attack (mostly Tiger Claw), ways to Jump suddenly, ways to heal, replace saves, avoid attacks and oh ya... they can also deal some pretty hefty damage.
On top of that they get good skills (6 x 6+INT at level 1 for the Swordsage!). And I didn't even mention White Raven Tactics or Iron HEart Surge yet...

Anzyr |

Lemmy wrote:aegrisomnia wrote:I've never really understood the argument that everybody should play casters because <whatever>Dude... I don't think anyone in this thread ever said that.
You can play whatever class you want. I don't care. I never accused anyone of having badwrong fun.(Honestly, I've very, very rarely even seen anyone around here accusing anyone of that, what I often see is people playing the victim card and saying they have been accused of having Badwrond Fun when they can't prove their point).
Saying "Rogues are underpowered." is completely different from saying "You can't have fun playing Rogues, and if you do, you are doing it wrong!".
First, while *you* may not be making that claim, it doesn't take a lot of reading into some of the other posts to get that impression. I can dig up examples or we can just agree on that one.
Second, to avoid these protracted debates about the merits of classes, it would probably be best for the theory crowd to soften up the language when criticizing other classes, just generally tone it down. Whenever people start talking smack about another's pet class, feathers might get ruffled. I mean, it goes both ways - when I get involved in discussions where I say that barbarian mechanics are dumb from a fluff perspective, all the rage cycling spreadsheet masters get defensive, too. In fact, when I joked about how dumb casters probably look waving their hands around, you wouldn't believe the ensuing butthurt.
Mentioning AMF/dead magic? Big mistake, unless you want to see how quickly caster fanboys can type.
Caster love AMFs/Dead Magic zone. Their minions are at full power in them, while the people are using them are drastically nerfed. AMF is literally the least scary thing for a Caster since... I don't know... STR damage? Sure STR damage.

Nathanael Love |

aegrisomnia wrote:Caster love AMFs/Dead Magic zone. Their minions are at full power in them, while the people are using them are drastically nerfed. AMF is literally the least scary thing for a Caster since... I don't know... STR damage? Sure STR damage.Lemmy wrote:aegrisomnia wrote:I've never really understood the argument that everybody should play casters because <whatever>Dude... I don't think anyone in this thread ever said that.
You can play whatever class you want. I don't care. I never accused anyone of having badwrong fun.(Honestly, I've very, very rarely even seen anyone around here accusing anyone of that, what I often see is people playing the victim card and saying they have been accused of having Badwrond Fun when they can't prove their point).
Saying "Rogues are underpowered." is completely different from saying "You can't have fun playing Rogues, and if you do, you are doing it wrong!".
First, while *you* may not be making that claim, it doesn't take a lot of reading into some of the other posts to get that impression. I can dig up examples or we can just agree on that one.
Second, to avoid these protracted debates about the merits of classes, it would probably be best for the theory crowd to soften up the language when criticizing other classes, just generally tone it down. Whenever people start talking smack about another's pet class, feathers might get ruffled. I mean, it goes both ways - when I get involved in discussions where I say that barbarian mechanics are dumb from a fluff perspective, all the rage cycling spreadsheet masters get defensive, too. In fact, when I joked about how dumb casters probably look waving their hands around, you wouldn't believe the ensuing butthurt.
Mentioning AMF/dead magic? Big mistake, unless you want to see how quickly caster fanboys can type.
Lol. . . I know one Wizard not afraid of Str damage going to be transformed into a Shadow. . . STR damage is bad for wizards.

Lemmy |

First, while *you* may not be making that claim, it doesn't take a lot of reading into some of the other posts to get that impression. I can dig up examples or we can just agree on that one.
Second, to avoid these protracted debates about the merits of classes, it would probably be best for the theory crowd to soften up the language when criticizing other classes, just generally tone it down. Whenever people start talking smack about another's pet class, feathers might get ruffled. I mean, it goes both ways - when I get involved in discussions where I say that barbarian mechanics are dumb from a fluff perspective, all the rage cycling spreadsheet masters get defensive, too. In fact, when I joked about how dumb casters probably look waving their hands around, you wouldn't believe the ensuing butthurt.
Saying a class is ineffective doesn't mean someone hates the class. It just means they think that particular class is ineffective. Anyone who gets offended by such claim should grow thicker skin... I like the class concept for Rogues. But I still find them to be awfully underpowered.
Mentioning AMF/dead magic? Big mistake, unless you want to see how quickly caster fanboys can type.
That's probably because AMF/dead magic is a horrible, horrible pain in the ass of every class in the game. Unless whoever cast AMF is a complete moron (e.g.: "The enemy Wizard moves towards your Fighter and casts AMF, then stands still for the smacking"), there is usually only one viable course of action inside an AMF: Leave it.

Lemmy |

See, Lemmy? It took 2 minutes.
Anzir didn't say anyone was having badwrong fun. Nor did he seem angry at all. He simply said AMF/Dead Magic zones are not that dangerous for a well prepared caster.
If I said a Fighter can't deal with enemies with good AC, wouldn't you disagree too?

EsperMagic |
You know if this game was PvP in a big way then I guess tiers would matter. Instead it a bunch of friends getting together and having fun. Any GM worth his dice will adjust encouters and scenarios to adapt to the parties level and skills. Tiers are inconsequential. Play whats fun, not what random Internet Denizen deems tier 1. Its dumb.

Anzyr |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |

EsperMagic... the tiers are explicitly not about PvP but about making sure no one gets accidentally overshadowed in... you guessed it, team play with friends. Saying the GM can adjust this, is irrelevant because the GM shouldn't have to fix it or know to fix, the classes should just be better balanced.

aegrisomnia |
Saying a class is ineffective doesn't mean someone hates the class. ...more stuff...
I think you're missing the point, which is this: there are possibly two distinct crowds that will never agree on what's important. Everybody can go on using the Internet to say things that trigger others' nerd rage and fill message boards with snarky posts, or just try not to piss everybody off all the time and get along.
Forget about AMF or dead magic. A caster, at his worst, is a useless wimp. I think that's off-putting for a lot of the fluff/fantasy types, hence these protracted debates where neither side is willing to concede any points.

Squirrel_Dude |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

"Combat" isn't valueless, and the tier system does not (as far as I can tell; I don't hang out on the boards where it is more frequently discussed) actually consider combat valueless. Do you have a basis for asserting that it does consider combat valueless?
But anyway, I hang out on these boards, where DPR has been king, or at least amongst the dukes, of balance discussions for a while. And I hate the way it is used. So, excuse me if I tilt at that windmill and not whatever other ones may be available ;)
As a system of analysis, DPR isn't valueless either. It has some things to say, as I noted before. But it also has a lot less really to do with combat than many posters here seem to think. I mean, at a basic level, it doesn't actually exist within the game, it's a derived statistic with only an indirect, several steps removed relationship to anything one will actually see happen at any table.
So saying that these boards (writ large) severely overplay their hand with DPR isn't saying that combat is valueless, it's just saying that that "DPR" isn't shorthand for "combat" and in fact for many combats (particularly at high levels where complicated tends to be the name of the game) "DPR" isn't necessarily even next door to "combat," nor on the same street, and it may not even be in the same neighborhood.
As far as I can tell the tier system has useful things to say. It certainly isn't the last word on anything. Much like DPR in that respect, though I would grant the tier system the benefit of seeming to be based on direct analysis - analysis of powers that actually exist in the game, rather than on analysis of indirect simplifications of averages that do not.
The only other observation I will make is that I see DPR presented as an absolute measure of effectiveness a lot, with no acknowledgment of its limitations, whereas when I see the tier system discussed in depth I see a lot of even its proponents who go out of their way to explain its assumptions, strengths, weaknesses, what it is and is not intended to be. That's not to say that there aren't some people who (to borrow a phrase from another poster in this thread) are basically full faith tier missionaries who don't do that. Just that I see it a lot more often with DPR.
I wanted to piggyback off this and take it a step further by saying that DPR doesn't really tell me all that much abut a class. First because I think because most people aren't calculating Damage Per Round, but Damage If All My Attacks Hit In The Best Way Possible (DIAMAHITBWP), or perhaps simply their average damage per hit (DPH). That's not to say Damage per hit isn't helpful. It's probably good to know that if a character deals 300 damage on a hit, a DM may want to give his characters some more health.
Here's what DPR doesn't tell me
- The character's ability to get into the range where he can actually do this damage
- The character's ability to overcome DR/Hardness/whatever other defenses are in the way
- The character's ability to absorb damage, making his damage output more reliable (see every rogue ever)
E.G. The Barbarian deal 300 damage per round. That could kill a dragon in 1 hit. That alone doesn't mean he would be that useful in a fight against a dragon
I'm not holding anything against the statistic for not telling me that information. It's not designed too. My bigger issue is that I think that it's either miscalculated or mislabeled as DPR when it's not really damage per round at all. It's still a nice tool to quickly look at damage outputs, but it's not really telling us the important stuff about the class's combat abilities.
It's the Runs Batted In of D&D statistics.

Nathanael Love |

EsperMagic... the tiers are explicitly not about PvP but about making sure no one gets accidentally overshadowed in... you guessed it, team play with friends. Saying the GM can adjust this, is irrelevant because the GM shouldn't have to fix it or know to fix, the classes should just be better balanced.
Despite the fact that tiers basically say "all martial always overshadowed!!!!!!!! OMG GAME BROKEN!!!!!!"
and yet Martial overshadow casters on a regular basis in actual game play.
Tier system and the arguments it is used to further do not accomplish anything.

Lemmy |

I think you're missing the point, which is this: there are possibly two distinct crowds that will never agree on what's important. Everybody can go on using the Internet to say things that trigger others' nerd rage and fill message boards with snarky posts, or just try not to piss everybody off all the time and get along.
So what? The alternative would be discussing nothing out of fear of someone being offended and/or nerdraging. If I'm in a forum is because I want to discuss something, and that's what I plan to do. If I want to talk about class balance, that's what I'll talk about. If someone decides to be offended and nerdrage over it, that's their choice, not mine.
Forget about AMF or dead magic. A caster, at his worst, is a useless wimp. I think that's off-putting for a lot of the fluff/fantasy types, hence these protracted debates where neither side is willing to concede any points.
Well, to be fair, everyone at their worst is a useless wimp.

Coriat |

The tier system counts "being really good at dealing and surviving damage" as one thing, then assigns that as essentially the lowest level/tier.
That is essentially saying it is valueless.
Well, as I said, I don't hang out on the boards where the tier system is said to get most discussed and dissected. However, to test this claim, I went back in this thread until I found a tier list, and will examine it. It was posted by Lemmy; see below.
This is how I see PF tier, based on full class potential, rather than just average optimization. I also assume the characters face a great variety of obstacles and challenges, not just combat. And that their enemies will use a great variety of tactics, not just physical damage.
Tier 1 - Too good (even if it often takes a great amount of game experience and system mastery to show all they are capable of): Wizard, Druid, Cleric and Witch. Sorcerer and Oracles too, if the GM allows them to exploit Paragon Surge.
Tier 2 - Not as good, but still too much: Sorcerer, Oracle and Master Summoner
Tier 2.5 - Still too good, just slightly less so than the last guys I listed: Every other Summoner archetype. Including vanilla and Synthesist. Most Blaster Sorcerer builds (Depending on how one-dimensional the build is, they might even fall further in the tier scale).
Tier 3 - Very Well balanced: Awesome at their main job, but still able to contribute in many different situations without breaking the game or stepping on anyone's toes: Alchemist, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus*, Paladin** and Anti-Paladin**.
Tier 3.5 - Almost there, but could use a small buff, IMO. These classes can be a bit too narrow-minded at times: Rangers**, Zen Archer Monk,
Sohei Monk, Barbarians with Spell Sunder.Tier 4 - Underpowered, but can still shine at their main job: Barbarian without Spell Sunder, Fighter,
Cavalier,Ninja***, Samurai... and Gunslinger if those firearms rules weren't so obnoxious (targeting touch AC makes no sense whatsoever, and goes against a base assumption of the game).Tier 5 - Underpowered and easily one-upped by other classes with similar roles: Rogue and Monk****. Adept is probably the one NPC class to be above tier 6.
Tier 6 - Why are you playing this?: Commoner, Warrior, Expert and Aristocrat.
In bold are classes above the lowest tier which, in my estimation*, are or can choose to be very good at both dealing damage and surviving at once.
In italics are classes that (again IMO) are or can choose to be very good at dealing damage or surviving, but perhaps are likely to have to make some tradeoffs between the two (not to say they will be glass cannons all, or nondamaging defenders, but they mostly won't be notably impressive at both at once).
Struck out are classes that I'm not really familiar enough to be comfortable evaluating.
Now... I bolded or italicized most classes up here. Which actually really just says that most classes, including all the higher tier ones on the list except probably the Witch, can be built to be pretty competent at this.
In fact, I'm pretty sure, because I've read other posts of his, that Lemmy put Rogues and Monks at the lowest tier because he considers them to have problems dealing and/or surviving damage - which is the exact opposite of what you assert should be true of a lowest tier class. Also, at tier 3 ("very well balanced"), there are a lot of damage dealing/surviving classes, like Paladin/Antipaladin.
So I am not sure that after my analysis here, I can bear out this specific criticism of yours that damage dealing and surviving is relegated to the lowest tier. I see the higher tiers full of potential damage dealers (who could choose that and/or a lot of other things), and the middle 3/3.5 tier is staffed with several very damage/survival oriented classes like the paladin and barbarian.
*if you have specific questions about my reasoning for one or a few classes, by all means ask and I'll go into it, but please don't ask me to explain every one as I do not feel like writing a ten page essay

aegrisomnia |
So what? The alternative would be discussing nothing out of fear of someone being offended and/or nerdraging. If I'm in a forum is because I want to discuss something, and that's what I plan to do. If I want to talk about class balance, that's what I'll talk about. If someone decides to be offended and nerdrage over it, that's their choice, not mine.
Well, my assumption is that other people find these debates as futile and pointless as I do. I don't have any problems with theorycrafters comparing spreadsheets, if that's what's fun; go for it. Just remarking on the inherent differences between the two crowds and how ever coming to any meaningful conclusion, short of live and let live, is probably not realistic.
Well, to be fair, everyone at their worst is a useless wimp.
Meh, I'd say a caster without spells is probably worse off than a fighter without weapons, but I'm really not interested in discussing that. For starters, the caster will be assumed to have had months to prepare a golem army for that eventuality.

Coriat |

Meh, I'd say a caster without spells is probably worse off than a fighter without weapons, but I'm really not interested in discussing that.
Heh. Well feel no obligation to respond then I guess, but don't post it if you don't want someone else to maybe discuss it :p
I think it depends. There will be some situation where a naked fighter using his BAB to punch something for 1d3 nonlethal and an AoO might be more useful, and others where an out of spells wizard using his Int to make the knowledge checks to reveal the monsters' weaknesses for his companions will be more useful. The latter does seem perhaps more valuable to me overall, if nothing else because the punch is likely to be ineffective against CR=APL or higher monsters and only really likely to work out against much weaker foes (that are probably little threat to the rest of the party anyway) whereas the knowledge can be useful against weak or strong foes alike.

Lemmy |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Well, my assumption is that other people find these debates as futile and pointless as I do. I don't have any problems with theorycrafters , if that's what's fun; go for it. Just remarking on the inherent differences between the two crowds and how ever coming to any meaningful conclusion, short of live and let live, is probably not realistic.
That's the problem right here. You assume anyone discussing the imbalance between classes is a "theorycrafter comparing spreadsheets". What makes you think they have any less play time than you?
Just because their experience differ from your, it doesn't mean it never happened. I have seen the martial/caster disparity in play time and time again. 1 year after I first started playing D&D 3.0, it's was pretty obvious to me.Meh, I'd say a caster without spells is probably worse off than a fighter without weapons, but I'm really not interested in discussing that. For starters, the caster will be assumed to have had months to prepare a golem army for that eventuality.
I'd say they both about as useless as such comparison is pointless. After a while it becomes quite difficult to run through all your spells... Especially when you can use lowish-level spells for most out-of-combat situations. And a Fighter becomes more and more difficult to be disarmed.
In practice, a Wizard who runs out of spells is just as useful as a Fighter who runs out of weapons, which is to say, they might as well not be there. Well, at least in combat... Out of Combat the Wizard at least have his skills (and cantrips). Non-Int-based casters would have a tougher time being useful, though.

Coriat |

Non-Int-based casters would have a tougher time being useful, though.
Many of the non wizard primary casters (and even some of the wizard of certain schools) have other useful combat powers they can use if they have no spells left.
For example, a cleric has channel energy, an oracle has mystery powers, a witch has hexes, a druid has Wild Shape and melee and an animal companion.
So it kind of seems like they might actually have an easier time staying useful.
That's the problem right here. You assume anyone discussing the imbalance between classes is a "theorycrafter comparing spreadsheets". What makes you think they have any less play time than you?
This one is quite right, though. ;)

Lemmy |

Lemmy wrote:Non-Int-based casters would have a tougher time being useful, though.Many of the non wizard primary casters (and even some of the wizard of certain schools) have other useful combat powers they can use if they have no spells left.
For example, a cleric has channel energy, an oracle has mystery powers, a witch has hexes, a druid has Wild Shape and melee and an animal companion.
So it kind of seems like they might actually have an easier time staying useful.
Ah, indeed... I for some reason limited myself to arcane casters... But, yeah, Druids have lots of awesome class features and an okay number of class skills... And Clerics can at least heal people, I guess.
And hey, cantrips are still unlimited, and you can accomplish a lot with just Detect Magic and Prestidigitation. lol.

Coriat |

And Clerics can at least heal people, I guess.
Hey now, you seem a bit down on the spell less cleric. Channel isn't the only option, it's just the one I mentioned. There's a fair few domain powers that can pick up the slack as well.
No spells for your Madness cleric? I'm sure you can find some way to get some use out of touching someone and giving them a -lots to attacks and saves in return for a +lots to their Jump and Craft(basketweaving) checks ;)

Lemmy |

No spells for your Madness cleric? I'm sure you can find some way to get some use out of touching someone and giving them a -lots to attacks and saves in return for a +lots to their Jump and Craft(basketweaving) checks ;)
Yeah... That no-save ability is pretty fun. lol. There a few cool domains... Most of them are just "meh", though.

Nathanael Love |

Oh, and by the way,
Squirrel_Dude wrote:It's the Runs Batted In of D&D statistics.Heh. I'll have to remember this. Thumbs up, and good post overall.
If this is true the the tier system is that absurdly high PER of all the players on teams that still can't make the playoffs *cough* Mike Trout*cough*

CWheezy |
I think lemmy overrates martial characters in his list. I copy pasted with adjustments:
Tier 1 - Too good (even if it often takes a great amount of game experience and system mastery to show all they are capable of):
Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Witch, Paragon Surge casters
Tier 2 - Pretty good, but not when compared to tier 1:
Sorcerer, Oracle, Summoner
Tier 3 - Very Well balanced: Awesome at their main job, but still able to contribute in many different situations without breaking the game or stepping on anyone's toes:
Inquisitor, Alchemist, Bard, Magus.
Tier 4 - Good at their main job, but lack the flexibility of the Tier 3. These classes are fine where they are. They are still have less power overall, but they are close enough to not worry about it:
Paladin**/Anti-Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger, Ninja***
Tier 5 - Underpowered and easily one-upped by other classes with similar roles:
Gunslinger, Fighter, Cavalier, Samurai, Rogue, Monk
Explanation of changes: I don't think there is that much difference between the tier 3/3.5 and tier 2/2.5, and I don't think it is really worth differentiating. Also, I rate in the tier from left to right
Gunslingers are still tier 5 because all they can do is shoot, and they have a bunch of limiting things that hurt them in actual combat situations. Being short range and MISFIRES add up. Still top of Tier 5 though
Cavalier and Samurai are like bad fighters, they are really awkward even with the challenge ability, so I moved them down to tier 5.
The only tier 5 archetype that I think actually moves the class anywhere is the "Ninja". The Zen archer is good, but he can still only shoot, so he stays in tier 5.
If I had any proposed changes, it would be to give more things like rage powers to the tier 5 classes. Quingong monk is a good start with better ki powers, but all the classes should have them. Gunslinger grit sounds really cool, but only one archetype will ever use it, the rest save it for quick clear :(

Squirrel_Dude |

Coriat wrote:Oh, and by the way,If this is true the the tier system is that absurdly high PER of all the players on teams that still can't make the playoffs *cough* Mike Trout*cough*Squirrel_Dude wrote:It's the Runs Batted In of D&D statistics.Heh. I'll have to remember this. Thumbs up, and good post overall.
PER (Player Effeciency Rating) is a basketball statistic. What you're probably thinking of is WAR, and also overly tying a baseball team's success to that individual player's skill.
And yes, Mike Trout probably should have won MVP 2 seasons ago over Miguel Cabrera because their offensive numbers were not that disimilar but Trout had far better defensive numbers, and was much better on the base paths.

DrDeth |

Nathanael Love wrote:And yet the Tome of Battle classes are in Tier 3 specifically because of their extremely high combat proficiency.The tier system counts "being really good at dealing and surviving damage" as one thing, then assigns that as essentially the lowest level/tier.
That is essentially saying it is valueless.
No, it's because they can do much more than just combat, and in fact for all intents and purposes many of the maneuvers are very very much like spells. I have a wonderful 3.5 Warblade, love the class. But as a one-off PvP we were supposed to build the 'evil counterpart" of us. I built a Bear warrior who crushed my WB in three rounds. So, they aren't quite tippy-top in melee, but the maneuvers make up for a lot.
Hey look, on this I agree with Anzyr!

DrDeth |

Nathanael Love wrote:What other task besides combat is in nearly every session and an incredibly important part of most of the sessions its in?- Talking to NPCs
- Gathering Information
- Finding Your Enemy Before It Finds You
- Exploring/Travelling
- Healing/Buffing
- Infiltration
- Dealing With Environmental Hazards (This Includes More than Traps)
All of which the Ranger (t4) and the Rogue (also t4) excel at. In fact many folks put some fighters in the same tier. So, those things don't seem to have much to do with tier ratings. And the Bard is REALLY good at a couple of them, and only makes T3.

DrDeth |

Bookplate of Recall,
Which the thief simply peels off and it destroyed when the mob burns the book. And even if the thief doesn't think to peel off "If the item is in the possession of another creature, the spell does not work, but you know who the possessor is and roughly where that creature is located when the summons occurs."
Yeah, I thought it was something like this. meh.

Ilja |

I would assume "Spellcasting Services" covers it pretty well. Not any difference between "Hey cast this for me" and "Hey lemme see that".Iffy for 9th level spells but beyond that you're good in a Metropolis.
Uhm yeah no that's not it. Spellcasting services is explicitly for having someone cast a spell for you. You may houserule it all you want but that's not what the rules say.
And yes, they might be miles different. Kinda like the difference between going to a restaurant and ordering a meal and going to a restaurant and asking to get their recipes. Some may say yes, but a lot will say "no, that's our thing, but we can cook for you if you pay us".Also of course, note that the spellcasting services might be provided by someone who does not have a spellbook. Not that it really matters since the rules are clear: Spellcasting services is about getting spells cast for you, not for getting access to the casters spellbook if they have such a thing.
The two are not equivalent.The first is a location that exists in the game world. You must us Fiat to remove that as a possibility.
In A game world, not THE game world.
Golarion =/= Pathfinder. Just because something exists in golarion does not mean it's part of the pathfinder ruleset.
The difference being that the Wizard has the capability to do that in Core, while the Fighter does not.
So far your "proof" has been house rules and setting specific material. So no.

Anzyr |

Anzyr wrote:Bookplate of Recall,Which the thief simply peels off and it destroyed when the mob burns the book. And even if the thief doesn't think to peel off "If the item is in the possession of another creature, the spell does not work, but you know who the possessor is and roughly where that creature is located when the summons occurs."
Yeah, I thought it was something like this. meh.
Still much better then anything the fighter has. Keep in mind, even if it is in someone's possession you now know who and a general idea where. And if the thief doesn't keep it on them, you've solved your problem.

Nathanael Love |

Lemmy wrote:All of which the Ranger (t4) and the Rogue (also t4) excel at. In fact many folks put some fighters in the same tier. So, those things don't seem to have much to do with tier ratings. And the Bard is REALLY good at a couple of them, and only makes T3.Nathanael Love wrote:What other task besides combat is in nearly every session and an incredibly important part of most of the sessions its in?- Talking to NPCs
- Gathering Information
- Finding Your Enemy Before It Finds You
- Exploring/Travelling
- Healing/Buffing
- Infiltration
- Dealing With Environmental Hazards (This Includes More than Traps)
Well yeah, because those are martial classes and we have to make sure they are "drool" and are useless according to the tier system. So even if they excel at every single listed non-combat thing mentioned and are pretty good at combat we have to slap them into a low tier so we can complain about full casters more.
Also, for some reason there is no love for the bard. Even though there are bard builds as/more powerful than sorc builds (or were in 3.5), but you know, it shows 6 spell levels so we will put it at a lower tier.

Rynjin |

Using the default setting of the game is much simpler and able to be judged than some homebrewed world, which can vary wildly.
The rules were written with Golarion (or a Golarion-like world) in mind. Said world has an easy to find place for all your spell scribing needs.
That says a lot, I think.
And saying you can get a spell from a Wizard who can cast spells is not a houserule. That's written into the game.
You can find a Wizard in most towns.
You said the issue was with finding a Wizard. Obviously that isn't the case.
Also, another bad analogy from you.
A customer asking for the chef's recipe is potentially reducing business (since they can make it for themselves, and their friends) or might be a competitor. It's a bad idea.
However, Wizards are scholars, the magical equivalent of scientists. They share already found discoveries with their peers because that's their entire purpose for existing, to amass knowledge.

Kudaku |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

Well yeah, because those are martial classes and we have to make sure they are "drool" and are useless according to the tier system. So even if they excel at every single listed non-combat thing mentioned and are pretty good at combat we have to slap them into a low tier so we can complain about full casters more.
Also, for some reason there is no love for the bard. Even though there are bard builds as/more powerful than sorc builds (or were in 3.5), but you know, it shows 6 spell levels so we will put it at a lower tier.
I wasn't going to post anymore in this thread, but you really need to tone down the aggression if you don't want this thread to be locked.
And I think you'll find that there's tons of love for the bard! I'd say the majority of people who are fans of the tier system actually prefer (and in many cases actively promote) making the balance point of the classes around tier 3, not tier 1s.

Squirrel_Dude |

Squirrel_Dude wrote:Nathanael Love wrote:And yet the Tome of Battle classes are in Tier 3 specifically because of their extremely high combat proficiency.The tier system counts "being really good at dealing and surviving damage" as one thing, then assigns that as essentially the lowest level/tier.
That is essentially saying it is valueless.
No, it's because they can do much more than just combat, and in fact for all intents and purposes many of the maneuvers are very very much like spells. I have a wonderful 3.5 Warblade, love the class. But as a one-off PvP we were supposed to build the 'evil counterpart" of us. I built a Bear warrior who crushed my WB in three rounds. So, they aren't quite tippy-top in melee, but the maneuvers make up for a lot.
Hey look, on this I agree with Anzyr!
Notice, that I said combat, and not specifically melee. The classes bring more to combat than just the ability to usually (Your Bear Warrior is a good example of when they can't) win 1 on 1 fights.
Warblades aren't the best at dealing damage (Barbarian) or lasting long in a fight (That's more the Crusader's niche), however the maneuvers system can help them achieve the maneuverability they need, and the defensive abilities to ignore spells to be better in melee overall than other classes. They can also use maneuvers like those of White Raven to make their teammates better in melee to make combat easier. Crusaders can force opponents to attack them or face debuffs, all while being incredibly hard to kill. The swordsage can, from the beginning of the game, summon a tiny elemental to flank with themselves or grant themselves concealment when they move, and at higher levels teleport short distances or get a near-identical effect to air-walk.

Ilja |

Using the default setting of the game is much simpler and able to be judged than some homebrewed world, which can vary wildly.
The rules were written with Golarion (or a Golarion-like world) in mind. Said world has an easy to find place for all your spell scribing needs.
Using any specific world is GM fiat. I thought the tier system should be setting neutral? When I said campaign paradigms affected things people seemed opposed to that, calling it GM fiat and such, yet now a specific kind of GM fiat is to be assumed part of the rules even though it's not?
And saying you can get a spell from a Wizard who can cast spells is not a houserule. That's written into the game.You can find a Wizard in most towns.
Yes, you can get a spell from a wizard who can cast a spell. What is not written is that you can get a spell from _any_ wizard who can cast spells.
Also what is not written is that you can find a wizard in most towns, that's a house rule pure and simple.
A customer asking for the chef's recipe is potentially reducing business (since they can make it for themselves, and their friends) or might be a competitor. It's a bad idea.However, Wizards are scholars, the magical equivalent of scientists. They share already found discoveries with their peers because that's their entire purpose for existing, to amass knowledge.
Uhm... That's another house rule yet again. Wizards could just as well keep the knowledge for themselves in order to amass power. Saying they do either is again, GM fiat.
Also, I think there's a fair amount of scientists in the real world who would say no if you asked them to share their research with you. For example researchers at medical companies. Basically any time there's profit in keeping it for yourself. Such as you know, keeping a spellcasting service more relevant.

Rynjin |

Using any specific world is GM fiat. I thought the tier system should be setting neutral? When I said campaign paradigms affected things people seemed opposed to that, calling it GM fiat and such, yet now a specific kind of GM fiat is to be assumed part of the rules even though it's not?
"People".
I am a specific person Ilja, please only talk to things I have said.
But yes, using a setting specifically catered to make casters suck is Fiat. Using the default setting of the game is not.
Yes, you can get a spell from a wizard who can cast a spell. What is not written is that you can get a spell from _any_ wizard who can cast spells.Also what is not written is that you can find a wizard in most towns, that's a house rule pure and simple.
The rule itself is so nebulous ("caster") that something's got to give here. It's no more Fiat here to adjudicate than it is Fiat to say a dead man can't act.
Uhm... That's another house rule yet again. Wizards could just as well keep the knowledge for themselves in order to amass power. Saying they do either is again, GM fiat.
You've shifted (a while back) to talking about fluff based restrictions instead of mechanical ones (setting, availability of nebulously defined rules, etc.). I have shifted to talk to your point.
I don't particularly like talking about such subjective things, because they just lead to frustration because nobody can agree, but that's the topic of conversation you seem to desire.
So, am I houseruling for using the default fluff of the game, or no?
Such is the path of the wizard. These shrewd magic-users seek, collect, and covet esoteric knowledge
Also, I think there's a fair amount of scientists in the real world who would say no if you asked them to share their research with you. For example researchers at medical companies. Basically any time there's profit in keeping it for yourself. Such as you know, keeping a spellcasting service more relevant.
Research and discoveries are different things.
Discoveries mean nothing if they're not shared with the scientific community. You could bet that if a man discovered a cure for cancer, he would be publishing his work and cashing in on that as much as possible. Happily, in fact.
Any known spell is, by its very nature, something that has already been discovered.
Asking a Wizard to see his notes on anew 6th level spell that can make an army out of common tree frogs in the blink of an eye? Not likely.
Asking a Wizard to share his knowledge of the Fireball spell? Equivalent to asking an engineer to explain how a vacuum cleaner works.
I doubt he'd have an objection beyond time spent, and since you're paying him...

Ilja |

Setting specific rules are only relevant in setting specific discussions. Going into a tarrasque-killing thread and claiming "the tarrasque is already dead"
because.one specific setting - even if its the default - has it already beig dead is pointless. Likewise, "spells are easy to come by in golarion so weshould always assume thwyy are" is a bad foundaton of a discussion (meant as a paraphrase, not a quote).
Wait, claiming that almost every town has a wizard when it only states caster - of which there are many - while the rules are ultraspecific on most other purchasable things is equal to claiming dead people can act? Thexact same claim could be made that nearly all are sorcerers. Both are equally supported by the rules.
And actually, no i did not shift to discussing fluff - i said that what some seem to take for granted is not written into the rules but is rather a gm fiat. You usibg nebulous rules for the pricing of access to a spellbook to draw conclusions about how common wizards with access to spells are.
I say we ignore the nebulous rules and vague gm fiat things alltogether, and go for what the books actually provide rules for: accessability of scrolls.

Nathanael Love |

Nathanael Love wrote:Well yeah, because those are martial classes and we have to make sure they are "drool" and are useless according to the tier system. So even if they excel at every single listed non-combat thing mentioned and are pretty good at combat we have to slap them into a low tier so we can complain about full casters more.
Also, for some reason there is no love for the bard. Even though there are bard builds as/more powerful than sorc builds (or were in 3.5), but you know, it shows 6 spell levels so we will put it at a lower tier.
I wasn't going to post anymore in this thread, but you really need to tone down the aggression if you don't want this thread to be locked.
And I think you'll find that there's tons of love for the bard! I'd say the majority of people who are fans of the tier system actually prefer (and in many cases actively promote) making the balance point of the classes around tier 3, not tier 1s.
And I have no idea how the Bard can be considered tier 3 instead of at a minimum tier 2-- except the obvious answer that its a concept designed to illustrate a point/ reinforce an agenda rather than any realistic measure of relative power.

kardar233 |
Anzyr wrote:Bookplate of Recall,Which the thief simply peels off and it destroyed when the mob burns the book. And even if the thief doesn't think to peel off "If the item is in the possession of another creature, the spell does not work, but you know who the possessor is and roughly where that creature is located when the summons occurs."
Yeah, I thought it was something like this. meh.
There are lots of good ways to defend a spellbook. Shrink Item can hide it in difficult-to-access places, like in your mouth; something that would make it very difficult for someone to get it. Assuming your spellbook is reasonably tough (make a cover out of mithril or magically harden it) you can put Explosive Runes on the cover, so just by looking at it a potential thief would explode, something that would definitely wake the party up if not kill the thief (no save because of proximity). You can buy decoy spellbooks and fill them full of Sepia Snake Sigils and Explosive Runes so that if the thief tries to determine which one is real they get spells to the face. You can use Secret Page to hide the text of your spellbook and make it look like a decoy or entirely different book. At higher levels, you can keep your spellbook in a safe place and use Greater Scrying to prepare from it without actually having it on you.
It is extremely difficult to steal the spellbook of a competent wizard, to say the least.

kardar233 |
Also because the Bard's spell list is mostly limited to Enchantment, which is a fairly situational school, and Illusion, which is also situational (though the power of Illusion spells are mostly based on your DM rather than your opponents). It lacks a lot of the powerful Conjuration and Transmutation spells that make the Sorcerer so good.