Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5663678" data-attributes="member: 6679551">Once again, another good post refreshingly free of inane questions, snarky innuendo, and ad hominems. Let me start by saying we probably agree on about 60%-80% of this. I think there are some details we could debate (and I might be inclined to <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />). But there is something you said that I want to restate:   I think this needs to go both ways. I think one of the problems with JaronK's Tier system is that it leads to misinformation, which is worse than no information. With misinformation you draw the wrong conclusions. Let's revisit something you said and to which I responded in the previous post.. This seems like a natural extension of the Tier system doesn't it? But no where is it actually proven or is there any real evidence to support it. So the manner in which this Tier system is presented leads us to extend its implications far beyond what can logically or scientifically be supported. I think this does a disservice to the game and those who play it. And this is mostly why I'm posting. The Tier system is held up as some universal truth about D&D when it's not. As I said before, we know that given the same player, the more options you give them, the more they can do. But that doesn't mean they will make choices that are actually beneficial or that they'll make the right choices. Who is more detrimental to the party in the hands of a bad decision maker, a Wizard or a Fighter? A bad decision make is still equal skill.  But that's exactly the assumption he makes. He says "equal skill / optimzation." So at what point above a vegetable does the Wizard move five Tiers above a Fighter? Do you think Jaronk can tell you that?  So let's look at the discussion point by point...  Apologies, I'm having a hard time figuring what it is you mean to say. I was pointing out that we don't know how much of X effort is required to put into Y class to make the Tier system true. I agree that we can look at contextual effectiveness between various party confirgurations...but I don't understand how this relates to the point you originally made.  So there are bunch of things being conflated here. Equal effort =/= equal effectiveness. Nonsi could spend 10 minutes making a character and I could spend 10 hours and Nonsi's could be more effective in a given context. Likewise. I might take Nonsi's charcter and be more effective with his character than he is in another context. The point is you really have no way of knowing what are relative skills/optimization level is. I believe the charop boards are filled with people who disagree about what is the best way to "optimize" for any specific role or task. Can you look at the arguments being made and determine who would play X class better than the other?   Yes and no. Both use the same spells, but implementation /method is often more important than base functionality. The approach (method) of the beguilar is diferent than the Wizard.  One can be familiar with all the spells and feats but doesn't mean that as  DM, you're familiar with a Wizard playing as a blaster.  That mode of play may still catch you buy surprise.  So the Beguiler respresents a different mode of play.  Nevertheless, i threw it out there as an example of a one of the factors that determines how well a DM prepares for certain classes, not as a truth about nonsi's situation.  Apologies, my point was not clear. Neither you nor Nonsi has equal skill/optimization across all players. So it would be dangerous if not outright folly to start changing the (nerfing/boosting) characters based on the Tier system. I believe we are in agreement on this.  So here we are again with what seems a logical extension of the Tier system...despite no real or even illusory evidence to support such an extension. Jaronk ostensibly created the Tier system for two purposes: 1) Warn DM's about the difficulties in providing a fair (people use the word "balanced") campaign when you have a Wizard and Fighter at lvl 11. 2) The "intraparty" (term he specficially uses) effectiveness between classes. In other words, the Wizard is more poweful than the Fighter at level 11 i.e. the classes are not "balanced" and thus you as a DM need to "balance" them.  I've never seen a party with equal optimziation / skill across all classes. Have you? How do you know when skill is equal? Do you give your players an IQ test and a knowledge test on D&D? So you really don't know what level of skill/optimziation you are dealing with. You have a comparative sense...but you can't quantify it. So to reiterate a point I'm guilty of beating like a dead horse. We don't know when the Tier system is true...we are only told that it is true for all skill levels. Well, we've already proven that it's not.   While I neither disagree or agree with this, assessment of what that point is entirely subjective.  Let's change the nature of the discussion. Can you talk to me about a campaign you had that went from 1-15 and at what point the Tier 1's took over the game?  Or just talk generally how high level spell casters caused the armageddon that JaronK tells us will result with the mix of Fighters and Wizards in the same party. Like you, I don't have infinite experience playing 3.5, so it would help to hear examples where things worked exactly as JaronK predicts them to.  [quote[ Note that the wizard can't necessarily be a fighter and perform all of his wizardly duties at the same time, but that's the power of the T1 classes:</blockquote>Funny, because that's my argument as well...but that's not how Jaronk presents it... Jaronk doesn't add any time constraint modifiers. He says "absolutely everything." So are we in agreement that he overstates the case?  And I'm very curious to hear based on your experience how often that happens. How often does the Wizard become the Fighter and do this more efficiently and effectively than the Fighter himself? Share specific campaign anecdotes if you can.   ...and why would that be an issue? I would assume that if you have high level casters who can do these things...they are takling missions that require these things to be done and in turn expect them to be doing these things. I mean isn't this like the monsters you put in a high level dungeon? Are you putting in monsters with AC's and damage output that indeed pose a thread to the martial classes who are at that level? Why wouldn't those same dungeons have threats for the spell castesr? I.e. lots of Enfeeblement anti magic, time constraints, inhospitable environments for resting...etc.   Well, COP has a failure %. Second, there's nothing in RAW that says a being from that plane doesn't come looking to kill the person who is disturbing them. If you are a deity (you know, immortal being beyond the scope of man), and some mortal beings are constantly bugging you with questions...you might be willing to answer...and then make sure they never ask again. Or warn them of the consequence of your answering their question before you answer it. Per RAW, a deity or outside force can block use of the spell...who is to say that any such use isn't a "rare" occasion? Commune has a bunch of strict rules...specifically that the deity will answer the question to further their own interest. In both cases, you can feed players misinformation about what questions to ask. If a kidnapped victim or treasure is in a Rope Trick..then they techncially aren't in the city are they?  Let me make an observation. A lot of these discussions have this feel of talking about what could happen, about what is technically possible under RAW. But the more I look at specific cases, the more I see RAW options for DM's to manage the situation. I do 100% agree with Jaronk's suggestion that it's easier to design campaigns for any characters that are 1 diminesional. But that includes classes like Sorcs who have optimized their build for blasting.   Jaronk makes it sound like an impossible task simply because you have a Fighter in the group. Is that your experience? Are Wizards in a single sessions invincible when compared to Fighters? I don't mean potentially, I mean as you have played the game.   One thing I am inclined to agree with is that 3.5 does a lousy job of keeping Spell Casters reigned in. Reading Monte Cook's articles, it's clear that many of the designers played 1e. They remember how limited Magic Users were and I think they went overboard in opening up Spell casters. With spells like Miracle able to be cast in a Stanard Action, or clerics being able to worship ideals and have no restrictions on spell level, I think they over did it. Celebrim shared some helpful insights on the matter as well. Couple short casting times with the 5ft step and Combast Casting and good luck stopping a spell being cast. He also oints out that in 1e, a high level Fighter could save on a 2. Now, the addition of spell level and caster modifier on the DC check is wholly unfair to martial classes and their chances to "Save or Suck" as he puts it.  I definitely think there are fairness issues with casters and non-casters.   Rather than examine the specifics, I will concede the point.   But you do agree that if you can't reduce something to a number...it can't be balanced?  Debating this topic would take hours. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I will make the general point that really what you're doing is taking abitrary situations and trying do determine effectiveness. MMORPG's do this by having certain iconic builds fight various different enemies which they feel are representative. But as you acknolweged, there are a small universe of assumptions that go into any such analysis.   I would argue that the assumptions aren't in just choosing the metric...they are aslo choosing the conditions of the test. There is no unversal test for determining DPS if there are circumstancial modifiers. You'd have to test under all those different circumstances...and then you'd run into another problem...  Bingo!!! Look at car comparisons. Review guides put cars through a battery of tests and take objective measurements. Then they rate the cars based on things like 0-60, 0-100, 100-0, lateral g's, cargo capacity, 5 mph bumber crash, etc. Now...do all those tests have equal value to all buyers? No. You may not give a rat's patootie about 0-60 if you're buying a car to haul groceries. So while there may be popular agreement on ranking importance of the tests, its still subjective. So how would you balance those cars without making them all the same car? You can't. You can't compare the important or value or usefullness of lateral g's to 0-60. There is no common metric. At best you can determine how those qualities might coorelate to some other quality you do value (like mpg).  I am not debating about whether balanced will be achieved. I'm saying that since you can't determine how cars "balance" you can't measure it.  Now we are on the same page. This is why designers who talk about "balance" are using the wrong word...either intentionally, or unintentionally. But they certainly can't talk about fairness can they?  Well, I think you're stepping in hot water when you say "doesn't work." Under 1e, D&D became the most recognizable roleplaying game of all time. Some of that was undoubtedly due to negative press and target market, but it was still immensely popular. I'll offer a thought about any RPG: You can't improve the game...you can only change it.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  I completely agree that people use the term "balance" and make changes based on perceived "balance," but what they are really doing is changing contextual effectiveness. They aren't creating balance. They are saying, "I think providing more X to this class makes the class more effective in this situation...and that is better for the game."  Totally...totally...subjective.  The reason why I make this distinction is that one of the first things you learn if you take any decision analysis cours is is that the most important part of decision making/problem solving is to accurately identify the problem.  Failure to do so means you end up solving the wrong problem...and possibly making things worse. Since you can't "balance" D&D, continually trying to achieve something that is immeasurable is foolishness. It's almost clinical insanity: Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. People keep trying to tweak the rules over and over and expecting things to "balance" are barking up the wrong tree.  What you need to do is say, "Here are the prototypcial scenarios in which we are going to achieve equal effectiveness for all classes." Outside of those cases, we accept disproportinate results. Then you can debate about the parameters of those scenarios, but at least you know what you're getting and where you're getting it.[/QUOTE]

Verification