Do You Get Upset When Other Players Want To Play A Tier 1 Class?

[Bartmanhomer]

You ask this like there's something wrong to do so how dare they.

Like I said before. I know many players have mixed opinions of using a Tier 1 class and I just want to know if it bothers the other players. And so far from everyone in this thread it doesn't bother them that much.

[Selion]

I know that so many people have mixed opinions about it, so I'm asking you do you get upset when other players want to play a Tier 1 Class? (Wizard, Cleric and Druid.)

Why should I? Tier 1 classes are not that unbalanced if played fairly.
My favourite class is wizard, every wizard i played had only strongly thematic spells in his spellbook, so if i specialized in evocation i wouldn't use illusions if not occasionally.
Furthermore, tier 1 classes begin to be ahead after level 10, and by that level usually customized items kick in for martial classes; as a DM if i see a character is way behind the others, i'm prone to balance things with items. In my group at level 12th the character who gave me balance issues was the ranger and in the same group there were a oracle and a witch, that's because the ranger had a nice sword and the spellcasters were not optimized.
Conversely, if a player, after picking a tier 1 class, begins to select the strongest options in the manual without a clear reason his character would take them other than power playing, i may have a couple of words with him.

EDIT: I even noticed a different issue with spellcasters, they are supposed to know their stuff, if their enemies begin to use divinations and teleports they need to keep the pace

[Eldariel]

Quote, describe or link to one game where it happened, with a core monster with equal or higher CR than the party level (and so the fighter's level). And appropriate extraplanar revenge, or avoidance of that revenge, per the spell text.

My 3-player group had a game where we started as duo of Warlock and Dervish (we ran the Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) but the Warlock eventually got bored of spamming Eldritch Blast, and built a Wizard/Nar Demonbinder as his replacement character. He Planar Bound a Glabrezu around level 11, won the opposed check handily and the duration was more than enough to stick around until the end of the adventure (Nar Demonbinder's whole shtick is Planar Binding so as soon as he decided on the class, the spell was at the very core of the menu). And since he had no qualms about letting the Glabrezu take souls or revel in slaughter, it wasn't even that unhappy with how it turned out so direct retribution seemed unlikely at best. My Dervish was mostly sidelined since the Glabrezu was just plain better at everything he did and had like Reverse Gravity at will. I was waiting many levels to get +1s to attack while the Demonbinder could've bound a Pit Fiend by the end of the campaign.

So, it does happen, especially when players are unaware of the fact that the spell is completely broken in the sense that it's way more powerful than anything else of equivalent level (of course, we knew afterwards). This is doubly a problem since it's demonbinding Magi are iconic and classes built around it exist so you can't just ban it or not use it easily either. Essentially there's no real way to play a balanced demonbinder type character since the spells designed for that purpose in the game completely break the game wide open, are too safe and too powerful. They explicitly let you, after a fashion, control the called creature with the Charisma-check, which is bollocks for a Conjuration and bollocks as a non-mind affecting effect in the first place. It's the same problem as with Gate; in fairy tales and older D&D alike the potential power of such acts is balanced by its innate riskiness and huge costs but 3.5 did away with the riskiness and you don't need to pay anything if you're Charismatic enough (or take your time buffing yourself and debuffing the bound creature as it powerlessly sits in the circle).

[Melcar]

I know that so many people have mixed opinions about it, so I'm asking you do you get upset when other players want to play a Tier 1 Class? (Wizard, Cleric and Druid.)

Why would I? I usually want to play “tier 1” classes my-self!

And getting upset about my friends wants to play is not something I do! For me it’s all about the greatest fun for the greatest number of people!

I will say though that the characters should fit the campaign setting, whether that be classic adventure party, or tribal warriors!

Ok. I know that the tier 1 character are always the stars in the game. And they basically do just about every thing and sometimes they "showboat" their abilities a bit too much which makes the other players upset thinking that tier 1 classes is better than all other classes that's not tier 1.

That is solely a player problem, not a class problem! If people don’t act lake douche bags this is never a problem!

And so far from everyone in this thread it doesn't bother them that much.

No one is bothered by class choice, it’s all about how they are played... ergo a player issue!

[Doctor Awkward]

The fact that a Wizard can replace a Fighter with a single spell and that Clerics/Druids are better melee combatants, most certainly is a system problem.

I agree: there is many ways for a tier one player to solve all the problems while making the other party members believe they did solve the problem.

Okay, let's try another approach:

Ok. I know that the tier 1 character are always the stars in the game. And they basically do just about every thing and sometimes they "showboat" their abilities a bit too much which makes the other players upset thinking that tier 1 classes is better than all other classes that's not tier 1.

False.
This is something that only occurs when a player chooses to build and run a character like this, and a DM allows it to happen.

This happens when the DM is constructing an adventure with the majority of the party in mind, and it is far below the capabilities of one of the players. If the DM scales the encounter to the one powerful player then you have the same problem as they are the only ones that can meaningfully contribute.

The only balance that matters is the balance between party members. If all characters in the party are equally capable and powerful then the DM would be scaling encounters around them and they would all be contributing equally.

That D&D 3.5 is capable of being played at many different levels of optimization and allow for characters with vary levels of capability is not a bug. It's a feature.

[Crake]

Someone once said something to the effect that playing a wizard to its fullest potential takes something like a university minor's worth of study, which I believe is true.

Looks down at sig Yeah, I rememeber that

My 3-player group had a game where we started as duo of Warlock and Dervish (we ran the Expedition to the Demonweb Pits) but the Warlock eventually got bored of spamming Eldritch Blast, and built a Wizard/Nar Demonbinder as his replacement character. He Planar Bound a Glabrezu around level 11, won the opposed check handily and the duration was more than enough to stick around until the end of the adventure (Nar Demonbinder's whole shtick is Planar Binding so as soon as he decided on the class, the spell was at the very core of the menu). And since he had no qualms about letting the Glabrezu take souls or revel in slaughter, it wasn't even that unhappy with how it turned out so direct retribution seemed unlikely at best. My Dervish was mostly sidelined since the Glabrezu was just plain better at everything he did and had like Reverse Gravity at will. I was waiting many levels to get +1s to attack while the Demonbinder could've bound a Pit Fiend by the end of the campaign.

So, it does happen, especially when players are unaware of the fact that the spell is completely broken in the sense that it's way more powerful than anything else of equivalent level (of course, we knew afterwards). This is doubly a problem since it's demonbinding Magi are iconic and classes built around it exist so you can't just ban it or not use it easily either. Essentially there's no real way to play a balanced demonbinder type character since the spells designed for that purpose in the game completely break the game wide open, are too safe and too powerful. They explicitly let you, after a fashion, control the called creature with the Charisma-check, which is bollocks for a Conjuration and bollocks as a non-mind affecting effect in the first place. It's the same problem as with Gate; in fairy tales and older D&D alike the potential power of such acts is balanced by its innate riskiness and huge costs but 3.5 did away with the riskiness and you don't need to pay anything if you're Charismatic enough (or take your time buffing yourself and debuffing the bound creature as it powerlessly sits in the circle).

I'll be honest, this sounds like the spell being mishandled rather than the spell being overpowered. The glabrezu doesn't get to "take souls" just because he killed something. He takes souls by corrupting individuals and drawing them to chaotic evil, by offering them twisted wishes. Sure, he might have reveled in slaughter, but at the same time he was being jerked around by some mortal. Realistically he should have been twisting and misinterpreting every word of the binder, but that would have derailed the game. So basically the binder was taking advantage of the DM not wanting to make a whole thing out of the binder and the demon's struggle, because it would screw everyone else over.

While this might have happened accidentally on the binder's behalf, the issue was caused by the spell being mishandled by the DM, in the interest of keeping the game moving forward, at least from what I can see.

[noob]

Okay, let's try another approach:



False.
This is something that only occurs when a player chooses to build and run a character like this, and a DM allows it to happen.

This happens when the DM is constructing an adventure with the majority of the party in mind, and it is far below the capabilities of one of the players. If the DM scales the encounter to the one powerful player then you have the same problem as they are the only ones that can meaningfully contribute.

The only balance that matters is the balance between party members. If all characters in the party are equally capable and powerful then the DM would be scaling encounters around them and they would all be contributing equally.

That D&D 3.5 is capable of being played at many different levels of optimization and allow for characters with vary levels of capability is not a bug. It's a feature.

you interpreted my assertion wrong.
what I meant is that the wizard could give the other party members the feel that it is them(and not the wizard) that did the job.

[Zanos]

People bother me, not classes. I find people that need to be in the spotlight all the time irritating when they play t1 characters well, because they insist on being the star constantly. But those kinds of people tend to make themselves a problem when they play weaker characters too, because they usually try anyway and then complain when they fail.

[RoboEmperor]

No.

I have met a few people like that though, and let me tell you, you shouldn't play with them. A toxic hateful scrub has more than enough problems for you to either leave the table or get him kicked. A T1 hater does NOT hate T1s only. They hate a metric **** ton of stuff that they don't want to bother learning.

[noob]

No.

I have met a few people like that though, and let me tell you, you shouldn't play with them. A toxic hateful scrub has more than enough problems for you to either leave the table or get him kicked. A T1 hater does NOT hate T1s only. They hate a metric **** ton of stuff that they don't want to bother learning.

Some of the T1 haters knows all about the mechanics of the game.
Grod the Giant did make a complete revamp of dnd 3.5 to make caster classes more balanced with non caster classes(but it is really heavy modifications and it involve giving more options to most non casters and forcing the casters to be heavily specialized)

[Kelb_Panthera]

No.

I have met a few people like that though, and let me tell you, you shouldn't play with them. A toxic hateful scrub has more than enough problems for you to either leave the table or get him kicked. A T1 hater does NOT hate T1s only. They hate a metric **** ton of stuff that they don't want to bother learning.

You don't -have- to learn all that to make a minimally competent T1 character. Just like you can make a weapon focus barbarian, you can make a fireball wizard. You won't be playing to the classes' strengths but you will be perfectly capable of getting through published adventure modules.

Though, to be perfectly frank, 3e simply isn't a game suited to people who want to just pick a race, a class, and go. If going full wizard is too much then beguiler, dread necromancer, and warmage all take a lot less thought while still being decently powerful and feeling like proper mages.

Sorcerer is about 95% as good as wizard and much easier to use in play as long as you know how to pick good spells. Mystic (Dragonlance Campaign Setting) maps pretty nicely to "cleric but easier" though favored soul is better known for the same role even if it doesn't fill it as well. Erudite drops to regular psion while druid and artificer are, unfortunately unique enough that they can't be easily replaced by a lesser class. In all cases it's just a matter of picking good spells/ powers to be competent.

[Pex]

Like I said before. I know many players have mixed opinions of using a Tier 1 class and I just want to know if it bothers the other players. And so far from everyone in this thread it doesn't bother them that much.

It bothers me if you steal from party members. It bothers me if you don't share important need to know information you learn with the party. It bothers me if you don't help other party members. It bothers me you help other party members but express your resentment doing so. It bothers me you help other party members but express how dumb they are for being in the mess they're in and need you to save them again. It bothers me if you purposely make an encounter go sour because you're bored just when it was about to be concluded without a fuss or combat.

I don't give a Hoover what class you play.

[noob]

Spontaneous cloistered cleric with prcs for domain spam as well as the substitute domain spell can be close in ability to a non optimized regular cleric while not being tier 1.
So you might consider spontaneous cloistered cleric rather than mystic for your spontaneous clericking needs.

[Awakeninfinity]

I don't worry about it because most of the players will usually do unoptimized characters. Especially one of my current fellow player's who won't take advice from anyone except from the DM...

The one that can optimize usually keep to themself in game and usually doesn't showboat.

[RoboEmperor]

Some of the T1 haters knows all about the mechanics of the game.
Grod the Giant did make a complete revamp of dnd 3.5 to make caster classes more balanced with non caster classes(but it is really heavy modifications and it involve giving more options to most non casters and forcing the casters to be heavily specialized)

Few exceptions to the general rule. 100% of T1 haters I've met are crybaby scrubs who leeroy jenkins into combat and cry like a ***** when that strategy conflicts with my AoE spells or I kill someone with summoned creatures instead of letting him kill it. They all have absolutely no interest in learning how to play the game like properly outfitting their character with WBL that grant flight and such and instead ***** that I should prepare 100% of my spells with fly and magic weapon instead of summon monster.

You don't -have- to learn all that to make a minimally competent T1 character. Just like you can make a weapon focus barbarian, you can make a fireball wizard. You won't be playing to the classes' strengths but you will be perfectly capable of getting through published adventure modules.

Though, to be perfectly frank, 3e simply isn't a game suited to people who want to just pick a race, a class, and go. If going full wizard is too much then beguiler, dread necromancer, and warmage all take a lot less thought while still being decently powerful and feeling like proper mages.

Sorcerer is about 95% as good as wizard and much easier to use in play as long as you know how to pick good spells. Mystic (Dragonlance Campaign Setting) maps pretty nicely to "cleric but easier" though favored soul is better known for the same role even if it doesn't fill it as well. Erudite drops to regular psion while druid and artificer are, unfortunately unique enough that they can't be easily replaced by a lesser class. In all cases it's just a matter of picking good spells/ powers to be competent.

You misunderstood me. I was referring to leeroy jenkins T5s who don't want to read about magic items and want to force a low-op playstyle on the whole group and calls you a T1 munchkin if you don't do as he says. Not new players playing wizards.

[Cosi]

The fact that a Wizard can replace a Fighter with a single spell and that Clerics/Druids are better melee combatants, most certainly is a system problem.

It's both a system problem and a player problem. And it's not as simple as "jerk Wizards overshadow noble Fighters" (or the converse "jerk Fighters drag down noble Wizards"). Imbalances exist at the system level. That's quite obviously true, even to the point that you can build two characters of the same nominal level and have one be strictly more powerful than another.

But the problem is not really as simple as "Wizards overshadow Fighters". Yes, a competently built melee Cleric (or other melee caster build) is generally going to be better than a equally-optimized non-caster build, but that gap is (at most levels of optimization) small enough not to break anyone's game. A buffed-up CoDzilla is a better melee combatant than a Warblade, but not enough to make the Warblade irrelevant.

The biggest problem is the areas where non-casters simply don't have relevant abilities at all. When a Wizard teleports the party from one city to another, he's not "overshadowing" the Fighter. The Fighter didn't have some notionally-useful ability that wasn't as good as teleport, he had nothing. This leads to a problem where the game tends to under-emphasize non-combat problems precisely because non-casters mostly don't have any useful tools.

There is also the issue of two persistent failures of analysis in this community:

First, there's a tendency to act like the Wizard being better than the Fighter is itself evidence that the Wizard is overpowered. That's nonsense. It's like asserting that because 7 is bigger than 4, 7 is a big number. That doesn't make any sense. You have to define what it means for a number to be "big". If you're asking about the number of banks someone has robbed, 7 is a pretty big number. If you're asking about their age, it's a lot less so.

Second, there's a tendency to view the issue from the Fighter's perspective. Generally this is phrased something like "melee is the Fighter's job, the Cleric should be supporting him, you're a bad player for overshadowing him instead". This is also nonsense. The guy playing the Fighter is no more entitled to be the party beatstick than the guy playing the Cleric is. He may have less fun doing that if the Cleric is also meleeing, but presumably forcing the Cleric into a supporting role would reduce his fun, or he'd already be in that role.

Basically, people have convinced themselves that the Wizard is a problem, and that warps their thinking. I tend to blame the tiers, because they established the idea that the thing that defines Wizards is "being broken".

That D&D 3.5 is capable of being played at many different levels of optimization and allow for characters with vary levels of capability is not a bug. It's a feature.

Not quite. Supporting lots of playstyles is a feature. Supporting those playstyles the way it does is a bug. The power level of a 20th level Barbarian and the power level of a 20th level Wizard are both things the game should include. But they're not the same, and presenting them as being so is a problem.

Realistically he should have been twisting and misinterpreting every word of the binder, but that would have derailed the game.

Setting aside the obvious retort that notions of "realism" are rather absurd when discussing the behavior of bound demons, that's still not a good answer. It is, as you note, quite time-consuming, and ultimately wouldn't really decrease the effectiveness of the spell, because you can write fairly iron-clad contracts. But just as we don't expect the guy playing a Fighter to have a master's knowledge of swordfighting to effectively stab goblins to death, we don't expect the guy binding demons to serve him to actually know how to write a fully specified contract. Even if you did specify that planar binding can only compel actions that are in line with some philosophical "essential nature" of the creature, there are still plenty of creatures that would be happy just murdering a bunch of people.

planar binding is a very powerful spell. Using it results in you being very powerful. Quibbling about details almost always misses the point.

[Lans]

The fact that a Wizard can replace a Fighter with a single spell and that Clerics/Druids are better melee combatants, most certainly is a system problem.

The cleric/druid being better combatants tends to be over stated, they tend to be almost as effective in melee but have everything else going the class can do minus a few spells.

[Psyren]

The fact that a Wizard can replace a Fighter with a single spell and that Clerics/Druids are better melee combatants, most certainly is a system problem.

Sure, but that actually HAPPENING is usually a player problem. People have been playing wizards and clerics since the game began, and most of those campaigns go off without a hitch - certainly more than forum threads about things like Simulacrum and Planar Binding would indicate.

[Tvtyrant]

The most disruptive optimization I had a table was a low tier power charger, so not really? Most people who are invested enough to really know 3.5 also know not to rock the boat.

[CactusAir]

The most disruptive optimization I had a table was a low tier power charger, so not really? Most people who are invested enough to really know 3.5 also know not to rock the boat.

This, basically.

If it's a tier 1 sort of game, tier 1 is great.

If it's a tier 3 sort of game, most people i hang with will bring tier 3's or at least play higher tier as support so as to not overshadow.

Honestly the biggest problem is people who insist on bringing tier 5's to a tier 2/3 game, and then complaining about everyone else.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You misunderstood me. I was referring to leeroy jenkins T5s who don't want to read about magic items and want to force a low-op playstyle on the whole group and calls you a T1 munchkin if you don't do as he says. Not new players playing wizards.

This is not the game for such players. Such players will not only drag the other PCs down but force the DM to use under CRed foes in the simplest possible tactics. They need to move to a more rules-light system or get with the program.

[Yogibear41]

Have yet to see anyone play a "god" wizard, and I doubt I ever will. I've seen a mail-man that was about as durable as a cardboard box and that probably the best wizard type I have ever seen.


Seen two competent melee clerics one being my own. Never seen a druidzilla.


So bring on the tier ones, most people just disappoint me.

[RoboEmperor]

This is not the game for such players. Such players will not only drag the other PCs down but force the DM to use under CRed foes in the simplest possible tactics. They need to move to a more rules-light system or get with the program.

Exactly my point. If someone is a T1 hater it's a red flag that they are T5 leeroy jenkins so you should avoid playing with them immediately. When i mean hater I don't mean someone who thinks T1s are too strong and need nerfs, I'm talking about actual haters who spew hate the moment they hear you're a T1.

[Mordaedil]

We have a fairly mixed table, with 2-3 veteran tabletop players, one with almost online experience in an online environment, one more insecure player who has only played elven rangers before and one who is really new to the game but got inspired to play by Critical Role and usually plays more outlandish characters.

The last guy is the best player at the table and his characters so far have been a warforged crusader, an elemental summoner bush-wizard human, a human warforged/jaunter and now a gnome invoker.

Every instance has been unique and special and nobody feels he steals attention. The worst at the table is probably the veterans, one of whom almost always complains that he can't get into character. But none of the veterans play anything special. It has nothing really to do with the classes or characters, everything to do with the players.

[King of Nowhere]

Like I said before. I know many players have mixed opinions of using a Tier 1 class and I just want to know if it bothers the other players. And so far from everyone in this thread it doesn't bother them that much.

The problem with tier 1 is that you go in internet forums and read all the stuff about "making obsolete the fighter with a single spell" and you start to believe it true.
Then you play in a newbie group and find that you actually have to help the wizard contribute because she takes poor spells, she blasts for less damage than the fighter and she dies easily if focused.
You go in a mid-op party and you have a guy wanting to play a high op wizard, but soon giving up because it's overly complicated and not fun.

Really, take forum discussions with a pinch of salt. They tend to exaggerate everything

[Yogibear41]

Exactly my point. If someone is a T1 hater it's a red flag that they are T5 leeroy jenkins so you should avoid playing with them immediately. When i mean hater I don't mean someone who thinks T1s are too strong and need nerfs, I'm talking about actual haters who spew hate the moment they hear you're a T1.

Recently had a guy in one of our groups criticize me for playing "unkillable characters" meanwhile he is playing a druid /sorcerer /geomancer I forget the exact level he is. Generally speaking his contribution to combat is using a crappy spell for 2d6 damage. We are around ECL 10.......... Not to mention every time its his turn he takes 5 minutes to think of what he wants to do, before using the same old crap tactics/spells again.

Darn XP leeches......

[Florian]

I know that so many people have mixed opinions about it, so I'm asking you do you get upset when other players want to play a Tier 1 Class? (Wizard, Cleric and Druid.)

I´m not generally upset when someone picks a T1 class. What annoys me to no end is when someone sees picking a T1 class as an excuse to break the social contract established for a given table at session zero, by either intentionally breaking the accepted-on power level or trying to alter the game in a way that is not acceptable. Beyond that, it´s rather rare to find players with enough actual system mastery and tactical ability to really get into game-breaking territory. Most struggle to keep their full caster alive in the first place.

[Bartmanhomer]

Well I guess you all want to know what's my take in this: No it doesn't bother me at all if another player want to play a Tier 1 character and I don't really care. Play whatever character that you feel comfortable.

[Crake]

Setting aside the obvious retort that notions of "realism" are rather absurd when discussing the behavior of bound demons, that's still not a good answer. It is, as you note, quite time-consuming, and ultimately wouldn't really decrease the effectiveness of the spell, because you can write fairly iron-clad contracts. But just as we don't expect the guy playing a Fighter to have a master's knowledge of swordfighting to effectively stab goblins to death, we don't expect the guy binding demons to serve him to actually know how to write a fully specified contract. Even if you did specify that planar binding can only compel actions that are in line with some philosophical "essential nature" of the creature, there are still plenty of creatures that would be happy just murdering a bunch of people.

planar binding is a very powerful spell. Using it results in you being very powerful. Quibbling about details almost always misses the point.

The problem isn't that the spell is powerful, the problem is that the spell is supposed to be "power for a price", but most DMs don't want to spend time dealing with the fallout of the "for a price" part, and just leave it as "power". Ideally, if the DM can't be bothered dealing with the "for a price" part, they should just ban the spell, citing that as the reason, but many DMs, especially newer ones, might not realise the issues surrounding just handwaving the "for a price" part until it's too late, only to come here and complain about how broken the spell is.

And generally, nobody likes being randomly kidnapped and forced to do another person's bidding, even if the bidding is their favourite thing. Imagine you just love painting picturesqe panoramas. Now someone kidnaps you, plonks you in front of a scenic landscape and demands you start painting or else. You'll probably do it, but you definitely won't be happy about it. Short of actually paying the creature in bribes of some sort, at which point you may as well just be hiring NPC adventurers either way, it's most likely going to be attempting to subvert your commands, and planar binding isn't exactly a finely detailed contract, it's a "compulsion to perform a service", and simply ordering it to follow your commands means each and every individual command you give can be subverted in some way, which very much does decrease the effectiveness of the spell.

Also, nitpicking realism when, in this context its quite obviously conflated with verisimilitude? Come on. That word is a pita to type out, much easier to just say realistic than verisimilitude-ish.

[Florian]

And generally, nobody likes being randomly kidnapped and forced to do another person's bidding, even if the bidding is their favourite thing.

For whatever reason, there's this thing called Planar Ally, for when you want to deal with creatures that are already on your side/team. /derailing over