tier system

[holladiewaldfee]

some people in this forum made some threads with tiers and rated classes by "just reading their description". awesome. i couldnt do this. "a ranger can choose favorite enemies. so he must be tier 3" or so

real tier system:

tier 2: all classes

tier 1: all classes played by experienced players




btw no one said if tier 1 is better than tier 2 so their rating system is worthless

[candycorn]

Not true. There are limits to what experienced players can do. Barring TO abusive exploits, a relatively inexperienced player with a powerful class can often outperform an experienced player with a weaker class.

Yes, experienced players do better than nonexperienced, generally. That's not what the Tier system is about.

The Tier System ranks classes, starting with the assumption that they're all played at an equal level of optimization. In other words, "if all other things are equal, which class is better able to contribute".

[HunterOfJello]

1. Tier System for Classes (Repost) by the great JaronK (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293.0)

2. Why each class is in its Tier (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0)

Read link 1.
Then go actually read the full entire text of link 1.
Disagree with assessments or don't understand a classes placement? Read link 2.

If you still don't like it, go read another one of the 500 billion threads on this topic. This is likely the fifth one on here this week alone.

[Wings of Peace]

So... since the JaronK's tier system assumes "equivalent player skill and equivalent optimization level" are you really saying that everything is equal?

[holladiewaldfee]

2. Why each class is in its Tier (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0)


the first time i read a reason why someone is tier x. i have read only threads in which people say "i think"

[sonofzeal]

the first time i read a reason why someone is tier x. i have read only threads in which people say "i think"
Er, mostly because it's common knowledge around here.

In other news, does anyone remember the older versions where Factotum was ranked T4? Man, those were the days.... [/nostalgia]

[Thurbane]

I don't really have a problem with the Tier System, but I don't actually find it particularly useful or relevant to my gaming, either.

Like any similar ranking system, it's largely based on personal experience (as well read and knowledgeable as that may be), and mostly doesn't (and can't) take into the myriad of variables at each gaming table, from play style, op level, house rules and many other factors.

The only time I get frustrated (and this isn't so much a fault of the system itself) is when people use it as a ban stick. "Oh, you can't have a Tier 4 and a Tier 1 in the same party - tell one of them to play something else". Like I said, not really a fault of the system, but depressingly common, nonetheless.

[Wings of Peace]

Is there a real point to this thread (I'm being entirely serious here)? Unless they're buried in the sarcasm of the original post somewhere I can't even tell what it is you dislike about the tier system (though I'll take a shot at guessing).

The only comment you make that I can glean any amount of insight from is when you say that "no one said if tier 1 is better than tier 2 so their rating system is worthless ". Assuming you were making a commentary on JaronK's system, I think you've overlooked the fact that the tiers aren't supposed to say which class is better.

To quote JaronK:

It's ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in any given situation.

In simpler words, it's taking every class and organizing them (via a tiered system) in order of options available at a given time. If the high tiered classes seem "better" or if the majority of people you witness refer to them as "better" then I would argue that this seems indicative of what types of abilities the D&D 3.5 roleplaying system favors.

I'll be the first to admit that often either by ignorance or verbal shorthand the high tier classes are often simply referred to as better instead of more versatile, even I do this. In my case I do this because it's quicker than typing a paragraph about the number of options available to class X versus every other class in the game, but it's still just a shorthand.

Does this mean that Wizard is "better" than Monk? No. The best class is the one that you're going to find the most fun, but it does mean that in a given situation involving two equally skilled and optimized player characters the Wizard is more is more likely to have an easy solution to the problem than the Monk.

On the topic of practical applications, even if we assume understanding the system might not always matter for player characters (especially very casual ones), in a game where you can never be certain what will happen it's extremely useful for new DMs to have a guideline that they can use when designing their adventures so that every character can feel like they're contributing.

You also seem to have issue with the fact that very little hard data is used in the tier system, to this I can only counter that it's known it's known as JaronK's tier system for a reason. That said (with the understanding that correlation does not imply causation), I find the fact there are enough threads in which JaronK's system is referenced to create this counter-tier thread and other counter-tier threads like it telling of how many people have found the system accurate enough to be useful.

Edit: On the other hand if you're referring to the PF tier thread ignore most of my post since I haven't read most of that thread.

[sonofzeal]

Is there a real point to this thread (I'm being entirely serious here)? Unless they're buried in the sarcasm of the original post somewhere I can't even tell what it is you dislike about the tier system (though I'll take a shot at guessing).

The only comment you make that I can glean any amount of insight from is when you say that "no one said if tier 1 is better than tier 2 so their rating system is worthless ". Assuming you were making a commentary on JaronK's system, I think you've overlooked the fact that the tiers aren't supposed to say which class is better.

To quote JaronK:


In simpler words, it's taking every class and organizing them (via a tiered system) in order of options available at a given time. If the high tiered classes seem "better" or if the majority of people you witness refer to them as "better" then I would argue that this seems indicative of what types of abilities the D&D 3.5 roleplaying system favors.

I'll be the first to admit that often either by ignorance or verbal shorthand the high tier classes are often simply referred to as better instead of more versatile, even I do this. In my case I do this because it's quicker than typing a paragraph about the number of options available to class X versus every other class in the game, but it's still just a shorthand.

Does this mean that Wizard is "better" than Monk? No. The best class is the one that you're going to find the most fun, but it does mean that in a given situation involving two equally skilled and optimized player characters the Wizard is more is more likely to have an easy solution to the problem than the Monk.

On the topic of practical applications, even if we assume understanding the system might not always matter for player characters (especially very casual ones) but in a game where you can never be certain what will happen it's extremely useful for new DMs to have a guideline that they can use when designing their adventures so that every character can feel like they're contributing.

You also seem to have issue with the fact that very little hard data is used in the tier system, to this I can only counter that it's known it's known as JaronK's tier system for a reason. That said, (with the understanding that correlation does not imply causation) I find the fact there are enough threads in which JaronK's system is referenced to create this counter-tier thread and other counter-tier threads like it telling of how many people have found the system accurate enough to be useful.
Also, many of the rankings were established via the consensus of the time. While it's his system, a lot of outside input went into exactly what got ranked where. There's still several disputed points, but those are generally classes that most will agree are borderline one way or the other. As long as you're willing to put some reasonable error bars on any particular ranking, it should be fine.

[Zeta Kai]

In other news, does anyone remember the older versions where Factotum was ranked T4? Man, those were the days.... [/nostalgia]

I don't recall that, but I do remember when people were screaming online about the Warlock. "He can use magic every round! All day! ZOMG that iz zo brokinz!!1!" Yeah. It takes a while sometimes for a decent analysis of a class to permeate the collective consciousness. WotC's culture for a long time classified the barbarian & the monk as good class design, & they wrote the bloody things.

[Swooper]

The way I understand the OP, he hadn't even seen the original tier system thread, only people discussing the tiers of classes in other threads. This confused him so he assumed the tier system was dumb. :smallconfused:

[Novawurmson]

I would just like to add that my most experienced player, who has played in almost all of my campaigns, used to optimize Fighters (tier 5) out the wazoo. He'd be the best in combat, but when it came to anything else, he'd be sitting around twiddling his thumbs, bored.

Currently, he's playing a Swift Hunter Ranger (tier 3-4), doing great in combat, but also has a plethora of skills and class abilities that can useful to the party as a whole in more situations.

- - - - - - - -

On the other side of the story, I had a first time player pick Cleric and utterly break the game with it with decent spell selection.

[GoatBoy]

Tier 1: Big adventure
Tier 2: Tons of fun
Tier 3: A beautiful heart
Tier 4: Faithful and strong
Tier 5: Sharing kindness
Tier 6: It's an easy feat

And Truenamers make it all complete

[averagejoe]

The Mod They Call Me: Thread locked.