Can someone please tell me what is a Tier One class?

[Whiplashbash]

And tell me how this comes about? It would seem to me to be purely relevant to the campaign being run, no? I believe there was a thread as to which classes were considered what tier; could someone re-post it?

[Kaww]

Well lets try it this way: link (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=49i3o487f9trnr51n5hs5nahu6&topic=1002.0)

[JaronK]

Actually, there's a repost of it (with a few new classes added in) on the front page of the Brilliant Gameologist boards right now.

Basically, a Tier 1 class is a class that has some mechanical ability to outright solve pretty much any encounter or issue you might have in play. For example, if the current plotline is "find out who murdered the king's son" a Wizard could cast Contact Other Plane and, if he picked a clever enough question and asked the right god, instantly find out the answer.

Generally speaking, using the full power of a Tier 1 class breaks the campaign, so it's advisable not to do that. Instead, players should restrict their power to match the rest of the party so that everyone actually gets to play and the GM isn't left constantly scrambling to keep up with you being the new driving force of the campaign ("Hey guys, this might be fun, I cast Plane Shift. Now we're fighting in the Abyss. Whee!").

At the other end of the spectrum is Tier 6 classes, that basically don't have any mechanical abilities in their class that actually solves problems. There's very few encounters where you say "ah hah, I sure am glad I'm a Commoner, because this nifty Commoner ability solves this problem!" You know, unless the problem can be solved by having lots of chickens. As such, all problems have to be solved with something other than your class (magic items, solving problems entirely through role playing, racial abilities, puzzles that the players themselves have to solve, etc).

Usually most players want to play something in between, at a level where you as a player have to be actually creative (not just search for the perfect "I win" button in your spell list), but where your class does give you nice helpful abilities so you can feel useful in all (or most) situations. An area where you neither have to hold the Idiot Ball just to make the campaign continue on track, nor where the DM has to constantly help you out to keep you able to follow that track. That tends to be the Tier 3-4 area.

JaronK

[akma]

JaronK was the writer of the tier system.
And personelly, I never felt the tier system during games. But many times I played with players who didn`t even remmember what feats they toke and never with optimizers.

[Killer Angel]

And personelly, I never felt the tier system during games. But many times I played with players who didn`t even remmember what feats they toke and never with optimizers.

I don't play with optimizers, and we see the differences between classes and tiers.
Fighters fight, but they depends on casters for almost all the things OOC, and during combat the casters have tons of tricks... even if only the possibility to save the group with Teleport or Heal.

But I also saw that, in low optimization games, the fighter feels more useful... the casters rarely can stand on their own in a fight ('cause they pick spells as fireball, magic missile, etc), so the meatshield fills an important role, and the typical fighters-type player, sometime loves the mentality "I let you do the boring things, call me when we fight and you cannot do it by yourself. I'm the though guy"

[Eldan]

Yeah, we ran into that even in my first game... it was a little embarrassing, really.

Party is a monk, a fighter (or something, I don't really remember. Some kind of melee fighter), a sorcerer and a wizard (me).

DM: *describes some sort of problem to be solved*
Everyone: *stares at me expectantly*
Me: "Stop looking at me! I don't know how to solve anything!"

I had solved exactly one problem by then, by having the right spell prepared. From then on, the entire group (all during their first game session), assumed I could solve everything and just let me handle all problems.

[TroubleBrewing]

From then on, the entire group (all during their first game session), assumed I could solve everything and just let me handle all problems.

Well, yeah. Were they totally off-base here? It wasn't your first game, and you rolled up a wizard. You DID have all the answers.

[Uncle Casw]

"Hey guys, this might be fun, I cast Plane Shift. Now we're fighting in the Abyss. Whee!"

"Hey guys, this might be fun, I cast Plane Shift. Tonight we dine in Nine Hells!"

[Eldan]

Well, yeah. Were they totally off-base here? It wasn't your first game, and you rolled up a wizard. You DID have all the answers.

It was my first game as well. I had the PHB open on my lap to remember what magic missile did.

[JaronK]

"Hey guys, this might be fun, I cast Plane Shift. Tonight we dine in Nine Hells!"

...stupid Wizard tourists.

But yeah, if you don't use their power that's fine... that's effectively giving your character the Idiot Ball. That's what you have to do, and it tends to happen automatically if you as a player don't even know all the options your Wizard has. After all, your Wizard is a hyper intelligent genius who (assuming he took some ranks in spellcraft) probably knows every spell from every book ever and every creative way to use those spells. But if as a player you haven't hunted through every book to learn those spells and thought of all those ways to do it, you won't play him to his full potential... thus balancing the game a lot more. That's not about optimization... pretty much all Wizards of a given level know of the appropriate spells (even if they haven't written them in yet). You as a player just haven't decided to go grab them.

JaronK

[Murdim]

And tell me how this comes about? It would seem to me to be purely relevant to the campaign being run, no?
The design philosophy of Tier 1 classes in one sentence : "...or I could just summon a horde of angels." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)

It basically depends on your gaming group's philosophy, really. If you want the DM to offer real challenges to your players, overpowered classes will make the life of everyone else around the table much more difficult. But if you play your RPGs like a sophisticated game of make-believe, then class imbalance won't probably matter that much.

[Frosty]

One summons angels...the OTHER RIDES A BMX!! :smallbiggrin:

[Whiplashbash]

It basically depends on your gaming group's philosophy, really. If you want the DM to offer real challenges to your players, overpowered classes will make the life of everyone else around the table much more difficult. But if you play your RPGs like a sophisticated game of make-believe, then class imbalance won't probably matter that much.[/QUOTE]


Actually, more true than I gave it ( the system ) credit for. The PC's with the tier one classes basically wade into battle kicking a$$ and taking names. The other party members seem to mostly become meat targets for the Bad Guys; just mucking things up and then diving for cover when they're a few HP away from destruction.
We are in a pretty low-magic setting as well, and that's not helping anyone at all.

[Urpriest]

The design philosophy of Tier 1 classes in one sentence : "...or I could just summon a horde of angels." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)

It basically depends on your gaming group's philosophy, really. If you want the DM to offer real challenges to your players, overpowered classes will make the life of everyone else around the table much more difficult. But if you play your RPGs like a sophisticated game of make-believe, then class imbalance won't probably matter that much.

Then again, Angel Summoner could just be a Truenamer 20. Food for thought.

[Psyren]

Then again, Angel Summoner could just be a Truenamer 20. Food for thought.

Truenamers are mushroom.

[Callista]

If you find your character is more powerful than the rest of the party, then it's easy enough in most cases (because the most powerful characters are also the most versatile) just to focus on hampering the enemy and buffing your party, instead of direct damage. That way your power gets spread around to everybody. It's also a safer way to go about things because the more dice rolls you make, the more it'll tend toward the average; and if you affect everybody, you're going to put out a much more reliable kind of power level than if you focus on make-or-break stuff that's just focused on your character alone.

If you're playing a wizard or similar, you can always take up crafting and hand out magic items to the party. You'll be a level or two behind eventually and even in power level.

[kyoryu]

The design philosophy of Tier 1 classes in one sentence : "...or I could just summon a horde of angels." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)


Wow. That sums up the issue with combining Tier 1 with Tier 3/4/below characters better than anything else I've seen or heard. Bravo.

EDIT: s/summons/sums. Heh. It's late, and I've taken my sleep meds already. And a beer.

[Eldan]

I especially like the idea of invisible spell summons to buff your party without them noticing :smalltongue:

[DragonOfUndeath]

If you find your character is more powerful than the rest of the party, then it's easy enough in most cases (because the most powerful characters are also the most versatile) just to focus on hampering the enemy and buffing your party, instead of direct damage. That way your power gets spread around to everybody. It's also a safer way to go about things because the more dice rolls you make, the more it'll tend toward the average; and if you affect everybody, you're going to put out a much more reliable kind of power level than if you focus on make-or-break stuff that's just focused on your character alone.

that is the entire premise of the Batman Wizard. Buff the party to ungodly might and the fighter thinks he is awesome and the Wizard is a squishy tag-along, until he realizes the only reason he can move twice as far as normal people, his sword has +2, counts as a Magic weapon for DR purposes and has Flaming on it and has +10 to AC is cause of the Wizard burning all his spells into buffing him

[Greenish]

If you're playing a wizard or similar, you can always take up crafting and hand out magic items to the party. You'll be a level or two behind eventually and even in power level.You'll have to craft quite a lot to get two levels behind others and stay there, given that you'll get more XP from everything.

that is the entire premise of the Batman Wizard.And god wizard, and most other guides on how to be a team player despite being able to summon angels.

[Myth]

What i don't get is the continued insistence of players to roll BMX bandit type characters. There is a very specific forum I frequent that once had the suggestion for us to play a DnD game tailored to that setting. 5 (five) players wanted to play monks. I tried to reason - NO MONKS ARE AWESOME THEY CAN JUMP TO GET EXTRA DAMAGE YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING!

Ookay...

[Eldan]

Different people like different things.

Conan could not summon angels. But he could hit summoners with swords. Neither could Aragorn. Or Beowulf. Or Hercules. Or Commander Vimes. Or any other of a large number of characters.

Basically, most players don't want to play Angel Summoner, because they think different things are cool.

Now, of course, there's the minority of them, those that you are speaking about, that their characters are actually strong. Either they don't know the rules very well or, and this is suspect is true quite often, they are getting defensive because people constantly tell them their favourite archetype is too weak.

[dsmiles]

Different people like different things.

Conan could not summon angels. But he could hit summoners with swords. Neither could Aragorn. Or Beowulf. Or Hercules. Or Commander Vimes. Or any other of a large number of characters.

Basically, most players don't want to play Angel Summoner, because they think different things are cool.

Now, of course, there's the minority of them, those that you are speaking about, that their characters are actually strong. Either they don't know the rules very well or, and this is suspect is true quite often, they are getting defensive because people constantly tell them their favourite archetype is too weak.
To counter this (not advocating the following POV at all, just pointing out that it does exist): There are some people (I hesitate to call them gamers) who feel that if you're not playing a high-op tier 1 character, you're doing it wrong. Which is a total load of crap, IMO, mostly since I don't have to break the (poor, overworked, and under-appreciated) DM to enjoy the game. I say this because I tend to throw these types out after three strikes (warnings not to break the campaign) when I DM (since I DM low- to medium-op games, never high-op games).

[Myth]

To counter this (not advocating the following POV at all, just pointing out that it does exist): There are some people (I hesitate to call them gamers) who feel that if you're not playing a high-op tier 1 character, you're doing it wrong. Which is a total load of crap, IMO, mostly since I don't have to break the (poor, overworked, and under-appreciated) DM to enjoy the game. I say this because I tend to throw these types out after three strikes (warnings not to break the campaign) when I DM (since I DM low- to medium-op games, never high-op games).

If you are the type of DM who gets broken by optimized characters that would be a problem i suppose.

[Boci]

To counter this (not advocating the following POV at all, just pointing out that it does exist): There are some people (I hesitate to call them gamers) who feel that if you're not playing a high-op tier 1 character, you're doing it wrong. Which is a total load of crap, IMO, mostly since I don't have to break the (poor, overworked, and under-appreciated) DM to enjoy the game. I say this because I tend to throw these types out after three strikes (warnings not to break the campaign) when I DM (since I DM low- to medium-op games, never high-op games).

I think that actually happens on both sides. The tier system is published and many people misunderstand it, thinking that higher tier = better. They get defensive and claim that their low tier characters are actually better than the full casters in their games and people get annoyed and tell them that that is rarely the case for X, Y, Z reasons, which is interpreted as "Your doing it wrong" when usually it just means "Full casters are in fact more powerful than melee".

Ofcourse there's also the fact that a full caster with the wrong spells can be pretty weak, where as with melee, as long as you hit things you are at least contributing.

[Eldan]

If you are the type of DM who gets broken by optimized characters that would be a problem i suppose.

It's not even the main problem, I think: some people want to be a mage and be able to break the world by level 10, teleport around and blast the bad guy via scry-and-dying.
Others want their D&D campaign to be about more classical fantasy heroes, people who trek through the wilderness for two weeks, then invade an enemy castle with nothing but a sword, a torch and some rope.

Theoretically, D&D works with both styles, but if people can not agree on a power level and a kind of game beforehand, it breaks apart.

[dsmiles]

If you are the type of DM who gets broken by optimized characters that would be a problem i suppose.
I simply don't enjoy high-op games, and players that come to my table are told this in advance. If they choose to ignore this, then they are breaking the houserules, and are kindly informed not to do that. I give three warnings, then if they continue, they are kindly asked to find another game, since they are basically acting selfish and not "playing nice with others."

I think that actually happens on both sides. The tier system is published and many people misunderstand it, thinking that higher tier = better. They get defensive and claim that their low tier characters are actually better than the full casters in their games and people get annoyed and tell them that that is rarely the case for X, Y, Z reasons, which is interpreted as "Your doing it wrong" when usually it just means "Full casters are in fact more powerful than melee".

Ofcourse there's also the fact that a full caster with the wrong spells can be pretty weak, where as with melee, as long as you hit things you are at least contributing.
Oh, I don't disagree that casters are more powerful, I just dislike high-op games. I don't find them fun. I never state that low-tier characters are inherently better, I just ask wizards, clerics and druids not to break the campaign, and tone it down when everyone else is struggling to keep up with their low- to medium-op characters.

It's not even the main problem, I think: some people want to be a mage and be able to break the world by level 10, teleport around and blast the bad guy via scry-and-dying.
Others want their D&D campaign to be about more classical fantasy heroes, people who trek through the wilderness for two weeks, then invade an enemy castle with nothing but a sword, a torch and some rope.

Theoretically, D&D works with both styles, but if people can not agree on a power level and a kind of game beforehand, it breaks apart.
I'm a firm believer in the second type, although they may need a ladder or an 11-foot pole, too. :smalltongue:
Seriously, though, if somebody can't have fun without playing a high-op character, they shouldn't be an a-hole after I ask them to create a low- to medium-op character. They should simply say, "I only enjoy high-op characters." At which point, I will suggest that they wouldn't enjoy my game, since I cater to lower optimization characters, and things would be too easy for them. If they insist on staying, and continuously try to break the campaign, they will be asked to leave. I cater to the group, not the individual.

[grimbold]

JaronK was the writer of the tier system.
And personelly, I never felt the tier system during games. But many times I played with players who didn`t even remmember what feats they toke and never with optimizers.

what level where you?
the tier system is not to notable at lower levels, things are pretty well balanced then but after mebbe level 5 even w/out optimizers you definetly see the teer system.

[Whiplashbash]

One issue I am having ( not that I ness. disagree with what is being said here) when I earlier spoke of relevancy is how much does the style of play (of the PC group) change the tier.
I could go on a half an hour about this, but I'll cut to it. One of the PC's plays a character who is modeled after an authority figure we all knew growing up. He made the guy EXACTLY as we imagined/ saw this guy as kids. The mentality of the authority figure ( Cool Guy, or CG going forward ) sometimes would put him at a disadvantage mechanically game-wise ( e.g., CG would rather get hit by a locomotive rather than hustle across the train tracks in an undignified manner: so feats improving AC by Dodge and such are out of the question.) Even though there could be problems, the PC stays in character at all times. At any crossroads, he builds/ plays his Character like CG.
I am saying that we have always role-played first, optimized second, if at all. I'm not putting anyone down by any means. The game is escapist for my group of old, divorced men; but if you want to be the BMX Bandit, then have at it. I think, looking closer, I think the bulk of us are.

[Keld Denar]

Absolutely nothing says you can't do both though. Just because your character is sneaky doesn't mean you HAVE to take Stealthy. Stealthy is considered a bad thing because feats are precious and should be strong, while Stealthy give only a very slight benefit. Contrast with something like Darkstalker (Lords of Madness), which is another stealthy feat. Darkstalker allows you to avoid whole classes of detection abilities simply by making a hide check. Big benefit, well worth a feat.

Seriously, there is enough material out there that if for any given character concept, we can make a version of it that is the exact same fluff-wise, and stronger mechanical-wise. I'm not even talking world shatteringly million damage per round strong, just effective and capable the way a hero should be.

[dsmiles]

Seriously, there is enough material out there that if for any given character concept, we can make a version of it that is the exact same fluff-wise, and stronger mechanical-wise. I'm not even talking world shatteringly million damage per round strong, just effective and capable the way a hero should be.

However, not everyone has the same resources. Are we not supposed to take that into consideration? Everybody seems to assume that all books are available and valid choices, even when somebody states otherwise.
Everybody in my group has the PHB, DMG, and MM1. Beyond that, our book selections vary wildly, and even between all of us, we don't have all the books available. Maybe Stealthy is the best "sneaky feat" we have access to.

[Blackfang108]

However, not everyone has the same resources. Are we not supposed to take that into consideration? Everybody seems to assume that all books are available and valid choices, even when somebody states otherwise.
Everybody in my group has the PHB, DMG, and MM1. Beyond that, our book selections vary wildly, and even between all of us, we don't have all the books available. Maybe Stealthy is the best "sneaky feat" we have access to.

Doesn't skill focus give a better bonus than Stealthy?

[Boci]

However, not everyone has the same resources. Are we not supposed to take that into consideration? Everybody seems to assume that all books are available and valid choices, even when somebody states otherwise.
Everybody in my group has the PHB, DMG, and MM1. Beyond that, our book selections vary wildly, and even between all of us, we don't have all the books available. Maybe Stealthy is the best "sneaky feat" we have access to.

Crystalkeep has quite a few feats, and you can always asks other playgrounders for advice.



Oh, I don't disagree that casters are more powerful, I just dislike high-op games. I don't find them fun. I never state that low-tier characters are inherently better, I just ask wizards, clerics and druids not to break the campaign, and tone it down when everyone else is struggling to keep up with their low- to medium-op characters.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just saying that misunderstandings on both sides can cause the argument to be more heated.

[Greenish]

Doesn't skill focus give a better bonus than Stealthy?Not really. Skill Focus is +3 to one skill, Stealthy is +2 for both. Neither is anything to write home about.

[Frosty]

Actually, there's a repost of it (with a few new classes added in) on the front page of the Brilliant Gameologist boards right now.

Basically, a Tier 1 class is a class that has some mechanical ability to outright solve pretty much any encounter or issue you might have in play. For example, if the current plotline is "find out who murdered the king's son" a Wizard could cast Contact Other Plane and, if he picked a clever enough question and asked the right god, instantly find out the answer.

Generally speaking, using the full power of a Tier 1 class breaks the campaign, so it's advisable not to do that. Instead, players should restrict their power to match the rest of the party so that everyone actually gets to play and the GM isn't left constantly scrambling to keep up with you being the new driving force of the campaign ("Hey guys, this might be fun, I cast Plane Shift. Now we're fighting in the Abyss. Whee!").

At the other end of the spectrum is Tier 6 classes, that basically don't have any mechanical abilities in their class that actually solves problems. There's very few encounters where you say "ah hah, I sure am glad I'm a Commoner, because this nifty Commoner ability solves this problem!" You know, unless the problem can be solved by having lots of chickens. As such, all problems have to be solved with something other than your class (magic items, solving problems entirely through role playing, racial abilities, puzzles that the players themselves have to solve, etc).

Usually most players want to play something in between, at a level where you as a player have to be actually creative (not just search for the perfect "I win" button in your spell list), but where your class does give you nice helpful abilities so you can feel useful in all (or most) situations. An area where you neither have to hold the Idiot Ball just to make the campaign continue on track, nor where the DM has to constantly help you out to keep you able to follow that track. That tends to be the Tier 3-4 area.

JaronK
Do you still work on the Tiering system or have you basically moved on to other things? Would you consider making one for Pathfinder classes within the PF system?

[Gorilla2038]

If tier 1 is wizard etc, whats the tier 0 classes that sometimes are mentioned?

[Psyren]

If tier 1 is wizard etc, whats the tier 0 classes that sometimes are mentioned?

Spell to Power Erudite, Psionic Artificer and I believe Arcane Swordsage.

[Greenish]

If tier 1 is wizard etc, whats the tier 0 classes that sometimes are mentioned?Psionic artificer, spell-to-power erudite, tainted scholar, planar shepherd, beholder mage and so forth. Even more broken variants and PrCs, basically.

[Psyren]

Psionic artificer, spell-to-power erudite, tainted scholar, planar shepherd, beholder mage and so forth. Even more broken variants and PrCs, basically.

Those last 3 are PrCs if you want to get technical. (They have a separate tier system.)

[Urpriest]

Spell to Power Erudite, Psionic Artificer and I believe Arcane Swordsage.

To elaborate, Tier 1 classes can do everything within a wide list, preparing differently every day. Tier 0 breaks this paradigm by either doing everything whatsoever (StP Erudite, Psionic Artificer) or by getting infinite spells per day (Arcane Swordsage, who also gets maneuvers and thus is something of an example of the first category as well).

[huttj509]

In terms of playstyle and tiers...well, yeah.

The tier system describes the classes power potential and flexibility potential.

If you play a wizard and cast no spells, instead running away from encounters unless you have no choice but to use a half-brick in a sock, you're not gonna have any power level issues next to the barbarian-in-training you met in the snake pit.

But due to the dnd system, the potential is still there, even if you don't use it.

The tier system is basically to describe the difference in classes where you can (mechanics-wise, everyone can roleplay creatively, use magic items, etc)...

a) pick what you do, and while you may do it well it's all you do well
b) Pick what you do, do it well, then freely pick something else to do well tomorrow
c) pick what you do, do it very well, and also do 5 other things decently at the same time...with bears...
d) pick what you do...and if you really focus on it from various sources you might actually be able to do what you picked... Maybe... Depends on the exact standards set...

[Psyren]

To elaborate, Tier 1 classes can do everything within a wide list, preparing differently every day. Tier 0 breaks this paradigm by either doing everything whatsoever (StP Erudite, Psionic Artificer) or by getting infinite spells per day (Arcane Swordsage, who also gets maneuvers and thus is something of an example of the first category as well).

The other two are capable of infinite spells/day as well. I don't remember the PA's specific method(s), but StP Erudite has a lot of options, ranging from simple PP Reduction + Bestow Power abuse, to Mental Pinnacle refreshing shenanigans.

[TurtleKing]

@Dsmiles: What if you come across a player who does not try to heavily optimize. Yet he tends to breaks games by accident on a fairly often.

In most of the campaigns I have been in I tend to break the campaign by accident or by roleplaying. I only try to make an effective character, or make a weak character a little bit more powerful to somewhat hold my own. I have gotten better about trying to not break the campaign, but my characters have become frankly bland compared to my worst offenders in terms of character personality.

What would you do when a player breaks your game by accident or roleplaying.

[Callista]

I would try to roll with it, personally. If they manage to break the campaign, then it was too fragile to begin with. You don't build your campaigns out of brittle material, anyway; you build them out of rubber so that the players can do what they like and the world will adjust to it.

If someone happens upon a seriously overpowered tactic, the general response is to let it work the first time, then have a frank chat about it and say, "Okay, this is basically playing in god mode and it would ruin things. I'm going to rule against it working again."

[Eldan]

The problem is that the players, if you approach them with that attitude, will not stretch your rubber. They can melt it down, form it into tires, and drive it away, if they really want to.

Okay, stupid metaphor. But basically: your player can, if he wants to, achieve infinite power level. What do you do then? If he pulls a pun-pun, or tries to create antimatter, or infinite money, or speeds up time for himself? A tactic to win one fight is one thing. But that can basically be done from at least Tier 3 upwards. What marks Tier 1 and 2 is that they can do so much more than just solve your campaign. They can brake it, blow up the world, rebuild it and then rule it. And one application will be enough.

And I don't even have a problem with most overpowered tactics: the problem, as mentioned before, is if players have different expectations. One of them wants to grab his axe, run into a dungeon, kill a few orcs, then ogres, then later perhaps a dragon or a demon, grab some treasure and spend it somewhere. The other wants to make reality his plaything. Or he just does the same as the first one, but ends every encounter before the other player got to charge once, by killing everything within sight, or just making the fight too trivial to really bother with.

That is a problem. The first player will get annoyed at this. A game like that can not work in the long run. And telling the first player to just play something as powerful as the second one won't work, if that's not what he wants.

[kyoryu]

I would try to roll with it, personally. If they manage to break the campaign, then it was too fragile to begin with. You don't build your campaigns out of brittle material, anyway; you build them out of rubber so that the players can do what they like and the world will adjust to it.

If someone happens upon a seriously overpowered tactic, the general response is to let it work the first time, then have a frank chat about it and say, "Okay, this is basically playing in god mode and it would ruin things. I'm going to rule against it working again."

While this is good advice, at an extreme it doesn't work - if you have to spend your time as a DM specifically countering every possible strategy in order for the campaign to still function, then that's not a whole ton of fun. Cars should be expected to work if their oil gets low, or if they run out of gas and then are refilled. They aren't expected to keep running if you drop a building on them.

The question is whether Tier 1s are "running low on oil" or "getting a building dropped on you." While they certainly can be played as "low on oil," they have the *potential* to be building drops.

[Frosty]

It's not even about extreme optimization. Lower tiered classes also tends to give less OPTIONS. I don't want to play a character with little to no options. That's why a Swift Hunter is kinda boring in-combat. "Oh look, I move 20ft and Greater Manyshot AGAIN, or I activate my Travel Devotion feat and..." You get the idea.

Higher tier tends to give more options and hence more fun. A Factotum generally will not break the campaign, and is far from the most powerful class. It is definitely better than a Rogue, but not because you can break the game but because you have more choices.

[JaronK]

Do you still work on the Tiering system or have you basically moved on to other things? Would you consider making one for Pathfinder classes within the PF system?

I rarely update the Tiers because every class on there is one I've played, played with, or gone over extensively. I haven't done that with other classes, and the only D&D games I've played lately have been with classes that are already on there. Every once in a while I'll throw another class on there. So... I might update more. But honestly, I think there's enough on there already, so that if you understand it, you can probably figure out where any new class sits based on what classes are similar to it.

I don't play PF so I'm never going to make a system for it, but from what I've seen it's relatively similar anyway, as they really didn't change balance all that much.

Oh, and there's no Tier 0 or -1 or whatever. Tier 1 is already "if the player wants to, they can do anything they want given sufficient level with classed based mechanical abilities." Usually what people refer to as Tier 0 is just really optimized versions of Tier 1 classes, but that doesn't really change much. They can usually do it easier or faster or better, but the basics of what they're doing from a game balance perspective is the same. It's like the difference between a charging Barbarian that does 1000 damage per hit with 5 attacks vs a charging Barbarian that does 4000 damage per hit with 6 attacks... at the core, those do the same thing (kill anything they can charge). One's just doing it a bit more thoroughly and probably started doing it at slightly lower level.

JaronK

[Tavar]

Well, there are different tier systems out there, like the Test Of Spite tier list, and some of those do have tier 0. Though they are measuring something else entirely. For example, that one is measuring build strength.

[The Glyphstone]

I've always seen 'Tier 0' as reserved for unplayable classes/class variants in terms of brokenness - i.e., the Arcane Swordsage or the Spells-To-Power Erudite.

[Callista]

The problem is that the players, if you approach them with that attitude, will not stretch your rubber. They can melt it down, form it into tires, and drive it away, if they really want to.

Okay, stupid metaphor. But basically: your player can, if he wants to, achieve infinite power level. What do you do then? If he pulls a pun-pun, or tries to create antimatter, or infinite money, or speeds up time for himself? A tactic to win one fight is one thing. But that can basically be done from at least Tier 3 upwards. What marks Tier 1 and 2 is that they can do so much more than just solve your campaign. They can brake it, blow up the world, rebuild it and then rule it. And one application will be enough.

And I don't even have a problem with most overpowered tactics: the problem, as mentioned before, is if players have different expectations. One of them wants to grab his axe, run into a dungeon, kill a few orcs, then ogres, then later perhaps a dragon or a demon, grab some treasure and spend it somewhere. The other wants to make reality his plaything. Or he just does the same as the first one, but ends every encounter before the other player got to charge once, by killing everything within sight, or just making the fight too trivial to really bother with.

That is a problem. The first player will get annoyed at this. A game like that can not work in the long run. And telling the first player to just play something as powerful as the second one won't work, if that's not what he wants.So that's why you need an implicit agreement that nobody's going to try to play Pun-Pun. Any civilized gamer will agree with that because if your character can steamroller level-appropriate encounters and leave his party members sitting back and watching him, then nobody's going to have fun. With a system as complicated and option-rich as D&D, builds like Pun-Pun are inevitable. What's not inevitable is that the people in your group are going to be annoying enough to actually play them.

People with more powerful builds in a group of mixed power levels can solve the problem simply by playing cooperatively. Instead of singlehandedly overpowering everything, they can use their abilities to allow the entire team to benefit and, yes, overpower everything. This actually safer because it spreads out the effects of whatever you're good at over multiple people and multiple dice rolls, whereas if you have just one person doing everything, there are fewer rolls and the outcome is a great deal more chancy. D&D parties are supposed to work as teams anyway--trying to work as separate people who happen to be fighting in the general vicinity of each other isn't very effective to begin with.

[Logalmier]

I've always seen 'Tier 0' as reserved for unplayable classes/class variants in terms of brokenness - i.e., the Arcane Swordsage or the Spells-To-Power Erudite.

And 'Tier -1' would be Pun Pun...

That's at least the ToS take on it.

[JaronK]

It makes sense for systems that are about raw power. It doesn't make sense for the original, which is simply a measure of how you'll effect game play and deal with day to day situations. Tier 1 already includes "can make new plane of existence with whatever rules you can visualize" so going up from there doesn't mean much. Plus, it's about what the class gives you... Pun Pun involves specific actions and optimizations, and isn't even about class (since theoretically any class can do it, though it's easier if you already have a lizard familiar).

JaronK

[Togo]

I think the Tier system is interesting, but I've not seen much relevence to the games I've actually played. At the heart of the Tier system is the assumption that what the player character can do is defined by and limited principally by the mechanical exploits that can be read into the published rules for his class.

That's not been the case in vast majority of games I've played.

I've not seen games where someone could, for example, use their spells to conquer a kingdom. They might believe they can, they might talk about doing it, they may even have page numbers of obscure books to back up their belief in how easy it would be. In practice though, in the actual game, that kingdom doesn't get conquered (or if it does, it's not done through those spells). The reasons may vary from restraint on behalf of the player through social pressures, to restriction by the DM, but in practice, the game does not go in that direction.

I can see the distinction that's made in terms of character powers. I can see the arguement that it's better to nullfy an opponent than to do damage to him. But using aspects of the character class has to be one of the least effective ways of doing so. If you're going to get imaginative, why not go all the way? If you really want to dine in the nine hells, having plane shift is almost irrelevent to achieving this goal. Any character can do it, they just have to put a bit of thought into, and factor in what's going on in the game and the gameworld. I can guarentee you, that of all the things that will make it more or less likely that a character will pull of the trick of dining in hell and escaping to tell the tale, having a character class ability that allows planeshift is almost certainly the least relevant.

I can see the usefulness of the Tier system and what it's intended to demonstrate. But it does seem to get misused an awful lot.

[FMArthur]

StP Erudite is only going to be 'above Tier 1' with the obviously broken and completely accidental RAW interpretation of Unique Powers Per Day. Using the table as intended, and as all reasonable groups using Erudite play (remember that the tier list isn't about the most insane cheese you theoretically can, it's about practical optimization and real gameplay) doesn't shatter the universe with its overpoweredness. It's just a lesser wizard and extraordinarily versatile psionicist - powerful, certainly tier 1, but not any further than that.

[DragonOfUndeath]

And 'Tier -1' would be Pun Pun

Lightning Warrior=Tier0
EDIT: i forgot about the lack of Familiar, this class is clearly Tier7, lower than a Commoner (which can flood the world with chickens as a free action and get a free feat for the privilege) :smalltongue::smalltongue::smalltongue:

[faceroll]

Yeah, we ran into that even in my first game... it was a little embarrassing, really.

Party is a monk, a fighter (or something, I don't really remember. Some kind of melee fighter), a sorcerer and a wizard (me).

DM: *describes some sort of problem to be solved*
Everyone: *stares at me expectantly*
Me: "Stop looking at me! I don't know how to solve anything!"

I had solved exactly one problem by then, by having the right spell prepared. From then on, the entire group (all during their first game session), assumed I could solve everything and just let me handle all problems.

That's a pretty classic trope, innit?
Funny story. :smalltongue:

[faceroll]

Oh, and there's no Tier 0 or -1 or whatever. Tier 1 is already "if the player wants to, they can do anything they want given sufficient level with classed based mechanical abilities." Usually what people refer to as Tier 0 is just really optimized versions of Tier 1 classes, but that doesn't really change much. They can usually do it easier or faster or better, but the basics of what they're doing from a game balance perspective is the same. It's like the difference between a charging Barbarian that does 1000 damage per hit with 5 attacks vs a charging Barbarian that does 4000 damage per hit with 6 attacks... at the core, those do the same thing (kill anything they can charge). One's just doing it a bit more thoroughly and probably started doing it at slightly lower level.

iono, the difference between a level 20 wizard and a level 21 wizard can be pretty substantial. Like animated planets substantial.

[vicente408]

iono, the difference between a level 20 wizard and a level 21 wizard can be pretty substantial. Like animated planets substantial.

But if the level 20 wizard can already break a game beyond repair, then being able to break it even more isn't really changing anything. It's still broken, no matter how more thorough you get. The tier isn't about the literal upper bound of what you can do, it's about the practical effect it has on the campaign. Broken is broken.

[JaronK]

iono, the difference between a level 20 wizard and a level 21 wizard can be pretty substantial. Like animated planets substantial.

That's still a Wizard. Tier 1s have exponential growth. At level 17 you can make your own planes of existence where you control everything about their properties if you so desire... heck, at 15 you can make any material you want if you do things right. By 21, animated planets sounds about right. And yes, the tier 1s when they hit epic become that much more silly (of course, so do the T2s).

JaronK

[drakir_nosslin]

That's still a Wizard. Tier 1s have exponential growth. At level 17 you can make your own planes of existence where you control everything about their properties if you so desire... heck, at 15 you can make any material you want if you do things right. By 21, animated planets sounds about right. And yes, the tier 1s when they hit epic become that much more silly (of course, so do the T2s).

JaronK

And the T5:s and their friends get ever more boring in comparison :smallsigh:
Epic feats... *facepalm*

[JaronK]

And the T5:s and their friends get ever more boring in comparison :smallsigh:
Epic feats... *facepalm*

Perfect Two Weapon Fighting is good! And... um... there's probably another good one... somewhere... Oh yes! Epic Spellcasting. For Healers.

JaronK

[Eldan]

I like Terrifying Rage. But that's probably just me.

[Psyren]

I've always seen 'Tier 0' as reserved for unplayable classes/class variants in terms of brokenness - i.e., the Arcane Swordsage or the Spells-To-Power Erudite.

They're quite possible to play. They're just impossible to play with. :smalltongue:


Oh, and there's no Tier 0 or -1 or whatever. Tier 1 is already "if the player wants to, they can do anything they want given sufficient level with classed based mechanical abilities." Usually what people refer to as Tier 0 is just really optimized versions of Tier 1 classes, but that doesn't really change much.

Perhaps they do not exist in a truly academic sense. But it is useful shorthand.

After all, you yourself have ranked variants of classes differently too. (e.g. Ranger vs. Wildshape Ranger) :smallsmile:

[BeholderSlayer]

You know, unless the problem can be solved by having lots of chickens.

I thought all problems could be solved with lots of chickens! :smallbiggrin:

[Eldan]

So... how many chickens are necessary to make them collapse into a black hole?

[Thrawn183]

I like to think of it this way:
King: I need you to go into the 9 hells and stop this nefarious plot!
Fighter: I will sneak into the correct plane and then I will sneak past the infinite minions of hell by sneaking my greatsword into their hearts.
Wizard: I do not think that word means what you think it does.
Rogue: I'm going to sneak my blade into his brain because he clearly has no use for it.

[Frosty]

That's not really fair here. The BMX Bandit has many good ideas within his realm of possibility. The Fighter here is clearly brain-dead :smallwink:

[Nero24200]

Truthfully, for a while I thought the Tiers where quite heavily exagerrated. I suppose it's because I was looking at them as a measurment of raw power. As a means of describing a classes flexability I feel that are spot on.

The first I really felt it was playing as a Tier one class and comming to a fortress overrun with foes. I told to the party to "let me handle this" and assaulted the fortress myself while they cleared out another part of our quest. I don't think the party minded at all...but it just left me thinking "If I asked a fighter or monk to handle this...they wouldn't be able to do it anywhere near as effectively or quickly...if they even could".

Tier 1 classes have better mobility, options, back-up options and can generally make up for muscle if the situation calls for martial help, in addition to have alot of uses out-with combat. Meanwhile, Tier 5 classes who aren't in the "favoured area" of the game aren't contributing that much really (and sometimes not even if they are in their favoured area).

[Blackfang108]

Not really. Skill Focus is +3 to one skill, Stealthy is +2 for both. Neither is anything to write home about.

I didn't say it was a Good choice...

[dsmiles]

I like Terrifying Rage. But that's probably just me.

You're not alone, I like Keen Strike and Vorpal Strike.