| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As one of the posters noted, the critieria for tiers are never posted.
What they are, is biased towards classes that have time to prepare. Thus, Wizards, clerics and Druids, who can all completely shift their spell loadouts, and have potential access to their entire spell lists, default to Tier 1.
Why? Because with unlimited spell access, you can literally do anything, with time to prepare.Tier 2 is there for those who cannot prepare as well. Oh, they can do some of the stuff, but without unlimited spells access, they can't do as much. But they still are able to do preparation partly well, and their spells are generally enough to have marvelous loads of options.
This is why Sorcs dominate Tier 2. Sorcs who have incredible spell access actually promote themselves to Tier 1.Tier 3 is basically casters with less powerful lists, and more melee capability...or strong melees with extra spell capability. PF Paladins are probably Tier 3. Inquisitors, Bards, maguses are Tier3. Rangers would be, if they had more spell like or defensive abilities instead of terrain and favored enemy stuff...they essentially live on the other side of the Tier 3/4 dividing mirror from paladins.
Tier 4 is basically centered on those classes whose expertise is melee. In short, if melee is all you are good at, you go here...even if melee is a primary part of the game.
Tier 5 is classes that aren't good at melee, and with nothing unique about them.
How good is your client at:
OUt of Combat:
1) Creating or multiplying wealth?...
Really, honestly, what Tiers measure is spellcasting. Yes, that's it. Pure & simple.
T1 & T2 are full spellcasters
T3 are medium spellcasters
T4 are ranger-like spellcasters (mostly)
T5 is non-spellcasters.
Yep, it's that biased.
Look, the best any Non-spellcaster ever got is T3 and that's highly debated. Two of the BoNS classes are there, and some possible versions of Paladin, Bbn and maybe ranger. But one can argue that many of the BoNS abilities are very very much like spells.
And then, even the crud caster classes, like the poor Beguiler is often rated at T3, but it can't do much, nor can it's opposite the Warmage. The Warmage has no utility spells, and the Bequiler has only some of them, and no spells than can do anything but annoy whole classes of monsters, but- they are still argued by many to be T2 as... full spellcasting.
Tell you what here's a thought experiment. New class- the Dreadnought. D20hp. Can't use bows.
BaB is 2,4,6,8,10 (double full), all Good saves. Double level as bonus damage every hit. Adds level to AC and gains Dr/- per lvl. By passes DR as a weapon (level 3= +3 weapon) No skill points (you gotta have int, etc or no skills). Np special movement, no other special abilities. All martial weapons, heavy armor.
What can this class do? Tank. It's a super tank. OOC- it's got nuttin. No ranged combat. It does just one thing, but that one thing super well. Technically, this monstrosity is T4.
Technically Beguiler and Warmage are T2. Yeah.
So- Tiers? Yeah, nice to know. But the Tier system is heavily biased toward spellcasting- and doesn't rate "best" at all. Even JaronK said that.
@DrDeth
Have you actually read the Tier System for Classes post? If so, could you provide me a link to the post?
I just want to make sure we're on the same page here.
@DrDeth
Have you actually read the Tier System for Classes post? If so, could you provide me a link to the post?
I just want to make sure we're on the same page here.
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=mgbmbu7l5di95nv 83his12op32&topic=5293
What about a class with no spells, no bab, all poor saves, D3 hit dice, but 10+Int Skills per level.
Gains skill focus as a bonus feat at every single level, and has an ability that states "This classes skill checks are not bound by reality-- there is no limit to how far he can jump, his diplomacy checks may influence people to the point where they will willingly commit suicide at his word and other constraints are removed; for any skill check wherein a particular result grants a numerical value multiply the result by his class level"
What tier is this class?
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=mgbmbu7l5di95nv 83his12op32&topic=5293@DrDeth
Have you actually read the Tier System for Classes post? If so, could you provide me a link to the post?
I just want to make sure we're on the same page here.
Thank you.
Did you notice that the Warmage is listed as tier 4 and the Beguiler is listed as tier 3 in that post?
While we are on the topic, there is a more recent version on the same topic found here. I believe the class rankings are mostly unchanged but it covers a few more classes that were unreleased when the original post went up - it might help you better grasp the nuance of the system. I can assure you that there's rather more to it than simply sorting classes by spell list.
So...Healer. 9th level spellcasting. Tier 5. Oh, and Articifer, tier 1, no spellcasting. Did you even read it?
Artificer has spell casting. They have a chart of their equivalent of spells per day, and they can make any item as though they have all the spells.
I could write the word Fighter on the Wizard chart and change the name of the "spells" to "fightin strikes" but those are still spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dreadnought
The problem that makes that class tier 4 DrDreth is it solves no problems but combat. While Combat is a significant trial within every game, it is not the only one and does not warrant a high tier rating just for being good a combat.
The Dreadnought lacks movement as well so even then it suffers like every poor martial who has to melee especially at high levels where creatures can distance themselves from you easily.
What about a class with no spells, no bab, all poor saves, D3 hit dice, but 10+Int Skills per level.
Gains skill focus as a bonus feat at every single level, and has an ability that states "This classes skill checks are not bound by reality-- there is no limit to how far he can jump, his diplomacy checks may influence people to the point where they will willingly commit suicide at his word and other constraints are removed; for any skill check wherein a particular result grants a numerical value multiply the result by his class level"
What tier is this class?
Best guesstimate...low Tier 2, high-mid Tier 3 assuming it lives through 10 levels.
It has a lot of potential versatility if it has class features that grant it Supernatural capabilities with skills, but it goes too far the other way as Fighter, putting it in roughly the same spot, much like the Rogue.
Whereas the Fighter can do nothing but combat, this guy can do anything BUT combat (assuming he doesn't have the same limiters on Diplomacy that it can't be used on directly hostile characters and takes several minutes of interaction to pull off...so no Talking the Monster to Death).
I say it's still Tier 3 like a Bard though because it can be a very effective enemy debuffer when facing enemies that can be Intimidated, since by my reading the effects of the check make the Shaken condition's effects multiply, adding up to a very significant single target debuff as a full round action.
It loses points for being killed by a stiff breeze and being in the same boat as the Rogue...failing saves sucks, especially Will and Fort saves.
Now if the Diplomacy thing isn't true (which by extension means other similar limits are not) I put it at "Tier Null" i.e. 'Take back to drawing board" because it's obviously broken. You've essentially given a character the ability to kill any target without fail and solve most out of combat problems with a snap of his fingers, bar anything involving long distance travel (for people other than himself, he can simply make a long jump to an infinite distance).
What about a class with no spells, no bab, all poor saves, D3 hit dice, but 10+Int Skills per level.
Gains skill focus as a bonus feat at every single level, and has an ability that states "This classes skill checks are not bound by reality-- there is no limit to how far he can jump, his diplomacy checks may influence people to the point where they will willingly commit suicide at his word and other constraints are removed; for any skill check wherein a particular result grants a numerical value multiply the result by his class level"
What tier is this class?
Best guesstimate...low Tier 3, high Tier 4 assuming it lives through 10 levels.
It has a lot of potential versatility if it has class features that grant it Supernatural capabilities with skills, but it goes too far the other way as Fighter, putting it in roughly the same spot, much like the Rogue.
Whereas the Fighter can do nothing but combat, this guy can do anything BUT combat (assuming he doesn't have the same limiters on Diplomacy that it can't be used on directly hostile characters and takes several minutes of interaction to pull off...so no Talking the Monster to Death).
I say it's still Tier 3 like a Bard though because it can be a very effective enemy debuffer when facing enemies that can be Intimidated, since by my reading the effects of the check make the Shaken condition's effects multiply, adding up to a very significant single target debuff as a full round action.
It loses points for being killed by a stiff breeze and being in the same boat as the Rogue...failing saves sucks, especially Will and Fort saves.
Ok, so same text for the class feature but give it good will and fortitude, d8 hit dice, full BaB, make it a Skill focus bonus feat every three levels, and a Combat bonus feat every four--
What tier is it now?
I edited a bit after re-reading your description. Class as it was was a bit broken. Doesn't fit anywhere. It's either going to succeed in its goal, without fail, or it's going to die horribly.
I edited a bit after re-reading your description. Class as it was was a bit broken. Doesn't fit anywhere. It's either going to succeed in its goal, without fail, or it's going to die horribly.
Correct. Its an example idea of the most extreme non-combat class possible or the opposite of DrDeath's Dreadnought.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What does the tier system matter? Groups act as units, not individuals. The tier system by its nature implies each unit within a group acts individually and that the narrative is static, thus the options a higher tier individual provides somehow has more effect on the narrative. I have not experienced this in the game.
What are all your GMs doing where this is your game experience? That is the question that comes to mind in these discussions.
I've played this game since my youth in all its various forms. From its inception the wizard had more options than the fighter. So did the multi-class character or even the rogue. It's been this way for thirty plus years of gaming.
Suddenly this is some huge issue that must be addressed? The most successful table top RPG ever is somehow wrong in the way they designed classes? Doubtful. Not just doubtful, but empirically wrong.
This game was designed with a group model in mind. Tiers measuring individual classes has no place in this game. This game has survived numerous iterations, each one having wizards as the top of the food chain in versatility and power save for one. That one version split the gaming community. Why would Paizo even begin to contemplate putting themselves in a similar situation by dramatically changing how things work?
The system Paizo uses suits the majority of their customers. It caters to various players. It has nothing to do with Tiers measuring power and versatility and everything to do with players being able to play something interesting to them.
My group is a prime example. Some of them like playing the powerful caster who has some arcane spell for dealing with just about everything. The guy everyone fears because they don't understand his power. The scholarly type that spends his days in towers studying tomes. Does he play this because he wants to be better than everyone else? Nope. He plays it because he enjoys the archetype.
Another player enjoys using weapons. He only plays classes that get to hit things with weapons. Barbarian, magus, alchemist, and warpriest. He likes have a little of both worlds, but most assuredly he likes to be face up in melee. He doesn't like attacking from range. He doesn't like worrying about healing or keeping a huge spell list. He likes to do damage and fight. This is the archetype if always plays.
Another player enjoys wizards, fighters, paladins, rangers, and summoners. Each one he plays with a different personality, race, and tactical skill set. He doesn't worry about the power level because he's enjoying playing the character and figuring out what he can do with each.
I as the DM figure out ways to make them all feel like stars. I put enough challenges in their way they have to work as a group to win rather than having a single individual win the day. I design encounters to emphasize their strengths and weaknesses requiring complimentary play. That is my job as a DM.
That's why these discussions are strange. I imagine all these unhappy martial players in groups where the DM runs everything out of the book letting casters run roughshod over their games. I have to wonder if this is a symptom of the game itself or poor DMing. Given this game is a framework for a DM to build around, I'm more inclined to believe that a lot of poor DMing is leading to this view of the caster-martial disparity.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
What does the tier system matter? Groups act as units, not individuals. The tier system by its nature implies each unit within a group acts individually and that the narrative is static, thus the options a higher tier individual provides somehow has more effect on the narrative. I have not experienced this in the game.
The tier system actually works better as a group metric, IMO. A group with a Tier 1, a couple of Tier 3s, and a Tier 4 adds up to a well rounded party.
However, it also points out the inherent flaws of going with a party of all Tier 4s and 5s a lot of the time. Namely, that they will generally have less capability as a party to overcome obstacles than even a lone Tier 1 would.
What are all your GMs doing where this is your game experience? That is the question that comes to mind in these discussions.
Why even have rules at all if the GM is supposed to determine EVERYTHING?
I've played this game since my youth in all its various forms. From its inception the wizard had more options than the fighter. So did the multi-class character or even the rogue. It's been this way for thirty plus years of gaming.
Suddenly this is some huge issue that must be addressed?
The problem you're running into here is assuming this is "suddenly". Disregarding that casters have gotten steadily stronger, for the most part, as the editions have marched on (meaning a good deal of that 30 year experience is based on a paradigm that has since shifted), people have been complaining about 3.X/Pathfinder's "Casters rule, martials drool" paradigm since the games' inception.
The most successful table top RPG ever is somehow wrong in the way they designed classes? Doubtful. Not just doubtful, but empirically wrong.
Success and perfection do not go hand in hand.
The problem with stating that something is "empirically wrong" is that you are only taking into account your own observations and experiences...hence why theoretical application is also important.
Other people's experiences differ from yours. You know this.
The theories also generally come to the conclusion that a caster will have more options than a non-caster.
I tend to go with the side that has something besides anecdotal experience backing them up, is what I'm saying.
This game was designed with a group model in mind. Tiers measuring individual classes has no place in this game.
Already covered.
This game has survived numerous iterations, each one having wizards as the top of the food chain in versatility and power save for one. That one version split the gaming community. Why would Paizo even begin to contemplate putting themselves in a similar situation by dramatically changing how things work?
Months later, still tired of seeing this nonsense be trotted out.
"Someone changed the status quo in an ill thought out manner and people didn't like it! Obviously that means the way things are is perfect!" is quite a silly argument to make.
The system Paizo uses suits the majority of their customers.
You've polled all of them, have you?
It caters to various players. It has nothing to do with Tiers measuring power and versatility and everything to do with players being able to play something interesting to them.
Yes, so, what is the problem with making the interesting characters people like into more viable choices, again?
My group is a prime example. Some of them like playing the powerful caster who has some arcane spell for dealing with just about everything. The guy everyone fears because they don't understand his power. The scholarly type that spends his days in towers studying tomes. Does he play this because he wants to be better than everyone else? Nope. He plays it because he enjoys the archetype.
Another player enjoys using weapons. He only plays classes that get to hit things with weapons. Barbarian, magus, alchemist, and warpriest. He likes have a little of both worlds, but most assuredly he likes to be face up in melee. He doesn't like attacking from range. He doesn't like worrying about healing or keeping a huge spell list. He likes to do damage and fight. This is the archetype if always plays.
Another player enjoys wizards, fighters, paladins, rangers, and summoners. Each one he plays with a different personality, race, and tactical skill set. He doesn't worry about the power level because he's enjoying playing the character and figuring out what he can do with each.
I as the DM figure out ways to make them all feel like stars. I put enough challenges in their way they have to work as a group to win rather than having a single individual win the day. I design encounters to emphasize their strengths and weaknesses requiring complimentary play. That is my job as a DM.
Which is great. That is good GMing.
It does not excuse the failings of the system that make such intervention necessary.
I think this is your disconnect, especially given the following bit:
That's why these discussions are strange. I imagine all these unhappy martial players in groups where the DM runs everything out of the book letting casters run roughshod over their games. I have to wonder if this is a symptom of the game itself or poor DMing. Given this game is a framework for a DM to build around, I'm more inclined to believe that a lot of poor DMing is leading to this view of the caster-martial disparity.
You assume that everyone who wants a change is sitting and being unhappy at the table, or has a bad GM, or IS a bad GM, etc.
That's not the case.
This is people who are, overall, quite happy to play this game with a good GM, but wishes it wasn't necessary to Fiat a bunch of things that should be core.
I enjoy homebrewing things, but I'd be much happier homebrewing things enjoy (new classes, different subsystems, things like that) than spending my time fixing problems with the system itself, large and small.
And they are problems. Some classes are very clearly better than others...you even say yourself that the Wizard is the top of the food chain.
And somebody has to be at the top, sure. I'm fine with Wizard being the top cheese.
If only he weren't so damned FAR above a lot of other classes.
I prefer to balance up, myself. Well technically, I like balance toward the middle. I've found people like a nice happy middle rather than everyone being nerfed into the ground or buffed into the sky.
A few major Fighter buffs here, some minor caster tweaks here, and hey presto...the game's better for everyone. Done right the caster players shouldn't notice a whole lot has changed, and the martial players will be quite happy with the new toys they have.
To tie it back into the tiers, all the classes in Tier 4 and 5 need to be scooched up to Tier 3. Give the Tier 3 classes a little somethin' somethin' too here or there on a case by case basis, the low Tier 3's/high tier 4's (like a well built Barbarian or Paladin) for the most part, and drop the Tier 1s down a peg, but give them something fun to compensate.
Personally I think Wizards wouldn't mind too much if their versatility was chopped a bit, some of the more broken spells removed, given that they were given something in return. Expanded Arcane Schools (more unique abilities for various purposes) and a little bit more oomph in Evocation (which, let's face it, is the most FUN school but not nearly the most powerful). I'm not looking for broad sweeping nerf bats here. IMO a heavyhanded nerf or buff is just as bad if not worse than making something unbalanced to begin with. It's unpleasant for all involved, as evidenced by the Crane Wing Fiasco here recently.
But being satisfied with the way things are and playing what you like doesn't necessarily mean you're opposed to a change. You're just indifferent. It's a bit disingenuous to say "My player doesn't care about his power level" and turn that around as some sort of argument that making a change to up that power level he doesn't care about will upset him somehow.
At worst, he won't give a shit. At best, he'll like it. Kinda a win-win on that front.
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=mgbmbu7l5di95nv 83his12op32&topic=5293@DrDeth
Have you actually read the Tier System for Classes post? If so, could you provide me a link to the post?
I just want to make sure we're on the same page here.
Thank you.
Did you notice that the Warmage is listed as tier 4 and the Beguiler is listed as tier 3 in that post?
While we are on the topic, there is a more recent version on the same topic found here. I believe the class rankings are mostly unchanged but it covers a few more classes that were unreleased when the original post went up - it might help you better grasp the nuance of the system. I can assure you that there's rather more to it than simply sorting classes by spell list.
Did you notice I said "even the crud caster classes, like the poor Beguiler is often rated at T3, but it can't do much, nor can it's opposite the Warmage. The Warmage has no utility spells, and the Bequiler has only some of them, and no spells than can do anything but annoy whole classes of monsters, but- they are still argued by many to be T2 as... full spellcasting."
"often rated at T3"..."still argued by many to be T2".
Grasp the nuance? yeah, thanks. Again, what are the top two tiers? All full spellcaster. The bottom tiers? Almost no spellcasting. The middle tiers? Almost all Middle spellcasting. Now yes a couple of BoNS classes are in the middle tiers, but many maneuvers are spells under the 'duck' system. Sure, no doubt, there's a couple classes that don't quite fit, but remember- JaronK's list is HIGHLY debated, and Jaron has made several changes to it as people made points.
If you just simply ranked the classes by spellcasting
T1= Full and early (sorc, etc get their spells one level late)
T2 Full
T3 up to 6th level or very limited list.
T4. Limited, like ranger & pally
T5 None
The match is very very close, isn't it? The tier system rates spellcasting ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did you notice I said "even the crud caster classes, like the poor Beguiler is often rated at T3, but it can't do much, nor can it's opposite the Warmage. The Warmage has no utility spells, and the Bequiler has only some of them, and no spells than can do anything but annoy whole classes of monsters, but- they are still argued by many to be T2 as... full spellcasting."
"often rated at T3"..."still argued by many to be T2".
Grasp the nuance? yeah, thanks.
With respect, that is not what you said. What you said was:
Technically Beguiler and Warmage are T2. Yeah.
Which, according to the post you linked yourself, is incorrect. While you're free to disagree with the concept, I do think misrepresenting it to fit your arguments is fallacious.
Grasp the nuance? yeah, thanks. Again, what are the top two tiers? All full spellcaster. The bottom tiers? Almost no spellcasting. The middle tiers? Almost all Middle spellcasting. Now yes a couple of BoNS classes are in the middle tiers, but many maneuvers are spells under the 'duck' system. Sure, no doubt, there's a couple classes that don't quite fit, but remember- JaronK's list is HIGHLY debated, and Jaron has made several changes to it as people made points.
If you just simply ranked the classes by spellcasting
T1= Full and early (sorc, etc get their spells one level late)
T2 Full
T3 up to 6th level or very limited list.
T4. Limited, like ranger & pally
T5 None
As has been already pointed out, this is incorrect. The Healer is tier 5, the warmage is tier 4, the beguiler is tier 3 - all three classes get "full" 9th level spell lists. The Crusader and the The Swordsage are tier 3 despite having no spell lists. The artificer is tier 1 despite having no formal spellcasting.
And yes, JaronK has made changes as the concept evolves and people make good and coherent arguments - that shows that he keeps an open mind. How is that a bad thing?
If you just simply ranked the classes by spellcasting
T1= Full and early (sorc, etc get their spells one level late)
T2 Full
T3 up to 6th level or very limited list.
T4. Limited, like ranger & pally
T5 NoneThe match is very very close, isn't it? The tier system rates spellcasting ability.
Don't confuse cause and effect.
The tier system ranks flexibility and power. It just so happens that the system is designed in such a way that the most powerful and flexible options are spells.
For example, the barbarian (with no spells) is generally considered to be better than the ranger, because the barbarian's rage powers are both more powerful and flexible than the ranger's spell list. But this is unusual. It's difficult for me to imagine a rage power that opens as many options as a teleport spell.
Really, honestly, what Tiers measure is spellcasting. Yes, that's it. Pure & simple.
T1 & T2 are full spellcasters
T3 are medium spellcasters
T4 are ranger-like spellcasters (mostly)
T5 is non-spellcasters.
It breaks down along the lines of versatility as well as spellcasting levels.
Tier 1 classes are 9th level casters with access to most or all of a broad list, such as Wizard. It also includes the Cleric and Druid, 9th-level casters who (back in 3.5) could also make themselves among the best melee combatants in the game. Yes that does mean these will be prepared casters.
People often talk about spells as "the solution space", because spells are indeed the best solution to almost any problem. Making it possible for one character to have access to the entire solution space is a bad idea.
Tier 2 classes are 9th level casters who knew far fewer spells, but can still learn a broad variety, i.e. Sorcerer and Favored Soul.
Tier 3 classes include some 9th-level casters (Beguiler, Dread Necro) who gain access to a somewhat narrowly-focused set of spells.
Tier 4 includes the Warmage, a 9th-level caster whose spell list is basically restricted to damage-dealing, and whose class features are underwhelming.
Edit: Reality has a well-known spellcaster bias.
I'm honestly really amused at the idea that the beguiler does not fit
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate,It's silly to think that a class with spells like
has nothing to do in encounters with foes immune to mind-affecting spells.
There will always be disputes about whether a class belongs in this tier or that tier. You could make a good case for the Beguiler going up to T2, while the Duskblade and ToB classes might be more appropriate for T4.
With respect, that is not what you said. What you said was:
Technically Beguiler and Warmage are T2. Yeah.Which, according to the post you linked yourself, is incorrect. W
Sure, no doubt, there's a couple classes that don't quite fit, but remember- JaronK's list is HIGHLY debated, and Jaron has made several changes to it as people made points.If you just simply ranked the classes by spellcasting
T1= Full and early (sorc, etc get their spells one level late)
T2 Full
T3 up to 6th level or very limited list.
T4. Limited, like ranger & pally
T5 NoneAs has been already pointed out, this is incorrect. The Healer is tier 5, the warmage is tier 4, the beguiler is tier 3 - all three classes get "full" 9th level spell lists. The Crusader and the The Swordsage are tier 3 despite having no spell lists. The artificer is tier 1 despite having no formal spellcasting.
Because you see- JaronK is not the final arbiter. Others disagree. By their lists, anything with full spellcasting is T2. I made that quite clear= "often rated at T3"..."still argued by many to be T2". I did not say "rated by JaronK in this version to be...".
And I said "Sure, no doubt, there's a couple classes that don't quite fit".
Next I said "T3 up to 6th level or very limited list." (Which is the bequiler and warmage)
And, I also said that for all intents and purposes, many maneuvers are spells. Duck test.
Artificer has full spellcasting under the "duck' definition. Saying it doesn't is like saying the Psion doesn't either since it uses Psionics, not magic. Once you argue the Artificer isn't a spellcaster, you lose all credibility.
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
If you just simply ranked the classes by spellcasting
T1= Full and early (sorc, etc get their spells one level late)
T2 Full
T3 up to 6th level or very limited list.
T4. Limited, like ranger & pally
T5 NoneThe match is very very close, isn't it? The tier system rates spellcasting ability.
Don't confuse cause and effect.
The tier system ranks flexibility and power. It just so happens that the system is designed in such a way that the most powerful and flexible options are spells.
Or, it just so happens that Jaron made the tier idea up with an inherent bias towards spelclasters, a bias he has admitted.
Don't confuse cause and effect.
How is the Tier system used? To argue that martials are underpowered and spellcasters are overpowered.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is the Tier system used? To argue that martials are underpowered and spellcasters are overpowered.
Actually, you use it yourself by your own description -- you just don't call it that. When you recognize that the rules explicitly provide casters with a lot more game-altering options, and adhere to a gentleman's agreement to limit those options so as not to upstage the martials, what you're doing is reducing the casters to a lower tier so that the whole party is on more of an even footing.
That's exactly what the Tier system is supposed to do: make it more obvious to people with a lower degree of system mastery how to make sure no one in the party gets upstaged.
Also, as an aside, the duck test fails.
According to it, a goose and a platypus are both ducks, but a Muscovy duck is not a duck.
Likewise, "as a standard action, you can hit a guy with a sword, do some extra damage, and bypass his DR" isn't really a whole lot like a spell. It's more like taking two feats (Vital Strike and Penetrating Strike) combining their effects, and then limiting the use. If that's a spell then so are iron rations.
(Artificers are casters in all but name, though; I won't argue with you there.)
I had a somewhat more structured argument that always seems to get lost in this conversation. I guess I'll just have to let it go.
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.
I think your complaint is with people who misuse the tier list when talking about balance, more than the tier list itself. To use an example of baseball: It's the people who would claim that a 3.5 WAR player is categorically better than a 3.2 WAR player, even though WAR can swing a bit on defensive metrics (which are themselves pretty variable from year to year) between seasons.
I'm not going to try and claim that you can categorically prove something is in it's tier because we haven't developed any statistics or ways to look at classes too far beyond the eye test. The tier list did less to introduce a perfect categorization of classes than it did to introduce a good framework for how to judge the power of classes. Now, more often than not, references to the tier list are use as shorthand for "I think the power of this class is X, and can do these things."
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.
There's also been some mutterings on charOp boards that the Synthesist summoner might actually weaken the class overall by limiting ability score growth and forcing the class to stay in melee. The biggest problem with the synthesist is probably that it's caster that very obviously steps on the fighter's gimmick in a new way. It's also similar to the 3.5 wildshape druid in how stat replacement works.
It's still probably not a gamebreaker, though.
|
@DrDeth
I don't think I've seen the Warmage slotted as Tier 3 before, generally it's considered a strong Tier 4 in most discussions I've seen. Beguiler I've seen (and would consider) a candidate for Tier 3 though, he had some very intriguing capabilities with a good selection of tricks. The fact that he hit basically one save and had his entire class shut down by True Seeing was dumb, but I'm as inclined to blame that on True Seeing being OP as on the class itself.
***Now yes, I would like to see a version of BoNS for PF.***Dreamscarred Press did this, it's called Path of War. It's pretty neat actually.
Yep, I agree. But also, Paizo doesn't like to step on the 3PP guys, if they can help it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@DrDeth
I don't think I've seen the Warmage slotted as Tier 3 before, generally it's considered a strong Tier 4 in most discussions I've seen. Beguiler I've seen (and would consider) a candidate for Tier 3 though, he had some very intriguing capabilities with a good selection of tricks. The fact that he hit basically one save and had his entire class shut down by True Seeing was dumb, but I'm as inclined to blame that on True Seeing being OP as on the class itself.
I have seen both argued, but yes, I more or less agree with your reasoning. Twice I have seen a player lured into warmage, and then finding out how truly limiting it is.
Beguiler? Ah, in a city campaign, with sneaking and politics and most of the foes being other humanoids? FANTASTIC CLASS!!! Maybe even t2.
Ravenloft- not so much. ;-)
But you see, that's one issue with tiers- they can go up or down as much as two levels by :
The nature of the campaign
Type of DM
Experience level of player
Optimization level of PC.
Man you get into a true Low Magic campaign, where you're the only wizard on the continent that isn't a BBEG? No way to scribe spells into your book (other than the two free a level). Then, if said spellbook gets destroyed or stolen (and yes, in a world where only the BBEGs are wizards, such things are legit), you are hurting. Now our wizard is what tier?
And I did run a Healer. Age of Wyrms, epic level, deadly, deadly game. Large party, 7+ players. Everyone agreed my little halfing Healer was the "MVP" (we had a vote, you got a little bonus) game after game. Would it do as well in other, more normal games? heck no. Still, its more t4 since it does it's job really well, and you'd be surprised how useful a Unicorn Mount is.
So why bother with the feats? Unless you have some kind of trick like strength surge, Combat Maneuvers are just not usable against Titans, the Tarrasque, appropriate Dragons, etc.
Not all games (even high-level games) feature those monsters or similar though. Using maneuvers against humanoid opponents can be very worthwhile, and remember the feats not only negate the AoO but also give a +2 bonus which is quite noticable.
EDIT: Also, of course, if you have say Improved & Greater Trip, that's a +4 bonus _and_ an extra attack if successful. If you're going to trip, those are great. Granted, the usefulness of trip is very dependant on the frequency of many-legged and/or flying opponents.
The nature of the campaign
Type of DM
Experience level of player
Optimization level of PC.These things are not actually not related to where a class is put on the tier list. In fact, most of these things are explicitly not ways to judge the power of a class, especially experience of the player.
You could be a wizard that only casts snapdragon fireworks and put all your skill points and feats into profession(basketweaver), that does not mean the wizard is now tier 6
Exactly, which is why the tier system is misleading. It also doesn't measure how the team as a whole works.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly, which is why the tier system is misleading. It also doesn't measure how the team as a whole works.The nature of the campaign
Type of DM
Experience level of player
Optimization level of PC.These things are not actually not related to where a class is put on the tier list. In fact, most of these things are explicitly not ways to judge the power of a class, especially experience of the player.
You could be a wizard that only casts snapdragon fireworks and put all your skill points and feats into profession(basketweaver), that does not mean the wizard is now tier 6
It's not misleading when it is explicitly stated that the tier list doesn't measure those things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly, which is why the tier system is misleading. It also doesn't measure how the team as a whole works.You could be a wizard that only casts snapdragon fireworks and put all your skill points and feats into profession(basketweaver), that does not mean the wizard is now tier 6
Except that neither of those are what the tier system measures. Complaining that the tier system for comparing classes doesn't measure the effectiveness of parties or players is rather like complaining that a meter stick doesn't keep good time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Aye, the tier system is about measuring how potentially the class can be played, not how the person plays it and fits into the party.
Big difference in the two.
==Aelryinth