rant: i don't understand tiers

[Philistine]

I have two issues with the tier system (the second isn't really with the system itself, though):

1. Any form of ranking of classes is going to be somewhat subjective. There always some debate as to what tier certain classes actually fall in. And any kind of ranking system cannot take into account the variables at each individual gaming table, epsecially play style differences. What may be tier 2 at some tables could easily be tier 3 or 4 at another.
2. People (intentionally and unintentionally) using the tier system as a "ban hammer", and telling people "Oh don't play class X, it's tier Y, dontcha know!". This means a lot of people will miss out on playing fun classes that may be perfect for their character concept, just because some people treat the tier system as a holy mantra of what clasess to play and not to play.

Late to the party, I know, but this second item in particular just bugs me. There is no such thing as the One Perfect Class to represent a given concept. Even if you're not completely ignoring classes' printed fluff by default, there were so very many classes published that there ended up being a LOT of overlap - you generally have several mechanically distinct ways of realizing any archetype. Even the "flavorful" Paladin has the Marshall, the Knight, and the Crusader sharing the same conceptual space, despite their different mechanics. And of course you absolutely SHOULD be completely ignoring the classes' printed fluff, because a) it's a load of cliched, stereotype-riddled dreck, and b) even if it weren't dreadful, using it as a straitjacket for role playing leads to a situation where all characters of Class X are essentially the same character, with obvious negative implications for actually role playing within the role playing game.

[Eldariel]

Negative feces Magic Garden squirrel! I offered my opinion for a perspective to be considered. You don't like it, fine, but being opinion is just that and invalidates nothing.

You made an overarching statement of "This is DM's job" ergo "This is how the game should be played". I may have missed it but I did not see an "in my opinion" anywhere.

It is the DM's job to ensure everyone has their spotlight time. If he can't stand that he shouldn't be the DM. I did not say that someone must play a Fighter or else you're playing wrong.

And why should the line be drawn here? Could it instead be drawn in ensuring that the players play something that doesn't take any special effort to get their time in the sun; that is, why force the DM to craft scenarios for the players to shine instead of just having the players build characters that will see to that without DM effort? Why should DM have to expend energy they could expend on the campaign world instead on planning out glory hours for each character?

By extension, is the chance to shine as gratifying if you know DM planned it specifically? Wouldn't it be better if it just came up naturally with what you can do, everyone amazed by whatever the character pulled off? This is the idea behind criticals, after all; those special moments where something you totally didn't see coming happens.


Basically, I'm saying are you really sure that's how everyone should play? Are you really sure that's the only way you'd want to play? Are you really sure that's the most enjoyable way to play?

EDIT: I mean, seriously, Druid in an urban campaign? Works fine. Why is he there? I don't know, that's fluff. Maybe he just has some really pressing reason to spend time with the party. There's no real problems for a Druid in a city; just he's not at his grove/whatever, but generally adventuring Druids aren't and that varies from campaign settings to campaign settings. But Druidic magic works fine in an urban campaign and while the animal companion might get funny looks, that's probably all (it won't get everywhere, sure, but it probably will still be more of an asset than a detriment).

On the other hand, Fighter guard? He's like to have poorish Wisdom, Spot & Listen are cross-class and while Handle Animal helps, you don't need it for guard dogs and guard dogs' stats will fall back soon enough.

Beguilers, on the other hand, have no real trouble in a campaign with Undead. They just have to draw upon the shallower end of their kit, but between Images, Glitterdust-types, Advanced Learning and UMD, they're more than fine. So what some of their spells don't work? Use others. That's just the deal with the casters and non-casters in general; if hitting it with a sword doesn't work, the swordsman is pretty boned. If spell X doesn't work at it, the caster is like to have ~dozen spell Ys to use instead. Which is what the tier system is about. A tier 3 party is going to pretty much handle itself far as dealing with encounters goes; throw anything at them and they'll manage.

A tier 5 party will need you to specifically craft the encounters. Which is why it's good to preplan the party tier and as a DM, make sure you get the tier you're comfortable DMing for. If you don't want to go crafting specific encounters? Might want to think twice about the straight Soulknife in the party, lest he came to enjoy spending majority of his time doing nothing. You as the DM can, using the tier system and your system mastery and player knowledge pool, affect before the game what kind of level you DM for and what kind of a game you can run. That's what the tier system is for and classes have everything to do with that.

[Hiro Protagonest]

So a fighter is a good guard because he do things poorly and that is OK since that allows other classes to show how bad they are at it and this shows how good they are at being guards.

Especially since fighters don't get spot and listen as class skills.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It is the DM's job to ensure everyone has their spotlight time. If he can't stand that he shouldn't be the DM. I did not say that someone must play a Fighter or else you're playing wrong. What I did say was that if someone is playing a Fighter, it is the DM's job to make sure he's not useless. That's not because he's playing a Fighter but because the player is playing. The class is irrelevant. Similarly, if someone is playing a rogue, stop it already with the elemental contrsuct undead plant oozes. Have some, just not every single monster. There can be some large flying four-legged creatures with a Fighter who likes to trip in the party, just not all the time. If someone is playing a conjurer wizard who likes to summon, not every single bad guy should have Protection from Evil/Good. As for the druid, the entire campaign should not be taking place in cities.

Sometimes, the GM doesn't get much of a chance, because the other classes are so powerful that anything that challenges them would consider him less than a speedbump.

There are also times where the party simply obviates the character's role. For example, the Wizard goes first (MoP, Nerveskitter, Foresight... whatever), then ends the encounter on his action. The rest of the party really has no way of contributing. And if the encounter is strong enough that the Wizard can't just hit one of many win buttons at his disposal, then the rest of the party is a greasy stain, with the Wizard still eventually winning.

If the campaign intent is such that most if not every monster will be undead, it is prudent on the DM to advise no one play a rogue (not an issue in Pathfinger) or a beguiler (still an issue in Pathfinder). If the campaign will take place in a great metropolis with lots of intrigue, a druid might not be so prudent. If it's a pirate adventure, a player should be advised against a platemail wearing charger build fighter. Even a paladin might not be advisable, if only because the theme will conflict too much with the ideals.

I strongly disagree. I would simply say that you should give the party access to options which would make them viable. Which, in the case of monks, means either Swordsage or Psionics. Rogues can function perfectly well in a campaign of undead, assuming they have access to Gravestrike wands, or a Greater Crystal of Truedeath. Failing that, knowing they will be dealing with a bunch of things immune to sneak attack, either they take the ACF to do half SA damage anyways, or simply focus on using other abilities. SA isn't the only thing Rogues get, after all.

Beguilers are insanely nasty against Undead, because Mindless auto-fail Will saves vs Illusion.

Oh, and Fighters can so be good guards. Handle Animal could be used for guard dogs to help out with their noses and hearing. A fighter can have a decent Spot and Listen if he cares to invest in them. A rogue is supposed to be better. That's the whole point. However, when a specialized rogue, i.e. PC, has to take care and effort to bypass guard, the guards did their job. The guards were enough to deter run of the mill intruders. he specialized rogue exists precisely because there are guards. For those places that have guards, they usually have other means of defenses as well to take care of the specialized rogues who can get past the guards.

Every other class in the book, without exception, does a better job at it. Wizard is a better guard, he has the Alarm spell. Or simply obviate the problem in the first place with Rope Trick/MMM. Rogue has enough skill points to Handle Animal, and Spot and Listen are class skills. Ranger has skill points AND all three good skills. Druid does too, although has fewer skill points to throw around. Cleric with the Animal domain can do the same thing, or choose the right domains and obviate the challenge.

So even your example is a perfect counter to your own argument. They can do one thing... that they are supposed to be good at... and they are the worst at it.

[MeeposFire]

Especially since fighters don't get spot and listen as class skills.

Ugg your quote made me realize that due to a typo my English looks terrible DOH!

[ArcanistSupreme]

It is the DM's job to ensure everyone has their spotlight time. If he can't stand that he shouldn't be the DM.

I would like to point out that it's much easier for a DM to give equal spotlight time if the party is on the same level. I would personally find contrived situations that forced the Binder, Warblade, and Factotum to take the back seat so their friend the Monk could shine tiresome. Once or twice would be okay, but given how many times it would have to be done to make the Monk feel like he was contributing? Ugh.

[Warlawk]

This is literally impossible. The former two classes have exactly the same flavor as the latter two classes, respectively. There is absolutely no difference between the two on a flavor level. Any difference that you think is there is something you've added yourself, not something included in Tome of Battle.

EDIT: Yes, I know, Warblades have some easily-ignorable text about being glory-hounds, while Fighters have no flavor whatsoever, making a slight difference between the two. But that flavor is A. easily ignored, B. only stands out because the Fighter didn't have any flavor to begin with, and C. does not affect the Monk vs. Swordsage comparison, where the two are quite literally the same.

The long and short of it is that a Warblade can be built to match the flavor of any melee Fighter ever, and a Swordsage can be built to match the flavor of any Monk ever. Both classes are a lot more versatile, though, and can be built differently — a Swordsage can be more Rogue-ish and doesn't have the Monk's Lawful requirement, but a Lawful Swordsage can be made who is indistinguishable from a Monk on a fluff level. Unless "I am generally useless" is an important part of your character's flavor...

While I am a huge TOB fan, and believe that if you want to play melee you're better off with ToB as a base 99% of the time... fighter vs warblade does have some significant differences. Lack of heavy armor, tower shields and all ranged weapons for a warblade rules out a number of 'flavor' builds that a fighter can fill right out of the box.

Mostly, I agree with you but I just wanted to point out that the lack of proficiency in those areas on warblade does leave a few gaps.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

While I am a huge TOB fan, and believe that if you want to play melee you're better off with ToB as a base 99% of the time... fighter vs warblade does have some significant differences. Lack of heavy armor, tower shields and all ranged weapons for a warblade rules out a number of 'flavor' builds that a fighter can fill right out of the box.

Mostly, I agree with you but I just wanted to point out that the lack of proficiency in those areas on warblade does leave a few gaps.

There was a thread on this earlier last week...

First off, there is no such thing as Heavy Armor. There is, at most, Mithral Full Plate, which is Medium. Anything designated 'heavy armor' is, in fact, nothing more than a huge trap.

Second, if you want ranged, it's called Bloodstorm Blade. Now you can do everything you could do in melee... at range. Have a nice day.

[Eldariel]

There was a thread on this earlier last week...

First off, there is no such thing as Heavy Armor. There is, at most, Mithral Full Plate, which is Medium. Anything designated 'heavy armor' is, in fact, nothing more than a huge trap.

Eh, on levels 3-10, a Fullplate can be quite valuable for any low Dex warrior. Mithral Fullplate's cost is quite prohibitive and the movement penalties compared to medium armor are a joke (Can't run quite as fast? Oh noes! How many times have you taken the Run-action in the near past mid-fight anyways?).

Basically, Fullplate is mostly Breastplate With Benefits. Sure, it means you'll use the skillchecked skills even less, but who cares? Most of those are worthless anyways, Balance Flat-Footed is tied to ranks, not modifier and Tumble can't be used under Medium or Heavy Armor anyways.

Sure, they eventually become useless but that's not the case for the levels where you expect your AC to be a big defense.

Second, if you want ranged, it's called Bloodstorm Blade. Now you can do everything you could do in melee... at range. Have a nice day.

BSB is...ehh, you have to give up initiator levels for it which is rather undesirable, it's still quite at the short ranges compared to any real ranged builds and it misses out on a few very handy bonuses bows can carry (e.g. Phasing arrows, Splitting, Raptors, etc.). And it's not available on low levels.

It's worth noting though, that Crusader has all of the above; Tower Shields (or Extreme Shields), Bows and Heavy Armor. So a dip always fixes that. But I'd personally prefer it if Warblades came prepacked too; would make more sense for various archetypes and it's not really a big buff for the rest.

[navar100]

Well to be honest people do say things like "tier 5 or 6 suck so ban it and play something else". It happens all the time here but that should not be seen as the fault of the tier system itself. As the author just wrote he in fact does not like tier 1 or 2 and does not advocate banning stuff just because it is of a certain tier (only that you should be careful when running a game between classes of widely divergent tiers). But other people tend to take the tiers and put their feelings on classes on it and try to use it for things it is not really designed to do such as telling people to never play a monk because it is "weak" even if it is in a group where such a class may be a better fit since everybody might be playing tier 4 and 5 classes rather than tier 2 or 3 (in fact the tier system would infer that a tier 5 monk would be a better fit than a tier 2 tashlatora psion despite the fact that the psion would be "better" for a group running mostly tier 5+4 classes).

In other words you should be correct but people misuse the tier system all the time and that is the unfortunate part. It gives it an undeserved bad rep with some people especially since those people often don't understand it (since in some ways it is very nuanced and other people misrepresenting it does not help).

Hey, we agree on something.

That's really what it comes to. I recognize what the Tier System is supposed to be, but I ignore it because I find it only matters what the particular campaign is. It is the misuse of it that ruins its reputation. People either say you're playing wrong if you play a Fighter because you're nothing but a burden or ban Wizards because you'll ruin the game with all that power. People have their individual tastes and use the Tier System as their validation to say everyone else is wrong.

Really, I don't give a Hoover a wizard can Gate in a Solar while the fighter just charges for 85 points of damage. What matters is the fighter gets to charge and the wizard really needed that Solar. It could be prudent the wizard doesn't have to Gate in a Solar. Cast Displacement on the Fighter and let him do his job. He's 50% chance less likely to get hit thus 50% chance less likely to need healing, allowing the cleric to do something else and not have to heal as much after the combat. The problem is people complain the wizard could have Gated in a Solar thus ban wizards or resent the casting of Displacement and shout fighters suck.

[Warlawk]

There was a thread on this earlier last week...

First off, there is no such thing as Heavy Armor. There is, at most, Mithral Full Plate, which is Medium. Anything designated 'heavy armor' is, in fact, nothing more than a huge trap.

Many people (myself included) have had character concepts very anchored in being a heavily armored brute of a melee fighter. The mechanics of it being a trap are completely irrelevant to the point that it is a common part of the image for a warrior type, and some people want that to be part of their character. It is a flavor choice the warblade is not able to meet regardless of the mechanical viability of the choice.

EDIT: Just as an aside, mithral armor is not always going to be an option. Not every DM allows you to purchase anything you like simply because it has a price listed in the book. I think since 3.0 was released I have seen 2 or 3 mithral heavy armors actually in play. One of them was my own. It was something that my dwarven crusader armorsmith created for himself, and
it was a small adventure in and of itself spread over like 8 sessions to gather the materials and such necessary. Why? Because even though the book puts a price tag on Mithral, it is a rare and special substance that is in limited supply and our game world reflects that. Just a minor point that I wanted to add. Not everyone can reliably choose exactly the thing they want and know 100% that they can get it.

Second, if you want ranged, it's called Bloodstorm Blade. Now you can do everything you could do in melee... at range. Have a nice day.

Which completely ignores any sort of build that uses a ranged weapon that isn't thrown or a melee weapon. You've chosen to ignore that because you don't like it, which frankly is a bit condescending and rude to tell someone that they should abandon their concept and play BSB because it's mechanically superior. The point was a bow fighter is actually a strong option for some games if you must play a bow character. It is a flavor choice that the fighter can fill that the warblade cannot.

You dismissing these things because you find other mechanical choices superior does not invalidate them.

[Eldariel]

Really, I don't give a Hoover a wizard can Gate in a Solar while the fighter just charges for 85 points of damage. What matters is the fighter gets to charge and the wizard really needed that Solar. It could be prudent the wizard doesn't have to Gate in a Solar. Cast Displacement on the Fighter and let him do his job. He's 50% chance less likely to get hit thus 50% chance less likely to need healing, allowing the cleric to do something else and not have to heal as much after the combat. The problem is people complain the wizard could have Gated in a Solar thus ban wizards or resent the casting of Displacement and shout fighters suck.

People dislike that the system places two classes so far apart and artificially close the gap by fixing some of the imbalance through various means, both to make the game experience and the DMing experience better for all participants. I don't see how this could possibly be undesirable.

[Coidzor]

Which completely ignores any sort of build that uses a ranged weapon that isn't thrown or a melee weapon. You've chosen to ignore that because you don't like it, which frankly is a bit condescending and rude to tell someone that they should abandon their concept and play BSB because it's mechanically superior

Indeed, WOTC was quite condescending and rude in its treatment of archery.

[Warlawk]

Indeed, WOTC was quite condescending and rude in its treatment of archery.

I absolutely agree. But it is still a common archetype and because of the feat intensive nature fighter can bring a lot to the table there if you don't want a precision damage based archer. Frankly, 3.X archery is just a mess.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I absolutely agree. But it is still a common archetype and because of the feat intensive nature fighter can bring a lot to the table there if you don't want a precision damage based archer. Frankly, 3.X archery is just a mess.

Or you just go Ranger...

[Hiro Protagonest]

Or you just go Ranger...

Yeah, some of those ranger spells (don't know about any of them other than the one from RotW) improve their ranged capabilities.

[navar100]

Yes, it is the DM's job everyone has their spotlight time. How he does it is subjective to the campaign. If a player really, really wants to play a druid in a great metropolis campaign or a paladin in a pirate campaign or a rogue in a 3E undead bad guys campaign, the player does have his responsibility in creating the character to function, but the DM needs to take it into account. If the DM really, really thinks such character concepts won't work, then he needs to let the player know and the player should play something else. This is a benign example of a player's responsibility to make a character that fits the game, as opposed to the extreme example of no chaotic "neutral" pirate ninjas in a campaign of Holy Order Of Philanthropists.

However, if the DM is willing to accept such character concepts, then he takes on the responsibiliy to ensure the player character gets to do stuff. That's the whole point of playing. The druid might not be able to have a wolf animal companion roaming around the city or be wildshaped into a black bear all day, but he could be wildshaped into a bird pretending to be the Sorcerer's familiar and use Natural Spell to play spellcaster druid. He could wildshape into a mouse to be a spy. Perhaps the ship the paladin is on only raids ships belonging to the Empire Of Evilness. It's a type of guerilla warfare to bring hope to the populace and finance an army to one day topple the evil regime. Maybe the rogue specializes in traps and scouting, getting a lot of his spotlight time out of combat but in combat is content with getting the mcguffin while the party distracts the undead. An occasional Use Magic Device in combat wouldn't hurt either.

The Tier system has nothing to do with this, which is my point. What matters is the individual campaign.

[Arundel]

Yes, it is the DM's job everyone has their spotlight time. How he does it is subjective to the campaign. If a player really, really wants to play a druid in a great metropolis campaign or a paladin in a pirate campaign or a rogue in a 3E undead bad guys campaign, the player does have his responsibility in creating the character to function, but the DM needs to take it into account. If the DM really, really thinks such character concepts won't work, then he needs to let the player know and the player should play something else. This is a benign example of a player's responsibility to make a character that fits the game, as opposed to the extreme example of no chaotic "neutral" pirate ninjas in a campaign of Holy Order Of Philanthropists.

However, if the DM is willing to accept such character concepts, then he takes on the responsibiliy to ensure the player character gets to do stuff. That's the whole point of playing. The druid might not be able to have a wolf animal companion roaming around the city or be wildshaped into a black bear all day, but he could be wildshaped into a bird pretending to be the Sorcerer's familiar and use Natural Spell to play spellcaster druid. He could wildshape into a mouse to be a spy. Perhaps the ship the paladin is on only raids ships belonging to the Empire Of Evilness. It's a type of guerilla warfare to bring hope to the populace and finance an army to one day topple the evil regime. Maybe the rogue specializes in traps and scouting, getting a lot of his spotlight time out of combat but in combat is content with getting the mcguffin while the party distracts the undead. An occasional Use Magic Device in combat wouldn't hurt either.

The Tier system has nothing to do with this, which is my point. What matters is the individual campaign.

I chose to play a truenamer. Go DM fiat go!

[Eldariel]

The Tier system has nothing to do with this, which is my point. What matters is the individual campaign.

But those two things are just different aspects of the campaign nature. What power level you want out of the classes in the campaign and what type of a settings you're running it; tier system applies to the former, not the latter.

[Thurbane]

I chose to play a truenamer. Go DM fiat go!

I've actually seen a couple of threads on these very forums about people using RAW op tricks to make the Truenamer workable (but still not great). Someone even did a campaign journal about such an example - it was quite an interesting read.

[Lord_Gareth]

I've actually seen a couple of threads on these very forums about people using RAW op tricks to make the Truenamer workable (but still not great). Someone even did a campaign journal about such an example - it was quite an interesting read.

Didn't that guy go insane, murder his entire family and post through the computer he cobbled together from their slowly-rotting brains? I seem to remember something along those lines happening.

[Tavar]

Worth noting that with self admitted ridiculous levels of optimization, the truenamer was only playable. That's damning praise if I've ever heard it.

[Arundel]

I've actually seen a couple of threads on these very forums about people using RAW op tricks to make the Truenamer workable (but still not great). Someone even did a campaign journal about such an example - it was quite an interesting read.

It is a good read. Truenamer is the token broken class however, so seemed to best show my point.

I also recall that the player in that thread got a DM fiat custom item of +truenaming to make it as possible as it was.

[Coidzor]

Didn't that guy go insane, murder his entire family and post through the computer he cobbled together from their slowly-rotting brains? I seem to remember something along those lines happening.

I heard that his chief regret is not losing his family, but that people took his tale to be inspirational rather than cautionary.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Yes, it is the DM's job everyone has their spotlight time.

You say that like it's the most important thing for them to do. They're also supposed to create an interesting and dynamic world, create memorable NPCs, and create plots. Making sure that each player gets spotlight time is near the bottom f the list.

[Lord_Gareth]

I heard that his chief regret is not losing his family, but that people took his tale to be inspirational rather than cautionary.

That's certainly my chief regret about the entire sorry incident.

Look folks, I've stayed away from this so far but as a DM cursed with the dumbest IRL group on Earth (and beyond it) while simultaneously having some really awesome online players, I need to weigh in on this:

The idea that it's the DM's job to give each player spotlight time is complete and utter garbage.

Good players don't need to lean on the DM as a crutch. They get spotlight time because they do things that affect the game world around them, whether that's through social interaction, significant character goals, stunning tactics or cunning use of magic. Bad players are those that the DM should teach to do these things, because the DM has a more important responsibility: making sure everyone is having fun.

It's frustrating when you've got massive tier imbalance in your game, especially if you're trying to create any kind of world vermisilitude or play your villains up to their Intelligence scores. It's angering when a player demands that you go out of your way to pander to his incompetence. And it makes the other players feel those things too, especially if you're forced to sideline them with something arbitrary or stupid.

Oh, and everyone seems to forget that the DM is supposed to have fun too. What if I want to run an intelligent villain? What if the party has an encounter with fiends? Wizards? Should I change all of my villains to arbitrarily suit the fact that Moron X has chosen to play a Monk despite all urgings, requests, and acts of violence against his person otherwise? No. Should I alter all of my plot lines to suit the fact that Joe played a Dex-based TWF straight fighter? No. Because how Joe and Moron X contribute to the game is their responsibility, not mine.

Right now I'm running a Warblade in an IRL game, and the entire rest of the party each has some kind of epic backstory goal like "Save the dwarven nation from stagnation" or "reclaim the lost heritage of the elven peoples" or, my favorite, "become a god". You know what my goal is? "Die rich and with most of my limbs attached". And yet I've still found meaningful ways to tie into both the stories and combats by taking up the role of the group's tactical leader and party face, using my skills with Diplomacy to help negotiate through unknown territories and my in-character tactical knowledge to help the others through our encounters. The DM didn't have to make a single thing up for me - didn't have to add some weird bit to my backstory, didn't have to give me a solo adventure, nothing, because I did my job as a player.

So to all of you folks who think it's your DM's job to make sure you're contributing, find your DM, call them up, shoot them a PM, whatever, and apologize, because you are doing them a horrific disservice.

[/rant]

[Thurbane]

I wouldn't say that it's neccessarily the DMs job to give everyone a chance to shine, but from my personal experience, it really doesn't hurt. I would even call it a hallmark of a good DM.

Everyone wants to feel like there character is special, at least some of the time. Short of everyone playing Wizards and Codzilla, a certain amount of DM intervention is sometimes required for this.

When I DM, if a player has a specific nemesis for his character, or the build is built around battling a certain type of foe, I'll go out of my way to throw in a a couple of encounters to cater to that. It usually makes the player happy, and it generally takes minimal work on my part.

[MeeposFire]

Somebody has been playing a truenamer for a long time now and posts his journal about it from the WotC optimization boards. He is having a good time with it though he has been allowed to use an item familiar which helps a bit.

[Lord_Gareth]

Somebody has been playing a truenamer for a long time now and posts his journal about it from the WotC optimization boards. He is having a good time with it though he has been allowed to use an item familiar which helps a bit.

These people seriously need to stop encouraging folks to play by-the-book Truenamers. Folks, just use Kellus' fix. Just use it and never look back.

[Thiyr]

The idea that it's the DM's job to give each player spotlight time is complete and utter garbage.

Good players don't need to lean on the DM as a crutch. They get spotlight time because they do things that affect the game world around them, whether that's through social interaction, significant character goals, stunning tactics or cunning use of magic. Bad players are those that the DM should teach to do these things, because the DM has a more important responsibility: making sure everyone is having fun.

I actually completely agree with this. The DM isn't the person who designates who gets the spotlight at all, imo. He gives the cues perhaps, gives opportunities, but he doesn't decide it at all. I've had characters outright ignore the DM's spotlight-cue (everyone was getting at least one shout-out to their backstory where they would play some kind of major role), but in everything else his influence was huge. Same game, we had a party member the -entire party, DM included- was trying to get into the spotlight. In spite of a mostly solid build, the party going out of our way to give him opportunities to use his abilities when otherwise we would've just plain made it unneeded, and the DM cutting him a ton of slack, he...still didn't take the spotlight. (This really wouldn't have been a problem if he wasn't complaining and dragging the rest of the group's fun down, and he was eventually booted, but yea.) Nobody but the players decide the spotlight. The DM just facilitates.