About this whole tier thing [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Eldan

2011-08-24, 05:01 AM

This is an update (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=6bm20s4ifq23tokne41lrpavj4&topic=5293) of the original post by the creator.

Short summary:

It rates character classes, not builds, on two scales that mostly coincide: power and versatility. It goes all the way from Tier 1 (can do anything, and do it well) to Tier 6 (can't really do anything, will be underwhelming in any situation, has no versatility whatsoever). Examples are the wizard and druid for tier 1, and the Commoner or Samurai for Tier 6.

As for deciding what goes where... a few simple guidelines are:

Does it have unique class features? Does it have a long list of class features? Can it select powers from a long list? Can it change it's class features from day to day in some way? Does it have open-ended or poorly worded powers that can be abused? All those point towards the stronger tiers.

Lonely Tylenol

2011-08-24, 05:15 AM

1.So what exactly is this tier thing that everyone keeps talking about? I assume its a way to rate how strong specific character builds are?

Actually, it rates how strong classes in general are, without regard to their build possibilities (it assumes an equal level of optimization across the board); for example, a Shock Trooper Fighter might be able to compete with a healbot Cleric or a blaster Wizard (without metamagic tricks), but that's because there are vastly different levels of optimization at play; in an equal optimization setting, Shock Trooper Fighter plays with CoDzilla and Batman, and sword and board plays with healbot and blaster, and the tier differences are accurately represented in both.

2.How many tiers are there?

JaronK's Tier System for Classes (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0) (which looks at base classes) has six specific tiers, which I'll reference for 3.

3.How do you decide what is in each tier? or is it more a matter of opinion?

Tier 1 bends the laws of reality over its knee and spanks it. These are the classes that are not only full casters, but also have ways to outright abuse basic mechanics (Clerics and Divine Metamagic), awesome class features to supplement their casting (Druids and Wildshape/spontaneous summoning/Natural Spell), or a ridiculous list of extremely powerful spells (Wizard). Tier 1 classes build from upper mid-op and higher often break not only campaigns, but entire game worlds in a number of different ways.

Tier 2 has about the same power level as tier 1, but less flexibility. This is the difference, essentially, between a Sorcerer and a Wizard: the Sorcerer, by all rights, can bend reality over its knee and spank it, but because of the fixed and limited nature of its spell list, it can only do so maybe one or two ways, allowing for one to possibly circumvent it, and often needs to be built specifically to do so. A Wizard has no restrictions on its spell list, so it can essentially do whatever it wants--and if they get bored of that, they can do something--anything--else.

Tier 3 is your "sweet spot" for most campaigns. Tier 3 is where the characters with a lot of general utility, a broad range of usefulness, and even a good level of power/a "trump card" often reside. As far as core classes are concerned, the Bard is the only class that actually fits in this category (decent spell list, good skill list, useful utility class features, okay combat, great for buffing/debuffing), although it arguably needs lots of splatbooks to do so.

Tier 4 misses the mark on tier 3, in the same way that tier 2 falls just shy of tier 1; in this case, a tier 4 class often has all the power of a tier 3 without the flexibility (Barbarian), or all the flexibility of a tier 3 class without all the power (Rogue or Ranger). These classes can still manage in a competent, balanced group, and rarely feel outright useless unless there are campaign-breakers about.

Tier 5 is for the classes that don't really do anything right, or are so limited in scope that they aren't worth mentioning. Fighter falls in this category (because the class is so bland and tasteless that it really only extends to 2 levels unless you're playing a Dungeoncrasher), as does the Monk (which has a set of abilities that are easily replaced with Mithril armor and any adamantine sword). There are a number of things in the first four tiers that can do anything a tier 5 class can do, but better, and can also do a number of other things.

Tier 6 is for wastes of space. Everything here is an NPC class, and as such weren't even designed for PCs to really play competently, except for the Samurai in Complete Warrior, which was such a poorly thought-out waste of space that the Fighter laughs mercilessly at it, as it collects all the CW Samurai's bonus feats five levels sooner than the CW Samurai (or just does something else, because who cares about Two-Weapon Fighting?).

4.Is there a complete list or even semi complete list of what is in each tier?

See above.

EDIT: Triple Swordsage'd. Can't say I didn't expect it though; once I started writing paragraphs out for each tier, I knew I'd be here for awhile.

Coidzor

2011-08-24, 05:18 AM

A few further resources.

Why each class is in its tier (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0) - for a bit more examination.

The much, much more incomplete Tier System for PrCs (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0), a derivative of the original tier system.

WinWin

2011-08-24, 05:33 AM

1&2 have been covered by the links above.

3. Is a matter of opinion. I believe it is supposed to reflect the potential abilities and options available to a character with full resources. It is not a study of how far those resources can be stretched or unique conditions which turn general assumptions about the game on their head.

It is part of the group think on this forum, though a matter of contention on others. Don't expect unified interpretations of the system or even widespread acceptance of the system on the interwebs. At the very least, a basic understanding of the concept may be useful for certain discussions of D&D 3.5 on this forum.

4. sort of. There is some contention for a number of classes. I'm sure someone has a list somewhere.

Theo Hammond

2011-08-24, 05:46 AM

Is there a Pathfinder specific take on tiering out there, so using and contrasting only their version of the D&D classes?

Eldan

2011-08-24, 05:52 AM

While 3 is a matter of opinion, it's not necessarily optimization dependent. It assumes equal levels of book-diving and system mastery.

A blaster wizard who casts fireball all day is still more versatile than Stabby McSwordanboard. On level one, the fighter has two or three feats. The wizard has a dozen cantrips which are mostly not powerful, but fun, and somewhere around 5-7 first level spells. That's seven things the wizard can do (though not all in the same day=, compared to two or three, for the fighter. And those fighter feats could be spent on something like Weapon Focus or Alertness, which doesn't give anything new.

So, a wizard who can cast only Hold Portal, Unseen Servant, Magic Aura, Erase and Ventriloquism will likely never win a fight, true. But he still has five things he can do the fighter never can.

Edit:

Is there a Pathfinder specific take on tiering out there, so using and contrasting only their version of the D&D classes?

My knowledge of Pathfinder is limited to reading the Beta and a few discussions about "so, what changed", but it seems the basics of the tier system are still pretty much intact, for the core classes. One or two of the lower tiers might have gone up a bit, but overall, it's much the same. A wizard could even get stronger, here.

Yora

2011-08-24, 07:05 AM

Monk and Paladin have been greatly improved, and Fighter got some extras, possibly bringing them to Tier 4. The other classes havn't changed significantly.

But since then, there have been quite a lot of new classes. I'm not too familiar with them, but I think it stays true that full casters are at least Tier 2, and other classes are Tier 3 and lower.

Coidzor

2011-08-24, 07:17 AM

viz a viz 3.5 vs. Pathfinder, there's a guide on these very boards. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136890)

Even has a section on classes. Don't recall how many of the... archetypes have been examined though. Think it was a bit before the real archetype bonanza.

Callista

2011-08-24, 11:56 AM

Honestly, I don't know why we really need a tier system--can't we just build characters as a group and look to make sure everybody's at around the same power level?

If there are munchkins in the group, they'll weasel around the tier system just like they'll weasel around anything else.

And if there aren't, then you don't need the tier system because everybody will adjust (or help others adjust) to the average power level anyway.

Cooperation is much more important.

Yuki Akuma

2011-08-24, 11:58 AM

The tier system is designed to make it easier to build a group that's around the same power level.

Do people even read the post the tier list was posted in?

HappyBlanket

2011-08-24, 12:04 PM

Big Fau

2011-08-24, 12:12 PM

Why should we use trial and error when others have already done so?
And have a composed a tier system to show the results.

And have statistical evidence to prove said Tiers are accurate.

People who dislike the Tier system really need to understand why we have have it.

Is there a Pathfinder specific take on tiering out there, so using and contrasting only their version of the D&D classes?

PF didn't really do much to the Tiers. The new classes are sorted into their various tiers all ready, but the remakes are pretty much the same.

Yuki Akuma

2011-08-24, 12:15 PM

Also a lot of the time, people don't seem to understand what exactly causes problems with differences in power level.

Some people think a Fighter who can deal 2d6+Graham's number damage on a charge is powerful. And it is. But it can only kill things - that Fighter's going to feel pretty useless any time they have to, say, talk, or travel somewhere, or open a door without turning it into a mass of splinters.

This is the reason for the tier system. Playing a one-trick pony in the same party as a character who can do everything can get dull.

Callista

2011-08-24, 01:10 PM

Why should we use trial and error when others have already done so?
And have a composed a tier system to show the results.Because the tier system doesn't cover multiclassing and all the different feat/spell/skill combinations that are possible. It couldn't--there are just too many combinations. You pretty much have to use trial and error. Not that the tier system isn't a good way of understanding the variation in D&D power levels, but it assumes that you're optimizing to the (rational) max and using more or less vanilla 20-level base class. In reality, an unoptimized sorcerer and an optimized fighter could work together just fine; or a gish type might be several different classes and have a power level that's not determined by any of them.

Sure, read about the tiers, learn what power level means, but don't expect that it can be directly applied to creating a party in the real world.

Greenish

2011-08-24, 01:15 PM

it assumes that you're optimizing to the (rational) maxIt doesn't.

In reality, an unoptimized sorcerer and an optimized fighter could work together just fineTrue, and tier system can tell you that one of them is stronger than the other and the other can thus optimize more.

Sure, read about the tiers, learn what power level means, but it's not going to help you design a party in the real world.It's not a perfect match, and deliberately ignores many of the variables, but that doesn't mean it's useless. :smallamused:

HappyBlanket

2011-08-24, 01:39 PM

OP; I suppose now is a good time as any to say that I've heard of significant opposition to the tier system on other forums and communities. Apparently the gitp's community is different somehow, since the tier system is widely (widely, not universally) accepted here. Among other things. In any case, feel free to see other d&d forums for other opinions regarding the tier system.

Because the tier system doesn't cover multiclassing and all the different feat/spell/skill combinations that are possible. It couldn't--there are just too many combinations. You pretty much have to use trial and error. Not that the tier system isn't a good way of understanding the variation in D&D power levels, but it assumes that you're optimizing to the (rational) max and using more or less vanilla 20-level base class. In reality, an unoptimized sorcerer and an optimized fighter could work together just fine; or a gish type might be several different classes and have a power level that's not determined by any of them.

edit: I'm going to say sorry in advance for basically ganging up on you here. A dozen v. one is never a good social atmosphere, but with the prevalent attitude of gitp regarding the tier system, I'm sure you were aware of that when you posted. Still doesn't make it fair, of course. Anyway:

Okay, granted. The tier system does not account for multiclassing. This is true. I frankly don't believe that this is an issue, because it's measurements have been accurate enough for someone to use the tier system to determine a multiclassed character's placement.

But note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier in terms of tier descriptions, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level. As a rule, parties function best when everyone in the party is within 2 Tiers of each other (so a party that's all Tier 2-4 is generally fine, and so is a party that's all Tier 3-5, but a party that has Tier 1 and Tier 5s in it may have issues). The tier system accounts for this.

Sure, read about the tiers, learn what power level means, but don't expect that it can be directly applied to creating a party in the real world.

The tier system is created for the following purposes:

1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group.

2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.

3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).

4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a Fighter, and a Rogue, maybe you shouldn't let that fly.

5) To help homebrewers judge the power and balance of their new classes. Pick a Tier you think your class should be in, and when you've made your class compare it to the rest of the Tier. Generally, I like Tier 3 as a balance point, but I know many people prefer Tier 4. If it's stronger than Tier 1, you definitely blew it.

Oh yeah, alot of the above is quoted. I'm just too exhausted to type on my own >>

Big Fau

2011-08-24, 01:51 PM

Because the tier system doesn't cover multiclassing and all the different feat/spell/skill combinations that are possible.It couldn't--there are just too many combinations.

Why would it have to? It isn't a tier system for builds, it's a tier system for the classes used in those builds.

Besides, the resulting build has a tier based on the tiers of the classes used. A Scout 4/Ranger 16 with Swift Hunter would be Tier 4, whereas a Scout 4/Cloistered Cleric 2/Prestige Ranger 14 with Swift Hunter and Practiced Spellcaster would be Tier 3, whereas Monk 10/Fighter 10 would be Tier 5, regardless of ACFs (because Monk 10 is terribad).

You pretty much have to use trial and error.

Not really. You just have to look at the commonly used tactics and create what I call a Tier Range. For example a Wizard has tactical abilities that range between Tier 1 to Tier 5, with the Tier 1 being the campaign-shattering God Wizard/Incanatrix builds, Tier 2 being a Gish build that gets 9th level spells, Tier 3 being a Gish build that gets only 5th or 7th level spells, but involves the Bo9S or another subsystem, Tier 4 being a moderately optimized Blaster Wizard, and Tier 5 being that novice who built a Blaster without metamagic or PrCs.

The Tiers give you the estimated overall power, but leave out the extremes or the Ranges of each class. That's because the EOP has all ready been discovered by the various class handbooks and optimization threads.

but it assumes that you're optimizing to the (rational) max and using more or less vanilla 20-level base class.

And here is where you are absolutely wrong. If that were what the Tier system was about, it would be telling you to play Tier 2 Gishes or Tier 1 casters, or GTFO.

In reality, an unoptimized sorcerer and an optimized fighter could work together just fine; or a gish type might be several different classes and have a power level that's not determined by any of them.

JaronK actually recognized this, and mentioned it in the Tiers thread several times. You simply have not read the thread. You are complaining about something you do not understand because you have not read it thoroughly. Stop complaining about it.

Sure, read about the tiers, learn what power level means, but don't expect that it can be directly applied to creating a party in the real world.

Actually, yes it can. You can ask your players to play classes of specific Tiers and then design encounters for classes of those tiers. The system is there to inform DMs of what they can expect from certain classes, and how much preparation is needed to challenge those classes.

Again, you have not read the Tier System thread properly. Do not criticize it until you do.

Savannah

2011-08-24, 02:42 PM

Two very important caveats about the tier system (which have been mentioned here, but I want to repeat them anyway, as I've seen a lot of new players miss them):

1) The tier system is a measure of potential power of a class. It does not mean that every single wizard ever built will be stronger than every single fighter ever built. An equally optimized set of wizard and fighter will show that split, yes. But an un-optimized wizard and an optimized fighter, not so much.

2) Just because they're in different tiers doesn't mean they're bad or that they can't play together. People have different preferences, and no teir is the "best" to play at. Furthermore, it is very possible to happily play with tier 1s and tier 5s in the same group (lots of people do it!), depending on your optimization and playstyles.

Yes, the tier system is quite a useful measure of classes' potential power. However, it is not a set of cast-iron restrictions and should not be treated as such. (I emphasize this because I know of some people with limited D&D experience but who know of the tier system through discussions on this subforum who think that no one can ever have fun playing a tier 5 and only munchkins want to play tier 1s :smallsigh:)

Tyndmyr

2011-08-24, 02:53 PM

Again, you have not read the Tier System thread properly. Do not criticize it until you do.

If I had a dollar for every time I saw a post like this...

But yes. The common objections are covered in detail in the thread itself. Quite thoroughly. I find the tier system a well thought out and valuable tool. Sure, I might quibble over the odd class, but nothing is more than a tier off from where I'd place it, at the absolute worst.

Big Fau

2011-08-24, 04:09 PM

If I had a dollar for every time I saw a post like this...

Point made, but he's posted like he hasn't read it properly.

Yuki Akuma

2011-08-24, 04:37 PM

Point made, but he's posted like he hasn't read it properly.

This is because he hasn't.

The reason posts like this are common is because people criticise the tier system without reading the bloody thread. All the time. Constantly.

Big Fau

2011-08-24, 04:49 PM

This is because he hasn't.

The reason posts like this are common is because people criticise the tier system without reading the bloody thread. All the time. Constantly.

To be fair, they may have read the list itself, but that's it. They may just base their opinions on the list itself.

Jude_H

2011-08-24, 04:51 PM

And have statistical evidence to prove said Tiers are accurate.
How did that work?

eta:
And could I get a link?

Yuki Akuma

2011-08-24, 05:02 PM

To be fair, they may have read the list itself, but that's it. They may just base their opinions on the list itself.

Yes. This is what I'm complaining about. People just reading the list without reading any of the commentary required for proper context.

Zherog

2011-08-24, 05:06 PM

The tier system is created for the following purposes:

1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group.

2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.
<<snip to save space>>

I'm with Callista. The tier system, in my opinion, is a waste of bandwidth. It does neither of these for me. In fact, it fails miserably at them in my group.

Big Fau

2011-08-24, 05:08 PM

How did that work?

eta:
And could I get a link?

I shouldn't have used the word "statistical", but the fact is the Min/Maxing community has proven time and time again how broken the Tier 2s and Tier 1s are. This is evident by the class handbooks for each one of those classes, and in rare cases the handbooks for certain tactics (the Familiar Handbook, the Metamagic Handbook, etc).

While every class has a "broken" ability in the form of class skills (those have been optimized to hell and back), several classes have story-altering powers. A murder-mystery can be solved by Speak With The Dead, negated by Raise Dead, or by judicious use of Contact Other Plane (via Planar Binding an Imp if needed). A diplomatic mission can be negated by Charm Person, or other spells (up to and including killing the person in question and putting a substitute in their place via Planar Binding or Polymorph effects).

Then comes class replacement. Knock reduces the effectiveness of the Rogue, as does Find Traps or Summoning abilities. Summoning abilities and Buff spells reduce the effectiveness of melee classes (Direct damage spells do too, but to a considerably lesser extent). Crowd Control reduces the need for a party to cover you, especially if it's in the form of Solid Fog or other spells that are a pain in the neck.

This is what we normally call evidence for Tier 2 material. The more of these kind of abilities a class has, the more the class gets pushed up a Tier.

Notice how I keep mentioning spells? That's because spells are the primary offender.

Tier 3s are actually harder to adjudicate. It is very difficult to design a completely mundane Tier 3 (the Warblade is the only one AFAIK), and it is very hard to design a balanced subsystem. For this, we look at the weaknesses of the Tier 6 classes and ask "What does this class do better?". For a class to be Tier 3, it needs to answer at least half of the questions presented to it, including several questions that force you to spread out resources.

Tier 4s are similar, but they are often close enough to Tier 3 that the line gets blurred. This is were ACFs get taken into account.

Tier 5 is simple: The feats often make the class, or the class is overly specific on certain abilities.

Tier 6 is by far the easiest: Is it possible to completely replace a 20th level character of this class with a creature that has 20 Racial HD, and not notice the difference? For classes like this, the class features often don't change how you would play if you had just 20 RHD to work with.

A more insulting way to go about Tier 6 questioning is to ask "Can the Commoner do it too?" We've found that the answer is sometimes "Yes" (Charger builds using CW Samurai, for example).

For the record, this is based solely on class features. Skills, Feats, and Magic Items are not accounted for, but Spell lists, Meldshaping, Powers, Vestiges, Infusions, and Maneuvers are. The reason is not every class has the latter, but every single character in the game can get access to the former.

Amphetryon

2011-08-24, 05:16 PM

I'm with Callista. The tier system, in my opinion, is a waste of bandwidth. It does neither of these for me. In fact, it fails miserably at them in my group.

Could you expound upon how the Tier System, specifically, "fails miserably" for your group?

Boci

2011-08-24, 05:17 PM

I'm with Callista. The tier system, in my opinion, is a waste of bandwidth. It does neither of these for me. In fact, it fails miserably at them in my group.

What that? A look at a mechanical aspect of a game known for its versatility and played by millions does not work for every group? Clearly this should be noted as one of the biggest fails of all time. Will someone please alert JaronK of this recent development.

Coidzor

2011-08-24, 05:17 PM

The tier system is designed to make it easier to build a group that's around the same power level.

Do people even read the post the tier list was posted in?

No, they don't. They see any kind of ranking of classes as being a moral judgment against them.

Jude_H

2011-08-24, 05:24 PM

No, they don't. They see any kind of ranking of classes as being a moral judgment against them.Keep portraying them as volatile and irrational! Otherwise you'll never get your point across!

Zherog

2011-08-24, 05:25 PM

Could you expound upon how the Tier System, specifically, "fails miserably" for your group?

Sure.

1] It fails miserably at predicting the power of my players. The tier system says the wizard and the cleric should make the sword-and-board fighter cry and take up heavy drinking as a hobby. And it doesn't happen. Ever.

2] The tier system says those same casters should make the rogue obsolete, and cause her to curl up in the fetal position and rock back and forth. And yet, that doesn't happen. Ever.

I'm willing to concede that in theoretical discussions the tier system has merit - even if I find it annoying as hell - but (again, in my experiences) it fails when it comes to actual game play at my table. The fighter is just as useful as the cleric or wizard or druid; the rogue isn't obsolete; the ranger fits in and has plenty of things to do; even the oft-picked on monk contributes effectively and without feeling like a reject from the Isle of Misfit Toys.

Gavinfoxx

2011-08-24, 05:29 PM

Zherog: You do know that the tier system has the clause "Given equivalent levels of optimization" in it, correct? And that the version written by PlzBreakMyCampaign makes an attempt to add another axis to the system, that being 'few options / some options / many options', which will help you figure out how LIKELY it is that a particular class is to be optimized out of the box or on accident?

Boci

2011-08-24, 05:29 PM

Sure.

1] It fails miserably at predicting the power of my players. The tier system says the wizard and the cleric should make the sword-and-board fighter cry and take up heavy drinking as a hobby. And it doesn't happen. Ever.

This is common amougst low OP groups, or groups where melee optimizes more than casters.

2] The tier system says those same casters should make the rogue obsolete, and cause her to curl up in the fetal position and rock back and forth. And yet, that doesn't happen. Ever.

So celestial monkeys are never better at trap neutralization? Invisibility sphere are silence are never better for stealth, despite the fact they affect the whole party?

If the catser's don't use their skills to do a skill monkeys job, of course the rogue won't become obsolete.

Coidzor

2011-08-24, 05:32 PM

Zherog

2011-08-24, 05:34 PM

Zherog: You do know that the tier system has the clause "Given equivalent levels of optimization" in it, correct?

Yep.

And that the version written by PlzBreakMyCampaign makes an attempt to add another axis to the system, that being 'few options / some options / many options', which will help you figure out how LIKELY it is that a particular class is to be optimized out of the box or on accident?

Not seen this one, to be honest.

So celestial monkeys are never better at trap neutralization?

Celestial monkeys are never used, so I would have to say the rogue is far superior at trap neutralization.

Invisibility sphere are silence are never better for stealth, despite the fact they affect the whole party?

Generally speaking, when used those are targeted on the characters not capable of using Hide and Move Silently effectively. The rogue and ranger often move more than 20 feet ahead of the others, even on the rare occasions when they use spells to enhance stealth.

If the catser's don't use their skills to do a skill monkeys job, of course the rogue won't become obsolete.

If the casters are using their spells to do the skill monkey's job, they find they don't have enough spells left to do their own jobs.

Big Fau

2011-08-24, 05:35 PM

Sure.

1] It fails miserably at predicting the power of my players. The tier system says the wizard and the cleric should make the sword-and-board fighter cry and take up heavy drinking as a hobby. And it doesn't happen. Ever.

That's because your players are playing their classes on the lower end of the Tier Range. A S&B Fighter cannot predict the future. There is a spell that can. A S&B Fighter cannot stop time. There is a spell that can. A S&B Fighter cannot raise a guy from the dead if that person has been dead for 15 years. There is a spell that can.

This is what the Tiers are saying: These classes (Tiers 1&2) have the ability to completely wreck a campaign if played to their potential. These classes are balanced and useful in almost any situation (Tiers 3&4). These classes are horribly underpowered (Tiers 5&6).

This is what's happening with your players: They are playing the game the way they want to, and are not living up to the expectations of the classes they are playing.

As long as you and your players are having fun, the first one doesn't matter in the least. But if someone isn't having fun, the problems can be found in the first part.

2] The tier system says those same casters should make the rogue obsolete, and cause her to curl up in the fetal position and rock back and forth. And yet, that doesn't happen. Ever.

Then your players haven't had the pleasure of using Summon Monster 1 to call a Wolf to walk down a hallway to trigger a trap. Or used the Invisibility spell to spy on an enemy general without failure. Or used the Knock spell at all.

{{scrubbed}} You are expecting it to account for how your players play their characters. JaronK has stated that the Tiers system does not take this into account.

Edit:

If the casters are using their spells to do the skill monkey's job, they find they don't have enough spells left to do their own jobs.

This is only a problem at the lowest levels, and only if your casters are playing Healbots and Blasters.

Again, the problem isn't the Tiers system, it's the fact that your players are not playing their classes to the potential of said classes.

Boci

2011-08-24, 05:37 PM

Generally speaking, when used those are targeted on the characters not capable of using Hide and Move Silently effectively. The rogue and ranger often move more than 20 feet ahead of the others, even on the rare occasions when they use spells to enhance stealth.

Yes and it can often make them better at stealth than those trained in stelath, especially at lower levels.

If the casters are using their spells to do the skill monkey's job, they find they don't have enough spells left to do their own jobs.

Only at lower levels, besides, some spells, like summon monster, have other purposes as well.

HappyBlanket

2011-08-24, 05:39 PM

The tier system says the wizard and the cleric should make the sword-and-board fighter cry and take up heavy drinking as a hobby. And it doesn't happen. Ever.

Where does it say this?

2] The tier system says those same casters should make the rogue obsolete, and cause her to curl up in the fetal position and rock back and forth. And yet, that doesn't happen. Ever.

It says that the casters can make the rogue obsolete. But if the party Wizard picks spells that don't seek to mimic a fellow player character's abilities, and so long as those spells don't entrench on someone else's niche or field, it will never be a problem and the party can slay dragons and explore dungeons happily ever after.

Okay at this point I realize that those two points were the exact same point. All you did was replace the word "fighter" with "rogue." I'm not sure if I should feel insulted or stupid.

Also, swordsaged so much. We really opened the floodgates.

Gavinfoxx

2011-08-24, 05:39 PM

Not seen this one, to be honest.

It's here: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11714.0
Sadly, it's incomplete.

If the casters are using their spells to do the skill monkey's job, they find they don't have enough spells left to do their own jobs.

You do realize that past level, oh, 6 or so, due to the fact that a single properly chosen spell can essentially win and end an encounter, that the spellcasters are still capable of doing several -- or even all -- jobs in a party? Granted, doing more jobs at once requires higher optimization levels, but it is most definitely possible, and without neglecting their ability to do their own jobs, because of DRASTIC issues on Wotc's part with realizing precisely how many spells that spellcasters would use per encounter? Further, Tier 1's and Tier 2's have more capability to retreat temporarily to some safe place when their abilities are near exhausted than other lower tier characters? Also they are capable of playing with different, non-reactive playstyles which do not REQUIRE them to do the four encounters per day thing? Remember, the more you are able to readjust reality to your whim, the less you have to swerve and adjust yourself when reality throws curveballs at you, because it will be throwing FEWER curveballs at you in the first place!

Yuki Akuma

2011-08-24, 05:39 PM

Again, the problem isn't the Tiers system, it's the fact that your players are not playing their classes to the potential of said classes.

That's not a problem.

The actual problem is that you're saying the tier system sucks because you're trying to use it wrong.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-08-24, 05:41 PM

If the casters are using their spells to do the skill monkey's job, they find they don't have enough spells left to do their own jobs.

...

At 5th level, a specialist wizard with 16 intelligence has 12 spells per day. Use 2 spells per encounter (probably one battlefield control or buff and one blast), and you still have 4 left for out of combat things like sneaking and traps. And they get more spells as they level.

Zherog

2011-08-24, 05:57 PM

It's here: http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=11714.0
Sadly, it's incomplete.

Ah. That's why I've not seen it. My employer blocks the site. Maybe I'll try to find time to read it while at home...

You do realize that past level, oh, 6 or so, due to the fact that a single properly chosen spell can essentially win and end an encounter, that the spellcasters are still capable of doing several -- or even all -- jobs in a party?

Sure. I've already said the tier system works decent at theoretical-level discussions. My problem with the tier system is that everybody seemingly wants to apply it to all discussions, and it doesn't work in all discussions.

At 5th level, a specialist wizard with 16 intelligence has 12 spells per day. Use 2 spells per encounter (probably one battlefield control or buff and one blast), and you still have 4 left for out of combat things like sneaking and traps. And they get more spells as they level.

Seriously?

Four of those 12 spells are 0-level cantrips.

Encounters last longer than 2 rounds, so either your wizard is casting more spells, doing something she isn't meant to do (like firing a bow or crossbow) or sitting around picking her nose.

Finally, not every prepared spell is going to be useful during the day.

Three spells per encounter for four encounters has blown your whole wad for the day. Maybe the wizard can rest, although her rope trick (if she managed to keep one in reserve) is only going to last 5 hours -- not long enough for her to rest and regain spells. She certainly could extend it, giving a nice comfy 10 hours. But that's one less spell she has for combat; and she needs as many for that as possible - not even taking into account that rope trick isn't always a good idea.

Again, my big problem with the tier system is the way it gets tossed around as a way to always compare things, when lots of times it doesn't apply. I agree with quite a few aspects (such as the wizard/cleric/druid having more shenanigans available, and easier to get, making them stronger if that material is in play; just for a quick one.) when it comes to talking about the theoreticals behind the game. I just think tiers are overused, overcited, and overblown. *shrug*

Boci

2011-08-24, 05:59 PM

Seriously?

Four of those 12 spells are 0-level cantrips.

I'm pretty sure he wasn't counting cantrips as spells.

Zherog

2011-08-24, 06:02 PM

I'm pretty sure he wasn't counting cantrips as spells.

*looks up the numbers*

Fair 'nuff...

edit to include responses to some edits I didn't see, and a few other things...

As long as you and your players are having fun, the first one doesn't matter in the least.

Indeed. And yet, I've seen many many instances (not in this thread, yet) where people say stuff like, "Hurr Durr! if your wizard is on par with the piss-poor fighter or monk, you're playing him wrong! Tiers say so! *licks window*"

Yeah, I know. Baby, bathwater, all that.

Edit:

This is only a problem at the lowest levels, and only if your casters are playing Healbots and Blasters.

You say that as though there's something wrong with playing healbots or blasters.

Again, the problem isn't the Tiers system, it's the fact that your players are not playing their classes to the potential of said classes.

And again, I understand that the tier system is intended to talk about theoretical balance points. Yet there's plenty of conversations all around that attempt to apply it directly to somebody's game, and even to deride and ridicule people for "not playing the right way."

Okay at this point I realize that those two points were the exact same point. All you did was replace the word "fighter" with "rogue." I'm not sure if I should feel insulted or stupid.

I dunno. I think I certainly should feel insulted for having so many people telling me I can't read, or can't comprehend what I have read. *shrug*

Yuki Akuma

2011-08-24, 06:04 PM

A good Wizard can disable most of the opponents with a single spell. Why waste resources mopping up? You have a The Rest Of The Party for that.

And the resident Cleric can cast Disable The Opponents In One Turn spells, too, although not as well as Wizzie.

But the main point is that a Wizard does not need to cast a spell every single round.

Big Fau

2011-08-24, 06:13 PM

Encounters last longer than 2 rounds, so either your wizard is casting more spells, doing something she isn't meant to do (like firing a bow or crossbow) or sitting around picking her nose.

If they are casting spells like Scorching Ray, probably. But not with a Glitterdust spell. Or Pyrotechnics. Or any BC spell that utterly rapes an encounter.

Finally, not every prepared spell is going to be useful during the day.

Which is why you use Divinations to find out which ones will be. Fun fact: Every single recommended spell in the God Wizard handbook by TreantMonkLvl20 is useful no matter what encounters you find. And if you have no encounters this day, that's fine too.

Three spells per encounter for four encounters has blown your whole wad for the day.

Funny, I played a Bard recently, and found that I almost never cast more than one spell per combat. The times I did, that spell was Celerity. And it was often followed up by Flesh to Ice-ing the person who forced me to use Celerity.

The only times I ran out of spells as a Wizard/War Weaver were when I actually cast all of my spells into a Staff of the Magi to recharge it (I had the party's Factotum hold it though). That campaign ended quite quickly the next session.

Again, my big problem with the tier system is the way it gets tossed around as a way to always compare things, when lots of times it doesn't apply.

Then your problem is with some posters on these forums, not the Tier system.

I agree with quite a few aspects (such as the wizard/cleric/druid having more shenanigans available, and easier to get, making them stronger if that material is in play; just for a quick one.) when it comes to talking about the theoreticals behind the game. I just think tiers are overused, overcited, and overblown. *shrug*

Tiers aren't "theoretical beyond the game". Tiers are capable of being proven in game. It just takes system mastery to do so.

Edit:

You say that as though there's something wrong with playing healbots or blasters.

Unoptimized ones? Yes. Especially Healbots, because all of your spells get undone (and then some) in a single round thanks to the damage enemies deal. Buffbots are better than Healbots.

Yuki Akuma

2011-08-24, 06:17 PM

LaughingRogue

2011-08-24, 06:17 PM

*looks up the numbers*

And again, I understand that the tier system is intended to talk about theoretical balance points. Yet there's plenty of conversations all around that attempt to apply it directly to somebody's game, and even to deride and ridicule people for "not playing the right way."

Hits the nail on the head -- the tier system is not the problem but some of the people that try to use it as law "don't get your tier 5 mixed with my tier 1" people

Zherog

2011-08-24, 06:20 PM

(first, see my edit of my previous post.)

A good Wizard can disable most of the opponents with a single spell. Why waste resources mopping up? You have a The Rest Of The Party for that.

So this implies that a wizard who does something else, such as chuck a fireball is a bad wizard.

But the main point is that a Wizard does not need to cast a spell every single round.

Doesn't that depend entirely on play style, both of the player of the wizard and the GM whole built the encounter? If I'm playing a wizard who is built to take down a single target at a time and the GM throws us against an encounter with 12 targets, I'm casting a hell of a lot more than one spell.

This, to me, gets to the heart of the problem. So many people think there's a "right" and "wrong" way to play these classes. It doesn't even occur to them that some people play straight evokers who ban conjuration and illusion.

Again, I'm totally fine with the tier system as a minor tool for theoretical talks - though I think it's way overused. But it doesn't -- it can't -- apply to many real-world scenarios, including my group where the guy who likes to play the cleric very much likes to cast a few buffs and otherwise heal, or the gal who plays wizards (my wife, actually) prefers chucking fireballs to everything else. And my group isn't the only one that plays that way.

Boci

2011-08-24, 06:21 PM

*looks up the numbers*
You say that as though there's something wrong with playing healbots or blasters.

Its not wrong, but then don't complain about the tier system not applying to your group.

I dunno. I think I certainly should feel insulted for having so many people telling me I can't read, or can't comprehend what I have read. *shrug*

Try going stright to "I don't like the tier system because I feel they are overused and besides we don!t play by the assumptions used in it" and skipping the whole "Tiers fail period". It may lead to a nicer debate.

So this implies that a wizard who does something else, such as chuck a fireball is a bad wizard.

Bad in the sense that there are probably better spells they could have learnt and cast? Yes. Bad in the sense that they are doing something wrong? No.

Yuki Akuma

2011-08-24, 06:22 PM

Please don't put words in my mouth.

And yes, it does entirely depend on play style. I said he didn't have to cast a spell every single round. I didn't say he couldn't if he wanted!

There is no wrong way to play, as I said right up there. The fact that you can do something doesn't mean you should.

"My party Wizard doesn't overshadow the rest of the party, so therefore the tier system is rubbish" is a horrible argument with absolutely no merit and you shouldn't use it. Whatever works for your party is fine, though.

Zherog

2011-08-24, 06:23 PM

There is nothing wrong with playing a healbot or a blaster, if that's what you want to do. If you don't hold the rest of your party back, whatever works for you is fine.

People need to understand this.

There is no wrong way to play.

This was hysterical, to me, right after Big Fau's post. That's my point. People claiming other people are playing wrong, and using tiers to prove it.

Boci

2011-08-24, 06:25 PM

This was hysterical, to me, right after Big Frau's post. That's my point. People claiming other people are playing wrong, and using tiers to prove it.

Some claims say that, but more say "if you play like that don't expect the tier system to work".

Yuki Akuma

2011-08-24, 06:29 PM

This was hysterical, to me, right after Big Frau's post. That's my point. People claiming other people are playing wrong, and using tiers to prove it.

Okay. If you promise not to say that a system for determining relative power assuming equal optimisation is stupid because in your game with wildly different optimisation levels it doesn't apply, we'll stop telling you you're doing it wrong.

Deal?

Coidzor

2011-08-24, 06:38 PM

This was hysterical, to me, right after Big Frau's post. That's my point. People claiming other people are playing wrong, and using tiers to prove it.

So people misunderstanding the tier system is the reason you misunderstand the tier system and its real purpose despite having read over it and seeing that this is patently not its purpose or intent? :smallconfused:

Big Fau

2011-08-24, 06:46 PM

This was hysterical, to me, right after Big Frau's post.

Where did you see an "R" in my screenname? I apologize, but this is one of my berserk buttons. I hate it when people spell my name wrong IRL, largely because of jokes people keep making about my name.

People claiming other people are playing wrong, and using tiers to prove it.

The whole concept of "right" and "wrong" really should not be applied to an RPG, but those people usually have a point: You shouldn't play Blasters, or Healbots, or Monks because there is a more efficient (and more useful) way to do this.

And when it comes to being an adventurer, you should really be as efficient as your concept allows.

LaughingRogue

2011-08-24, 06:50 PM

Where did you see an "R" in my screenname? I apologize, but this is one of my berserk buttons. I hate it when people spell my name wrong IRL, largely because of jokes people keep making about my name.

The whole concept of "right" and "wrong" really should not be applied to an RPG, but those people usually have a point: You shouldn't play Blasters, or Healbots, or Monks because there is a more efficient (and more useful) way to do this.

And when it comes to being an adventurer, you should really be as efficient as your concept allows.

You should play whatever class you want that is at least competitive in your group --- and if a healbot, blaster or monk is competitive and you want to play it and that will be fun for you ... screw anyone who tells you differently.

Boci

2011-08-24, 06:51 PM

The whole concept of "right" and "wrong" really should not be applied to an RPG, but those people usually have a point: You shouldn't play Blasters, or Healbots, or Monks because there is a more efficient (and more useful) way to do this.

And when it comes to being an adventurer, you should really be as efficient as your concept allows.

Whilst I agree with this it rarely leads to good debate since often all low OP players see when you say this is "You're doing it wrong" and its an understanble mistake. Besides we all make sacrifices in efficiency, so it doesn't matter that some people lower the bar even further.

Savannah

2011-08-24, 06:53 PM

That's not a problem.

The actual problem is that you're saying the tier system sucks because you're trying to use it wrong.

"Using it wrong" like, oh, I dunno, to spot potential problems in the group? You know, like everyone recommends? If those potential problems never, ever, ever occur, is it not reasonable to say that the tier system is useless in your experience?

Its not wrong, but then don't complain about the tier system not applying to your group.

Wait, wait, wait, now you're saying "well, if you're low-optimization, the tier system doesn't apply to you and you shouldn't complain about it"? Sorry, but that's dead wrong. If the tier system doesn't apply to low-op games, then that needs to be clearly stated up front. But no one says that. The tier system is highly praised around here, and new members are linked to it without any sort of caution about how it's a measure of potential power, how it's not a measure of PvP power, how it's not often an issue in low-op groups, and so on (well, this thread was a bit of an exception, but the majority of ones I see neglect those critical pieces of information). And then people complain that anyone who objects to the tier system either can't read or didn't read the whole, long, long thread (are you going to read 46 pages to see if there are any teeny, tiny points in there that aren't in the first post? I'm sure not!).

In my experience, the vast majority of groups are low--moderate optimization groups. Remember that this is a very self-selected population here; we're the ones who like the game enough to be on the internet talking about it, and so we know a lot more about optimization than Random Dude who plays 'cause it's fun and doesn't care about it enough to go looking online. So if Boci's correct in saying "if you're low-op, don't complain 'cause it wasn't meant for you" then that means that it's not meant for the vast majority of games. Which makes me wonder why we all keep praising it here.

Short version: I agree with Zherog. I feel the tier system is overused, misused, presented without a number of absolutely critical caveats, and is not applicable to a large proportion of games.

LaughingRogue

2011-08-24, 06:54 PM

Whilst I agree with this it rarely leads to good debate since often all low OP players see when you say this is "You're doing it wrong" and its an understanble mistake. Besides we all make sacrifices in efficiency, so it doesn't matter that some people lower the bar even further.

there is no difference between "You're doing it wrong" and "You should do it a different way because that is more efficient" because that second quote quite strongly implies "you're doing it wrong".

Boci

2011-08-24, 06:56 PM

there is no difference between "You're doing it wrong" and "You should do it a different way because that is more efficient" because that second quote quite strongly implies "you're doing it wrong".

I dunno, I'd say "Wouldn't an adventure want to be as good as possible at their job to stay alieve?" and "You're doing it wrong" are quite different.

"Using it wrong" like, oh, I dunno, to spot potential problems in the group? You know, like everyone recommends? If those potential problems never, ever, ever occur, is it not reasonable to say that the tier system is useless in your experience?

Thats reasonable. Claimly that therefor the tier system does not work isn't.

Wait, wait, wait, now you're saying "well, if you're low-optimization, the tier system doesn't apply to you and you shouldn't complain about it"? Sorry, but that's dead wrong. If the tier system doesn't apply to low-op games, then that needs to be clearly stated up front.

People need to be told that if they rarely use more than 10% of a wizard's spell list, something measureing the power of a well played wizard may not apply to them?
The tiers mention moderate optimization is assumed.

(are you going to read 46 pages to see if there are any teeny, tiny points in there that aren't in the first post? I'm sure not!).

How about the whole OP?

In my experience, the vast majority of groups are low--moderate optimization groups. Remember that this is a very self-selected population here; we're the ones who like the game enough to be on the internet talking about it, and so we know a lot more about optimization than Random Dude who plays 'cause it's fun and doesn't care about it enough to go looking online. So if Boci's correct in saying "if you're low-op, don't complain 'cause it wasn't meant for you" then that means that it's not meant for the vast majority of games. Which makes me wonder why we all keep praising it here.

If you are right, you've answered your own question: its praised here because it works for the kind of players who are here. It also very useful for introducing new players to the aspect of how unbalanced 3.5 is.

LaughingRogue

2011-08-24, 06:58 PM

I dunno, I'd say "Wouldn't an adventure want to be as good as possible at their job to stay alieve?" and "You're doing it wrong" are quite different.

Then let's all play pun pun.

Boci

2011-08-24, 07:01 PM

Then let's all play pun pun.

Hello strawman.

That can easily be explained by adventurers not knowing the whole process. Presumably it is easier to realize that haste is generally a better spell than fireball.

Big Fau

2011-08-24, 07:05 PM

I dunno, I'd say "Wouldn't an adventure want to be as good as possible at their job to stay alieve?" and "You're doing it wrong" are quite different.

Just to clarify something: I said "as efficiently as your concept allows" for a reason. If everyone was optimizing to be the best possible, the optimizers would tell everyone to play CoDzilla, StP Erudites, Artificers, Archivists, and Wizards instead of anything else.

LaughingRogue

2011-08-24, 07:08 PM

Hello strawman.

That can easily be explained by adventurers not knowing the whole process. Presumably it is easier to realize that haste is generally a better spell than fireball.

strawmanning is making an argument different than it was originally made and then attacking that argument that you've changed.

Your argument is "shouldn't adventurers be as well equip and best optimized as possible in hopes of surviving" my response was "then we should play the "most optimized characters"" and showing that , that train of thinking also isn't good

So we all in essence sacrifice efficiency because without it we end up completely breaking the game.

Now some people chose to stop optimizing at X point

And other people chose to stop at Y point.

and the X people tell the Y people "well that's not very efficient" and the Y people say to the X people "Well maybe that's too efficient and I like doing it my way" and from here the argument seems to go in a circle

Edit:: I'd like to point out that I like the Tier System and give a tremendous amount of credit to the people who came up with it to help out others.

Boci

2011-08-24, 07:11 PM

Your argument is "shouldn't adventurers be as well equip and best optimized as possible in hopes of surviving" my response was "then we should play the "most optimized characters"" and showing that , that train of thinking also isn't good

Its a strawman because I was talking about PO and you brought in TO for no reason. The strawman was pretty closely related to my argument, but it was still a strawman.

ALternativly its a slippery slope falalcy since you claimed optimizing leads to pun-pun without baking it up. Take your pick.

137beth

2011-08-24, 07:16 PM

Is there a Pathfinder specific take on tiering out there, so using and contrasting only their version of the D&D classes?

I opened a thread about that awhile ago, you can find it here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=211490) (and it's still new enough to post in:smallwink:)

Zherog

2011-08-24, 07:26 PM

Where did you see an "R" in my screenname?

Apologies for misspelling your name; I've edited the post.

Coidzor

2011-08-24, 07:34 PM

"Using it wrong" like, oh, I dunno, to spot potential problems in the group? You know, like everyone recommends? If those potential problems never, ever, ever occur, is it not reasonable to say that the tier system is useless in your experience?

Well, that's not what's been said, so it's kinda irrelevant when you really think about it anyway.

...And looking down at the end of your post, that's not what you're saying there either.

If the tier system doesn't apply to low-op games, then that needs to be clearly stated up front.

Who said it didn't? Just because it points out something can be potentially problematic does not mean it's invalidated when something that is only potentially problematic turns out to not be problematic.

What the tier system really doesn't work as well without additional work are situations where the op-level is mixed and indeterminate due to a lack of information. Or just indeterminate.

If you can't tell where you are, a map is of course going to be useless to you. If one cannot read, then a signpost in the forest is similarly unhelpful.

One, generally, does not blame maps for this, however.

TehLivingDeath

2011-08-24, 07:43 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceteris_paribus

Nobody should even try to delve into the Tier system without first understanding the above concept.

Savannah

2011-08-24, 09:40 PM

How about the whole OP?

The whole OP is great, and yes, if people aren't paying attention to that, that's a problem. However, I've seen "well, that was discussed in the thread, why didn't you read the whole thing?", and that's what I was objecting to.

If you can't tell where you are, a map is of course going to be useless to you. If one cannot read, then a signpost in the forest is similarly unhelpful.

One, generally, does not blame maps for this, however.

I don't blame the tier system for this, although if this is a known issue, I have trouble seeing why we seem to treat the tier system as the be-all and end-all of D&D discussions on this board. I do blame the posters who link newbies to the tier system and just say "here", without giving them the necessary precautions, for some of the issues I've seen newbies have. I'm not kidding when I say that this board made someone I know think that a tier 5 character could never ever be a fun character to play, and that anyone who wanted to play a tier 1 character just wanted to break the game. Seriously. Maybe you'll blame this person for not reading; that seems to be the standard response for any misunderstanding. Personally, I blame the board for treating the tier system the way it does and for assuming that all games are high-op. I'm not saying that the tier system is bad. It is quite useful. However, I am saying that I feel it is overused and misused on this board.

Coidzor

2011-08-24, 10:16 PM

I don't blame the tier system for this, although if this is a known issue, I have trouble seeing why we seem to treat the tier system as the be-all and end-all of D&D discussions on this board. I do blame the posters who link newbies to the tier system and just say "here", without giving them the necessary precautions, for some of the issues I've seen newbies have.

*shrug* This behavior you're describing and railing against. I never see it myself.

Mostly because certain individuals have a tendency to come along like moths to a flame whenever the tier system is mentioned and complain about this kind of behavior, starting the argument up in the thread before anyone really has an opportunity to do anything like what you describe.

I'm not kidding when I say that this board made someone I know think that a tier 5 character could never ever be a fun character to play, and that anyone who wanted to play a tier 1 character just wanted to break the game.

I find it hard to believe that this would be anything other than a failing on your friend's part.

Personally, I blame the board for treating the tier system the way it does and for assuming that all games are high-op. I'm not saying that the tier system is bad. It is quite useful. However, I am saying that I feel it is overused and misused on this board.

Of course it's going to be misused. That's something inherent to the internet. :smalltongue: I've never seen it get misused and not be corrected, even if I had to be the one doing the correcting around these parts though, which I must say has been rather rare and mostly in threads that didn't really get any response.

And anyone who is satisfied with a sole response and just goes with it rather than getting additional perspectives or getting clarification, if they don't trust their own judgment enough in the first place that they have to ask... Well, their actions are their own acceptance of their fate.

So I do have to wonder how much of this is just your bias against the tier system coloring your views so that you can't see anything but the negative.

And complaining about receiving answers about what people feel is "the best option" when asking for the best option is... silly.

Savannah

2011-08-24, 10:45 PM

*shrug* This behavior you're describing and railing against. I never see it myself.

How...odd :smallconfused: I see in nearly every thread asking about tiers (this one was an exception, actually, which I'm quite pleased about). The OP asked about the tier system, someone simply links to it, and then it's not until several posts later that anyone emphasizes that it's only about potential power and only functions with equal optimization.

So I do have to wonder how much of this is just your bias against the tier system coloring your views so that you can't see anything but the negative.

Actually, I like the tier system quite a bit, but I don't think it's nearly as universal or important as I often see it being treated here. I didn't do into the issues I have with it until after Zherog did and people seemed to assume that his issues were due to him not understanding it, not any possible issues with the system itself.

...crap, I've broken one of my cardinal rules on this board: never get involved in a tier debate.

Gavinfoxx

2011-08-24, 10:48 PM

and then it's not until several posts later that anyone emphasizes that it's only about potential power and only functions with equal optimization.

Uhm, I think this is because we assume that on an internet forum where people read text about stuff, that people would have, you know, the reading comprehension and ability to actually read the threads where it explains it, and comprehend what that means? Really, it's all in the linked threads themselves, all nice and concise. We'd be needlessly repeating ourselves if we just, yaknow, said the stuff that it says RIGHT THERE IN THE LINKS.

It's only AFTER someone has evidenced a lack of ability to read where we linked them to that we repeat what is in the links.

Savannah

2011-08-24, 11:05 PM

Yes, I realize it's all in the post, but I have seen it misunderstood time and time again, so I feel it's important to point it out.

Edit: Part of the reason I think it's important is that I remember when I first looked at the tier system. Now, I'm pretty smart and definitely an above-average reader, but it still took me at least three separate read-throughs (several days apart) before I could wrap my head around the whole thing, because it was so different to how I'd been thinking about D&D. A few pointers on what to keep in mind as I was reading it (potential power only, not PvP, assuming equal optimization) would have helped. And, yes, I realize that those are in the OP. However, there's a lot in that OP, and a quick tip on what frame of mind you need to be in as you're reading it would have helped.

Coidzor

2011-08-24, 11:21 PM

There doesn't really seem to be any real avenues to cut down on that though, beyond providing clarification when confusion does come up. :smallconfused:

Thrice Dead Cat

2011-08-25, 02:15 AM

Like most other arguments here at GITP (Monkday, ToBuesday, and the now defunct Psiday) the issue is that stuff gets taken out of context, misread, or hearsay drives it into "Well, I heard *STUFF* so of course monks are OP!"

Certainly, the tier system won't work at every table. Heck, I as a player don't work at every table - sometimes it is my fault, sometimes it is no one's fault and tables just don't work out because of shenanigans - but the point is, if it's there as a tool, use it and go from there. If you don't know how to make heads or tails of it ask, and hope that a Playgrounder drops you either a link or freshly typed material. :smallsmile:I'll admit, I'm more of a linker, simply because of laziness.

Dimers

2011-08-25, 02:35 AM

Another less-than-straightforward aspect to the tiers ... The way you use them to help balance a campaign isn't simply by banning certain tiers, or even banning particular classes/builds. That might help, but isn't sufficient by itself. I find that the main use of the tier system is in thinking about what causes the power differentials.

There's information-gathering ability (including Divination spells), communication, transportation (you're up a creek if you can't fly and others can), spammability of powers, maximum distance of powers, adaptability of general powers to a given situation, presence of SODs/SOLs, skill points, class skills, bonus feats, skill tricks, ways to bypass skills altogether, special defenses, loose wording, independence from special equipment ... These are examples of the facets that make one class strong and another weak, and such facets are the way to use the system. By breaking down a given class's advantages or noticing what advantages a class lacks, you can get a good feel for how to apply the system's general observations to your specific campaign.

For instance, a charm spell is something that appears mostly in high tiers. Is there a relationship? I think so, because charm is a SOL, a way to bypass skill use, a generator of temporary allies, a source of information, and a power that is poorly defined mechanically. Seeing how it empowers the classes (or individuals) who can use it, it's easier to make it useful enough without letting it break the game. Similarly, seeing how HP damage potential doesn't appear only in high tiers lets you know that you don't need to nerf fireball or unarmed damage cheese.

WinWin

2011-08-25, 04:07 AM

{Scrubbed}

Drachasor

2011-08-25, 04:24 AM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

It's relevant because System Matters. Knowing the failings of a particular game system is important. It helps make better, happier groups and a better gaming experience. It helps make better house rules. Knowing the intricacies also helps you learn which classes require relatively little "op" work (e.g. friendly for low-op players) and which require a lot more (e.g. friendlier for higher op players). Those intricacies also, as Dimers pointed out, help you understand what particular kinds of abilities make powerful classes powerful. All this makes you a better DM.

For instance, a Bard is Tier 3, but that Bard is more work to optimize to the level of a Warblade, generally speaking (not that you can't mess up a Warblade, but it is harder). So a DM has a right to have some concern if he wants a Tier 3 game and the newbie plays a Bard -- this is of course fixable by providing some guidance where needed (that's another kind of optimization). (This is a relatively mild example, I know).

Btw, I obviously have to disagree when people say op-level is irrelevant with Tiers. That's not true. At all Tiers there are classes that are easier to optimize than others. No one should say a Wizard is as easy to play to a high power level as a Druid, for instance. It isn't that both can't be played at the same T1 level, but rather that the Wizard typically requires some more system mastery and the druid is ridiculously easy.

You might be able to magically tell how everything in a game system balances against everything else at a glance. Most people cannot (and honestly, I doubt you can really do that either). There's a world of difference between knowing that Wizards are quadratic and Fighters are linear and knowing all the details that make this true -- though honestly, I think saying Wizards are quadratic is a bit tame for 3.X. It isn't like the sort of things that make an ability powerful in one game system automatically make it powerful in another. The power of divination, for instance, varies wildly from one game system to the next.

WinWin

2011-08-25, 04:30 AM

Drachasor

2011-08-25, 04:42 AM

I read the above post. The author is emthatic in his beliefs. His play style greatly differs from mine. His assumtions about worthwhile gaming experiences differs from mine. His assumptions about what I am able to recognise are false.

I'm glad he finds tiers relevant. Good for him.

Well I'm glad you explained yourself there.

I get the feeling you are making more assumptions about me than the situation warrants. Just because I think players are generally happier if their effectiveness doesn't wildly vary doesn't mean that I don't think there aren't a lot of other important things in a game such as story, verisimilitude, player choice, good characterizations, etc, etc.

Then again, if you really can just glance at a game and realize what is powerful and isn't both by itself and in complex combinations then that's quite (unbelievably) impressive. I guess whenever you look at anything on an optimization forum you say to yourself "*sigh* knew about that the first moment I saw those books."

Killer Angel

2011-08-25, 04:54 AM

Wait, wait, wait, now you're saying "well, if you're low-optimization, the tier system doesn't apply to you and you shouldn't complain about it"? Sorry, but that's dead wrong. If the tier system doesn't apply to low-op games, then that needs to be clearly stated up front. But no one says that.

The tier system almost always applies, given an equal level (or absence) of optimization.
I constantly play in a low lev optimization group, and, while it's true that the fighter is far from useless (edit: it's almost needed), it's also true that the fighter suffers from a lot of things, that are resolved by the low opt. casters.
You don't need to optimize, to pick teleport.

I read the above post. The author is emthatic in his beliefs. His play style greatly differs from mine. His assumtions about worthwhile gaming experiences differs from mine. His assumptions about what I am able to recognise are false.
I'm glad he finds tiers relevant. Good for him.

Maybe you don't have problems of group's balance, and that's good for you, but pretending that it's false that wizards are more eclectic than CW samurai, it's baseless.

Wings of Peace

2011-08-25, 04:57 AM

Something I've noticed and that always seems strange to me is that people say they either like or dislike the tier system. It seems strange to me because the tier system itself isn't a rule or a guideline, it's a set of observations regarding each classes versatility compared to one another in a ceteris paribus scenario. I understand you could criticize where certain classes are placed but criticizing it as a concept seems akin to saying "I'm not sure how I feel about that gravity stuff".

Drachasor

2011-08-25, 05:02 AM

Thrice Dead Cat

2011-08-25, 05:30 AM

Gametime

2011-08-25, 11:27 AM

there is no difference between "You're doing it wrong" and "You should do it a different way because that is more efficient" because that second quote quite strongly implies "you're doing it wrong".

I think that's fair, but the sentiment behind the latter statement isn't necessarily a bad one. It would be better worded as something akin to "You might consider doing it this way, which would increase your versatility/problem-solving ability in significant ways, assuming those characteristics are things you value in a role-playing game."

Sometimes people don't care about power and don't like being told they "should" make stronger characters. That's fine. But sometimes people do care about power and just aren't good at making strong characters. Offering advice that is helpful to the latter group without offending or making value judgements about the former is difficult, but (I believe) worthwhile.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Your mileage may vary, but I found the gap between tiers 1 and 2, in particular, to be helpful in understanding why wizards are so much better than sorcerers. I'd always viewed spontaneous spellcasting as this font of versatility; the tier descriptions helped me come to grips with the fact that prepared spellcasters with (mostly) unlimited known spells have much greater versatility than spontaneous spellcasters with set limits on known spells.

So I didn't find the distinction between linear warriors and quadratic wizards helpful, per se, so much as the gradation between different kinds of quadratic wizards (and, to a lesser extent, different kinds of linear warriors).

Eric Tolle

2011-08-25, 11:41 AM

Gavinfoxx

2011-08-25, 11:54 AM

Post full of win snipped

WOW. Hehehe... that was made of win...

The Glyphstone

2011-08-25, 11:56 AM

Dimers

2011-08-25, 12:49 PM

The system highlights the dangers when three of your group members are on the cart and the fourth one rides the supersonic jet plane.

And now I'm imagining a jet pulling a cart with a fighter, a monk and a rogue.

NineThePuma

2011-08-25, 02:15 PM

Tanuki Tales

2011-08-25, 02:47 PM

I'm sigging this. Just FYI.

I second this.

JaronK

2011-08-25, 03:13 PM

Invoking the gravity system to claim that jets are better long-range travel systems than horse-drawn carts is over-generalizing travel style. My group has no trouble at all with the cart taking six months to travel across country, and as for going to Japan, well, we've never needed to. The modern world travel tiers are irrelevant in actual travel.

Except that the tiers don't say it's wrong to travel in a cart. They say if you're doing a road trip with three guys that have carts to travel in and one that has a jet plane, you're going to have problems unless the guy in the jet plane tones it down so that he can travel with the carts (or puts the carts in his plane, either way).

What the tiers are really measuring is "in a given situation, what options does this class offer you?" Tier 1 means for every situation, the class probably offers you something that completely solves the situation and maybe goes well beyond the intended solution (for example, not just killing the evil assassin by detecting him before he could even strike, but then raising him from the dead with skill points in tact and using him to find traps for you in the future). Tier 6 means that for every solution, the class probably offers you little to no solutions (for example, the evil assassin is coming, and all your class gives you is full BAB... you'd better have something other than class to rely on!). In between you get classes that rock some situations but fail completely in others (think Charging Barbarians), classes that are useful in most situations but not guaranteed to easily solve them (Factotums, Swordsages, etc), and so on.

And then they combine this with the simple fact that if one person's class lets them solve everything, and another's class doesn't come close to that, the second person starts to feel like dead weight. If everyone can solve everything that's just a high powered game. If everyone has to work together to solve everything and still has trouble, that's just a low powered game. Nothing wrong with either of these things. It's the imbalance inside a group that's a problem.

JaronK

Optimator

2011-08-25, 04:23 PM

In my play experience, which is vast, I've found that the tier system is entirely accurate and reliable within the context it defines.

Wings of Peace

2011-08-25, 05:15 PM

Yeah, but that's not the point of the tiers. If the whole group is playing low tier riding the cart for six months, then everyone is on the same level and everyone is happy. The system highlights the dangers when three of your group members are on the cart and the fourth one rides the supersonic jet plane.

I disagree somewhat with this but I have the feeling you and I are thinking the same thing and explaining it different ways. If I had to make an analogy for the tier system I would use the analogy of a squad of soliders who have each been randomly assigned a sack of equipment and sent into the field.

The lower tiers are the soldiers who are only given one thing in their pack, lets say a combat shotgun. They might master that shotgun, but that's all they'll ever have (because all of our hypothetical soldiers are retiring after this engagement) and so they will always have to work within the confines of what that shotgun is capable of.

The higher tiered classes on the other hand have been given a shotgun, grenades, an assault rifle, and a sniper rifle. Because the higher tiered soldiers have more gear the high tier soldiers will probably need more time to become comfortable with their weapons but once they've adjusted they'll be able to solve the same problems as the lower tiered soldiers but also many more because their bag of tools is far more versatile than the lower tier soldiers.

I like this analogy because it addresses the issue of experience to a certain degree. A lower tiered soldier might perform better at times than a high tiered soldier due to being more experienced with his tools. However, the potential for the high tier soldier to outperform the low tier soldier is never gone, he simply lacks the experience to do so.

The Glyphstone

2011-08-25, 07:19 PM

I disagree somewhat with this but I have the feeling you and I are thinking the same thing and explaining it different ways. If I had to make an analogy for the tier system I would use the analogy of a squad of soliders who have each been randomly assigned a sack of equipment and sent into the field.

The lower tiers are the soldiers who are only given one thing in their pack, lets say a combat shotgun. They might master that shotgun, but that's all they'll ever have (because all of our hypothetical soldiers are retiring after this engagement) and so they will always have to work within the confines of what that shotgun is capable of.

The higher tiered classes on the other hand have been given a shotgun, grenades, an assault rifle, and a sniper rifle. Because the higher tiered soldiers have more gear the high tier soldiers will probably need more time to become comfortable with their weapons but once they've adjusted they'll be able to solve the same problems as the lower tiered soldiers but also many more because their bag of tools is far more versatile than the lower tier soldiers.

I like this analogy because it addresses the issue of experience to a certain degree. A lower tiered soldier might perform better at times than a high tiered soldier due to being more experienced with his tools. However, the potential for the high tier soldier to outperform the low tier soldier is never gone, he simply lacks the experience to do so.

That works for me. Though I still like the image of the wheeled cart being towed by a jet plane.