2012-07-16: The One Where We Talk About D&D Next

[TheLastOutlaw]

I learned on 2nd edition and spent most of my serious DnD gaming with AD&D. I didn't dislike 3.0/3.5 and by now remember much more of the ruleset for them instead of the "classics." The only real gripe I had with the 3s was the late game characters were horribly unbalanced. I keep hearing Pathfinder is awesome but I just haven't had the time to learn it. I can't believe 4th edition was so short lived and I hold out no hope for 5.

[taltamir]

The whole emulating an MMORPG claim is balony; the major thing they got out of that is "no class should be worthless in a fight". Terminology (for things that already existed under different names), and some aggro handling bs.
Map tile based fighting existed in DnD for a long long time.

What the majority of the work was about is making busy work. They solved a bunch of longstanding issues but for every one issue they solved they added 2 more. the end result is a game that is unplayable in PnP; and then we played it online...
So basically its now a bona fida CRPG.

[Lukkai]

The whole emulating an MMORPG claim is balony;

Well, truth be told I don't know whether or not they had it in mind. But it's the general consensus of every player I know that has ever tried it, that it must have been. Because that was the precise feeling they got during playing. And since these games are always playtested before throwing them on the market, that must have come up at some point during development as well. And yet they decided to keep it.

I started not my rpg career but my d&d one with AD&D as well. Though our group changed to 3th edition about as soon as it came out and did not regret it. The rules being better structured and more logical in our opinion. 3.5 then simply was a finetuning of the rules.
Pathfinder has worked really well for me and my friends so far. Can't say anything about high-level play yet though. It's among the less often played systems in our group and I haven't got a character in the two digit levels so far.


Besides: "Worthless in a fight" is often subjective. While it was clear in 3.5 that some classes were more potent than others in a direct fight, we've found good use for just about any class out there. With the fight-winning combination usually being the teamwork of several different ones. For example mage, fighter and rogue with support of the bard for that little but decisive extra bonus while cleric and ranger acted as bodyguards. With some of the roles or classes being exchangeable, the mage's part being played by a sorcerer, a paladin replacing the cleric and the like.
Where do I want to go with this? There is no class entirely useless in battle. And it's absolutely okay if some are not as potent as others, if they bring other advantages on the table instead. Or work perfectly in a supporting role during battle. It's way more challenging and interesting to work out actual battle plans with the various strengths and weaknesses of your classes than relying on simple "We line of equal damage dealers, hit enemy, win fight, ugh!"-tactics. Being able to dish out exactly as much damage as every other player is nice and well. Being able to play the hero that singlehandedly can win the battle is cool. But the real fun lies in successful teamplay.

[taltamir]

The whole emulating an MMORPG claim is balony;

Well, truth be told I don't know whether or not they had it in mind. But it's the general consensus of every player I know that has ever tried it, that it must have been. Because that was the precise feeling they got during playing. And since these games are always playtested before throwing them on the market, that must have come up at some point during development as well. And yet they decided to keep it.

That's what it is, a "feeling" and not a concrete example one can point at.
As I explained, MMOs and DnD were already inbred and the only thing they did was apply terminology from MMOS to things that have existed in DnD already.
And actually give a fuck about class balance.

Besides: "Worthless in a fight" is often subjective.

No it isn't, its objective. Even if you feel like you are helping everyone else knows you are the load. Even if the whole team feels like the monk is helpful a look a the number will show they are all sharing a delusion.
And there are agreed upon tiers for a reason http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards ... topic=5293
From the fact you casually dismissed the bard, cleric, and ranger it seems you never read it. The bard is not useless, it is a powerful class. The monk, rogue, and fighter are.

absolutely okay if some are not as potent as others, if they bring other advantages on the table instead.

I said useless, useless classes do NOT bring advantages to others on the table. They are not helping really, they are just taking up space. A useful character can absolutely be a controller. For a good portion of their career the wizard will never ever kill anything himself if played right but will be the most useful character because of the ridiculous effectiveness of his boosts and bag of tricks.

Of course, rather then re-balancing all classes to the same tier I would have gone and embraced tiers and made them a core design principle. And require players be in the same tier unless someone is given a handicap.
Or gone with a classless system like GURPS, or one of many things.

In the end "feels like" merely shows one cannot quantify what it is that one dislikes about something.

[Lukkai]

Ah you misunderstood me to some degree there. I never considered or dismissed the bard as useless (or the ranger, cleric,...). I wanted to emphasize the bards ability to give the whole group an edge in combat even on the low levels (Where that edge might very well make the difference between the group surviving a battle with injured characters only and a tpk. Even moreso than at high levels.) There are soo many players out there who completely dismiss the bard as totally useless in combat at best and a pure joke class at worst. Which I don't understand. I consider it the one of the (if not the) most valuable classes you can have in a group. In and out of combat.

My point (also about subjective/objective) was, that some classes hit harder in direct combat or can take more damage. Thus appearing to be utterly superior at first. But even if they will win most one on one fights against a same level character of another class, that doesn't necessarily make them more valuable in combat. Unless you're one of those players who think that "useful character" equals to "personal body count". That's still, mind you, only taking direct combat into account. Not general problem solving. Because that's what this discussion started from.
As for the tiers you showed me, I'm not familiar with all the mentioned classes. And with those that I am, I do not agree with all classifications (I'd personally rate rogue, fighter, paladin and maybe the bard all one tier higher and the wizard pretty much as the only tier 1 class). But then that was to be expected, I haven't played the same groups and with the same players the contributors to that list did. Then again it might also be because I haven't yet played many high level campaings. Or the DMs I played with simply managed to create our challenges in a way that might have favoured various classes in some of the encounters, but overall made everyone's skills important.


The example I was hinting at, by the way, was from us facing a powerful necromancer in a room with a bottomless hole blocking all but two small corridors to the left and right and with a defensive spell against ranged attacks in place. For our winning tactic, the mage first turned the rogue invisible (who then sneaked off to behind the necromancer), then levitated the fighter across the hole while my ranger and the cleric held off any zombies the necromancer tried to send over the corridors against us.The cc-hitting power of the fighter combined with a sneak attack by the rogue did the job splendidly. Nothing complicated when it comes to tactics, I agree. But already an example of how hitting power alone wouldn't have helped us, since we would have had to fight our way over two small corridors while being under constant attack by the necromancer. Still doable but very likely accompanied by the death of two to three characters (in comparison to lightly wounded ranger, fighter and cleric). We did have an alternative plan that didn't make use of the mage other than as a distraction and maybe counterspells though. Instead using mainly the abilities of the ranger, cleric and rogue.

[taltamir]

Ah you misunderstood me to some degree there. I never considered or dismissed the bard as useless (or the ranger, cleric,...). I wanted to emphasize the bards ability to give the whole group an edge in combat even on the low levels (Where that edge might very well make the difference between the group surviving a battle with injured characters only and a tpk. Even moreso than at high levels.) There are soo many players out there who completely dismiss the bard as totally useless in combat at best and a pure joke class at worst. Which I don't understand. I consider it the one of the (if not the) most valuable classes you can have in a group. In and out of combat.

1. Useless classes are useless both in and out of combat. In fact they are worse OUT of combat then in.
2. Useless is not subjective, its objective.
3. So you ASSUMED that when I talked about useless classes I meant the bard and thus you pointed it out in such a focus while not viewing it as useless yourself, fine. Misunderstanding. But I never was talking about bard.
4. Bards are actually pretty high in usefulness and power.
5. There is a thing called "crunch vs fluff". People who put down clerics and bards do so on the basis of fluff, that is "it sounds stupid". And it does.
The crunch is the numbers, the objective examination of a class' power completely ignoring the fluff.
6. The most useful classes are tier 1 classes: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite (Spell to Power Variant). Bards are NOT amongst the MOST valueable. They are tier 3. However they are not useless. they are actually fairly good at tier 3.
7. Please read the tiers info already: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards ... topic=5293

My point (also about subjective/objective) was, that some classes hit harder in direct combat or can take more damage. Thus appearing to be utterly superior at first. But even if they will win most one on one fights against a same level character of another class, that doesn't necessarily make them more valuable in combat. Unless you're one of those players who think that "useful character" equals to "personal body count". That's still, mind you, only taking direct combat into account. Not general problem solving. Because that's what this discussion started from.

And your point is still wrong and still fails to knowledge that I have, from the beginning, made perfectly clear that usefulness is NOT just body count. For fucks sake go read the link I gave you.
You have no idea what you are talking about, there are forums that specialize in min maxing.. and NOT just for combat but ALSO for out of combat stuff. A tier is not just based on how powerful a class is in combat.

A worthless class is worthless in combat, and its worthless out of combat, its always an albatross (eg: the monk). Some classes are worthless in combat but useful out of, some classes are useful in combat but worthless out of.
But the big deal is that not all classes are created equal or even close to equal.

There is no shame in not knowing things, I also didn't know but I went and educated myself on the brilliant gameologist forums.

[Lukkai]

I had quite a long reply, that was unfortunately eaten by being logged out.

So a bit shorter this time: I never assumed you considering the bard useless. Merely commented on the fact that many players I know or met over the internet do so and that my opinion is completely different.

That bodycount doesn't equal usefullness is exactly what I've been saying for several messages now. But there are many players who still think so and consider anything not reaching a high bodycount a useless class or pure servants to their Great Hero. I'm not one of them though.

I did read the info about tiers you linked to. Have kept on reading on its background actually. And am becoming less and less convinced of its use. At first I simply had a few objections (rogue for example being a tier up in my opinion. Not that I played many myself, but have experienced many played by others). Then I stumbled across an explanation for the classification of a class that boiled down to "Is as strong as most tier 3 classes. But there is a tier 3 class that does the same even better. Therefore it is tier 4."
Hm... If it's as powerful as most tier 3 classes, shouldn't it be tier 3 nonetheless? And if that tier 3 class is really so much more powerful than most other tier 3 classes, shouldn't it be tier 2 instead?
Another explanation as for why a class was that strong, was an example of a newbie player playing it and doing exceptionally well. If you read it more closely, it became obvious that he did so by using the strengths of his class in a perfectly optimised way. Newbie player or not, an optimised character shouldn't be grounds to define the average power level of the class. The info text says so itself (but still it is used as such).
In the end, even with all the work and thought put into it, that list still rests upon the personal views and experiences of the contributing players. With not everyone's experiences and views making it into it. It's still a good tool, but it won't and can't be applied to every group without modifications. And quite often the tiers will not come into play until you near level 10. And the differences only becoming really troublesome after level 15. According not only to my personal experience but also the explanations that are grounds for the classification of many of the classes.
Truth be told, of all the groups I've played, not a lot went on long enough to go past level 14. Might be because my groups tend to play too many different campaigns and systems.

[taltamir]

Merely commented on the fact that many players I know or met over the internet do so and that my opinion is completely different.

Fluff vs crunch. The bard and cleric are fucktarded sounding and weaksauce in terms of the story (fluff)
But if you analyze the powers they are quite good. (crunch)

Hm... If it's as powerful as most tier 3 classes, shouldn't it be tier 3 nonetheless? And if that tier 3 class is really so much more powerful than most other tier 3 classes, shouldn't it be tier 2 instead?

It doesn't qualify as tier 2 though. The gulf between tier 3 and tier 2 is huge and massive. A tier 2 character breaks campaigns if played well and can only be reigned in by DM fiat and nerfs.

Another explanation as for why a class was that strong, was an example of a newbie player playing it and doing exceptionally well. If you read it more closely, it became obvious that he did so by using the strengths of his class in a perfectly optimised way. Newbie player or not, an optimised character shouldn't be grounds to define the average power level of the class. The info text says so itself (but still it is used as such).

Yes, it is possible to take a tier 1 class and play it worse then a tier 6... Although it is easier to recover.
The worlds worse wizard who wasted every single feat on useless junk can go copy a few useful spells and even without a single magic item dominate a party.
A cleric doesn't even have to do that since they can just prey for useful spells without learning them.

In the end, even with all the work and thought put into it, that list still rests upon the personal views and experiences of the contributing players. With not everyone's experiences and views making it into it.

Well sure, however experts have worked long and hard at it and they are accurate. I have personally gone there and argued many points and I was thoroughly schooled by them. For which I am glad, I learned a lot.

It's still a good tool, but it won't and can't be applied to every group without modifications. And quite often the tiers will not come into play until you near level 10. And the differences only becoming really troublesome after level 15. According not only to my personal experience but also the explanations that are grounds for the classification of many of the classes.
Truth be told, of all the groups I've played, not a lot went on long enough to go past level 14. Might be because my groups tend to play too many different campaigns and systems.

Oh no, the tiers are that awesome from much earlier on. Wizards for example are only worthless at level 1 if you are playing them wrong. check this out: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards ... pic=9749.0
Also check out this sample: http://www.co8.org/forum/showthread.php?t=8045

Just because individuals might be clueless about class optimizations doesn't mean this doesn't apply to some groups. it doesn't change the classes inherent power and flexibly.

Oh, and with meleer's my fav is abusing the fuck out of reach for a ton of AoOs. 3 feats for cleave (1 extra attack per killing blow once per round), great cleave (1 extra attack per killing blow, up to an infinite amount per round) and http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#combatReflexes (increase AoO per round from 1 to 1+Dexterity modifier)
Now get a large fighter (+1 square reach), equip with a spear or another reach weapon (+1 square reach) and cast enlarge person (+1 square reach). Whenever a normal opponent tries to engage you in melee they must go through 3 squares where you can reach them and they can't reach you. Giving you 3 attacks of opportunity against them (free attack that happen on THEIR turn). And these repeat every turn thanks to you moving around (5 ft step) to force more AoO and if they try fleeing they also trigger AoO... oh, and healing a downed ally... its hilarious

[TheLastOutlaw]

Just throwing this out there but combat is only one part of role playing abd a good character is more than just a collection of stats.

[taltamir]

Just throwing this out there but combat is only one part of role playing abd a good character is more than just a collection of stats.

This has nothing to do with our discussion as we both agreed on that point.
Reading it would show you that, clearly. Min/maxing and certain classes being worthless goes beyond combat. In fact combat is actually only a small part of it. Tier 3 classes are only good at one thing which is usually combat.
Tier 1 and 2 are world shattering out of combat