Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7140369" data-attributes="member: 996">&quot;Missed&quot; ... &quot;Refuted&quot; ... &quot;Offered an un-verifiable anecdote as a counter-example&quot; ...whatever...<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&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The contrary point was that crunchy optimizers aren't constitutionally unable to start with disfavored concepts (even the Tier 5 fighter in 3.5) and optimize them, to the nth degree.&nbsp; &nbsp;Certainly not, they'd be solidly a full Tier higher, if &quot;Tier&quot; in 5e were an optimization ranking, rather than a grouping of levels, anyway.&nbsp; 3.5 Tiers were not entirely about weak/strong, they were much more a measure of flexibility.&nbsp; A Tier 4 class could be quite strong in it's narrow specialty, for instance, and still rate no higher.&nbsp; The 5e fighter's specialty is sustained single-target multi-attacking DRP (with weapons), and he's about as strong at that as the game can easily stand.&nbsp;1st level full casters do more stuff than the fighter.&nbsp; Heck, wizards still did more stuff than fighters at any given level, in 4e.&nbsp; &nbsp;Nah, the flexibility is there in spades for the neo-Vancian casters, and as lacking as ever for the poor Fighter (just not so lacking in raw power anymore).&nbsp; 5e arguably nips off the bottom two Tiers, though, which is progress - relative to 3e.&nbsp; &nbsp;Tier wasn't about specific builds, either, it's a ranking of classes, not characters.&nbsp; Being able to build an appallingly bad sorcerer, for instance, didn't drag the class, itself, down from Tier 2; nor did gattling-gun spiked-chain tripper builds pull the Fighter up.&nbsp;A classless/level-less character with straight 8s can make pretty much every skill check in the game, since DCs of 20+ are rare - just not make it very often.&nbsp; That's the magic of BA:&nbsp; everyone can contribute.&nbsp;You can't say 'useless' because BA makes the most stunted incompetent technically useful.&nbsp; Even in some bizarre corner case when BA fails him, if nothing else, he can use the Help action.&nbsp; But, you can certainly be relatively useless by comparison to the 20 stat guy with Expertise on the same check.&nbsp; And you can be useless in &quot;areas of expertise&quot; that aren't modeled solely by d20 checks...&nbsp; &nbsp;&quot;Feel&quot; is, of course, subjective.&nbsp; But BA does level character ability such that the d20 is never quite overwhelmed, so a 1st level 8 stat no proficiency character can succeed on a natural 20, where a 20 stat, 20th level w/proficiency can fail on a natural 2.&nbsp; And BA is a significant part of the 5e design philosophy that isn't (much: Expertise) deviated from.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7140369, member: 996"] "Missed" ... "Refuted" ... "Offered an un-verifiable anecdote as a counter-example" ...whatever... ;) The contrary point was that crunchy optimizers aren't constitutionally unable to start with disfavored concepts (even the Tier 5 fighter in 3.5) and optimize them, to the nth degree. Certainly not, they'd be solidly a full Tier higher, if "Tier" in 5e were an optimization ranking, rather than a grouping of levels, anyway. 3.5 Tiers were not entirely about weak/strong, they were much more a measure of flexibility. A Tier 4 class could be quite strong in it's narrow specialty, for instance, and still rate no higher. The 5e fighter's specialty is sustained single-target multi-attacking DRP (with weapons), and he's about as strong at that as the game can easily stand. 1st level full casters do more stuff than the fighter. Heck, wizards still did more stuff than fighters at any given level, in 4e. Nah, the flexibility is there in spades for the neo-Vancian casters, and as lacking as ever for the poor Fighter (just not so lacking in raw power anymore). 5e arguably nips off the bottom two Tiers, though, which is progress - relative to 3e. Tier wasn't about specific builds, either, it's a ranking of classes, not characters. Being able to build an appallingly bad sorcerer, for instance, didn't drag the class, itself, down from Tier 2; nor did gattling-gun spiked-chain tripper builds pull the Fighter up. A classless/level-less character with straight 8s can make pretty much every skill check in the game, since DCs of 20+ are rare - just not make it very often. That's the magic of BA: everyone can contribute. You can't say 'useless' because BA makes the most stunted incompetent technically useful. Even in some bizarre corner case when BA fails him, if nothing else, he can use the Help action. But, you can certainly be relatively useless by comparison to the 20 stat guy with Expertise on the same check. And you can be useless in "areas of expertise" that aren't modeled solely by d20 checks... "Feel" is, of course, subjective. But BA [i]does[/i] level character ability such that the d20 is never quite overwhelmed, so a 1st level 8 stat no proficiency character can succeed on a natural 20, where a 20 stat, 20th level w/proficiency can fail on a natural 2. And BA is a significant part of the 5e design philosophy that isn't ([i]much[/i]: Expertise) deviated from. [/QUOTE]

Verification