Very Stupid Question: What are tiers?

[Wiz828]

I haven't played D&D for several years or been on this forum really until I "returned" yesterday. I have noticed since returning several mentions of classes or characters being tier 2 or 3 or 4 or something, but I have no idea what it means or where its coming from?

If anyone could find it in their heart to explain I'd be most grateful <3

[Hyfigh]

Tiers are levels. In most cases for D&D it's different levels of power for classes. This link (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0) is one of a few tier lists that exist. It's quite thorough regarding the breakdown of the tiers and why classes are in a specific tier.

[Wiz828]

Tiers are levels. In most cases for D&D it's different levels of power for classes. This link (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0) is one of a few tier lists that exist. It's quite thorough regarding the breakdown of the tiers and why classes are in a specific tier.

Wow, yes, that does seem very thorough. Thank you so much :smallsmile:

[Thrice Dead Cat]

To be more precise, tiers generally represent the about of options a given class has at any one time or how useful they are in X amount of situations as well as how useful they are in any given situation. As you move up to tier 1, both your overall power increases in a situation you can solve as well as the number of situations you can reasonably solve or at least contribute to solving.

[Amphetryon]

The easiest way to think of them is as a sort of shorthand for discussions of a class or campaign's relative power level. There will inevitably be some quibbling over specifics, but it makes a convenient starting point for power discussions without needing a ton of caveats and examples.

[Wiz828]

To be honest, after having read through all of it I find it all rather silly. It's basically a guide to deal with munchkins/maxers, but any GM worth his/her salt can figure that out on his own.

[Darth Stabber]

To be honest, after having read through all of it I find it all rather silly. It's basically a guide to deal with munchkins/maxers, but any GM worth his/her salt can figure that out on his own.

Yes but the short hand is nice for a few reasons
1)discussing fixes
2)helping you gauge a classes relative powerlevel if you have never seen in before.
3)Keeping a party at least close in relative power level. (It is very hard to keep a wizard down, or push a monk up with out homebrew)

[Goober4473]

To be honest, after having read through all of it I find it all rather silly. It's basically a guide to deal with munchkins/maxers, but any GM worth his/her salt can figure that out on his own.

That's not quite true. Consider having a monk and a druid in the same party. Even an optimized monk and an unoptimzed druid aren't going to balance well with each other. The druid class is just too powerful to reasonably be in a party with the weak monk class in most cases (barring extreme optimizing or a really terrible druid). But assuming everyone optimizes about the same amount at a given gaming table, the classes become entirely unplayable together.

So it's good for the DM to know that ahead of time, and the tier system gives a good guideline for what you can probably expect in terms of power out of a class.

[Wiz828]

That's not quite true. Consider having a monk and a druid in the same party. Even an optimized monk and an unoptimzed druid aren't going to balance well with each other. The druid class is just too powerful to reasonably be in a party with the weak monk class in most cases (barring extreme optimizing or a really terrible druid). But assuming everyone optimizes about the same amount at a given gaming table, the classes become entirely unplayable together.

So it's good for the DM to know that ahead of time, and the tier system gives a good guideline for what you can probably expect in terms of power out of a class.


I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree to some extent (extend?).

At higher levels, say 10/11+ for convenience sake, spellcasters do outgrow the martial classes overall, but at lower levels at the very least they are roughly equal, if not the monk being better (at 1st level a monk is far more useful than a druid in my book), this barring extreme optimizing ofcourse.

[Amphetryon]

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree to some extent (extend?).

At higher levels, say 10/11+ for convenience sake, spellcasters do outgrow the martial classes overall, but at lower levels at the very least they are roughly equal, if not the monk being better (at 1st level a monk is far more useful than a druid in my book), this barring extreme optimizing ofcourse.

You will find this a minority opinion on the boards. Monks get bonuses to moving quickly, but must stand in place to use their other class features. Druids can Entangle mobs of mooks that the party can then plink at with arrows/crossbow bolts/alchemist's fire etc, or can send in their animal companion to fight, or can fight alongside the animal companion, getting a flanking bonus that more than offsets their 3/4 BAB before taking magic into account.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree to some extent (extend?).

At higher levels, say 10/11+ for convenience sake, spellcasters do outgrow the martial classes overall, but at lower levels at the very least they are roughly equal, if not the monk being better (at 1st level a monk is far more useful than a druid in my book), this barring extreme optimizing ofcourse.

I (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm) must (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/colorSpray.htm) disagree. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/web.htm) All of those spells can end encounters on their own. All are core. All are available at 3rd level or less. Hell, web can be dambed at 1st level with a feat from Complete Arcane.

[Cog]

...monk being better (at 1st level a monk is far more useful than a druid in my book), this barring extreme optimizing ofcourse.
Somebody will put forth this idea about once a week or so. Take a look through the archives.

Then take a look at the Druid's Animal Companion. Stat one out, compare it to a Monk. That's just a single of the Druid's class features.

[BenInHB]

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree to some extent (extend?).

At higher levels, say 10/11+ for convenience sake, spellcasters do outgrow the martial classes overall, but at lower levels at the very least they are roughly equal, if not the monk being better (at 1st level a monk is far more useful than a druid in my book), this barring extreme optimizing ofcourse.

WRONG, First level Druid owns First level Monk

What advantages do you see??

They have the same BaB, same HP, same Skill points, Monk's unarmed Strike is 1d6 at level 1 and Druid has plenty of weapons that deal 1d6 or greater, AC should be roughly the same depending on stat allocation Druid gets Armor, Shield and Dex to AC, Monk only gets Dex and Wis, Even with Monks flurry the Druid still gets more attacks per turn if you count his animal companion plus Druid gets Spells.

how do you see the monk being better??

[Wiz828]

I (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm) must (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/colorSpray.htm) disagree. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/web.htm) All of those spells can end encounters on their own. All are core. All are available at 3rd level or less. Hell, web can be dambed at 1st level with a feat from Complete Arcane.

"can" being the keyword here and what happens if there's more than one encounter?

[DeltaEmil]

The monk dies. Or he survives IF the druid (or the cleric) spare their awesome healing power AFTER the battle. Meanwhile, the druid flees and gets a new animal companion.

[RaginChangeling]

"can" being the keyword here and what happens if there's more than one encounter?

You still have an Animal companion, the same base attack and roughly one HP of difference between you and the Monk. And you get more than one spell per day.

[Cog]

"can" being the keyword here and what happens if there's more than one encounter?
Two encounters. If you aren't getting even a bonus first level spell, your Wis isn't merely non-optimized.

But, after two encounters: You stab them. Your companion mauls them. That's the same number of attacks as a Monk, and you aren't even taking a Flurry penalty.

[Hyfigh]

The list assumes relatively the same level of optimization, which does include gameplayer competence...
A poorly played druid can suck in an epic capacity; but it takes even less amounts of epic-suck to mess up the monk.
On the opposite end of that spectrum: a really well played, and optimized monk will be great and all... But he will still pale in comparison to the sheer awesome of the well played, and optimized druid.
The tiers are only marginalized when players are not bringing the same tools to the table. In one case the tiers can be dealt with because a poor player is playing a higher tier, while more experienced players are in the lower tiers. It really ends up being a problem when a poor player chooses a low tier class, and the experienced player pulls out the big guns. In that case, just hope your experienced player is nice enough to back off quite a bit to not steal the show.

[Amphetryon]

You still have an Animal companion, the same base attack and roughly one HP of difference between you and the Monk. And you get more than one spell per day.

Druid and Monk are both d8. At 1st level, you would only have an HP difference based on CON, which the Druid could more easily afford a decent stat in, as Druid has less need for both a good STR and DEX.

[Doc Roc]

I'm sorry, but I must respectfully disagree to some extent (extend?).

At higher levels, say 10/11+ for convenience sake, spellcasters do outgrow the martial classes overall, but at lower levels at the very least they are roughly equal, if not the monk being better (at 1st level a monk is far more useful than a druid in my book), this barring extreme optimizing ofcourse.

I would deeply disagree, again. I can show you some maffs if you'd like, but my esteemed fellows have covered it with aplomb.

[Hyfigh]

You still have an Animal companion, the same base attack and roughly one HP of difference between you and the Monk. And you get more than one spell per day.

Don't forget the potential free AoO for both you and the companion from the wolf (if that's what you chose for a companion) tripping your foe.

Edit: I forgot that a Flurrying monk will be attacking twice at -2 without stats taken into account. The druid doesn't take that penalty for his attack, and his animal companion gets one as well. Bare-bones fighting, even without spells, the druid fares better than the monk in combat encounters. So the druid can end two encounters per day gauranteed, and can still handle the rest of them better than the monk. The druids got a leg up in staying power for sure.

[3Power]

The problem I always had with tiers is all the assuming that goes on.

ASSUMING a wizard has every spell in the game in his/her spellbook, ASSUMING he/she has 8 hours foreknowledge of what he/she is about to face and ASSUMING he/she is max level, the wizard is the best class in the game. Never mind that the sorcerer is better equipped to deal with surprises, never mind that the sorcerer can still have access to every spell in the game via scrolls (which, remember, the wizard also had to buy to fill his spell book), never mind that the sorcerer has more spells per day and never mind that the wizard is incredibly squishy and can do nothing when his spells are gone at the earlier levels. The wizard is the best, definitely. 9.9

[Amphetryon]

The problem I always had with tiers is all the assuming that goes on.

ASSUMING a wizard has every spell in the game in his/her spellbook, ASSUMING he/she has 8 hours foreknowledge of what he/she is about to face and ASSUMING he/she is max level, the wizard is the best class in the game. Never mind that the sorcerer is better equipped to deal with surprises, never mind that the sorcerer can still have access to every spell in the game via scrolls (which, remember, the wizard also had to buy to fill his spell book), never mind that the sorcerer has more spells per day and never mind that the wizard is incredibly squishy and can do nothing when his spells are gone at the earlier levels. The wizard is the best, definitely. 9.9
Generally, the Sorcerer cannot learn the spells on a scroll, while the Wizard can. Sorcerers are equally squishy when their spells are gone.

[Doc Roc]

The problem I always had with tiers is all the assuming that goes on.

ASSUMING a wizard has every spell in the game in his/her spellbook, ASSUMING he/she has 8 hours foreknowledge of what he/she is about to face and ASSUMING he/she is max level, the wizard is the best class in the game. Never mind that the sorcerer is better equipped to deal with surprises, never mind that the sorcerer can still have access to every spell in the game via scrolls (which, remember, the wizard also had to buy to fill his spell book), never mind that the sorcerer has more spells per day and never mind that the wizard is incredibly squishy and can do nothing when his spells are gone at the earlier levels. The wizard is the best, definitely. 9.9

I actually prefer the sorcerer, and I'm probably the second strongest Opt guy left on the forums.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

"can" being the keyword here and what happens if there's more than one encounter?

A first level, non-specialist wizard will have at least two spells. One from class levels, one from high INT. A specialist wizard will have three. If said wizard has a 20 INT (doable with 28 point buy and race selection), there's an extra one. If he's a focused specialist, add 2 more. Plenty of spells there.

[Wiz828]

Alright, fine, I'll admit that the core-book monk sucks utter donkeyballs (am I allowed to say that?). But what about a fighter or barbarian, surely none of you will argue a 1st level druid is more useful than a 1st level fighter at that level?

[Amphetryon]

Alright, fine, I'll admit that the core-book monk sucks utter donkeyballs (am I allowed to say that?). But what about a fighter or barbarian, surely none of you will argue a 1st level druid is more useful than a 1st level fighter at that level?

Many of us, in fact, would.

[cfalcon]

You will generally find that this board assumes that wizards are all taking the best possible spells (and that they can largely divination for what will be useful that day or something), that the fights take place in places where the environment does not matter much, and that the party can control engagements and timing.

Not every fight has grass for entangle to work on. You aren't being a scrooge of a DM if there's nothing TO entangle with. Web doesn't work everywhere either. Color spray requires you be pretty close (but is fierce because it can force several rough saves), but a CR 1/2 guy with a crossbow bolt and a readied action makes even that risky. Sleep and someone will often wake up your guy. Your enemies could have many MORE actions than you, or just one versus your whole parties. A lot of the balance discussions seem to assume that you are in some duel- I'm fine with every high level wizard winning every duel, ever. They have a class with abilities that are all about that, whatever. It's not duels, or 2v2 arena, that matter here, it's your role in the world, being a good contributor in and out of combat, etc.

I still find the tier list useful. I still find the board *very* useful, with such a ludicrous amount of help here that it's kind of shocking. But the ground rule assumptions here are very likely not like what your group uses. If you don't have problems with wizards summoning armies or whatever in your games, then don't sweat it.

[RaginChangeling]

Alright, fine, I'll admit that the core-book monk sucks utter donkeyballs (am I allowed to say that?). But what about a fighter or barbarian, surely none of you will argue a 1st level druid is more useful than a 1st level fighter at that level?

A Druid's animal companion, if you pick wolf or riding dog, can beat a fighter roughly fifty percent of the time on its own at least. And the Druid also gets spells.

[Urpriest]

Let me put it this way, Wiz828: most of your concerns have already been brought up, and the majority of them were dealt with in the first posts of the Tier System thread. If you read that thread you'll get substantially more enlightened on the topic than if you merely ask us questions, unless all you want to do is have a repetitive argument.

[DeltaEmil]

Tier is not ONLY about combat, it's about how generally useful the character class is in any given situation.

For example, the fighter sucks outside of combat because he has only 2 skill points per level and a very poor selection of class skills. A druid has 4 skill points. Just this alone means that the druid will be more useful in non-combat social or environmental situations. Augmented with spells that do help in this situation, and the fighter just loses in every aspect, unless the gm makes the entire world an anti-magic zone. Then the druid is still better, but not by a much bigger magnitude.

Combat-wise, it's the same. The fighter will only have his rather mediocre combat abilities at level 1. The druid has a pet (a wolf comes with the Trip ability), spells and okay weapon proficiency.

[Wiz828]

I never wanted to start any argument in the first place... I just had a question. (this to Urpriest)

[Nightmarenny]

You know what really makes these threads painful? The amount of strawman. No the tier system doesn't assume Wizards get every spell nor does it assume they are able to divine what spells they need nor does it assume a feature-less environment.

Wizard/Druid/Whathaveyou's are top tier because it is presumed that a competent player should be able to build a spell list full of muti-use or always useful spells or abilities which allow said player to make a size-able contribution to nearly all conceivable encounters. Failing that it is also assumed that a good Tier 1 character can escape/spontaneously re-build/ Summon something that can.

[Aspenor]

The tier system assumes equal optimization. As such, it only considers a class' power.

A sorcerer with optimization can be more powerful than a wizard without it. A wizard with equal optimization will typically outshine the sorcerer.

[Ceaon]

So, instead of discussing who belongs in what tier, as has been done quite a lot of times on these boards, we could discuss what tiers (should) do - which would also still be on-topic.

Tiers are not a way to say you are stupid for playing a monk or fighter. They inform you, your fellow players and your DM about what could be done to make a more balanced party. They let a DM easily see how strong and variated a party is. That's why tier lists have a reason to exist, IMO: not to 'proof' class X < class Y, but to help players and DMs who are looking for balance to create a balanced game. Ofcourse, balance is not always a requirement, but a lot of people do not, in fact, enjoy it when their characters are being overshadowed in most every aspect.

[Cog]

I actually prefer the sorcerer...
I could make a few guesses, and I'm certainly not disagreeing, but I'm curious what your reasoning here is. Also, if you were writing your own tier list, would you swap Wiz and Sorc or bump Sorc up one?

[Amphetryon]

I could make a few guesses, and I'm certainly not disagreeing, but I'm curious what your reasoning here is. Also, if you were writing your own tier list, would you swap Wiz and Sorc or bump Sorc up one?

Doc Roc did write a tier list, for the Test of Spite. I think it's still stickied. Certain high-esoterica tricks involving Dragonsblood Pools and such require a spontaneous caster to work. Algernon of the White Lilies is one of his more extreme examples of how this worked, with a Favored Soul.

[Thurbane]

"Tiers" are what people eventually weep when they forsake playing a fun or interesting class based entirely on a faulty reading of a subjective rating system. :smalltongue:
Alternative view: "Tiers" are what people weep when they play a horrbily subuptimal character in an optimized group, and find they can't meaningfully contribute to the party.

[Cog]

Doc Roc did write a tier list, for the Test of Spite. I think it's still stickied. Certain high-esoterica tricks involving Dragonsblood Pools and such require a spontaneous caster to work. Algernon of the White Lilies is one of his more extreme examples of how this worked, with a Favored Soul.
I found the ToS in the stickies but didn't spot a tier list in it. That explanation sounds pretty reasonable, though, so it works for me. Thanks!

[RaginChangeling]

"Tiers" are what people eventually weep when they forsake playing a fun or interesting class based entirely on a faulty reading of a subjective rating system. :smalltongue:
Alternative view: "Tiers" are what people weep when they play a horrbily subuptimal character in an optimized group, and find they can't meaningfully contribute to the party.

I dunno, I can't think of many mechanically interesting classes in tier 5 or 6 and tier four and up is usually considered the sweet spot. :smalltongue:

In all seriousness though, some people do take the tier list as proscriptive rather than descriptive which can be unfortunate.

[Leon]

To be honest, after having read through all of it I find it all rather silly.

Yep, but is got a fair number of people fixated on it and they seem to think its the bees knees.

[Doc Roc]

Yep, but is got a fair number of people fixated on it and they seem to think its the bees knees.

Man, you seem quite a sourpuss! It's useful information compiled by some very smart people, not canon, and not cannon fodder. I've yet to see a compelling argument from you regarding why it shouldn't at least be read, examined, and digested.


You want a Hegelian dialectic, you gonna get one.

[Thurbane]

The tier system is an interesting analysis, but unfortunately, a small number of people tend to get too fixated on it when considering what character they (and others) should play, and some misread it altogether.

Also, you have to realize that any "ranking" of classes is going to be fairly subjective, at best. No matter how many knowledgeable individuals contribute to a tier ranking system, it is still going to be based on opinion and personal gaming experience.

It also depends on the dynamic of the group - no two gaming groups out there play the game in exactly the same way. Some are a lot more focused on certain aspects of the game than others, be that optimization, role-playing, PvP, players vs DM or what have you.

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with a treatise on the comparative power and versatility of various classes - but problems can occur when you take the conclusions reached by this exercise and treat them as gospel, applicable to all gaming groups.

[Gnaeus]

What the tier system does well:

It is good shorthand for general strength of a class. If I am not familiar with a splatbook (like ToB, ToM, ExpPsi or Pathfinder APG), and I ask how Class X plays, and someone tells me it is tier 3, or tier 5, they have given a lot of information in a short description. When we talk about tier 1s versus tier 5s, we all know which classes we are talking about, and roughly what their characteristics are.

If a DM does not have a good grasp of comparative class power, it gives him some idea of why nerfing the wizard or druid might be a good idea.

Similarly, it is a good reference point for balance issues. If I am remaking the Paladin (again), and I want to know if it is balanced, the only way that question is meaningful is by asking "balanced against what?" If I say I want to make a tier 3 paladin, everyone knows what classes I wish for it to be competitive with.

What the tier system does badly:

It is a good indicator of versatility in JaronK's relatively typical game, and in most games. While JaronK would like for you to think that there are no assumptions in it, there are. The specifics of your game make all the difference.

It is not necessarily a good indicator of power level. Wizard is tier 1. Barbarian is tier 4. In a mostly combat game, an ubercharger who does several hundred points of damage per hit may score more kills than his wizard buddy through the majority of levels. If you ask their inexperienced DM which character is stronger/more broken, he might say the Barbarian. Similarly, the PF Witch (which we generally agreed was a tier 2, based on the strength of its spell list) may be stronger in typical play than a similar tier 1, due to its very powerful SU abilities. Likewise, the Sorcerer can use sorcerer only cheese to gain a power edge over a nearby same-level wizard, but the wizard will almost always be more flexible at the end of the day. Some tiers (like tier 1 and 3) are very resistant to poor builds, while others (like tier 2 and 5) are very vulnerable to them. With players who make weak characters, most tier 3s will be stronger than most tier 2s.