A simple fix to balance fighters vs. casters ?

[kitcik]

Where you see "Higher Tier" I see "Development Failure".

Why not call them the classes where the developers failed the most? I mean... that IS the assessment, right? Because really tier is an idiot of how much X class can wreck the game....

I think someone messed with your autocorrect. "idiot" --> "indicator"
Anyway, I agree.

But see, I don't think it's that. I think the Tier system is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, more about masturbation than anything else.

Hmm, you got me on this one. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, eh? Masturbation?

The people who play these kinds of games frequently identify with weak intelligent people.

Hard to respond to nonsensical statements so I will pass.

But when you get right down to it... it's not Wizards who are the top tier... it's Clerics, maybe Druids... yet here we are... week after week... going on about how the Wizard would kick the big Strong fighters ass....

Huh?

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite

 

[GreyLord]

First, let me say that I agree with the spirit of a lot of this and I think we have a lot of common ground.



This is true. I have seen good arguments both ways as to which class is best at low levels. I will say that casters "reign" (more below) after about 12th level with certainty.



The point is that, at higher levels, you could easily have a fighterless party, but you could not have a casterless party (unless the DM weakened CR). It is just one more example of the options a caster has.



The thing about this is, fighters can only do one thing, rogues maybe 1 and a half. Casters can do everything. So, a larger variety of challenges only allows the caster to shine more. "Find Traps" "Suggestion" etc. obviate the roguish & social skills of other classes at higher levels when casters have plenty of spells and scrolls. This was far less the case in 1E for a variety of reasons.



Agreed. The thing is, at lower levels you must cooperate. At higher levels, the fighter becomes less and less necessary and contributes less and less to the group. Bummer to play the fighter and watch yourself become superfluous.



Exactly, hence the thread.

Yes, a good DM can help this issue in various ways (by nerfing casters and boosting non-casters through access to spells, magic items, types of encounters, etc.). But if they're not subtle, the caster player will feel like they're being singled out for punishment.

It would be better to find a way to cause casters to still need / appreciate non-casters at high levels through the straight mechanics of the classes.

I suppose that is common ground. Thing is, I LIKE casters being that powerful at higher levels. At a certain point Fighter's can't compete, nor can rogues or anyone else...but then...Where in King Arthur was Lancelot able to Kill Merlin (or even desire to), or where was Gandalf killed by an Orc or high level swordsman from Gondor or Mordor (he wasn't).

They can still Roleplay as a group but the interest can change. I suppose it's more of something from the old school of thought with the entire name level thing.

Sure, they can all go dungeon crawling, but other things can prop up with the campaign. The Warriors start getting titles and lands which they must build armies and defend, whilst playing politics (where Bards can come in extremely useful). Wizards garner to powers to defend the lands of the Warriors (or their own) in cooperation against bigger and badder foes, whilst the Rogues, well they are trying to build worldwide guild dictatorships and such. All of them cooperating to combine resources against some gigantic threat (maybe an invasion from the planes, or otherwise). At that point, the Warrior's armies, the Wizards Powers, the Rogues network, and the Cleric's influence all can combine for High level campaigns that far outreach the single dungeon crawl of the lower levels.

So I'm fine with the Wizards able to Cast Wish and change the very fabric of reality, Clerics able to cast down kingdoms by directly wielding the power of their deity, Rogues causing all sorts of havoc as they create their world's form of the mafia, and Fighters conquering enemy lands with armies. It's all part of the game, adding new dimensions to it is another way to make it exciting.

Of course if one merely focuses on the growing power of the spellcasters without adding anything for the others to grow and increase with...it probably will get boring for them and you'll all need to start a new low level campaign (which I feel happens quite often, as I think most people play lower level games than higher levels...maybe my opinion is off on that, but I think that overall that's how the market research has shown for at least some D&D type RPGs).

 

[Dandu]

So I'm fine with the Wizards able to Cast Wish and change the very fabric of reality, Clerics able to cast down kingdoms by directly wielding the power of their deity, Rogues causing all sorts of havoc as they create their world's form of the mafia, and Fighters conquering enemy lands with armies. It's all part of the game, adding new dimensions to it is another way to make it exciting.

Fighter can't really bring an army to the dungeoncrawl, though.

 

[TheEvil]

It would be better to find a way to cause casters to still need / appreciate non-casters at high levels through the straight mechanics of the classes.

It is worth noting that this one of the issues that 4E tried to address by taking away most of the caster utility spells and giving fighters and other defenders more 'stickiness'.

The result has been a decent game system that no longer feels like D&D...

 

[GreyLord]

Fighter can't really bring an army to the dungeoncrawl, though.

Hmm, depends on the alignment. Send all the soldiers into the pyramid to set off the traps and then proceed onwards?



Joking aside, you're right. That's why he hires another group to go dungeon hunting! Someone has to rule and lead the army...let the Wizard clear the Dungeon and the Cleric get that divine intervention to defeat Gruumsh's army's of darkness descending upon you!

 

[Eldritch_Lord]

To Visigani and others arguing that the tiers are irrelevant due to the DM or player skill or gentlemen's agreements or the like, I direct you to JaronK's introductory remarks on the Tier system:

My general philosophy is that the only balance that really matters in D&D is the interclass balance between the various PCs in a group. If the group as a whole is very powerful and flexible, the DM can simply up the challenge level and complexity of the encounters. If it's weak and inflexible, the DM can lower the challenge level and complexity. Serious issues arise when the party is composed of some members which are extremely powerful and others which are extremely weak, leading to a situation where the DM has two choices: either make the game too easy for the strong members, or too hard for the weak members. Neither is desireable. Thus, this system is created for the following purposes:

1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group

2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.

3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).

The Tier system is not saying that T1 classes are the best classes to play. The Tier system is not saying that the DM has to let T1 classes wreck the game. The Tier system, when it comes right down to it, is a measure of two things: how much DM intervention is needed to make the game work for certain classes, and how much power lies in PC hands when playing certain classes.

T3 classes are generally the most balanced classes, and can handle CR-appropriate encounters fine without much buffing or nerfing of either the PCs or the opposition. T3 PCs can influence the game world to a good extent but usually can't completely change the world or circumvent every challenge.

T1 classes are generally more powerful and versatile than everyone else, and can overpower CR-appropriate encounters to the point that the DM needs to either present them with above-CR encounters on a regular basis or optimize CR-appropriate encounters with good tactics to keep up. T1 PCs can influence the game world on a massive scale and can completely dominate everything from kingdoms to dungeon crawls if they aren't checked.

Here's what might come as a surprise to you if you view the Tier system as merely a masturbatory fantasy for nerds who were beat up by jocks in school: the Tier system says that the T5 classes are just as bad as the T1 classes. They're weaker and less versatile than everyone else, and can't deal with CR-appropriate encounters unless the DM holds back or nerfs them and/or "plays dumb" tactically, the players are exceptionally skilled, or the players have lots of items/allies/other resources to compensate. T5 can't really influence the game world at all except through things like Diplomacy which are game-altering and -breaking regardless of tier or through pure roleplaying/DM fiat/Plot Coupons.

The variation in tier isn't a development failure in and of itself; the development failure is WotC assuming that they could remove most of the caster restrictions and non-caster benefits from AD&D and retain the possibility of having casters and noncasters be on a roughly even playing field in the same party. T1 characters don't wreck the game inherently if the DM knows what he's doing; I've run games with 5-6 T1 casters in the party and it's worked out fine because I was able to provide them a challenge with intelligent T1 opponents. T5 characters don't fail at life inherently if the DM is willing to work with them a lot; I've run games with 5-6 T5 noncasters in the party and it's worked out fine because the players knew their classes' weaknesses and played to their strengths in a campaign and campaign setting built with an eye to T5 limitations

The problem comes in when you try to have T1 and T5 characters in the same party and the DM doesn't compensate for this. You're saying "Well, the DM can always..." and the response is that yes, that's exactly what the Tier system is for, to tell the DM that he'll need to adjust things up for T1s and adjust things down for T5 and put in significant effort to challenge a party of mixed tiers, unless the players are aware of the problems with that setup and can hold back/self-nerf/compensate the lower-tier PCs/otherwise equalize the PCs via gentlemen's agreements. Rather than being the ultimate expression of nerd superiority, in many games T1 casters (and sometimes their T2 brethren) are nerfed or banned altogether. Quite often, T5 (and sometimes T4) classes are also banned because there exists no quick fix that will let them "play with the big kids," or they're buffed far past the extent of a quick fix, or the underlying system is changed to let them compete through a combination of caster nerfs and martial buffs.

 

[kitcik]

[MENTION=4348]GreyLord[/MENTION] I am not against powerful wizards either. I just remember 1E, when I felt like there was more balance (for a variety of reasons) and feel like 3.5 did a poor job in this area. For one thing, by getting rid of casting times and providing Concentration.

That said, I love 3.5.

 

[GreyLord]

[MENTION=4348]GreyLord[/MENTION] I am not against powerful wizards either. I just remember 1E, when I felt like there was more balance (for a variety of reasons) and feel like 3.5 did a poor job in this area. For one thing, by getting rid of casting times and providing Concentration.

That said, I love 3.5.

Irony.

I also felt AD&D was more balanced then 3.X edition. Multiple reasons.

Crazy how we can have that same point of view and yet enter in on different sides on a discussion,

OR maybe we're on the same side, but approaching it from opposite ends of the discussion.

 

[nonsi256]

Second, You are all assuming higher level characters. A second level wizard won't have a third level spell unless they find the scroll to it typically. They have to grow into it. A sixth level druid has 11 spells, 5 of which are merely 0 level meaning 6 leveled spells.

I once started a campaign with a group I did not know before hand, of 3rd level characters: a fighter, a rogue, a monk and a cleric. I entered as a 2nd level Gnome beguiler.
I can tell you that just before I hit 4th level I was kicked out - for dominating the game (in combat and out of it - [FONT=&quot]and not by being the loudest or the most talkative of the lot[/FONT]) and making it boring for the rest.
The DM was actually very enthusiastic about most everything I did. I just knew too well which feats & skill tricks to take, I had like a kazillion and one skill points and I knew how to exploit them to the maximum.

So you see, it's not just about the high-end of the spectrum.

 

[nonsi256]

Sure, they can all go dungeon crawling, but other things can prop up with the campaign. The Warriors start getting titles and lands which they must build armies and defend, whilst playing politics (where Bards can come in extremely useful). Wizards garner to powers to defend the lands of the Warriors (or their own) in cooperation against bigger and badder foes, whilst the Rogues, well they are trying to build worldwide guild dictatorships and such.

So I'm fine with the Wizards able to Cast Wish and change the very fabric of reality, Clerics able to cast down kingdoms by directly wielding the power of their deity, Rogues causing all sorts of havoc as they create their world's form of the mafia, and Fighters conquering enemy lands with armies. It's all part of the game, adding new dimensions to it is another way to make it exciting.

The question is what in the world is there in 3e+ to stop spellcasters (especially the arcane types) from achieving the roles of both conquerors and guildmasters (via diplomacy, manipulation and trickery), while at the same time pursue their true goal of dominating the deepest arcane secrets or the mightiest of divine powers ?​