Tier ceilings and floors

[Ceaon]

So, most of us know JaronK's (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658) tier classifications. It states that a specific class belongs in a specific tier. While I agree with the idea that classes differ in their average versatility and power, the list does not mention the 'spread' of the performance of the classes. In other words, I disagree with its claim that it is optimization-independent.

Certain classes, like the druid, have a high 'floor' (even low-op they perform well), others have a low one (a low-op expert will not be able to accomplish much). Similarly, certain classes have a high 'ceiling' (if you optimize a wizard, he'll control the universe) and others have a low one (no matter how well you optimize a fighter, he will never create his own plane). Now, given at least a basic understanding of the game*, what is the minimum tier and the maximum tier for each class?

*Cleric = healbot, wizard = fireballer, melee types attack using power attack (or a manouver), rogues disable traps, hide and make sneak attacks, etcetera.

I've filled in the core classes. Feel free to disagree, argue or add classes!
Floor (low-op)
Tier 1
Empty.
Tier 2
Empty.
Tier 3
Druid.
Tier 4
Cleric, Rogue
Tier 5
Barbarian, Bard, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard
Tier 6
Monk

Ceiling (high-op)
Tier 1
Cleric, Druid, Wizard
Tier 2
Bard, Sorcerer
Tier 3
Ranger, Rogue
Tier 4
Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin
Tier 5
Monk
Tier 6
Empty.

[Jack Zander]

A wizard played to the absolute worst of their abilities is still going to out damage the melee and ranged types. I'd put their floor at tier 4 along with sorcerer and any other blaster type.

[Jack_Simth]

Certain classes, like the druid, have a high 'floor' (even low-op they perform well), others have a low one (a low-op expert will not be able to accomplish much). Similarly, certain classes have a high 'ceiling' (if you optimize a wizard, he'll control the universe) and others have a low one (no matter how well you optimize a fighter, he will never create his own plane). Now, given at least a basic understanding of the game*, what is the minimum tier and the maximum tier for each class?

A wizard played to the absolute worst of their abilities is still going to out damage the melee and ranged types. I'd put their floor at tier 4 along with sorcerer and any other blaster type.
A goodly chunk of this depends on how you define your 'low op'. Just to throw an example out there, a Wizard is Tier-1... but if he's got an Int of 8, he's not even making tier-4 - all he can do is use spell trigger magic items reliably. Add Vow of Poverty, and he can't even do that. OK, he can plink at people with his crossbow and his half-BAB, but so can a commoner.

Likewise, there ARE methods by which a Fighter can be built such that he can eventually create his own demiplane.

[Particle_Man]

Likewise, there ARE methods by which a Fighter can be built such that he can eventually create his own demiplane.

Epic Leadership?

[Jack_Simth]

Epic Leadership?That's one way. The way I was considering involves hiring a series of spells to change out his feats for a series of them that will allow him to cast 9th level spells out of carefully-chosen domains (only ends up with about one spell per spell level, but still). The method technically puts him at tier-2, and also potentially permits him to qualify for certain PrC's that let him create members of the tier-1 crowd of his own level as beings under his absolute control.

[Lateral]

That's not how the tier system works. It assumes equal levels of optimization for all characters- above a certain, fairly low-op point, it shouldn't matter what the op-level is as long as all of the PCs are optimized to equal levels. As long as the player playing the Wizard puts his highest stat in INT and pays at least a little attention to his power selection, he's going to crush tier 5s at the same optimization level, let's say a TWF fighter and the... well, the Monk. They're all relative.

[limejuicepowder]

A goodly chunk of this depends on how you define your 'low op'. Just to throw an example out there, a Wizard is Tier-1... but if he's got an Int of 8, he's not even making tier-4 - all he can do is use spell trigger magic items reliably. Add Vow of Poverty, and he can't even do that. OK, he can plink at people with his crossbow and his half-BAB, but so can a commoner.

When I think of low-op, and in most situations when low-op comes up, it means "how is the class when played for only role-playing reasons and no mind to power." Essentially, how are they out of the box. Low-op does not usually mean "how intentionally bad can we make this class perform."

Personally, I would put the floor for each class thusly:

tier 1: none

tier 2: none

tier 3: sorc, cleric, druid

tier 4: barb, rogue, wizard

tier 5: bard, fighter, ranger, paladin

tier 6: monk

edit: forgot the ranger and pally :)

[ngilop]

That's one way. The way I was considering involves hiring a series of spells to change out his feats for a series of them that will allow him to cast 9th level spells out of carefully-chosen domains (only ends up with about one spell per spell level, but still). The method technically puts him at tier-2, and also potentially permits him to qualify for certain PrC's that let him create members of the tier-1 crowd of his own level as beings under his absolute control.

Im confused to me that don't seem like a build at all as much as buying things.

but yeah I never agreed with the whole 'teir' system myself it is most obviosuly only under teh circumstances of optimization above basic OP-ness. but mostly beucase it makes a much to big of a percantage of peopel say ' if you aren't teir1 you suck!' :( just like everything else in life people alwasy got to think , if you aren't teh best why do it?'

[Jerthanis]

I disagree with Druid being Tier 3 when played low-op, on account of there being nothing that forces you to rechoose Animal companions as you level up, meaning if you start with a Light Horse, you could be level 20 with a Light Horse with 65 HP, 28 AC and 2 hoof attacks at +11 for 1d4+3 damage each. That is a legitimate option if you don't ever swap out what is already not the optimal choice.

Also, Druid spells tend to be less potent than other primary spellcasters, so without careful attention to spell choice you can essentially be a crappy cleric of 2 levels lower.

Finally, attention must be paid to what you're wildshaping into and what you're fighting. The wrong animal with the wrong tactics can just be awful.

So I'd say they "floor" lower than tier 3... tier 4 at least. I would say Clerics unoptimized would floor at tier 3 but I don't really have anything to back that up except that I think their spells are better and they have a simpler setup for succeeding at being a fighter. *shrug*

[sonofzeal]

I disagree with Druid being Tier 3 when played low-op, on account of there being nothing that forces you to rechoose Animal companions as you level up, meaning if you start with a Light Horse, you could be level 20 with a Light Horse with 65 HP, 28 AC and 2 hoof attacks at +11 for 1d4+3 damage each. That is a legitimate option if you don't ever swap out what is already not the optimal choice.

Also, Druid spells tend to be less potent than other primary spellcasters, so without careful attention to spell choice you can essentially be a crappy cleric of 2 levels lower.

Finally, attention must be paid to what you're wildshaping into and what you're fighting. The wrong animal with the wrong tactics can just be awful.

So I'd say they "floor" lower than tier 3... tier 4 at least. I would say Clerics unoptimized would floor at tier 3 but I don't really have anything to back that up except that I think their spells are better and they have a simpler setup for succeeding at being a fighter. *shrug*
While I agree with much of that (see my infamous "Druids aren't newbieproof" thread), I disagree that their spell list is a problem. They get a great mix of utility, buff, debuff, damage, battlefield control, you name it. They've got far greater versatility at their fingertips than Clerics, which makes the ability to completely change their spells prepped far more valuable. I would rank the Druid list as second only to Sor/Wiz.

[Suddo]

Define "Low-OP" I mean a spellcaster could compulively collect spells of lowest caster level leaving a 20th level wizard with probably only a few 2nd level spells. He could also put an 8 in Int and have a 18 Wis.

A wizard is still silly powerful because as soon as the person looks through a wizard spell list and gain a little system mastery they will find the big spells. Polymorph-line, Teleport and several others that spark that "Oh that sounds cool" thing in people's minds. I mean Wizards are notorious for accidentally breaking encounters against DMs not seeing it coming.

If you are talking about ability to not mess-up. Tome of Battle would be high tier, swordsages maybe a tier lower. Incarnum would be low tier.

[Gavinfoxx]

I think I can get Monk to Tier 4. Maybe low Tier 3 (with Wild Monk... Wild Shape is Nice, you know?).

www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=236458

See my post here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12910513&postcount=26

[nightwyrm]

May I suggest using the example characters in the books as the benchmark for "low op". They're about what a person who don't know or care about optimizing might make but they're not clear examples of self-imposed challenges like a wiz with 8 int or a fighter with only toughness.

[erikun]

A poorly played wizard can very easily end up in T6. Between poorly choosing spells, choosing the wrong spells, picking random spells that are not useful, and not taking along backup scrolls/wands/items, a wizard can end up terrible. Sure, a Fireball is better than a fighter's sword swing, but when that's the only Fireball you have for the day, it isn't that useful. Even a sorcerer who accidentally picks a good spell could just end up spamming that repeatedly.

Also, note that level is going to make a big factor in how comparatively strong a class is. A low-op 20th level wizard is going to have enough spell slots to eventually pick some good spells, unless the player just picks one or two spells to fill all their spell slots of that level. A barbarian is actually a pretty decent choise at low levels, but is considerably less impressive at higher ones.

I'm not quite sure how so much could be in low-op T3. A low-op druid is not considerably better than a cleric or barbarian, and am not sure how an unoptimized rogue is much different from a similar bard.

A high-op ranger would only be T3 if we're talking about Wildshape or Mystic rangers. And how is a rogue T3?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I agree that level is an important part of the consideration. Unfortunately in order to account for that you'd have to start putting out tables, and the tier system starts becoming weird.

At some point I was thinking of creating some sort of equation-based framework for capability, just as a conceptual framework, but it's a bit too messy. It went something like...Capability of Character = K0 + K1*Class + K2*Level + K3*Skill + K4*[Class*Level] + K5*[Class*Skill] + K6*[Level*Skill] + K7*[Class*Level*Skill] + e

Where Capability of Character is some scalar measure of tierishness, where for simplicity higher is more capable,
The Ks are constants (some are vectors of constants),
Class is a vector of "dummies," ie indicators saying whether or not you are a particular class,
Level is self-explanatory,
Skill is some scalar measure of how optimized the character is and how well he's played at the table,
[Class*Level] is the interaction between Class and Level (and so on), and
e is the unobserved error, usually campaign factors, or errors in measuring character capability, but that doesn't matter too much here.

The Tier system focuses on K1. The constant for Wizard is significantly positive, while the constant for Monk is significantly negative. It essentially ignores the other constants.

This thread focuses on K1, K3 and K5. Obviously K3 (the Skill constant) is significantly positive, but there are quirks due to the interaction terms. Perhaps the constant for Wizard is now negative, while the constant for Wizard*Skill is a large positive since system mastery does so much for a wizard. On the other hand, while the Monk constant may be closer to zero (still negative), the Monk*Skill constant is negative because you can't do that much with a Monk. A more intuitive example: The Warblade constant is large, but the Warblade*Skill constant is negative.

Then I throw in level, and it all goes crazy.If none of that made sense or you were smart enough not to read it, what I'm saying is the interaction between class, player skill and level is just as if not more important than class itself, and the tier list is only a helpful tool insofar as this interaction is relatively small.

[demigodus]

@GoodbyeSoberDay:

while that might be (an incredibly complicated) way to make a more accurate tier system, one thing I take issue with, is that you allow constants to be negative.

What this means is that (assuming we throw out XP penalties, and ignore skill for now), wizard 10/monk 5 might be considered weaker then wizard 10. I really don't think that is realistic. Also not sure if progress is linear with respect to any variable if we keep the others constant. For example, according to the famous "linear warrior, quadratic wizard" statement, it should be K2*level^2 for wizards.

[erikun]

What this means is that (assuming we throw out XP penalties, and ignore skill for now), wizard 10/monk 5 might be considered weaker then wizard 10. I really don't think that is realistic.
Note that, once again, it depends on how we are defining things. Wizard 10/Monk 5 is clearly not weaker or possesses less options than a Wizard 10, but a W10/M5 might be less capable of handling CR 15 encounters in comparison to how well a W10 would handle CR 10 ones.

One problem we're repeatedly seeing is a poor definition of how to determine the tier floors. JasonK's system has some very specifically defined standards - full system knowledge and all ACFs, with moderate optimization and no prestige classes at 20th level - that give a clear idea on what is and is not considered. We need the same thing here, to really get a good idea of what we are dealing with and what we need to compare.

[CheshireCatAW]

Should the Wizard not still be a rank above the sorcerer? Even if they both drop through the floor of optimization and start with an 8 for their casting stat, the Wizard still gets bonus feats. If they both have a semi-functional casting stat the Wizard has the opportunity to learn various useless spells while the Sorcerer is stuck with the useless spells he learned originally.

[Coidzor]

A goodly chunk of this depends on how you define your 'low op'. Just to throw an example out there, a Wizard is Tier-1... but if he's got an Int of 8, he's not even making tier-4 - all he can do is use spell trigger magic items reliably. Add Vow of Poverty, and he can't even do that. OK, he can plink at people with his crossbow and his half-BAB, but so can a commoner.

Low op really shouldn't include deliberate character sabotage though. That should really get its own term if it really is all that necessary to bring up in the first place.

[Ceaon]

By low-op (floor) I meant that a cleric heals, a wizard tries to use iconic spells like fireball and such, melee types attack using power attack (or a manouver), rogues disable traps, hide and make sneak attacks, and bards inspire courage and cast spells or attack. Basically, the comment about the premade book-characters applies.

By high-op (ceiling) I meant using the class to its fullest potential, but without falling back on stuff like Leadership or partially charged wand UMD-abuse ('normal' UMD-use is fine of course) and other non-class specific abilities that have little to do with the power and versatility of a class and more with the power of a single item, skill, or feat.

At lower levels, the tiers lie closer to eachother or may even be switched around. At higher levels, they are further apart, especially in high-op situations. Assume equal levels and a level range of 5-15, as I believe the original tiers do as well.

[Jerthanis]

While I agree with much of that (see my infamous "Druids aren't newbieproof" thread), I disagree that their spell list is a problem. They get a great mix of utility, buff, debuff, damage, battlefield control, you name it. They've got far greater versatility at their fingertips than Clerics, which makes the ability to completely change their spells prepped far more valuable. I would rank the Druid list as second only to Sor/Wiz.

Yeah, but compared to Wizard and Cleric control spells, their crowd control has ridiculously huge potential to backfire and screw the party over in ways that Wizards and Clerics just won't tend to do. Their damage spells are essentially a non-issue since damage spells are such bad ideas 90% of the time. Their buff spells are perfectly potent, but the really great ones tend to come a level later or are missing. They get a few that Clerics don't get, but at best I consider it a wash.

They get better versatility than the Cleric, but they don't approach Wizard in terms of true diversity or potency, and they also lack the focus of a Cleric. IMO, they're in a sort of worst-of-both-worlds spot between the two in terms of spell list.

It's obviously not as harmful as playing with a suboptimal animal companion who you stick with as levels roll by, but I think if you play Cleric and pick the 'no brainer' spells that just 'seem cool' at every level, you will wind up with a large sized 28 strength butt-kicking psycho, while with a Druid with the same mentality will spend half your time in the early game Calling Lightning and thinking 3d6 reflex for half was a good use of your action, and then later that Stoneskin on your mediocre melee build is adding all that much. That is what I think of as a low-op Druid because I have PLAYED that low-op Druid who watches Dwarven Fighters upstage them and I have seen first time D&D players make Clericzilla using exactly that mentality of "I'll take buff spells that sound impressive and put them on myself".

[sonofzeal]

Yeah, but compared to Wizard and Cleric control spells, their crowd control has ridiculously huge potential to backfire and screw the party over in ways that Wizards and Clerics just won't tend to do.
Solid Fog has the same potential to screw allies and is well-loved. Anyway, Wall of Thorns is a great control spell that's pretty darn precise in what exactly it's doing.


Their damage spells are essentially a non-issue since damage spells are such bad ideas 90% of the time.
Fire Seeds.


Their buff spells are perfectly potent, but the really great ones tend to come a level later or are missing. They get a few that Clerics don't get, but at best I consider it a wash.
Bull's Strength and the Mass version are the same level. Death Ward and True Seeing come later, but they get Freedom of Movement and Air Walk at the same time. And they get Barkskin at low levels, Stoneskin at mid, and Shapechange at high, and those aren't on the general Cleric list.

I'm not saying Druids are necessarily better buffers than Clerics, but buffing is the Cleric list's main strength, and Druid is right up there.



Also, Druid summoning kicks Cleric summoning straight out of the water. SNA is almost invariably tougher and stronger than SM, often gets the same monsters a level earlier (elementals in particular), and is spontaneous. And spontaneous SNA is far more useful than spontaneous Cure spells, especially since "Heal" isn't in that category.

I stand by why I said - the Druid's spell list is, if anything, superior to the Cleric's.



They get better versatility than the Cleric, but they don't approach Wizard in terms of true diversity or potency, and they also lack the focus of a Cleric. IMO, they're in a sort of worst-of-both-worlds spot between the two in terms of spell list.
They don't have the diversity of the Wizard spell list, but they get access to their whole thing for free. There are 78 fifth-level Druid spells, and they can prepare any of them. That would cost a Wizard over 83,000 gp for that many scrolls, and even then they couldn't cast them all since most Wizards specialize. They also get better HD, saves, BAB, skills, proficiencies, and class features than Wizards.

I'm happy letting Wizards have the best spell list in the game. I never said Druid list was better than Sor/Wiz. But it's still one of the best lists in the game.



It's obviously not as harmful as playing with a suboptimal animal companion who you stick with as levels roll by, but I think if you play Cleric and pick the 'no brainer' spells that just 'seem cool' at every level, you will wind up with a large sized 28 strength butt-kicking psycho, while with a Druid with the same mentality will spend half your time in the early game Calling Lightning and thinking 3d6 reflex for half was a good use of your action, and then later that Stoneskin on your mediocre melee build is adding all that much. That is what I think of as a low-op Druid because I have PLAYED that low-op Druid who watches Dwarven Fighters upstage them and I have seen first time D&D players make Clericzilla using exactly that mentality of "I'll take buff spells that sound impressive and put them on myself".
Preachin' to the bishop, dude. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=223072) Druids are a harder class to play than Cleric. But the problem isn't their spell list.

[Jerthanis]

Druid buffing IS indeed 'right up there', but being 'right up there' and 'is as good or better' are very different things. I find Clerics exceed their capacity because where Druid buffs are better, they tend to be defensive, where they are equal they tend to be superceded by other magic, and where they are the absolute defenses like Freedom of Movement or Death Ward they come merely at the same time or a level later. Since defense bonuses are harder to get excited about than offense in a system where fights are decided inside 2-3 rounds.

The Summon Monster line is generally so weak it represents a waste of an action and spell level most of the time. Summon Nature's Ally being better makes it more frequently a good idea, and spontaneous SNA IS better than spontaneous "Cure" spells, but it is essentially the better verion of an ability which might as well not be there in non-Druid classes. SNA's main benefit is that it serves as a great tutor to help you learn which animal forms are better than others, but without that knowledge in the first place, SNA will tend to be only slightly less pointless than Summoning Monsters. Low-op Druids will find it too complicated and choose not to summon very often, or will summon only a few times and some of those times without respecting the 1 round casting time and likely lose the spell.

And I stand by the statement that while the Druid list may rival the Cleric list, it's definitively worse at low-op because the focus isn't as clear. At higher op the divide might close, but at a low-op level, I can definitively tell you from multiple experiences that Druid has a worse list than Cleric.

Low-op they are definitive Tier 4. "Good at several things while shining at none" where they can fight, but with lower to-hit and armor than most other classes, can heal/buff but not as well as the Cleric, can do damage, but spells as a source of damage is questionable at best. They do make the best summoners, but such a practice is sketchy at best and won't singlehandedly win fights in the same way tier 1-3 is known for. With the wrong spells chosen the DM will have to try to play to the Druid's strengths of talking to and harming plant monsters or Rusting Grasp/Heat metal styled spells.

Meanwhile, low op cleric is definitive Tier 3. "Capable of doing one thing quite well, and still useful when it isn't helpful" Healing/Buffing/Fighting... but can still cast a range of utility spells. Will outshine Tier 5 pretty much all the time at everything they do.

EDIT: I kind of am arguing a kind of hair-splitting point with this discussion of the spell lists, since I'd argue that if Clerics were an 8/10, Druids would be 7.5/10, so even if we would reverse those numbers and Druid would be 8/10 and Cleric 7.5/10, we probably agree on the overall arrangement of the two classes in comparison.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

First, I wasn't considering multiclassing, since I'd have to re-do the specification to avoid double-counting level. Basically if you want to multiclass, the variable would have to ask "What class are you primarily?" so that a Tashalatoran Monk 2/Ardent 18 would primarily be an Ardent. Someone actually going Wizard 10/Monk 5 would hopefully be captured by low player skill/optimization.

Regarding Wizard 10/Monk 5, consider the average/expected power of a level 15 character, without knowing anything else about the character. Now consider the average power of a level 15 character who is primarily a monk, holding other concerns constant. Less than before, right? That's what the Monk constant is supposed to consider.

[SowZ]

That's not how the tier system works. It assumes equal levels of optimization for all characters- above a certain, fairly low-op point, it shouldn't matter what the op-level is as long as all of the PCs are optimized to equal levels. As long as the player playing the Wizard puts his highest stat in INT and pays at least a little attention to his power selection, he's going to crush tier 5s at the same optimization level, let's say a TWF fighter and the... well, the Monk. They're all relative.

There is some value to this floor idea, though, even if I am not in agreement with this placement. For example, the Tiers do not work at every level of optimization. They work at mid-level and a little above mid and a little above low. At very low op, a rogue is often better than a sorcerer. At very high op, a Psion can be stronger than a high op druid.

[Particle_Man]

Maybe we need something more nuanced than ceiling and floor.

There is the "crazy TO stuff that no one actually plays, or at least not twice with the same DM because that DM bans it to save the gameworld after rebooting it" ceiling.

There is the "experienced player using resources available to make the character as good as possible without DM-migraine-inducing TO tricks as above" ceiling. Often done with lower tier characters to make them work with higher tier parties, for example.

There is the "experienced player not trying too hard to optimize" middle ground.

There is the "new player trying to make a powerful character, sometimes falling into traps" middle ground (unless of course the new player slavishly follows the advice of an experienced player, in which case this is really the experienced player's build and should be at one of the levels listed earlier).

There is the "new player not trying to hard to optimize, probably not looking at many sources" floor.

There is the (mythical) "smart player trying hard to deoptimize a character just to prove he can but would never actually play it - i.e. the Int 3 wizard with the crossbow would fit around here, I think)." floor.

There may be more subtle distinctions. Anyhow, one could chop off the top ceiling and bottom floor and still have 4 levels of optimization to talk about.

[Lateral]

There is some value to this floor idea, though, even if I am not in agreement with this placement. For example, the Tiers do not work at every level of optimization. They work at mid-level and a little above mid and a little above low. At very low op, a rogue is often better than a sorcerer. At very high op, a Psion can be stronger than a high op druid.
I think you're not giving it enough credit- it works for a bigger range than that. No matter how high-OP you get, Psions are still tier 2 relative to a druid's tier 1- at those levels, a Psion can do anything, but a Druid can do everything. As long as you're at a level below theoretical optimization and above basic competence, in my experience the tiers have given pretty accurate information.

[Engine]

I stand by why I said - the Druid's spell list is, if anything, superior to the Cleric's.

I'm happy letting Wizards have the best spell list in the game. I never said Druid list was better than Sor/Wiz. But it's still one of the best lists in the game.

I agree and I just wish to add: the Druid has access to Wild Shape. Which is nice, the Wizard has to cast Fly to, well, fly. The Druid could just wild shape in an avian animal.

[Jack_Simth]

Im confused to me that don't seem like a build at all as much as buying things.There is a chain of feats by which a noncaster can get 9th level spells. It's a very large feat chain, however. Fighters get lots of feats. Chaos Shuffling lets them change their fighter bonus feats for arbitrary feats. These arbitrary feats let them actually know and cast spells (the more feats spent, the more spells, and the higher-level the spells).

It'll still be sharply limited, but what you end up with is someone who hired themselves the ability to actually cast spells (a semi-arbitrary set, even), without having any actual levels in a casting class. Very low tier-2.

[kulosle]

I could easily see a Druids floor being T6, there are too many ACF that sound cool and are flavorful that make you suck. If someone stacked all of those on, and had poor spell choice of your remaining spells you would be more than useless.

[DeAnno]

There may be more subtle distinctions. Anyhow, one could chop off the top ceiling and bottom floor and still have 4 levels of optimization to talk about.

I think this is the right idea. In normal play, the ceiling is pretty much "Practical Optimization" (no TO tricks like Pun-Pun, Chaos Shuffles, and 9th level spell feats) and the floor is pretty much "clueless but well intentioned newbie".

[Soranar]

I find I prefer my newbies to stick to low tier classes for the simple reason that it gives them less occasions to make mistakes and those mistakes are harder to make.

A fighter, for example, usually just needs to remember to swing his weapon in the right direction at the right time.

The more options a character has, the higher his tier but the higher his chance to make mistakes too. And that goes beyond mere character design, no amount of optimization can stop you from sabotaging your group.

As a DM I've seen so many of these mistakes...

I call it the Leeroy Jenkins syndrome: the more optimized the character, the more reckless the player.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I think this is the right idea. In normal play, the ceiling is pretty much "Practical Optimization" (no TO tricks like Pun-Pun, Chaos Shuffles, and 9th level spell feats) and the floor is pretty much "clueless but well intentioned newbie".The problem is even these distinctions are hard to codify. Chaos shuffle is high PO in one group (it's cheesy and powerful, but it doesn't exactly break the game in half by itself) and TO in another group. On the other end of the spectrum, well-intentioned noobs can stumble into boons or traps alike. For instance, a fire-themed sorcerer who knows Burning Hands, Flaming Sphere, Fireball and Fire Trap is going to be worse than a transmutation-themed sorcerer who knows Enlarge Person, Alter Self, Haste and Polymorph.

[kulosle]

I find I prefer my newbies to stick to low tier classes for the simple reason that it gives them less occasions to make mistakes and those mistakes are harder to make.

A fighter, for example, usually just needs to remember to swing his weapon in the right direction at the right time.

The more options a character has, the higher his tier but the higher his chance to make mistakes too. And that goes beyond mere character design, no amount of optimization can stop you from sabotaging your group.

As a DM I've seen so many of these mistakes...

I call it the Leeroy Jenkins syndrome: the more optimized the character, the more reckless the player.

Yeah this. This in a nutshell. We all no that guy that isn't allowed to play anything but martial types because he always messes them up. I know one guy that we restrict specifically to monk. Even fighter he screws up too much. And don't even get me started on when he tried to play a rogue.

[Coidzor]

How are you able to mess up a Fighter but make an acceptable Monk? :smallconfused:

[SirFredgar]

This all really seems like an exercise in futility. The teir system has to assume a baseline level of competency in order to function properly. When you get into the idea of floors and ceilings, you are no longer being objective about the mechnical versitility of the class, but starting to get into subjective arguments on how you once played a class X that didn't work out so well.

Just because you didn't play to your wizard's strengths doesn't mean they, as a base, were any less versitile. Their Potential is the same reguardless of the player's ability to make use of said potential. Being objective, as the original teir system does, frames the realitive versitility of the classes perfectly, imo.

Also, only somewhat related, how the hell do you mess up a druid? I mean... they only need 1 feat, and if you pick a terribad combonation of spells, you get to change them tomorrow. And: If you play a bad druid... does that make it any less versitile?

[Gavinfoxx]

Also, only somewhat related, how the hell do you mess up a druid? I mean... they only need 1 feat, and if you pick a terribad combonation of spells, you get to change them tomorrow. And: If you play a bad druid... does that make it any less versitile?

Alternative class features and Vow of Poverty.

[Ceaon]

This all really seems like an exercise in futility. The teir system has to assume a baseline level of competency in order to function properly. When you get into the idea of floors and ceilings, you are no longer being objective about the mechnical versitility of the class, but starting to get into subjective arguments on how you once played a class X that didn't work out so well.

Then why is it a commonly accepted fact that the ToB- characters have a higher "floor"? Because I see that mentioned all the time.

[candycorn]

Let's look at what I consider a low-op human Evocation specialist wizard, schools banned are Enchantment and Transmutation.

Level 1: Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 16, Wis 14, Cha 10
Feats: Improved Initiative, Scribe Scroll, Spell Focus: Evocation
Spells: Magic Missile, Burning Hands, Mage Armor, Grease, Shield, Alarm

Level 5: Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 17, Wis 14, Cha 10
New Feats: Greater Spell Focus: Evocation, Brew Potion (level 5 feat)
New Spells: Lvl 1: Obscuring Mist, True Strike
Lvl 2: Scorching Ray, Mirror Image, Resist Energy, Summon Swarm
Lvl 3: Fireball, Tongues

Level 9: Str 10, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 20 (+2 item), Wis 14, Cha 10
New Feats: Dodge, Craft Wondrous Item
New Spells: Lvl 3: Daylight, Phantom Steed
Lvl 4: Wall of Ice, Resilient Sphere, Dimension Door, Secure Shelter
Lvl 5: Cone of Cold, False Vision

This assumed that the character didn't max the starting attribute, but did focus on it. They didn't spend more than 10% of wealth on stat boost items, and focused on a weaker, flashier school, while barring one highly effective school. It also uses core only materials, and spent no money on extra spells. The only spells this build has are the ones gained at level up.

The character does have some good spells, but avoids metamagic, like many new casters do. It's not an awesome character, but I'd say this character could contribute on Tier 3 level.

[kulosle]

Suggestions when talking about a classes floor:
assume the player...
1 put their stats in the order that the class recommends that you put them. Most people, even new players, that read this put them in that order.
2 is trying to do what the class is meant to do.
3 is attracted to the cooler option, not necessarily the most effective one.
4 is not a moron. And didn't do something like only take non cross class skills, only take toughness, or prepare the same spell in every slot.
5 is only looking at things once and judging them options at a glance so to speak
6 is taking the same class for every level

That being said I do agree that most new players don't use metamagic's at first glance it doesn't seem that good, especially for prepared casters.

Edit: Also I feel like such nonsense as VoP should be left out of the discussion.

[Hecuba]

Suggestions when talking about a classes floor:
assume the player...
1 put their stats in the order that the class recommends that you put them. Most people, even new players, that read this put them in that order.
2 is trying to do what the class is meant to do.
3 is attracted to the cooler option, not necessarily the most effective one.
4 is not a moron. And didn't do something like only take non cross class skills, only take toughness, or prepare the same spell in every slot.
5 is only looking at things once and judging them options at a glance so to speak
6 is taking the same class for every level

That being said I do agree that most new players don't use metamagic's at first glance it doesn't seem that good, especially for prepared casters.

This is actually a good definition.
There are still some bit gaping traps though, particularly for me melee. Dual-wielding, sword-and-board, and Monkey Grip can all seem like cool, thematically appropriate options for a fighter. And all of them will cause a drastic drop in efficacy over presuming at least 2-handed power attack.

[Lans]

Could we make it so that only the chasis of the class matters? Ability score arrangement, items, and feats not being taken into account?

[kulosle]

Could we make it so that only the chasis of the class matters? Ability score arrangement, items, and feats not being taken into account?

This sounds like a good idea, but I have a hard time thinking of a character or class without it's interaction with feats at the very least. Especially when talking about classes with bonus feats, half the classes.

[Devmaar]

Also, only somewhat related, how the hell do you mess up a druid? I mean... they only need 1 feat, and if you pick a terribad combonation of spells, you get to change them tomorrow. And: If you play a bad druid... does that make it any less versitile?

The first game I ever played had a Wood Elf Druid with a Hawk companion and a Str penalty that tried to sword and board with a scimitar. He mostly prepared Cure Light Wounds.

[Lans]

This sounds like a good idea, but I have a hard time thinking of a character or class without it's interaction with feats at the very least. Especially when talking about classes with bonus feats, half the classes.

I meant just level up feats, not bonus ones.

[SirFredgar]

The first game I ever played had a Wood Elf Druid with a Hawk companion and a Str penalty that tried to sword and board with a scimitar. He mostly prepared Cure Light Wounds.

Did he survive to level 5? Cause at that point Str penalties kind of don't matter anymore. If he didn't.... I understand lol. Sounds rough.

[Devmaar]

Did he survive to level 5? Cause at that point Str penalties kind of don't matter anymore. If he didn't.... I understand lol. Sounds rough.

The game sadly didn't last due to poor organisation. I plan to try again once school ends, now I'm a bit more knowledgeable about the game.

[Madara]

Is this going to reach out of Core?
My additions

Dread Necromancer

Ceiling 2 with full-on minionmancy+ Meta-Magic reducers and drains
Floor 4: Human Warrior Skeletons..


Archevist

Ceiling 1/0: Its an Archevist with ALL THE POWER

Floor 4: Only getting cleric spells, and making a poor healbot/buffer


Warlock

Ceiling 3: With Binder Dip and Hellfire or such. Picking some good invocations.

Floor 5: Its easy to pick the wrong invocations

[Lans]

I would say that the specialty classes have floors of what they are listed in the tier system, as no matter what choices they make they can still start slinging icestorm/suggestiong/SoD.
Same thing with the binder, and other classes that just get their cool abilities.

[kulosle]

I meant just level up feats, not bonus ones.

I still think feats and skills should be involved, but definitely not magic items except to say "I have UMD/UPD". If you don't then the ceiling for a samurai is t6 because then you can't take into account intimidate optimization. But skills per level is part of the class and what skills you have are very important to classes.


I would say that the specialty classes have floors of what they are listed in the tier system, as no matter what choices they make they can still start slinging icestorm/suggestiong/SoD.
Same thing with the binder, and other classes that just get their cool abilities.

I'd have to agree with this. There isn't much changes to be done to a warmage.