New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 1 of 35 123456789101126 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 1038
  1. - Top - End - #1
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    In eternity.
    Gender
    Male

    Lightbulb Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Greetings, all!

    I am familiar with the 10 Commandments of Practical Optimization and the 10 Commandments of Optimization. In my 15ish years of playing 3.x and Pathfinder, I noticed discrepencies between 'forum logic' (as our current GM calls it) and the game in practice. My favorite character class for a long time has been Wizards, and I've played a variety of them, but even after reading and enjoying Treantmonk's guide a decade ago, I felt like high-tier characters, most notably tier 1 and 2 casters, were somewhere between balanced and weak due to the campaign never reaching above level 10 and rarely above level 6. In short, I felt like I was entranced by the potential[ of these classes and builds much more than the practicality of them, especially before level 11 or so.

    Meanwhile, tier 3 and below classes have gotten a bad reputation from forumites over the decades (and I have echoed some of this logic largely in ignorance) while having greater stamina and greater immediate effect. For example, in the Red Hand of Doom module, I played a Wizard/Hathran/Incantatrix as a main character with a Hood cohort. The cohort, despite being 2 levels below the party, soloed a boss in one round meant to challenge the group due to this cohort's tremendous damage output while the main character died (perhaps by being one-shot) in the campaign despite her high defenses.

    I've also noticed that low level high-tier classes generally don't get to do much over the course of the adventuring day. Wizards (and to some degree also Sorcerers) are the extreme example since their competence is mostly in their spell slots, though Archivists and Psions are similar. Druids don't do much until Wild Shape or Natural Spell depending on details, though their animal companions do more. Clerics cast (often healing and buffing) and attack physically sometimes. Artificers? Unsure due to too little experience with them.

    Meanwhile, a multiclassed Wizard/Warblade or such can attack each round and still be more competent in more situations (in practice from my experience) than a full Wizard.

    What say you?
    Quote Originally Posted by GPuzzle View Post
    And I do agree that the right answer to the magic/mundane problem is to make everyone badass.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flickerdart View Post
    If you're of a philosophical bent, the powergamer is a great example of Heidegger's modern technological man, who treats a game's mechanics as a standing reserve of undifferentiated resources that are to be used for his goals.
    My Complete Tome of Battle Maneuver/Stance/Class Overhaul

    Arseplomancy = Fanatic Tarrasque!

  2. - Top - End - #2
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Earth

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    There is definitely a curve between T1-T2 full casters and, well, pretty much everyone else. As you point out, though, it isn't that the casters are more powerful at all times than the martials. The difference is often, and aptly, summarized as "linear vs. quadratic advancement". In other words, the linear advancement of the fighter-types starts out at a higher point than the caster's power, but it grows much less slowly. Still, at low levels, it can be very true that fighters are the majority of the party's power. Things start to change around levels 5-6, when third level spells enter the picture, and the casters will have most definitely superseded the martials by around level 11.

    At high levels, though, if you want an optimized caster you basically need to have 9th-level spells. Not just for raw power, but also for things like save DCs. Even if you like a lower level spell and don't think you'd ever cast anything higher, you still can metamagic it. Even the best martials have trouble competing next to spells beyond level ~5 and are out of their league around spell level ~7.

    So, for a fully optimized level 20 character, there's essentially no reason to take martial levels, even for survivability at low levels. Even a straight wizard 20 with single-class optimization (far from the best combo around) would lose 6 high-level spell slots and 15% of successes on CL checks from taking 3 mundane levels earlier in their career, in exchange for...net +1 BAB, unusable armor proficiencies, slightly different saves, and 12 HP on average. None of that can't be replicated with a spell, and a lower-level one than 7th as well. So at level 20, in the most optimized builds, it's almost never worth it to take these levels. The exception is for a few gish builds that can certainly compete if not shine where fighter 1 is an easier choice to gain various weapon/armor proficiencies for prestige class prereqs, but it's a tax more than an advantage.

    But--and here's the thing--not all of that is true at lower levels. Then, gaining extra BAB, HP, and proficiencies can mean a lot more, especially if the career won't go beyond ~10. Those boosts are a static benefit, while casting is one that increases over time as an investment. So the balance looks a lot different at lower levels. As an example, I once built for a lvl 3 one-shot a Warlock 2/Barb 1 that was dealing 1d12+1d6+5 damage per attack while raging, had a +9 in diplomacy (my lowest social skill), decent AC, and a lot more HP than I needed. It was awesome. It would have failed to keep pace with anyone else in the party, but that was OK.

    So yes, in low-level campaigns, it can be fine to substitute martial for caster levels. The trick is having a good sense for how far the mundane is going to keep you alive, and for what's actually giving you your power. If you have the stats to pull it off, for example (High CHA, decent STR and CON, preferably good WIS), Paladin 5 / Sorcerer 4 is a perfectly fine combo, as is rog2/wiz7, or similar combinations. Are they going to shine over the rest of the party the way a T1 caster does at high levels? No. But the power gap is much lower at those levels, to the point where the "best" class can be hard to see. So, by all means, knock yourself out.

  3. - Top - End - #3
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2007

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Endarire View Post
    I am familiar with the 10 Commandments of Practical Optimization and the 10 Commandments of Optimization. In my 15ish years of playing 3.x and Pathfinder, I noticed discrepencies between 'forum logic' (as our current GM calls it) and the game in practice. My favorite character class for a long time has been Wizards, and I've played a variety of them, but even after reading and enjoying Treantmonk's guide a decade ago, I felt like high-tier characters, most notably tier 1 and 2 casters, were somewhere between balanced and weak due to the campaign never reaching above level 10 and rarely above level 6. In short, I felt like I was entranced by the potential[ of these classes and builds much more than the practicality of them, especially before level 11 or so.
    You have to realize all these guides are just talking. Some people had opinions and felt like writing about them. They weren't rigorously tested.

    The only places where you can see the truth about the system revealed are the most competitive arena matches there were, and even then, all of them had some limitations from 100% RAW.

    On your table, under this DM's inclinations and nudging, that happened. That boss who died in one round to the cohort could have easily countered it, if your DM had wanted. There are tables out there where Monks legitimately eclipse Wizards. So what?

  4. - Top - End - #4
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by emeraldstreak View Post
    There are tables out there where Monks legitimately eclipse Wizards.
    Quertus has been played at just such a table.

  5. - Top - End - #5
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    I've played in campaigns at level 1, 3, 10, 7-10, 13 and 8 (Pathfinder). I mainly played full-casters (or other strong classes, like artificer), and felt that at early levels, I mainly provided utility, while at later levels, I was also very good in combat. So I wouldn't say it is overrated - just stuff like being able to detect magic, silently message people etc. is already useful and fills a nieche lower-tier characters often can't fill.

    I have to admit that I usually played at tables where I had the most systems mastery, so I don't know if my contribution would have been lower for different tables.
    I also don't know wether lower-tier characters with casting abilities would have been able to fill the same niche.

  6. - Top - End - #6
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Devil

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    What I've found in years of play is that a lot of PO doesn't really matter. It's nice and it can certainly contribute, but games seldom last long enough to get to higher level, so a lot of the truly ridiculous stuff never sees play.

    How does it go again? Players>class>build? something like that.

    A player's skill and compatibility with the table's play style is significantly more important than PO. A skilled player at the right table can wreck shop regardless of class. I've played things like Monks and Soulknives at certain tables and been the scariest player in the room. I've also built some truly nice PO casters that never really pulled their weight because they weren't really right for the table dynamics, or the game stalled before they came into their own, or the situations where they could have rewrote the path of the game never really arose.

    so yeah, High tier characters and full casting are really nice, but rarely become the godlike cheeselords that they're portrayed as. Arena style games are a bit different, but doesn't really fall into the context of everyday play.

  7. - Top - End - #7
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    A lot rides on the DM, but full casters, when played well, do dominate the encounter at any level. Bad rolls, house rules and encounter design can pooch you, but they can sink anyone.
    "You want to see how a Human dies? at ramming speed."

  8. - Top - End - #8
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    The truism is that player > build > class. Of course, the truism is sometimes improperly used to imply that class doesn't matter; it does, just not as much as build and player. The easiest way to hold the more important variables constant is to play with and DM for the same group of optimizers over a long period, which I have done. The low tier characters they/I play generally do a bunch of damage and have a few other neat tricks, similar in nature to the Hood mentioned. The casters, on the other hand, change the entire scope of the game.

    Also, an Incantatrix should utterly steamroll RHoD/most modules once they have metamagic effect.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant
    I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want.

  9. - Top - End - #9
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Taking the limit as levels go to 0, it's clearly true that spellcaster provide no advantage. Furthermore, because of ability opportunity cost, they come in at a disadvantage.

    In a level 1-10 campaign a Mystic Ranger is a good tradeoff. Full BAB, Sorcerer spell access, and 6+Int skills/level (including good skills) with good Fort&Refl saves. Take the Sword of the Arcane Order feat for access to wizard spells.

    Another approach which can be quite effective is a Persistomancer Cleric. By level 5 persistent mass lesser vigor alone is a significant contribution to a party and they can contribute to combat at an exceptional level around level 3 with persistent Alter Self through the Transformation domain. Alternatively, Divine Defiance for enemy caster suppression is potentially sometimes a big contribution.

    A Druid comes online immediately with the animal companion providing significant martial support. A strategy where the Druid gives the animal companion hide barding and otherwise stays out of melee can work pretty well even at level 1.

    A low level wizard/sorcerer can be quite dangerous for individual combats but they obviously lack endurance. Hence, they are actually more scary as opponents than as PCs. A single Sorcerer 1 Kobold with Power Word:Pain can significantly challenge a party of 4 3rd level characters. The same is basically true for an Archivist. These can be played as PCs, and they can contribute significantly to the party, but a caster-protective party that values non-combat application of spellcasting provides a very helpful context for survival and success.

    Any character can be significantly beefed up at low levels in a martial dimension by taking Wild Cohort, but this makes a greater difference to a sorcerer/wizard/archivist at level 1 by providing exactly what they lack via a Riding Dog.

  10. - Top - End - #10
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Change the title to: "should casters under level 5 just be gishes?" because that's what I feel this is. The argument (pardon if I read it wrong) is to dip some martial class to stay relevant until casters start to pull ahead, to which you either become a competent gish or lag behind other casters 1-2 CL.

    Note that divine casters likely face no such problem -- Medium BaB and d8 HP is just enough to let them survive lower levels.
    Spoiler: List of Things You Don't Need To Know
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by Venger View Post
    killing and eating a bag of rats is probably kosher.
    Gosh 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also good looking), and your humility is stunning

  11. - Top - End - #11
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Frozen City
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Are you actually playing a high tier character? Most players don't play high tier characters. They just look at the tier list and just assume because the class is labeled as Tier 1 they're playing a Tier 1 character. Tier 1 characters can destroy cities by themselves. They can destroy cities and be relatively unmolested while they destroy those cities. They are, by definition, Godzilla come to claim your lands. If you aren't fighting a monster like Ghidra, you aren't going to be challenged. If you are fighting actual Ghidra, I hope you brought Kumonga and Mothra with you to slow him down a little because Ghidra will throw down your entire party.
    "Movement speed is the most important statistic in this game."

    "Give them no mercy for they give no mercy to us."

    "I see one of those I kill it!"

  12. - Top - End - #12
    Banned
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    You can get any number of combos off by 5th to 7th level. With the right domains you can start doing Persistent Spell shenanigans as early as 1st level as a Cleric. You can get Natural Spell at 6th level as a Druid, or Greenbound Summoning at 3rd. A Wizard can get Spontaneous Divination + Versatile Spellcaster at 6th level. A Beguiler can get substitute domain + a prestige domain at 7th level or earlier. animate dead comes on line at 5th level, and depending on the campaign the monsters it produces may be better than the team's swordsmen.

    Even at 1st level, optimized casters are still effective. Eschew Materials + launch bolt is a 4d6 ranged attack that you can use at least four times per day. A Gnome Illusionist gets 0th level silent image which ranges from good to absurd. A Druid's pet wolf is as effect as a low-op Fighter, but totally expendable. Just casting color spray, sleep, or silent image is enough to win many encounters, and certainly enough to cement a caster's place in a low level party.

    Certainly, the gap is smaller at low levels, and the number of classes that are largely balanced with casters corresponding larger (and these effects are amplified by the characteristics of most D&D games), but there's never really a point where you're better off playing a non-caster.

    Quote Originally Posted by Endarire View Post
    Meanwhile, a multiclassed Wizard/Warblade or such can attack each round and still be more competent in more situations (in practice from my experience) than a full Wizard.
    Gishing can be effective, but it's still largely a caster build, and the best gishes are Clerics or Druids that don't have to give up casting to do it. In general, multiclassing is not a very big power bump in the short run, but has a very large power cost in the long run. If you're concerned about power at all, you're probably better off taking a Reserve Feat as a Wizard than going for a multiclassed build.

  13. - Top - End - #13
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NeoPhoenix0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Cloudcuckooland

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    tier does not equal power. tier is closer to an average to somewhat knowledgeable player's ability to be versatile with that class without considering prestige classes and some class variants.

    above level 10 and especially above level 15 tier 1 casters can do pretty much anything and be at least good at it. below level 10 and especially below level 5 what a caster can do and what a caster can do well are much more limited. however at those levels they are still tier 1 and the fighter still in the tier 5 maybe tier 4 area. the fighter will win you the encounter cause he is good at his job and his job is what get the thing done at low levels but the wizard can still do more variety of things even at that low level including using spells to skill monkey or replace the need for skill monkying, do damage to groups of enemies, crowd control with spells such as web, glitterdust or entangle, and a litany of other things that might not be overly powerful by themselves but are extremely varied and powerful when applied correctly and generally make a tier 1-2 caster useful in pretty much any situation if he has a decent toolbelt of spells. he just generally isn't as good as a class that is specific and specialized would be until he can get more torque from higher level spells and such.

    so to answer the question, full casting classes may be overrated but if that is the case it is cause a people misinterpret that the tier system set out to accomplish in the first place. as evidenced by the myriad of repeated threads that talk about it.

    edit: also full casters at low level are often (but not always) best at making others significantly better at the thing they are already good at.
    Last edited by NeoPhoenix0; 2018-05-02 at 10:43 PM.

    Extended signature (Includes Giantitp regulars as... links, avatar showcase, homebrew, and other stuff.)
    Current avatar by me

  14. - Top - End - #14
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Endarire View Post
    Greetings, all!

    I am familiar with the 10 Commandments of Practical Optimization and the 10 Commandments of Optimization. In my 15ish years of playing 3.x and Pathfinder, I noticed discrepencies between 'forum logic' (as our current GM calls it) and the game in practice. My favorite character class for a long time has been Wizards, and I've played a variety of them, but even after reading and enjoying Treantmonk's guide a decade ago, I felt like high-tier characters, most notably tier 1 and 2 casters, were somewhere between balanced and weak due to the campaign never reaching above level 10 and rarely above level 6. In short, I felt like I was entranced by the potential[ of these classes and builds much more than the practicality of them, especially before level 11 or so.

    Meanwhile, tier 3 and below classes have gotten a bad reputation from forumites over the decades (and I have echoed some of this logic largely in ignorance) while having greater stamina and greater immediate effect. For example, in the Red Hand of Doom module, I played a Wizard/Hathran/Incantatrix as a main character with a Hood cohort. The cohort, despite being 2 levels below the party, soloed a boss in one round meant to challenge the group due to this cohort's tremendous damage output while the main character died (perhaps by being one-shot) in the campaign despite her high defenses.

    I've also noticed that low level high-tier classes generally don't get to do much over the course of the adventuring day. Wizards (and to some degree also Sorcerers) are the extreme example since their competence is mostly in their spell slots, though Archivists and Psions are similar. Druids don't do much until Wild Shape or Natural Spell depending on details, though their animal companions do more. Clerics cast (often healing and buffing) and attack physically sometimes. Artificers? Unsure due to too little experience with them.

    Meanwhile, a multiclassed Wizard/Warblade or such can attack each round and still be more competent in more situations (in practice from my experience) than a full Wizard.

    What say you?
    A level 1 wizard has three spells per day of spell level 1, a sorcerer has 4. Assuming they pace the casting to 1/encounter and use sleep/color spray they will be slightly more effective over the course of a day as a fighter.

    At higher levels you aren't playing the same game as mundanes. You mention the cohort doing more then the caster, but not whether they do better then the Gargan3tuan animated object the caster is hiding in at level 7 (on the front page right now), or the bound Glabrezu, or their army of dragon zombies, or the crafted contingencies moving them to another plane of existence and them then teleporting back later with said minions.

    Tier 1s can be played like a tier 3 and not be broken. They can even be weak. But a fighter can't make a time altered dimension where they full rest between encounters or chain gate solars, tier 1s can.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  15. - Top - End - #15
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    HalflingRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Lahndan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Overrated by who?

    Guide writers? Maybe, if they think their description of how the class is at absolute full power is how the class always is for everyone. Certainly anyone who reads it without distinguishing between the two is probably gonna overrate a class.

    Most people here? I think most people here are aware that there's many different players and many different tables; that the potential power level disparities are different between levels; and other such things. Maybe people lose sight of that in theoretical arguments - or seem to - but I don't think they forget how it actually works

    The community as a whole? Dunno, never met them, although my best guess is the popularity of E6 as a balanced form of D&D says that a lot of people think like here.


    Are Tier 3 and lower characters underrated? I feel like people here, there and everywhere rave about Tier 3 tbh. Tier 4 and below gets a bad name, maybe. Deserved? Tbh, I dislike a lot of Tier 4s as I hate having only one thing to do at a table. Doesn't mean someone else mightn't have a good time with them, or that I can't find Tier 4s that fulfil my need for some sort of flexibility.


    As for multiclassing Martials with Full Casters... YMMV but I don't see the point. Either you enjoy playing a lower level caster and there's no dramas, or you don't but are gritting your teeth to go Real Ultimate Power, in which case why waste levels? Personally, I had a lovely time as a level 1 Gnome Sorcerer using Colour Spray, Diplomacy and a few other things. If you want to be a caster with a real back-up activity when the spell slots are gone, you might as well pick Cleric/Druid/Bard and get more spells to use before truncheoning things in the face.

  16. - Top - End - #16
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    NinjaGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    R.i.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    I think your real question is " are teir 1 and 2 classes overrated at lower level games". Clearly we all know casters gain more in the second half then the first. Also, I agree, most games do not run the full course, low level games are more common. However all of your examples were based on arcane, divine classes are pretty bad ass at level 1, and just climb from there. Are arcance classes squishy at low levels, yes, however as it has been pointed out the teir system mostly measures ability to problem solve, not deal damage. If measured with that in mind, I still feel its accurate.

  17. - Top - End - #17
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    unseenmage's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Middle of nowhere USA.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Isn't this an already acknowledged issue in the E6 community?

  18. - Top - End - #18
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    As someone said, it really depends on the DM.

    A DM can easily write a campaign that gives strength to mundanes over casters. (play lower levels, increase encounters each day, etc)

    My table for one, balance between the classes has never been an issue.

  19. - Top - End - #19

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    No its not.

    Druid outperforms every mundane in existence from the get go.
    A DMM:Persist Cleric outperforms every mundane in existence by level 3.
    Optimized spellcasters can break games even if they're only level 6 and in short of that outperform every mundane in existence.

    I don't know about full casting but high tier characters break games at all levels, and they choose not to by going a lesser build, where as low tier characters have no choice and is at the complete mercy of their spellcaster peers.

  20. - Top - End - #20
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NeoPhoenix0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Cloudcuckooland

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by someonenoone11 View Post
    No its not.

    Druid outperforms every mundane in existence from the get go.
    A DMM:Persist Cleric outperforms every mundane in existence by level 3.
    Optimized spellcasters can break games even if they're only level 6 and in short of that outperform every mundane in existence.

    I don't know about full casting but high tier characters break games at all levels, and they choose not to by going a lesser build, where as low tier characters have no choice and is at the complete mercy of their spellcaster peers.
    the tier system isn't about full optimization, but average ish optimization, and a not fully optimized druid and even many relatively optimized druids won't outclass a mundane in pure damage from the get go, since their early spells lack power, their early animal companions aren't super optimal though there are decent ones and they don't wild shape till level 6. but the druid is definitely very consistently good, the animal companion alone should keep them up close to the mundane's power level and they do have a boat load of problem solving spells early on in the form of things like entangle and stone shape.

    Extended signature (Includes Giantitp regulars as... links, avatar showcase, homebrew, and other stuff.)
    Current avatar by me

  21. - Top - End - #21
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Hood isn't exactly an off the shelf example. Particularly when backed by a buff machine that just happens to be casting Glitterdust and black tentacles which just might happen to leave enemies in position for shenanigans.

    But in general, if you can do a sizable chunk of damage you can get through a sizable chunk of things.

  22. - Top - End - #22
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2008

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    The tier list we normally pull out is averaged over 20 levels. However, the tierings change a lot during the first few levels, and a few classes break the tier 2 barrier only at level 18+. For example...

    Barbarians start off near (but not at) the top, due to the ability to OHKO encounters meant for the whole party. They fall off by level 5, as their damage doesn't increase as fast as enemy HP, and anti-melee countermeasures like flight become more common.

    Core clerics, without DMM and devotion, start out in the middle of the pack at level 1. They gain potency with spell levels and take their place in T1 by level 5.

    Sorcerers fall out T2 at level 3, and only level 3. Without second-level spells, they're only modestly better than bards at utility-casting, and the bards have other class features.
    Last edited by Bucky; 2018-05-05 at 03:01 AM.
    The gnomes once had many mines, but now they have gnome ore.

  23. - Top - End - #23
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NeoPhoenix0's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Cloudcuckooland

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    The tier list we normally pull out is averaged over 20 levels. However, the tierings change a lot during the first few levels, and a few classes break the tier 2 barrier only at level 18+. For example...

    Barbarians start off near (but not at) the top, due to the ability to OHKO encounters meant for the whole party. They fall off by level 5, as their damage doesn't increase as fast as enemy HP, and anti-melee countermeasures like flight become more common.

    Core clerics, without DMM and devotion, start out in the middle of the pack at level 1. They gain potency with spell levels and take their place in T1 by level 5.

    Sorcerers fall out T2 at level 3, and only level 3. Without second-level spells, they're only modestly better than bards at utility-casting, and the bards have other class features.
    Barbarians aren't near the top ever, they aren't versatile they are very powerful damage dealers early on but that only makes them maybe high tier 4, low tier 3 if being very generous and you decide to make a weird breakdown tier system at each level. Tier isn't a measure of power.
    Last edited by NeoPhoenix0; 2018-05-05 at 03:35 AM.

    Extended signature (Includes Giantitp regulars as... links, avatar showcase, homebrew, and other stuff.)
    Current avatar by me

  24. - Top - End - #24
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Atlanta, Georgia
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    An Abrupt Jaunt Wizard is probably the most powerful character at a level 1 table unless there’s Tome of Battle. He’s almost immune to rocket tag.

    A cleric 1 is behind a fighter 1 by 2 hp, 1bab, 1 feat. He is ahead of the fighter by 2 will save and 2 domains or domain feats. With picks like War and Law domain feat, his free weapon focus is equal to the BAB, and his +3 AC or to hit twice a day probably beats any fighter feat. And THEN he gets spells.

    I played a Sorcerer in our last PF game. His granted bloodline power gave him trip using his cha bonus at 15 feet, more times per day than he ever managed to use. His long spear did enough average damage to drop most enemies. He could trip foes and then murder them with the same to hit as our Barbarian while they stood up. Or have a 90% chance after spell failure to cast a spell that would drop a higher level enemy with a DC17 will save 5 times a day. Or a 90% chance to trade his action with humanoid enemies via daze. Or a +11 intimidate check to debuff an enemy. And some handy utility cantrips. Yeah, the Barbarian did more damage. But I was better in combat anywhere between 10 and 110 feet, better at skills, with more useful class features. I had 4 reasonable choices (Attack, trip, save or lose, intimidate) to his 1, based on range and what we were fighting.
    Last edited by Gnaeus; 2018-05-05 at 08:01 AM.

  25. - Top - End - #25
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tvtyrant View Post
    . But a fighter can't make a time altered dimension where they full rest between encounters
    Make? No. But utilize? Yes. If my Artificer created all the gear that the party uses, then contributes nothing during play, well, creation is overrated.

    That having been said, utilizing a full rest between encounters (let alone chain gating solars) breaks the fundamental resource management basis of the game. If you're breaking the game, there's little point in discussing balance.

  26. - Top - End - #26
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Are we discounting the part the DM takes into all of this?

    Because, admittedly, I tend to stick around with a small number of players, but I've never seen a DM who would allow to chain-gate solars, persist spells at level 1, or any of the really broken things that tier 1 can do.

    So, unless you are playing in a group that is restricted to tier 1-2, with the specific purpose of getting those kinds of power, you are limited to more reasonable powers. And while higher tier still outshine other classes, if nothing else by providing all the out-of-combat utility, it's nowhere near that bad.

    So, from a practical point of view, yes, high tier are overrated because 1) the high levels where they really shine are rarely reached, and 2) the DM generally won't let you go for the world-breaking stuff.

    Also, people tend to assume casters will always be prepared for the best, which they may actually manage by spending months in their tower casting divinations, but in practice I've never seen anyone at a table try to do that. It would be awfully boring for the rest of the party anyway. And more than once I've seen a wizard trounced because he had the wrong spells for the job, or because he lacked some fundamental piece of information on which protection spells had been cast on its target.

    Mind you, they still can dominate the game starting from level 1: at that level a sleep spell with a DC of 16 will drop most enemies in an encounter. But they dominate the game by keeping the monsters down while the martials kill them. So it's all about teamplay, and not bad for the game.
    In memory of Evisceratus: he dreamed of a better world, but he lacked the class levels to make the dream come true.

    Ridiculous monsters you won't take seriously even as they disembowel you

    my take on the highly skilled professional: the specialized expert

  27. - Top - End - #27
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by King of Nowere View Post
    Are we discounting the part the DM takes into all of this?

    Because, admittedly, I tend to stick around with a small number of players, but I've never seen a DM who would allow to chain-gate solars, persist spells at level 1, or any of the really broken things that tier 1 can do.

    So, unless you are playing in a group that is restricted to tier 1-2, with the specific purpose of getting those kinds of power, you are limited to more reasonable powers. And while higher tier still outshine other classes, if nothing else by providing all the out-of-combat utility, it's nowhere near that bad.

    So, from a practical point of view, yes, high tier are overrated because 1) the high levels where they really shine are rarely reached, and 2) the DM generally won't let you go for the world-breaking stuff.

    Also, people tend to assume casters will always be prepared for the best, which they may actually manage by spending months in their tower casting divinations, but in practice I've never seen anyone at a table try to do that. It would be awfully boring for the rest of the party anyway. And more than once I've seen a wizard trounced because he had the wrong spells for the job, or because he lacked some fundamental piece of information on which protection spells had been cast on its target.

    Mind you, they still can dominate the game starting from level 1: at that level a sleep spell with a DC of 16 will drop most enemies in an encounter. But they dominate the game by keeping the monsters down while the martials kill them. So it's all about teamplay, and not bad for the game.
    This exactly. DMs don't just sit there and let casters break the game.

  28. - Top - End - #28
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Yes

    Spellcasters do not dominate the game. They do not always have the exact spell they need at the moment they need it. They do not always have the most convenient feat needed to gain a useful benefit the feat provides. Spellcasters do not always get through spell resistance and monsters sometimes make their saving throws such that even on those occasions the spellcaster does have the exact spell they need at the moment they need it it's not a 100% success rate they win the day.

    It is true a multiclass character in terms of magic will not be as magically powerful as a single class spellcaster. That is irrelevant. The magic that you do augments your other class. It is the classes combined that give you the stuff you can do for your enjoyment. What another character can do has no relation to what you can do.

    You do not need the internet's permission to play whatever character build you want. That is between you and your DM alone.
    Quote Originally Posted by OvisCaedo View Post
    Rules existing are a dire threat to the divine power of the DM.

  29. - Top - End - #29
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Make? No. But utilize? Yes. If my Artificer created all the gear that the party uses, then contributes nothing during play, well, creation is overrated.

    That having been said, utilizing a full rest between encounters (let alone chain gating solars) breaks the fundamental resource management basis of the game. If you're breaking the game, there's little point in discussing balance.
    Exactly. When discussing casters we have to talk about breaking the resource system, how we limit them in practice, and how they can provide weaker characters with their own abilities.

    Any discussion of casters vs. Mundanes starts with "you are going to under utilize the caster."
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  30. - Top - End - #30
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Nifft's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Are full casting progression and high tier characters overrated?

    Exceptional events tend to stand out in memory.

    That one time when a full-caster trivialized an encounter, or even a whole day's worth of encounters? That sticks in the mind.

    So, yeah, there's probably a bit of bias -- but it's in an accurate direction, because that one time it really did happen, and it could happen again. Maybe it's not likely to happen with high frequency, but it is likely to happen again.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •