PDA

View Full Version : Base Class Tiers?



Macrovore
2010-01-26, 08:26 PM
Hey, guys.
It's been a while since I've been on the boards. I've started lurking again these last few weeks, but I haven't been an active poster since, well, before 4e came out. I'm an old-timer. though I wouldn't be considered so for just about ANYTHING else. Which brings me to my question:

What are the tiers for classes? I've heard you guys talk about tier 3, tier 2, and stuff like that, in the context of comparing relative levels of power between base classes (and possibly their release dates), but I have no baseline as to what classes belong in which levels. Can someone explain it to me? Or, even better, send me the thread in which it all got started (if there was one). Preferably, really, I'd like both. If'n it pleases the great and all-knowing Giantitp Boards.

-Your humble lurker,
Macrovore

Thurbane
2010-01-26, 08:27 PM
Brilliant Gameologists (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0)

GiantIP (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6383308)

Optimystik
2010-01-26, 09:12 PM
Preferably, really, I'd like both.

As you wish.

The tiers are a rough guideline as to the relative potential power of the various base classes available in D&D. (Generally 3.5.) I emphasize potential, because ultimately the power of a class depends on its player more than anything else.

They vary from campaign-warping levels of power (Tiers 1-2), to barely able to get by without significant assistance, both from the player, his party, and the DM (Tiers 5-6), with tiers 3 and 4 falling in between the two extremes.

The main guideline for a DM to take away from the system is that mixing tiers can be dangerous - you risk the players that have high-tier classes stealing the spotlight, while the low-tier ones feel as though they are barely contributing to the game. Thurbane's links suggest a number of fixes, ranging from restricting which classes players can pick, to providing bonuses to the lower tier classes to bring them up to par, to cutting the higher-tier classes off at the knees to "bring them in line."

The second message for a DM to take away, is how to challenge such parties - assuming equally skilled players, higher-tier parties can take on more difficult encounters than the lower ones.

arguskos
2010-01-26, 09:20 PM
Preferably, really, I'd like both.
Notably, the originator of the Tier system posts on these forums from time to time, under the name JaronK. If you really have in-depth questions, he's the dude to ask about 'em.

As for the Tier system itself, it's probably worth nothing that there are TWO now. There is JaronK's system (what you've seen referenced everywhere) and there is the Test of Spite Tiers, which Olo Demonsbane has somewhere. That one is much lesser known, and assumes a muuuuuch higher amount of optimization than almost any standard game does. EDIT: And here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7653810&postcount=304) is the ToS Tier System

JaronK
2010-01-26, 09:25 PM
At the base level, the tiers are a guideline to how much the mechanical abilities of a given class can influence the plot of the game. Weaker tier classes (Tier 5-6) generally require some help to follow the campaign plot line, for example a Fighter's mechanical abilities won't help him in non combat situations so a DM will have to do something to make him actually useful in those situations. Stronger tier classes (Tier 1-2) require either nerfing, gentleman's agreements, or other powering down to prevent them from leaving the plot entirely, for example a Wizard solving the mystery of who murdered the king by just casting Contact Other Plane instead of actually playing through it.

They're only a measure of the mechanical abilities though... to determine the actual power/versitility level of a character, you have to then factor in optimization level and the player's skill or knowledge of the class on top of their mechanical abilities. A Wizard played by someone who doesn't understand how to use their spells will be quite weak, while someone who's really going all out for power could make a very strong Monk, for example.

It's not, however, just raw numerical power or anything like that. It's about how a class's mechanical abilities can effect the world. The best explanation I have so far is here:

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.msg219984#msg219984

JaronK

sofawall
2010-01-26, 09:38 PM
Also, for ToS tiers, just a little bragging...



So the iconic Tier 0.5 build was made because you couldn't be bothered to actually work on your character? :smalleek:

Fail
2010-01-26, 09:54 PM
As for the Tier system itself, it's probably worth nothing that there are TWO now.Three. (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=106837) (Ignore Judging Eagle - he's talking about homebrew classes.)

Aneantir
2010-01-26, 11:31 PM
Also, for ToS tiers, just a little bragging...

Speak of the devil, on the topic of that particular build I was wondering if you happened to have a link to it. I've been searching for it for about a week now, but my google-fu is weak.

arguskos
2010-01-26, 11:35 PM
Three. (http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=106837) (Ignore Judging Eagle - he's talking about homebrew classes.)
Hmm. Not sure I call that a ranking system, but it IS interesting reading. Thanks for the direction.

imperialspectre
2010-01-27, 12:13 AM
The ToS tiers don't classify base classes, they classify builds. It's entirely possible for a wizard to end up in Tier 5 or 6 territory - preparing a bunch of core direct damage spells (like fireball and cone of cold) without metamagic optimization gets you thoroughly destroyed by the charger or VoP monkadin mentioned at Tier 4. The inverse is also true - a Warmarked build that Claudius introduced singlehandedly got some things nerfed almost immediately, but it would have been Tier 2-ish as a single-classed Barbarian.

Just clarifying that. :smallsmile:

ShippoWildheart
2010-01-27, 12:36 AM
Base Class Tiers:

Tier 1 (God Tier; The Big Cheese; can make the DM cry with the right spells or options): Wizard, Cleric, Druid

Tier 2 (Uber Tier; Can wreck stuff as much as Tier 1, but without the options/flexibility): Sorcerer

Tier 3 (Powerful Tier; powerful in their specialty, but not useless when being
challenged in other categories): Bard, Wildshape Variant Ranger

Tier 4 (Standard Tier; tends to have a specialty, but relatively useless outside of it; can rarely solve any encounter unless it's specifically made to, such as a Rogue Sneak Attacking the final boss to death): Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger

Tier 5 (Underpowered Tier; only good at one thing, or has trouble even being a jack-of-all-trades. Can't even do the one thing their good at very well): Fighter, Monk, Paladin

Tier 6 (Poor; fails at even the one thing they are able to do. Will force the DM to coddle these characters): Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner

Hope that helps

Gnaeus
2010-01-27, 09:01 AM
It is also worth noting that the tier system is based on a large number of assumptions which may or may not be true in your game. To give one example, a rogue is tier 4, because he can't spellcast and he can't cause meaningful damage to a large range of enemies (undead, constructs, etc.) In a world where he goes to the store and picks up his choice of swift action wands and weapon crystals, he is probably tier 3. In a world like ravenloft, where he is both lacking a magic mart and likely to face lots of undead and constructs, he could be tier 5. There are really a lot of factors that shift classes up or down the chart.

Prime32
2010-01-27, 09:25 AM
Note also that the power of some classes depend more on optimisation than others. Most of the Tier 1 classes are easy to screw up (a blaster wizard or a healbot cleric is probably more like Tier 4 or 5), but there's no real "wrong" way to play a warblade. For this reason, some DMs view the ToB classes as overpowered when none of the players know what they're doing.

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 09:28 AM
In a world like ravenloft, where he is both lacking a magic mart and likely to face lots of undead and constructs, he could be tier 5. There are really a lot of factors that shift classes up or down the chart.

Should be noted that there is a feat that lets Rogues do Sneak Attack vs. Undead and other things that are normally immune. :smallamused:

There's a bunch of things wrong with the Tier system. First, it assumes that Fighters need gear - and that's bad. Well, fine. I get all the gear I want. My Fighter becomes well, pretty good. Gets himself Mage Slayer and the like. And then off he goes.

Yet, at this point "Fighters need gear, and therefore suck.", you might say the same about Wizards "Wizards need spells, and therefore suck." If a Fighter doesn't have gear, he sucks (although he can still get Superior Unarmed Strike from ToB, which is always good). If a Wizard doesn't have scrolls to scribe from - or Hell, even a Spellbook at all - he becomes, well, not as good as he could be.
Clerics and Druids and other 'Spontaneous Learners' are still very good.

The Tier system goes out the window when;
1. Players start optimising. And other players don't.
2. You actually have to play the game from Level 1 to 20.
3. Players don't care and use 'What's best for the party' and actually try and work together and don't go actively, out of their way to screw over their supposed friends.
4. The DM doesn't hand out gear (including Spellbooks and Scrolls) at the amounts that he's supposed to or at less concentrations than the players would like/expect.
5. The monsters the DM puts into the game aren't affected by whatever schtick your character has.
6. Players start Multi Classing. Which they will.

Fail
2010-01-27, 09:32 AM
Hmm. Not sure I call that a ranking system, but it IS interesting reading. Thanks for the direction.You did read the 3 lists below the OP, right? As to it not being a single ranking: it can't be - iconic example being beguiler vs. sorcerer; is the "top" sorcerer power a lot above beguiler? Hell yes. What does that mean? Little - it's easy to produce a weak sorcerer and impossible to produce a beguiler that isn't quite strong; and even if you do something simple like picking every good (or even broken) sorcerer spell, well, the beguiler can UMD those and cleric/druid spells. Yay. That's why "easy to build" and "easy to break" have to be different. As for "easy to play", that should be obvious: the warblade/crusader, even if they aren't ever as good as a good wizard, they remain relevance while being quite easy to play - I mean, once you build them well, maneuvers tend to be self-explaining.

Sliver
2010-01-27, 09:38 AM
It's entirely possible for a wizard to end up in Tier 5 or 6 territory

It is also possible for the wizard to sell his spellbook, give away the money, punch people in melee and eat his familiar. Nothing can include all possibilities :smallbiggrin:

Amphetryon
2010-01-27, 09:48 AM
<snip> Little - it's easy to produce a weak sorcerer and impossible to produce a beguiler that isn't quite strong; and even if you do something simple like picking every good (or even broken) sorcerer spell, well, the beguiler can UMD those and cleric/druid spells. <snip>It's an undead-heavy campaign, and with DM-adjudication being more important for illusions than practically any other school of magic, they can be shockingly useless. Eliminate the Magic Mart - which is hardly a rare elimination, judging by the boards - and you've done the impossible, converting the beguiler into a Rogue with less skills and the ability to cast a whole bunch of spells that do nothing. Whee!

Fail
2010-01-27, 10:02 AM
It's an undead-heavy campaign, and with DM-adjudication being more important for illusions than practically any other school of magic, they can be shockingly useless. Eliminate the Magic Mart - which is hardly a rare elimination, judging by the boards - and you've done the impossible, converting the beguiler into a Rogue with less skills and the ability to cast a whole bunch of spells that do nothing. Whee!If you write the beguiler off existence, it ceases to exist, yes. So ... ?

Note: undead-heavy doesn't screw beguilers a lot, and nearly-null WBL doesn't at all remove the beguiler from being better than nearly every other class (in fact, it specifically writes off sorcerers having piles of staffs/scrolls, to keep the original comparison - and rogues ... cease to exist) - it's DMs (i.e. the kind of people that wants illusion useless) that provide the actual problem.

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 10:04 AM
it's DMs that provide the actual problem.

Oh...You mean actually playing the game with a DM makes the Tier system non-functional? :smallamused:


The Tier system goes out the window when;
1. Players start optimising. And other players don't.
2. You actually have to play the game from Level 1 to 20.
3. Players don't care and use 'What's best for the party' and actually try and work together and don't go actively, out of their way to screw over their supposed friends.
4. The DM doesn't hand out gear (including Spellbooks and Scrolls) at the amounts that he's supposed to or at less concentrations than the players would like/expect.
5. The monsters the DM puts into the game aren't affected by whatever schtick your character has.
6. Players start Multi Classing. Which they will.

Sliver
2010-01-27, 10:09 AM
It's an undead-heavy campaign, and with DM-adjudication being more important for illusions than practically any other school of magic, they can be shockingly useless. Eliminate the Magic Mart - which is hardly a rare elimination, judging by the boards - and you've done the impossible, converting the beguiler into a Rogue with less skills and the ability to cast a whole bunch of spells that do nothing. Whee!

The beguiler still has some good buff spells, and illusions work against mindless undead even better then against normal people, because they won't often attempt to interact with them..

Kurald Galain
2010-01-27, 10:16 AM
The Tier system goes out the window when;
1. Players start optimising. And other players don't.
2. You actually have to play the game from Level 1 to 20.
3. Players don't care and use 'What's best for the party' and actually try and work together and don't go actively, out of their way to screw over their supposed friends.
4. The DM doesn't hand out gear (including Spellbooks and Scrolls) at the amounts that he's supposed to or at less concentrations than the players would like/expect.
5. The monsters the DM puts into the game aren't affected by whatever schtick your character has.
6. Players start Multi Classing. Which they will.
Yeah, no. Most of what you state here isn't actually true.

Especially #4 isn't true (low-tier characters are more affected by loss of equipment than high-tier ones), neither is #5 (the point of high-tier characters is that they have more schticks, so that they can handle this), and neither is #3 (because the fact that some players don't mind doesn't change the fact that a casual druid can easily upstage a casual monk without even trying). #2 is a meaningless statement, and #6 is not nearly the given you make it out to be.

That leaves #1, which was already stated. Yes, effectivity depends more on player skill than on the class, we know that. So you score one out of six.

Fail
2010-01-27, 10:24 AM
Oh...You mean actually playing the game with a DM makes the Tier system non-functional? :smallamused:You know, those guys who call themselves Dungeon Masters and thus think anything other than dealing damage is wrong? Of course they hose beguilers. That said, where did I say "Tier system"? That's nonfunctional on its own - read my link above for what actually works.

InkEyes
2010-01-27, 10:32 AM
The Tier system goes out the window when;
1. Players start optimising. And other players don't.
2. You actually have to play the game from Level 1 to 20.
3. Players don't care and use 'What's best for the party' and actually try and work together and don't go actively, out of their way to screw over their supposed friends.
4. The DM doesn't hand out gear (including Spellbooks and Scrolls) at the amounts that he's supposed to or at less concentrations than the players would like/expect.
5. The monsters the DM puts into the game aren't affected by whatever schtick your character has.
6. Players start Multi Classing. Which they will.

That's the point though, isn't it? The tiers are about theoretical potential; a Wizard running in optimum conditions can devastate a campaign and an entire world with way more ease than a Barbarian. If there was a no-holds bar fight between a fully tricked-out Druid and a fully tricked-out Fighter, the Druid would always have an upper hand because he can cast spells on top of being a Dire Bear, with a Dire Bear Animal Companion, summoning an army of Dire Bears*. Any sensible DM that thought a campaign was in danger from an imbalance in the party's power level would hopefully be capable enough to correct it as he or she sees fit. The tier thing is just a way of spreading awareness to others about the depressingly large disparities between 3.5 D&D classes.

*Not that a tricked-out Druid would lower himself to such a pathetic creature as a Dire Bear.

mikej
2010-01-27, 10:49 AM
3. Players don't care and use 'What's best for the party' and actually try and work together and don't go actively, out of their way to screw over their supposed friends.


Emphasis on the bolded in my experience :smallmad:

I like the tier list. I feel it was put together nicely. In my experience with games that involve certain "tiers" that nobody is going to agree 100% of the time. Nobody like's to see thier whatever fav class lower than another. The tier list isn't the supreme authority of game balance between classes. It's just a tool used to help DM's better support and challenge thier players. Other factors add in, like who can optimize the best, or is campaign mainly role-play focus rather than combat.

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 11:01 AM
Especially #4 isn't true (low-tier characters are more affected by loss of equipment than high-tier ones)

Not especially. A low-level wizard 'Tier 1' loses his spellbook/focus or gets it Sundered (not only does he lose his spellbook, he loses all the spells he had in it), he's worse than useless. Since he also needs to eat and be protected by the rest of the party.
A Caster needs one item (+/- components). He loses it. Just one item. He's terrible. Or, at least not as good as they could be.

And DMs who doesn't hand out scrolls and spellbooks like candy only lets a Wizard get a whole two spells per level. Maybe some people could make 'two new spells a level' work, but, it wouldn't be Tier 1. And still having a 'Batman' quality that people ascribe to Wizards.

With the investment of a few feats (Unarmed Strike feats), a martial character no longer needs weapons. Armour can be achieved by having DEX and Uncanny Dodge, and/or taking a level in Monk with a couple of points in WIS (making Superior Unarmed Strike even better). And a bunch of other feats do alright - like Mage Slayer and Grapple feats.

A decent martial character might be able to lose a weapon. Maybe he can afford to lose his armour. But, a Fighter with no items is still better than a caster with no items/books/foci/components.


neither is #5 (the point of high-tier characters is that they have more schticks, so that they can handle this), and neither is #3 (because the fact that some players don't mind doesn't change the fact that a casual druid can easily upstage a casual monk without even trying).

Again, it would depend on the rest of the party. And what bases the party can and can't cover, and how much the Caster needs to spread his spells out between buffing (including buffing his party members), healing and blasting. And what magic items the 'adventuring' Caster has compared to an 'Arena' Caster.

A Monk with Superior Unarmed Strike becomes pretty good. Maybe some enlargement spells from the party buffer (because your group is working together, right?). And he's pretty scary.


#2 is a meaningless statement,

Maybe to you. A Wizard is very squishable before level 5. If you actually have to play the game, it's no point being a 'Tier 1' class if you never actually get to the power level you need to be at to be Tier 1. And, DMs know the power of casters.

Now, most DMs wont go out of their way to purposely screw with a caster. But, they will take a few steps to make them less powerful.
For example; You can't fly in a cave. For one (Don't say adventures don't happen in caves either).

The DM saying "F* it. I Improved Sunder your Spellbook." has only happened at my table once. But, I know there are more malicious DMs out there than the ones who sit at my table.


and #6 is not nearly the given you make it out to be.

Yes it is. I have never in my life seen a Fighter 20 outside of Arena 'Fighter vs. Wizard' battles. Which are already biased towards the Wizard anyway.

Just about all Core classes (except Druid, probably Cleric, and maybe Sorcerer) will multi out into another class or PrC before Level 10. Rogues might stay until level 12. And it's pretty much guaranteed that a Fighter will multi out by 4th or 6th and rarely 8th.

Non-Core Base Classes might not multi out. But, they often do.

So, again, if you actually have to play the game. With a DM who knows what they're doing, the Tier system goes out the window.

Kurald Galain
2010-01-27, 11:04 AM
So, again, if you actually have to play the game. With a DM who knows what they're doing, the Tier system goes out the window.
You know, arbitrarily or vengefully destroying the wizard's spellbook doesn't strike me as the hallmark of a DM who knows what he's doing.

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 11:12 AM
You know, arbitrarily or vengefully destroying the wizard's spellbook doesn't strike me as the hallmark of a DM who knows what he's doing.

It wasn't arbitrarily. Hill Giants have Rock Throwing to cancel the advantage of flight. And Improved Sunder on their Feat list. Hill Giant over-runs the Meatshield (good and bad rolls on the respective sides). Rolls well. Smashes the Wizard's Spellbok in half. Totally legit tactic. For a DM who knows that they're doing.

Like I said, it's only happened once. And, I don't think it was vengeful?

Optimystik
2010-01-27, 11:18 AM
Maybe to you. A Wizard is very squishable before level 5. If you actually have to play the game, it's no point being a 'Tier 1' class if you never actually get to the power level you need to be at to be Tier 1. And, DMs know the power of casters.

Now, most DMs wont go out of their way to purposely screw with a caster. But, they will take a few steps to make them less powerful.
For example; You can't fly in a cave. For one.

The problem with high Tiers - any measures you take to limit them, will either be obviously biased, or limit everyone equally. To use your cave example, the wizard cannot fly now - but he can still walk through the cave walls, and breathe in his rope trick if he gets caught in a cave-in. He can hop off to another plane if he's well and truly trapped, or summon something to dig him out, or even turn into something that can burrow himself.

A fighter can do none of these. He can hit the walls (really hard) - but that's it.

As for "actually playing the game from 1 to 20" - Druids, Clerics and Archivists all do this much better than a fighter as well.

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 11:21 AM
As for "actually playing the game from 1 to 20" - Druids, Clerics and Archivists all do this much better than a fighter as well.

But nobody plays a straight-fighter 'til 20. :smallannoyed:
That's why the Tier system is wrong. It compares Wizard 20s with Fighter 20s. When that never even happens.

And adventuring in a cave/tunnel/indoors is not biased. That stuff happens on a regular basis whether or not a Flight-capable character is around.

Killer Angel
2010-01-27, 11:21 AM
It wasn't arbitrarily. Hill Giants have Rock Throwing to cancel the advantage of flight. And Improved Sunder on their Feat list. Hill Giant over-runs the Meatshield (good and bad rolls on the respective sides). Rolls well. Smashes the Wizard's Spellbok in half. Totally legit tactic. For a DM who knows that they're doing.

Like I said, it's only happened once. And, I don't think it was vengeful?

:smallconfused:
so... the wizard, after studying all his spells in the morning, goes to fight heldin his book in hand, and not in his backpack? Did you sunder the backpack?
Or the hill giant ambushed the group while the wiz. was studying? for in this case, you could even attack when the fighter is washing at the stream, without armor.

EDIT: btw, the hill giant is very smart, to sunder a book... not counting the fact that he don't have any advantage from that, in the combat he's involved. :smallannoyed:


But nobody plays a straight-fighter 'til 20.
That's why the Tier system is wrong. It compares Wizard 20s with Fighter 20s. When that never even happens.


Tier system is valid also at lower levels. is not the perfect evaluation tool, but is pretty solid.

Gnaeus
2010-01-27, 11:26 AM
Should be noted that there is a feat that lets Rogues do Sneak Attack vs. Undead and other things that are normally immune. :smallamused:

A feat which may or may not be in play in a specific game due to book availability. A feat which an unoptimized rogue may not know to take.


There's a bunch of things wrong with the Tier system. First, it assumes that Fighters need gear - and that's bad. Well, fine. I get all the gear I want. My Fighter becomes well, pretty good. Gets himself Mage Slayer and the like. And then off he goes.

Yet, at this point "Fighters need gear, and therefore suck."

Well, not really. Fighters are in tier 5 not because they need gear to function. They are in tier 5 because they are not as effective at all levels of optimization as the Barbarian. Something like a core sword and board or TWF fighter may not function well even in its niche. Optimization can shift characters up or down one rank. An optimized fighter would be in tier 4, which is as it should be, since tier 4 can indicate a character with a single powerful ability (like an archer, charger, or chain tripper), who is useless or near useless if that ability isn't relevant.


you might say the same about Wizards "Wizards need spells, and therefore suck." If a Fighter doesn't have gear, he sucks (although he can still get Superior Unarmed Strike from ToB, which is always good). If a Wizard doesn't have scrolls to scribe from - or Hell, even a Spellbook at all - he becomes, well, not as good as he could be.

Well, yes, the wizards having access to spellbooks is another assumption JaronK makes. I think it is a pretty good assumption on his part. The wizard having scrolls is NOT such an assumption (although I think casters do get points in his mental arithmatic for being able to make items if needed). A wizard who only learns 2 spells per level is still tier1/high tier 2.


The Tier system goes out the window when;
1. Players start optimising. And other players don't.

Actually, the tier system is pretty good about this. Optimization roughly equals +/- 1 tier. Superior play skill can have similar effects. So a Monk or Fighter with a good build, playing to its class strengths, can be more effective than a rogue, ranger or barbarian who isn't doing those things. A rogue, well built and played can beat a beguiler or factotum who isn't, etc.


2. You actually have to play the game from Level 1 to 20.

No. In fact, the highest levels were the least weighted in the tier system. I think it looked at mid levels as most important, then 1-5, then high levels as least. I can't remember the exact ranges without checking threads.


3. Players don't care and use 'What's best for the party' and actually try and work together and don't go actively, out of their way to screw over their supposed friends.

Thats pretty much totally irrelevant. Druid outperforms monk whether they are lifemates or backstabbers awaiting the first chance to strike. One thing the tier system IS good for is recognizing "Hmm, my character is way over the others in power. I should plan my actions to maximize their strengths and so as not to eclipse them"


4. The DM doesn't hand out gear (including Spellbooks and Scrolls) at the amounts that he's supposed to or at less concentrations than the players would like/expect.

Yeah, that might be +/- 1 tier for certain classes. Generally, the 3+ tiers have little/no gear dependency, and the 4/5 level has quite a bit, but the specifics are important.


5. The monsters the DM puts into the game aren't affected by whatever schtick your character has.

Actually, thats what the tier system is all about, really. It could be simplified into

T1: every schtick
T2: several good schticks
T3: never without a schtick
T4: 1 good schtick
T5: 1 not-so-good schtick
T6: lacking a schtick


6. Players start Multi Classing. Which they will.

It would be impossible to rate every possible character combination. But if you look at the tiers of the classes, you can get a pretty good guess on the tier of the build.

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-27, 11:27 AM
It wasn't arbitrarily. Hill Giants have Rock Throwing to cancel the advantage of flight. And Improved Sunder on their Feat list. Hill Giant over-runs the Meatshield (good and bad rolls on the respective sides). Rolls well. Smashes the Wizard's Spellbok in half. Totally legit tactic. For a DM who knows that they're doing.

Like I said, it's only happened once. And, I don't think it was vengeful?Why did the giant do that? It's not like the book should have been obvious, seeing as it's in an extra-dimensional space. And it's not like doing that actually makes the Wizard any less dangerous to the hill giant. I do think that was likely the DM being vengeful, since it makes no sense from the giant's perspective.

And low-magic campaigns don't limit the Wizard. Elven Generalist+Collegiate Wizard gives you 5 spells per level-up, 10 spells of each spell level. If you can't make that work, there's a problem.

Optimystik
2010-01-27, 11:31 AM
But nobody plays a straight-fighter 'til 20. :smallannoyed:
That's why the Tier system is wrong. It compares Wizard 20s with Fighter 20s. When that never even happens.

Adding PrCs makes things worse, not better. While the Fighter is branching out to... Kensai? Weapon Master?... the Wizard is grabbing Archmage, Malconvoker, Iot7FV, or a theurge class of some kind, and widening the gap further.

And even if you rule that Fighters can PrC/multiclass, Wizards can't - the pure Wizard is STILL stronger.


And adventuring in a cave/tunnel/indoors is not biased. That stuff happens on a regular basis whether or not a Flight-capable character is around.

Right, which is why I used that as the NON-BIASED example. Read my post again.

Gnaeus
2010-01-27, 11:32 AM
A Monk with Superior Unarmed Strike becomes pretty good. Maybe some enlargement spells from the party buffer (because your group is working together, right?). And he's pretty scary.

That is actually a really good example of the tier system WORKING. A tier 5 monk, with optimization and good play, becomes a tier 4 capable melee combatant.

Artanis
2010-01-27, 11:55 AM
Regarding optimization: HE COVERS THAT. He comes right out and says that different levels of optimization will change classes' relative tiers. It's right there in the first post:


Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level.

So all the arguments about optimization in this thread are totally moot because it's already covered.

---

Now, as for multiclassing:


But nobody plays a straight-fighter 'til 20. :smallannoyed:
That's why the Tier system is wrong. It compares Wizard 20s with Fighter 20s. When that never even happens.

No he doesn't. He covers multiclassing in the third post:



Generally speaking, a mix of classes should end up being as high up as the most powerful class in the mix if it's optimized, or somewhere in the middle of the classes used if not very optimized, and below them both if it's really strangely done.

*elaboration as to why*

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 11:58 AM
so... the wizard, after studying all his spell in the morning, goes to fight heldin his book in hand, and not in his backpack? Did you sunder the backpack?

It was tied to his belt. As part of a 'People will see it, they'll know I'm a mage and stay clear' thing. That's not what happened once we had to deal with monsters. Social encounters went fine though.


Or the hill giant ambushed the group while the wiz. was studying? for in this case, you could even attack when the fighter is washing at the stream, without armor.

The DM could've done that. But, as I said; This 'attack' wasn't malicious on the DM's part. We were sent to deal with Giants...And the giants dealt with us instead. :smallmad:
I also chalk it up to good rolling on the DM's part (our group hates 'Fiats' so the DM has to roll in front of us) and bad rolls on our part.

But, the DM knew what he was doing, and took a chance on Sundering an object. And succeeded. Then the Wizard was completely useless for the next few days having no spells. Wheras when the party got captured and all our items stripped (because we got our arses kicked), the Monk and the Fighter-based characters began to shine.


Adding PrCs makes things worse, not better. While the Fighter is branching out to... Kensai? Weapon Master?

To maximise Unarmed Attacks/Nakedness, probably Reaping Mauler.

Still, I prefer Occult Slayer.
Or Halfling Outrider (which can be used indoors/in tunnels/caves)
Gnome Giant-Slayer
Blade Bravo (one of my favourites)
Storm Talon
Rogue 1 / Fighter 4 can get Whisperknife.


... the Wizard is grabbing Archmage, Malconvoker, Iot7FV, or a theurge class of some kind, and widening the gap further.

This is true. It's also known that those classes are some of the most broken classes in the game. Not 'really good'. Broken good.

However, the point I'm trying to make is that the Tier system is not absolute and half the time isn't even valid. In the actual games (rather than theoretical games) I've been playing recently (where we all are fairly good optimisers, even on a bad day), and the DM knows what he's doing; The Tier system means nothing. And, more than once has my Monk-orientated character out-performed the Wizard.

This is because we're not playing at Level 20. I know fully well that by Level 16 or 17 there's no chance to catch the Wizard (even with only the handful of scrolls/spellbooks the DM lets him find). However, I also know, that the campaign we're currently in wont go for much longer.

Again, if you actually play the game. Practically, and not theoretically. Things are much different to what gets written down on the 'net.


And even if you rule that Fighters can PrC/multiclass, Wizards can't - the pure Wizard is STILL stronger.

Maybe in an arena. But, that's not how the party-based game works. As much as I'd love to defend more against that point, I'd have to say 'Maybe'. Since I know for a fact that Wizards are the single-most most-optimised class people talk about. And it would take a much better optimiser than me to do that.

No. I've never built an Ubercharger in my life. Because in a game where a DM exists and not 'permanent, flat ground as far as the eye can see', an ubercharger just doesn't work.

Artanis
2010-01-27, 12:10 PM
However, the point I'm trying to make is that the Tier system is not absolute and half the time isn't even valid. In the actual games (rather than theoretical games) I've been playing recently (where we all are fairly good optimisers, even on a bad day), and the DM knows what he's doing; The Tier system means nothing. And, more than once has my Monk-orientated character out-performed the Wizard.

And the point I'm trying to make is that he covers all that. Repeatedly.

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 12:14 PM
And the point I'm trying to make is that he covers all that. Repeatedly.

If we're agreed that the Tier system isn't absolute, why were people attacking my arguments questioning me again? I'm slightly confused. :smallconfused:

Sstoopidtallkid
2010-01-27, 12:15 PM
It was tied to his belt. As part of a 'People will see it, they'll know I'm a mage and stay clear' thing. That's not what happened once we had to deal with monsters. Social encounters went fine though.Poor play can drop someone several tiers. Heck, an empty spellbook costs 100 GP. Why didn't he use one of those instead? A Spellbook is vital to the character, you protect it, you don't leave it in the open.

And again, the Giant wasted an entire turn eliminating something that didn't affect combat in the slightest. That's very out-of-character.


But, the DM knew what he was doing, and took a chance on Sundering an object. And succeeded. Then the Wizard was completely useless for the next few days having no spells. Wheras when the party got captured and all our items stripped (because we got our arses kicked), the Monk and the Fighter-based characters began to shine.You know what a Wizard has to do to escape prison? Be able to speak and have Dimension Door prepared. That's all. A Fighter or Monk has to be able to move, get out of a locked room, and fight his way past a large number of guards without gear. Yes, if the Wizard want's to rescue the other party members, it gets harder, but that's because the other party members can't do it on their own the way the Wizard can.


...I was thinking Occult Slayer.
Or Halfling Outrider (which can be used indoors/in tunnels/caves)
Gnome Giant-Slayer (one of my favourites)
Blade Bravo
Storm Talon
Rogue 1 / Fighter 4 can get Whisperknife.

This is true. It's also known that those classes are some of the most broken classes in the game. Not 'really good'. Broken good.PrCs are harder to evaluate, but you're admitting that the Wizard is broken-good with the right PrCs, while the Fighter isn't. What's that say to you? Because to me, it says the Wizard is stronger to start with.


However, the point I'm trying to make (and what people seem to be agreeing with me now on) is that the Tier system is not absolute. In the games I've been playing recently (where we all are fairly good optimisers, even on a bad day), and the DM knows what he's doing; The Tier system means nothing. And, more than once has my Monk-orientated character out-performed the Wizard.No, it's not absolute. A lot depends on the builds and play style. But it's a good rough guide to how capable a class can be, and a good rule of thumb for what classes you shouldn't allow in a game together.


This is because we're not playing at Level 20. I know fully well that by Level 16 or 17 there's no chance to catch the Wizard (even with only the handful of scrolls/spellbooks the DM lets him find). However, I also know, that the campaign we're currently in wont go for much longer.There have been a lot of comparisons made between a Druid's pet dog and a Fighter at level 1. Generally, the dog loses. Adding in a Flank from the Druid, however, means the dog wins. The pet dog.


Again, if you actually play the game. Practically, and not theoretically. Things are much different to what gets written down on the 'net.I have, too. I've seen a monk player really upset when he realized he couldn't do much of anything to most opponents. I've seen Wizards that mae entire types of encounters useless. I've seen a Dread Necromancer be the only viable party member inside an AMF. Don't say that I don't play the game.

Doc Roc
2010-01-27, 12:15 PM
So. I don't normally weigh in on this. But I have a tremendous amount of experience regarding optimization. I'm going to be blunt.

Cheesegear, you are wrong.
The tier system is not a figment, it's what's called a model. Models are inherently imperfect. Particularly ones as simplified as a five-level gradient designed to "represent" a relatively unbiased assessment of the core abilities of a base class.

It's not perfectly right, but it's not very far off base.

The fighter does not in any way keep parity with a wizard, except in a single area: Damage.
This is not enough. The game is broken. Christ, guys, it's not even being published anymore. Do you think we could argue about obvious stuff a little less?

Optimystik
2010-01-27, 12:15 PM
If we're agreed that the Tier system isn't absolute, why were people attacking my arguments questioning me again? I'm slightly confused. :smallconfused:

Because nobody ever claimed it was absolute? Rendering your whole argument rather meaningless.

Kurald Galain
2010-01-27, 12:25 PM
If we're agreed that the Tier system isn't absolute, why were people attacking my arguments questioning me again? I'm slightly confused. :smallconfused:
People are addressing your arguments because most of your arguments are incorrect or fallacious.

For instance, it is false that the tier system breaks down as soon as the DM uses a monster not affected by your "schtick", because the tier system is not a means of ranking schticks. It is a means of ranking how many schticks a class has. The fighter has one schtick, so he is screwed when encountering a situation not involving that schtick (which the DM can easily do even by accident). The sorcerer easily has twenty schticks, so it is highly unlikely that he encounters a situation wherein none of them work. And that is why the sorcerer is higher-tier than the fighter.

Doc Roc
2010-01-27, 12:33 PM
Okay, so additional materials.

In the test of spite, we have seen no tier 2-or-higher builds that mainlined fighter. In fact, I'm not sure we've seen more than one or two tier 3 builds. Mind you, the ToS tier system is mostly empirical in nature and uses a different valuation for tier worth and meaning.

In fact, fighter is so bad that it's the first one we replaced.

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 12:36 PM
Cheesegear, you are wrong.
The tier system is not a figment, it's what's called a model. Models are inherently imperfect.

It's not perfectly right, but it's not very far off base.

I accept the existence of the Tiers. And I'm saying, that as long as I have known about the Tiers, and for as long as I have been playing 3.5, the games have not worked out as the Tiers suggest that it should.

Fighter- and Monk-based characters have not been 'Totally Crap', not even when in the same party as a Wizard and Cleric.
(However the Samurai has always sucked)

In theory, I recognise that if the Wizard is Level 15+, given access to every spell he could wish for, and has access to every magic item that boots his INT that he wants, gives him extra Spell Slots/Storing and has downtime for crafting any item he can't find for himself; Yes, the Wizard is brokenly, and stupidly powerful. Even without PrCs.

But, that's not how the game works. Thus, the Tiers are flawed in a massive, massive way. Being either 'sort of wrong', or even just being outright irrelevant.


The fighter does not in any way keep parity with a wizard, except in a single area: Damage.

Not a pure Fighter, no. But, Fighter/Barbarian, Fighter/Paladin and PrCs and races (i.e; Raptoran) and, maybe even the occasional acquired template (because that happens sometimes) gives Martial characters access to social skills, self-buffs, SLAs or Ex abilities and a whole host of things to 'bring them up to speed'. Giving them more than one role of 'just doing damage'. Because the game of D&D is about more than that.

In a game, with a DM, and chance (the dice rolls), a Caster does not always out-perform the rest of the party.

Test of Spite appears to be an Arena, and not relevant in what I'm talking about. I'm talking about playing the actual, D&D game, where social skills and other things come into play. Not a straight-out duel. Because a properly-built caster should nearly always win those.

See any 'Fighter vs. Wizard' thread. That's not how the real game works.

Doc Roc
2010-01-27, 12:45 PM
And the part where I brutally murdered a level 20 fighter with full WBL using a level 13 wizard? And spent less than half my spells doing it?

That's not the real game? According to my EL calculator, my chance of winning that in an actual encounter was 0%. Our dungeon runs have also indicated that there is a serious class gap in non-arena play. It's a little more narrow, but not a lot. So I do agree that in most actual play, the tiers are more narrow. That said, a lot of what you are talking about isn't mechanical in nature, it's more a matter of gentleman's agreements.

I get the feeling that the only real game you will acknowledge is your game. My experience as a GM, a player, an Arena ref, and a module designer is that you need to consider the possibility that we aren't just blowing smoke, dude.

Gnaeus
2010-01-27, 12:48 PM
In a game, with a DM, and chance (the dice rolls), a Caster does not always out-perform the rest of the party.

1. Tiers don't mean that you "always outperform the rest of the party." Tier 1-3 don't have a huge power difference. Tier 3s can Shapechange, Time Stop and Wish just like tier 1s with the right builds. Tiers are more about options. I have never seen a well built tier 1 without something useful to do in combat after about level 3 or 4. I have seen melee standing around useless because they can't hit the enemy, rogues unable to do effective damage in 3-4 fights in a row because of SA fail, tier 3s who didn't have spells that were usable in given situations, etc...

2. It depends a lot on the party also. I played in a party once with a druid and some badly built melees. The druid always outperformed the rest of the party. Consistently from level 5-level 12. It didn't stop until character rebuilds raised the melees by a couple of tiers.

Doc Roc
2010-01-27, 12:55 PM
Let me ask three questions:

How does your fighter deal with Solid Fog being dropped on him, in a level appropriate way?
How does your fighter deal with a contingency of dimension door?
How does your fighter deal with improved invisibility?

If you can't answer all three of those with the same build in core by 11th, then you are going to die with great regularity without someone who can in your party. So a single wizard forces a huge net option cost. Think Think Think!

Gnaeus
2010-01-27, 01:08 PM
These are some of the things that the tier system does with some degree of accuracy.

1. It gives the DM a good assessment of comparative power in the party so that he can challenge the strong characters and go easy on the weaker ones.

2. It gives PCs a good assessment of comparative power in the party so that stronger PCs can go out of their way to let the weaker ones contribute.

3. It serves as a convenient shorthand for forum debate. If I say that I have a Tier 3-4 party it gives all experienced posters an idea what I mean. If I design a custom class or a fighter/monk fix and ask if it is balanced we don't have to re-invent the wheel every time to answer the question "balanced against whom?" We just say "What tier do you want it to be?"

4. It gives a lot of information to people building characters. It reduces threads like "what is stronger, paladin or cleric?". If I have never played Tome of Battle, and I am wondering if it is broken, or weak, or too much for my group, I can look at the tier chart and see that it is roughly on a power level with other classes in play, without having to build one and experiment with it to find that it is too strong or weak for my group. If I am in a group and I see that my monk is to weak for play in that party and I want to reroll, it gives me an idea of what classes would be more equal in power with other guys on my team.

It DOESN'T and SHOUDN'T mean that you can't play with a T1 and a T5, or that T1 is broken or T5 is underpowered, or that if you do play in such a group that the T5 is by default useless. It doesn't make any qualitative assessments about which classes or mixes of classes are good or bad.

It is filled with JaronK's assumptions, which may or may not be true to your game. It often has to be modified for playstyle. While the model is good, it is weak around the edges, so we could argue for hours if a given class should actually be up or down a tier.

Kurald Galain
2010-01-27, 01:10 PM
Fighter- and Monk-based characters have not been 'Totally Crap', not even when in the same party as a Wizard and Cleric.
It seems you are again misunderstanding what tiers mean. Being a bottom-tier character is not nearly the same as being "totally crap", being a top-tier character does not mean that you "always out-perform the rest of the party", and neither do the tiers assume level 15, "access to every spell he could wish for" and so forth.

Overall, you appear not to be arguing against "tiers" as described in the links, but against something else that nobody else here is talking about.

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 01:18 PM
And the part where I brutally murdered a level 20 fighter with full WBL using a level 13 wizard? And spent less than half my spells doing it?

Yep. I believe you. When a Wizard is actively trying to kill a Fighter (and a near-useless 20 Levels worth of Fighter, that is), he can do it. I've done it myself multiple times.


That's not the real game?

It's an Arena. You're designed to kill your opponent. There's no need to talk. There's no need to walk around. There's even no need to eat. It's not a party of adventurers fighting the hordes of undead.

Its 'You and Him fight'. You know what's happening. There's no GM to spring traps on you (or there normally isn't). There's no ambush (because a Fighter-character can't do that) there's no multiple opponents to flank you and all 'round generally screw you over.


I get the feeling that the only real game you will acknowledge is your game.

No. I just don't acknowledge duels. Not in a literal sense anyway. Or things that never happen in actual character design. Like Fighter 20? I don't understand why anyone would choose to do that given a choice. Which, most people do have. And if they didn't have a choice of multiclassing, I doubt they'd pick Fighter at all.


you need to consider the possibility that we aren't just blowing smoke, dude.

I know. I have seen Arena threads. I've seen CharOp boards. I've seen more 'Fighter vs. Wizard' threads than I can count. Hell, maybe that Level ~12 Wizard I saw kill the Level 20 Fighter was even yours? In direct competition, where a Wizard has near-literally anything he wants, there's no contest.


How does your fighter deal with Solid Fog being dropped on him, in a level appropriate way?
How does your fighter deal with a contingency of dimension door?
How does your fighter deal with improved invisibility?

In Core, in an Arena setting, Level-Appropriately, he can't. Arena settings are mostly stacked against the Fighter anyway. That's why I don't usually pay a whole lot of attention to them.


Now, that said, I do agree that in most actual play, the tiers are more narrow.

Which is what I've been saying. And sometimes the Tiers are actually flat-out wrong. Depending on what gear your DM chooses (or even rolls, which is usually worse) to give you and what monsters he puts in front of you.


That said, a lot of what you are talking about isn't mechanical in nature, it's more a matter of gentleman's agreements.

Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. Since in a real game, you have to make the compromise between 'super-awesome-raw-power' and roleplaying capability. In an Arena, there's no point to roleplay. No point in diversifying your skills aside from whatever kills the most stuff the fastest.

And, even the one time where we all decided to be power-playing munchkins, the DM decided he would too. My character in that session ended up being a Mage Slaying Occult Slayer Mettle-using Mage Killer of Doom. Who, when combined with his Mage-Friend who cast Dimensional Anchor - a lot - tended to goo most things put up in front of us. Leaving the other three of the party behind.

Point being, in a game, with a party, against even a semi-hateful DM, a Wizard without a Meatshield is dead. And, conversely, a Meatshield without a Wizard (or Cleric/Druid) is dead. At least until higher levels ~16, at which point the guy playing the meatshield packs it in and plays a Caster. Or plays the Wizard's crafted super-Golem.

Gnaeus
2010-01-27, 01:41 PM
In Core, in an Arena setting, Level-Appropriately, he can't. Arena settings are mostly stacked against the Fighter anyway. That's why I don't usually pay a whole lot of attention to them.

He didn't say anything about an arena setting. He threw out 3 things that could happen in an adventure. Your disdain for arena results is irrelevant.


Which is what I've been saying. And sometimes the Tiers are actually flat-out wrong. Depending on what gear your DM chooses (or even rolls, which is usually worse) to give you and what monsters he puts in front of you.

Yes, a good DM can challenge all the members of the party by throwing up appropriate monsters. But to DO that he has to recognize which PCs are the power players and need to be challenged. For that he needs the Tier system, or some other mental equivalent.



Sometimes it is. Sometimes it isn't. Since in a real game, you have to make the compromise between 'super-awesome-raw-power' and roleplaying capability. In an Arena, there's no point to roleplay. No point in diversifying your skills aside from whatever kills the most stuff the fastest.

Which is not what the Tier system measures at all. If I made super stab you in the eye guy, who always went first and always hit people in the eye for 1d8x10,000 damage, he would be pretty good in an arena. In the Tier system he would be a tier 4. A one trick pony useless against things without eyes.

One way to view the tier system is, how would this class fare in three separate different kinds of encounters (the example used was: 1. A dragon in a cave 2. a natural obstacle like a chasm or a river, 3. a powerful enemy army.)
A tier 1 can win all 3.
A tier 2 can maybe win all 3, or some, or none, depending on his spells.
A tier 3 can probably win some, and will be useful to a party in all 3.
A tier 4 can maybe win 1 or 2, but may be useless in others.
A tier 5 is unlikely to win any.


Point being, in a game, with a party, against even a semi-hateful DM, a Wizard without a Meatshield is dead. And, conversely, a Meatshield without a Wizard (or Cleric/Druid) is dead. At least until higher levels ~16, at which point the guy playing the meatshield packs it in and plays a Caster. Or plays the Wizard's crafted super-Golem.

The tier system does not say that tier 1s should adventure alone. It doesn't say that having parties with people of diverse skills is not a good thing. What it says is that a wizard/cleric/druid can almost always contribute to any encounter, whereas a fighter/monk/knight may not be able to. If I am playing a wizard, I WANT a meatshield, but I would rather have a druid/crusader/warblade meatshield that I don't have to babysit.

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 02:24 PM
He didn't say anything about an arena setting. He threw out 3 things that could happen in an adventure.

My mistake. Still, anyway, a Pure Fighter, by himself, level-appropriately, he can't do much against Solid Fog (except hope that his BAB is really high), or Contingency'd DimDoors or Improved Invisibilty.

That's why a Pure Fighter doesn't work. It's why Occult Slayer is good.


Yes, a good DM can challenge all the members of the party by throwing up appropriate monsters. But to DO that he has to recognize which PCs are the power players and need to be challenged. For that he needs the Tier system, or some other mental equivalent.

But we've always known that Casters were absurdly powerful. Even before the Tier system. We knew Casters were overpowered in 2nd Ed. when they needed extra XP to move up levels. No-one needs the Tier system. It's helpful. But, it's not really anything we didn't already know about before.


Which is not what the Tier system measures at all. If I made super stab you in the eye guy, who always went first and always hit people in the eye for 1d8x10,000 damage, he would be pretty good in an arena. In the Tier system he would be a tier 4. A one trick pony useless against things without eyes.

Yeah. Exactly. Which is why I don't make Ubercharger builds. But, that's what PrCs do. They take your Level 4-6 Fighter and they diversify him into almost anything you could possibly want him to do, especially anything found in later-published books which are more up to snuff.


What it says is that a wizard/cleric/druid can almost always contribute to any encounter, whereas a fighter/monk/knight may not be able to.

And, as I've said, I haven't found that to be the case. A Fighter always carries a decent bow to deal with flying stuff. If he can, at some stage, get himself a flying mount, even better. A Fighter, ASAP, gets something that gives him Freedom of Movement and +Will and defenses vs Charm/Dominate. And a Helm of True Seeing or something. Once you have a proper gear set (much like when a Wizard has all his proper spells, as well as the magic items he needs on top of spells), and you've multi'd out into a decent PrC, there's really no reason why you can't contribute to any encounter.

Unless the Wizard has gone and multi'd out into one of the brokenly good PrCs. But, usually that sort of thing is discussed beforehand, and if you already know your Wizard is planning on being an Iot7FV, then you already know that you should be playing an Artificer and you should be churning out items for your Wizard friend.

Or grab ToB. Of course.

A Wizard is only as useful as the spells he has acquired - and woe betide him if he loses his book. He might have heaps of spells, he might have found none and then he only has two spells per spell level, plus a few extra 0th and Level 1s (what a wizard has when he finds no scrolls/books in his lifetime, and hasn't spent hours on spell research). Which is still alright, but, he's a lot less 'Batman' than he should be.

Just like a Fighter is only as good as his gear. Which replicate spells more often than not. Except that as well as spells, a Wizard also needs gear as well.

But, Clerics and Druids and other classes that get their spells for free...Yeah...

Doc Roc
2010-01-27, 02:32 PM
{Scrubbed}

Artanis
2010-01-27, 02:33 PM
But we've always known that Casters were absurdly powerful. Even before the Tier system. We knew Casters were overpowered in 2nd Ed. when they needed extra XP to move up levels. No-one needs the Tier system. It's helpful. But, it's not really anything we didn't already know about before.

Nobody with your level of skill. But there are DMs out there who aren't experts, and benefit from the sort of tool that (at least JaronK's) tier system is intended to be.

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 02:42 PM
Occult slayer does nothing about any of those. Your kung fu is weak.

That wasn't in reference to the three spells. Probably could've been clearer. Occult Slayer covers holes in a Fighter's defense and mitigates the need for gear.

Sliver
2010-01-27, 02:47 PM
That wasn't in reference to the three spells. Probably could've been clearer. Occult Slayer covers holes in a Fighter's defense and mitigates the need for gear.

If you say "Fighter can't do anything against that" in one line, and in the next "That's why a Pure Fighter doesn't work. It's why Occult Slayer is good", don't be surprised when people read it as if it was in reference to that and not something unrelated you didn't mention in between. :smalltongue:

Frosty
2010-01-27, 02:47 PM
Item of Freedom of Movement? Helm of True seeing? You do realize to get both of these things would take up MOST of a level 15 character's WBL right? What are you going to do until then?

Even with PrC (some of which are very nice and fighters SHOULD multiclass out) you just don't have the number of options that most full casters have. This is why Tome of Battle gets a higher tier rating. They have more options than a multiclassed fighter who didn't dip into ToB.

Gametime
2010-01-27, 02:54 PM
A good DM will not have large disparities between power levels in his campaign. This is because a good DM will provide scenarios in which all of the party members can contribute meaningfully. A good DM will provide advice to strengthen weaker characters, or allow homebrew rules and mechanics to accomplish the same. A good DM will speak with his or her more experienced players, and agree not to break the game in half with any of a number of reality-altering spells once things get to 15th or 17th level.

A good DM will run a good campaign. This is rule 0. This is not a representation of the theoretical power levels of the characters, which is what the tier system is modeling. If you KNOW that it's not meant to represent an actual game, and you KNOW what it IS for, why are you arguing that it's useless?

It's like saying "Well, I know we don't have frictionless planes in reality, and I know that abstract physics isn't trying to directly model what goes on in real life, but I still think it's useless because the exact scenario it represents never occurs!"

JaronK
2010-01-27, 02:57 PM
Should be noted that there is a feat that lets Rogues do Sneak Attack vs. Undead and other things that are normally immune. :smallamused:

It's an ACF, IIRC, and it lets you do half damage. Penetrating Strike.


There's a bunch of things wrong with the Tier system. First, it assumes that Fighters need gear - and that's bad. Well, fine. I get all the gear I want. My Fighter becomes well, pretty good. Gets himself Mage Slayer and the like. And then off he goes.

It does not assume that. Read the original thread.


Yet, at this point "Fighters need gear, and therefore suck.", you might say the same about Wizards "Wizards need spells, and therefore suck."

It does not say Fighters or Wizards suck. Read the thread.


If a Fighter doesn't have gear, he sucks (although he can still get Superior Unarmed Strike from ToB, which is always good).

Since when does a charger need more gear than a lance and a mount? Nowhere in the system does it say it's assumed a Fighter lacks gear. It only assumes relatively equivalent optimization (and if said optimization is different, you just add that effect in).


The Tier system goes out the window when;
1. Players start optimising. And other players don't.

False. You simply must adjust for the varied optimization levels. This is stated in the original thread.


2. You actually have to play the game from Level 1 to 20.

False. The Tiers primarily focus on levels 6-15, but pay attention to all levels. They do not go out the window from 1-20. This is stated in the original thread (and I believe I commented on a few classes that rocket up in power near level 20, like the Healer and Factotum. Since most play is in the 6-15 range, they're built around that range, not at ultra high levels). Levels 1-5 are less counted simply because the differences at that level are small enough that the primary problems in intraparty balance are less noticable at that level anyway.


3. Players don't care and use 'What's best for the party' and actually try and work together and don't go actively, out of their way to screw over their supposed friends.

False. I don't know where you got that impression, but it's completely wrong and nothing in the thread claims as much. The thread in fact specifically talks about working together, and part of the reason Clerics are so highly rated is that they can do things like AoE buff the party extremely cheaply.


4. The DM doesn't hand out gear (including Spellbooks and Scrolls) at the amounts that he's supposed to or at less concentrations than the players would like/expect.

False. The system assumes only relatively even distribution of gear at the base line, and then specifically states that a good way to deal with power imbalances is to hand struggling players appropriate gear to help them out. Again, the tiers are a base line that you have to build off of.


5. The monsters the DM puts into the game aren't affected by whatever schtick your character has.

False. The tiers, among other things, measure the likelyhood of that happening, they don't assume that it does or does not happen. Also, they're not just about monsters. A character that only does one thing, even if that one thing is "slaughter any one monster per round" is ranked lower, because not every encounter is about slaughtering monsters.


6. Players start Multi Classing. Which they will.

False. The thread deals with the concept of multiclassing. You average out the tier level, accounting for optimization level used. A Fighter/Barbarian is probably T4, for example, though it might still be T5 depending on how it's done.

Where did you get your ideas? The tiers are just a gauge of the rough mechanical versitility and power of a class, before you add in things like optimization level and player know how or desires. That's it. They don't disappear when those things appear... they're added in to the final calculation. They're a tool. They're like a nail gun used in building a dog house. They won't build the whole dog house by themselves, nor are they designed to... they're just handy for building the house. You still need to factor in other stuff like wood! I've never claimed otherwise.

JaronK

Doc Roc
2010-01-27, 02:58 PM
That wasn't in reference to the three spells. Probably could've been clearer. Occult Slayer covers holes in a Fighter's defense and mitigates the need for gear.

It offers spell turning for two targeted spells per day. This does not include Orbs by RAW, among an number of others. By RAW, due to free action timing, this is bloody useless... but I'm willing to follow RAI here.

It offers Non-detection with a caster level of....


5.


It offers MA immunity at ECL10, which is pretty good, but which you can get just by being a necropolitan.


I'm really not sold on your offers of salvation here, man. Also, the mage slayer line is actually much weaker than people think, RAW.

Gametime
2010-01-27, 02:59 PM
Where did you get your ideas? The tiers are just a gauge of the rough mechanical versitility and power of a class, before you add in things like optimization level and player know how or desires. That's it. They don't disappear when those things appear... they're added in to the final calculation. They're a tool. They're like a nail gun used in building a dog house. They won't build the whole dog house by themselves, nor are they designed to... they're just handy for building the house. You still need to factor in other stuff like wood!

JaronK

WIZARD NEEDS WOOD BADLY seems like a pretty good way to sum up this entire discussion.

Innis Cabal
2010-01-27, 03:00 PM
How does your fighter deal with Solid Fog being dropped on him, in a level appropriate way?
How does your fighter deal with a contingency of dimension door?
How does your fighter deal with improved invisibility?


The answer to your question is "Let the party handle that". Thats what they are there for. Thats how a real game of D&D goes. Its about team work.

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 03:03 PM
The answer to your question is "Let the party handle that". Thats what they are there for. Thats how a real game of D&D goes. Its about team work.

Hooray! :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, with Cont'd DimDoors, Improved Invisibility and Solid Fog, the rest of the party should have ways to deal with it, even if Joe Fighter doesn't. Since they need those things taken care of just as much as Joe Fighter does.

Doc Roc
2010-01-27, 03:05 PM
Hooray! :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, with Cont'd DimDoors, Improved Invisibility and Solid Fog, the rest of the party should have ways to deal with it, even if Joe Fighter doesn't. Since they need those things taken care of just as much as Joe Fighter does.

So why is Joe Fighter there?

What does he bring? What mojo does he offer? What problems does he solve?

arguskos
2010-01-27, 03:07 PM
So why is Joe Fighter there?
Two words: Pack Mule.

Doc Roc
2010-01-27, 03:07 PM
Two words: Pack Mule.

That's what my portable hole is for.

Sliver
2010-01-27, 03:09 PM
Hooray! :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, with Cont'd DimDoors, Improved Invisibility and Solid Fog, the rest of the party should have ways to deal with it, even if Joe Fighter doesn't. Since they need those things taken care of just as much as Joe Fighter does.

But this isn't really a valid argument against tiers.. Being able to allow others to solve the problem doesn't increase one's flexibility..

arguskos
2010-01-27, 03:09 PM
That's what my portable hole is for.
Well, someone has to CARRY the portable hole, yes? :smallwink:

I mean, why carry it yourself? That's what mindraping Joe McFighter is for.

Sliver
2010-01-27, 03:13 PM
Well, someone has to CARRY the portable hole, yes? :smallwink:

I mean, why carry it yourself? That's what mindraping Joe McFighter is for.

Invisible servant? That chest that you can summon (and banish)? A commoner? A pack mule? Your familiar?! A skeleton. A monkey. A celestial monkey. The druid. The druid's animal companion. The artificer. The artificer's golem. The cleric. The cleric's deity...

Innis Cabal
2010-01-27, 03:14 PM
So why is Joe Fighter there?

What does he bring? What mojo does he offer? What problems does he solve?

Umm...health. And don't way
"The Wizard can get more health blah blah blah through buffs" because the Wizard should be buffing and helping the Tank do his job, not take everyone on himself. Because once again, Teamwork is the honest answer to almost ever single one of your questions. And is exactly why the teir system dosn't work like you all so very much want it to.


Does it work one on one? Ya sure, to an extent. A real game? No, not really. And it seems strange to deny that considering all the people whove clearly played real games here. It seems odd to me to deny that sometimes the wizard just isn't that great.

arguskos
2010-01-27, 03:16 PM
Invisible servant? That chest that you can summon (and banish)? A commoner? A pack mule? Your familiar?! A skeleton. A monkey. A celestial monkey. The druid. The druid's animal companion. The artificer. The artificer's golem. The cleric. The cleric's deity...
Bah! Mindraping Joe McBeefcake is the classy way to have a manservant carry yourstuff.

EDIT: Celestial monkey's open doors and set off traps. We all know that's their only use. Right, Sstoopidtallkid? :smallwink:

Artanis
2010-01-27, 03:16 PM
Umm...health. And don't way because the Wizard should be buffing and helping the Tank do his job, not take everyone on himself. Because once again, Teamwork is the honest answer to almost ever single one of your questions. And is exactly why the teir system dosn't work like you all so very much want it to.


Does it work one on one? Ya sure, to an extent. A real game? No, not really. And it seems strange to deny that considering all the people whove clearly played real games here. It seems odd to me to deny that sometimes the wizard just isn't that great.

And if the Wizard doesn't want to play a buffbot?


Also, it works exactly how JaronK's thread says it does.

Sliver
2010-01-27, 03:20 PM
because the Wizard should be buffing and helping the Tank do his job, not take everyone on himself. Because once again, Teamwork is the honest answer to almost ever single one of your questions. And is exactly why the teir system dosn't work like you all so very much want it to.

But the fighter doesn't contribute anything. The wizard only buffs the fighter when a druid could do it himself because of OOC reasons. Any wizard about above 5th level will treat the fighter as a henchman and pay him a little, instead of giving him an equal share of the loot, if it was real.

The tiers work because they do help you (those that aren't familiar with D&D that much) to know that one class can help in many situations without needing other's to support them, while another class needs much support to influence the battle.

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 03:21 PM
What does he bring? What mojo does he offer? What problems does he solve?

He's there so that when he's delayed his action until everything's fixed, he delivers a beatdown.

I also notice that a Warblade can't do anything about it either. Iron Heart Surge could ignore Solid Fog, but DimDoor is unfixable as is Improved Invisibility. Besides, the Wizard should be casting DimAnchor. He's the only one who can anyway.


The tiers work because they do help you (those that aren't familiar with D&D that much) to know that one class can help in many situations without needing other's to support them, while another class needs much support to influence the battle.

But, once you reach a certain level of play, you should know - or at least read - which PrCs will improve your abilities and defenses. And what gear you should be {on the look out / petitioning your DM} for.

To me, the Tiers do nothing except show you which characters
"Don't need the party, and let you be be an a*hole to everyone who isn't you because you can do most of it yourself."
Except, even then, that style of play doesn't happen until Level 13 or so. So, I have to wonder why 'unexperienced' players are even bothering with it. UE Players aren't optimising anyway.

Sliver
2010-01-27, 03:26 PM
To me, the Tiers do nothing except show you which characters "Don't need the party, and let you be be an a*hole to everyone who isn't you because you can do most of it yourself."

It isn't the tiers' fault that you choose to read them like that. They aren't supposed to support that sort of view, because they are about contribution, not domination..

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 03:28 PM
They aren't supposed to support that sort of view

They aren't supposed to support that view, but they do anyway.

"You know what you should be? You should be a Druid! Or a Wizard! Because you can contribute all day, all the time!"

It then goes on to say that 'Tier 1' classes have world-altering game-breaking powers. And are better than every other class. How does it NOT support that view?

Innis Cabal
2010-01-27, 03:29 PM
To me, the Tiers do nothing except show you which characters "Don't need the party, and let you be be an a*hole to everyone who isn't you because you can do most of it yourself."

Pretty much have to agree. In every game I've played the Fighter was a valuable and needed part of the party. So was the rogue, so was the cleric, so was the wizard. Sure, we didn't optimize, but honestly thats not what the game's about. Its never been what the game is about. Its only a certain group that cares for that sort of thing, but it seems if your not part of the "club" then your doing it wrong, or don't know what your talking about. I for one think thats a shame.

Sliver
2010-01-27, 03:30 PM
Anything can support any view on the internet. I have proof. (http://ninitalk.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/pumpkin.jpg)

Alright, this thread works just like a monk thread, or a wizard vs fighter thread. It won't go anywhere.. Good night :smalltongue:

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 03:31 PM
Anything can support any view on the internet. I have proof. (http://ninitalk.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/pumpkin.jpg)

Well played, sir.

Artanis
2010-01-27, 03:36 PM
They aren't supposed to support that view, but they do anyway.

"You know what you should be? You should be a Druid! Or a Wizard! Because you can contribute all day, all the time!"

It then goes on to say that 'Tier 1' classes have world-altering game-breaking powers. And are better than every other class. How does it NOT support that view?

It quite explicitly says it's not meant to be read that way.


FAQ:

Q: So, which is the best Tier?

A: In the end, the best Tier is the Tier that matches the rest of your party and appeals to you.

Sir Giacomo
2010-01-27, 03:55 PM
Let me ask three questions:

How does your fighter deal with Solid Fog being dropped on him, in a level appropriate way?
How does your fighter deal with a contingency of dimension door?
How does your fighter deal with improved invisibility?

If you can't answer all three of those with the same build in core by 11th, then you are going to die with great regularity without someone who can in your party. So a single wizard forces a huge net option cost. Think Think Think!

I'll jump in to answer your three questions on how a fighter deals with the spell tactics you described, all available within the core rulesset.

Mundane/class abilities
1. Solid fog? He just takes 4x move out (remember that only the SPEED is reduced to 5ft, not the total movement possible in a round)
2. Contingency: trigger the contingency. Or attack when the contingency is no longer up. Or affect the wizard with something that he has not put up a contingency against. Also note that dimension door set to the typical "activate when someone attacks me" in normal gameplay usually results in the wizard ending where he does not like to be.:smallsmile: Only in duels where the wizard knows beforehand what the setting looks like this contingencie'd dimension door will be really useful.
3. Improved Invisibility? Blind-fight feat, readied actions, skill focus listen/alertness feats (and raising listen skill cross-class).

With the level-appropriate items it is of course also possible.

I am not overall arguing against the tier system since I believe it largely reflects the non-core gaming and dueling experience of many (including a lot of broken stuff published beyond the original rules for spellcasters). But basing the class tiers on notions as those above I guess deserves correcting.:smallamused:

Meanwhile, to see how well balanced in core at level 13 a combat between wizard and a fighter can be, have a look at my duel with superglucose (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7256632#post7256632)(which ended in a draw).

- Giacomo

PS: btw, Doc Roc, you may still be interested in our lvl 13 fighter vs lvl 13 wizard core match here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=7542039#post7542039).

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 03:57 PM
It quite explicitly says it's not meant to be read that way.

But it is. It's like how Pun-Pun and the Twice Betrayer of Shar are NOT MEANT TO BE PLAYED. But, some people still try to sneak them through. Even the ubercharger gets ridiculous if your DM isn't prepared for it or doesn't know how to counter it.

Newkid, has just bought his Brand New, Second Hand 3.5 books. Comes on to a happy, happy forum, and says "Hey guys, I'm new to D&D, I'm just wondering what's a good class to play...I don't really know what kind of guy I want, so, I guess someone that can kind of do a bit of everything?"

The next posts that follow look something like;
Wizard, Wizard, Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Factotum, Cleric, Wizard, Wizard, Druid, Druid. Wizard, "Be a Warblade."
Then some guy - let's call him 'PF' - chimes in and says Monk. Everyone takes it seriously. Except for those who don't.

"Oh, so, I guess there's heaps of support for wizards...I guess I'll try one of those..."

Newkid is suddenly linked to The Tier Guide, explaining just how awesome Wizards are (he doesn't read the rest, all's he knows is that Wizards are awesome), he then gets linked to LogicNinja's Guide For Awesomeness and told in no uncertain terms that Wizards can do anything and everything if they try hard enough. Newkid now thinks that Wizards are the best thing since the abolition of forced Race/Class combos (even though he was never even around to remember them), and that nothing else except for Wizard is worth playing.

Gametime
2010-01-27, 04:04 PM
Saying "The tier system doesn't work like you want it to!" is a gross misunderstanding of the tier system's purpose. The tier system's purpose is NOT to that fighters don't do anything, or that wizards always beat fighters, or that for any given situation the wizard will be more valuable than the fighter.

The tier system is a rough approximation of the theoretical levels of optimization possible with a class. That's it. That's all it is. It is not useful as a metric for actual play, nor is it intended to be used as one.

Again, back to physics. Frictionless surfaces aren't all that common. Infinite planes of uniform density aren't either. Air resistance is usually a factor, and so on. Yet theoretical physics chooses to ignore those things quite a lot of the time in equations, especially at the introductory level. Why?

Because sometimes we aren't concerned with all the factors involved. You can't make a broad sweeping all-encompassing statement about the rate of movement of an object without knowing a whole mess of other data that obfuscate what you really want to talk about: the role of friction, or of tangential force, or what have you.

Similarly, the tier system is an attempt to isolate the potential of a class. That's it. Don't worry about player skill, or DM intervention, or anything else. Just the class. Obviously, there is no game in which the class alone is a factor, so it's not going to tell you how good your wizard is - but it isn't supposed to.

Gametime
2010-01-27, 04:07 PM
But it is. It's like how Pun-Pun and the Twice Betrayer of Shar are NOT MEANT TO BE PLAYED. But, some people still try to sneak them through. Even the ubercharger gets ridiculous if your DM isn't prepared for it or doesn't know how to counter it.

Newkid, has just bought his Brand New, Second Hand 3.5 books. Comes on to a happy, happy forum, and says "Hey guys, I'm new to D&D, I'm just wondering what's a good class to play...I don't really know what kind of guy I want, so, I guess someone that can kind of do a bit of everything?"

The next posts that follow look something like;
Wizard, Wizard, Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Factotum, Cleric, Wizard, Wizard, Druid, Druid. Wizard, "Be a Warblade."
Then some guy - let's call him 'PF' - chimes in and says Monk. Everyone takes it seriously. Except for those who don't.

"Oh, so, I guess there's heaps of support for wizards...I guess I'll try one of those..."

Newkid is suddenly linked to The Tier Guide, explaining just how awesome Wizards are (he doesn't read the rest, all's he knows is that Wizards are awesome), he then gets linked to LogicNinja's Guide For Awesomeness and told in no uncertain terms that Wizards can do anything and everything if they try hard enough. Newkid now thinks that Wizards are the best thing since the abolition of forced Race/Class combos (even though he was never even around to remember them), and that nothing else except for Wizard is worth playing.

So your position is that people who don't actually read the tier system or just skim through LogicNinja's guide will make assumptions and misunderstand the point of those things.

That's cool. I can understand that. Someone who skims through a biology textbook might think organisms pass on acquired traits to their offspring in a process called evolution. They'd still be wrong, and it is neither the fault of the biologist nor the author of the textbook that they didn't read the whole thing.

LogicNinja's guide explains how a wizard can help the party. If there isn't a party to be helped, the wizard can't follow the guide. That alone should let you know there are myriad reasons to play a class that fulfills one of the other roles. (And yes, I know the guide uses disparaging terms for those roles. It's humor. Don't take it too seriously.)

Amphetryon
2010-01-27, 04:07 PM
Cheese,
Is your argument 'the tier system is bad because it might, possibly, somewhere, be used in ways specifically not intended and thereby produce unintended results'? Because that's how I read that post.

Is your contingent argument 'the tier system is bad because I can produce this specific individual example that disproves it, counter to the majority of examples and cases that bear out its merits'? I ask because, again, that's what I'm getting from your posts. It's a common form of fallacy called reducto ad absurdium.

Gametime
2010-01-27, 04:09 PM
Cheese,
Is your argument 'the tier system is bad because it might, possibly, somewhere, be used in ways specifically not intended and thereby produce unintended results'? Because that's how I read that post.

Is your contingent argument 'the tier system is bad because I can produce this specific individual example that disproves it, counter to the majority of examples and cases that bear out its merits'? I ask because, again, that's what I'm getting from your posts. It's a common form of fallacy called reducto ad absurdium.

His contingency argument doesn't actually prove what he wants it to prove, anyway; the fact that a warblade has trouble dealing with a wizard spell, just like a fighter does, has no bearing on whether a warblade is more versatile than a fighter. All it proves is that warblades and fighters both have less options than wizards - which is borne out by their tiers.

Cheesegear
2010-01-27, 04:26 PM
So your position is that people who don't actually read the tier system or just skim through LogicNinja's guide will make assumptions and misunderstand the point of those things.

The Tier System LENDS itself to be read a certain way. Even though there is the specific quote that says the Tier Guide isn't meant to be read that way. The fact is, phrases such as 'world-altering', 'game-breaking' and 'better than all the other classes' are thrown into the discussion when talking about Tier 1 classes.

Here's T5 phrases;
"Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute [...] DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless."

Why would anyone - ever - play a T5 class with a description like that? Yeah, there's that quote saying "There is no best class." but, it directly contradicts itself.
I've been playing the game for a long time, and, even with my proven experience (not in duels) with non-ToB martial characters, I can easily misconstruct it as "These are classes that are awesome." and "These are classes that suck." That might not be the purpose of the System. But, that's clearly what it says.


Cheese,
Is your argument 'the tier system is bad because it might, possibly, somewhere, be used in ways specifically not intended and thereby produce unintended results'? Because that's how I read that post.

No. I've also got the two other pages before that post stating why I believe the Tier guide is flawed and at times is just downright misinformation.


I ask because, again, that's what I'm getting from your posts. It's a common form of fallacy called reducto ad absurdium.

That's not what I meant. Surely, the Fighter is arguably one of the more useless classes (but, with a bit of effort, you can make it work), and the Warblade is generally considered to be better in every way. But, the Warblade can't really do anything about it either. I was asked "What does your Fighter do against..."

From what I read from the post I was replying to was,
"If you can't handle DimDoors, Imp Invisibility or Solid Fog, play a new class otherwise you're wasting space."

And the posts that followed 'You can be a Pack Mule', supported what I read into the question.

Optimystik
2010-01-27, 04:28 PM
Why would anyone - ever - play a T5 class with a description like that?

For the lulz challenge, obviously.

Kurald Galain
2010-01-27, 04:32 PM
Newkid now thinks that Wizards are the best thing since the abolition of forced Race/Class combos (even though he was never even around to remember them), and that nothing else except for Wizard is worth playing.
Then Newkid is acting like :miko: : he's neither listening to what people are explaining to him nor reading what threads are suggested to him, just glancing at the text for half a second and leaping to a conclusion, and then refusing to change her mind no matter what.

A possible conclusion we forumites can draw from that is the explanations and thread sare at fault, and that we should never try to explain anything because people might misunderstand it and jump to the wrong conclusion. It appears not everyone agrees with that analysis.

Tinydwarfman
2010-01-27, 05:09 PM
But it is. It's like how Pun-Pun and the Twice Betrayer of Shar are NOT MEANT TO BE PLAYED. But, some people still try to sneak them through. Even the ubercharger gets ridiculous if your DM isn't prepared for it or doesn't know how to counter it.

Newkid, has just bought his Brand New, Second Hand 3.5 books. Comes on to a happy, happy forum, and says "Hey guys, I'm new to D&D, I'm just wondering what's a good class to play...I don't really know what kind of guy I want, so, I guess someone that can kind of do a bit of everything?"

The next posts that follow look something like;
Wizard, Wizard, Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Factotum, Cleric, Wizard, Wizard, Druid, Druid. Wizard, "Be a Warblade."
Then some guy - let's call him 'PF' - chimes in and says Monk. Everyone takes it seriously. Except for those who don't.

"Oh, so, I guess there's heaps of support for wizards...I guess I'll try one of those..."

Newkid is suddenly linked to The Tier Guide, explaining just how awesome Wizards are (he doesn't read the rest, all's he knows is that Wizards are awesome), he then gets linked to LogicNinja's Guide For Awesomeness and told in no uncertain terms that Wizards can do anything and everything if they try hard enough. Newkid now thinks that Wizards are the best thing since the abolition of forced Race/Class combos (even though he was never even around to remember them), and that nothing else except for Wizard is worth playing.

I'm sorry, but I don't think we would respond like that. We would ask him what he likes the idea of, and tell him to play something that he likes the flavor of. He did not ask for the most powerful class. Also "a little bit of everything" would not give support for factotum or druid, not wizard. The tier guide would probably be linked to, but just as general guideline for advice on party balance. I highly doubt people would recommend wizard, seing as it not a newbie class, and I don't think people would encourage him to try and break the game, quite the opposite.

Artanis
2010-01-27, 05:24 PM
I fail to see how it's a problem of the system itself that somebody decides not to read it. You might complain about the post describing the system, but the fact that Newkid McIlliterate refuses to read it is not a problem with the system.


It's like 3.5 Psionics: they work just fine, unless somebody refuses to read the part about not augmenting for more points than your ML. Does that somehow make Psionics worthless? By your logic, Cheesegear, it would.

Runestar
2010-01-27, 05:47 PM
Here's T5 phrases;
"Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute [...] DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless."

Why would anyone - ever - play a T5 class with a description like that? Yeah, there's that quote saying "There is no best class." but, it directly contradicts itself.

They would do it despite the description, and after knowing fully well what they are getting themselves into. Not just because they were wowed by its fluff or some fancy looking picture.

There is a great difference between playing a class you know stinks and keeping in mind its shortcomings so you can tackle them as and when they arise, and playing a crappy class you think is strong but actually sucks, and everyone on the table ends up paying the price for it (including yourself).

If they get stuck on playing only tier 1 classes, that is their problem, not that of the tier.

Sir Giacomo
2010-01-27, 05:48 PM
The Tier System LENDS itself to be read a certain way. Even though there is the specific quote that says the Tier Guide isn't meant to be read that way. The fact is, phrases such as 'world-altering', 'game-breaking' and 'better than all the other classes' are thrown into the discussion when talking about Tier 1 classes.

Here's T5 phrases;
"Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute [...] DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless."

Why would anyone - ever - play a T5 class with a description like that? Yeah, there's that quote saying "There is no best class." but, it directly contradicts itself.
I've been playing the game for a long time, and, even with my proven experience (not in duels) with non-ToB martial characters, I can easily misconstruct it as "These are classes that are awesome." and "These are classes that suck." That might not be the purpose of the System. But, that's clearly what it says.


I completely agree with Cheesegear here.
Similarly, the Logic Ninja's Batman guide on Wizards is celebrated by many as a great guide on how wizards can help the others in the group, when on the contrary it sets the "only the wizard is great" tone right in the beginning with a big (bold):
"The Wizard and his Adventuring Buddies, AKA "Those Chumps Who Hit Things For You, Stop Things From Hitting You, And Heal You When You Need It, While You Do All The Important Stuff"
And then the guide continues with a lot of stuff supposed to make the wizard powerful, but only around 5% or so devoted to saying "er...yes, and that spell could be used to help your fighter buddy...maybe"

Often guides and also categories like the class tiers are easily misunderstood by (beginner) players looking for advice to be the absolute norm. When in fact it is just one opinion among many.

- Giacomo

Tavar
2010-01-27, 05:56 PM
So...nobody can use humor, because others might misunderstand?

Optimystik
2010-01-27, 06:00 PM
I completely agree with Cheesegear here.

Nothing more needs to be said.

ArcanistSupreme
2010-01-27, 06:44 PM
Another factor not being taken into account is that a party could conceivably made of all Tier 5 characters and the GM could adjust accordingly. The tier system does not force everyone to only play high tier characters, it only points out the enormous gaps in power levels and helps players and GMs plan accordingly.

If someone will only play uber-optimized Batman wizards regardless of how the other players and the GM feel, that is a failure of the player, NOT the tier system.

Kantolin
2010-01-27, 07:02 PM
You know, I don't think that's a problem with either any of the guides nor the tier list, but with people discussing the system on the internet.

It's the singleplayer vs multiplayer vs online multiplayer conundrum.

When it's you trying to get to the end of stage 3-4, nobody cares terribly if it's better for you to take the top or the bottom route. A strategy guide might list an unfair option (get the fire flower), but that's okay there. You'll beat up the computer, the computer will happily be beaten senseless, and everyone's happy.

But when you and your friends down the street start playing together, you start to run into some problems. You really like playing as Ralph, but Charles can throw fireballs and Ralph can't, so you have to figure out how to deal with fireballs since Charles does it a lot. Then you figure out the anti-fireball Ralph tactic, and it just so turns out that Charles can't actually /do/ anything else, so anyone playing as Ralph tends to beat up people who play as Charles, until eventually you and your friend stop playing, ban Ralph, or stop playing as Charles. Or I suppose get angry in a huff and storm off and never speak to each other until high school.

Then when you apply this to the entire internet, you get people who can really look at it, and say 'You know... Charles has this useless looking move, but it actually rather snuffs Ralph. Nobody else really uses it this way, but in my neighborhood we do, and thus we've banned Charles since he's unfair'. Then someone else calls out, "Wait, but Ralph can do /this/, which actually evens up the two."

Eventually, you either have pseudo-balance, or it becomes the case that Ralph has so many advantages that he's generally a better character than Charles, or Ralph really can't beat Charles if he does X - but otheriwse you can have a fair match, or whatever.

D&D 3.5 is extremely popular, and thus has become subject to internet scrutiny - aided by the fact that you can do a lot of number crunching in D&D to compare things. One person in his neighborhood discovered that not casting fireballs is frequently more powerful than not. He mentioned this on the internet. Discussions ensued, math was thrown around, in the end the general populace agreed that 'huh, that's true'.

When this comes into conflict, however, is when someone who has not been introduced to what the overall community has discovered and makes a claim that has been long since disproven. Go to gamefaqs and imply that you need a knight on the FFT board and you'll get a lengthy list of explanations why you're wrong, for example.

For example:
75% of monk/wizard debates, which are amusingly frequent, come because a lot of people in smaller communities (neighborhood) like monks, and state something to the extent of 'Monks are overpowered!'. They are told this is quite the opposite, and arguments occur.

The ohter 25% of monk/wizard debates occurs the other way - someone's mentioning something he's doing and tangentally says something like, "I can't use monks because they're overpowered", or someone states, "I want to play a really strong character, so I'm going to be a monk", because that's how it works in their neighborhood as they've never learned the laundry list of things the internet community has.

Now, in /my/ opinion, games like one must theorize a lot of people on the internet play wouldn't be very fun, but that's my opinion - one of my good friends is a huge min-maxer and enjoys playing in online games where the power level is very high, so he obviously has a different opinion.

In my group, D&D isn't nearly the serious business it is on the internet, and thus our parties consist of laughably underoptimized groups (Bard/Swashbuckler, Fighter10/Cleric3, Sorceror 6 / Wizard 6) and everyone has fun. Should one of us go claim 'Sorceror/Wizards are unfair!' to the internet community, they'll probably be told otherwise.

These people who have done the research and the like online have discovered powerful tendencies that, eventually, if a group started running into problems, they'd probably slide towards. For example, I wanted to be different and thus played a wizard who had no damage spells (Buffer... I love party support), and discovered that haste is /really awesome/ after enduring the strange looks for not having fireball, lightning bolt, or magic missile. One of the players (Ironically, a monk) was super excited that his fists were doing 2d6, then at some point commented, "You know, if I had a nonmagical greatsword, I could also be doing 2d6 unless I could flurry". The group discovered (Due mostly to the aformentioned Sor/wiz) that it's a good idea to stick to one casting class, barring theurges.

It's that that eventually leads to the tier list.

Now, that said and done, if the only purpose of hte tier list was 'Play tier 1!', then they wouldn't have bothered to make it the way they did. They'd have three categories: "Tier 1", "Could be Tier 1 with optimization", "Not Tier 1" and moved on. :P The goal is, in an internet community, to ensure that you can have a relatively balanced party.

I mean, I could probably make a tier list for my neighborhood, alhtough nobody else would find it terribly relevant except perhaps as a theoretical exercise (For example, bards would almost certainly come near the top). :P

Frosty
2010-01-27, 07:23 PM
Speaking of PrCs, isn't there a tier list for PrCs somewhere?

Tinydwarfman
2010-01-27, 07:35 PM
In my group, D&D isn't nearly the serious business it is on the internet, and thus our parties consist of laughably underoptimized groups (Bard/Swashbuckler, Fighter10/Cleric3, Sorceror 6 / Wizard 6) and everyone has fun. Should one of us go claim 'Sorceror/Wizards are unfair!' to the internet community, they'll probably be told otherwise.


Sorcerer 6/wiz 6?!? But... but... but... WHY?!? What possible role-playing or mechanical advantage could that have?!? Must... resist... urge... to tell him he is wrong!!! :smallbiggrin:

But jokes aside, why did he do that? I can see swashbuckler bard, and fighter cleric, they have role-playing reasons.

Anyway, I always want to play a reasonably powerful character, within the flavor concept that I like. I love monks, so I play unarmed swordsages, or tashalatora psionic warriors.

arguskos
2010-01-27, 07:49 PM
Speaking of PrCs, isn't there a tier list for PrCs somewhere?
sonofzeal put it together, IIRC. Might be wise to ask him about it.

Gnaeus
2010-01-27, 07:53 PM
Newkid, has just bought his Brand New, Second Hand 3.5 books. Comes on to a happy, happy forum, and says "Hey guys, I'm new to D&D, I'm just wondering what's a good class to play...I don't really know what kind of guy I want, so, I guess someone that can kind of do a bit of everything?"

The next posts that follow look something like;
Wizard, Wizard, Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Factotum, Cleric, Wizard, Wizard, Druid, Druid. Wizard, "Be a Warblade."
Then some guy - let's call him 'PF' - chimes in and says Monk. Everyone takes it seriously. Except for those who don't.

"Oh, so, I guess there's heaps of support for wizards...I guess I'll try one of those..."

Newkid is suddenly linked to The Tier Guide, explaining just how awesome Wizards are (he doesn't read the rest, all's he knows is that Wizards are awesome), he then gets linked to LogicNinja's Guide For Awesomeness and told in no uncertain terms that Wizards can do anything and everything if they try hard enough. Newkid now thinks that Wizards are the best thing since the abolition of forced Race/Class combos (even though he was never even around to remember them), and that nothing else except for Wizard is worth playing.

1. That says absolutely nothing about the tier system. If time travelers killed JaronK's mother before he was born, you would still get those responses. All that requires is a knowledge of what the 3-5 most powerful classes are, with no reasoning why or comparison between other classes.

2. I will unashamedly say that in your example, newkid was given good advice. If you are learning a new game, you play in easy mode, not hard mode. It is easy to play a tier 1 at a tier 5 level if you master it and realize it is too strong. It is hard to play a tier 5 at tier 1 level if you realize it is too weak. Cleric and druid are easy to learn, and it is very difficult to really fail to be useful with one.

Optimator
2010-01-27, 07:56 PM
Nothing more needs to be said.

:smallamused:

Thurbane
2010-01-27, 08:20 PM
From my experience and reading, a lot of "tier ranking" is based on high level PvP arena gaming, without giving much of a nod to how characters fare at mid-low levels in cooperative adventuring in a "real" setting (i.e. not a fenced off arena with very few variables). The reason I mention this is that, at least IMHO, low-mid level cooperative adventuring in a real setting makes up what the vast bulk of gamers out there are actually doing.

While ranking and dissection of classes in sterile, hypothetical contexts is interesting as an intellectual excercise, I'm not convinced how much can actually be applied to general gaming. Most such discussions treat the DM, and his ability to tailor the adventures and environments to specific parties, as basically nonexistant.

While my group may not be "typical" and are certainly not powergamers, or even particularly great optimizers, we manage to have an enjoyable game where no one feels like a spare wheel. My current party includes a Monk, Fighter and Druid. They all manage to contribute to the party, both in and out of combat. The Druid does not outshine the rest of us, while the Fighter and Monk don't drag the chain. AFAIK, this is not because the Druid's player is deliberately gimping his character, and the DM isn't handwaving anything to to make life easier for the Fighter or Monk.

I'm sure many will dismiss my example as an aberration, or that I'm not accurately presenting the facts, and that's fine. I am certainly not going to hold my group up as an ideal to aspire to. But I have been involved in D&D for around 25 years, and from the 5 or more different groups I've played with in that time, I've not once encountered a party of all Wizards, or 1 Wizard and the rest of the party as his bumbling servants.

...all I ask is to consider that the "tier ranking" is a highly subjective thing, and not a mathematical absolute.

Now please, tear me to shreds! :smalltongue:

Artanis
2010-01-27, 08:37 PM
From my experience and reading, a lot of "tier ranking" is based on high level PvP arena gaming, without giving much of a nod to how characters fare at mid-low levels in cooperative adventuring in a "real" setting (i.e. not a fenced off arena with very few variables). The reason I mention this is that, at least IMHO, low-mid level cooperative adventuring in a real setting makes up what the vast bulk of gamers out there are actually doing.

While ranking and dissection of classes in sterile, hypothetical contexts is interesting as an intellectual excercise, I'm not convinced how much can actually be applied to general gaming. Most such discussions treat the DM, and his ability to tailor the adventures and environments to specific parties, as basically nonexistant.

While my group may not be "typical" and are certainly not powergamers, or even particularly great optimizers, we manage to have an enjoyable game where no one feels like a spare wheel. My current party includes a Monk, Fighter and Druid. They all manage to contribute to the party, both in and out of combat. The Druid does not outshine the rest of us, while the Fighter and Monk don't drag the chain. AFAIK, this is not because the Druid's player is deliberately gimping his character, and the DM isn't handwaving anything to to make life easier for the Fighter or Monk.

I'm sure many will dismiss my example as an aberration, or that I'm not accurately presenting the facts, and that's fine. I am certainly not going to hold my group up as an ideal to aspire to. But I have been involved in D&D for around 25 years, and from the 5 or more different groups I've played with in that time, I've not once encountered a party of all Wizards, or 1 Wizard and the rest of the party as his bumbling servants.

...all I ask is to consider that the "tier ranking" is a highly subjective thing, and not a mathematical absolute.

Now please, tear me to shreds! :smalltongue:

Every single one of your points is addressed in the Tier System thread.


Shredded enough for ya? :smalltongue:



Addendum: just in case somebody out there doesn't have it, here's a link to the Tier System thread. It's worth reading. http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0

Thurbane
2010-01-27, 08:58 PM
Every single one of your points is addressed in the Tier System thread.

Shredded enough for ya? :smalltongue:
I have read the thread in question (albeit, some time back). Could you summarize the relevant points, if you have time?

Pyro_Azer
2010-01-27, 10:04 PM
I have read the thread in question (albeit, some time back). Could you summarize the relevant points, if you have time?

The tier system is not based on arena or high level. The tier system is based on a character's ability to deal with a wide variety of level appropriate challenges primarely at levels 6-15.

Niether based on arena matches or high level.

Tavar
2010-01-27, 10:11 PM
Well, here's a direct post that covers much of what you talk about;http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.msg219984#msg219984


From my experience and reading, a lot of "tier ranking" is based on high level PvP arena gaming, without giving much of a nod to how characters fare at mid-low levels in cooperative adventuring in a "real" setting (i.e. not a fenced off arena with very few variables). The reason I mention this is that, at least IMHO, low-mid level cooperative adventuring in a real setting makes up what the vast bulk of gamers out there are actually doing.
Wrong. The Teir list is based on how many Shticks a class can do ( as previously said by many posters in this thread, and ignored every time. Makes me wonder if the naysayers actually read the thread). Now, yes, the Tier system does hold true for PVP, but that's not because it's based on it, merely because the fact that they have so many options makes it hard for them to be countered, and makes it easy for them to counter others. They aren't high tier because they're good at PVP. They're good at PVP because they're high tier.

While ranking and dissection of classes in sterile, hypothetical contexts is interesting as an intellectual excercise, I'm not convinced how much can actually be applied to general gaming. Most such discussions treat the DM, and his ability to tailor the adventures and environments to specific parties, as basically nonexistant.
The tier system actually talks about this. Do yourself a favor and read the link at the top of my post(it was posted earlier in the thread as well). It most directly talks about this.

While my group may not be "typical" and are certainly not powergamers, or even particularly great optimizers, we manage to have an enjoyable game where no one feels like a spare wheel. My current party includes a Monk, Fighter and Druid. They all manage to contribute to the party, both in and out of combat. The Druid does not outshine the rest of us, while the Fighter and Monk don't drag the chain. AFAIK, this is not because the Druid's player is deliberately gimping his character, and the DM isn't handwaving anything to to make life easier for the Fighter or Monk.
Really? How does the Fighter contribute outside of combat, then. He doesn't have the skills to do so, nor does he have any abilities that don't directly relate to combat. Seems like the DM is handwaving some things. Like the Tier systems says he would.

I'm sure many will dismiss my example as an aberration, or that I'm not accurately presenting the facts, and that's fine. I am certainly not going to hold my group up as an ideal to aspire to. But I have been involved in D&D for around 25 years, and from the 5 or more different groups I've played with in that time, I've not once encountered a party of all Wizards, or 1 Wizard and the rest of the party as his bumbling servants.
You really don't understand what the tier system is about, do you? Or what The Logic Ninja's Guide is? The latter is written in a tongue and cheek manner, and actually says for you to help the party. The former talks about the options a class has, and how much the DM must change a champaign to help a class. Wizards need to be watched carefully or they can easily change a campaign. Fighters, not so much.

...all I ask is to consider that the "tier ranking" is a highly subjective thing, and not a mathematical absolute.

Well, duh. It's says in the thread that it's not absolute, and several posters in this thread have said the same thing. Are we even reading the same posts?

JaronK
2010-01-27, 10:17 PM
From my experience and reading, a lot of "tier ranking" is based on high level PvP arena gaming, without giving much of a nod to how characters fare at mid-low levels in cooperative adventuring in a "real" setting (i.e. not a fenced off arena with very few variables).

Totally false. I valued levels 6-15 as most important... 1-5 are so low that the differences are less significant anyway, and very few people play 16-20. This is why the Healer is so low despite getting Gate at 17... the Healer has very little before that. That's also why the Factotum is Tier 3 and not Tier 1, considering their level 19 ability is by RAW absolutely insane.

Furthermore, if you look at the examples I gave of how the tiers function in game, you'll note that none of them say anything about PvP arenas. The situations I used as examples were:

"Situation 1: A Black Dragon has been plaguing an area, and he lives in a trap filled cave. Deal with him.

Situation 2: You have been tasked by a nearby country with making contact with the leader of the underground slave resistance of an evil tyranical city state, and get him to trust you.

Situation 3: A huge army of Orcs is approaching the city, and should be here in a week or so. Help the city prepare for war."

Does any of that look like high level PvP arenas to you?


The reason I mention this is that, at least IMHO, low-mid level cooperative adventuring in a real setting makes up what the vast bulk of gamers out there are actually doing.

Which is why that's exactly what I was ranking. You'll notice also that the entire thing is about intraparty balance, which doesn't exist in a PvP arena setting. PvP arenas had NOTHING to do with the tier system whatsoever. I have no idea where you got this idea (maybe from Cheese?).


While ranking and dissection of classes in sterile, hypothetical contexts is interesting as an intellectual excercise, I'm not convinced how much can actually be applied to general gaming. Most such discussions treat the DM, and his ability to tailor the adventures and environments to specific parties, as basically nonexistant.

Read the FAQ. It addresses all of this. You claim I'm treating the DM as nonexistant, despite the fact that much of the system is devoted to talking to the DM and about what he can do to address power imbalances?


...all I ask is to consider that the "tier ranking" is a highly subjective thing, and not a mathematical absolute.

Strait from the FAQ: "Remember, this is a rough ranking and a guideline, not a perfect ruler." It also goes over why in your group the Druid and Monk might be quite close.

Please, actually bother to read it before voicing your objections. Here's the link: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0

JaronK

Da Beast
2010-01-27, 10:36 PM
The Tier System LENDS itself to be read a certain way. Even though there is the specific quote that says the Tier Guide isn't meant to be read that way. The fact is, phrases such as 'world-altering', 'game-breaking' and 'better than all the other classes' are thrown into the discussion when talking about Tier 1 classes.

Here's T5 phrases;
"Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute [...] DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless."

Why would anyone - ever - play a T5 class with a description like that?

If I weren't so lazy I'd go back through this topic and find at least three posts where you yourself say that nobody plays a straight class fighter. This hardly seems like a problem with the tier list when even you, the staunchest adversary of the tier list posting in this thread, admit that these classes aren't worth investing more than a few levels in.

Akal Saris
2010-01-27, 10:44 PM
I was actually one of the first people to respond to the tiers thread when JaronK posted it originally, and at the time I was skeptical that it would hold true once you added in PrCs and multiclassing.

I've introduced it to my PCs though after some reservations. Most tended to quibble over the rankings a bit ("Come on, warblade's at least tier one!"), but the rating didn't really impact our games that much. Though one of the newer players insists on only playing T1's, which is silly :P Overall though, I think of the tiers as a useful framework (paradigm even?) to viewing game balance for DMs.

I think there are three issues that really confuse people though.

1. Tier Three is not bad. I can't stress this highly enough. This is the tier where JaronK sees the game functioning "as it should" where the PCs have good options, can fill multiple roles in the party, and don't break the game. Tier 1 and 2 is relatively bad for the game, just as tier 5 and 6 are, unless everyone is on that same level.

Take beguilers - I think that a beguiler is generally going to be more fun and more effective than a sorcerer in most situations. If I were ranking classes based on something as nebulous as "fun" or "utility" or "well-designed class" then beguilers would beat sorcerers hands-down. But the standard beguiler isn't going to cast Miracle, Wish, Genesis, etc. That means the beguiler is, according to JaronK's tiers, a T3 class (balanced and fun), not T2 (can break the game with some difficulty).

Likewise, the guy earlier mentioned his party had a horribly weak group (I shuddered at the wizard 6/sorcerer 6!). But that means they are all at tier 5 or 6, which should mean they are all having fun being about as useful as the next PC. It doesn't matter that they're all unoptimized if everyone's having fun.

2. It's not a pvp ranking - the tiers don't mean that a 1v1 wizard vs. fighter combat will go one way or the other. It's still decent for predictions, but it's not the purpose. This has been stated earlier in the thread.

3. Yes, you can make a tier 3 monk and a tier 3 wizard. If the monk does everything right with his feats, race, and PrC, he can be just as effective at his role (being the mobile tank and assistant skills person) as an averagely played swordsage, and if the wizard picks mediocre spells and feats such as fireball and improved toughness, he'll be able to contribute to the group without overwhelming it. Understanding that the tiers are only baselines really gets rid of a lot of useless arguments. Warmage is T4 unless you have rainbow servant 10 and then it's T0.5, etc. In the end, if people are having fun, who cares?

sonofzeal
2010-01-27, 10:46 PM
sonofzeal put it together, IIRC. Might be wise to ask him about it.
Indeed I did! The system is mine, as were the initial threads. After I disappeared from BG for a while, Suzerain pretty much copy-pasted it into a new thread (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0), which has the most up-to-date and complete information, as well as an invaluable breakdown by book. Even that one hasn't been updated since October, and a few new books have been posted, so I may re-claim ownership of the actual thread in order to get everything.

I do wish Suzerain had attributed it better, especially since the initial post speaks in the first person; it gives the impression that this is Suzerain's expansion/variation of my system, when it really isn't, and I think that might be confusing for some people. However, they've done an excellent job categorizing everything, so I don't mind too much.

shadow_archmagi
2010-01-27, 10:47 PM
WAT.

I have a few things to say.



The tier system seems to be based on high level arena combat!


Every explanation I've seen of the tier system works like this:

"What if the party has to kill a dragon inside Trap Mountain, save a city from an Orc Horde, and hunt down a crimelord? What can YOUR CLASS bring to these three basic, entirely plausible quests?"

It then points out that there are a lot of spells that could help for bypassing Trap Mountain (Disintegrate and Stone Shape to just carve a path straight to the center? Maybe just Floating Disk to avoid all the pressure plates?), a lot of spells that could help kill a dragon, a lot of spells that could help fortify a city, a lot of spells that could help explode an army, and a lot of spells that could track people down and capture them.

A fighter, on the other hand, can't do much against traps, can help kill the dragon, can't do much fortify the city, can't do much against an entire army, and doesn't have anything to help him track.

Therefore, the Wizard was capable of contributing greatly to all of the above scenarios (AKA: Take the spotlight) where the Fighter was able to contribute only minimally or not at all.

In another example, I was once in a game where me and a friend were both gestalt level 10(ish) characters. I was a sorc/art, and he was a pally/cleric. We got thrown into an arena. (This wasn't "You are building characters for an arena with full WBL" this was "Sorry the guards caught you stealing you're going to have to fight for your freedom, I hope the items and spells you learned over the course of the campaign are appropriate here."

First round, I use my wand-blasting to fire off a pair of maximized fireballs and 1-shot the pair of ghost-things that get sent at us. Second round they unleash a golem; I hit that with Solid Fog+Black Tentacles+Grease. Thing goes down to half HP before it manages to stumble out.

And that was a Golem; something that's supposed to be extremely difficult for a caster to deal with!



The test of spite seems to be an arena thingummy!


Actually, it's a Tome of Horrors style dungeon crawl. You have to win an Arena fight to get in, and then once you win, you get thrown into the dungeon. When people say things like "The Monk has not been doing so well in the Test of Spite!" they're referring to how he got ripped apart by arrow demons, mind controlled by the evil priest, and I think suffocated by water elementals or something. I'm not too clear on the specifics.


TL; DR:

The Test of Spite is not an arena. The Tier System is intended to represent how often a character can contribute meaningfully to any given encounter in a hypothetical campaign. Your mileage may vary depending on your dungeon master, campaign style, etc.

Gametime
2010-01-27, 10:54 PM
I was actually one of the first people to respond to the tiers thread when JaronK posted it originally, and at the time I was skeptical that it would hold true once you added in PrCs and multiclassing.

I've introduced it to my PCs though after some reservations. Most tended to quibble over the rankings a bit ("Come on, warblade's at least tier one!"), but the rating didn't really impact our games that much. Though one of the newer players insists on only playing T1's, which is silly :P Overall though, I think of the tiers as a useful framework (paradigm even?) to viewing game balance for DMs.

I think there are three issues that really confuse people though.

1. Tier Three is not bad. I can't stress this highly enough. This is the tier where JaronK sees the game functioning "as it should" where the PCs have good options, can fill multiple roles in the party, and don't break the game. Tier 1 and 2 is relatively bad for the game, just as tier 5 and 6 are, unless everyone is on that same level.

Take beguilers - I think that a beguiler is generally going to be more fun and more effective than a sorcerer in most situations. If I were ranking classes based on something as nebulous as "fun" or "utility" or "well-designed class" then beguilers would beat sorcerers hands-down. But the standard beguiler isn't going to cast Miracle, Wish, Genesis, etc. That means the beguiler is, according to JaronK's tiers, a T3 class (balanced and fun), not T2 (can break the game with some difficulty).

Likewise, the guy earlier mentioned his party had a horribly weak group (I shuddered at the wizard 6/sorcerer 6!). But that means they are all at tier 5 or 6, which should mean they are all having fun being about as useful as the next PC. It doesn't matter that they're all unoptimized if everyone's having fun.

2. It's not a pvp ranking - the tiers don't mean that a 1v1 wizard vs. fighter combat will go one way or the other. It's still decent for predictions, but it's not the purpose. This has been stated earlier in the thread.

3. Yes, you can make a tier 3 monk and a tier 3 wizard. If the monk does everything right with his feats, race, and PrC, he can be just as effective at his role (being the mobile tank and assistant skills person) as an averagely played swordsage, and if the wizard picks mediocre spells and feats such as fireball and improved toughness, he'll be able to contribute to the group without overwhelming it. Understanding that the tiers are only baselines really gets rid of a lot of useless arguments. Warmage is T4 unless you have rainbow servant 10 and then it's T0.5, etc. In the end, if people are having fun, who cares?

Quite. One thing a lot of people miss about the tier system (probably because they don't read the entire thread and just skip to the rankings) is that tiers are not a direct function of power. Tier 2 classes have just as much ability to deal with a given problem as tier 1; in fact, tier 3 classes have just as much ability to do that.

The tiers are rankings based on viable options. Sorcerers are a full tier ahead of, say, beguilers because a sorcerer could pick a few powerful illusion and enchantment spells, then learn a lot of powerful spells from other schools. If an illusion or enchantment is what you want, a beguiler will do it just as well, but a sorcerer can do more on top of that.*

Wizards, then, are a full tier ahead of sorcerers because not only do they have more opportunities to customize their spell list - theoretically infinite, and even without scrolls more than the sorcerer - but they can literally completely change what their available spells are from day to day. That is customization simply not found at a lower tier.

The tier system becomes less important in practice partly because few people will play a fully optimized wizard intent on becoming Pun-Pun, but also partly because few DMs punish parties for lack of options. If your party consists greatly of people who rely on mind-affecting spells, you probably won't face a ton of undead or golems. (Unless the DM let you know you would before building your characters - then you'll probably have to take your lumps.) Most DMs tailor encounters at least somewhat to complement the abilities of a party; anything specifically designed to counter you is likely to be a boss fight or special in some other way.

This doesn't mean the tier system is useless; it just means people need to understand it. Most of the people on this board believe knowledge to be a good thing. They are unlikely to be convinced of its flaws based on the fact that someone could willfully misinterpret what the thread containing the tier system actually says. They are even less likely to be convinced that people reading LogicNinja's guide will not see his "descriptions" of your fellow party members as jokes. (Have any of you actually gone an entire campaign without calling the tank a meat shield at least once? Come on.)

*Beguilers aren't a perfect example, because they have some skillmonkey in them to fill in the spellcasting gaps. But you get the idea.

Cheesegear
2010-01-28, 12:36 AM
If I weren't so lazy I'd go back through this topic and find at least three posts where you yourself say that nobody plays a straight class fighter.

Yes. But, even a Fighter multiclass begins his life at T5. With a bit of work and the right Feats (and depending on the campaign in which you live), and a decent PrC you can pull yourself up to T4 or T3 if you're any good.

At level 6, where the Tier System begins, you're looking at
Fighter 4 / {Paladin/Barbarian/Ranger} 1 / PrC 1. Or some combination thereof.

Some of the higher BAB PrCs (Like the Elf Champion of CL) you might still be looking at Paladin 2 / Fighter 4 (and probably not even that if you're DM is forcing XP Penalties). Still stuck at maybe T4. Since you're a Paladin as well and can now function in social situations and also function as a pretty neat bastion of leadership and hope.

According to the Tier System, I can think of a few things to do for my Paladin/Fighter in all 3 hypothetical situations. A straight-Fighter, however, is junk and should never be played.

A Fighter 4 / Monk 1 / Paladin 1 (jumble around your first and last class so you can still take extra skill points at 1st and still take levels in the last class you like) with Superior Unarmed Strike needs next to nothing in terms of equipment.

...If your DM ignores multi-classing penalties, be Raptoran for free flight. Or ignore that, be Silverbrow Human, take a Dragon Feat to get wings, in addition to Disguise Self and other bonuses.

A Paladin 6 is also pulling a Celestial Drakkensteed as his mount, y'know, if he wants that sort of thing. :smallamused: Still, even that might be T3, pushing T2. By later levels, riding an actual Dragon if he knows how to get one.

A properly built Paladin is easily a T3 base class with high Charisma and access to spells...Again, this falls into the 'Why isn't X higher?' digression of thinking. So, I'll stop there on that matter.

A(n) (ideal) Wizard 6, or Wizard 5 / PrC 1, begins life at T1. And only gets stronger from there. Becoming game-breaking at level 15+..
Why start at T5, and require effort to barely make T3, if you can start life at T1 and only get stronger?

Reading the Tier System (even with the 'there is no best Tier'), there is no reason to play anything below T2 if your DM allows it. Because, really, I look at the Tier System and read T1. And the part where it says that T1s can do the jobs of other classes - and sometimes better. Right there, I stop reading.

A Druid or Cleric is a better Meatshield than a Fighter multiclass could ever be. If it gets really bad, a Wizard can even meatshield if he's got the right buffs on. Or just use Summons. Because, after reading 'T1s can do the jobs of other classes, better', I know I just started thinking of situations where any T1 class makes any class that isn't T1 redundant.

I accept the existence of the Tier System. I acknowledge that, by itself, it's pretty much spot-on.

Except that it falls apart completely when confronted with a DM with even a basic grasp of tactics. And is ruined if a DM knows about the Tier System and actually sets out break the casters in half. And Limited-to-No Magic Mart destroys a Wizard's chance of all the spells he wants. Otherwise known as 'addressing the issues' by the Tier Guide.

The Tier System borderline encourages people to play nothing but T1. T1 Classes are awesome, and everything else sucks in comparison. And often require little-to-no work. Sure, JaronK goes out of his way to explain that this isn't the case. But, his description of the Tiers (T1, in comparison to T5, for example) basically drowns out any 'Don't do this' things that have been said.

Just like Pun-Pun and other Supers. They're not meant to be taken seriously, it says so in their descriptions. No-one with a clear-thinking DM would ever try it, right? And yet there are stories abound of people throwing hissy fits because the DM wont let them play 'something they found on the internet' that is obviously broken. Even though things aren't supposed to be taken seriously, people do anyway.
Even though JaronK and every other clear-thinking person on the internet says "Don't break the system/DM", and "Don't fight other party members", people will anyway. Because people are like that.

The default 5-man party consists of 'Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Wizard, Artificer', or something else absurdly ridiculous. Because there's really no reason not to do that.
Unless the DM makes mass bannings, obliterating the Tier System.

Or the DM 'takes steps' and makes the Tier System irrelavent, because the Tier System is not how the game works, and is not how real people play the bottom Tier classes.

Merk
2010-01-28, 12:44 AM
The Tier System borderline encourages people to play nothing but T1

If that were true, nobody would play fighters or monks or whatever to begin with. The tier system didn't create power/utility imbalances, it just illustrated them. There are plenty of players who would rather play a fighter or monk simply for character concept, that was true before the tier system was written and remains true afterward.

Gametime
2010-01-28, 12:51 AM
Except that it falls apart completely when confronted with a DM with even a basic grasp of tactics. And is ruined if a DM knows about the Tier System and actually sets out break the casters in half. And Limited-to-No Magic Mart destroys a Wizard's chance of all the spells he wants. Otherwise known as 'addressing the issues' by the Tier Guide.

The Tier System borderline encourages people to play nothing but T1. T1 Classes are awesome, and everything else sucks in comparison. And often require little-to-no work. Sure, JaronK goes out of his way to explain that this isn't the case. But, his description of the Tiers (T1, in comparison to T5, for example) basically drowns out any 'Don't do this' things that have been said.



So you believe D&D players are single-minded, nigh-illiterate idiots who care about nothing except grabbing as much power as they possibly can without any regard for the best way to go about it and without caring enough to actually educate themselves about what constitutes "power" in a D&D campaign. Some kind of horrible idiot savant version of a munchkin wannabe.

Personally, I've met lots of D&D players who have enough time on their hands to read the descriptions of the tiers and not think "Well, that's all I want to read! Time to go shatter the world as a wizard, even though with this lackluster skim I don't know what makes them good in the first place!"

And it's been said before without influencing your opinion at all, but...saying "The tier thread encourages people to not read it" or "The tier thread is misleading, and makes people believe things that are the opposite of what it says" is placing an undue onus on the author of that thread to idiot-proof his work. Some level of misunderstanding is inevitable, when you're catering to an audience as big as the Internet. Lots of us have managed to read that thread without coming away with the idea that only tier 1 classes are worth playing, though I guess we don't count for much...for some reason.

Cheesegear
2010-01-28, 01:13 AM
So you believe D&D players [...] care about nothing except grabbing as much power as they possibly can [...]

Given free reign to do whatever they want? No DM restrictions?
I believe that there are more than a few players who do this. Or would do this, given the chance.


"Well, that's all I want to read! Time to go shatter the world as a wizard, even though with this lackluster skim I don't know what makes them good in the first place!"

I never said players were stupid. It's almost like you've never read a "How do I optimise my Wizard?" thread or seen Build Requests (for 'a awesome' Druid/Cleric/Wizard) before. Most of the time, if people don't know how something works, they'll usually ask. But, since this is the internet, the information is already out there. So, asking usually isn't required if you know where to look.


Lots of us have managed to read that thread without coming away with the idea that only tier 1 classes are worth playing, though I guess we don't count for much...

I didn't say that. I, for one, almost exclusively play non-ToB (partly because our group hates it, the Feats being the only exception) martial characters. The Paladin is my very favourite class in the game. Followed closely by Dragonfire Adept (which isn't on the Tier List, incidentally, T3? 4?), Duskblade and Ranger/Scout. Throwing in Fighter levels when appropriate.

And I, even though I play mostly T4/5 classes, I have never felt underpowerd, useless or otherwise un-needed in any of the games that I've played since I found out how to not be a noob actually do things. Even though my party frequently consists of Druids, Clerics and Wizards - who are, in fact, out to be as powerful as they can be.

Even though our group dynamic and play-style favours Sorcerers. Wizards are, apparently 'just better'. According to one member at my table.

Thurbane
2010-01-28, 01:14 AM
<snip>
I'm going to fly in the face of popular opinion here, and say that Cheesegear makes some good points.

The tier system is fine as an analytical tool - unfortunately, some people use it as a blunt instrument to bludgeon people into playing nothing but T1 or T2. These very boards are littered with people crapping all over someone's build request or character concept, because it contains Fighter or Monk. By all means, suggest alternatives, but don't slap people with the tier system like it's holy scripture.

I'm not accusing anyone in this very thread of doing so, but if anyone doesn't think it happens with alarming regularity, have a browse through a few build request or build critique threads sometime...

Sliver
2010-01-28, 01:22 AM
The tiers don't work because someone can read "CLERIC IS TIER1!" and then go and make a cleric 20 with no WBL that only spams cure spells all day and then be enraged that the tiers lied to him, and he trusted them and they were friends! Anyway, this lacks any relevance.... (http://prettypinktrainwreck.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/straw.jpg)

Gametime
2010-01-28, 01:27 AM
And I, even though I play mostly T4/5 classes, I have never felt underpowerd, useless or otherwise un-needed in any of the games that I've played since I found out how to not be a noob actually do things. Even though my party frequently consists of Druids, Clerics and Wizards - who are, in fact, out to be as powerful as they can be.



Which is largely the point we've been trying to make - the tier system is not a strict measure of power, but of options and potential. The very fact that you have read the tier system and not come away with an illusion that EVERY wizard will be EVERY fighter should be proof that such misunderstandings are not the fault of the system.

Thurbane says you make some good points. I almost agree - you WOULD be making good points, if you weren't trying to make the tier system into something it isn't. I agree with almost everything you've said about the fact that almost any class can be fun to play, and that it depends on the player and the DM and etc., but you're acting as though these facts somehow invalidate the tier system or disprove its theories or something. They don't.

Knaight
2010-01-28, 01:27 AM
It does, but that is largely because large tier differences suck, and there are just enough people with the attitude of "I won't optimize anything but fully for any reason" for that to come up. The Tier system is more of a way to see how powerful the classes are against eachother, and what to take into account if you want balance. So, if the characters in your game would fit the mood best around T4, allow T3 to T5, encourage more optimization on T5, less on T3.

Tinydwarfman
2010-01-28, 01:29 AM
I'm going to fly in the face of popular opinion here, and say that Cheesegear makes some good points.

The tier system is fine as an analytical tool - unfortunately, some people use it as a blunt instrument to bludgeon people into playing nothing but T1 or T2. These very boards are littered with people crapping all over someone's build request or character concept, because it contains Fighter or Monk. By all means, suggest alternatives, but don't slap people with the tier system like it's holy scripture.

I'm not accusing anyone in this very thread of doing so, but if anyone doesn't think it happens with alarming regularity, have a browse through a few build request or build critique threads sometime...

We are talking about build critiques, not insulting their characters. You give us a concept, and we turn it into a mechanically strong build. Even if it means removing all those levels of fighter and replacing them w/ scout/ranger (for an archer). Some people don't like that, but it is keeping the exact same flavor and improving the power. I don't think you will ever see people saying "don't play a fighter, just go cleric" if they requested a tanking build.

JaronK
2010-01-28, 01:32 AM
According to the Tier System, I can think of a few things to do for my Paladin/Fighter in all 3 hypothetical situations. A straight-Fighter, however, is junk and should never be played.

Ah hah, and there it is. You're reading your own opinion into it. You think because the Fighter is weak, it should never be played. Me, I actually play at every power level. I play Commoners and I play Wizards. I play Fighters (yes, straight Fighters sometimes!) and I play Factotums. You know why? Because power isn't everything. Sometimes I want more of a challenge. Sometimes I know the campaign calls for weaker classes by its nature (it's hardly fun to solve a murder mystery plot by just diplomancing everyone into telling you the truth). Sometimes the idea of beating a dragon with a Commoner just sounds like fun. And sometimes I'm matching the rest of my party. Of course, there are other times when I find it all kinds of fun to cut loose with an Archivist and build cities when I'm bored.

But you, you seem to be one heck of a power gamer, to the point where the very idea of playing something less than the best is an anathama. You see "Wizards are one of the strongest classes" and you think that means you have to play a Wizard or you suck. Well, that's your own decision... that playing anything less than the strongest is somehow sucky and wrong. But that's not the tier's fault... that's yours.


A Paladin 6 is also pulling a Celestial Drakkensteed as his mount, y'know, if he wants that sort of thing. :smallamused: Still, even that might be T3, pushing T2. By later levels, riding an actual Dragon if he knows how to get one.

Having a pretty horsie does not make you Tier 2. A paladin with a cute mount isn't terribly crazy. There are many situations where a horse won't help... it mostly just makes you a bit better in combat.


A(n) (ideal) Wizard 6, or Wizard 5 / PrC 1, begins life at T1. And only gets stronger from there. Becoming game-breaking at level 15+..

3, actually. Summon Mirror Mephit is pretty game breaking, and is a level 2 spell. Hence, it requires some DM oversight (or just the player being sane).


Why start at T5, and require effort to barely make T3, if you can start life at T1 and only get stronger?

Because power isn't everything? Because not everyone is so much of a power gamer that they're blind to all other possibilities? I mean, I can make strong characters with the best of them, but if that's not going to fit in with the campaign or the rest of the party, I'm not going to do it. I'm not there just to upstage the rest of the party.


Reading the Tier System (even with the 'there is no best Tier'), there is no reason to play anything below T2 if your DM allows it. Because, really, I look at the Tier System and read T1. And the part where it says that T1s can do the jobs of other classes - and sometimes better. Right there, I stop reading.

Yeah... you really need to think about this a bit. Is it really so important to you to play a stronger character than the rest of your party? Is it really so important to be able to beat the campaign in an hour of play time? If so, try playing Pun Pun a few times. See if it's fun. Then when you're bored, consider reading past T1. Me, I prefer T3.


I accept the existence of the Tier System. I acknowledge that, by itself, it's pretty much spot-on.

I can see that. I think the problem is just that you're REALLY a hard core power gamer. You might actually enjoy trying not to overdo it... god mode is fun once in a while, but all the time? Not so much.


Except that it falls apart completely when confronted with a DM with even a basic grasp of tactics. And is ruined if a DM knows about the Tier System and actually sets out break the casters in half.

I'd prefer "if a DM knows about the Tier System and actually makes appropriate nerfs/house rules that rebalance things for his campaign" personally. That would be good. Also, he could buff up some of the other classes a bit.


And Limited-to-No Magic Mart destroys a Wizard's chance of all the spells he wants. Otherwise known as 'addressing the issues' by the Tier Guide.

Collegate Wizard actually solves that, as does spell researching. But yes, addressing the issues is good.


The Tier System borderline encourages people to play nothing but T1.

No, it straight forward encourages people to play "the Tier that matches the rest of your party and appeals to you." And it encourages people to try and be balanced within their own parties, and have a power level that fits with what the DM wants to run (because pissing off the DM is bad!). D&D is about the journey. Once you've won the campaign, you can't play anymore. So why play a class that makes it too easy to get to the end?

JaronK

Tackyhillbillu
2010-01-28, 01:49 AM
The tier system is immensely helpful, along with Zeal's companion project for PRC's, at least to me. And frankly, I've never ventured above Tier 3.

It helps you figure out where you will sit in the party. I usually optimize toward the Average. If I'm playing a Paladin or a Knight, I will optimize the hell out of them, because in a Campaign with Sorcerers, or god forbid, the big 6 in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing and intends to use it, cause that is what it takes (though if someone pulls out Incantrix, I will start swearing.) If I'm a Warblade, and the rest of the Party is Multiclassed Cleric/Rogues, Rangers, and other such things, I'll take it easy.

If you don't like the system, don't use it. I'm glad it and Zeal's system are around.

Thurbane
2010-01-28, 02:54 AM
We are talking about build critiques, not insulting their characters. You give us a concept, and we turn it into a mechanically strong build. Even if it means removing all those levels of fighter and replacing them w/ scout/ranger (for an archer). Some people don't like that, but it is keeping the exact same flavor and improving the power.
I agree with you 100% in theory. In practice, a lot of people do insult their character concepts. True, you don't need a tier system to do that, but unfortunately that's exactly what some people do use the tier system for.

I don't think you will ever see people saying "don't play a fighter, just go cleric" if they requested a tanking build.
Really? That is actually one of the more common examples I see. That or Druid.

...anyway, I don't think I have much else to say on this topic. Let me just leave it as I have no problem with the tier system itself, only when people try to ram it down others throats; or when they apply it without exercising some common sense or the basic courtesy of taking into account that everyone's gaming experience and group dynamics can vary widely...

Cheesegear
2010-01-28, 02:57 AM
Me, I actually play at every power level. I play Commoners and I play Wizards. I play Fighters (yes, straight Fighters sometimes!) and I play Factotums. You know why? Because power isn't everything.

I know. I prefer Martial characters to casters. :smallconfused:
I don't like single-class Fighters, because it's not fun. I was a single-class Fighter the whole way through a campaign once. Just so I could be the Weapon Supremiest Fighter around. And I got bored. Quickly. Because, although I was really, really good at it, every combat round devolved into "I run forward and attack." Because that's all a single-class Fighter can really do. Not including the times when using a Bow.


But you, you seem to be one heck of a power gamer, to the point where the very idea of playing something less than the best is an anathama. You see "Wizards are one of the strongest classes" and you think that means you have to play a Wizard or you suck.

Um...Me? Power Gamer? Right... :smallconfused:
No, I was told by two or three posters, a page or two ago, that if my <any class> can't deal with Dim Doors, Improved Invisibility or Solid Fog, I am clearly wasting my time and my <any class> serves better as a pack mule.

I didn't say that. That's what they told me. When I was trying to stand up for non-ToB martial characters.


Well, that's your own decision... that playing anything less than the strongest is somehow sucky and wrong. But that's not the tier's fault... that's yours.

I don't know where you're pulling that from. Because I've never said once that I never play 'less than the best'. I hate. Playing. Casters.


Yeah... you really need to think about this a bit. Is it really so important to you to play a stronger character than the rest of your party?

...!?


See if it's fun. Then when you're bored, consider reading past T1. Me, I prefer T3.

I think you skipped an entire paragraph of what I wrote.


Originally posted by Myself
I, for one, almost exclusively play non-ToB (partly because our group hates it, the Feats being the only exception) martial characters. The Paladin is my very favourite class in the game. Followed closely by Dragonfire Adept (which isn't on the Tier List, incidentally, T3? 4?), Duskblade and Ranger/Scout. Throwing in Fighter levels when appropriate.

According to the System, a Paladin is Tier 5. I've spent the last two pages defending Fighters (also T5), which I like, and my other favourite classes are T3 or 4.


I can see that. I think the problem is just that you're REALLY a hard core power gamer.

Hard...Core...Power...Gamer? I never thought I'd see the day when those words would be applied to me. :smallconfused: :smallfrown:
Because I just don't see it.


No, it straight forward encourages people to play "the Tier that matches the rest of your party and appeals to you." And it encourages people to try and be balanced within their own parties

The most fun I've ever had, was when I played an Elf Paladin/Fighter/Champion of CL with Elf sub-level Paladin for a Unicorn. I must've used the DMG method to get a Unicorn, because I eventually traded it (Or maybe the DM just did it wrong?).
Basically I was an Elf uber-Paladin.

Of course, this was before I realised a Paladin can get a Celestial-templated Drakkensteed for what amounts to 'pretty much free'. Yeah, that sounds really powerful. It is. But, I really, really like Dragons. Even if it wasn't as powerful as it is, I'd probably still do it anyway. Because a Paladin riding a Dragon sent directly from Bahamut is the coolest concept ever.

Back to Elf Paladin; I could fight with a sword or bow with equal skill. Ran around really fast. Had good Charisma/dialogue skills. Had a couple of handy spells up my sleeve along with Battle Blessing, and I had a sweet Unicorn. Which I later traded for a Pegasus. Because...Flight...Yeah...

I had a second party member, basically pushing the limits of the DM, being an Elf with Collegiate Wizard (because Wizards in our group need that feat or they're boned, if you've been following how our group plays games) and some other feat I don't remember.

And, between the two of us, we were the Elvenest Elves around (that was the concept). I was probably Tier 3 or 4. And she was Tier 1. Easy. And, so far, that's been my favourite campaign.
Also, between the two of us, we had much fun. Because the other two players were only 'Generic CoDzillas' and being really boring.

In my group, I'm usually the only one with any real concept of what I want my character to be able to do, apart from 'be reely awsum'. If you read closely to the above, you'll notice that it was Me, Wizard, Cleric, Druid.
...And I was the one having the most fun. Fancy that? :smallconfused:

Akal Saris
2010-01-28, 03:28 AM
I gotta be honest - a drakkensteed, celestial or not, is pretty far down the list of power as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it adds extra damage for you and it can fly, which is cool. But it's not going to end any encounters, you know?

Not to disparage paladins here, I enjoy them well enough, especially the PF version of them (and crusaders, if you count the class as a variant of paladin).

Coincidentally, one of my all-time favorite builds is the Supermount! by Caelic, which actually makes the concept of a paladin riding a powerful dragon work in a ruleset that seems driven to keep paladins from riding anything much more threatening than your average warhorse. Of course, by that point your character is mostly just a distraction on top of an enraged gold dragon, but that's really fine by me :P

Frosty
2010-01-28, 03:29 AM
And what does any of that have to do with a tiering system? Bad roleplayers won't have a concept of their character beyond the numbers. Good roleplayers will. It's just that with higher tier characters, the DM knows that the numbers thrown around will be varied and interesting, and he doesn't necessary need to throw around a bunch of houserules to coddle them to make them effective, unlike certain low-tier classes that are not optimized.

JaronK
2010-01-28, 03:44 AM
I know. I prefer Martial characters to casters. :smallconfused:
I don't like single-class Fighters, because it's not fun. I was a single-class Fighter the whole way through a campaign once. Just so I could be the Weapon Supremiest Fighter around. And I got bored. Quickly. Because, although I was really, really good at it, every combat round devolved into "I run forward and attack." Because that's all a single-class Fighter can really do. Not including the times when using a Bow.

Yeah, I got bored too. That's one of the reasons I don't play pure Fighters except in games with DMs that just hand wave everything outside of combat. Then it can be fun because it doesn't matter what skills and such you have anyway.


Um...Me? Power Gamer? Right... :smallconfused:

Yes. Anyone who would chose their character for no reason other than power, someone who would say "this is the strongest, therefor there's no reason to play anything else" and "this is not the strongest, therefor it sucks" is an extreme power gamer to the point of having a problem. You said yourself that you looked at the tiers and thought there was no reason to read past T1, because they were the "best." That's a power gamer. Most gamers would balance a variety of reasons to play a class, choosing from power, fit in the campaign, mechanics that fit their roleplay, and so on. Such gamers would keep reading past T1, because being the "best" in terms of power is not the only goal (and often isn't any of the goals). If you want to just be the "best" that way play Pun Pun and be done with it.

If that's not you, then you're misrepresenting yourself to a serious degree.


No, I was told by two or three posters, a page or two ago, that if my <any class> can't deal with Dim Doors, Improved Invisibility or Solid Fog, I am clearly wasting my time and my <any class> serves better as a pack mule.

That's not quite what they said. They said a pack mule can do your job as well as you can if you're getting nuetralized in combat and unable to deal with such issues. They're right. At that point, you are wasting your time. But hopefully a DM and your fellow players would be kind enough to correct for your class's failings and help you out a bit, so you're not sitting there playing second fiddle to the Druid's pet or the Cleric's undead.


I don't know where you're pulling that from. Because I've never said once that I never play 'less than the best'. I hate. Playing. Casters.

Here's what you said:

"The Tier System borderline encourages people to play nothing but T1." "Why start at T5, and require effort to barely make T3, if you can start life at T1 and only get stronger? "
"there is no reason to play anything below T2 if your DM allows it. Because, really, I look at the Tier System and read T1. And the part where it says that T1s can do the jobs of other classes - and sometimes better. Right there, I stop reading."
"The default 5-man party consists of 'Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Wizard, Artificer', or something else absurdly ridiculous. Because there's really no reason not to do that."

So yes, you said that, over and over. The moment you read that certain classes were the strongest, you thought there was "no reason not to" play all T1 classes and so on and so forth. That is the mark of a hard core power gamer... someone who can see absolutely no reason not to play the strongest class available. Me, I can see tons of reasons (for example, it's too powerful for the campaign scenario, or you wanted to play a non magical character, or your character concept called for something that's best represented by something else, or because you don't want to outshine the party).

Now, if that's not you, who is it? Who is saying all this?

JaronK

Cheesegear
2010-01-28, 06:59 AM
You said yourself that you looked at the tiers and thought there was no reason to read past T1, because they were the "best."

Sure, but, that being said, you've gone and taken that, and ignored everything else I've said thus far; The Tier system (to me), is, at best, flawed, and at worst, irrelevant.

I have read the whole thing (and quite some time ago, it's not as though the Tiers are new to me). And I'm saying, if what you say about the Tiers is true, that they have world-altering, game-breaking powers. They can do what they do, as well as doing what other classes can do - but better. Then, what is the point of going further?

Learn to play a Wizard (there are a quadrillion threads on the subject) and you're set. It's not power-gaming per se. As you've said, the Tiers are about adaptability and all'round usefulness. If a Tier 1 class can do 'everything', and, not only that, but, do it well, then there's really no point in going further because you've already found the perfect class.

You don't have to be super-powerful wizard. You can have 18 STR, and 14 INT (boost this). And get a bunch of martial feats your entire way through. And only use spells without somatic components. With the right (channeling) items, you can pretend you be a Duskblade. But, your spell list is also theoretically infinite (where a DB's is limited). When you need to cast something else, take off your Armour.

A Cleric can replicate almost anything a Fighter can do. Except they get spells and the ability (if they want it) to heal. A Druid, with Wild Shape, can be pretty much anything they want.

Once again, I rarely play above T3 (by personal choice, not because the DM forces me). I'm merely pointing out what can be done.


If that's not you, then you're misrepresenting yourself to a serious degree.

I believe I must be.


But hopefully a DM and your fellow players would be kind enough to correct for your class's failings and help you out a bit, so you're not sitting there playing second fiddle to the Druid's pet or the Cleric's undead.

Exactly. Just because the Fighter doesn't automatically get Freedom of Movement, doesn't mean he can't use his friends' help to get it. In a real game, where the players actually care about each other, once again, the Tier System becomes irrelevant.

May as well put a giant, big Strikethrough over the entire Tier System, and write at the end "All classes are T1 if you play the game and work as a team like you're supposed to."


So yes, you said that, over and over. The moment you read that certain classes were the strongest, you thought there was "no reason not to" play all T1 classes and so on and so forth. That is the mark of a hard core power gamer... someone who can see absolutely no reason not to play the strongest class available.

Except, of course, that I view the Tier System as non-functional. If I read the Tier System as written (T1 classes are the best, all other classes are worthless in comparison. <Roll a Pack Mule and you'll be just as effective>), then that's how my view would be.

But, I've been playing D&D for 15 years. I know how a gaming group works. I know how a game gets run. In a 'normal' game, Wizards are somewhere in the vicinity of Tier 3. Due to lack of spells. Collegiate Wizard mitigates this. But, it's still a problem. Collegiate Wizards are still looking at less spells known than a Sorcerer if they don't get scrolls/books.

A normal game. Where you pick a concept or character that you like, and you build around it. You're optimised as a character, rather than a player.

For example; I want to be an Elven Paladin. A Paragon of Elftitude. Slayer of Orcs and really fast with a sword and bow. There is the Champion of CL, which lends itself rather nicely to a Paladin. The concept of Champion of CL is exactly what you want. The fact that it's a really good class. Isn't an issue. It's what you want.
There also exists rules in the DMG to have Unicorns, Griffons and Pegasi as Holy Mounts. There's even a specific mention of Unicorns usually only following Elves.
So, I have a Paladin/Champion, with a Unicorn/Griffon/Pegasus as a mount. Is this a really good concept? Yes. And, wouldn't you know it, it actually turns out to be rather good. Even when you aren't allowed to have your mount out.
Not OMG AWSUM LETS BRAKE TEH DM! But, still pretty damn good. That's about the extent of my 'power gaming'. I pick a concept, and I optimise the concept so it will do what I have in my head.

In a 'normal' game, with the amount of 'optimisation' included above;
Warforged Warlocks are considered stupidly overpowered. Monks with VoP 'aren't fair'.

A Paladin or Blackguard who takes anything other than his 'normal horse' (the rules are in the DMG, and there are sub-levels and feats all over the place giving different mounts), this Paladin is considered 'rather good'.
As I said, there exists a way (perhaps three ways, I think) to get proper, actual Dragon as your mount. Who the character is doesn't really matter anymore. Because he has a Dragon.

And all's it takes is a quick flick through Dragon Magic and saying "Ooh...Hey, I like that idea..."

Scouts with Expeditious Dodge and using Manyshot, and Shot On The Run have been known to give DMs migraines. Especially if it's Raptoran, and mutli's out into Stormtalon.
From now on; all adventures take place indoors or in tunnels. Why? Because the DM hates the Scout far more than he could ever hate the Wizard.

In a normal game, a halfway-optimised Fighter, carries four to six weapons at any given time. As well as IUS/SUS in his back pocket for when the DM tries to get clever. 'Losing his sword' isn't a great a setback as people think it is.

A Barbarian (usually considered as better than the fighter) loses his weapon? All's he can really do is stand directly in front of the Wizard and try and grant cover for the tiny wo/man. Unless the Barbarian has 2-4 levels of Fighter too.

And a Wizard can be anywhere from T4 to T1. Depending on spell selection (and people usually aren't that dumb when picking spells) and what the DM chooses to do. "That Human wears no armour. Easy Target. Let's attack him first." is in-character for a lot of Monster races. And Evokers are amazing for some reason.


for example, it's too powerful for the campaign scenario, or you wanted to play a non magical character, or your character concept called for something that's best represented by something else, or because you don't want to outshine the party

But, if the DM has no restrictions, there's no reason not to be a Tier 1. You could even play a Cleric as a Fighter if you wanted to, who never uses his spells. Then, at some point during the narrative/campaign, PING, he starts using his powers again.


Now, if that's not you, who is it? Who is saying all this?

The part of me who hates power-gaming and munchkinry in all it's forms, yet still knows how to be one? :smallamused:

Runestar
2010-01-28, 07:49 AM
I think) to get proper, actual Dragon as your mount. Who the character is doesn't really matter anymore. Because he has a Dragon.

So what? Having a dragon cohort won't really break the game, between their debilitating LA and the fact that the dragon you acquire will be much weaker than you. Enemies aren't going to be quaking in their boots just because you have a weak dragon as a mount. They are going to laugh, kill it in one round, then focus on you in the second.


Scouts with Expeditious Dodge and using Manyshot, and Shot On The Run have been known to give DMs migraines.

I can imagine, since you can't combine manyshot with shot on the run (shot on the run lets you make 1 attack, manyshot is a standard action).


In a normal game, a halfway-optimised Fighter, carries four to six weapons at any given time. As well as IUS/SUS in his back pocket for when the DM tries to get clever. 'Losing his sword' isn't a great a setback as people think it is.

It can still be, since you are either splitting your wealth into multiple weaker weapons (as opposed to 1 stronger weapon), or lugging around spare +1 weapons which won't have that bite at higher lvs. Your wealth can't really support the fighter owning multiple powerful magic weapons.

So simply making accommodations for sunder is already a self-imposed nerf in itself.


A Barbarian (usually considered as better than the fighter) loses his weapon? All's he can really do is stand directly in front of the Wizard and try and grant cover for the tiny wo/man. Unless the Barbarian has 2-4 levels of Fighter too.

Why? What does the fighter have that lets him recover from sundering better than the barb?


But, if the DM has no restrictions, there's no reason not to be a Tier 1. You could even play a Cleric as a Fighter if you wanted to, who never uses his spells. Then, at some point during the narrative/campaign, PING, he starts using his powers again.

Then play tier 1 by all means.

The tier system didn't do anything to create the class imbalance, it merely consolidated years of gameplay experience and wisdom. You really think people are that ignorant that they wouldn't eventually figure that out even without said article?

The prowess of the big 4 (wizard, cleric, druid, artificer) was legendary long before this system was even conceived!

Signmaker
2010-01-28, 08:12 AM
In a normal game, a halfway-optimised Fighter, carries four to six weapons at any given time. As well as IUS/SUS in his back pocket for when the DM tries to get clever. 'Losing his sword' isn't a great a setback as people think it is.

A Barbarian (usually considered as better than the fighter) loses his weapon? All's he can really do is stand directly in front of the Wizard and try and grant cover for the tiny wo/man. Unless the Barbarian has 2-4 levels of Fighter too.


Bias. I've never seen a Barbarian in play without at least one throwing axe. Assuming that one martial class has multiple weapons and the other doesn't is, frankly, a bad assumption, which leads to the above flawed argument. Additionally, both classes tend to have proficient attack bonuses to stave off sundering and disarming, so if anything they're equal in the setup of 'potential loss of weapon'.

To me, the tier system is a ruler. Rulers are not accurate by any stretch of the imagination. However, for the purposes of practicality, they make a useful reference tool. Yes, it comes bundled with flaws, such as a lack of complexity in calculation. However, those flaws stem from having to be such a tool. Tools are meant to be simple to use. An easy interface where one can get in and get out. Fineries are left to debate. I see no problem with the current setup.

Killer Angel
2010-01-28, 08:28 AM
Exactly. Just because the Fighter doesn't automatically get Freedom of Movement, doesn't mean he can't use his friends' help to get it. In a real game, where the players actually care about each other, once again, the Tier System becomes irrelevant.


I have no problem in conceding that the theoretical level gap between classes, is very often not so wide in normal games, but there is.
The Tier System, is not the base of the Core, and the classes are builded around it.
The Tier System, simply describes an existing effective gap in power, between the Classes as written.
We all know that a properly builded rogue with UMD grows in power, and a blaster sorcerer who likes fireballs is underpotentiated... a good buid and a bad build, mean that there is a medium potential build for each class, and the Tier System reminds you what is this power level.

...and even when the players help each other, usually are the casters the ones with more options.

Tinydwarfman
2010-01-28, 08:31 AM
I agree with you 100% in theory. In practice, a lot of people do insult their character concepts. True, you don't need a tier system to do that, but unfortunately that's exactly what some people do use the tier system for.

Really? That is actually one of the more common examples I see. That or Druid.

...anyway, I don't think I have much else to say on this topic. Let me just leave it as I have no problem with the tier system itself, only when people try to ram it down others throats; or when they apply it without exercising some common sense or the basic courtesy of taking into account that everyone's gaming experience and group dynamics can vary widely...

Sorry, should have said "martial tanking build". Yes some people insult their character concepts, but those tend to be the same people who insult other people's intelligence on theory threads. Either the tier system is much worse than we thought, and it turned them into jackasses, or they were always like that.:smalltongue:

Cheesegear
2010-01-28, 08:33 AM
Enemies aren't going to be quaking in their boots just because you have a weak dragon as a mount. They are going to laugh, kill it in one round, then focus on you in the second.

In a normal game. When the party is working as a team. Where you're trying to have fun. That doesn't happen.

In a game where the DM desgins his BBEGs to crap on you. You don't do sub-optimal choices like taking Paladin for 12 levels and the like. Still, even a Drakkensteed is easily better than a horse.


I can imagine, since you can't combine manyshot with shot on the run (shot on the run lets you make 1 attack, manyshot is a standard action).

Also, Greater Manyshot. Or fine, just go ahead and ditch Shot On The Run and get something else. Even with one attack, I've still found plenty of uses for it.
Still, It's not about combining the two Feats or what the Scout can do in one round. It's what he ends up doing over multiple rounds. In lower level games.
Raptoran and Flyby Attack also works. And is worse. Because of Flight.


It can still be, since you are either splitting your wealth into multiple weaker weapons (as opposed to 1 stronger weapon), or lugging around spare +1 weapons which won't have that bite at higher lvls.

So simply making accommodations for sunder is already a self-imposed nerf in itself.

If it is, I've never noticed it. Or cared. :smallconfused:


Why? What does the fighter have that lets him recover from sundering better than the barb?

More available Feats - like IUS/SUS. (Usually) More weapons.

Gnaeus
2010-01-28, 08:47 AM
May as well put a giant, big Strikethrough over the entire Tier System, and write at the end "All classes are T1 if you play the game and work as a team like you're supposed to."


Like I am SUPPOSED to? So if my group plays D&D with a Paranoia mindset I am doing it wrong and the Ghost of Gary Gygax will visit us at night with bad dreams? Why don't you go ahead and say "All classes are T1 if you play the game like cheesegear tells you to?" You realize how inconsistent this is with your other argument that all classes are good if they are fun, right?


In a normal game. When the party is working as a team. Where you're trying to have fun. That doesn't happen.

Yes, clearly in any game where teamwork is not the priority, the players are not there to have fun. Any fun you might have had or be having in such an environment is wrong. People only play such games to break up the times they spend beating themselves with a hammer.

Some groups play very cooperatively. Thats great. Some groups play cutthroat. Thats fine too. Some groups play like they think their PCs would play, which could be cooperative or selfish, depending on the PC.

If you play cooperatively, the tier system helps the DM know which characters to go easy on and which ones to challenge, and it helps the Tier 1 casters know who is likely to need their help to contribute. If you play cutthroat, it tells you what you need to play to not be outclassed by the guy sitting next to you. You can use the tier system as a guide in either kind of game, you are just using it for different reasons.

Runestar
2010-01-28, 08:53 AM
In a normal game. When the party is working as a team. Where you're trying to have fun. That doesn't happen.

How so? What makes your dragon steed so special that it is suddenly exempt from death? It is not that strong - a DM wouldn't need to go out of his way to take it down or at least disable it for the duration of the encounter.

Or are you going to say that in any common-sensical party, the wizard is again expected to burn a disproportionate amount of resources towards keeping your dragon mount alive? Slots which could otherwise be used towards actually doing something meaningful like say, disabling the enemies on the battlefield?


Still, even a Drakkensteed is easily better than a horse.

So? I still don't see how it makes the paladin any better. The improvement to his power level is negligible at best.


More available Feats - like IUS/SUS. (Usually) More weapons.

You are going to need to explain more clearly. Why would the fighter carry more weapon than the fighter? Or at least, what is to stop the barb from carrying just as many weapons?

If anything, it seems the barb is actually in a better position to benefit from the golf-bag of weapons, since his rage bonuses apply to any weapon he wields, unlike a fighter's weapon spec, which locks him in a single weapon type.

Also, what's so good about a scout with manyshot or shot on the run? You still apply skirmish damage once, plus the latter limits you to only 1 attack/round, which simply will not cut it later on.

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-28, 09:22 AM
@Runestar: Supermount was mentioned, so odds are the mount doubles as a Sorcerer. Except for Cheeseguard's Drakkensteed. Its an OK mount for a Tier 4 party, but it doesn't hold a candle to an optimized Tier 3 build.

Runestar
2010-01-28, 09:30 AM
Except for Cheeseguard's Drakkensteed. Its an OK mount for a Tier 4 party, but it doesn't hold a candle to an optimized Tier 3 build.

I was under the impression that cheeseguard was essentially saying that a paladin acquiring a run-of-the-mill dragon or drakkensteed mount would result in an immense power boost, simply by playing it as it by the book, without any special optimization.

Or that the awesome factor of having a dragon in your party was somehow enough to steamroll over the opposition, not withstanding the fact that it is not the best role-played PC which wins the fight, but hard cold stats.

Kurald Galain
2010-01-28, 09:36 AM
Exactly. Just because the Fighter doesn't automatically get Freedom of Movement, doesn't mean he can't use his friends' help to get it. In a real game, where the players actually care about each other, once again, the Tier System becomes irrelevant.

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/6/8/128889640032558044.jpg

Artanis
2010-01-28, 12:31 PM
I believe I see what the problem is, Cheesegear: you are taking for granted that everybody is as good at this as you are. You are taking for granted that everybody knows that a T1 character has to tone it down to keep from outshining the Fighter. You are taking for granted that everybody knows that the DM will have a seriously difficult time if two wildly different tiers are in the same party. You are taking for granted that everybody knows that people should alter their playstyles to keep from outshining each other.

They don't.

They don't all know. Even those that do know they should do that don't know when they should until they find out the hard way. Even those who have found out don't know what to do about it, how to balance things out.

That is who the tier system is for. That is why it exists. It doesn't exist as a power ranking for you to use. It exists so that people who don't have your level of skill knows what should be done, and how to do it.


If you stop taking your level of skill for granted, if you accept that others don't have your 15 years of experience, you'll see that the tier system becomes pretty damned handy for those who don't realize just how different the classes' power levels can be.

Oslecamo
2010-01-28, 01:19 PM
I believe I see what the problem is, Cheesegear: you are taking for granted that everybody is as good at this as you are. You are taking for granted that everybody knows that a T1 character has to tone it down to keep from outshining the Fighter. You are taking for granted that everybody knows that the DM will have a seriously difficult time if two wildly different tiers are in the same party. You are taking for granted that everybody knows that people should alter their playstyles to keep from outshining each other.

If a player:
1-Outshines another.
2-Doesn't stop it when he realizes so.
3-The other players do mind being outshined and it's spoling their fun.

Then the tier system will do NOTHING to stop the first player to try to steal the show. He'll come to some gaming forums, cry that he needs a new uber build whitin the available material, and you'll hand him a new stronger build in a silver plate, making the life of the DM of said player even harder.



They don't all know. Even those that do know they should do that don't know when they should until they find out the hard way. Even those who have found out don't know what to do about it, how to balance things out.

And again, the tier system fails at balancing anything, because 90% of the classes have a very very big power gap depending on how well they are built and played. Mr.Magic Missile doesn't scare anybody.



That is who the tier system is for. That is why it exists. It doesn't exist as a power ranking for you to use. It exists so that people who don't have your level of skill knows what should be done, and how to do it.

Does the tier system teaches how to actualy make a wizard an uber machine? Does it tell you if WRT can be used in yourself or not? If free metamagic shenigans should be allowed? Does the tier system teaches the DM how to build proper ecounters? Nope. Tier system doesn't teach anything to anyone who doesn't know the rules damn well already.



If you stop taking your level of skill for granted, if you accept that others don't have your 15 years of experience, you'll see that the tier system becomes pretty damned handy for those who don't realize just how different the classes' power levels can be.
3.X is a pretty complex system. You really can't understand it unless you play it a lot. For a newbie, the tier system will just cause confusion, since he doesn't know how to optimize properly. But take a experienced optimizer, and he'll wipe the newbie's wizard with a commoner if needed.

And yes, there's plenty of newbie parties who started with core noncasters and casters side by side and that didn't stop them from enjoying the game for plenty of years untill the tier system was spawned, alongside a lot of other really silly material that has no real place outside of theoretical optimization and arena-box matches.

If anything, from my real experience, when you start worrying about the crunch details so much, it starts taking out the fun of a campaign. Who gives a damn class X is doing 30% more damage in 66% more situations? You just want to kick the door and see the flashworks and face big scary monsters to get their shiny loot.

sofawall
2010-01-28, 02:12 PM
If anything, from my real experience, when you start worrying about the crunch details so much, it starts taking out the fun of a campaign. Who gives a damn class X is doing 30% more damage in 66% more situations? You just want to kick the door and see the flashworks and face big scary monsters to get their shiny loot.

The problem is not when the Fighter is less effective. The problem arises when he becomes ineffective.

EDIT: And for the record, my sister who has played roughly a dozen sessions managed to figure out by session 3 that her druid and my buddy's wizard are on a completely different level, powerwise, from the swordsage and the rogue.

Artanis
2010-01-28, 02:23 PM
If a player:
1-Outshines another.
2-Doesn't stop it when he realizes so.
3-The other players do mind being outshined and it's spoling their fun.

Then the tier system will do NOTHING to stop the first player to try to steal the show. He'll come to some gaming forums, cry that he needs a new uber build whitin the available material, and you'll hand him a new stronger build in a silver plate, making the life of the DM of said player even harder.
Of course it won't stop somebody from being an *******. It's for people who never do #2 and #3 on the list. It's for people who don't want to outshine others, and the tier system helps them prevent #1 on your list.



*stuff about optimization*
The tier system explicitly states that it assumes roughly equivalent levels of optimization and skill.

Frosty
2010-01-28, 02:33 PM
I think essentially this boils down to:

"We don't like firearms manuals because it helps/encourages people to kill others!"

"No, actually reading such manuals helps people use firearms safely, as well as let them defend themselves!"

Remember, as one of them funny dwarves from Warcraft 3 says, "Guns don't kill people. I do! HAHAHAHA!"

arguskos
2010-01-28, 02:36 PM
I think essentially this boils down to:

"We don't like firearms manuals because it helps/encourages people to kill others!"

"No, actually reading such manuals helps people use firearms safely, as well as let them defend themselves!"

Remember, as one of them funny dwarves from Warcraft 3 says, "Guns don't kill people. I do! HAHAHAHA!"
"Ye can have me blunderbuss, when you pry it from me cold dead 'ands!"

Oh Riflemen, you're so hilarious.

Kantolin
2010-01-28, 03:15 PM
If a player:
1-Outshines another.
2-Doesn't stop it when he realizes so.
3-The other players do mind being outshined and it's spoling their fun.

Then the tier system will do NOTHING to stop the first player to try to steal the show.

No, it won't. Neither will a lack of tier system. You can't solve a jerk like that.

The Tier system helps a lot, though. As a DM, for example, when I group with people I don't know, I've gotten pretty good at eyeing classes and builds to see about how the party stands balanced against each other. With the tier system, I could just glance at it to get a nice ballpark. Or for the numerous 'No Tier 1 or Tier 6 classes please' games, it's a nice quick 'ahhh'.


He'll come to some gaming forums, cry that he needs a new uber build whitin the available material,

This doesn't have anything to do with the tier system; this is the large collective group of the internet. In fact, see below one step.


And yes, there's plenty of newbie parties who started with core noncasters and casters side by side and that didn't stop them from enjoying the game for plenty of years untill the tier system was spawned, alongside a lot of other really silly material that has no real place outside of theoretical optimization and arena-box matches.

I think you explained the problem with your logic here yourself. Your problem isn't with the tier system - it's with the collective group of the internet as a whole.

Really, people have been saying 'A cleric casting divine power is nastier than a fighter' since long before JaronK's tier list. The tier list is an effect of this behavior you dislike, not a cause.

I mean, your example itself is that a newbie comes to the boards, "Hey, what's a powerful class? I'm feeling overshadowed." When you do that, you get 'Well, X and Y is powerful' almost no matter what group you find. If the group you're speaking to is a small one that hasn't done a lot of analysis, you might get 'Well, play a monk - when we've played, monks are usually the best'.

You might then go to another group, who'll say like, 'Nono, it takes a long time for a monk's fist to do the same damage as a greatsword. You want to be a barbarian.'

The thing you don't seem to like is that you've gone to a /really big/ group - the internet. This really large group has discovered more of the functions of the game and knows a heck of a lot more about it than most people who aren't part of it, because it's a really big group.

(Edit: An example of this comes from the sizeable group of people in this very topic who state that fighters are sub-par. I've played a lot of core fighter 20s with and without the internet; I like fighters. It's not at all obvious that a fighter is a poor class [hey, if I stay a fighter, I get waaay more feats than anyone!], which is another point for the tier system helping)


If anything, from my real experience, when you start worrying about the crunch details so much, it starts taking out the fun of a campaign.

Then why on earth do you care about the internet's decision on classes one way or another? Do you play online with optimizers and such?

Finally, for people who were asking about the Sorceror/Wizard... first, I'm amused that apparantly the other combinations make sense for roleplaying reasons, but a sorceror/wizard doesn't. ^_^

But anyway, she was a sorceror who really wanted to be a wizard but didn't have the knack for it. Amidst the game, we found an evil sentient quarterstaff which, in a corruption gamble, suggested 'I could teach you wizardry...' to which she happily complied. The game trickled away at level 12, so we never got past that.

We also had a Rogue 7ish/Ranger 3ish/Warmage 2ish. But really, our entire group is pretty consistently underpowered, and that's cool since we're underpowered equally. ^_^

Tinydwarfman
2010-01-28, 03:31 PM
(Edit: An example of this comes from the sizeable group of people in this very topic who state that fighters are sub-par. I've played a lot of core fighter 20s with and without the internet; I like fighters. It's not at all obvious that a fighter is a poor class [hey, if I stay a fighter, I get waaay more feats than anyone!], which is another point for the tier system helping)


Really? I realized after a few sessions when I started to build a level 9 human fighter and said to myself "wait a sec, I already have all the feats I want for my idea, and a bunch of them suck!" seriously. Did wizards really expect nobody to realize there are not enough feats in core? Let alone good ones?
Sure in non-core you can never have enough feats, but you quickly run out of feats to take in core unless you decide to have two different weapon styles.

Kantolin
2010-01-28, 03:41 PM
It's more of an example of people not automatically knowing that certain core classes are not very effective, but yes.

It actually wasn't until I played a backrow healer/buffer cleric at level 7. That was when I was sitting there, staring at the incredibly poor 4th level spell cleric options, in which the only one that was kinda useful to me I didn't want to take since it made me a better fighter than the fighter. :P

(I mean... Freedom of movement doesn't come up very often in our games. We weren't fighting vampires for death ward. I wasn't a summoner. Magic Weapon Greater is still a +1.)

Our group discovered the 'buffs are better than blasting' aspect of wizards first, though, since my buffer wizard was just nuts, and that's a major aspect of the batman wizard (haste, not fireball).

But anyway, I just diversified. I actually had overrun on my first character, although I never used it since... well, man overrun sucked.

(Actually, in most cases most of my options were a lot poorer than 'hit it and power attack', but that's neither here nor there)

JaronK
2010-01-28, 04:22 PM
I have read the whole thing (and quite some time ago, it's not as though the Tiers are new to me). And I'm saying, if what you say about the Tiers is true, that they have world-altering, game-breaking powers. They can do what they do, as well as doing what other classes can do - but better. Then, what is the point of going further?

The point is that not everyone wants to play in god mode. Power isn't everything. Maybe I wanted to play a stealthy assassin type who can use a little magic but mostly gets by with his incredible skills. Factotum might do this, Rogue/Assassin might do this, Spellthief might do this, but Wizard can't. So, maybe I won't play T1. Or maybe the rest of my group is playing lower tier classes and I want to match them (as suggested). That would be two points to going further. Power isn't everything.

See why I say you're a power gamer? You claim you can't see a point in going further once you know that one class (or one small subset of classes) is more powerful and can do everything better. Power is your only metric, evidently. If that's not true, then why are you saying it?


Learn to play a Wizard (there are a quadrillion threads on the subject) and you're set. It's not power-gaming per se. As you've said, the Tiers are about adaptability and all'round usefulness. If a Tier 1 class can do 'everything', and, not only that, but, do it well, then there's really no point in going further because you've already found the perfect class.

See? You see "can do everything" and you think that means "perfect class." I see "can do everything" and I see "overpowered for most games" plus I notice that they don't always fit with the character type I want to play. But you see that and you see "the perfect class."

Notice how most others here don't see that. It's not perfect, it's just an option that's stronger (but power isn't everything).


You don't have to be super-powerful wizard. You can have 18 STR, and 14 INT (boost this). And get a bunch of martial feats your entire way through. And only use spells without somatic components. With the right (channeling) items, you can pretend you be a Duskblade. But, your spell list is also theoretically infinite (where a DB's is limited). When you need to cast something else, take off your Armour.

Yes, or take levels of Runesmith if you wanted. This is true.


A Cleric can replicate almost anything a Fighter can do. Except they get spells and the ability (if they want it) to heal. A Druid, with Wild Shape, can be pretty much anything they want.

Yes, that's true too. And it's written into the system. Do you think if I hadn't written the system it would somehow not be true? If I rewrote it and put the Monk on top, would Monks suddenly be the strongest thing ever?


Once again, I rarely play above T3 (by personal choice, not because the DM forces me). I'm merely pointing out what can be done.

Then you're being very confusing. If you rarely play above T3, then you must know the point in not playing the most powerful option ever. Why keep asking why you shouldn't just play the most powerful option ever?

It's now sounding like your objections are just theoretical, and do not apply to yourself (or the vast majority of players, since most players probably care at least a little about roleplay). You assume some munchkinny players will see the Tiers and due to their incredible power gameyness, will immediately pick only the T1s while dancing on the ashes of the DM's broken game. Well, I have a news flash for you... that sort of player would before have gone to the forums and just asked "what's the most powerful class ever?" Some people would have told him Wizard, some Druid, maybe some would have said other things, and he would have played that. The Tiers just meant he didn't ask, he just looked.

But they also mean his DM might have looked too, and noticed that when the rest of the party was Paladin, Fighter, Healer, Ninja he had gone with Wizard, and upon seeing that there was a much stronger class in the game, reviewed his character more closely. Noticing he'd picked all the most powerful spells (because one assumes this sort of player would then look for those) he sees Alter Self, Summon Mirror Mephit, Glitterdust, Polymorph, and so on on the list. He realizes he's got a greatly overpowered character, and says "I'm sorry, this is far more powerful than the rest of the group, I'd like you to tone it down." Our theoretical munchkin complains "the rules say I can!" The DM says "well, for this game, nobody above T5 is allowed. Maybe next game you can play something like that. Oh, and don't go back to the boards just yet, we're going to make your character right now so I'm sure it'll fit with everyone else." Or something.


Exactly. Just because the Fighter doesn't automatically get Freedom of Movement, doesn't mean he can't use his friends' help to get it. In a real game, where the players actually care about each other, once again, the Tier System becomes irrelevant.

In a real game, if the Fighter keeps getting in positions where he's stuck and his friends have to do everything for him, the player might get tired of that. After a while you don't feel like one of the heroes of the story, you start feeling like the comedic relief or the redshirt. It's okay to play that of course, unless you WANTED to play the heroic guy. In which case, you might want to know in advance where your class stands...


May as well put a giant, big Strikethrough over the entire Tier System, and write at the end "All classes are T1 if you play the game and work as a team like you're supposed to."

That's false. A Fighter will never be game breakingly horrible with so much flexibility that he can do anything just because the rest of his party of T5s works together.


Except, of course, that I view the Tier System as non-functional. If I read the Tier System as written (T1 classes are the best, all other classes are worthless in comparison. <Roll a Pack Mule and you'll be just as effective>), then that's how my view would be.

Yes, but you'd be reading it wrong, so that hardly matters. Considering the actual writer of the system believes that T3 is the best to play as, and T4 is the best to DM for, your reading is entirely your own. Try reading it correctly?


But, I've been playing D&D for 15 years. I know how a gaming group works. I know how a game gets run. In a 'normal' game, Wizards are somewhere in the vicinity of Tier 3. Due to lack of spells. Collegiate Wizard mitigates this. But, it's still a problem. Collegiate Wizards are still looking at less spells known than a Sorcerer if they don't get scrolls/books.

See, that's not what T3 means. T3 is a measure of how many mechanical options your class offers for dealing with any given in game situation, and how powerful those options will be. All Wizards are T1... but it's quite possible that a player fails to use those options, or doesn't know that those options exist, or thinks those options are overpowered and thus avoids them. A Wizard is T1. The character being played may not act like he is. It's like a corvette that never drives above 100 mph. It always COULD drive fast, it just doesn't because the driver doesn't. But if it ever came to it, someone could slam that pedal down.


A normal game. Where you pick a concept or character that you like, and you build around it. You're optimised as a character, rather than a player.

Yeah. So?


For example; I want to be an Elven Paladin. A Paragon of Elftitude. Slayer of Orcs and really fast with a sword and bow. There is the Champion of CL, which lends itself rather nicely to a Paladin. The concept of Champion of CL is exactly what you want. The fact that it's a really good class. Isn't an issue. It's what you want.


There also exists rules in the DMG to have Unicorns, Griffons and Pegasi as Holy Mounts. There's even a specific mention of Unicorns usually only following Elves.
So, I have a Paladin/Champion, with a Unicorn/Griffon/Pegasus as a mount. Is this a really good concept? Yes. And, wouldn't you know it, it actually turns out to be rather good. Even when you aren't allowed to have your mount out.

Yes. See, you DO know of reasons to play a class other than the raw power and versitility it provides. Good for you. So why have you been pretending you don't? Just being argumentative?

By the way, that would be a T4-5 build, for what it's worth. You're a paladin with a nice mount. Not sure what the rest of the build is though, so I can't be sure.


Not OMG AWSUM LETS BRAKE TEH DM! But, still pretty damn good. That's about the extent of my 'power gaming'. I pick a concept, and I optimise the concept so it will do what I have in my head.

Then have you been being deceitful when you pretended that power was everything and that there was no reason to play anything that wasn't T1?


In a 'normal' game, with the amount of 'optimisation' included above;
Warforged Warlocks are considered stupidly overpowered. Monks with VoP 'aren't fair'.

That's your games. Warforged Warlocks aren't considered stupidly overpowered in any game I've ever seen, except the one I'm running right now where the PCs were required to start as commoners. That's okay of course, you evidently just play in REALLY low powered games where a Drakkensteed is much stronger than other people. That's fine of course. But let's not pretend that's everyone ever.


A Paladin or Blackguard who takes anything other than his 'normal horse' (the rules are in the DMG, and there are sub-levels and feats all over the place giving different mounts), this Paladin is considered 'rather good'.
As I said, there exists a way (perhaps three ways, I think) to get proper, actual Dragon as your mount. Who the character is doesn't really matter anymore. Because he has a Dragon.

Or you could be a Dragonwrought Kobold, and just BE a Dragon. But whatever. And yes, you could get an actual dragon... I know, I created the ubermount (which sadly got nerfed in a later errata, so now Caelic's supermount is back to king of the hill). By the way, that's not above T4, in case you're wondering. All dragons do is hit stuff better than horses and maybe fly.


Scouts with Expeditious Dodge and using Manyshot, and Shot On The Run have been known to give DMs migraines. Especially if it's Raptoran, and mutli's out into Stormtalon.
From now on; all adventures take place indoors or in tunnels. Why? Because the DM hates the Scout far more than he could ever hate the Wizard.

Or the DM just points out that Shot on the Run and Manyshot can't work together. You know, because they can't.


In a normal game, a halfway-optimised Fighter, carries four to six weapons at any given time. As well as IUS/SUS in his back pocket for when the DM tries to get clever. 'Losing his sword' isn't a great a setback as people think it is.

Hmm, I never did. That always cost too much. I just made my weapon out of Dwarvencraft Quality Obdurium (from Stronghold Builder's Guide) and had a Locking Gauntlet. If I worried about Sundering, I'd ask the Wizard to cast Augment Object on it, just in case... hardness 64 is enough for me. But I never lost my sword either, nor have I ever claimed that's a big issue. I assure you, Fighters aren't T5 because of sword loss issues.


A Barbarian (usually considered as better than the fighter) loses his weapon? All's he can really do is stand directly in front of the Wizard and try and grant cover for the tiny wo/man. Unless the Barbarian has 2-4 levels of Fighter too.

The Barbarian is considered better than the Fighter (not much better, mind you) because he's the king of damage (thanks, Lion Totem, Whirling Frenzy, and so on) among other things, and that's a relatively useful shtick. But he's still not above T4, because it's just one shtick. It has nothing to do with weapons being dropped or lost. And I have NO idea why you're bringing this up at all.


And a Wizard can be anywhere from T4 to T1. Depending on spell selection (and people usually aren't that dumb when picking spells) and what the DM chooses to do. "That Human wears no armour. Easy Target. Let's attack him first." is in-character for a lot of Monster races. And Evokers are amazing for some reason.

Huh, I never look like a Wizard when I play one for that exact reason. Last time I had a lot of undead, and I disguised myself as one of them. Worked out pretty well, especially when a Cleric tried to turn me and got a Maximized Shivering Touch for his troubles (silly Cleric, relying on heavy armor and dumping his dex score). But I don't really see the point.


But, if the DM has no restrictions, there's no reason not to be a Tier 1.

Wait, you JUST gave a reason. You wanted to be a paladin of elfiness. Admittedly, Cleric/PrC Paladin would have been stronger... but it might not have fit your campaign. But you JUST gave one. Why are you claiming otherwise? And for the record, the last time a DM told me to play the most powerful thing I could (specifically told me) I got partway through building an Archivist before saying "wait a minute, this wouldn't be fun, it's rediculous" and deciding I didn't want to play in that game. And that's when the rest of the group was powerful. It would stink to play such a character in a group that was weaker. I'd NEVER play a Wizard in a group like yours where a Drakkensteed mount or a full dragon mount is considered superpowered. I think I might try playing a Commoner just for giggles in such a group (and to make sure I didn't overwhelm a group like that).

The Tiers are just a tool that tells you the base line power/versitility level of the classes. That's it. How you use them is your buisiness... by breaking games because you REALLY want to powergame, by fixing them with house rules once you're sure you know the start point, by matching the rest of your party, etc. It's like a hammer... you COULD bash someone in the head with it. But that's not what it's for.

JaronK

JaronK
2010-01-28, 04:25 PM
Really? I realized after a few sessions when I started to build a level 9 human fighter and said to myself "wait a sec, I already have all the feats I want for my idea, and a bunch of them suck!" seriously. Did wizards really expect nobody to realize there are not enough feats in core? Let alone good ones?
Sure in non-core you can never have enough feats, but you quickly run out of feats to take in core unless you decide to have two different weapon styles.

Actually, they did realize it, but T5 is about what WotC intended people to play at. It was supposed to be blasting Sorcerers and Wizards, healbot Cleircs, and so on. That's why Fighters are billed as being versitile... there weren't enough feats from any one area, so EVERY Fighter was supposed to eventually get a few archery feats, Improved Trip, and so on.

Fighters are basically exactly as intended. So are Monks. It's just that Druids, Wizards, and the like are NOT as intended.

JaronK

Idlewyld
2010-01-28, 08:47 PM
Whew, took nearly all day, but finally got through this dang thread. When I first starting reading I was curious to this whole Tier thing as well, having heard so much about it, but never having seen it. Now that I have, or at least the one post that was linked, I must say that the tier system is a bunch of gee whiz Capt. Obvious crap. For people that have gamed a while, they'll read it and go, meh, ok I see that. For newbie players, they'll read it and go, "MAN, I gotst to play me a Wizard YO!" For new DMs, they'll say, "I can't let any of my players be Wizards cuz they'll break my game."

That said, to the people that defend the tier system and say that fighters become useless, etc. I feel your the same kind of people that'd stop talking to someone, who found themselves unemployed for reasons not there own, because now they're mouching off you and don't contribute anything to you cuz you're still lucky enough to be employed...and therefore have more ways of overcoming problems that life throws at you.

Furthermore, WBL is a guide, not an absolute and a 6-15 lvl fighter can take leadership (and why not? he does have an abundance of feats anyway) and have a pocket collegiate crafter wizard theurge warforged megacheese iPhone app, etc. make all the WBL breaking items he needs, follow him around with buff spells, etc. to take care of any solid fog, blah blah blah. And he did it all by himself with nothing more than his rugged good looks to attract that powerful NPC wizard. BLAM! Tier 1 Fighter on a 6th level feat!

Nich_Critic
2010-01-28, 08:49 PM
Whew, took nearly all day, but finally got through this dang thread. When I first starting reading I was curious to this whole Tier thing as well, having heard so much about it, but never having seen it. Now that I have, or at least the one post that was linked, I must say that the tier system is a bunch of gee whiz Capt. Obvious crap. For people that have gamed a while, they'll read it and go, meh, ok I see that. For newbie players, they'll read it and go, "MAN, I gotst to play me a Wizard YO!" For new DMs, they'll say, "I can't let any of my players be Wizards cuz they'll break my game."

That said, to the people that defend the tier system and say that fighters become useless, etc. I feel your the same kind of people that'd stop talking to someone, who found themselves unemployed for reasons not there own, because now they're mouching off you and don't contribute anything to you cuz you're still lucky enough to be employed...and therefore have more ways of overcoming problems that life throws at you.

Furthermore, WBL is a guide, not an absolute and a 6-15 lvl fighter can take leadership (and why not? he does have an abundance of feats anyway) and have a pocket collegiate crafter wizard theurge warforged megacheese iPhone app, etc. make all the WBL breaking items he needs, follow him around with buff spells, etc. to take care of any solid fog, blah blah blah. And he did it all by himself with nothing more than his rugged good looks to attract that powerful NPC wizard. BLAM! Tier 1 Fighter on a 6th level feat!

Says more about leadership then it does about fighters...

Tinydwarfman
2010-01-28, 08:51 PM
http://blog.infinitemonkeysblog.com/files/images/obvious_troll.preview.jpg
And if you are not trolling then I am deeply saddened...

olentu
2010-01-28, 08:52 PM
Says more about leadership then it does about fighters...

Yeah leadership if it can be taken at all could be taken by any class.

Akal Saris
2010-01-29, 12:37 AM
I'd NEVER play a Wizard in a group like yours where a Drakkensteed mount or a full dragon mount is considered superpowered. I think I might try playing a Commoner just for giggles in such a group (and to make sure I didn't overwhelm a group like that).

JaronK

I'd play a truenamer!

Sinfire Titan
2010-01-29, 12:39 AM
Says more about leadership then it does about fighters...

If it were a Fighter Bonus Feat, it would indeed say something about the class.

Frosty
2010-01-29, 12:47 AM
Whew, took nearly all day, but finally got through this dang thread. When I first starting reading I was curious to this whole Tier thing as well, having heard so much about it, but never having seen it. Now that I have, or at least the one post that was linked, I must say that the tier system is a bunch of gee whiz Capt. Obvious crap. For people that have gamed a while, they'll read it and go, meh, ok I see that. For newbie players, they'll read it and go, "MAN, I gotst to play me a Wizard YO!" For new DMs, they'll say, "I can't let any of my players be Wizards cuz they'll break my game."

That said, to the people that defend the tier system and say that fighters become useless, etc. I feel your the same kind of people that'd stop talking to someone, who found themselves unemployed for reasons not there own, because now they're mouching off you and don't contribute anything to you cuz you're still lucky enough to be employed...and therefore have more ways of overcoming problems that life throws at you.

Furthermore, WBL is a guide, not an absolute and a 6-15 lvl fighter can take leadership (and why not? he does have an abundance of feats anyway) and have a pocket collegiate crafter wizard theurge warforged megacheese iPhone app, etc. make all the WBL breaking items he needs, follow him around with buff spells, etc. to take care of any solid fog, blah blah blah. And he did it all by himself with nothing more than his rugged good looks to attract that powerful NPC wizard. BLAM! Tier 1 Fighter on a 6th level feat!

Then you really need to re-read the tier threads. What it does for ME is tell me that as a DM, if I see someone pick a tier 5 or 6 class, I will need to go work with that person carefully to make sure he or she doesn't end up with a semi-useless character. Teamwork is terrific, but there are times when characters are alone and must pull their own weight. And when i see a tier 1 class. I will check carefully and work with the player to make sure he or she doesn't have campaign-ending combos.

Killer Angel
2010-01-29, 03:20 AM
Now that I have, or at least the one post that was linked, I must say that the tier system is a bunch of gee whiz Capt. Obvious crap.


So, the System is a bunch of crap, because his fault is that it sums up the differences between the Classes (created by WotC), otherwise there will be no problem? Yeah, brilliant analysis.


a 6-15 lvl fighter can take leadership (and why not? he does have an abundance of feats anyway) and have a pocket collegiate crafter wizard theurge warforged megacheese iPhone app, etc. make all the WBL breaking items he needs, follow him around with buff spells, etc. to take care of any solid fog, blah blah blah. And he did it all by himself with nothing more than his rugged good looks to attract that powerful NPC wizard. BLAM! Tier 1 Fighter on a 6th level feat!

So, the fighter is good because with leadership, he can have a wizard on his side? :smallyuk:

What's your point: leadership can overcome the tier system?
For what matters, you need only a commoner with a Candle of invocation.

JaronK
2010-01-29, 03:34 AM
I'd play a truenamer!

You're mad sir! Mad I say!

JaronK

Gametime
2010-01-29, 01:26 PM
So the complaints about the tier system seem to be of roughly three types:

1. The tier system is useless because it doesn't accurately model the power level of classes in 'normal' games.

Of course, this is an absurd requirement, since none of us have enough data to judge what makes a game 'normal.' For that matter, we certainly don't have the capability to find the 'average' player skill. DMs are also a logistical nightmare, since they can literally DO ANYTHING. The tier system can't account for that, and it doesn't pretend to. All it does is measure the class. Since an actual game involves players and DMs and all sorts of other nonsense, it makes sense that wizards will not always dominate in the way that they theoretically could, but it's hardly a strike against the tier rankings.

Moreover, the tier system isn't intended to be a metric of average power; it's a metric measuring potential power. A class with more viable options has a higher tier, but there's no reason to suspect those options will all be utilized effectively when played by Joe Schmoe. So, a faulty complaint at best.

2. The tier system is worse than useless because telling people that some classes are better makes them more likely to play those classes!

I doubt I even have to address how absurd this is, but I'll do it anyway. First, knowledge is not a bad thing. If I explain to you what a gun is and how it works, and then you go shoot a kitten, I am hardly to blame for introducing to you the concept of 'gun.' Perhaps I didn't teach you adequate safety measures, but that's a different matter, and it only reinforces the idea that knowledge of something is not to be blamed when that something is used for nefarious purposes.

Second, the tier thread continuously stresses the importance of not breaking the game in actual campaigns, and recommends tier 3 as a good power level for real games. I won't even go into the ridiculous "But people don't read it!" argument.

3. The tier system fails because it doesn't make the game more balanced.

This is my personal favorite. I don't know why anyone would think that tier rankings expressed designed to MODEL power levels would have any say in what those power levels ARE. To go back to my tired science example, learning what gravity is and how it works will not stop it from hurting when you fall off the roof. That is hardly the fault of physicists, and it would be pretty silly to blame them for the gravity. (Or, even more bizarrely, to blame them for teaching you about the gravity. Unless you're Wile E. Coyote, knowledge of something doesn't make it more or less likely to hit you in the face.)

That said, knowing how and why the classes are imbalanced can only be a good thing. Sure, some jerk might come in with a wizard and start trying to ruin your games, but you know what? A sufficiently determined jerk can ruin games with a samurai and no knowledge of the rules at all. How powerful he is in-game isn't going to change how annoying he is out-of-game.

Meanwhile, friendly players will hopefully understand more about the classes after reading the tier thread. They'll see why some options are subpar, and some are overpowered. They'll see why certain classes (ToB classes, Factotum) lend themselves naturally to an appropriate power level, while others may require specific spell or feat choice. Hopefully, they'll use this knowledge not to conquer worlds, but to build fun and versatile characters that don't overshadow the party but still accurately express their roleplaying intention. Isn't that a good thing?

Gametime
2010-01-29, 01:28 PM
That said, to the people that defend the tier system and say that fighters become useless, etc. I feel your the same kind of people that'd stop talking to someone, who found themselves unemployed for reasons not there own, because now they're mouching off you and don't contribute anything to you cuz you're still lucky enough to be employed...and therefore have more ways of overcoming problems that life throws at you.



I'm sorry, I can't let this go. You're saying that evaluating the weaknesses of the fighter class, a class that exists in a FANTASY GAME, a class which is played only purely by CHOICE, a class that is functionally weak but can still get the job done with proper application of teamwork, houserules, and good encounter design, is like being snobby to a person who is unemployed through no fault of their own.

CHOOSING to play a weaker class is like getting fired.

REALLY?

Zaydos
2010-01-29, 01:53 PM
I like the Tier system because... well it made me look again and recognize yeah Wizards are strong and fighters are superweak so I should stop balancing homebrew against fighters.

That said I wish I could see what classes were strongest with minimal optimization since few of my players have ever pulled off even that much (generally I end up having to help them... and the power difference from when I GM'd to where 2 PCs can equal the whole party of 8 from before and still probably be stronger).

Gnaeus
2010-01-29, 02:04 PM
That said I wish I could see what classes were strongest with minimal optimization since few of my players have ever pulled off even that much

Druid, pretty much all of tier 3 (the ToB classes, Beguiler & Dread Necro especially), Cleric.

It is really pretty hard to make a bad character from those classes unless you are doing it on purpose. As long as you realize what your prime stat is and don't make it really low, it will be strong.

Cleric can memorize PHB spells selected at random and still not suck. Druid is still in tier 1 if you drop one of its best class features and nerf another one (shapeshift variant). It is still tier 3 if you remove its casting alltogether (then it is basically a wildshape ranger). Beguiler and Dread Necro have all the spell selection done for you, and are hardier than other unoptimized arcane casters. I suppose you could make a bad ToB character, but it would take some work.