|
" Your hypothetical party can only teleport across the desert if you do not enforce the restrictions already on the teleport spell. "
There lies one of the biggest factors in magic being a problem. The restrictions that survived the 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder revisions tend to be ignored or handwaved away.
At first level, a wizard can buy a 5 gp mini-bag of holding that contains an infinite amount of everything in the multiverse that is valued at 1 gp or less.
Meanwhile, it seems that almost nobody ever ignores of handwaves away anything to do with non-casters.
Not sure what woudl be the exploit in here.You know, "you can't teleport into Mordor, because I want to run a crossing-the-desert survival story."
The teleport spell itself, as witnessed by the endless demands to disallow it because it allows the player too much control over the narrative.
Well, IMHO, that is like the 20% of the problem. THe other 80% is that magic have little restrictions. "yes golem are inmune to magic, except, they are not".
Magic has plenty of restrictions remaining in the system, both in the system and in the spells themselves. 3rd edition just removed the obvious ones, not just in the magic system, but in the related system of managing wealth. It is a complex, poorly presented system that requires both the DM and the player that wishes to use it to read quite a bit and parse together sentences that really should be by each other and not in separate chapters on opposite ends of the books, but the restrictions are there. Simply cleaning up the presentation of the entire book would make both the restrictions on the magic system and the actually fairly simple rules guiding everything else much easier to find, making it easier to balance the system at the table where time is limited.
Teleport as written in RAW cannot bypass a desert that the players have never crossed.
It absolutely can, provided the location they are teleporting to is one they are familiar with. (They could have previously gone around the desert, or through a portal, or any number of ways to get to point B without having had to go through the desert).
Now, if your goal is IN the desert that you've never visited, then you will have a harder time of it.
But that's just me being pedantic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if a player says "Let me use my game-wrecking exploits" and the GM says no, Who's being the poor sport here? Your answer is the GM?
First tell me how the exploit wrecks the game. I'm willing to bet that, most of the time, the only thing it wrecks is the GM's sense of fitness and desire to run a level-inappropriate story. You know, "you can't teleport into Mordor, because I want to run a crossing-the-desert survival story."
So, yes, in the majority of cases, I'd say the GM is the one being the poor sport.
Are you saying players should just be able to do whatever they want as long as they have fun, and the GM should allow it? I don't mean things like blatantly ignoring rules such as giving weapon focus a +10 when it is a +1, but let's say using wishing binding to get 1000 free wishes and anything else that is a loophole. Maybe using simulacrum to _____(insert option that trivializes the game).
To take this a little further and give another example, let's say a player finds a way to get an AC of 60 by level 10, and that is his method of fun. Let's say as a GM I wish to challenge the player so I find a way to get an attack bonus of +50 or higher onto a CR 10ish creature. Am I wrong for that because I removed his ability to only be hit on a nat 1?
There were multiple question, scry and fry was one of them, but lets take your desert journey example...
1. Has the party wizard seen anything on the other side of the desert? No.Yes. Elrond was there, on the slopes of Mt. Doom, when Elendil fell and Isildur cut the ring from Sauron's hand with the shards of Narsil.
And teleport spells do not exist in LOTR. My point was that returns trips in fiction often get abbreviated, so it is perfectly ok narrative wise for the teleport spell to make the return trip faster.
Teleport as written in RAW cannot bypass a desert that the players have never crossed.
Yes it can. As long as they are somewhat familiar with the destination. The place in between them and the destination never has to be seen.
And if a player says "Let me use my game-wrecking exploits" and the GM says no, Who's being the poor sport here? Your answer is the GM?
First tell me how the exploit wrecks the game. I'm willing to bet that, most of the time, the only thing it wrecks is the GM's sense of fitness and desire to run a level-inappropriate story. You know, "you can't teleport into Mordor, because I want to run a crossing-the-desert survival story."
So, yes, in the majority of cases, I'd say the GM is the one being the poor sport.
Are you saying players should just be able to do whatever they want as long as they have fun, and the GM should allow it? I don't mean things like blatantly ignoring rules such as giving weapon focus a +10 when it is a +1, but let's say using wishing binding to get 1000 free wishes and anything else that is a loophole. Maybe using simulacrum to _____(insert option that trivializes the game).
To take this a little further and give another example, let's say a player finds a way to get an AC of 60 by level 10, and that is his method of fun. Let's say as a GM I wish to challenge the player so I find a way to get an attack bonus of +50 or higher onto a CR 10ish creature. Am I wrong for that because I removed his ability to only be hit on a nat 1?
Yes, and yes. In fact, I think those are almost textbook examples of bad GMing.
If the players are having fun with their simulacrum exploits, let them. Explain to them that this will probably end the game, because there will be nothing left that can challenge them, and ask them if this is really the way they want to end the campaign, and if it is,.... then ending the campaign on that particular high note is what they want.
Similarly, the player with AC 60 has devoted all his resources and abilities into being unhittable specifically so that he can dance in front of the tarrasque in parachute pants singing "U Can't Touch This." That's what he wants, so allow it. It's not like there aren't other things you can to to challenge him. In fact, almost anything else he's called upon to do will be a challenge. What you've basically done is taken his entire focus and negated it in an instant. That's a dick move -- really, that's a move I'd associate with Dick Richards, the Crown Prince of Dickdom.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the problem in this is that there are usually other people at the table who may not think that these ideas, while exciting and fun for the one guy, are particularly exciting and fun nor do they want to be at the table with them.
I've never been a fan of "you should always let the person have the sort of fun they want". A thread I read recently on here (it happened a while back) sort of illustrated that sort of mind set for me: in it, the person said that their spouse could only have fun doing X, and if they couldn't do X then the game was dead to them (paraphrased, of course.)
There are lots of things people do that they think are the height of fun that aren't even remotely interesting to me and I assume to others. Perhaps I'm a poor sport; I'm getting old, I accept that (AND GET OFF MY LAWN!) But I am also unwilling to let someone trash my/our game because they get off on playing Captain Exploit. They are welcome to like it, they are welcome to do it -- but I am not interested in GMing for them, and pretty unlikely to want to play with them.
Well, the problem in this is that there are usually other people at the table who may not think that these ideas, while exciting and fun for the one guy, are particularly exciting and fun nor do they want to be at the table with them.
But not in the situation to which I responded, where it was explicitly assumed that "the players" (plurally and collectively) are having fun. (The actual quote is "players should just be able to do whatever they want as long as they have fun, and the GM should allow it?" to which my answer remains an emphatic "Yes!")
And apparently the GM, singular, is the one with the issues. Which puts it firmly in the "the GM is the one being the poor sport" camp.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the problem in this is that there are usually other people at the table who may not think that these ideas, while exciting and fun for the one guy, are particularly exciting and fun nor do they want to be at the table with them.But not in the situation to which I responded, where it was explicitly assumed that "the players" (plurally and collectively) are having fun. (The actual quote is "players should just be able to do whatever they want as long as they have fun, and the GM should allow it?," to which my answer remains an emphatic "Yes!")
And apparently the GM, singular, is the one with the issues. Which puts it firmly in the "the GM is the one being the poor sport" camp.
One player was not having fun. The GM.
So its not quite as collectively as you think.
Well, the problem in this is that there are usually other people at the table who may not think that these ideas, while exciting and fun for the one guy, are particularly exciting and fun nor do they want to be at the table with them.But not in the situation to which I responded, where it was explicitly assumed that "the players" (plurally and collectively) are having fun. (The actual quote is "players should just be able to do whatever they want as long as they have fun, and the GM should allow it?," to which my answer remains an emphatic "Yes!")
And apparently the GM, singular, is the one with the issues. Which puts it firmly in the "the GM is the one being the poor sport" camp.
One player was not having fun. The GM.
So its not quite as collectively as you think.
Which rather definitively makes that one person the poor sport for ruining everyone else's fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, the problem in this is that there are usually other people at the table who may not think that these ideas, while exciting and fun for the one guy, are particularly exciting and fun nor do they want to be at the table with them.But not in the situation to which I responded, where it was explicitly assumed that "the players" (plurally and collectively) are having fun. (The actual quote is "players should just be able to do whatever they want as long as they have fun, and the GM should allow it?," to which my answer remains an emphatic "Yes!")
And apparently the GM, singular, is the one with the issues. Which puts it firmly in the "the GM is the one being the poor sport" camp.
One player was not having fun. The GM.
So its not quite as collectively as you think.
Exactly. Despite many protestations to the contrary, the GM is part of the group here. To me it sounds like they should talk it out and maybe someone else (perhaps one of the people having a grand time derailing things?) should try their hand GMing.
It is usually an eye-opening experience when their own plans as a GM are derailed for someone's "fun."
In any case, even if the players are having fun being clowns, for example, and the GM isn't interested in a clown game, they want to run something more serious, there seems to be a real problem. It isn't the GM being a poor sport or the players being jerks, it's a clash of styles and wants.
|
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Its a hobby
A casual pastime to kill free time. If someone isn't having fun, there's no reason at all for them to do it.
A GM who isn't having fun (barely) running a game for a bunch of loophole exploiters is under no obligation to continue to run it. He shouldn't be condemned for quitting.g it, he should be commended.
In any case, even if the players are having fun being clowns, for example, and the GM isn't interested in a clown game, they want to run something more serious, there seems to be a real problem. It isn't the GM being a poor sport or the players being jerks, it's a clash of styles and wants.
I disagree. If everyone except you is having fun, and you insist that you need to stop it because you and you alone aren't having fun, you'll never run a game except with literally universal buy-in, and that's rare. Any group activity always involves a certain amount of compromise, and if you can't compromise, you're the one who's breaking the group.
So, yes, there is a clash of styles and wants.
But there's also the GM being a poor sport, because he's letting -- demanding, really -- the clash actually stop the activity.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In any case, even if the players are having fun being clowns, for example, and the GM isn't interested in a clown game, they want to run something more serious, there seems to be a real problem. It isn't the GM being a poor sport or the players being jerks, it's a clash of styles and wants.
I disagree. If everyone except you is having fun, and you insist that you need to stop it because you and you alone aren't having fun, you'll never run a game except with literally universal buy-in, and that's rare. Any group activity always involves a certain amount of compromise, and if you can't compromise, you're the one who's breaking the group.
So, yes, there is a clash of styles and wants.
But there's also the GM being a poor sport, because he's letting -- demanding, really -- the clash actually stop the activity.
Which is fine, really. If I'm the GM and I'm not having fun running (let's just say for example) a troop of literal clowns in a Star Trek game, then I'll be a poor sport (and yes, that has actually happened. Sadly.)
What you are talking about isn't a compromise, though. You are saying that the person running the game should just suck it up and let people run wild and do what they want because they are having fun. I don't agree with that. I believe that if I -- or another GM -- are not having fun you are going to get a piss poor experience of a game.
I don't have to have my way 100% of the time. Heck, I am happy to get it 50% of the time. But when we drop below 20% and I'm expected to smile and facilitate some of the problems I see on the boards is where I'm more than willing to take my Poor Sport Award and step out from behind the screen.
And if a player says "Let me use my game-wrecking exploits" and the GM says no, Who's being the poor sport here? Your answer is the GM?
First tell me how the exploit wrecks the game. I'm willing to bet that, most of the time, the only thing it wrecks is the GM's sense of fitness and desire to run a level-inappropriate story. You know, "you can't teleport into Mordor, because I want to run a crossing-the-desert survival story."
So, yes, in the majority of cases, I'd say the GM is the one being the poor sport.
Are you saying players should just be able to do whatever they want as long as they have fun, and the GM should allow it? I don't mean things like blatantly ignoring rules such as giving weapon focus a +10 when it is a +1, but let's say using wishing binding to get 1000 free wishes and anything else that is a loophole. Maybe using simulacrum to _____(insert option that trivializes the game).
To take this a little further and give another example, let's say a player finds a way to get an AC of 60 by level 10, and that is his method of fun. Let's say as a GM I wish to challenge the player so I find a way to get an attack bonus of +50 or higher onto a CR 10ish creature. Am I wrong for that because I removed his ability to only be hit on a nat 1?
Yes, and yes. In fact, I think those are almost textbook examples of bad GMing.
If the players are having fun with their simulacrum exploits, let them. Explain to them that this will probably end the game, because there will be nothing left that can challenge them, and ask them if this is really the way they want to end the campaign, and if it is,.... then ending the campaign on that particular high note is what they want.
Similarly, the player with AC 60 has devoted all his resources and abilities into being unhittable specifically so that he can dance in front of the tarrasque in parachute pants singing "U Can't Touch This." That's...
In that case we disagree on what makes a bad GM. Letting someone do whatever they want does not make someone a good GM, and sometimes people's ideas of fun are different. But thanks for the clarification.
Well, the problem in this is that there are usually other people at the table who may not think that these ideas, while exciting and fun for the one guy, are particularly exciting and fun nor do they want to be at the table with them.But not in the situation to which I responded, where it was explicitly assumed that "the players" (plurally and collectively) are having fun. (The actual quote is "players should just be able to do whatever they want as long as they have fun, and the GM should allow it?" to which my answer remains an emphatic "Yes!")
And apparently the GM, singular, is the one with the issues. Which puts it firmly in the "the GM is the one being the poor sport" camp.
So basically the minority is the "poor sport"?
Example time again:
What if it is only 1 player or at least less than half the group the likes something? Are they the poor sports for liking it, or is the majority wrong not wanting them to do ____?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To toss my two cents in, I would say that everyone involved at the table should talk things out whenever someone isn't having fun, and try to work out a compromise that lets everyone at the table enjoy themselves. But if it's one person not having fun while everyone is, then the one person should probably be prepared to bend a lot more to accommodate the group than the other way around.
To toss my two cents in, I would say that everyone involved at the table should talk things out whenever someone isn't having fun, and try to work out a compromise that lets everyone at the table enjoy themselves. But if it's one person not having fun while everyone is, then the one person should probably be prepared to bend a lot more to accommodate the group than the other way around.
This I agree with and in a real game nobody is "wrong" for wanting something different. Not all playstyles match up. I don't prefer GM'ing a game where the players are never challenged, but some people will get upset if everything is not on "easy mode" 90% of the time. That does not make either one of us wrong, but it does mean I should not GM for them.
But if it's one person not having fun while everyone is, then the one person should probably be prepared to bend a lot more to accommodate the group than the other way around.
As a rule of thumb, yes.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if it's one person not having fun while everyone is, then the one person should probably be prepared to bend a lot more to accommodate the group than the other way around.As a rule of thumb, yes.
Again, this is a hobby. If the GM isn't enjoying himself while doing it, he shouldn't do it. If so, one of the remaining players can either step up to be the new GM. If none of them want to do so, but they still want to play, then they should compromise and play the way the GM wants.
(Yes, you can define "compromise" to mean that the players give in unconditionally. Karma's a b%*$%, ain't it?)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if it's one person not having fun while everyone is, then the one person should probably be prepared to bend a lot more to accommodate the group than the other way around.As a rule of thumb, yes.Again, this is a hobby. If the GM isn't enjoying himself while doing it, he shouldn't do it. If so, one of the remaining players can either step up to be the new GM. If none of them want to do so, but they still want to play, then they should compromise and play the way the GM wants.
(Yes, you can define "compromise" to mean that the players give in unconditionally. Karma's a b@*%%, ain't it?)
Look, I get some people feel like the point of RPGs is not to play a game, but for the players to spend every several hours fawning over the massive size and girth of the GM's metaphorical penis. Personally, I prefer to just play a fun game with friends. And when friends play a game together, that means that when disagreements happen you compromise and handle them like mature, rational adults. Anyone who's going pitch a hissy fit and storm out the first time they don't get their way shouldn't be GMing in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The attitude at Paizo, though, seems to be that if you don't want the kind of everything goes kitchen sink world that Golarion is, you're on your own. I don't see that kind of shoehorning as a good thing.
Actually the idea from Paizo is that you should use what you want, and not use the rest, thereby making your own Golarion. As an example if I had a problem with technology then I just would not use that part of the campaign world. It takes almost no effort to not use something. It is no different than not using a certain class or feat.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I prefer to just play a fun game with friends.
That's why the GM is there too. And he also has the right to have fun.
And when friends play a game together, that means that when disagreements happen you compromise and handle them like mature, rational adults.
Except you don't describe compromise....you describe a GM that isn't allowed to take his own preferences into account, and must run a game for the other players regardless of whether or not he is having fun.
If a player isn't having fun, they should either change how they play, change how the game is played, or leave the game. And the GM is included in that. If the GM isnt having fun playing with a group because of how they prefer to play, then he should leave the group. This isn't him throwing a hissy fit, this is him not using his spare time to do something he doesn't enjoy. The desire of the rest of the group does not outweigh the GM's right to have fun. Yes, the GM also has the right to have fun. The GM is not your slave.
Except you don't describe compromise....you describe a GM that isn't allowed to take his own preferences into account, and must run a game for the other players regardless of whether or not he is having fun.
Funny how I don't recall saying that. I know straw's a lot easier to fight, but come on...
" Your hypothetical party can only teleport across the desert if you do not enforce the restrictions already on the teleport spell. "
There lies one of the biggest factors in magic being a problem. The restrictions that survived the 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder revisions tend to be ignored or handwaved away.
At first level, a wizard can buy a 5 gp mini-bag of holding that contains an infinite amount of everything in the multiverse that is valued at 1 gp or less.
Meanwhile, it seems that almost nobody ever ignores or handwaves away anything to do with non-casters.
Actually, if you think about it, it's not even a bag of holding. It's like a hybrid between the best aspects of both a portable hole AND a handy haversack. It's all the spell components you'll ever need (provided they don't have a material cost) in a very tiny and light container that also has whatever you need right on top. It makes it so that it takes effectively no action to reach in and draw exactly what you need (after untying it too, since I imagine you don't go around with the pouch open at all times) while also casting a complicated spell. In fact, I'm actually a little curious as to how that works when holding a metamagic rod. You've got to hold that for the entire duration so it's considered 'wielded', right? So, isn't the hand that's doing the somatic components getting it's routine interrupted by the obligatory 'reach in and grab the sulfury bat crap ball' action? Any other such action with any other class would require at least a move or swift action, but it's free for a caster.
Clearly, I've been wrong about magic items for a while now. It's not rings of freedom of movement or otherworldly kimonos, it's spell component pouches that are the best magic items in the game.
Personally, I prefer to just play a fun game with friends.That's why the GM is there too. And he also has the right to have fun.
And when friends play a game together, that means that when disagreements happen you compromise and handle them like mature, rational adults.Except you don't describe compromise....you describe a GM that isn't allowed to take his own preferences into account, and must run a game for the other players regardless of whether or not he is having fun.
If a player isn't having fun, they should either change how they play, change how the game is played, or leave the game. And the GM is included in that. If the GM isnt having fun playing with a group because of how they prefer to play, then he should leave the group. This isn't him throwing a hissy fit, this is him not using his spare time to do something he doesn't enjoy. The desire of the rest of the group does not outweigh the GM's right to have fun. Yes, the GM also has the right to have fun. The GM is not your slave.
Player throws a hissy fit you are minus one player. GM doesn't want to play you have no game.
I more or less only allow the core rule book these days and maybe some limited stuff from Ultimate Combat/Magic. Doesn't bother me if a player throws a hissy fit because I will not allow stuff from the races or classes book.
If a class was not in AD&D I probably won't let you have it with a few exceptions like the Magus and even then I will not allow you to use the piranha strike feat.
Its not like Paizo APs are that hard so you can build a powerful PC just not as powerful as you may like and thats leads back to the DM having fun as well.
Core is the most broken book.
I more or less only allow the core rule book these days and maybe some limited stuff from Ultimate Combat/Magic. Doesn't bother me if a player throws a hissy fit because I will not allow stuff from the races or classes book.
True but it gets even more broken with certain things layered on top of it. Its not to hard jsut to say no to natural spell and metamagic rods or even wands of CLW.
Core is the most broken book.
I more or less only allow the core rule book these days and maybe some limited stuff from Ultimate Combat/Magic. Doesn't bother me if a player throws a hissy fit because I will not allow stuff from the races or classes book.
True but it gets even more broken with certain things layered on top of it. Its not to hard jsut to say no to natural spell and metamagic rods or even wands of CLW.
If you think those are the only or even worst broken things in Core, I think I understand why you do not see the problem.
If you think those are the only or even worst broken things in Core, I think I understand why you do not see the problem.Core is the most broken book.
I more or less only allow the core rule book these days and maybe some limited stuff from Ultimate Combat/Magic. Doesn't bother me if a player throws a hissy fit because I will not allow stuff from the races or classes book.
True but it gets even more broken with certain things layered on top of it. Its not to hard jsut to say no to natural spell and metamagic rods or even wands of CLW.
Well there are multiple other things such as Druids, certain spells and saving throws being screwy.
I'm the Op and I have been playing more OSR D&D than Pathfinder because of the balance levels. OSR D&D doesn't even try and be balanced and its still easier to run than PF.
If you think those are the only or even worst broken things in Core, I think I understand why you do not see the problem.Core is the most broken book.
I more or less only allow the core rule book these days and maybe some limited stuff from Ultimate Combat/Magic. Doesn't bother me if a player throws a hissy fit because I will not allow stuff from the races or classes book.
True but it gets even more broken with certain things layered on top of it. Its not to hard jsut to say no to natural spell and metamagic rods or even wands of CLW.
Well there are multiple other things such as Druids, certain spells and saving throws being screwy.
I'm the Op and I have been playing more OSR D&D than Pathfinder because of the balance levels. OSR D&D doesn't even try and be balanced and its still easier to run than PF.
I meant you don't see the problem with just saying NO to the worst things in Core. By that point you will have gutted and rewritten large portions of how the game works. Like as you point out saving throws being screwy. My point was that if that those few things were all you had to say "NO" to in order to make Core balanced you have missed the plethora of reasons that won't work.
What is a "tier 3" class? For that matter, what is a tier 1 or tier 2 or tier 4 or higher class?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is a "tier 3" class? For that matter, what is a tier 1 or tier 2 or tier 4 or higher class?
Basically, the tier system measures the amount of narrative power that a class has.
In general:
Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played with skill, can easily break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat or plenty of house rules, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.
Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.
Tier 4: 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 competence without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.
Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.
Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.
Prototypical examples:
Tier 1 -- Wizard or cleric
Tier 2 -- Sorcerer or oracle (because of the limited spell list)
Tier 3 -- Any 6-level caster
Tier 4 -- Any effective martial
Tier 5 -- Any ineffective martial (like a rogue, a monk, or another class that "needs love")
Tier 6 -- Any NPC class
What is a "tier 3" class? For that matter, what is a tier 1 or tier 2 or tier 4 or higher class?
Tier one is prepared full casters, tier 2 are spontaneous full casters. The gap between those tiers is fairly narrow. Hence why tier 3 is all 6th level casters regardless of being prepared or spont. tier 4 comprises of 4th level casters and fully featured non-casters. Tier 5 is reserved for flawed classes. Tier 6 classes just should not be played.
The summoner goes into tier 1 or 2 because the class has condensed full casting and class features that more than make up for having less slots. The Master Summoner archetype can even be argued as the most dangerous class, but that is more a testament to the strength of summoning than to the strength of the archetype.
Certain other classes break the tier mold and certain archetype combos move where the class falls in the tiers.