PDA

View Full Version : [3.P] What classes should be the baseline of power?



Endarire
2010-10-26, 06:04 PM
Overview
Inspired by various threads about comparative class power, I'm curious of your thoughts on this.

Tier 1 Classes have lots and lots of options. Can do anything their spells and DMs allow. Can eventually replace non-casters.

Tier 2 Classes have fewer potent options, but still very potent options if chosen correctly. Can eventually replace non-casters, but requires more effort to accomplish; usually more magic items or larger party sizes or higher levels.

Tier 3 Classes Are potent without having Ultimate Power™. They can do their thing well, but probably won't break the game on accident. Classes here are solid choices, and some are even casters. Tier 3 casters may be able to replace non-casters, but doing so generally requires a lot more effort than T1s and T2s.

T3s tend to be more flexible than T2s. Martial adepts and Bards are known for being able to slowly replace their known maneuvers/spells.

Some T3s (martial adepts especially) rely on spamming their best abilities. T3 casters tend to have too few spells to merely spam them, though each spell could do much.

Tier 4 Classes include the Dungeoncrasher Fighter and a remarkable number of Player's Handbook classes. Options tend to be especially rigid with little chance of replacement. From here on down, you'll probably be spamming your trick or two every fight it's viable, if not every round.

Tier 5 Classes try hard not to chosen last for Dodgeball teams. From here on down, you better hope your DM is being nice and your party's optimized as much as it can be. I don't want to consider a tier 6 campaign unless we're doing something wacky, like a group of Chicken Infested Warforged Commoners trying to open the world's first Khorvaire Fabricated Cuisine stand.

My Preference
Tier 1. Everyone is relevant, if not now then when the stars have fewer spells. As DM, I can throw bigger, cooler, CRAZIER combats and situations at the party and implicitly turn D&D into more of a puzzle game.

Tier 1 characters can also counter the DM's notorious plans. A well-placed spell turns a would-be TPK into a manageable or trivial situation. I've saved my party on at least one occasion by this.

Kylarra
2010-10-26, 06:13 PM
Tier 1 as a baseline is good for those with the time/experience to have system mastery.

Personally, I prefer Tier 3/4 as a baseline in order to have something more along the lines of a "traditional" game without needing to plan for umpteen-billion contingencies and rocket tag [as much].

dsmiles
2010-10-26, 06:18 PM
I'm a 3/4 kind of guy, myself. I don't like to put effort into writing adventure outlines, only to have the players teleport to the end, kill the bbeg, and save the princess in the first 5 minutes of the session. (I want them to at least take 20 minutes to do that, so I have a chance to write some more stuff. :smalltongue:)

Ajadea
2010-10-26, 06:21 PM
Tier 3/4. Tier 3.5, I guess. :smallamused:. You have your tricks. And you have your other tricks. But you can't do everything. In fact, there's a lot you can't do, but that's why you have things known as party members.

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 06:23 PM
As a player either Tier 1 with the kid-gloves on, or Tier 3.
Long winded explanation spoilered below.
I like tier 1 characters because I love wizards and druids from a fluff perspective (I wield the power of the cosmos/nature) and played magic-users and elves back in the old Red Box days. BUT when I play a caster I typically avoid heavy optimization, don't use Wild Shape, and keep the big guns stowed very, very far away; an exception was when the DM asked me to go all out... got to play that character for 1 adventure (which consisted entirely of encounters built from my list of *how best to neutralize this character* in the same order I gave them to the DM). Even then I didn't optimize as much as I could and the worst I did was take the DM up on his offer of a pixie familiar and coupled it with 1/day Draconic Polymorph (I could have been a Focused Transmuter), which is actually kind of funny since half the characters feats were devoted to getting as high a CL as possible for Conjuration spells to use Black Tentacles. Also I have a tendency towards gishes and theurges.

As a balance point, though, I prefer Tier 3 characters since: without optimization tend to be stronger than Tier 1s and 2s (exception Druid; an unoptimized wizard tends to die fast); with optimization they are still vulnerable; they can, depending upon optimization level, play nice with Tier 1s or Tier 5s; and have a nice number of options that they can perform without necessarily breaking the game.

As a DM, depends upon the player. Just here to be with friends and doesn't care enough to read the rules? Tier 4s and 5s since you can play them without much hassle (they won't be the strongest people but you can do it). Mostly care about RP, will double check what their abilities do, but not really into building a powerful character? Tier 1s and 2s because they'll enjoy the options without breaking the game. The Optimizers? Tier 3ish (low Tier 2 and option heavy tier 4 as well); they won't be happy without the versatility and options but they won't totally shatter the game either.

Eldariel
2010-10-26, 07:14 PM
Tier 3. But instead of using the present Tier 3, I'd prefer Tier 1 classes depowered. I want a few non-magical types that are viable, I want a variety of spellcasters and blends. So like, spellcasters with slightly more fair spells. For example, expanded and nerfed psionics (get rid of the few truly obscene options like Synchronity and nerf the Time Stop-line a bit) along with expanded ToB and a ToB-base Duskblade. Or just fixed multiclassing where X 10/Y 10 is actually around the same level as X 20 or Y 20.

Cadian 9th
2010-10-26, 07:26 PM
I generally try and make my adventures please all characters, making at least 1 use of every ability the character has, preferably one that is unique to them.

Also, I generally have games that are optimized, so Tiers are different. Same with low-level games, where Unarmed Shadow hand Swordsages are incredible.

I agree with the above posters. When you've got a DM/Player trust going, I'm happy with whatever they bring, so long as I can mesh it storywise. So far I've done alright that way... :smallsmile:

Tyndmyr
2010-10-26, 07:39 PM
Tier 1-2. Makes for an interesting and fun game.

Tier 3 is also a reasonable answer.

I prefer to avoid the lower tiers as a general rule, and have a general dislike of characters that rely on spamming one combo over and over again. Leads to boring combats and/or games.

Dralnu
2010-10-26, 07:56 PM
I like Tier 3.5 - 4. D&D is a party-oriented game and I like the idea of classes filling a specific niche and requiring to work together to defeat all varieties of obstacles.

My ideal melee as a player and DM is unoptimized ToB characters, or maybe a smidgen less powerful than that due to a couple standout manuevers. I like my casters around there too. Unquestionably powerful but still has that classic D&D vibe of how we all started out with fighters, paladins, and healbot clerics.

Coincidentally, this is exactly where my RL group currently is in terms of optimization and I love it. As a DM, sure I have to spend more hours preparing my sessions to make sure they don't pull a trick to steamroll everything and pre-made modules will need tweaking, but it doesn't need THAT much tweaking. Once you're reaching the ceiling of tier 3 and beyond it's just a headache.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-26, 08:05 PM
I like the 1-3 range.

prufock
2010-10-26, 08:12 PM
I like each character to have a role in the party, maybe two roles, but not ALL THE ROLES. They should have a few things they do well, then other things they do less well.

Yes, I like fighters that stand in front of the mage to soak up hits and give as good as he gets. Yes, I like rogues to be the skill monkey and sneaky-stabby guy. I like the cleric to be the healer, buffer, and fixer. The wizard should be the debuffer/buffer and area control.

Most of the time, this isn't a problem in my games. I'll bring the hammer down on any overpowered stuff, and I'll beef up underpowered stuff. Regardless of what I play I try to be effective, but I'll reign myself in if necessary. It usually isn't. My group doesn't play games to wank over optimized builds - they're fun to ooh and aah over as a mental exercise, but not to play. I'm playing a monk!

If I have to pick, I'd say tier 2 or 3. Everybody has options, and are good at what they do, but don't replace other character's niches without doing it on purpose (which you'd have to be kind of a jerk to do).

Trundlebug
2010-10-26, 08:13 PM
Tier 3/4. Tier 3.5, I guess. :smallamused:. You have your tricks. And you have your other tricks. But you can't do everything. In fact, there's a lot you can't do, but that's why you have things known as party members.

Said it well. You can only play what your group supports. Otherwise your a ****. I like relying on my mates. Would like to play with a 1 group though.

Jallorn
2010-10-26, 08:40 PM
I like tiers 2/3. I think that if you go too low, then there are lots of instances where only one character gets to shine, or instances where everyone is useless. Conversely, tier 1 gets a bit too rocket-tag and each player has too many options. I won't say it's easy, but it's certainly a different kind of challenge from the lower levels.

I think that each character should have some weaknesses, but should have something they can do in almost all situations. Hence, tiers 2/3. Most Tier 2 classes are spellcasters (with some exceptions) such as the sorcerer, who don't have everything, but have got some nice stuff. Most tier 3 are skillmonkeys or less manipulable spellcasters, like factotum and warlock (my two favorite classes).

kryan
2010-10-26, 08:40 PM
Tier 1 groups can be properly challenged, and can be forced to rely on each other. This takes a lot of work, though.

Personally, Tier 3, usually high-ish Tier 3. And I'm not really keen on the +/- 1 that's pretty common; I dislike both Tier 2's and Tier 4's. Tier 2's can be held back, though, and Tier 4's often make decent dips, but other than that, meh.

subject42
2010-10-26, 08:49 PM
I tend to like low 2 to high 4. It seems that's where the classes with minimal bookkeeping are.

Tvtyrant
2010-10-26, 09:12 PM
I tend to play Cleric, so I guess 1. However I really really like the idea of playing a Bard or Monk and optimizing the heck out of them in order to make them viable in the group filled with Wizards and Druids.

I think Tier 1's are kind of crazy; I really wish they were prestige classes for weaker classes as opposed to base classes. So full on wild shape and animal companion as a prestige class of Ranger, OR full casting Druid spells over ten levels, but not both. Bard into Wizard, Pally into Cleric, something into Sorc. Essentially it would free low level games from the Tier 1's all together, but allow them in the higher levels where they belong.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-26, 09:14 PM
Said it well. You can only play what your group supports. Otherwise your a ****. I like relying on my mates. Would like to play with a 1 group though.

It's awesome. It's like playing Xanatos Speed Chess when everyone has teleporters, nuclear bombs, and is constantly rewriting reality.

Going back to playing a charger afterwards will make you feel sad. It's like playing candyland after Arkham Horror.

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 09:20 PM
It's awesome. It's like playing Xanatos Speed Chess when everyone has teleporters, nuclear bombs, and is constantly rewriting reality.

Going back to playing a charger afterwards will make you feel sad. It's like playing candyland after Arkham Horror.

Personally I didn't enjoy Arkham Horror much... except when everyone congo-lined into the portal right before I closed it winning the game and letting Yog-Sothoth eat them all. I prefer... any of several other less time intensive games. If I'm going to sink all night in a game I'm going to play D&D.

true_shinken
2010-10-26, 09:27 PM
I will say tier 3.5 like most before me.

Tyndmyr
2010-10-26, 09:28 PM
As a rule, I prefer RPGs for my rules heavy games as well. It's an interesting game, but actually spending the evening roleplaying is generally going to win unless the DM gets hit by a bus or something.

Mostly just a bit of hyperbole to describe the "well, this is simple" feeling.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-26, 10:05 PM
It's awesome. It's like playing Xanatos Speed Chess when everyone has teleporters, nuclear bombs, and is constantly rewriting reality.

Xanatos Speed Chess is my favorite pastime.

Thrawn183
2010-10-26, 10:37 PM
I tend to like low 2 to high 4. It seems that's where the classes with minimal bookkeeping are.

This, just for a different reason. I think you do need a bit of what casters can bring to the table to deal with the variety of challenges a party will have to overcome. I just can't stand when a character will be really useful in every situation. It makes it impossible to let any of the other characters to have a moment to really shine when you know that the tier one character could have been useful in that spot too.

theMycon
2010-10-26, 10:40 PM
Personally? "Intelligently played tier 3." It's powerful enough and has enough options that no one strategy will always work against it (problem with lower tiers), but controllable enough that "same idea, more power" actually makes a difference.

The problem with tier 1's is that they have so many simple "yes I win" powers that more oomph just slows 'em down, but doesn't make any difference in how they have to play. A wizard can always go "I'm invincible, I separate the battle, I read a book"

The problem with tier 5's is that there are simply things that, no matter how powerful they become, they can never do. Example: Rule that "unarmed attack" is exactly the same as "unarmed strike" and the monk becomes an unstoppable melee god of death. Still can't do jack ranged, and needs a hell of a lot of luck against flying foes (unless a better class holds them in place.)

Elfin
2010-10-26, 10:42 PM
Like a lot of people, I favor Tier 3/4, leaning towards 3. It's heroic but without the ridiculous degrees of...erm...Tippyness (yeah, that's not a word).
Of course, it helps that nearly all of my favorite classes (martial adepts, beguiler, binder, warlock, factotum, etc) are in those two tiers.

Show
2010-10-26, 10:42 PM
I think that games flow the most smoothly at about tier 2.5.
The party works together, they fight somewhat level appropriate challenges, and they still get a few cool powers. Not enough cool powers to break the game, and not few enough that they have to go power spamming to feel useful. The part I enjoy most is that you can actually attempt to bring strategy into the game. Whereas tier 4 has no strategic value, and tier 1 is just full of tactical nukes, a party made up of tier 2/3(and the occasional 1 or 4) characters can actually do stuff. That is, without breaking the game or bending reality too much.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-26, 10:47 PM
Speaking as a heavy practical optimizer:

The optimizing community doesn't unanimously agree that if a character is Tier X, they're going to be outclassed by a character of Tier X+1. People really like to have class tiers for some reason (indeed, it has been joked that, after that other thing the internet is for, the internet is all about who would beat who arguments), but it doesn't work out as cleanly as people seem to think it does, especially when JaronK uses theoretical op shenanigans, prestige classes, and multiclass builds in his arguments about where a class ought to be placed.

The thing is, a Sorcerer (tier 2) isn't actually all that and a bag of chips compared to a Beguiler (tier 3) unless you pull out the stops.

One of the problems with JaronK's tier system is that when you're talking about real, practical games, the fact that a Sorcerer can count off more potential silly tricks that no one will ever actually get away with like Explosive Runes Collecting dispel bombs doesn't actually make him a more effective character than the party Beguiler, because you're not going to use Explosive Runes Collecting dispel bombs. And if you are, well, it's not like you can't get arbitrarily high damage just as easily with a tier 4.

Most of the time what you're going to see is that a Beguiler has:
-A better base template than the Sorcerer with cool special abilities.
-A lot more spells on hand at any given time. Seriously, the second you hit level 6, you have 21 third level spells known that you can cast spontaneously.
-Spells that aren't limited to enemy targeting mind-affecting stuff. He totally has things like Haste and Dispel Magic on that list of third level spells known.
-Has at least as many skills as the Rogue because not only does he get 6 base, but he's got Int as the primary stat.



Not enough cool powers to break the game

I find this sentiment rather silly. You can break things with just about any class. Counting the number of ways you can break the game doesn't really matter because people shouldn't be playing Shambling Mound Electroshock Therapy or More Wishes anyways.

The nuclear bombs argument just doesn't really apply to practical optimization, because in a real game a "Locate City Bomb" is something that's against the gentleman's agreement and thus you just don't do it. And you can make Pun Pun out of a Paladin. So yeah.

Show
2010-10-26, 11:22 PM
You can break things with just about any class. Counting the number of ways you can break the game doesn't really matter because people shouldn't be playing Shambling Mound Electroshock Therapy or More Wishes anyways.

The nuclear bombs argument just doesn't really apply to practical optimization, because in a real game a "Locate City Bomb" is something that's against the gentleman's agreement and thus you just don't do it.

What I mean is that a decent wizard can do almost anything, given even just a day or two to prep. A sorcerer, while able to do just as much direct damage, perhaps more with increased spells/day, actually has weaknesses and potential failures.
If you compare a decently prepared build of any kind, the tier 1 classes have many less weaknesses and are generally able to do anything they want by level 20, wheras a fighter is only able to hit things harder and more accurately throughout. This versatility and incredible range of powerful abilities is what, in my opinion, "breaks the game" in this case.
Straight damage output potential or ability to cause incredibly high saves isn't what the tier system is about. Its about how many things you can do, not that you can pull off a neat trick. While I agree with you that any class can be optimized to become "broken", Tier 1 characters become "broken" all on their own. No optimization necessary.

As for the beguiler, I'm not sure why its in tier 3. It seems like a decent tier 2 at least.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-26, 11:27 PM
Yeah, the thing with the Tier 1s is that they're actually uncapped, and their whole set of class features can change every day.


As for the beguiler, I'm not sure why its in tier 3. It seems like a decent tier 2 at least.

It's because of the criteria JaronK uses to rate things.

Show
2010-10-26, 11:29 PM
Godless Paladin:
Sorry if you misunderstood anything. I meant to refer to their lack of weaknesses, not their ability to deal 1200 damage with an optimized disintegrate. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: About the beguiler, perhaps, while it has the abilities, it doesn't utilize them as effectively?
I haven't looked at the class in-depth, but that could be a possible explaination.

jiriku
2010-10-26, 11:37 PM
As a player, I love Tier 1 classes. Just love 'em. However, it's a delicate line to walk trying to play one without frying the DM's brain or stepping on the good time my friends are trying to have. That's a shame, cuz I love me my wizards.

As a DM, I'd LOVE to run a game for an all-Tier 1 group, but frankly the interest (and the skill level) just isn't there in the groups I play with. So I settle for Tier 3, wishing all the time that my players would push me harder. :smallsmile:

EDIT: The chief difference between a beguiler and a wizard from a raw power perspective, and the one that drives a 2-tier gap between them, is that the beguiler has around 150 spells known, while the wizard has n spells known, selected from a pool of around 700 spells.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-26, 11:37 PM
Edit: About the beguiler, perhaps, while it has the abilities, it doesn't utilize them as effectively?
I haven't looked at the class in-depth, but that could be a possible explaination.

What? Compared to a Sorcerer? No.

A Beguiler uses the spells it gets better than the Sorcerer, in most cases. He gets features like Still Spell, Silent Spell, Cloaked Casting, Surprise Casting, etc. The reason that the Sorcerer can be better is because you have more room to make optimized builds with super-combos because the spell lists aren't premade for you, and thus you can pull some shenanigans. Like casting Polymorph.

But the Beguiler has 21 pretty good level 3 Sor/Wiz spells known (you know, Hesitate, Haste, Dispel Magic, Glibness, Nondetection, Slow, Displacement... we're not talking the lame spells here. These are awesome spells) and spontaneously castable when the Sorcrerer has 1 level 3 spell known. And this pattern holds throughout the level progression.

The Sorcerer is largely inferior to a Beguiler unless the Sorcerer is actually pulling out the stops.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-26, 11:37 PM
Who does like to be caught by surprise? :smalltongue:

Classes that don't need prep to be powerful, like sorcerers, beguilers, warlocks, et cetera. Flexibility means that they can afford to be ambushed every now and then.

Mind you, surprise is still the best way to nail a sorcerer, but he's probably better off than the wizard who was prepping to fight a lich only to get jumped by a force golem.

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 11:42 PM
On beguilers, sorcerers, and tiers.

1. Tiers are not constant over all levels of play; the most commonly listed classes for "strongest at 1st level" are druid and beguiler in my experience.

2. While sorcerers have a smaller number of spells known they can cherry pick the best ones. In fact they can cherry pick ones better than wizards can get (Wings of X, Arcane Spellsurge). Beguilers are stuck with party buffs (which are party friendly and mostly ignored), mind-affects and illusions (which are either too easy to resist or too DM dependent), and skill points (which they have spells which obsolete).

3. The tiers assume at least moderate game knowledge and access to non-core books. This means the sorcerer is expected to be picking good, if not the best, spells of each level (not the most accurate... my sorcerers tend to have very themed spells known based around their draconic ancestor for example; yes I like dragons).

4. Tier 3 is more versatile than tier 2; tier 2 is defined as being able to pull off awesome game breaking combinations. If you don't do that it is not necessarily stronger than or even as strong as tier 3.

5. Beguilers might be the strongest Tier 3 out there.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-26, 11:47 PM
4. Tier 3 is more versatile than tier 2; tier 2 is defined as being able to pull off awesome game breaking combinations. If you don't do that it is not necessarily stronger than or even as strong as tier 3.

I already addressed this. JaronK actually used the argument that the Sorcerer is better than the Beguiler because of shenanigans like Explosive Runes Collecting. But you don't use Explosive Runes Collecting dispel bombs, and if you're talking about that level of Gouda you might as well note that Paladins can become Pun Pun.

This logic gets even more fuzzy because of the fact that JaronK really likes to use builds and prestige classes to say that X is better than Y. That means when you're looking at Sorcerer on Tier 2, you ought to remember the Bard on Tier 3 taking Sublime Chord / War Weaver, the so called "Gold Standard Buffer".

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-26, 11:48 PM
I already addressed this. JaronK actually used the argument that the Sorcerer is better than the Beguiler because of shenanigans like Explosive Runes Collecting. But you don't use Explosive Runes Collecting.

Correction: Games including polite players and/or sensible DMs don't use Explosive Runes Collecting. Sadly, there are dungeon masters that will permit players to use such tricks (or will use them themselves), which makes those definitions relevant, especially if you find yourself needing to survive such jerks.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-26, 11:49 PM
Correction: Games including polite players and/or sensible DMs don't use Explosive Runes Collecting. Sadly, there are dungeon masters that will permit players to use such tricks (or will use them themselves), which makes those definitions relevant, especially if you find yourself needing to survive such jerks.

See the very next line. :smallsigh:


and if you're talking about that level of Gouda you might as well note that Paladins can become Pun Pun.

And before you say that I had written that while you were already replying, I'll note that I had said the exact same thing only a coupla posts earlier.

If you're not talking about practical levels of play but instead about a world where everyone's got arbitrarily high damage and 200% real illusions of every spell and DC50s and so forth, the tiers don't really matter that much because the game has been broken.

Lord_Gareth
2010-10-26, 11:52 PM
Oh, I read it (and I'd LOVE to see that build, if only for the lulz). I was just pointing out that the statement you don't use that fails to stand in many games. This is sad, but true.

Boci
2010-10-26, 11:54 PM
Arcane Spellsurge

Nit pick: That is actually available to wizards as well. You may be thinking of arcane fusion.

Show
2010-10-26, 11:54 PM
If you're not talking about practical levels of play but instead about a world where everyone's got arbitrary damage and 200% real illusions of everything and so forth, the tiers become a bit silly.

At that level, everything becomes silly. Fourtunately, games usually don't get to that level. Usually. However, players aren't always practical, either. That's when the tier system does become unreliable.

Godless_Paladin
2010-10-26, 11:55 PM
Oh, I read it (and I'd LOVE to see that build, if only for the lulz). I was just pointing out that the statement you don't use that fails to stand in many games. This is sad, but true.

If your DM is letting you do arbitrarily high damage (I mean, we're talking "thousands" here) as a level 7 character then one might wonder what he's reading a Tier list for anyways.


At that level, everything becomes silly. Fourtunately, games usually don't get to that level. Well, usually.

Hence my point. JaronK's arguments for the placement of classes have historically hinged on such examples. In fact, those actual examples I just named, if I recall correctly.

Hence why his system is not as widely accepted by the optimizing community as some people seem to think it is.

For just one of the first examples that google popped up for me: http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=106811

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 11:56 PM
On practical levels sorcerers have spells such as Wings of Flurry (for Ref based stun lock), Stun Ray (for no save you're stunned), Greater Arcane Fusion (for 3 spells per round novaing), and all kinds of fun with Arcane Thesis.

As for the lack of class features, even a mildly optimized sorcerer is likely to jump out to a PrC asap (actually even an unoptimized sorcerer will if the player finds one that attracts their eyes). This closes that gap somewhat (but not entirely).

Zaydos
2010-10-26, 11:57 PM
Nit pick: That is actually available to wizards as well. You may be thinking of arcane fusion.

Yes I am :smallredface:

Now I have to find out what Arcane Spellsurge actually does/what book it is in... to Google.

Boci
2010-10-26, 11:59 PM
Yes I am :smallredface:

Now I have to find out what Arcane Spellsurge actually does/what book it is in... to Google.

1 round/level, cast standard action spells as swift actions and full round action spells as standard actions, cannot voluntarily ignore benefit of spell.

Zaydos
2010-10-27, 12:01 AM
1 round/level, cast standard action spells as swift actions and full round action spells as standard actions, cannot voluntarily ignore benefit of spell.

Found it in Dragon Magic already (and now I remember why I think of it as a sorcerer spell; because normally wizards don't have full-round action spells... funny thing is it doesn't actually have them on its table but 1 Full Round which is distinctly different; does use full-round action spells in its example though).

Noodles2375
2010-10-27, 12:05 AM
In a group of gamers like myself, who enjoy building characters who are good at their chosen occupation, and who all have more or less the same DnD experience, I very much enjoy tier 3/4 classes where everyone feels like they contribute a lot, everyone has shining moments and no one can replace the rest of the party.

If I'm in a group with inexperienced people, or with people who don't enjoy any sort of practical optimization, I'd rather optimize a tier 4-5 up to the appropriate power level of the other party members, or play down a tier 2 (i.e. blaster psion)

Merk
2010-10-27, 12:06 AM
For the style I like to play and DM, I prefer Tier 3. In my mind, this tier is the best from a design standpoint: classes that are very good at one task, and that can still contribute at other tasks.

At tier 2 and above, I dislike the capacity of the players to break the game and trivialize any set challenges. At tier 4 and below, players run into issues of usefulness. Tier 4 characters tend to be good at one thing, but useless otherwise. Tier 5 characters tend to be useless unless optimized, and tier 6 characters are useless unless extremely optimized in limited circumstances.

Serpentine
2010-10-27, 12:22 AM
I prefer that I, as a player, and as a DM my players, aim for approximately Tier 3 level power (whatever the class), and I'll try to level them out with items and homebrew and stuff. Ideally, everyone would have the one thing they are great at in the right circumstances, something they can do well in most circumstances, and something they can do that's at least helpful when the circumstances aren't in their favour. So, say, a Rogue who is brilliant at attacking from the darkness and slipping away again in appropriately shadowy and concealment-heavy environments; who can bounce around throwing in sneak attacks and do some decent damage in just about any environment; and who can bounce around distracting the enemy to allow the other party members to do more damage/take less damage when her sneak attacks won't work.
tl;dr: they should have strengths, weaknesses, and standard abilities.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-10-27, 12:33 AM
I like 3/4 quite well for a more traditionally-styled game. Tier 1/2 can be a ton of fun also, as long as everyone (particularly the DM) is on-board with it.

Ormur
2010-10-27, 01:02 AM
Tier 1 and tier 2/3.

I like both options as a player but I wouldn't want to DM for the first one until I've gotten a bit better at optimizing encounters quickly.

Grendus
2010-10-27, 11:07 AM
Tier 3 should be the baseline, per the definition. A solid tier three won't usually find himself saying "well, I can't help", but may be outshined by a focused tier 4. In a group of tier 3's and tier 4's, you'll find that the tier 4's aren't outshined in their area, and the tier 3's aren't always dominating everything by having just the right app spell for that.

That said, what the tier system really comes down to is relative power. Power level isn't absolute (as the debate about tier 2 and 3 classes points out), a lot will come down to how you play. A blaster wizard who only takes offensive spells is a solid tier 4, he's only good at one thing, and lacks even the utility of a skillmonkey class. If everybody plays at the same tier level, regardless of class, it will be fun. If that means that everybody plays a kick in the door style, be it a fighter or a wizard who's default response is "KILL IT WITH FIRE!" then have fun. If that means you have a party with three ToB classes, a beguiler, a bard, and a factotum, that's fun too. So long are you aren't in a badly imbalanced class (say, a sword and board warrior, an OA Samurai, a Monk, and a Batman Wizard), your game should run as smoothly as the RP allows.

bokodasu
2010-10-27, 11:34 AM
Ok, you know how the tier system says a well-built character is probably a tier above and a poorly-built one is a tier lower? That level of tier 2 is my favorite. (Low 1's, high 3's, regular old 2's.) I like high-powered games with plenty of options, but no one player should be doing everything.

I mean, it really does depend on your group; two wizards CAN work together towards the same ends, it's not like it's against the rules or anything. (Yes, most people will know this. It just seems that a lot of these discussions boil down to "no tier one ever needs the help of anyone else and might as well go on a solo adventure I don't even know why you'd allow other classes if you're going to allow something so broken as a spellcaster.")

Aharon
2010-10-27, 02:13 PM
I think the game is fine as it is, there shouldn't actually be a baseline. The only things nobody mentioned as a wanted baseline were Tier 5 and 6, so we might be able to ditch those, but there are some people who enjoy optimizing Samurai or Truenamers, too :)

Curmudgeon
2010-10-27, 06:33 PM
I'm good with making Tier 3 the baseline, though I need to exercise care to not overshadow other characters at that level when I pick Tier 4 or Tier 5 as my starting point and do my optimization mojo. That's typically when I'd choose to play a Monk. :smallbiggrin:

Earthwalker
2010-10-28, 10:15 AM
Put me down for Tier 3, not that we play alot of classes in that Tier more we generally seem to adverage down to allow all classes and characters to be effective.