|
Which is exactly the problem.Those are not the models for Pathfinder martials.Well, depends.
I mean, Dante (Devil May Cry), Kratos (God of War), Asura (Asura's Wrath), Bayonetta, etc. all come pretty darn close or hit the mark of being mythical figures (though to be fair, two of the four examples ARE mythical figures, one being Ares' "replacement" and the other being a god).
I think the point Rynjin is making here is that the 'model' for the PF martial is a guy who fights other humans, maybe some odd and exotic stuff, but generally tops off about CR 8+.
And that's fine if you want your game to go only that high (A Barb/Ranger/Paladin is still better, but QSS), but if you want to have a fighter contribute against a high level foe, they need to be modeled off of something that can actually FIGHT against that foe. Aside from raw damage, Fighters aren't suited to fight Balors (Yes, I've seen the damage threads about Fighter Man vs. Balor), and it's even worse if you're melee.
We need more fantastic martial models or less fantastic Wizard models (Side note: Who IS the Wizard model, as aside from purposely overpowered characters in fiction, I don't see any Wizard who carries the power of a PF Wizard)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The PF Wizard is every Wizard from fiction rolled into one. That's not a joke or sarcasm, that's really what they are. They are meant to be able to do all the things Necromancers, Summoners, Enchanters, Evokers, etc. do in stories, except all in one class... because reasons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The closest to a PF/D&D Wizard I can think of are the really old, really powerful Wizards from the Dresden Files series.
And even then, they require hundreds of years of practice, a bunch of magical foci, and usually quite a bit of preparation to pull off anything big (barring the Archmage guy who can whip out big magic like it's going out of style).
Even then, they're more like Sorcerers who can get new spells like a Wizard, but not as "on the fly" for anything besides blasty spells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are other games for that.
D&D has always walked the line of trying to make classes do what classes are supposed to do according to their models. Fighters in the stories Pathfinder/D&D are based on did not use anime-like powers. They were extraordinary warriors with weapons capable of felling hundreds of men in a fight, not casting huge energy blasts with their weapons.
There are a pile of classes that allow you to do alternative types of powers like a Magus or Alchemist. Why can't you play one of them? Is it because you want to play a fighter, but have it be more like a Magus? They give players a ton of options for being a pure caster, a mixed martial-caster, or a pure martial. Mix and match as needed. The power in all its form is there for nearly whatever you want to make. If you want something else, you find a game...
Trust me, I play other classes because Fighters/Rogues/Monks can't do what it says on the tin, which is lamentable. Fighters aren't Lords of Battle, they're barely above Warriors.
PF Fighters CAN'T fell hundreds of warriors in a battle. At best, they can attack 8 at once after a crappy feat chain (Whirlwind Attack), which isn't impressive. I'll admit, they're not based off anime, that wasn't my point here. My point is that when a character can't do anything new after 20 levels of play, that kind of static experience shouldn't be the norm.
I do play other classes (Alchemist being a favorite, because it ironically enough has such mutable mechanics that allow it to do so many things at once), but I'd rather not have Fighters being a 1 trick pony that stopped being impressive after 6th level. It's why I liked the TOB and to a lesser extent the PF Barbarian, as those two had a sense of scale to them. Find me a Fighter Feat that scales, one that requires Fighter Levels to take. What I want is a scaling Fighter, not a Fighter that we have now. Same goes for Rogue Talents and...poor, poor monks.
Yes, they can fell hundreds of warriors in battle. Launcelot did not do it in one round. You seem to want to do it in one blow and Launcelot felled them in a long, drawn out battle. Launcelot was the greatest knight of his time and he couldn't do anything other than fight very well and perhaps lay on hands. One of the few knights with a magical power was Gawain who gained great strength during certain times of the day.
This is where the schism is happening. There is the traditional school of fantasy gaming that wants Pathfinder to stay true to its roots with a loose simulation of old style fantasy novels. There is the new school that wants their archetypes based on video games and anime.
This is the schism. It's the schism that split D&D to begin with. It seems to be raising it's ugly head in Pathfinder in this constant martial/caster disparity talk.
Unless I'm wrong Pathfinder was created because a large segment of traditionalists hated the new game. So why are you coming over here to try to push Pathfinder to become a game that a huge segment of the fantasy gaming base hated?
I don't want my archetypes based on video games/anime. I don't want martials cutting open rifts in space and time with their axes. I don't want rangers doing that kind of garbage either.
I want rangers to be more like Aragorn. A little magic, a lot of swordplay and woodcraft, very grounded in a mix of the mundane and some useful nature magic I can see in a narrative.
I want my fighters to be masters of arms. I want them to cut down armies not in single blows, but in long, drawn out battles where they fight for hours and walk out covered in blood and guts with chipped swords and dented armor.
I want paladins based on Roland, Charlemagne, and Galahad. Holy knights of the greatest purity blessed by their gods to carry out their holy mission.
A wizard is supposed to be the most fearsome figure in a story due to all his strange arcane abilities. That doesn't make the competitive young male player happy, but it makes someone like myself who wants to simulate a fantasy story happy because it fits what the archetype is supposed to accomplish.
I continued Pathfinder because classes do what they're supposed to do. I can built a ton of different character types I find in stories. I'm not interested in "balance" or "narrative power". The narrative shouldn't even be determined by class powers for the most part. It should be determined by player choices that drive the story forward. A DM should give every class some role in the narrative. If a player decides to go all in on combat, he shouldn't be unhappy when he has no place in the narrative.
Pathfinder is cooperative story telling. Reducing the GM to being a referee there only to allow some player to flex his ego due to his ability to choose a character with powerful character options is not something I would be interested in. I find it hard to imagine that Paizo module designers would in any way enjoy being told to "Write the module like you're a referee for the players. Make it more like a fighting game. Story secondary, combat most important." I can't see most DMs being motivated to run that type of game.
I don't mind if they add books that allow players like yourself to turn this into a video game/anime series. For myself this game's attraction is cooperative story telling and I want archetypes based on what characters can do in fantasy books, not fantasy video games or cartoons. I don't want them balanced against each other, I want them created based on what they should be able to do. I want them to do it at level 1 and at level 20...just better.
Say what you want about casters, they still cast spells at lvl 20 the same as a fighter still swings his sword. I like the consistency of that paradigm.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not interested in "balance" or "narrative power".
Yes, obviously.
So why are you in this discussion?
I want archetypes based on what characters can do in fantasy books
So do I.
Malazan Book of the Fallen has a lot of good examples of what powerful martials should be able to do.
I always get a good chuckle over how people think "fantasy video games and anime" are the only mediums with powerful non-caster characters.
In fact, the VAST MAJORITY OF ALL FICTION does not paint spellcasters as being so high above even the non-caster heroes of the tale.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, they can...There are other games for that.
D&D has always walked the line of trying to make classes do what classes are supposed to do according to their models. Fighters in the stories Pathfinder/D&D are based on did not use anime-like powers. They were extraordinary warriors with weapons capable of felling hundreds of men in a fight, not casting huge energy blasts with their weapons.
There are a pile of classes that allow you to do alternative types of powers like a Magus or Alchemist. Why can't you play one of them? Is it because you want to play a fighter, but have it be more like a Magus? They give players a ton of options for being a pure caster, a mixed martial-caster, or a pure martial. Mix and match as needed. The power in all its form is there for nearly whatever you want to make. If you want something else, you find a game...
Trust me, I play other classes because Fighters/Rogues/Monks can't do what it says on the tin, which is lamentable. Fighters aren't Lords of Battle, they're barely above Warriors.
PF Fighters CAN'T fell hundreds of warriors in a battle. At best, they can attack 8 at once after a crappy feat chain (Whirlwind Attack), which isn't impressive. I'll admit, they're not based off anime, that wasn't my point here. My point is that when a character can't do anything new after 20 levels of play, that kind of static experience shouldn't be the norm.
I do play other classes (Alchemist being a favorite, because it ironically enough has such mutable mechanics that allow it to do so many things at once), but I'd rather not have Fighters being a 1 trick pony that stopped being impressive after 6th level. It's why I liked the TOB and to a lesser extent the PF Barbarian, as those two had a sense of scale to them. Find me a Fighter Feat that scales, one that requires Fighter Levels to take. What I want is a scaling Fighter, not a Fighter that we have now. Same goes for Rogue Talents and...poor, poor monks.
What you want is to play at Level 1-6. You just don't want to admit it for some bizarre reason. Because all those people you named aren't higher then level 6. Your Level 6 Lancelot can easily kill all the level 1-3 Warriors he wants. So play that level range, while the rest of try to get an improved 10+ range. Then we'll both be happy ok?
|
|
@Raith
All of those examples are like 1-5 examples. Which is the problem. There's no example higher than a 5th level character. And if all you want is a slug fest against an army of opponents who really aren't 'worth your steel' (which wouldn't work unless you were immune to crits, since eventually they'd take you down through sheer statistics), that's fine.
I'm not asking for blade beams and ki magic, I'm asking for 20 levels to mean a new tactic that only they can do.
I'm not sure how you determine what Tier a class is but I've had Barbarian that did a ton of damage. Had a decent list of skills being human with 14 intelligence. I had great saves thanks to rage powers. I could fly but it used up my rage very quickly. I took spell sunder for spells I needed to get rid of. I ended up being a casters worst nightmare.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really wish the people who keep pushing for this kind of suped up martial would just WRITE THE CLASS THEY WANT.
They complain all the time about how Wizard is too good and Martials can't get anything nice, but then offer no actual solution, denigrate any possible solution you offer and are generally unconstructive.
You want the martial based on Celtic Myth? Then write it.
(Raises hand) Houstonderek, TOZ, and I (et al.) have done that.
Fark Trollman and K also did it in the Tomes stuff for 3.5.And Szatany's Ultimate Classes scaled back the casters instead.
One thing all threee of those efforts have in common is that they're free -- we're interested in fixing problems, not in churning out stuff for profit.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure how you determine what Tier a class is but I've had Barbarian that did a ton of damage.
Tiers are generally defined not in terms of power, and especially not in terms of combat effectiveness, but in terms of flexibility.
Roughly:
* tier 6 can't do anything well (Commoner, Warrior)
* tier 5 can do a marginal task well (Rogue, Monk)
* tier 4 can do one major task well (Fighter, Barbarian)
* tier 3 can do several major tasks well (Magus, Bard)
* tier 2 can do anything well in theory, but is usually restricted by build (Sorcerer, Oracle)
* tier 1 can do anything well, and can break your game by doing something unexpected (Wizard, Cleric).
Doing a ton of damage is one thing -- hence Barbarian is generally considered to be tier 4. It's not clear that your Barbarian could lead an army, negotiate a treaty, break into a hidden fortress, pilot a ship, and so forth.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The desire to make martials better isn't a desire to turn Traditional D&D into a video game/anime series. You keep trotting out that line in a cheap effort to discredit anyone who recognizes that balance will be impossible to achieve while one set of classes is supposed to be grounded in reality and another set of classes is not.
How about an Eldritch Knight? Is he an anime character because he has both magic and fighting ability? What about a combat-oriented Cleric or Oracle? Does anyone seriously think the Fighter is on par with these 9th-level spellcasters because he has Full BAB and Weapon Training?
According to the logic of the game's own designers, mundane classes will always be underpowered compared to casters. Always. Bows are just plain better than Crossbows because they can fire faster? Fair enough. Follow the logic to its conclusion: Magical people are just plain better than non-magical people, because they have magic. Therefore, the martials need to be somehow innately magical in their own right, and not be dependent on magic items that eat up WBL (on which they are more dependent than casters, due to the need for magic weapon and armor) and are often subject to the whim of the DM or the luck of random loot. I'm not saying they all need spells just like the casters get, but they need something.
At low levels, by all means, keep things realistic. Low levels are also where spells are not that powerful, casters don't get many of them in a day, magic items are not common, and the party isn't generally fighting dragons or stopping extraplanar invasions. If you want that sort of game, play E6. The Mundane Melee Fighter is a low level concept for a low level game.
|
I'm not sure how you determine what Tier a class is but I've had Barbarian that did a ton of damage. Had a decent list of skills being human with 14 intelligence. I had great saves thanks to rage powers. I could fly but it used up my rage very quickly. I took spell sunder for spells I needed to get rid of. I ended up being a casters worst nightmare.
Tier isn't a damage thing, think of it more like how many options for resolution and ways to contribute a character has.
A Paladin can pretty effectively be a tank, a dpr machine, and a party face, while also being a reasonable healer. His ability to resolve situations both socially and via direct combat, combined with his ability to fill multiple roles in the group, drops him in the high Tier 4 - Tier 3 group. Meanwhile, a Fighter has a strong emphasis on combat, few skill points, and few class abilities or relevant class skills that allow him to explore options outside of hitting things. He's good at one thing, and that's it. So he's Tier 4ish. A Rogue is pretty bad at combat, and all of his skills are capped by what are basically real-world limitations. He can kind of get by as a party face, but not really better than anyone else, so he's close to the bottom in Tier 5.
Then you've got the Wizard, who can literally fill every role in the party one way or another, and can deal with an issue by: save or suck, save or die, teleport around the problem and pretend it doesn't exist, send the problem to another plane of existence, charm the problem, etc. So they're Tier 1, because they have a huge array of options for resolution and a great versatility in the roles they can fill in the party.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No save spells are my favorite spells. Why roll dice to determine the outcome when you can simply determine the outcome.
Hi! Why is it that pathfinder is different from every other asymmetrical game?Oh look, another tier thread with all the familiar faces. Color me surprised and put me in the 'tier is a bullcrap construct' camp.
I don't think it is any different than any other game played with a game master, but I think it is worlds apart from any video game or system locked strictly in that cannot see any changes to any part of the world once it has begun.
The presence of a human on the other side of the table who can make adjustments on the fly to encounters, change enemy tactics on the fly, and have the world respond dynamically to player choices diminishes the need for perfect symmetry in abilities. It is what allows the game to function despite a hugely diverse player base that included rabid optimizers, completely casual players, and everything in-between (though admittedly they tend not to function as well at the same table). It is precisely why the system is so flexible.
Oh look, another tier thread with all the familiar faces. Color me surprised and put me in the 'tier is a bullcrap construct' camp.
You can also throw me in the 'narrative power is what you make of it' camp on both the caster and the martial PC side.
If you're going to ignore balance, why bother to comment on it?
This is a thread discussing tiers, so saying "There are no tiers" isn't helpful.
Please just let the people who believe in tiers discuss things that are relevant to us instead of saying "Tier's aren't real, here's no discussion behind it, bye."
Because the omnipresent nature of these threads contributes to the perception that tier is something built into game design, when in fact it is not and is a construct born out of the Min/Max character optimization boards and for the most part promoted (especially on the GITP forums) by people who have very little understanding of how the game is balanced. I've already seen one entire message board descend into preaching tier and advocating for the banning of numerous classes based on it, and I'd rather that cancer not spread here.
I won't clog up the thread, but I don't think having a few dissenting voices is a bad thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I won't clog up the thread, but I don't think having a few dissenting voices is a bad thing.Dissenting voices who have nothing to say but "Everyone who disagrees with me is a big jerk from a board full of jerks and has no understanding of how the game is balanced" are a bad thing, though.
Because that's what I said.
|
|
Because the omnipresent nature of these threads contributes to the perception that tier is something built into game design, when in fact it is not and is a construct born out of the Min/Max character optimization boards and for the most part promoted (especially on the GITP forums) by people who have very little understanding of how the game is balanced. I've already seen one entire message board descend into preaching tier and advocating for the banning of numerous classes based on it, and I'd rather that cancer not spread here.
I won't clog up the thread, but I don't think having a few dissenting voices is a bad thing.
This statement just shows that you don't actually understand what the Tier system is. It is not a Min/Max thing, it definitely is not a reflection of "people who have very little understanding of how the game is balanced". In fact, that's a very ignorant and insulting thing to say.
The Tier system is something that people reference constantly, even when they don't know they're doing it. It is an underlying reality of the system, and being able to understand that paradigm can lead to better class design and a better understanding of how to move forward with the system.
Tier = options for contribution and conflict resolution.
Rogues- not much in the way of good options
Fighters- one good option
Wizards- nearly as many options as there are spells in the game.
Everyone else- Somewhere along that spread
Understanding that spread that gives one a better understanding of how much versatility vs. direct power is appropriate for a character, and what the signs of a class or build having gone to far are.
Some people, on both sides of the scale, don't understand this paradigm and they misuse or misquote it and that creates issues. You Peter, don't understand it so you belittle people who talk about it. Others who talk about banning classes also don't understand what the Tier system is. It's not about power. I don't know how many times I can say that. I could have a Tier 1 class who is literally the worst damage dealer in the game, and a Tier 5 class who can do more damage in a hit than any existing class. It's about valid options for contribution and resolution, how many such options a class has, and how effective those options are.
You tell us then: How is the Tier system a meaningless construct, and under what method of balance is a Fighter just as versatile and powerful as a Wizard?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The trouble I have with Tier analysis is that it is often opinion presented as fact.
And it often fails to distinguish between PVP analysis and practical analysis of actual parties in play.
I'm not going so far as to say the assertions are wrong, it just seems like groupthink to me most times I see it.
AMiB and I had a long battle about this way back. He "won", IIRC, and I conceded that the analysis was not totally useless. But it is not so magically useful as to justify the importance it is sometimes implied to have. It certainly lacks precision, but it's good for making generalizations about classes and their capabilities for GMs to make good calls. Whether pinning a single class as Tier 3 or Tier 4 is helpful in any way, I would contest.
|
|
The trouble I have with Tier analysis is that it is often opinion presented as fact.
And it often fails to distinguish between PVP analysis and practical analysis of actual parties in play.
I'm not going so far as to say the assertions are wrong, it just seems like groupthink to me most times I see it.
AMiB and I had a long battle about this way back. He "won", IIRC, and I conceded that the analysis was not totally useless. But it is not so magically useful as to justify the importance it is sometimes implied to have. It certainly lacks precision, but it's good for making generalizations about classes and their capabilities for GMs to make good calls. Whether pinning a single class as Tier 3 or Tier 4 is helpful in any way, I would contest.
This goes both ways though. People who are often most opposed to the idea of the Tier system will say something like "Well the Fighter is really good at combat, so he shouldn't be as good at XYZ as this other class". This is a reference to the Tier system and reflects an opinion that the balancing point for a class should be something along the lines of a Tier 4, i.e. really good at just one thing. Understanding that this is a valuable and somewhat fluid scale for assessing a class' influence on a gaming environment helps make good class design.
The Synthesist Summoner is often quoted as being disruptive because he can do combat better than a Fighter, plus he still has really good options for battlefield control, social manipulation, and buffing. From the Tier perspective, what they're saying is "This class is a Tier 1-2 and it's making the game not fun for my other players". The Inquisitor is often cited as being one of the best built classes in Pathfinder. Under the Tier system, the Inquisitor is a solid Tier 3, so again, you find that understanding the ideology behind the Tier system can help you to recognize good or bad design. It's just a codification of numerous small principles that people are already considering and discussing all the time.
This goes both ways though. People who are often most opposed to the idea of the Tier system will say something like "Well the Fighter is really good at combat, so he shouldn't be as good at XYZ as this other class".
Perhaps this is so, but that is not my grievance. My grievance is a lack of concrete metrics for delineating Tier. I acknowledge that a rated spectrum of utility may be a useful thing to some people, but most adherents seem to lose sight of operational definitions entirely. They make a kind of religion out of it. Any utility goes out the window.
Claims of precision strike at the heart of my problem. You can opine that a class is Tier 3 or Tier 4, but can you prove it?
Please don't consider my complaint dealt with just because some people not me said some stuff that I'm not saying.
The Synthesist Summoner is often quoted as being disruptive because he can do combat better than a Fighter, plus he still has really good options for battlefield control, social manipulation, and buffing.
In my opinion, the Synthesist is an overrated gimmick that is easily balanced by any GM who is able to read a class over carefully. And no, I don't mean "singled out", I mean any GM doing their job and providing the requisite variety will deal with a synthesist by the numbers.
The horror stories you hear are almost universally about GMs who didn't fully understand the Summoner (Synthesist) before allowing it in their campaign, with players who misunderstood or overreached.
|
|
Perhaps this is so, but that is not my grievance. My grievance is a lack of concrete metrics for delineating Tier. I acknowledge that a rated spectrum of utility may be a useful thing to some people, but most adherents seem to lose sight of operational definitions entirely. They make a kind of religion out of it. Any utility goes out the window.
Claims of precision strike at the heart of my problem. You can opine that a class is Tier 3 or Tier 4, but can you prove it?
Please don't consider my complaint dealt with just because some people not me said some stuff that I'm not saying.
***
In my opinion, the Synthesist is an overrated gimmick that is easily balanced by any GM who is able to read a class over carefully. And no, I don't mean "singled out", I mean any GM doing their job and providing the requisite variety will deal with a synthesist by the numbers.
The horror stories you hear are almost universally about GMs who didn't fully understand the Summoner (Synthesist) before allowing it in their campaign, with players who misunderstood or overreached.
I will agree that the Tier system is not a concrete system. It's more of a slide gauge, and just about every class stretches across 2 or more areas of said gauge. Knowing that class A has more inherent options than class B is still a point of reference though, and one that can be valuable.
As to the Synthesist- I disagree, but only to a point. Yes, the biggest problem is that it was unnecessarily complex and a lot of people just couldn't or didn't want to take the time to wrap their head around it. However, it contained many design elements that Paizo specifically moved away from during the transition between 3.5 and PF (see- casters who can tank their physical stats and boost their mental stats, using a class ability to replace all of their crappy physical stats with really good ones), and it still managed to take an effectively full caster and build in the combat utility and effectiveness of classes that didn't have all the spellcasting options.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sweet zombies, I thought GitP was hostile. Can we get a little more snide condescension in this thread? I don't feel we've quite hit our quota.
There's a helluva lot of misunderstanding of what the Tier System is, how it is used, and why it is important. So let's try this on for size:
The Tier System is Descriptive - The TS doesn't make suggestions, recommendations, or value judgments. 100% of its use is in describing how a class is capable of interacting with the game world. It's not predictive - it does not certify that the class will behave that way. It's not restrictive - it doesn't say that a class or character should not exist. It only observes and then labels what is already there.
The Tier System Assumes Equal System Mastery - The TS is most useful if you know that everyone in your group has equivalent system mastery, and least useful if they don't. If the guy who really understands the system is playing the fighter and the newbie who's on his third session ever is playing the wizard, it's not gonna follow the model because there's a higher comprehension of options on one side or another.
The Tier System Measures Ability to Affect the Campaign World - Notably in the absence of DM fiat. The TS's measurements model how a class behaves within the rules, not outside of them.
The Tier System Does Not Deal in "Wrong", only "Weak" - The TS is not a tool that says 'anyone playing a Monk is wrong'. It does say, "You'll have a hard time." This distinction is very, very important to make.
The TS is a handy tool for DMs that lets them predict the theoretical strengths a group can bring to the table. This is great for pickup groups (after all, you can scale down your preparations later) or for groups that are experimenting with new classes or new ways of playing. It's also a good reference for designers, letting them sum up where they want to place a class's overall mechanical versatility and provide and instant list of other classes to compare it against. If my goal for, say, the Harrowed class is to land in T3 I'm telling you instantly that I want it to compare to Magus, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Bard, and the like - and that if it's measuring up to Wizard, Sorcerer, or, say, Fighter (on the 'low' end), I've failed to reach my goal.
Where this thread started is in the general perception that full BAB, high-hit die classes have to be low-tier because the current ones, for the most part, already are. Can we maybe address that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Claims of precision strike at the heart of my problem. You can opine that a class is Tier 3 or Tier 4, but can you prove it?
You don't need to, because Tier 3/4 guys can adventure together and still be OK. Likewise Tier 2/3. Shoot, a better build might straddle the boundary in some cases. But when you have Tier 2 and Tier 5 guys in the same party -- things tend to get a little wanky.
In my opinion, the Synthesist is an overrated gimmick that is easily balanced by any GM
Ninja'd by PoK, but this is the big source of disconnect. For people who play Story Hour, GM fiat-driven balance is the only kind there is, so a tiers concept is meaningless. It's only the people who actually follow the RAW, using the DM as a referee, that run into issues -- and only then when the Tier 1-2 classes don't massively self-gimp due to a gentleman's agreement (i.e., the people Dr Deth says aren't "playing correctly" or aren't playing "way you're intended to play").
You thought GitP was hostile? I'd hate to see you go to the Gaming Den, or /tg/.
You thought GitP was hostile? I'd hate to see you go to the Gaming Den, or /tg/.
Never been to Gaming Den, but /tg/ has nothing for me that I'm looking for in particular.
Because the omnipresent nature of these threads contributes to the perception that tier is something built into game design, when in fact it is not and is a construct born out of the Min/Max character optimization boards and for the most part promoted (especially on the GITP forums) by people who have very little understanding of how the game is balanced. I've already seen one entire message board descend into preaching tier and advocating for the banning of numerous classes based on it, and I'd rather that cancer not spread here.
I won't clog up the thread, but I don't think having a few dissenting voices is a bad thing.
This statement just shows that you don't actually understand what the Tier system is. It is not a Min/Max thing, it definitely is not a reflection of "people who have very little understanding of how the game is balanced". In fact, that's a very ignorant and insulting thing to say.
The Tier system is something that people reference constantly, even when they don't know they're doing it. It is an underlying reality of the system, and being able to understand that paradigm can lead to better class design and a better understanding of how to move forward with the system.
Tier = options for contribution and conflict resolution.
Rogues- not much in the way of good options
Fighters- one good option
Wizards- nearly as many options as there are spells in the game.
Everyone else- Somewhere along that spreadUnderstanding that spread that gives one a better understanding of how much versatility vs. direct power is appropriate for a character, and what the signs of a class or build having gone to far are.
Some people, on both sides of the scale, don't understand this paradigm and they misuse or misquote it and that creates issues. You Peter, don't understand it so you belittle people who talk about it. Others who talk about banning classes also don't understand what the Tier system is. It's not about power. I don't know how many times I can say that. I could have a Tier 1 class who is literally the worst damage dealer in the game, and a Tier 5 class who can do more damage in a hit than any existing class. It's about valid options for contribution and resolution, how many such options a class has, and how effective those options are.
I'm sorry, lets go to some direct quotes from this thread which is supposed to be a repost of the original tier post.
First paragraph:
My general philosophy is that the only balance that really matters in D&D is the interclass balance between the various PCs in a group. If the group as a whole is very powerful and flexible, the DM can simply up the challenge level and complexity of the encounters. If it's weak and inflexible, the DM can lower the challenge level and complexity. Serious issues arise when the party is composed of some members which are extremely powerful and others which are extremely weak, leading to a situation where the DM has two choices: either make the game too easy for the strong members, or too hard for the weak members. Neither is desireable.
I'm pretty much with him so far. Next his list of reasons for creating the list.
1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group
Here we go off the deep end. First reason for making the post is to provide a ranking system of PC power in a group based off of the class they are playing. That is an inherent assumption that class is the largest determining factor in the power of a group of characters, which falls flat on its face.
2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.
Still off the deep end with the assumption that simply by listing class we get an understanding of power.
3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).
Overt statement that some classes are more deserving of buffs and nerfs, supporting the idea that some are inherently more powerful.
4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a Fighter, and a Rogue, maybe you shouldn't let that fly.
Here's the first big substantial statement that can be attacked in terms of balance. A half Minotaur Water Orc is inherently far more unbalancing to the game than a cleric, archivist, and artificer on a fundamental level because he is inflating numbers outside of the baseline by a significant amount with no additional effort. There is no hoop jumping, no abuse of questionable rules, and an inherent problem in balance because said character is going to splatter CR appropriate enemies he gets close to without effort.
Beyond that, we continue to go along the path of "X classes (casters) over Y classes (not casters)".
5) To help homebrewers judge the power and balance of their new classes. Pick a Tier you think your class should be in, and when you've made your class compare it to the rest of the Tier. Generally, I like Tier 3 as a balance point, but I know many people prefer Tier 4. If it's stronger than Tier 1, you definitely blew it.
More statements about overt power. X tier classes are stronger than Y tier classes.
This post is NOT intended to state which class is "best" or "sucks." It is only a measure of the power and versitliity of classes for balance purposes.
Huh... That seems to be an outright statement that tier is representative of power as well as versatility (thanks to the author for the laughs I got at his misspelling).
Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier in terms of tier descriptions, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level. As a rule, parties function best when everyone in the party is within 2 Tiers of each other (so a party that's all Tier 2-4 is generally fine, and so is a party that's all Tier 3-5, but a party that has Tier 1 and Tier 5s in it may have issues).
Here we see some allowance for the player involved, which I do appreciate. I think player skill more than anything else is probably determination of how powerful a given character is outside of the GM.
On to the actual tier descriptions though, because here is the real meat. Emphasis added.
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 with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.
This seems like a pretty clear statement that these classes are more powerful, rather than simply having more options.
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 potentially 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 easily 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.
Continuing with the theme of game breaking, world smashing, and more powerful than other tiers not simply in options but in raw strength.
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. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. 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.
On and on we go about game breaking, and these classes not being as powerful. I'll stop here, because his descriptions of get more and more comical, and he goes to doing things like listing the Samurai class in the same 'tier' as the commoner.
It seems pretty clear that the tier system is about more than simply options.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On and on we go about game breaking, and these classes not being as powerful.
He's talking about narrative power, not combat power.
More specifically, about narrative power awarded by the rules, rather than by DM fiat and hand-waving.DPR =/= this kind of "power"
Options and Power are pretty interchangeable terms in a system like this.
The thing that MAKES a class powerful is its number of options.
If Class A has 5 viable options, and class B has 3 viable options, and class C has only 1 viable option, you get a sliding scale of power among the classes.
Here we go off the deep end. First reason for making the post is to provide a ranking system of PC power in a group based off of the class they are playing. That is an inherent assumption that class is the largest determining factor in the power of a group of characters, which falls flat on its face.
It does not fall flat with the implied assumption that every player has the same level of system mastery as each other.
Class IS the biggest determiner of what a character can do in this game. Nothing else has that level of influence on what you're going to be.
A Fighter is not going to be casting spells. Ever. His class has determined what he can do: Fight with weapons.
Some races change that up somewhat (an Ifrit Fighter can cast Burning Hands once a day, a Human Fighter might be able to hold his own in a skills race with non-human characters who also don't have a bunch of skills per level, etc.) but for the most part your class determines what you can do.
Every class (bar the Fighter) has something no other class can do.
If the things that class can do give that class more options than another class, it is pretty clear that the class has determined, with equal optimization among his party, that the class is more powerful than a comparable class.
On and on we go about game breaking, and these classes not being as powerful.He's talking about narrative power, not combat power.
More specifically, about narrative power awarded by the rules, rather than by DM fiat and hand-waving.
DPR =/= this kind of "power"
First, lets stop calling everything a GM does fiat, shall we? If the wizard finding other wizards to copy spells from isn't fiat then the fighter finding someone who can teleport him around, a gate to use, or another means of accomplishing his goals isn't fiat. The GM generating the world around the party is not fiat (in the sense of carrying the kind of negative connotations that GM fiat usually provokes).
To your actual point, first the whole concept of narrative power as presented by most people is rooted in ideas that are antithetical to PF as a whole for two reasons.
1. The game world is not strictly defined. This is not a server with everything preset, it is an ever expanding and evolving world governed by another person across the table who can make changes in real time to literally any aspect of it. For the most part plots and adventures are created by another person for the purpose of being explored, and that person can and should provide the tools necessary for the party to accomplish any goal they wish to accomplish within those plots.
2. The game is not built around the idea of characters as individual movers and shakers, but instead around the idea of an adventuring party that supports one another to accomplish tasks. It is inherently a team exercise, so practical narrative power (even if the world were a locked in server type reality) only matters as a function of what a party is capable of.
Second, it seems pretty clear he's talking about combat power as well, what with statements about how Tier 1 and 2 classes are capable of doing things better than specialized classes (e.g. fighters fighting, ect).
The trouble I have with Tier analysis is that it is often opinion presented as fact.
And it often fails to distinguish between PVP analysis and practical analysis of actual parties in play.
.... and I conceded that the analysis was not totally useless. But it is not so magically useful as to justify the importance it is sometimes implied to have. It certainly lacks precision, but it's good for making generalizations about classes and their capabilities for GMs to make good calls. Whether pinning a single class as Tier 3 or Tier 4 is helpful in any way, I would contest.
Right. Tier is not meaningless. But as Sslarn sez, it doesn’t compare power, except maybe at T5 &6. However, it also means much less when you remember D&D is a TEAM game. For example, in our PF 13th level TEAM our Fighter is far and away the most dangerous member of the party. But my Sorc has many more OPTIONS and ways to solve problems. Oddly, one of the TEAMS best way to solve a problem (a “problem” in D&D is usually a nasty foe) is for my Sorc to cast Fly (etc) on the Tank so he can chop the “problem” into tiny bits. There’s no way my Sorc can do as much damage as the Fighter can- and especially not take as much damage. While the BBEG is being whupped by (and whupping on) the fighter, my Sorc can buff or cut off the mooks from the battle or finish off the BBEG with a quickened MM. As opposed to having to escape, since he can’t take a FAA, or buffing himself to hell & back.
Mind you, if I spend a LOT of resources, yes, the Sorc can defeat the flying BBEG, while the Fighter can’t. That does mean my Sorc is more versatile. Thus, a better tier. So, the “tier” system has some validity.
BUT the TEAM of Sorc and Fighter (to simplify it down to the “two body” problem) is more powerful and more versatile than two sorcs. Yes, I can do Direct damage, however only about half of what he can do, unless I Nova, but it’s almost impossible for the sorc to absorb the attacks. For that I need- shield, blink, false life, mirror image, etc, so that costs a lot of resources.
So, Evil Lincoln is right as usual : “it often fails to distinguish between PVP analysis and practical analysis of actual parties in play.”!!
While it's true that traps have been downplayed in PF AP’s to such an extent that the trapfinder role is no longer critical, the Big Three Team of Cleric, Fighter, Wizard is still the best (or Oracle, Sorc, Bbn, or …. ) This is why a balanced party is still better than a one class party, even tho it’s fun to discuss such a thing as a hypothetical or “one off” (we did a all paladin party once…).
Thus, in trying to determine “what class is best for this new party” the best answer is not always “Wizard!!”. The best answer is to figure out where the gap is and fill it.
This actually breaks down one of the assumptions made in the original definition of 'tiers' that it should be used to "balance the party" so that they are similar tiers. No so, if a class is REALLY REALLY good at doing "just one thing" and that "just one thing" is important, he can add more to the TEAM than another class who is just so-so at doing at lot of things. Bard is great for example, but in a party without a tank, I'd rather have a fighter than another bard.
PS: Fighters have two good options- dealing AND taking damage. Sure, it’s better to not take the damage, but sometimes it’s unavoidable.
PPS- I am not a huge fan of the Fighter as he is so plain vanilla. I prefer Paladin or Ranger. But some folks like vanilla. For them, there’s the Fighter. Thus, the Fighter class fills a needed gap. Changes in that class to make it more flavorful as a bad idea- we need vanilla. You want more skills- why not Ranger?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I don't buy into the nonsense that full faith tier missionaries preach, I do have a less than deaf ear to the narrative power bit that Kirth talks about.
If Wizard X can cast Y core spell, and achieve narrative power, but Fighter A cannot, ever, that's a lack. Classes ought to have something to do out of combat. Skills is one thing, but most skills don't allow the sort of heroics people want to see. It also doesn't help that a lot of skills are rendered superfluous by spells.
I don't have a problem with giving fighters the ability to scare off hordes of minions simply by fighting. Granted, as a DM, I have the ability to make that stuff happen regardless, but it wouldn't hurt to have it coded into the class assumptions to begin with. Combat maneuvers to strike fear, or loyalty into defeated foes. Inhuman endurance, either on the battlefield or off. That sort of thing. Fighters don't need to be teleporting and cutting gates into being to live up to their myths.
The problem with the Fighter is that he's not really vanilla. Vanilla is a flavor choice, and it tastes quite good.
Fighter is any flavor you want him to be. Except he's that cheap brand that always tastes freezer burnt no matter what you do with it.
The problem with the Fighter is that he's not really vanilla. Vanilla is a flavor choice, and it tastes quite good.
Fighter is any flavor you want him to be. Except he's that cheap brand that always tastes freezer burnt no matter what you do with it.
Then I suggest you dont play one, and pick another class to play, rather than trying to change the class into something the people who love to play it don't want.
Then I suggest you dont play one, and pick another class to play, rather than trying to change the class into something the people who love to play it don't want.
I am kind of baffled by the fact that you assume people who like playing the Fighter would not like playing a better Fighter.
Same theme, better things.
Look at the stuff posted just two posts above:
Combat maneuvers to strike fear, or loyalty into defeated foes. Inhuman endurance, either on the battlefield or off.
Would that really break the theme of the "vanilla Fighter"?
What is essentially Immunity to Fatigue (and maybe exhaustion, perhaps a small bit of DR or extra HP) and a usable version of Dazzling Display?
How does a couple of extra skill points a level break the theme?
Giving the fighter the ability to lockdown foes while still fighting (essentially, combining Combat Maneuvers and attacks, which is currently only possible with Shield Slam IIRC)?
Unless the "vanilla Fighter" theme is really code for "Guy that sucks" none of this breaks the theme, and helps give him more options.
He doesn't need to be Tier 1, with all the too much versatility that entails, but a solid Tier 3 (where IMO a good Barbarian and Paladin can sit, being at the very least versatile IN combat) would be nice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First, lets stop calling everything a GM does fiat, shall we?
When the DM just declares stuff, and ignores the rules, that's fiat, and I'll call it that.
1. The game world is not strictly defined. This is not a server with everything preset, it is an ever expanding and evolving world governed by another person across the table who can make changes in real time to literally any aspect of it. For the most part plots and adventures are created by another person for the purpose of being explored, and that person can and should provide the tools necessary for the party to accomplish any goal they wish to accomplish within those plots.
You're talking Magical Story Hour again, and you're right, as far as that goes. But the actual game rules are strictly defined, and they provide the tools to accomplish any goal they wish to some classes, and withold those tools from other classes.
2. The game is not built around the idea of characters as individual movers and shakers, but instead around the idea of an adventuring party that supports one another to accomplish tasks. It is inherently a team exercise, so practical narrative power (even if the world were a locked in server type reality) only matters as a function of what a party is capable of.
This argument again?! Look, it's not a "team" if one person does all the real work, and the others are standing around riding on his coat-tails. When Tiger Woods wins a golf tournament, we don't say "The awesome team comprised of a golf cart, a caddie, and a golfer won the torunament together!" Because that's not what happened. Tiger Woods won the tournament, and the caddie carried his clubs for him, and all the golf cart did was spare him having to walk around a little bit. Without the cart and the caddie, he could STILL win the tournament. That's not much of a "team."
EDIT: Please read This list before we go any further; you're repeating myths 4 and 5.
While I don't buy into the nonsense that full faith tier missionaries preach, I do have a less than deaf ear to the narrative power bit that Kirth talks about.
If Wizard X can cast Y core spell, and achieve narrative power, but Fighter A cannot, ever, that's a lack. Classes ought to have something to do out of combat. Skills is one thing, but most skills don't allow the sort of heroics people want to see. It also doesn't help that a lot of skills are rendered superfluous by spells.
I don't have a problem with giving fighters the ability to scare off hordes of minions simply by fighting. Granted, as a DM, I have the ability to make that stuff happen regardless, but it wouldn't hurt to have it coded into the class assumptions to begin with. Combat maneuvers to strike fear, or loyalty into defeated foes. Inhuman endurance, either on the battlefield or off. That sort of thing. Fighters don't need to be teleporting and cutting gates into being to live up to their myths.
The issue I have with building some of these things into the rules is the same issue I have with many rogue talents that have come along and tried to expand their power - for instance Convincing Lie. You are creating a power required to do something I'd assumed was inherent to the system. A 15th level fighter shouldn't need a feat or option he can take to make a bunch of 3rd level fighters join his cause or flee from him in combat in the same way that a rogue shouldn't need a talent for people to repeat the lies they are convinced are true.
BUT the TEAM of Sorc and Fighter (to simplify it down to the “two body” problem) is more powerful and more versatile than two sorcs. Yes, I can do Direct damage, however only about half of what he can do, unless I Nova, but it’s almost impossible for the sorc to absorb the attacks.
I really wish you wouldn't spread misinformation like this. A Caster can put out damage far greater than that of a Martial if they build for it. So two Sorcerers would in fact be greater than Sorcerer Fighter since the Fighter requires that extra time to close distances whereas the Sorc points and things explode. The Sorcerer deals damage akin to 3 rounds of martial damage. And he does it a ton. So unless you run 12 encounters a day, the Caster remains a more powerful damage option. And instead of setting him up with a fly, you're now free to cast something else that turn.
Unless you're a higher class martial like the Paladin or Barbarian, you tend to drain action economy and party resources to accomplish tasks that would still be better accomplished by a caster.
A 15th level fighter shouldn't need a feat or option he can take to make a bunch of 3rd level fighters join his cause or flee from him in combat in the same way that a rogue shouldn't need a talent for people to repeat the lies they are convinced are true.
We finally agree on something! 100%!
Where we differ is that I think the rules should state flat-out when and how he can do that. No feats or whatever required; just clear guidelines so that it's clearly understood, "Hey, you're allowed to do this!" and not up to the DM's whim.
One big issue with how "tiers" are used is that they're applied to classes _as a whole_, rather than classes in a specific circumstance.
It isn't the class with the _most_ options that's most versatile, it's the one with most _relevant_ options. Just coming up with tons and tons of awkward, extremely rare situations that the wizard can solve but the barbarian can't doesn't say anything about actual versatility, because then it stops becoming about gauging actual useful options and becomes a game about who can think up most situations.
But even more relevant is the fact that tiers shift a LOT through the levels, and sometimes it seems those that talk about tiers just assume all the classes are level 18 rather than level 1. Yeah, a high-level sorcerer is tier 2 while a high-level int-heavy rogue is tier 5. I agree. A 1st-level sorcerer is tier 3 or 4 with it's 2 spells known + cantrips, and a 1st level int-heavy rogue is tier 2 or 3 with it's 12 maxed skills at a point where skills are very relevant.