Your "Dreadnought" class is tier 4. All it has is big numbers and big numbers are not enough to rise in tier. What is your Dreadnought going to do against any non-melee flying monster, like a dragon, or high-level Outsider like a Balor or Pit Fiend? Or against invisible enemies, or incorporeal ones, or ones that can teleport, etc.I
b) Rely on the casters of the party (as they're the ones who can cast Fly, or See Invisibility, or Magic Weapon, or Dimension Door) to make you capable of doing your hitting.
Exactly. A Wizard, who only can cast Fly can now turn the Dreadnought into a unstoppable FLYING killing machine.
But in the minds of those who claim spellcasters are super-powered- that makes the wizard the powerful one in the party, not the unstoppable Dreadnought.
However, in any case, that's the point again, which few seem to get: D&D is now and has always been a TEAM game. It isn't solo PvP thus any system that measures your ability to do solo PvP is meaningless.
As to wether or not the Tier system is biased? of course it is. That doesn't mean it's wrong. Let us take the example of a "best" car list, from a trusted well known publisher. No, let's take TWO trusted well known and respected publishers: Car & Driver vs Consumer Reports. Both take into account the same things: performance, comfort, drivability, reliability, milage, power, acceleration, safety, room, price, etc etc.
Yet, oddly the lists would be almost opposite. Sure, both mags would say the Smart car is crud, and the Telsa cool, but C&D would rate various BMW sports coupes high, and CR would rate the Prius high. How can that be?
Simple: C&D rates 'fun to drive" , performance, drivability, power etc very high, whilst CR rates safety, reliability, etc higher. Is either wrong? No. But there's an inherent bias. In both.
The Tier system is highly biased toward spellcasters, And, even JaronK said it does NOT rate which classes are "best".
It's a tool, a valuable tool, just like various DPR computations made (in which various martials almost always win). Do DPR comparos rate which class is "best"? No. Are they biased? Certainly. We know that inquisitors and bards are very well balanced- but that don't rate highly in either. Hmm.
So sure, when looking at a party, esp why it's doing what it's doing or why one PC outshines the other or what new PC to add- sure, by all means consult the Tier list 9and take a look at a few DPR stats too). But as far as saying that certain classes are badwrongfun- well, it's worse than useless.
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.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
Exactly!
Exactly. A Wizard, who only can cast Fly can now turn the Dreadnought into a unstoppable FLYING killing machine.But in the minds of those who claim spellcasters are super-powered- that makes the wizard the powerful one in the party, not the unstoppable Dreadnought.
However, in any case, that's the point again, which few seem to get: D&D is now and has always been a TEAM game. It isn't solo PvP thus any system that measures your ability to do solo PvP is meaningless.
This just seems a bit...off. Nobody's saying anything about solo PvP.
Yes, the Dreadnought is a "flying unstoppable killing machine"...but he didn't have that capability without the Wizard.
Which I think is really the point in a nutshell. PF is a team game, yes...but when one guy is the "problem solver" while everyone else relies on that guy to get things done (after all, without the Wizard, or a Sorcerer, or whatever that Dreadnought was s!!+ outta luck), it shows that something's gotta give.
I don't think the tier system is perfect. Hell, I can't remember the last time I even actually looked at the damn thing. But the principles it's based on are pretty sound. You can have a pretty accurate gut feeling of whether one class is "better" than another without consulting any "official" tier list.
And most people's gut feeling is going to say "In every realm but combat, the Fighter comes up short" or something similar.
"But the Wizard can do that stuff because teamwork" kinda sidesteps the point. Yes, the Wizard can solve a whole bunch of problems the Fighter can't. THAT'S THE PROBLEM, you know?
Not every class needs to be able to handle every problem, but when one class can theoretically handle ALL the problems, and another can handle NONE (or one) of them, it's an issue that should be addressed.
Which is what we're talking about, here. Problem solving, individually among the classes.
A party of Wizards can overcome any challenge (granted, assuming they survive to level 5 or so which is iffy). A party of Fighters is gonna struggle.
A well rounded party like your classic Fighter/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue will survive just fine.
Likewise a party of "tier 3s" (Bard/Inquisitor/Magus/Alchemist anyone?) will do just fine.
But a party of, say, Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/Paladin is going to struggle with anything but combat. A Party of Rogues and Monks is going to struggle WITH combat (and still some of the same problems the previous party would have had).
It really is indicative of the general power level of a class IN a group dynamic. How much do they contribute? Could a party of similar classes survive as easily as a party of "higher tier" classes? And so on.
I guess I'm saying it works better as an average? If the average "tier" of your party comes up to at least 3, you should be fine. Might struggle occasionally, but 90% of the time you're gold.
Below that...you've got troubles. SO why not eliminate the bottom tier by making them good enough that that's NOT the case?
Why can't the Big Beefy Squad of Doom (Pally, Ranger, Barb, and Fighter) be as viable as the Overlappingly Skilled Group of Jacks (Bard, Inquisitor, alchemist, and Magus)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd agree with you personally. . . I find Rangers to have too few spells for what I like, but there's every kind of person and if I put a book on the table that didn't have a class without that kind of features I would never be able to run it and we'd use a previous edition that has normal Fighter in it instead.
If I don't allow him to select an option that exchanges ranger spells for feats he won't play a Ranger because it has too much spells for him. . .To be clear, he's good with the Skirmisher archetype then?
And to be honest, your friend seems to be in the vast minority. Most people don't find the Ranger's spells to be too complex.
I just don't get it.
Really, I don't.Does anyone actually think that Paizo or any publishing company is just going to go, "You know that class we made in the Core Rulebook? The Fighter? You can't play him anymore. You have to play this NEW version of the Fighter. Everyone tear up your character sheets NOW!"
Don't call an improved Fighter class the Fighter. It would be called something else and Fighter would still exist. He could play it from now until the end of time and no one could FORCE HIM not to. A new option doesn't make the old one go away, it just gives a new option.
And Anecdotal Evidence is just that. Anecdotal. I've met lots of people who hate casters. Love to play martials. I've never met anyone, myself, that refuses to play anything but Fighters. Or Rangers or Paladins who basically been archetyped into Fighters.
Does that mean your point of view and complaint is invalid? Because it is meaningless to me. Doesn't affect me and won't affect this player of yours. CAUSE THE FIGHTER CLASS WOULD STILL EXIST. The new class called Fighter 2.0 would exist and he would never have to play it.
I apologize for invoking the Tier system in my post. I wasn't attempting to debate the validity of the Tier system or any ranking system in particular. And I recognize that full BAB is an important resource. I'm just doing my best to quantify how important it is in relationship to other resources.
Well, as a thought, let's take that hypothetical class you posited, the one with the attack and utility abilities, and compare it to the Barbarian and Paladin. to do this, let's take BAB completely out of the picture; let's just compare the powers and abilities that each class has. How do they match up? If your class, well call it a "Warcaster" has equivalent abilities, then an equivalent BAB would be appropriate.
As for the general case for BAB? I would say it depends, but matters less as the tier increases. My ninja would have loved an extra +2 to hit at fifth level, because hitting vs AC was essential for her special ability to trigger, and she was starved of chances to hit. But I think she would have liked even more an ability to actually pull off backstabs regularly. My archer Bard didn't care about BAB so much, as shooting things was typically the last thing he did in combat. My wizard didn't care about BAB at all- I can't recall any time she actually made a to-hit roll. Oh yeah, she would toss the occasional Alchemical Fire until she learned replacement spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Dr Deth on this one, mostly. Now, I don't think that the concept of analyzing the classes and putting them into tiers with the purpose of aiding GMs preparing for parties with these classes and developers gauge the relative strength of their creations is a bad thing. That's a sound goal. I also don't disagree with the definitions of the different tiers (though I'd prefer to have added under tier 3/4 a clause of "can perform as a tier 1/2, but only under specific circumstances and/or with lots of preparation").
However, the actual ranking is extremely simplified and doesn't take many important factors into consideration. Likewise do many of it's proponents use it in a far too simplistic manner and put too much weight to it.
If we treat the tier system as campaign/optimization/level agnostic, then it fails at it's intended goals and is basically useless. We need to aknowledge its limitations in order for it to be useful for GMs and developers.
A few important things it ignores that is relevant to it's goals (as they are stated here but that the tier system fails at:
Not all problems have equal weight
Being able to solve the problem "orcs are invading the village" is more relevant to the game than being able to solve the problem "the baker's apprentice has gone home sick but it's the Big Cake day". Having solutions to the highest amount of problems it's relevant, the relevant thing for the game, in respect to the goals, is to how large a degree you can solve the problems presented in a standard campaign. And let's face it: A very large degree of the problems in a standard campaign can be solved through combat, so being very capable at combat means you're capable of solving a large degree of the problems in the game.
Tiers vary depending on optimization level.
If the goal is to aid GMs, this is very important to take into consideration. Especially for newer GMs, who are both more likely to need the aid and more likely to have a newer group with low understanding of optimization. The post also states that it is assuming "everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level". I think that what it assumes is that everyone in the party is playing with a high level of optimization. Because while all classes gain from optimization, a badly optimized sorcerer will far underperform a badly optimized paladin. Some classes (like sorcerer) have a high roof and a low floor. Others (like paladin) have a floor and roof far closer to each other.
This is true both for build optimization and optimized play in terms of in-game tactics.
Developers need also consider roofs and floors, but must take optimizers into much larger consideration than a casual GM with a casual group has, so for developers, this isn't as big of a failure for the system as for the GMs that need aid.
Tiers vary depending on campaign parameters.
Often, campaign parameters that further reduces the power of martials or further empowers casters (lots of long-distance travel needed, lots of flying enemies or enemies that can't be beat in a straight up fight, lots of down-time, lots of information on what enemies you might face, lots of options to prepare, a permissive nature towards the 5 minute workday etc) are considered par for the course, while campaign parameters that limit the usefulness of casters are considered "GM Fiat" or "Magic Story Hour" (getting trapped in a dead-magic plane, quests on a short timer, lots of smart ambushes etc).
In a campaign where the party gets trapped in a dead-magic plane and has to fight their way out, the wizard - as a class - will be incredibly weak, because it's abilities are mostly useless. Now, this is an extreme example of course, but there are many gray areas inbetween; it was mostly used to highlight that "tiers are campaign independent" is a claim that is only relevant if you completely ignore the goals of having tiers in the first place.
Tiers vary incredibly much depending on level
This is the biggest one I think. The tiers as listed are basically "what can this class end up doing if going to (or close to) 20", and this is visible even in the definitions of the tiers ("capable of doing absolutely everything" is only ever true for high-level characters). But if newish GMs take that list and assumes that it's true across the levels, that's _very bad advice_ they've gotten from it. Likewise, a developer can look at her class and see that at level 20, it falls right in the tier 3 group, exclaiming "nice!" while not realizing that at levels 1-4 it might be a tier 6 while at levels 5-15 being a tier 2, or similar. Again, then the advice gained from the list is bad and the system has failed it's purpose.
Rather, tiers must be analyzed during different levels of play. Some classes start out with the ability to solve very few problems (sorcerer for example) but grow exponentially in power. Others start out with good ability to solve problems (like a rogue) but the problems they're good at solving at level 1 quickly become irrelevant and their power doesn't increase with them.
Now, it may very well be that someone else has aknowledged this in that forum thread and it's old news, or someone might argue that it's already taken into consideration, but let's face it: That's not the way the tiers are used; just look at this thread. On the OP's question, "are there any Full BAB tier 3 or better classes", the answer when considering it from level 20 is "no", but considering it from level 1 is "yes"; I'd peg barbarian, paladin and ranger all as solid tier 3's at level 1-5 (and possibly a bit further).
I don't agree that even in a very combat heavy campaign the Fightin' Man is going to provisionally move up a tier.
The reason being, that combat is more than just "Whack 'im".
Combat is making saves. Combat is having the mobility to reach your opponent (if it's flying or burrowing, how do you handle that? What about difficult terrain, or a bottomless pit, or Wall of ____?). Combat is survival as well (can you heal yourself and/or prevent yourself from taking damage unnecessarily?) Combat is even making some skill checks (Acrobatics to tumble, Sense Motive to avoid a Feint, Perception to fin an invisible/stealthy enemy, etc.).
Which a lot of the Tier 4 classes still can't deal with. The Fighter can't fly. He cannot make himself fly under his own class abilities. He has no other way to achieve a similar effect, not even a very high Acrobatics will let you catch someone 50 ft. in the air.
This, by the way, is why Barbarian and Paladin are considered provisionally Tier 3. Paladins have great saves. They can heal themselves and teammates, even of some status effects. They have a few spells, can customize their weapon (to an extent) on the fly or have a pretty b&*@&in' mount, stuff like that. So they have a lot more options (and therefore a higher tier) than the Fighter.
The Barbarian is amazing and I love it because it is a one trick pony.
Except its pony is a swiss army knife. A Barbarian can solve a hell of a lot of problems by smashing it. A Barbarian can kill an enemy. It can debuff an enemy. It can disable traps. All by whackin' it with a stick.
It helps that they have awesome saves and amazing damage output, coupled with ludicrous HP totals and damage reduction (which essentially multiplies those ludicrous HP totals). They even have options to overcome stuff like flying enemies and invisible ones (Dragon Totem and Scent respectively), but only with certain builds...hence why they're tentatively Tier 3 or a STRONG tier 4 in my book. They theoretically can do a lot of things, but can't do a lot of it at the same time.
I don't agree that even in a very combat heavy campaign the Fightin' Man is going to provisionally move up a tier.
The reason being, that combat is more than just "Whack 'im".
If that was meant as an answer to me, good thing I didn't state such a thing then? I said "very capable at combat", not "being a fighter".
Oh, but that brings up a different thing:
For the goals listed, completely ignoring gear is counterproductive
Because gold is something that the characters will have, and that they will use to shore up their weaknesses. If we completely ignore gear, we'll quickly come to the conclusion that most classes will be sucky at doing anything since they don't have the food required to survive. Likewise, while barbarians have a higher overland speed than most other classes up until at least 7th or so level, that isn't seen as much power since everyone can just buy a cheap mount (the spell only being available to 4 classes).
In the same vein, counting "combat enemy is flying" as a hazard a high-level fighter can't deal with is about as stupid as "the party needs food" as a hazard a low-level wizard can't deal with. At a certain point, some things are just an expected part of wealth. This isn't true for everything of course, and "throw some money on it" isn't a solution; I think it's very relevant to bring up that a 13th level wizard has the power to teleport quite freely and the fighter does not, and the fighter can only occacionally solve that issue with an item, but a 13th level flighter has access to short-duration flight, that much can be assumed (just like we assume a 1st level wizard has access to a spell component pouch).
Ignoring gear is not counterproductive, it is necessary. As you say, gear is something every class is expected to have.
It is NOT a class feature of the class.
If one class can do X without gear, and another class can only do X WITH gear...that's an issue with the class. The fact that they can toss money at the problem and make it go away (sometimes) doesn't help the class itself, which is what is in question. At that point, at the very least, you have to concede the point that they are burning resources for an inferior solution to a problem another class gets for free, and better.
The point of this discussion, or at least my end of it, is to discuss the classes themselves, not what might be achieved with add-ons to the class that can occasionally solve a problem for them.
It also leaves a bad taste in at least my mouth, because in a roundabout way it's still the Fighter (or other class) relying on the Wizard (or whoever crafted the gear he's using).
It's a workable solution for a campaign but masks the problem with teh class more than fixes them.
As you say, it's not a solution, and I do agree Potions of Fly or Winged Boots at a certain point become a must, but it's a bit of a tangent to the core problem of the class REQUIRING that outside help to function.
I'll also say your example of the Barbarian's speed is kind of a weird one. Using a mount doesn't help you in any situation besides overland travel, which is where a Barbarian's land speed is irrelevant anyway...you only travel as fast as your slowest member, after all. It's definitely meant to be a combat ability, and it shines there, since nobody's going to be using a mount in combat bar the odd Paladin or Cavalier.
Ignoring gear is not counterproductive, it is necessary. As you say, gear is something every class is expected to have.
So, I assume when we consider the wizard, we disregard any spells beyond the 2 gained every level, we disregard any spell that has a component or focus requirement with a cost >1gp and we assume every wizard takes eschew components? And also they won't be able to succeed at any goal which takes more than about 5 days, after which they'll likely be fatigued and with reduced hit points, since they're starving?
If one class can do X without gear, and another class can only do X WITH gear...that's an issue with the class.
Not if comparing at a point where the cost is quite neglible.
question. At that point, at the very least, you have to concede the point that they are burning resources for an inferior solution to a problem another class gets for free, and better.
Absolutely. I never said things that could be bought should be ignored - but claiming that a 13th level fighter can't solve the issue of "flying enemy" when a potion of fly costs about half a percent of WBL and winged boots cost 5% of WBL (for comparision, a component pouch costs 7% of a 1st level wizard's wealth) is faulty, just like claiming all classes that encourage dumping Wis means characters will starve.
The point of this discussion, or at least my end of it, is to discuss the classes themselves, not what might be achieved with add-ons to the class that can occasionally solve a problem for them.
The point is, according to the thread, to provide information for GMs, players, and developers to better understand power balance within parties based on class.
To successfully do that - to attain the stated goal of the tier system - one must consider how characters of the classes actually play out in a game, rather than just looking at them in a complete vacuum. Because in a vacuum, they'll all suffocate ('cept for the full casters, who cast air bubble ;D).Yeah, for pure theorywank it can be fun to consider them in a vacuum, but to provide relevant information for GMs they need to be considered in relation to the worlds they exist in, or all comparisions fall apart.
It also leaves a bad taste in at least my mouth, because in a roundabout way it's still the Fighter (or other class) relying on the Wizard (or whoever crafted the gear he's using).
Uhm... In the same way the wizard is relying on the commoner with Profession (Bookbinder), yeah. That doesn't really tell us anything. Since we regard the gear in relation to the expected wealth of the character it's not really "relying" on another character, more than the wizard is relying on the bookbinder - it's not a boon or charity from the wizards.
As you say, it's not a solution, and I do agree Potions of Fly or Winged Boots at a certain point become a must, but it's a bit of a tangent to the core problem of the class REQUIRING that outside help to function.
Not anymore than the wizard being more or less required to buy food at the start of her career. But, I don't think we should see gear as "outside help", not more than skill points or feats. They're _generic_ resources that anyone can have access to, but they're not outside _help_ in the sense that others put resources to you. I'm not saying some classes being a lot more gear-dependant isn't an issue for them, I'm saying that solving the issue through wealth is solving the issue, just like solving it through skills or feats or racial bonuses or anything else not listed under "class features". If we strip a wizard of all gear, all general feats, all skills and all racial features, it will hardly be tier 1 anymore. I'm not saying martials are better naked, I'm just saying the tier system requires us to assume that the characters can spend their wealth on what benefits their class - for casters, things like spell component pouches, holy symbols, material components etc.
I'll also say your example of the Barbarian's speed is kind of a weird one. Using a mount doesn't help you in any situation besides overland travel, which is where a Barbarian's land speed is irrelevant anyway... you only travel as fast as your slowest member, after all.
Depends on the problem to be solved (which is after all how we define tier). Also, that other party members drag down one party members shouldn't be taken into consideration AFAIK?
Again, to clarify: I do not think the idea of tiering classes is bad. I do not think the martial-caster disparity is an illusion. Those are not my claims. Just to make sure you don't get me wrong.
The M/C disparity is very real, and at higher levels can really destroy a game (hence I rarely play high level anymore).
But the post about tiers is the least relevant to the group that needs it the most; newish GMs who risk encountering issues with imbalance in the group. To them, the list can probably often do more harm than good, because newish GMs have a bad tendency to houserule stuff without understanding it properly, and then seeing a list that says "wizards can do everything fighters can't do anything" - which is kinda true at level 20 - can lead to bad results if it leads to the GM nerfing wizards or disallowing them or giving fighters major buffs when the game actually takes place at level 1 and allows for practically no down-time. Just as an example of what I think is a likely consequence of GM's looking at the list.
The people to which the list is most relevant - GM's with optimizing players at high levels with little in terms of "gentlemens agreement" reigning back the power of casters - tend to also be the people who have the least use of the list, as many of these things are already fairly obvious to them.
So, I assume when we consider the wizard, we disregard any spells beyond the 2 gained every level, we disregard any spell that has a component or focus requirement with a cost >1gp and we assume every wizard takes eschew components? And also they won't be able to succeed at any goal which takes more than about 5 days, after which they'll likely be fatigued and with reduced hit points, since they're starving?
My favorite comparison point is 10th level. As levels higher than that allow for Wealth to shore up any class's weaknesses. Which makes discussion rather pointless.
You're kinda going off the wall here though.
Really? Bookbinder?
Really?
Realistically, how hard is it to go to a city and purchase spells as a wizard? Not very hard. How difficult is it to always have the right consumables when you need them? Kinda tough.
It should also be pointed out in any conversation about consumables and magical equipment, that casters still have an advantage there because crafting feats allow them to multiply wealth, granting them access to more equipment.
My favorite comparison point is 10th level.
Which is a quite high level, seeing as how the average AP ends at around 15 or so and PFS ends at around 13.
Having a single comparision point is in itself an issue. The tiering would be much more useful if it was split based on level. Also, note that at 10th level, the 5 minute workday and "always having the right spell" is still extremely much up to the campaign paradigms and not easily avoided (as a caster has very limited amount of 5th level spells needed for teleporting/plane shifting and those are inaccurate means of transportation, and doesn't have a demiplane of her own yet).Not only do I not agree on the tier lists if 10th level is the point where the comparision was made, I also think it's a bad point to compare as it's 2/3's through an average AP and nearly at the end of PFS.
6th to 7th level seems far more reasonable, if we need to pick a single spot - I'd much rather have it displayed as a continuum. Again, it's much more useful for GMs with relatively little experience that way. Especially since they're less likely to play high-level games.
Realistically, how hard is it to go to a city and purchase spells as a wizard? Not very hard. How difficult is it to always have the right consumables when you need them? Kinda tough.
All part of campaign paradigms and ultimately a matter of GM Fiat. In some games, getting access to a wizard to copy from will be incredibly hard while there's alchemists cranking out potions in every street corner - in other games, the reverse will be true.
Nowhere in the book does it state anything about how common a wizard is in communities, only what the highest-level caster is. Consumables such as scrolls cost the same to buy for everone.
Which is part of my point - a lot comes down to what the campaign paradigms are.
Don't purposefully miss the point like that please, the conversation's been remarkably civil so far and stuff like that just makes things start to turn hostile.
Yes, a Wizard requires some gear too. We'll ignore food, clothing, etc. because...seriously? Come on now.
But the Wizard can get by with just his spellbook and a spell component pouch. Even limiting him to his 2 free spells a level and no spells with costly components makes him exponentially more powerful than a Fighter with similar gold investment.
As well, buying spells (either new ones or paying for expensive ones) is a Wizard's core expenditure, much like weapons and armor are for the Fighter.
The difference being that with his core expenditure or without it, a Wizard is a potent class.
Without his core expenditure (weapons and armor) a Fighter is crippled.
What does a Wizard need? The Big 4 items, of course (Cloak of Resistance, Amulet of Natural Armor, Ring of Protection, and Headband of Stat Boosty), enough funds to copy over some extra spells (a pretty damn small expenditure overall, considering a Wizard can theoretically copy EVERY SPELL IN THE GAME into a spellbook or 5 and still remain within WBL at any given level), and the cash to cover some material component having spells. A lot of which are rarely cast.
The Fighter, as well, needs the Big 4 items the Wizard needs (change Headband of Stat Boosty to the Belt of Boost Statty), a magic weapon, magic armor (which already totals up to more than a Wizard NEEDS to spend on his stuff)...AND THEN those potions (Fly, See Invisibility, etc.) or expensive magic items (Winged Boots), and so on.
And still doesn't accomplish as much with it as a Wizard limited to his 2 freebie spells a level.
Charting out the effects of WBL makes the Fighter look WORSE, not better. Better for all involved to focus on the class features, not least because it's a much simpler comparison. Any cry of "But magic item" can be countered with a cry of "But...doesn't need magic item," and the discussion really goes nowhere at that point.
Maybe if they got more loot as a core rule the comparison would be more valid in my eyes, but I don't see that as a good solution to the problem.
By the by, I'm not really discussing the tier system per se...I find it to be a rough guideline at best for most things. It works to say "this class needs a bit of work here or there" but does little to address why that is or how it might be fixed...it's just a measuring stick, and any discussion of a measuring stick's validity is doomed before it begins. Measuring sticks in and of themselves are damned boring. They don't DO anything, they're just there, and they might be accurate or they might not be.
I think most people can agree that the tier system as a rough guesstimate is fairly accurate. Class X can solve more problems under his own power than Class Y and so on.
A bit of an aside, I always assume around 10th level as well, 11th if you want to put the martial classes in a favorable light. It's very middle of the road, and coincidentally is the point a build will generally come together if it's gonna come together.
It should also be pointed out in any conversation about consumables and magical equipment, that casters still have an advantage there because crafting feats allow them to multiply wealth, granting them access to more equipment.
Absolutely, but if wealth is ignored, that benefit is worth nothing as 0*0=0.
Also, fighters can use their own resources to gain access to reduced cost crafting through the use of the Leadership feat. Which is a character resource like any other.
The more unlikely the scenario, the more likely it is that the best one to solve it will be a wizard?
Don't purposefully miss the point like that please, the conversation's been remarkably civil so far and stuff like that just makes things start to turn hostile.
Yes, a Wizard requires some gear too. We'll ignore food, clothing, etc. because...seriously? Come on now.
I agree we should ignore those things, because they are minor expenses relative to PC wealth. At high levels, I think we should ignore the things that are minor expenses relative to high-level PC wealth.
See what I'm saying? I'm not saying we should ignore that a fighter needs to spend loads of cash to teleport around, I'm saying that after a certain point, 8000 gp is less to a character than 5 gp was when they started out. If even worth tracking it's still not relevant in the larger picture of things.
Even limiting him to his 2 free spells a level and no spells with costly components makes him exponentially more powerful than a Fighter with similar gold investment.
At high levels I fully agree. I'd say a 15th level wizard with 100 gp worth of wealth is more versatile and narratively powerful than a fighter with full 15th level WBL. That is not the argument. I do not think such a wizard is tier 1, but rather tier 2 (and a weaker tier 2 than a sorcerer with similarly low wealth).
What does a Wizard need? The Big 4 items, of course (Cloak of Resistance, Amulet of Natural Armor, Ring of Protection, and Headband of Stat Boosty), enough funds to copy over some extra spells (a pretty damn small expenditure overall, considering a Wizard can theoretically copy EVERY SPELL IN THE GAME into a spellbook or 5 and still remain within WBL at any given level),
This requires access to another wizards spellbook, which is completely a matter of GM fiat in the same way a fighter having access to a portal rather than plane shift is. Nowhere in the rules is there anything about the frequency of wizards. If paying for scrolls of the spells (which ARE covered in accessability by the rules), it's quite a lot more expensive.
Charting out the effects of WBL makes the Fighter look WORSE, not better. Better for all involved to focus on the class features, not least because it's a much simpler comparison. Any cry of "But magic item" can be countered with a cry of "But...doesn't need magic item," and the...
The thing is, "a 13th level fighter can't fight anything that flies" looks like a lot worse issue than "a 13th level fighter has to put 5% of his wealth to get an item that allows him to fly 3/day".
Also, fighters can use their own resources to gain access to reduced cost crafting through the use of the Leadership feat. Which is a character resource like any other.Again, the fact that a weak class can recruit a strong class to deal with challenges for them only highlights the former's weaknesses.
So... Any wizard that summons a meat shield only shows how weak the wizard is? Using your resources to make up for your weaknesses is the wizard's specialty and a large part of what has made it stronger in 3.x/PF than in say 1st Ed. But we are to assume that no-one else can do that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, "a 13th level fighter can't fight anything that flies" looks like a lot worse issue than "a 13th level fighter has to put 5% of his wealth to get an item that allows him to fly 3/day".
To me, it's misleading.
A 13th level Fighter CAN'T fight anything that flies (barring archers, shush). He simply cannot do it. The class, Fighter, has no way of dealing with flying targets.
Now, an ITEM can allow people to fly, which in a roundabout way can give a specific Fighter the ability to overcome that scenario...but that's not the Fighter. That's the item.
Does that make sense to anyone but me?
Your point is that the strongest feat in the game does a lot to level the playing field. This is true, but taking Leadership is in no way limited to martial classes.
Agreed. But feats that level the playing field must be considered.
It highlights the weakness of martials. Casters can use their class abilities to cover their inherent weaknesses. while martial classes are forced to cover those resources from their common pools (non-bonus feats and WBL), when they can do so at all.
Fully agreed.
To me, it's misleading.
A 13th level Fighter CAN'T fight anything that flies (barring archers, shush). He simply cannot do it. The class, Fighter, has no way of dealing with flying targets.
Now, an ITEM can allow people to fly, which in a roundabout way can give a specific Fighter the ability to overcome that scenario...but that's not the Fighter. That's the item.
Does that make sense to anyone but me?
Just like a 1st level wizard can't cast Alarm. Now, an ITEM (spell component pouch) can allow the wizard to fly, but that's not the wizard, that's the item.
You see me using this example because at 13th level, the opportunity cost for winged boots is less than the opportunity cost for a spell component pouch at level 1.
The thing is, a 13th level fighter _can't exist_. Because classes don't exist on their own. Anyone who is a 13th level fighter also has a race, 8 feats, and in a standard campaign 140k gold. Those things needs to be taken into consideration, and any of them could give access to flight (well, race needs to be in combination with a feat)
At level 7, sure I agree, fighters can't fight flying ranged opponents more than rarely (unless they're built for archery but let's ignore that for a moment). Investing in a reliable means of flying is a huge opportunity cost, and even occacional flight is felt (three potions eating up 10% of the WBL). But at level 7, we _can_ safely assume that the fighter will have a 60ft overland speed, which we couldn't assume at level 1 - where a horse is a similar opportunity cost as winged boots is at 7th level.
At 13th level the fighter has access to flight, just as at 1st level the wizard has access to Alarm. The 13th level fighter does NOT have access to teleportation more than rarely though - but at 19th level it will.
It makes sense, but it isn't satisfying to me. Characters are going to have magic items, it's just part of the game.A better counterargument is how magic items lag far behind challenges. While a 13th-level fighter can have Boots of Flight, he's been facing flying enemies for eight or nine levels already, and still has no way of participating in a game where he has to Teleport across the world to accomplish things, or travel to the Cloud Kingdoms in the sky, or chase the villain to his lair on the Astral Plane.
Additionally, martial classes need to spend a lot more of their personal wealth just to keep from being Red Queened in combat. Not only do they need the same save cloak/stat booster/AC items that a caster will take, but they also need a whole set of gear to do their stabbing/shooting schtick. Rynjin makes this argument above (although I think he's c/ping JaronK's argument to the same effect).
This I fully agree with.
But, again, note that this is mostly relevant at high levels. My absolutely largest issue with the tier system - larger than the other ones I mentioned combined - is that it assumes high level. That is the most deceptive thing with it, and the main reason I feel it completely misses its intended goal.
But, again, note that this is mostly relevant at high levels. My absolutely largest issue with the tier system - larger than the other ones I mentioned combined - is that it assumes high level.
No it doesn't. The differences just become most obvious and pervasive at those levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your point is that the strongest feat in the game does a lot to level the playing field. This is true, but taking Leadership is in no way limited to martial classes.Agreed. But feats that level the playing field must be considered.
The playing field is not all that level. The fighter picked up a caster. The wizard can grab a cleric, and that cleric(cohort) might actually be better than the fighter. The wizard with a cleric supporter just pulled farther ahead.
But, again, note that this is mostly relevant at high levels. My absolutely largest issue with the tier system - larger than the other ones I mentioned combined - is that it assumes high level.No it doesn't. The differences just become most obvious and pervasive at those levels.
So you are saying that at 1st level, a wizard matches this:
"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."While a rogue or barbarian matches this:
"Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining."
Is that your claim? If so, I fully and completely disagree.
Capable of doing absolutely everything that a character of that level could do.So you are saying that at 1st level, a wizard matches this:
"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."
And any single build can do this? Because if it's build dependant it's a tier 2 class, as you know.
Care to show that build to me, and I can pitch a bunch of challenges that other 1st level character can do, and you'll get to say how you solve them?
But, again, note that this is mostly relevant at high levels. My absolutely largest issue with the tier system - larger than the other ones I mentioned combined - is that it assumes high level.No it doesn't. The differences just become most obvious and pervasive at those levels.So you are saying that at 1st level, a wizard matches this:
"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."While a rogue or barbarian matches this:
"Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining."Is that your claim? If so, I fully and completely disagree.
No. Your claim is that it assumes high level play for it to come into effect.
It doesn't. It assumes the levels of most of the game, probably somewhere from 3 to 18. Levels 1 and 2 are very weird because of the exceptionally high mortality rate of every class (even a Barbarian is vulnerable to dying from a singly unlucky attack hit), and levels 19 and 20 are so high that most players will probably never see those levels in a normal game.
It assumes the levels of most of the game, probably somewhere from 3 to 18.
I strongly disagree with it at level 3 too. Or 5 for that matter. If someone posts a 5th level wizard I can put together a list of challenges that other 5th level characters can manage and you'll get the chance to explain how it succeeds at them.
I strongly disagree with it at level 3 too. Or 5 for that matter. If someone posts a 5th level wizard I can put together a list of challenges that other 5th level characters can manage and you'll get the chance to explain how it succeeds at them.How many of them involve an anti-magic zone?
None. It'll just be stuff that's supported by the rules as they exist, and will involve no plane travelling.
Care to show that build to me, and I can pitch a bunch of challenges that other 1st level character can do, and you'll get to say how you solve them?At first-level? The difference between classes is too small at that level to prove anything. Then again, at that level the difference between a fighter and a level in an NPC class is negligible, so I'm not sure it somehow strengthens your point.
If the difference is neglible at level one, then that means tiers do not exist at level one. Which would prove my point that the tier list gives bad advice for level one.
Also, I'm fairly certain there's a huge difference between a 1st level sorcerer, a 1st level barbarian and a 1st level rogue.
Absolutely. I never said things that could be bought should be ignored - but claiming that a 13th level fighter can't solve the issue of "flying enemy" when a potion of fly costs about half a percent of WBL and winged boots cost 5% of WBL (for comparision, a component pouch costs 7% of a 1st level wizard's wealth) is faulty, just like claiming all classes that encourage dumping Wis means characters will starve.
Anecdote, most times either fighter in our party pulled out a potion of fly in our recent adventure (15th level, so not quite 13th) it got dispelled in short order. Once that happened on literally the same turn (not even round, turn) that it was drunk. CL 5 is pretty low hanging fruit for dispels.
In fact the DM has gone so far as to OOC warn the party fighters that flying potions are dispel bait for any foe capable of such.
Reliable flight has needed a high caster level, such as that provided by being cast directly, or some alternate source.
Oh, so to gauge the relevance of the tier system at level 5 we are to use a proponents preferred examples, of which at least one is aimed at somewhere between 6th and 12th level?
I can do the first, but I have very different conclusions from you... And quite a bit more explicit than just "well they can solve it" without any backup on how they would solve it.
Cleric: Communal Endure Elements protects everyone from cold, correct. One 2nd level spell done. I don't see any spell of 3rd or lower level that lets her bypass the climbing completely, although she could cast something like a bull's strength to aid herself a bit in that regard. Doesn't really have much in the way of trapsolving, even with detect traps it's just a +2 bonus and gives no ability to disarm, but might be able to heal up the damage the traps do (the ones that do damage - the alarm traps are another matter). The dragon, being a young white dragon not yet arrogant enough to think of herself as invincible, will probably be well-hidden, especially considering Shape Snow and Snow Vision, so long-range attacks are out, and honestly there's not that much useful offensively on a 5th level cleric's list. Her best bet is probably to buff the fighter, as the save or sucks don't have enough duration+power to definately end the encounter. Of course, things are far worse if the alarm traps have gone off and the dragon gets opportunity to ambush the party (probably through something nasty with snow shape causing something heavy to fall). The cleric is quite unlikely to have the skills require to talk the dragon out of the jewels and likewise it would be rare for a 5th level cleric to have spells that allows it to snatch the items.
Sorcerer: Very vulnerable to have made the right choices during leveling, depending on optimization can be quite useless. Looking at the suggestions by Ogre here or the sorcerer guide here (first hit when googling optimize sorcerer pathfinder) just as example of what is considered strong choices, invisibility could potentially be useful to snatch the items if the rest of the party is engaging the dragon, and glitterdust could be useful for making vision more even. The sorcerer is the one most likely to have some strong social skill.
Rogue: Can probably make the climb with little to no issues, but as you note is vulnerable to the cold. Rogue and monk are the two best climbers in this party, and the one first up could fasten and throw down a rope, lowering the DC from 15 to 10 (assuming slippery wall). Can probably detect and disarm the traps without them going off, including the all-important alarm traps. She won't be able to do that much good in a fight unless someone else removes the concealment from snow, but she's got a decent chance of having quite good social skills. Like a sorcerer with invisibility, might have a chance to sneak by and get the stuff if the rest of the party engages the dragon.
Fighter: Probably able to make the climb, although slowly. Vulnerable to cold, but has good fortitude. Does not have much to do against the traps. If geared somewhat towards it, will probably be the strongest at killing off the dragon if it comes to that, but might require outside aid to reach the dragon if it flies or is high-up.
Monk: Can easily make the climb, like the rogue, and can aid the rest of the party with a rope. Good fortitude but nothing else vs cold. Not much to do against traps. Will likely have the easiest time to reach the dragon, but will not have much useful to do against it. Might have a chance to sneak like the sorcerer or rogue, but will probably have no social skills.
Generally in this situation, I'd rank their abilities like this:
Climbing: Monk>Rogue>Fighter>Cleric>Sorcerer.
Cold: Cleric>>>Fighter>Monk>Sorcerer>Rogue.
Traps: Rogue>>>Cleric>Fighter=Sorcerer=Monk.
Snatch'n'Run: Sorcerer>Rogue>Monk>Fighter=Cleric
Persuasion: Sorcerer=Rogue>Cleric>Fighter=Monk
Offensive actions: Fighter>Sorcerer>Cleric=Monk>Rogue
Quite mixed. I'd also note that I think being good at fighting is better than being good against the cold, and will come into play more often.
If the party lost the cleric, they'd have a notably harder time against the cold, especially the sorcerer. They'd also lack restorative skill against traps that might have given them ability damage or similar. Lastly, they'd lose valuable combat options and a backup socialite.
If the party lost the sorcerer, their chance to snatch and run would basically be null, and they'd lose a valuable face. It's also one of the strongest offensive forces.
Losing the Rogue would mean they're likely to trigger the Alarm traps, letting the dragon know beforehand they're coming. That can make the situation several times more dangerous. In addition, if the rogue has social skills that's a noticable loss.
If the party lost their fighter, any fight against the dragon would be hard, as the fighter is the main method of actually killing the dragon and debuffs at this level mostly limit offense - the dragon can use hit and run efficiently against them in that case. That's about the only thing you lose however, and with smart planning it's not that bad (unless you've triggered the alarms).
If the party lost their monk, the difference would be quite small. A bit worse at combat and that's about it.
In this case, the cleric clearly couldn't do everything, despite me looking at every spell in the spell list (but ignoring domains, which seems fair since those can't be swapped easily) so it clearly is not tier one at this point.
I could go through the others too but there you already have a good list of stuff the cleric couldn't do. Sure, another build might have been able to do more, but then it's a tier 2 class (if even that).
Also, I've already made the sort of examples you're talking about, albeit without the adversarial "gotcha" setup you seem to be angling for, using one generic example and two examples from published adventures.
If the difference is neglible at level one, then that means tiers do not exist at level one.Class balance is meaningless in a context where a large difference between stats is +/-3 on a 20-wide RNG. If your point is that tier lists have little to say that's useful about level 1 games, then, okay, you win that point. I'm not sure anyone but you really cares.
If they actually are able to "do everything" as the requirement for tier one states, then there should be no possible "gotcha"'s. I'm not even aiming for what some superfocused people can do either. There's quite a lot I don't think a specific wizard can do at 5th level. Of course, if it's not "one specific wizard" (as tier 1 states) but rather "all wizards combined" (which indicates tier 2-3) that list shrinks, hence I ask for an actual build.
Also, over the course of 20 rolls where the target number is 15, there's quite a lot of difference between 1d20-2 (which might be the check for a wizard breaking down a door) and 1d20+6 (which might be the check for a barbarian doing the same thing)
It is inexpensive, since you don't need all 94 5th level spells. Look I'm not taking Unreakable Construct unless I'm in the business of making Golems or Blood Moneying up Permanent Animated Objects. Same with Unseen Crew, though in the event I'm on a ship or something. And I probably only really need Wall of Force, so Light (unless I'm in an undead heavy campaign) and Sound are little redundant.
Huh.. it's almost like the Wizard can tailor their spell purchasing choices to the sort of campaign and needs they have... that seems rather useful.