^ I hesitate to ask, but is Fighter an inadvertent omission from the list of tiers, or...
Fighter is highly dependent on the build, since the class is all feats-- good fighters are tier 1, bad fighters tier 2.
^ I hesitate to ask, but is Fighter an inadvertent omission from the list of tiers, or...
If you post on these boards, one requirement is that you hate the fighter, rogue & monk. You must take every opportunity to tell people how horrible they are, and how BADWRONGFUN playing one is.
^ I hesitate to ask, but is Fighter an inadvertent omission from the list of tiers, or...If you post on these boards, one requirement is that you hate the fighter, rogue & monk. You must take every opportunity to tell people how horrible they are, and how BADWRONGFUN playing one is.
Well I don't hate the Fighter and the Monk. In fact, I LOVE the Monk.
They could stand to be a bit better, but I like them.
The Rogue can go f!$% itself though with its smug face and pretending it brings something even halfway worthwhile to the table.
^ I hesitate to ask, but is Fighter an inadvertent omission from the list of tiers, or...If you post on these boards, one requirement is that you hate the fighter, rogue & monk. You must take every opportunity to tell people how horrible they are, and how BADWRONGFUN playing one is.Well I don't hate the Fighter and the Monk. In fact, I LOVE the Monk.
They could stand to be a bit better, but I like them.
The Rogue can go f@%+ itself though with its smug face and pretending it brings something even halfway worthwhile to the table.
120d6 damage per round isn't enough for you?
120d6 damage per round isn't enough for you?^ I hesitate to ask, but is Fighter an inadvertent omission from the list of tiers, or...If you post on these boards, one requirement is that you hate the fighter, rogue & monk. You must take every opportunity to tell people how horrible they are, and how BADWRONGFUN playing one is.Well I don't hate the Fighter and the Monk. In fact, I LOVE the Monk.
They could stand to be a bit better, but I like them.
The Rogue can go f@%+ itself though with its smug face and pretending it brings something even halfway worthwhile to the table.
>Assuming the Rogue hits more than twice.
Well, more like "Assuming the Rogue lives past 5th level" but I'm giving you the benefit that maybe he was created at 20th.
Also the worst part is that 120d6 isn't that great anyway, since he's likely to have little static damage behind it because of Dex focus.
At max he's dealing 720 damage which is kinda meh at 20th level when you factor in that he needs to hit all of like 6 attacks and the Barbarian's sitting over here like "Bro I do 2d6+100 at a +10 to-hit over you I got dis s+*#".
Oh, I agree. Doing it often is a dick move by the DM. The thing is, the fighter just pulls out another weapon, and fights down -1 until someone casts Make Whole.How many tim es has your DM stolen the wizards spellbook, or sundered his spell pouch?IME, stealing spellbooks (or weapons) might happen once... maybe twice in a campaign. It gets old really fast...
Still, I'd say every Wizard should keep a copy of his spellbook somewhere safe, just like every martial class should carry a spare weapon or two...
Nice to have, yes. But a wizard can't cast spells at all*. He becomes a class with a d6 HP and a few nifty knowledge skills.
* yes, a few wizards can cast a spell or two without a book.
This didn't actually happen in the scenario we were discussing, because the reason the wizard didn't have her spellbook was that the whole party had been imprisoned and had to jailbreak. The wizard didn't have a full complement of spells (between a handful expended beforehand and a few slots left open for versatility reasons) but was able to recover her spellbook by the end of the day, so the main effect of the missing spellbook was the inability to fill a few mid to high empty spell slots (IIRC).
Which was hindering, but not nearly crippling, and not even in the same neighborhood as no spellcasting whatsoever.
So I admit it went down more like this:
Honestly, the whole steal/sunder thing as an argument against Wizards is silly. Because if this is happening to the Wizard is should really be happening to everybody else first.
I played through another gear-denial adventure recently,
in which the adventure's explicit aim, for the prepared casters to be able to cast their daily complement of spells but not re-prepare till they got to a certain point in the adventure where they had access to gear again, was contrary to your can't cast spells at all assertion as well. And again in which the gear limitations were similar party-wide.
On the topic of sundered spell component pouch vs sundered weapon (and really this whole discussion overall) you just aren't comparing apples to apples. You're comparing a fighter who gets his weapon sundered (or loses his weapons) but has easy access to his backups to a wizard who gets his pouch sundered (or loses his spellbooks) but has no access to his backups. An apples to apples comparison would compare either a wizard to a fighter who both get sundered and pull out their backup weapon/pouch, or a wizard who is reduced to non material component spells when he loses his pouch and a sword swinger who is reduced to punching when he loses his sword. Unless you have a basis to assert that backup spell component pouches are systematically rarer than a backup magic sword, which I kind of assume you do not since they are similarly wise precautions.*
Now, I think Anzyr is overstating his case here as well (and tends to do so as often as you in general, I've noted). I have, once over the course of playing 3.0 and then 3.5 and then Pathfinder, observed a situation where a wizard's was confronted with a long term loss of all spellbook access whatsoever and did run into severe problems because of it. It is not impossible or inconceivable as Anzyr has suggested. That said, your paradigm is significantly further from my typical experience, in adventures both homebrew and published, than his in this particular case.
*correct me if I am wrong.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a giant gap between theory and practice on Rogue throwing down those sorts of numbers. If he can get into position, if the enemy stays still long enough for the Rogue to get off a full attack while still being in position, if that enemy doesn't have something to negate Sneak Attack (an obscuring mist will do it), if it's vulnerable in the first place, and if the rogue manages to hit with every last one of its attacks, it can toss down damage like that.
That's way too many conditionals to be reliable.
In any event, raw damage isn't precisely the most useful thing you can be doing with your turn. A fireball doesn't take opponents out of a fight unless it kills them stone cold dead - but a hold person ends their danger as a combatant.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
have a much different list of tiers. . . since combat is the #1 most important task, which happens in every session and virtually every other problem is arbitrary in at least 99% of all sessions coming up only very rarely, we will consider combat abilities to be worth 99% and any other task to be worth 1%.
Combat abilities are worth 99%??? You and I are playing very different games, then. My games usually involve a lot more than DPR competitions with NPCs.
And THIS is the tiers that matter in the vast majority of game play to be perfectly honest.
Because the deep down dirty secret of this game is that its a combat game and combat is worth way more than anything else.
Your tier list is no more valid than any other. While it may be part of your gaming style, it's very far from being an universal truth.
Combat is a big part of the game. But it's not the whole game. Not even close. Even if it does appear every session. And guess what... I took combat in consideration too. And Fighters are not all that good at it. They are good at full attacking, but combat is a lot more than standing still and hitting stuff.
And Rogues are pretty horrible in combat, with their pathetic saves, lowish AC and poor accuracy.
Alternatively, you can put words into peoples mouths, build a million strawmen, and never, ever consider making a post without at least one big logical fallacy in it.Sorry, I'm confused... Anzyr hasn't posted a comment on this thread in a while.
Seriously, though, fighters rule, casters drool! Fighters! Yeah!
120d6 damage per round isn't enough for you?By posting numbers, you're only inviting a caster fanboy to show up with a glass cannon fireball build that can do better, earlier.
Oh, I'm sure, but the fact remains 2wf rogue with the gear to help him hit does a ton of damage.
have a much different list of tiers. . . since combat is the #1 most important task, which happens in every session and virtually every other problem is arbitrary in at least 99% of all sessions coming up only very rarely, we will consider combat abilities to be worth 99% and any other task to be worth 1%.Combat abilities are worth 99%??? You and I are playing very different games, then. My games usually involve a lot more than DPR competitions with NPCs.
All the games I have ever played in or GMed involved a lot more than this as well. Even the games that were basically end to end combat with roleplay window dressing (of which there have been a few, I can enjoy that too) still featured far more than to hit vs AC and damage vs hit points.
Oh, I'm sure, but the fact remains 2wf rogue with the gear to help him hit does a ton of damage.
Assuming they hit and can use Sneak Attack... And that they are not removed from combat by failing a save. Or being plumed to death through their mediocre-at-best AC and HP.
This didn't actually happen in the scenario we were discussing, because the reason the wizard didn't have her spellbook was that the whole party had been imprisoned and had to jailbreak.
Coriat, I cheerfully admit that stealing a spellbook is a rare once in a campaign experience, often limited to "ye olde wake up naked but for a loin cloth in a prison cell" meme. (the one every DM itches to do at least once)
But how often do a fighter's boots of flying get stolen?
Really, about the same amount, eh?
My point was that "Well, sure fighter can do X if you include equipment, but once you exclude equipment fighters can't do anything" applies equally to the wizard, and perhaps even moreso.
All the games I have ever played in or GMed involved a lot more than this as well. Even the games that were basically end to end combat with roleplay window dressing (of which there have been a few, I can enjoy that too) still featured far more than to hit vs AC and damage vs hit points.have a much different list of tiers. . . since combat is the #1 most important task, which happens in every session and virtually every other problem is arbitrary in at least 99% of all sessions coming up only very rarely, we will consider combat abilities to be worth 99% and any other task to be worth 1%.Combat abilities are worth 99%??? You and I are playing very different games, then. My games usually involve a lot more than DPR competitions with NPCs.
Ok, so what else was in these sessions?
Roleplaying not withstanding since that's a factor of the player, not the character (unless you turn roleplaying portions into "roll a diplomacy check")
So think about the other things-- now think about how often each of those things comes up in the game.
Traps? Maybe 1 in every four or 5 sessions, but as a much smaller portion and typically less important since, at the end of the day Fighter can likely walk through the trap and be ok.
Other skill checks? Maybe you need to jump or climb in 1 in 10 sessions.
Travel to the Ethereal plane? Maybe you need to do this in 1 in a thousand sessions. . .
So I don't see why weighting those others as far less, and combat as far more important is a stretch.
What other task besides combat is in nearly every session and an incredibly important part of most of the sessions its in?
Coriat, I cheerfully admit that stealing a spellbook is a rare once in a campaign experience, often limited to "ye olde wake up naked but for a loin cloth in a prison cell" meme. (the one every DM itches to do at least once)
But how often do a fighter's boots of flying get stolen?
Really, about the same amount, eh?
I agree with this. Really, having your gear stolen/sundered is so rare that it's not a real consideration. At least, IME.
My point was that "Well, sure fighter can do X if you include equipment, but once you exclude equipment fighters can't do anything" applies equally to the wizard, and perhaps even more so.
Now this... Doesn't make much sense...
Fighters are much more gear-dependent than Wizards. Each item a Fighter loses is a huge loss in versatility and efficiency. Wizards, OTOH, don't lose all that many options... And they have a much easier time crafting stuff and protecting their spell books than Fighters have crafting/protecting their own gear.
Coriat, I cheerfully admit that stealing a spellbook is a rare once in a campaign experience, often limited to "ye olde wake up naked but for a loin cloth in a prison cell" meme. (the one every DM itches to do at least once)
But how often do a fighter's boots of flying get stolen?
Really, about the same amount, eh?
I agree with this. Really, having your gear stolen/sundered is so rare that it's not a real consideration. At least, IME.
My point was that "Well, sure fighter can do X if you include equipment, but once you exclude equipment fighters can't do anything" applies equally to the wizard, and perhaps even more so.Now this... Doesn't make much sense...
Fighters are much more gear-dependent than Wizards. Each item a Fighter loses is a huge loss in versatility and efficiency. Wizards, OTOH, don't lose all that many options... And they have a much easier time crafting stuff and protecting their spell books than Fighters have crafting/protecting their own gear.
Without gear then wizard cannot cast spells because he has no material components and no spellbook means they cannot memorize spells.
If you want to say a sorcerer is less gear dependent fine, but a wizard with no spell book and no components is a fighter with d6 hit points and poor BaB
What other task besides combat is in nearly every session and an incredibly important part of most of the sessions its in?
- Talking to NPCs
- Gathering Information- Finding Your Enemy Before It Finds You
- Exploring/Travelling
- Healing/Buffing
- Infiltration
- Dealing With Environmental Hazards (This Includes More than Traps)
Those are pretty big. And Fighters suck at all of those.
Without gear then wizard cannot cast spells because he has no material components and no spellbook means they cannot memorize spells.
If you want to say a sorcerer is less gear dependent fine, but a wizard with no spell book and no components is a fighter with d6 hit points and poor BaB
LOL... Of course you jumped to the only 2 items a Wizard really needs. One of which costs less than 1gp. That should be compared to a Fighter with no weapons and no armor of any kind, then.
The other "peripheral" items, though (You know... Those that constitute like, 60% of your WBL), mean a lot less to Wizards than to Fighters.
Are you seriously going with the "WHAT IF THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY ZERO GEAR?!" angle?
What other task besides combat is in nearly every session and an incredibly important part of most of the sessions its in?- Talking to NPCs
- Gathering Information
- Finding Your Enemy Before It Finds You
- Exploring/Travelling
- Healing/Buffing
- Infiltration
- Dealing With Environmental Hazards (This Includes More than Traps)Those are pretty big. And Fighters suck at all of those.
Talking to NPCs-- this is player dependent not character dependent
Gathering Information-- same; there are very little rules for this; there's no system of contacts like in shadowrun or a game like that so I assume you are assuming that magical means are what this comes down to, but there is both more and less to it than that
Finding your enemy before it finds you-- too many factors here-- what kind of enemy, do you know that he/she is an enemy, ect-- way too many factors to say any one class is good/bad at this. Fighter is however pretty good at not dieing in a single hit when they fail at this, which is pretty equivalent.
Exploring/traveling-- these are two separate things. Fighters are just as good at exploring as any other class since anything that reduces time spent traveling actually reduces exploring. Teleport just skips that
Healing/buffing-- this is part of combat. Fighter requires less healing because he has more HP and requires less buffing because he has more BaB-- most buffers work to take a non-fighter up to fighter level of ability in this
Infiltration-- fighter isn't great at this, but rogue is fine.
Environmental hazards-- again, think how many times you have had to deal with these. If the game takes place specifically someplace very cold or very hot it matters, but most games don't, or spend a small amount of time in those conditions. Planar conditions are even more rare.
To add to Lemmy's list: Byassing a combat entirely because you don't want to deal with it.
Some classes do it by trying to sneak past an encounter. Some do it by being charming and making the enemies change their minds. Some do it by creating an alternate path that doesn't involve combat. Some do it by getting others to fight the battle for them. S
Tier 1 characters can do all of those things. Tier 1 characters can make it so that combat is whatever percentage of the game that they would most prefer. The fighter has to win every single one.
Without gear then wizard cannot cast spells because he has no material components and no spellbook means they cannot memorize spells.If you want to say a sorcerer is less gear dependent fine, but a wizard with no spell book and no components is a fighter with d6 hit points and poor BaB
Really if only there was a feat like Eschew Materials or Spell Mastery that existed for this.
I mean, really too bad those feats don't exist.
To add to Lemmy's list: Byassing a combat entirely because you don't want to deal with it.
Some classes do it by trying to sneak past an encounter. Some do it by being charming and making the enemies change their minds. Some do it by creating an alternate path that doesn't involve combat. Some do it by getting others to fight the battle for them. S
Tier 1 characters can do all of those things. Tier 1 characters can make it so that combat is whatever percentage of the game that they would most prefer. The fighter has to win every single one.
You're right. But both the fighter himself and the player who is playing the fighter typically WANT to fight. That's why they are Fighters after-all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Talking to NPCs-- this is player dependent not character dependent
It requires skills for anything productive.
Gathering Information-- same; there are very little rules for this; there's no system of contacts like in shadowrun or a game like that so I assume you are assuming that magical means are what this comes down to, but there is both more and less to it than that
Pretty sure he's assuming Diplomacy which is where all the rules for this are concentrated.
But magical divinations too, yes.
Finding your enemy before it finds you-- too many factors here-- what kind of enemy, do you know that he/she is an enemy, ect--
That would be the stuff you're trying to find out, bud.
way too many factors to say any one class is good/bad at this.
Not really. The person who can gather said info is the one who's good at that.
Exploring/traveling-- these are two separate things. Fighters are just as good at exploring as any other class since anything that reduces time spent traveling actually reduces exploring. Teleport just skips that
Due to lack of skill points, a Fighter may actually end up worse at exploration than the Rogue if he didn't spare points for Climb and Swim.
And gods help him if he needs to fly somewhere.
Healing/buffing-- this is part of combat. Fighter requires less healing because he has more HP and requires less buffing because he has more BaB-- most buffers work to take a non-fighter up to fighter level of ability in this
No. Fighters do not need less healing because they have less HP, that makes no logical sense. They need MORE healing because they're on the front lines getting hit.
Sucking up party resources a Barbarian (because of DR) or Paladin (self-healing) won't be.
Infiltration-- fighter isn't great at this, but rogue is fine.
Well up until they get caught and killed because Rogues in solo combat are lol.
Solo infiltration is a terrible idea for anyone, but for a squishy character with no magic it's even worse.
Rangers are great at it though since they can infiltrate and hold their own when discovered.
Environmental hazards-- again, think how many times you have had to deal with these. If the game takes place specifically someplace very cold or very hot it matters, but most games don't, or spend a small amount of time in those conditions. Planar conditions are even more rare.
I have had to deal with these constantly.
Cold (and related terrain effects) in Reign of Winter.
Difficult terrain...everywhere.
Ambient diseases and marshy land in Serpent's Skull.
Haunts in Carrion Crown.
The list goes on in any published adventure, and if your GM decides not to include them for Homebrew...well that's his choice, not the norm.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Talking to NPCs-- this is player dependent not character dependent
Gathering Information-- same; there are very little rules for this; there's no system of contacts like in shadowrun or a game like that so I assume you are assuming that magical means are what this comes down to, but there is both more and less to it than that
Only if you ignore the rules.
Players can and do have a great deal on influence on how things are done, but Fighters are horrible at gathering information through mundane or magical means.
Sure, if you completely ignore the rules for Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Sense Motive, Perception, Knowledge Skills, Stealth, etc, then Fighters are just as good as a Rogue.
It seems you think Fighters are better than they are because you ignore the rules for a lot of stuff they can't do.
Finding your enemy before it finds you-- too many factors here-- what kind of enemy, do you know that he/she is an enemy, ect-- way too many factors to say any one class is good/bad at this. Fighter is however pretty good at not dieing in a single hit when they fail at this, which is pretty equivalent.
Doesn't matter. Fighters are horrible at finding any kind of enemy.
Exploring/traveling-- these are two separate things. Fighters are just as good at exploring as any other class since anything that reduces time spent traveling actually reduces exploring. Teleport just skips that
Fighters are not particularly good at: Mobility, detection and identification of relevant information, scouting, stealth, trap finding, talking to locals, etc.
Healing/buffing-- this is part of combat. Fighter requires less healing because he has more HP and requires less buffing because he has more BaB-- most buffers work to take a non-fighter up to fighter level of ability in this
Healing/Buff happens out-of-combat too, you know? And buffing doesn't necessarily mean "Raise damage and/or AC".
Infiltration-- fighter isn't great at this, but rogue is fine.
Rogues are okay at it. They aren't any better than any other class with Stealth as a class skill.
Environmental hazards-- again, think how many times you have had to deal with these. If the game takes place specifically someplace very cold or very hot it matters, but most games don't, or spend a small amount of time in those conditions. Planar conditions are even more rare.
I don't mean only cold/hot weather... But also: Traps, avalanches, haunts, terrain/obstacle that are difficult to move through, etc. Basically anything that isn't an actual enemy per se but can still stop the party from proceeding with the adventure.
I over (or under) state nothing. Facts are facts. Lets break them down:
1. Wizards can retrieve their spellbook from being stolen once a day for the cost of 1,000 GP. What does the Fighter have to do so?
2. Wizards do not carry their spellbooks in line of sight/effect. Fighters do (their weapons/boots of flying/etc.).
3. Wizards have access to extradimensional space to rest and prepare in spells in (starting at level 5). Fighter don't.
4. In the event that you do have your spellbook taken away, you still have all your spells for the day and function normally. A fighter has been severely nerfed.
So really stolen spellbook is a bad argument. The worst. And that's no under or over statement. Just facts.
Fighters can put ranks in diplomacy, stealth, perception just as well as anyone else.
Fighters can assign a higher Int ability just as well as anyone else.
I do not admit the validity of any argument that says all fighters are bad at anything that a skill can cover, especially in a system where cross class skills are no longer an issue and where you can gain an additional skill point per level if you stay in one class.
This didn't actually happen in the scenario we were discussing, because the reason the wizard didn't have her spellbook was that the whole party had been imprisoned and had to jailbreak.
Coriat, I cheerfully admit that stealing a spellbook is a rare once in a campaign experience, often limited to "ye olde wake up naked but for a loin cloth in a prison cell" meme. (the one every DM itches to do at least once)
But how often do a fighter's boots of flying get stolen?
Really, about the same amount, eh?
Well, the crappy CL potions of flying have gotten dispelled a lot more often than that, which is a somewhat comparable thing albeit with a less valuable item and consumable at that. Neither fighter actually owns the winged boots yet, but I can only assume that given that their CL is almost as far below our level as the potions, they would also be targeted for general shutdown (even if not specifically by stealing them) notably more often.
That said, expanding your point to its logical generalization ("the wizard's gear is going to be targeted about as often the fighter's") I actually have to say my play experience has almost always disagreed. In the high level and longer running campaign I referred to earlier, for example, (which is the Savage Tide Adventure Path converted to Pathfinder) by 15th level the wizard as mentioned only had her spellbook stolen once so far for less than a day, whereas the longer serving fighter had his magic sword broken and unable to be repaired for almost three back to back chapters (during a stint without access to general civilization), then got it repaired, had it for a couple chapters, lost it again for the jailbreak I mentioned, recovered it for a couple of days, and just lost it again to a disarming enemy who disarmed it, left with it, and sold it. Efforts to recover it (yet again) are underway.
The reason for that is basically an item version of something I've posted about before with regard to the characters themselves: practical squishiness. The item that has to be waved in the face of foes (some of whom will have, for example, Disarming Strike, or Improved Sunder) is a lot more likely to end up getting sundered or disarmed or generally taken away than the item belonging to a character who is neither deliberately getting within the reach of sundery/disarmy foes nor waving said item about. Expanding beyond weapons to gear at large, both fighters' gear has been subject to significantly more damage, loss or other impairment than spellcasting gear has been, because the fighters' basic role exposes them (and proportionally their gear) to a lot more of various forms of attack.
The spellbook has certainly proved, practically speaking, quite a bit less vulnerable than the sword in what play experience I possess.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fighters can put ranks in diplomacy, stealth, perception just as well as anyone else.
Fighters can assign a higher Int ability just as well as anyone else.
Sure! They can do all of those things... And they'll still be worse than any other class who decides to do the same.
I do not admit the validity of any argument that says all fighters are bad at anything that a skill can cover, especially in a system where cross class skills are no longer an issue and where you can gain an additional skill point per level if you stay in one class.
"I only have 2 skills points per level, a horrible list of class skills and no real incentive to invest in Int/Cha. But I'm just as good at skills as any other class."
Yeeeeeah... That's not a very good argument.
Fighters can put ranks in diplomacy, stealth, perception just as well as anyone else.
Fighters can assign a higher Int ability just as well as anyone else.
Sure! They can do all of those things... And they'll still be worse than any other class who decides to do the same.
I do not admit the validity of any argument that says all fighters are bad at anything that a skill can cover, especially in a system where cross class skills are no longer an issue and where you can gain an additional skill point per level if you stay in one class."I only have 2 skills points per level, a horrible list of class skills and no incentive to invest in Int/Cha. But I'm just as good as every other class."
Yeeeeeah... That's not a very good argument.
Those are choices you have to make. . . I'm not saying the Fighter is the greatest class there is; I'm saying that the percentage of the game spent in things the fighter is good at versus not is enough that he is ok.
That's why even in my tier set that weights combat heavily only some fighter builds are tier 1.
Those are choices you have to make. . .
Yup. And Fighters have to invest a lot more for a much smaller return. Is it possible to make a Fighter with good skills? Sure it is! But it takes a disproportionately high amount of effort and investment.
I'm not saying the Fighter is the greatest class there is; I'm saying that the percentage of the game spent in things the fighter is good at versus not is enough that he is ok.
That's why even in my tier set that weights combat heavily only some fighter builds are tier 1.
And I'm disagreeing. And giving my reasons for doing so.
Those are choices you have to make. . .Yup. And Fighters have to invest a lot more for a much smaller return.
I'm not saying the Fighter is the greatest class there is; I'm saying that the percentage of the game spent in things the fighter is good at versus not is enough that he is ok.And I'm disagreeing. And giving my reasons for doing so.
If you say so. Its still a popular class (despite what a glance at these boards will say).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When did you get the impression that tiers measured a class's popularity, or whether or not you should play a class?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Popular" is not the same as "effective" or "well designed".
If you want to play Fighters... More power to you! I don't play them, but I don't dislike the class either. In fact I actually quite like the class concept for the Fighter, Monk and Rogue classes... I just don't let that blind me to their flaws and weaknesses.
When did you get the impression that tiers measured a class's popularity, or whether or not you should play a class?
Never, the tier system most people are referring to measure's how well a lass fits a very narrow talking point and supports one segment of people's opinion. . .
I find it completely useless, and any argument that references it to be completely and utterly devoid of value.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oddly enough I find a measurement of character/class effectiveness based 99% on DPR/AC (and that's all Fighters have going for them) to be incredibly narrow-minded and completely useless. And any argument that references such measure to be completely and utterly devoid of value.
Oddly enough I find a measurement of character/class effectiveness based 99% on DPR/AC (and that's all Fighters have going for them) to be narrow-minded and completely useless. And any argument that references such measure to be completely and utterly devoid of value.
Oddly I agree. But arguing that spellcasters do well in a paradigm DESIGNED to make spellcasters appear as OP and to accentuate the flaws of martials is a pretty weak argument as well.
You mean solving narrative challenges? Influencing the game world? The things all characters want to do?
You mean solving narrative challenges? Influencing the game world? The things all characters want to do?
Now you're assuming the motivations of all characters?
Oddly I agree. But arguing that spellcasters do well in a paradigm DESIGNED to make spellcasters appear as OP and to accentuate the flaws of martials is a pretty weak argument as well.
Versatility and problem solving has nothing to do with casting spells. It just so happens that magic is capable of pretty much anything in D&D/PF, so spell casters end up being insanely versatile and extremely good at solving problems...
In 3.5, there were quite a few classes that were not in the tier their spellcasting ability (or lack there of) would indicate.
Hell! Even in a combat-only based tier, I'd have a difficult time ranking Fighters anything above mid/high Tier 3...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Solving narrative challenges is essentially the soul of roleplaying, Nathanael. Sometimes those challenges are, "Demons are burning down this village." Other times they're, "You must impress Count Morton at his daughter's 16th birthday ball." Either way, if you're not interested in solving the challenges presented at the table then why are you playing?
Oddly enough I find a measurement of character/class effectiveness based 99% on DPR/AC (and that's all Fighters have going for them) to be incredibly narrow-minded and completely useless. And any argument that references such measure to be completely and utterly devoid of value.
IMO, few things on these boards are as systematically misguided as the way in which board theorycrafting so often treats DPR as a shorthand for combat effectiveness. As a statistic, it does have a few things to say - when evaluated with due understanding of its limitations and what it is and is not - but the way in which it is typically wielded in board arguments is so oversimplified as to be greatly misleading.
Oddly I agree. But arguing that spellcasters do well in a paradigm DESIGNED to make spellcasters appear as OP and to accentuate the flaws of martials is a pretty weak argument as well.Versatility and problem solving has nothing to do with casting spells. It just so happens that magic is capable of pretty much anything in D&D/PF, so spell casters end up being insanely versatile and extremely good at solving problems...
In 3.5, there were quite a few classes that were not in the tier their spellcasting ability (or lack there of) would indicate.
Hell! Even in a combat-only based tier, I'd have a difficult time ranking Fighters anything above mid/high Tier 3...
No, but it was designed by someone who wanted to use it to demonstrate the "fighters drool wizards rool" bs.
When you are trying to measure things, don't trust a stick designed by someone with an agenda.
Oddly enough I find a measurement of character/class effectiveness based 99% on DPR/AC (and that's all Fighters have going for them) to be incredibly narrow-minded and completely useless. And any argument that references such measure to be completely and utterly devoid of value.IMO, few things on these boards are as systematically misguided as the way in which board theorycrafting so often treats DPR as a shorthand for combat effectiveness. As a statistic, it does have a few things to say, but the way in which it is typically wielded in board arguments is so oversimplified as to be greatly misleading.
But the supposed "tier" system considers DPRs value as essentially Zero.
Should combat be considered 99% of the chart? No. But when it is considered valueless that's no less reductive/biased and most importantly completely and utterly WRONG.
Y'know, JaronK posts publicly on GitP. I'd suggest you bring your critique to him and see his rationale for yourself. Personally, as someone who's seen his work and observed his posts and products with interest, I'd disagree with your assessment, and I'd disagree pretty vehemently.
Y'know, JaronK posts publicly on GitP. I'd suggest you bring your critique to him and see his rationale for yourself. Personally, as someone who's seen his work and observed his posts and products with interest, I'd disagree with your assessment, and I'd disagree pretty vehemently.
Well, if I'm wrong about my assessment by all means, but I only have the way this "tier system" has been used on these forums. I don't go to GiTP, I don't post there, and I don't read things there.
I don't think the assessment that it devalues combat power and doesn't account for the high percentage of games and sessions that rely heavily on combat, or that deep down the entire game is a combat/war game that has progressively has non-combat elements tacked on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, but it was designed by someone who wanted to use it to demonstrate the "fighters drool wizards rool" bs.
When you are trying to measure things, don't trust a stick designed by someone with an agenda.
Hah! Thanks for assuming I simply swallow whatever the internet feeds me without thinking. Such condescending assumptions are always entertaining.
I'd noticed the disparity between casters and martials long before I heard of the tier system, you know? I've seen it in quite a few different tables, from low to high levels. It's really not that difficult to see it, and there is no agenda involved... Well... Unless you count "Making D&D/PF a better balanced game" too be an agenda, which I suppose, it technically is.
And BTW, I don't consider DPR to be worthless... Notice how I rank Rogues lower than Fighters in my tier, despite Rogues having more versatility. I just don't think DPR is all that important past a certain point. Because a DPR of, say... 300 dmg, is just as good as one of 99999999 dmg. And dealing 90 dmg but having a crapton of options is much, much better than dealing 120dmg and being horrible at everything else.
No, but it was designed by someone who wanted to use it to demonstrate the "fighters drool wizards rool" bs.
When you are trying to measure things, don't trust a stick designed by someone with an agenda.
Hah! Thanks for assuming I simply swallow whatever the internet feeds me without thinking. Such condescending assumptions are always entertaining.
I'd noticed the disparity between casters and martials long before I heard of the tier system, you know? I've seen it in quite a few different tables, from low to high levels. It's really not that difficult to see it, and there is no agenda involved... Well... Unless you count "Making D&D/PF a better balanced game" too be an agenda, which I suppose, it technically is.
And BTW, I don't consider DPR to be worthless... Notice how I rank Rogues lower than Fighters in my tier, despite Rogues having more versatility. I just don't think DPR is all very important past a certain point. Because a DPR of, say... 300 dmg, is just as good as one of 99999999 dmg. And dealing 90 dmg but having a crapton of options is much, much better than dealing 120dmg and being horrible at everything else.
And I disagree with that assessment. I consider each of the "options" that is useful in limited situations to be FAR less valuable than DPR which is useful basically ALL the time.
I don't consider a system that sets classes that are designed around being able to put out tons of DPR to be a good measuring stick of balance in and of itself, and I disagree that the "disparity" is a problem in most games.
And I disagree with that assessment. I consider each of the "options" that is useful in limited situations to be FAR less valuable than DPR which is useful basically ALL the time.
That's already included in my statement. When I say "option", I mean real, viable options... Not just increased complexity.
If a single action can get you through 9 different situations, then it's effectively 9 different options all in one. Similarly, if you have 30 possible actions, but only 5 of them are worth a damn, then you only have 5 options.
I measure the value of DPR with that in mind... And at least in the games I play, DPR is not even close to being useful all the time. It's useful every session, sure. But not all the time. Not even close.