|
I'm just about positive that means it can be done in place of any attack, whether that be the attacks taken as part of a Whirlwind Attack, or an attack of opportunity, or your standard iteratives.We said that about Vital Strike too.
My point was that it says "as an attack instead of a standard action" not "as an attack action". Attack, instead of attack action, would mean that it can be used just like trip attempts, basically whenever you could hit someone. The fact that it specifically denotes that it's done instead of a standard action would seem to underscore that.
There's a feat called Quick Dirty Trick which allows for the same thing.
The tier system is very simple.
Full Casters > Partial Casters > Not Casters
You could break it down by class if you want, but it is not needed.
While that is mostly true, there are exceptions.
And the tier list goes that way not because it's measuring casting, but because PF failed to add anything nearly as powerful or versatile as magic. (Some 3.X non-casting classes could hit Tier 3, though).
It would be pretty ridiculous if Speedy Tricks was an attack action; then the ability would do literally nothing.
Pretty sure it's an attack, as in individual attacks within a full attack, whirlwind attack, etc. etc.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The tier system is very simple.
Full Casters > Partial Casters > Not Casters
You could break it down by class if you want, but it is not needed.
While that is mostly true, there are exceptions.
And the tier list goes that way not because it's measuring casting, but because PF failed to add anything nearly as powerful or versatile as magic. (Some 3.X non-casting classes could hit Tier 3, though).
Yeah, there's just no non-casting equivalent to what a casting class is capable of. In one of those Fighter v. Ranger threads I noted how the Fighter's abilities are weighted such that two combat feats are the equivalent of the Ranger's entire spellcasting class feature.... I'd like to see which two feats those are supposed to be.
The Cavalier and Barbarian actually come closest to a martial class gaining abilities that would normally be associated with spellcasting, which is why the Barbarian is a solid Tier 4 and the Cavalier can get there with a little extra system mastery.
It's also why the Dirty Fighter can get there, because status lock AoE's are typically something reserved for spellcasters, and they elevate his ability to actually tank, control, and DPR effectively enough to give him that boost.
Tiers exist whether one believes in them or not. The disparity among classes doesn't go away by not wanting to look at in detail nor by wishfully and whimsically transferring that objective power gap in classes to player prowess.
Ah, so what then did the author of the Tier system, one JaronK, mean when he said: "Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers.." ?
I think Spell Sunder can actually push Barbarian into low tier 3 territory, since "at will" dispel magic is really useful.
IMO, if every class were in tier 3 or high tier 4, Pathfinder's game balance would be satisfactory. There would still be some discrepancy, of course... But not enough to be a real problem.
Although, honestly, I'd be satisfied if classes at tier 4 and lower were pushed up to tier 3. The game would still not be balanced, but at least we wouldn't have "dead weight" classes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, so what then did the author of the Tier system, one JaronK, mean when he said: "Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers.." ?Tiers exist whether one believes in them or not. The disparity among classes doesn't go away by not wanting to look at in detail nor by wishfully and whimsically transferring that objective power gap in classes to player prowess.
Tiers always kind of assume the mid to upper ranges of system mastery. I have absolutely seen players running around with wizard characters who fit the Tier 5-6 definition more than the other Tier definitions. Tier assumes that all classes are having the same level of relatively high system mastery applied to them.
Someone with no system mastery is going to be able to play any class equally poorly (although some classes are noob proofed a bit; the Paladin is relatively hard to screw up, for example), whereas it's how high a class can scale when system mastery is applied that really creates that separation and reveals where the major differences are.
|
Speaking of barbarian, and dirty tricks, I find it hilarious that he essentially gets an improved version of Improved DT, Quick DT and DT master rolled into single rage power.
Yeah...but only once per turn and once per rage. A person with the Feats can do four dirty tricks a round all on the same person if they like.
Ah, so what then did the author of the Tier system, one JaronK, mean when he said: "Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers.." ?Tiers exist whether one believes in them or not. The disparity among classes doesn't go away by not wanting to look at in detail nor by wishfully and whimsically transferring that objective power gap in classes to player prowess.
I think it's obvious (to anyone who isn't being deliberately obtuse) what he meant: Optimization disparity can compensate for class disparity, to a point, but it doesn't mean class disparity doesn't exist.
Of course the Tier list assumes roughly equal levels of optimization, because any comparison has to be made apples-to-apples, as it were. You don't compare "highly optimized Fighter vs poorly built Wizard", because it's just as invalid as comparing "Fighter who always rolls well vs. Barbarian who always rolls poorly."
Ah, so what then did the author of the Tier system, one JaronK, mean when he said: "Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers.." ?Tiers exist whether one believes in them or not. The disparity among classes doesn't go away by not wanting to look at in detail nor by wishfully and whimsically transferring that objective power gap in classes to player prowess.
When you burn a mountain of tires it produces far more atmospheric pollution than if you fart.
This disparity occurs even if you don't believe in global warming.
In other words, his statement and your statement are not at odds.
|
|
Actually, they can't, quick dirty trick can only be used once. A dirty trick barb can grab both that and this and do it twice in one turn, and strength surge one of them because, why not?
You're right on it only being once a turn, I was misrembering. The once per rage thing is still relevant, though. And Rage Powers are supposed to be better than Feats.
He isn't the author of the tier system
Ah, so what then did the author of the Tier system, one JaronK, mean when he said: "Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers.." ?
JaronK is the first poster of what is now called the Tier system. In fact the first post here has quite of bit of wording directly from Jarons stuff.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?266559-Tier-System-for-Classe s-(Rescued-from-MinMax)
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5070.0
"Thanks especially to JaronK for making the tier system .."
http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.40
Eh, either he worded that quote poorly for what he intended to say or he's wrong. Just because you do something right once doesn't mean you get to be right forever.
Speaking of barbarian, and dirty tricks, I find it hilarious that he essentially gets an improved version of Improved DT, Quick DT and DT master rolled into single rage power.Yeah...but only once per turn and once per rage. A person with the Feats can do four dirty tricks a round all on the same person if they like.
Well, it is once per opponent per rage. And generally, I do not like the chances of most creatures surviving more than 2 rounds next to a barbarian, particularly when they are blinded and stunned.
And you could just run off to cripple a new opponent once you shut down the first, and wash/rinse/repeat until you are out of rage and/or opponents (which seems more likely?)
Ugh! Put me down as someone who never like the so-called Tier theory of classes. In my opinion, it is unhelpful and way too arbitrary to be of any value. In fact, in my experience, it's only real value is as a way to start online arguments or never ending debates that accomplish nothing.
Everyone is of course free to discuss whatever they want but I have to say I respectfully really wish this tier thing would go away once and for all ...
Right?
I wholeheartedly agree.
For example, how many of those Tier 1's and 2's wouldn't make to high enough levels to "come into their own" without the aid of their teammates with lower tier ratings? In over three decades of gaming, I've seen only two things make a party routinely succeed: teamwork and diverse role coverage. Personally, I gravitate to casters. Is that all I play? No. Do I attempt to make the most badass, survivable character that I'm creating within legal limits? Hell yes. My preference to playing casters is because I'm the most experienced player in my gaming circles and therefore generally make the best use of them with the least amount of time in a combat turn. The team works better if I'm that role. Most often, I also face or share facing for the group because I'm very outgoing in real life. That all being said, melee, ranged, arcane, and divine must be covered or you will not usually succeed as a whole team. The diversity of the party members is not only key, its the essence of the game. What's the tier level for teamwork?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well if you really agreed the post you quoted you wouldn't have resurrected this thread after the debate has been put to rest 3 years ago...
I think that most necromancer classes are tier 1. They have the power to make melee, sometimes creating new allies at range. They can revolutionize countries through cheap labor, and they can restart arguements so old people forgot they existed.
I think the whole tier discussion is flawed.... always been.
I'm not saying that some classes arent inherently more powerful than others but it depends enormously on context and even more importantly party composition AND a kindly GM!
Yes you can be Tier 1 Wizard min-maxed to infinity, but if you dont have bodies in between you and danger that can soak up the HP damage you will be toast in a few rounds....A D6 caster on a 20 point buy will have approximately 50 hp depending on CON investment by 10th level. Even starting an encounter on full health.... that can vanish in the blink of an eye at that level.
A mate of mine used to play a Summoner and his fave trick with 9th level casters was the standard action summon of multiple monsters around them..... multiple flanking attacks from monsters off the Lv4 list will squash a full caster in 1-2 rounds.
Kindly GMs that let casters stand at the back is another huge prob.
Power Tiers become more relevant the more number of people in your party.
This old chestnut. Anyway:
Tier 2:
Summoner (all, but Synthesist drops away),
Not my experience with Synthesis Summoner. For sure they do not have the massive action economy advantages that other summoners get. If that is your only criteria then OK go with that. But they are a serious 2/3 caster that tanks very well, rather than tries to hide. The shear flexibility of the build is best shown with the level 2 spell Lesser Evolution Surge, with this spell they can choose any feat they qualify for, including Expanded Arcana for any spell on their list, and also from all the evolutions for example eg immunity to an energy type, +8 to any skill, or movement/sense/attack powers etc etc. Further it is possible to get regular summoned creatures out then 'tank up' via a buffed Summon Eidolon. It is very different from the other Summoners but inferior or less flexible? I don't think so.