pathfinder tiers

[Provengreil]

Exactly. I commented that Tier 1 is not necessarily bad based upon one's tolerance level of power, and two people say I'm wrong as if Tier 1 is definitive of broken game design.

Me, personally, and people I've played with really don't give a rat's posterior that a spellcaster can cast Gate, we don't cry out in rage a wizard casted Rope Trick, we don't run away in horror the druid has Natural Spell, and we don't want to commit hari kari just because the cleric has Divine Metamagic.

nobody screams about this stuff. it just allows you to have an "I win" button for any given situation and an easy way to get one when you don't.

Gate allows bringing in a solar, asking it to cast miracle, and using an actual "we win the battle" button.
rope trick is nearly impossible to deal with, it allows the party uninterrupable rest to memorize any spells they happen to need.
divine metamagic is fine until you use turn undeads to avoid raising spell slots, allowing quickened mass heals and the like for no real cost.
natural spell allows you to dump all physical stats and pump you wisdom to the extreme, then shift and still cast, resulting all stats being quite good.

again, though, the reason tier 1s are what they are is because they have to actively try NOT to break the game, as opposed to things like the ubercharger that take some real thought to make. this is the definition of bad design.

[Lost Demiurge]

This... this is hysterical. Really. Do you have any idea who you're talking to?

Some random dude on the net whose identity cannot be reliably proved or disproved. Moving along...

I really have no problem running and/or playing D&D games with folks who play classes from all the tiers.

But then I usually only play D&D with friends, who aren't usually competing to see who's got the longer... Uh, geek cred. Doesn't really matter if one guy can hop planes on a whim and another can't, so long as all of them are pointing their powers, items, and feats toward the bad guys.

Sure, I guess we could spend a few sessions yelling about bad game design, but I'd rather buckle down and play the game and have fun then obsess over something that's damn near impossible to balance anyways.

If you want to, go right ahead. Have fun!

[Doc Roc]

Some random dude on the net whose identity cannot be reliably proved or disproved. Moving along...

I really have no problem running and/or playing D&D games with folks who play classes from all the tiers.

But then I usually only play D&D with friends, who aren't usually competing to see who's got the longer... Uh, geek cred. Doesn't really matter if one guy can hop planes on a whim and another can't, so long as all of them are pointing their powers, items, and feats toward the bad guys.

Sure, I guess we could spend a few sessions yelling about bad game design, but I'd rather buckle down and play the game and have fun then obsess over something that's damn near impossible to balance anyways.

If you want to, go right ahead. Have fun!

Actually, given that my IP is from my work computer, and is non-dynamic, you could easily verify who I am. I'm not really interested in geek cred, dude, and I'm tired of everyone turning this into some bizarre imaginary contest. I am trying to explain to you that Tier 1s make generating content hard on a GM, if they're being played to potential. And that for some people, knowing that their character is intentionally crippled at a deep level so that the monk can tag along is a small but meaningful reduction in fun.

I am not in a contest. I do not care about this contest. I am not trying to "win D&D." I don't trivialize your concerns. Why do you trivialize mine?

Also, we could swap RSA public keys, that would let you verify who I am.

[Gnaeus]

Gate allows bringing in a solar, asking it to cast miracle, and using an actual "we win the battle" button.

True. But by the time you are gating in solars, you could cast miracle or wish yourself.

rope trick is nearly impossible to deal with, it allows the party uninterrupable rest to memorize any spells they happen to need.

Come on! Nearly impossible to deal with? Really? There are lots of ways to deal with Rope Trick, of which the easiest one is to have repercussions for parties which adventure for 5 minutes per day.

divine metamagic is fine until you use turn undeads to avoid raising spell slots, allowing quickened mass heals and the like for no real cost.

Nightstick stacking is a problem. DMM quicken takes 2 feats just to do that trick, and can only be done a couple times a day without trickery. It is strong, but not game breaking.

natural spell allows you to dump all physical stats and pump you wisdom to the extreme, then shift and still cast, resulting all stats being quite good.

Yeah? So? All stats being quite good is also not game breaking. This is probably pretty close to the definition of balanced tier 1 play, in that it is strong, but predictable, counterable, and not wildly disproportionate to what other high tier, optimized characters can do.

In my experience (just 2 pathfinder campaigns, one of which went from level 1-15), SOME Oracles are tier 2. This certainly applies to Heavens. Many of the others, such as battle and the elementals, are strong tier 3s, mostly because they severely lack flexibility. In an undead-heavy world, Heavens would kinda suck, too. Remember that the cleric list, especially if not bolstered by WoTC sources, is not very good for a spontaneous caster. So much of it is situational.

You know that Favored Souls are tier 2, right? And that oracles are pretty much better than favored souls?

Witches? Seriously? Have you looked at their spell list? My feeling is that witches with slumber are strong tier 2s, and without are tier 3s. Interesting concept, but poor design to have such a disparity within the class.

Seriously. Having played Witches in competitive tournament play, I can tell you that the only meaningful question is whether they are tier 1 or tier 2.

As to their spell list, it is kind of awesome. They can summon, heal, fort or will save or lose, buff, debuff, blast, battlefield control, travel, and use divinations. That is pretty close to the definition of a tier 1-2. The hexes are just a bonus.

Paladins are tier 3. Smite is just so good now, and the weapon sub for mount can be a tasty way to free up WBL.

Fighters who take step-up are solidly tier 4.

I haven't playtested anything else, but it seems the summoner is kinda wonky, what with the pet v summons thing. Not bad or good broken, but just doesn't work right. The alchemist is too complicated for me to speak to without having seen it in action. Sorcs are still tier 2. Really, I don't think their power has increased that much. Rather, their fun quotient and verisimilitude has. Rogues, bards and barbs seem, at least, to be tier 3 now, but I haven't seen them in play.

This makes me suspect that you do not understand the tier system. Barbarians were tier 4 before based on their ability to do damage. They have not gained a significant amount of flexibility, so they are still tier 4. Their tricks are still pretty much the same.

Similarly, Paladin was originally tier 5 in 3.5. It probably rose (in my opinion) to tier 4, as a result of a greatly expanded spell list, devotion feats and battle blessing. Smite does not significantly alter what a paladin can do, it only makes him a little better. The difference between tier 3& 4 is NOT how hard you can hit things, it is how flexible you are when your trick doesn't work. Paladin is not significantly more flexible in PF. In fact, if you are in a group that went from 3.5+ splats to core PF (as mine did), the paladin is actually less flexible, although it is still an improvement over core paladin in 3.5.

[MeeposFire]

I think this just showing that making a general statement that any tier is a bad place to play will not stand. For one group tier ones will not be a problem but tier 4s and below will be. In another tier 3 will be looked upon favorably but tier 1s will be looked at as being no fun. This is why you should always qualify that X tier is bad in your games for your fun. Then it is obviously an opinion and not an objective statement that can be disputed.

[Doc Roc]

I think this just showing that making a general statement that any tier is a bad place to play will not stand. For one group tier ones will not be a problem but tier 4s and below will be. In another tier 3 will be looked upon favorably but tier 1s will be looked at as being no fun. This is why you should always qualify that X tier is bad in your games for your fun. Then it is obviously an opinion and not an objective statement that can be disputed.

I has snaps'ed.
The following is a rant, and can safely be ignored. It should be considered nothing more serious than a stack of cuttlefish.

Spoiler

Show

I has math. I has science. I has SGTs. I has a comprehensive knowledge of the game. I has proofs. I has examples. I has years of suffering. I has builds. I has programmatic models.

And my opinion needs more qualifiers than I already give it? I've built a DEN out of WEASEL WORDS. And I need to weaken my opinion even more? To more deeply couch it in fluff and padding? So that the sharp edges don't catch your tiny careless toes?

Tier Ones do stuff that just is hard to even think about intelligently. How am I supposed to plan my game around a phase space so large that I have trouble reliably coming up with a small fractional subset of the options? How am I supposed to improvise when my players are casting divinations like they're candy? Or I have to ask them to use a black marker to wipe out about 60% of the spells in the game. Oh. That's a solution, huh?

The take-away is that sure they are fun enough sometimes, but you can't tell me that Monk doesn't feel a bit sad when Wizard shapeshifts into a chronotyrn.
And then the GM has to figure out what fights well against a chronotyrn. That time spent waffling and guessing and trying to build a fight that won't crack the earth by accident?
That could be spent on fun.
That's bad.

[MeeposFire]

/me snaps

I has math. I has science. I has SGTs. I has a comprehensive knowledge of the game. I has proofs. I has examples. I has years of suffering. I has builds. I has programmatic models.

Tier Ones do stuff that just is hard to even think about intelligently. How am I supposed to plan my game around a phase space so large that I have trouble reliably coming up with a small fractional subset of the options? How am I supposed to improvise when my players are casting divinations like they're candy?

You won't. It obviously is not an activity you want to do and you certainly would not enjoy it as it seems.

1) Some people play tier 1s. Fact

2) Some of those play them to their potential. Fact

3) Some people actually enjoy those games. I believe this to be true considering I have seen examples of it.


Since games are designed to be enjoyed I would say that yes you can have a good tier one game but only for people that like that sort of thing. You don't. I don't. Some do. Saying that they are wrong just because you can prove that it is difficult to play is just silly. All your proofs do is say that the game is really difficult run, hard to play, and would not be viable for most groups, but as soon as one person says my group enjoys it and it is their preferred way of playing then your proofs mean nothing to those groups.

Further you know some groups don't mind not being challenged and just love being powerful. Then a fun game is easy to do. Some people like a balanced game (I do personally) but some people don't care at all and just want to have super powered characters that can defeat anything no sweat. In this case a tier one game could be perfect.

EDIT: Your changed comment made me add stuff and that is cool. I agree with you that in your games, my games, and probably most people's games that you are right. Certainly what you are thinking is what I feel a designer should do. But I also know there are groups that like this sort of thing and like those tier one classes and they don't care about the "peon" classes in those games. In those games such a situation is alright since that is how they are happy. I personally would hate it. I want the monk to be good so if I were to design the game they would be and wizards would not be so strong but I don't deny that people have fun in different kinds of games (assuming they stay in their games. If they bring a fully optimized wizard into my games the character will be right out as that won't fit into my group but I know that is my personal feeling on the matter).

[Doc Roc]

Further you know some groups don't mind not being challenged and just love being powerful. Then a fun game is easy to do. Some people like a balanced game (I do personally) but some people don't care at all and just want to have super powered characters that can defeat anything no sweat. In this case a tier one game could be perfect.

If something exists as a standard option within a generic game, it should be suitable for use as a standard option within a generic game. If you call it out as a special option for high-powered play, that's totally cool. M&M does this, and succeeds on more fronts because of it. It has other oddities and some problems, but this, it does better. I agree that these high-end options are good for some groups. Hell, I've written guides about how to reach Tier Zero.

But pity the new GM who uses solid fog and accidentally TPKs his party. And yes, this happens.

[Gnaeus]

If something exists as a standard option within a generic game, it should be suitable for use as a standard option within a generic game. If you call it out as a special option for high-powered play, that's totally cool. M&M does this, and succeeds on more fronts because of it. It has other oddities and some problems, but this, it does better.

Pity the new GM who uses solid fog and accidentally TPKs his party. And yes, this happens.

But D&D doesn't have a good "Generic game". Yes, in your previous example, the monk cries when the wizard Shapeshifts. But the monk cries when I play an unarmed Swordsage. There are weak options, middle options, and strong options. That doesn't make the strong options bad.

And as to how you plan on beating tier 1s, I think the most common method is preparing over-strong encounters, and kind of assuming that a tier 1-2 party will have the right thing to beat it somewhere in their collective bags of tricks, and if they don't they will run away and beat it the next day.

[Doc Roc]

But D&D doesn't have a good "Generic game". Yes, in your previous example, the monk cries when the wizard Shapeshifts. But the monk cries when I play an unarmed Swordsage. There are weak options, middle options, and strong options. That doesn't make the strong options bad.

And as to how you plan on beating tier 1s, I think the most common method is preparing over-strong encounters, and kind of assuming that a tier 1-2 party will have the right thing to beat it somewhere in their collective bags of tricks, and if they don't they will run away and beat it the next day.

Until they don't have time to run, and insta-gib? I am unhappy with this solution. When I say Tier 1 is bad, I mean that it is bad in the context of 3.x, where there isn't explicit support for it at a deep level. Writing high-powered stuff is wicked hard, and can be really frustrating. As T1s were designed to be T3, there's no real mechanism by which you can construct this stuff, or think about it.

The rules cease to help you adjudicate, without having near total system knowledge. To me, that defines a corner case, and unhandled corner cases are bugs.

[Lost Demiurge]

Actually, given that my IP is from my work computer, and is non-dynamic, you could easily verify who I am.

Why would I care about that? The poster who demanded "Do you know who I am?" rubbed me the wrong way with that statement. I don't know who he is, I'm not expected to know who he is, and I don't really care. But if someone speaks with such arrogance, I figure I'm doing them a favor by puncturing their bubble before they try talking like that in real life to someone who'd take it worse and answer with a fist.

I'm not really interested in geek cred, dude, and I'm tired of everyone turning this into some bizarre imaginary contest.

I don't either. I presented my views about the whole big brouhaha. Not trying to win a contest, simply pitching my 2 cents into the ring.

I am trying to explain to you that Tier 1s make generating content hard on a GM, if they're being played to potential.

They can, yeah. It's why scaling is the hardest part of ANY rpg. Characters aren't created equal. And even the ones that are equal on paper, are not necessarily equal, as imagination, inspiration, and even luck play a part in how effective a character is at solving problems that crop up in-game.

And that for some people, knowing that their character is intentionally crippled at a deep level so that the monk can tag along is a small but meaningful reduction in fun.

Some people act like that, yeah. Most of my friends don't. The ones that do find parts of the game that they enjoy, and let a pointless obsession with absolute equality slide because fairness is in the eyes of the beholder, and thus you cannot make everything fair for everyone all the time. Is a monk less well-put-together than a wizard? Probably, as folks who've run the system long enough can tell you. Does this make me less likely to play a monk? Not at all. I'll find a way to contribute and be useful regardless of what I'm playing.

I am not in a contest. I do not care about this contest. I am not trying to "win D&D." I don't trivialize your concerns. Why do you trivialize mine?

I have presented an interpretation of the central issue as it applies to my demographic. And an honest one... To me, the tier system isn't a problem because we don't care about it. Everyone in my regular group is long out of college, and busy getting on with their lives. We have quite a lot to occupy our days, and there are always more forms of stress out there, and always bills that keep coming, and emergencies that arise... Real life is enough of a pain in the arse. When we sit down to game, things might not always go smooth, and the game might not always be balanced, but we can usually find SOME way of having fun. And we do. A prime part of this is sharing screen time, and letting everyone do their thing. Combat? Sure, some builds shine better than others, but that's just combat. As long as the bad guys die and the good guys win, who cares how they get to the end of it?

So your view of the problem is very different from mine, especially given your aspirations and achievements in the arena of game design. It's what you do. It is not what I do (Not yet anyway), so I don't consider it a huge problem. On paper it could be, but when the dice hit the table... Nah. If it's a problem it's not a problem for anyone I care about.

And I present to you the idea that while I am not a game designer or someone deeply involved in mathematical analysis, I am still very much a roleplaying geek, and representative of the mid-30s hardcore roleplayer demographic. It may be a good idea to look at my viewpoint and realize that while you may not agree with it, it is worth analyzing. Especially if you want me to take a look at your products.

Also, we could swap RSA public keys, that would let you verify who I am.

Now why in the seven hells would I want to do THAT. I don't care! And I'm not givin' you any keys there, internet guy!

I understand that you're frustrated with the trend of the discussion, but maybe you ought to relax a bit. Go hit a different forum for a while. You've presented your views reasonably well on the thread, no sense in getting upset at random gamers posting on a forum.

[Doc Roc]

Why would I care about that? The poster who demanded "Do you know who I am?" rubbed me the wrong way with that statement. I don't know who he is, I'm not expected to know who he is, and I don't really care. But if someone speaks with such arrogance, I figure I'm doing them a favor by puncturing their bubble before they try talking like that in real life to someone who'd take it worse and answer with a fist.



I don't either. I presented my views about the whole big brouhaha. Not trying to win a contest, simply pitching my 2 cents into the ring.



They can, yeah. It's why scaling is the hardest part of ANY rpg. Characters aren't created equal. And even the ones that are equal on paper, are not necessarily equal, as imagination, inspiration, and even luck play a part in how effective a character is at solving problems that crop up in-game.



Some people act like that, yeah. Most of my friends don't. The ones that do find parts of the game that they enjoy, and let a pointless obsession with absolute equality slide because fairness is in the eyes of the beholder, and thus you cannot make everything fair for everyone all the time. Is a monk less well-put-together than a wizard? Probably, as folks who've run the system long enough can tell you. Does this make me less likely to play a monk? Not at all. I'll find a way to contribute and be useful regardless of what I'm playing.



I have presented an interpretation of the central issue as it applies to my demographic. And an honest one... To me, the tier system isn't a problem because we don't care about it. Everyone in my regular group is long out of college, and busy getting on with their lives. We have quite a lot to occupy our days, and there are always more forms of stress out there, and always bills that keep coming, and emergencies that arise... Real life is enough of a pain in the arse. When we sit down to game, things might not always go smooth, and the game might not always be balanced, but we can usually find SOME way of having fun. And we do. A prime part of this is sharing screen time, and letting everyone do their thing. Combat? Sure, some builds shine better than others, but that's just combat. As long as the bad guys die and the good guys win, who cares how they get to the end of it?

Um, so let's back up a little. I'm known around here, unfortunately, for crazy-high-power builds. Which is why it was ironic that Navar was saying I didn't know about them and had no tolerance for it. I ran the high-powered arena around here, suggesting that I do at least tolerate them.

And I do consider your view point, and think it's a solid one. It just ignores a lot of problems, which as you highlighted, it is my job to kill. Ideally, we want your view to be _true_. We want there to be no problems. We want things to just flow elegantly. The problem is that sometimes, the Boss casts celerity into timestop into oh god tpk. This is Tier 1, and I think it is not so great.

Now why in the seven hells would I want to do THAT. I don't care! And I'm not givin' you any keys there, internet guy!

I know you're joking but this makes my head hurt.

[true_shinken]

1) Some people play tier 1s. Fact

2) Some of those play them to their potential. Fact

3) Some people actually enjoy those games. I believe this to be true considering I have seen examples of it.

Bolded for emphasis. If you're not playing a tier 1 to it's full potential, then you are not playing a tier one. Time and again we hear someone point out that unoptimized blasting wizards and healbot clerics are around tiers 3-4. I don't quite agree with those tiers for them (specially because what exactly is unoptimized, what exactly is a blaster wizard and what exactly is a healbot cleric are all highly debatable points), but that is a very relevant topic: that is NOT tier one. Everytime we get someone here saying 'wizards are fine, we always plays with wizards and we had no problem at all' did not face a tier 1 wizard. Or had a gaming group that really wanted to play Xbox while some other guy breezed through encounters using a build Doc Roc or PhoenixInferno cooked for him.

I only have one argument against the rest of your post: just because someone finds it fun, doesn't mean it was well designed. Tier 1's are a problem, they are a design mistake and they make the game a pain in the ass for the DM and for anyone not playing a tier one. That is a problem, no matter how you put it. Saying it's not a problem because you heard someone played one and had a blast with it is like saying losing your legs is not a problem because of this guy.

[Gnaeus]

Bolded for emphasis. If you're not playing a tier 1 to it's full potential, then you are not playing a tier one.

No. The tiers are a guide to play at same optimization level. A cruddy tier 1 is still a tier 1. A cruddy tier 3 is still a tier 3. A cruddy tier 5 is still a tier 5. There is a shift if someone is more or less optimized than the other players in their group. A poorly played T1 gets compared with poorly played t3s, or poorly played t5s.

And even if your false statement were true, it merely makes the entire discussion meaningless. It devolves into: Tier 1s are bad, but unoptimized tier 1s are not tier 1s, so Wizard/Cleric/Druid are OK under certain playstyles, which is EXACTLY what meepos and Demiurge said.

[Doc Roc]

No. The tiers are a guide to play at same optimization level. A cruddy tier 1 is still a tier 1. A cruddy tier 3 is still a tier 3. A cruddy tier 5 is still a tier 5. There is a shift if someone is more or less optimized than the other players in their group. A poorly played T1 gets compared with poorly played t3s, or poorly played t5s.

And even if your false statement were true, it merely makes the entire discussion meaningless. It devolves into: Tier 1s are bad, but unoptimized tier 1s are not tier 1s, so Wizard/Cleric/Druid are OK under certain playstyles, which is EXACTLY what meepos and Demiurge said.

This, though perhaps a bit more delicately worded. :)

I would argue that the fact that they can vary vastly in utility is also a problem, though an orthogonal problem.

To return to topic, as I've said...
I think the PF guys could have done much much more to try and fix this. It's really depressing, honestly.

[true_shinken]

No. The tiers are a guide to play at same optimization level. A cruddy tier 1 is still a tier 1.

I disagree, specially when we consider the way the prc tier system works, by adding or subtracting tiers to a class.
Anyway, I don't to deal with your rudeness, so I won't be answering you again on this topic.

[Gnaeus]

I disagree, specially when we consider the way the prc tier system works, by adding or subtracting tiers to a class.
Anyway, I don't to deal with your rudeness, so I won't be answering you again on this topic.

Ok. Don't take my word for it, here is some JaronK taken from his tier thread

"Q: So what a minute, how can I use it then? My players all play differently.

A: First, determine what you'd say is the average optimization and skill level in the group, then make adjustments for people who are noticably different from that. I can't give examples of skill level, but here's an example for optimization. Imagine for a moment that your party has a Cleric with DMM: Persistant Spell, a Fighter with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack, a Beguiler with a Mindbender dip and Mindsight, and a traditional Sword and Board Fighter. Now, the first three are pretty optimized, but the fourth is pretty weak. So in that case, what you've actually got is a Tier 1, a Tier 3, a Tier 5, and a Tier 6, with that second Fighter being Tier 6 because he's far less optimized than the rest of the group. However, if your group is instead a healbot Cleric, a Beguiler who hasn't figured out how to use illusions effectively, a Sword and Board Fighter, and a Shock Trooper/Leap Attack Fighter, then the charge based Fighter is the odd one out. Bump him up a Tier... maybe even 2. So now you've got a Tier 1, a Tier 3, a Tier 5, and maybe a Tier 4. Remember, this whole thing is about intra party balance... there's no objective balancing, because each campaign is different."

[Lost Demiurge]

Um, so let's back up a little. I'm known around here, unfortunately, for crazy-high-power builds. Which is why it was ironic that Navar was saying I didn't know about them and had no tolerance for it. I ran the high-powered arena around here, suggesting that I do at least tolerate them.

Oh, okay. My mistake then. Still, message board fame is about worth a cup of coffee, and not the good starbucks kind. Can't assume that people know who you are, or what you've done when you're just an avatar and a posting history.

I DO see the irony, though...

And I do consider your view point, and think it's a solid one. It just ignores a lot of problems, which as you highlighted, it is my job to kill. Ideally, we want your view to be _true_. We want there to be no problems. We want things to just flow elegantly. The problem is that sometimes, the Boss casts celerity into timestop into oh god tpk. This is Tier 1, and I think it is not so great.

Yeah. This is why scaling's the greatest art a GM can learn, IMO. And it's never a precise one, sadly. It's going to vary group by group, since the glory and downfall of a game like D&D is that it gives the PC's SO MANY options both in build and action, that you can't account for every situation or playstyle in a scenario meant for universal consumption. God knows I've changed every module I've ever run, usually for the better. Don't know any GM's who play straight from the pages and expect things to go well...

I know you're joking but this makes my head hurt.

Ah, you'll recover. Besides, when you were literate about keys I smelled a fellow IT person. Figured it might make your head asplode

[Doc Roc]

Oh, okay. My mistake then. Still, message board fame is about worth a cup of coffee, and not the good starbucks kind. Can't assume that people know who you are, or what you've done when you're just an avatar and a posting history.

I DO see the irony, though...

I agree, though generally you can intuit it from people's reactions. Veyr is quite far from arrogant by nature or inclination, and a very even-keeled chap, much more so than me.

It's all about distributed trust.

[MeeposFire]

Bolded for emphasis. If you're not playing a tier 1 to it's full potential, then you are not playing a tier one. Time and again we hear someone point out that unoptimized blasting wizards and healbot clerics are around tiers 3-4. I don't quite agree with those tiers for them (specially because what exactly is unoptimized, what exactly is a blaster wizard and what exactly is a healbot cleric are all highly debatable points), but that is a very relevant topic: that is NOT tier one. Everytime we get someone here saying 'wizards are fine, we always plays with wizards and we had no problem at all' did not face a tier 1 wizard. Or had a gaming group that really wanted to play Xbox while some other guy breezed through encounters using a build Doc Roc or PhoenixInferno cooked for him.

I only have one argument against the rest of your post: just because someone finds it fun, doesn't mean it was well designed. Tier 1's are a problem, they are a design mistake and they make the game a pain in the ass for the DM and for anyone not playing a tier one. That is a problem, no matter how you put it. Saying it's not a problem because you heard someone played one and had a blast with it is like saying losing your legs is not a problem because of this guy.

I checked to be sure but I was not arguing that the game was well designed. In fact I went to great efforts to make it clear that playing in a higher teired game is not a tier I enjoy. I was more arguing that some people really like these tiers to play in and thus are allowed to say that it is not a bad place for their games to be played (or better put it is the right system for them to play). Considering that I got so sick of the 3.5 system that I refuse to DM it anymore (don't mind playing it but DMing it was far more work than I wanted to do for the fun that we had) I don't think you will have any worries about me defending the 3.5 system from these sorts of discussions .

[navar100]

Dunno how precisely to respond to this, so I'm just gonna let it sit. Like I said, the burden of proof is with you. If you can show me how to reliably design interesting and challenging encounters with a consistent difficulty for parties heavy in T1 builds, I'd be delighted.

I out.

I don't have to prove anything. Just because you can't make encounters for parties heavy in Tier 1 doesn't mean it can't be done. My DM did it previous campaign, common theme the enemy out numbered us at least two to one, but not all the time. Spellcasters could not defeat all the bad guys single-handedly. Also, contrary to popular anti-Tier 1 belief, bad guys actually do make saving throws such that whatever awesome I Win The Encounter spells the Tier 1 character uses don't actually win the encounter, even if some spells have no saving throw. Sometimes last campaign the spellcaster did cast that awesome spell that made things a whole lot easier. The non-spellcasters didn't cry about being useless. Instead, they were appreciative of the help and began their pummeling.

All I said was that Tier 1 is not necessarily bad. Some gaming groups get along just fine with it even when someone is playing a Fighter. There are other gaming groups who don't care for the power level of Tier 1, so they don't use them.

[Lost Demiurge]

I agree, though generally you can intuit it from people's reactions. Veyr is quite far from arrogant by nature or inclination, and a very even-keeled chap, much more so than me.

It's all about distributed trust.

Which, if you aren't familiar with all the participants an individual might not have an adequate range of experience to judge. Hell, I've been around a few years on this board and never run into you before. Just never crossed paths, and that's neither bad nor good, just how it is.

Distributed trust is a good way to put it, though.

[Doc Roc]

Which, if you aren't familiar with all the participants an individual might not have an adequate range of experience to judge. Hell, I've been around a few years on this board and never run into you before. Just never crossed paths, and that's neither bad nor good, just how it is.

Distributed trust is a good way to put it, though.

I took a break for the better part of a year due to burn-out revolving around Legend.

[navar100]

nobody screams about this stuff. it just allows you to have an "I win" button for any given situation and an easy way to get one when you don't.

Gate allows bringing in a solar, asking it to cast miracle, and using an actual "we win the battle" button.
rope trick is nearly impossible to deal with, it allows the party uninterrupable rest to memorize any spells they happen to need.
divine metamagic is fine until you use turn undeads to avoid raising spell slots, allowing quickened mass heals and the like for no real cost.
natural spell allows you to dump all physical stats and pump you wisdom to the extreme, then shift and still cast, resulting all stats being quite good.

again, though, the reason tier 1s are what they are is because they have to actively try NOT to break the game, as opposed to things like the ubercharger that take some real thought to make. this is the definition of bad design.

Way back when the implication of Divine Metamagic wasn't yet fully realized and Persistant Spell was only +4 spell levels, I did use the combo. My DM and gaming group was ok with it. That's my point. Some gaming groups see and recognize the power and just aren't particularly bothered by it. Particular combinations of stuff can lead to non-functioning of the game and are dealt with, but the existance of having a really powerful character is not an issue.

That same campaign. I couldn't attend a gaming session. Something went wrong in that missed session, and there was a TPK scenario. (Not literally every character dead, but the party was in major guano.) When I returned next session it was up to me to fix it all. I could cast Resurrection on a dead party member, but there was much more to do. I casted Greater Planar Ally for an Astral Deva to get some guidance and help to solve the problem. In addition to an amusing anecdote of learning that an NPC we've seen a few times was really this Astral Deva in disguise, the Astral Deva and I rescued the party. Everyone was happy about that! The DM was happy I saved the campaign. The players were happy I saved their characters. No one complained of my awesomeness. No hand-wringing that I got an angel to do my bidding. No complaints from the barbarian who likes to trip that I did something more potent than tripping. No complaints from the rogue saying all he gets to do is some extra d6 in damage in specific circumstances while I call forth the heavens!

The power level of Tier 1 just doesn't bother us.

[Claudius Maximus]

I think the argument the anti-tier 1 camp is making here is that tier 1's played to potential are bad. And for someone like Doc Roc "played to potential" means "beyond Team Solars." You can't claim that it isn't a problem because you don't play at that level, because then you're just ignoring the issue, which is that the potential power of the classes is too high.

Just because you can't make encounters for parties heavy in Tier 1 doesn't mean it can't be done.

Just because you can do it doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Tier 1's are a huge pain to deal with, in a general sense, and that's why they're seen as a design failure.

[Tael]

Navar, your tier 1's don't exactly sound like they're being player to potential. Just moderately optimized. What I'm thinking of is, let's say for example's sake, the following party:

Wizard/Incatatrix: Has a ridiculous amount of buffs up, and and blow anything with less than 1000 HP or 28 HD into the stratosphere with a standard action.

StP Erudite/Rainbow Servant: What's that? A creature with any kind of vulnerability? Oh look, there's a spell/power for that! (also applies to any other kind of challenge the PC's might face)

Druid/Planar Shepherd: If Wishes can't fix the problem, presumable acting 10 times faster than everyone else can.

Cleric: Who cares about prestige classes when you have 10 buffs up at all times and you're casting inside your own AMF?

How the hell do you challenge that? Of course, I'm talking about some pretty high power PrCs, but this isn't even that complicated. Even if for some reason all the party members aren't immune to damage, there is no give and take in encounters, either the PCs curb stomp everything, or they all die.

And that's only for combat. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of traps or roleplaying encounter one would use to give them any semblance of a challenge.

EDIT: One second thought, the StP Erudite probably doesn't work. Still, Beguiler is just fine.

[Doc Roc]

Navar, your tier 1's don't exactly sound like they're being player to potential. Just moderately optimized. What I'm thinking of is, let's say for example's sake, the following party:

Wizard/Incatatrix: Has a ridiculous amount of buffs up, and and blow anything with less than 1000 HP or 28 HD into the stratosphere with a standard action.

StP Erudite/Rainbow Servant: What's that? A creature with any kind of vulnerability? Oh look, there's a spell/power for that! (also applies to any other kind of challenge the PC's might face)

Druid/Planar Shepherd: If Wishes can't fix the problem, presumable acting 10 times faster than everyone else can.

Cleric: Who cares about prestige classes when you have 10 buffs up at all times and you're casting inside your own AMF?

How the hell do you challenge that? Of course, I'm talking about some pretty high power PrCs, but this isn't even that complicated. Even if for some reason all the party members aren't immune to damage, there is no give and take in encounters, either the PCs curb stomp everything, or they all die.

And that's only for combat. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of traps or roleplaying encounter one would use to give them any semblance of a challenge.

EDIT: One second thought, the StP Erudite probably doesn't work. Still, Beguiler is just fine.

Somewhere, there's a version of Algernon that uses feat shuffle, ocular spell, spelldancer, contemplative, and a few other things to fully assemble the cheater of mystra in distributed form. We called it the Loomlord of Mystra. It was bad enough, but there was a whole party to go with them. Also, you can get your tapestry pretty durn large if you want.

[Reluctance]

Navar, let me turn the question around, and let you pick up the burden of proof. Provide plots you'd want to run. Let the optimizers here have a crack at said plots, using only a single T1 caster.

The fact that the blasty wizard can outdamage the fighter is a lesser problem, and one that can be dealt with by jiggering with enemy difficulty a bit. The fact that a reasonably well-played T1 can trivially end whole plotlines is a much bigger deal. If the only people allowed to DM under your ideal vision of the game have the rules mastery to know of every move-countermove combo, the spare time and brainpower to account for all these, and the improvisational skills required to wing it when the PCs do something crazy, you're going to have very few DMs and consequently very few games. That's really all there is to it.

[Gnaeus]

That is true, to an extent. Certainly mid-high level casters can do that. For a long time, however, the groups I played in never got above level 8, and rarely above level 5. The amount of plot ending that can be done at those levels is less impressive.

[Tael]

That is true, to an extent. Certainly mid-high level casters can do that. For a long time, however, the groups I played in never got above level 8, and rarely above level 5. The amount of plot ending that can be done at those levels is less impressive.

Below level 7 I agree that casters don't have as much game-ending power, levels 7 and 9 really are the turning points. By then you have ridiculous knowledge gathering abilities, spells and powers that can completely curbstomp enemies, etc. Your group may like an E6 style game, but I doubt it's the norm. While you can discount really high levels to some extent, casters still dominate in mid level games. It's posed a serious problem not to our 10th level game, not so much in fights, but in story design. The GM has had to retcon/obviously improvise a lot of stuff, not because he is a poor planner, but because he can't possibly plan for every spell in the wizard and cleric's massive list.