Tier system?

[Gharkash]

Seen some debate as to if it is accurate or not. It is no bible for sure, but what are the pros and cons (aside from not including every class in the game). Should it be considered totally valid, semi valid, or just the interpetation of the guy that wrote it?

Your humble opinion?

[sonofzeal]

Well, it's useful. It identifies some significant trends. A few rankings are disputed, but generally only +1/-1, and some are known to be borderline.

Of course, there's a lot that depends on your group. A well played Fighter can outperform a poorly played Wizard. That doesn't mean that Fighter is a better class than Wizard, but merely being in a higher Tier doesn't guarantee much in any particular game, especially in a low-op group or in low level games. The Tier System applies best anywhere in the mid-op or high-op ranges, and in mid to high levels. If you're playing lvl 5 or above, and everyone knows their Glitterdust from their Fireballs, then I think you'll find it's pretty reliable.

So... I'd go with "semi-valid", which is as good as any similar ranking system can hope to be.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Totally valid.
Those who disagree probably didn't understand what the Tier system is actually about

Tier system measures:
number and effectiveness
of potential ways that a class provides
to deal with as many situations as possible

That's why Wizard, who has potentially access to all spells, is a tier1, being potentially able to effectively deal with every possible situation.

While Samurai, who only relies on full BaB and bad class features, has little chance to contribute in a single situation (melee combat) while not being even effective at it

[Axier]

The main problem with a tier system is that it HAS to run of the averages. Most classes can be optimized past the tiers they are listed in.

But what would be realy nice is if that someone would take into acount the classes optimization abilitiy, and apply a theoritical range as to how much higher it can go...

e.g. Rogue is currently tier 4, but it cant atleast get to tier 3, listed under Tier 4 as:

ROGUE (+1)

[docnessuno]

Valid. Some classes are borderline between two tiers, but that's usually explained.

[Silva Stormrage]

The main problem with a tier system is that it HAS to run of the averages. Most classes can be optimized past the tiers they are listed in.

But what would be realy nice is if that someone would take into acount the classes optimization abilitiy, and apply a theoritical range as to how much higher it can go...

e.g. Rogue is currently tier 4, but it cant atleast get to tier 3, listed under Tier 4 as:

ROGUE (+1)

The problem with "potential" optimization is that most classes can reach Pun Pun without much difficulty. You would need a baseline of whats optimization and what is cheese for that to work.

[eggs]

It has plenty of problems, but it gives a language to describe classes relative to one another.

There are some judgments of the author, which have instigated endless debate (whether the tier system really responds to the question of interest, what importance the differing abilities to use magic items play, the list's alternating treatment of the tiers between normative and criterion-based scales), but the giantitp boards generally agree with them these days, so they're not really worth making any stinks over.

One thing I've found is that players' interest in optimization generally is much more relevant to how hard their characters break the game than the classes that make them, and that a character's flexibility is generally the question I'm more interested in as a DM - which would flag Prepared Casters in general/Factotum as the classes to watch out for on the high end, and low-skilled melee classes (including Barb and Crusader) as the ones to watch out for; the players will generally put the numbers where they need to be (but this changes with low-op).

But the tiers are there, they're generally accepted on these boards, and they give words to condense phrases like "heavy-hitting spellcaster with low versatility" or "clueless pony that can learn one trick with sufficient effort and care."

[Oscredwin]

The big problem with the Tier system is that people don't seem to realize that some of the tier borders are fuzzier than others. Tier 1-2 are gamebreakers with versatility and without, it's possible to be ambiguous between them (psion). The border between tier 2 and tier 3 on the other hand is the difference between something that can break the game and something that is merely powerful within the bounds of the game. Chain gating is a whole other level of broken compared to 10k damage on an attack, and much easier to set up.

There's a hard line between tier 2 and below. If the character can pick one spell (or ability, but it's always a spell or power) that's usually in core and break the game by accident the class is at least tier 2. This is why Wilders are (low) tier 2 even though they only get 11 powers. They can get all the tricks psions can, just fewer of them.

Anyone can break the game, but if you want people to avoid doing it with class features you need to keep your eye on tier 1-2 classes.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

But what would be realy nice is if that someone would take into acount the classes optimization abilitiyIt cannot be measured because it depends on feats, race and usually multiclass; even a commoner with Shock Trooper and an Able/Valorous weapon is dangerous and can potentially cover an highly specialized role, but that hardly comes from his (nonexistant) class features.
Use Flaws to be able to obtain martial study: pouncing Charge.
Make him an half-minotaur, phrenic creature and you have a pretty decent tank with high level manifesting.
See where I'm going?

[Kurald Galain]

It's completely valid.

It also contains a section explaining what it represents. Most criticism of the tier system is actually misinformed about what the system is for, and is rebutted by the aforementioned section.

[complains]

The biggest thing to remember that the list assumes the same level of optimization for all the classes. That way the classes can somewhat be able to be judged against each other.

No matter how good you are with fighter fu, someone with the same fu with a higher tier class will beat you. You know like street fighter.

[Man on Fire]

{{scrubbed}}

[Righteous Doggy]

The big problem with the Tier system is that people don't seem to realize that some of the tier borders are fuzzier than others. Tier 1-2 are gamebreakers with versatility and without, it's possible to be ambiguous between them (psion). The border between tier 2 and tier 3 on the other hand is the difference between something that can break the game and something that is merely powerful within the bounds of the game. Chain gating is a whole other level of broken compared to 10k damage on an attack, and much easier to set up.

There's a hard line between tier 2 and below. If the character can pick one spell (or ability, but it's always a spell or power) that's usually in core and break the game by accident the class is at least tier 2. This is why Wilders are (low) tier 2 even though they only get 11 powers. They can get all the tricks psions can, just fewer of them.

Anyone can break the game, but if you want people to avoid doing it with class features you need to keep your eye on tier 1-2 classes.

So what we need to do, is be less vague than one through 6, and put every class down by an individual number after 1000s of test! right right!?

I think its perfectly valid. Its impossible to be super specific, but we all know druid/wizards are very hard to keep under control, and fighters are hard not to, and truenamers are... a class of their own.

[Gharkash]

{{scrubbed}}

While i have seen that as an argument i find it half true. Even if the fighter's bluff is rather intelligently built and believable, he still needs to roll. DM's choise may be to give a circumstance bonus but still, he is pretty bad at it. This example can be remade to reflect many different cases, but since there is a system for it, you can't chose to ignore it for a smart player while using it to a not that smart one.

Also the tier system rates classes, so i can not find this argument that relevant.

[Oscredwin]

I wasn't saying it was too vague, I was saying the difference between tier 1 and tier 2 is smaller than the difference between tier 2 and tier 3.

If your party is Barbarian, Healer, and a Warmage, then a Factotum can fit in pretty well. He'll be powerful but he won't overshadow the other players.

If your party is a Warblade, Factotum, Bard, and a Sorcerer, then when the Sorcerer takes a spell like Polymorph at 8 and turns into two 8 headed hydras every combat then the game is accidentally broken.

[LordBlades]

{{scrubbed}}

And that's why the tier system assumes players of equal skills.

And btw, a wizard doesn't need to reach above the rules. He has 'I win' clearly spelled within them(read planar binding, wish and gate for example).

Also, class has no relevance to what you do beyond the rules.

[nyarlathotep]

{{scrubbed}}

If you're not going to use the rules class does not matter at all, but at the same time why not play freeform? Bluff and diplomacy exist to represent such peaceful solutions, and are why other classes are higher tier than the fighter. He isn't any good at anything other than "hit the monster" and "get hit by the monster" and although he can be very good at that job that's all he can really be good at. Bard meanwhile has spells to navigate obstacles, bard song to buff his allies in combat, skills for social situations, and is at least decently good at the "fight monsters" bit and thus is considered to be better able to handle more challenges, thus is a higher tier.

"I cannot find peaceful solution to every problem just to piss off powerplayer" is what the tier system is all about. Having the ability to find a peaceful solution makes a class better able to handle more situations and thus higher in tier.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, it's useful. It identifies some significant trends. A few rankings are disputed, but generally only +1/-1, and some are known to be borderline.

This is generally accurate, yes. I dispute the listing of the Truenamer, and feel it belongs as a low tier 3...but let's not open that can of worms again. I also might adjust one or two classes one level up or down, but none more than that.

It's a solid guideline for quickly informing people on classes they have never played, but of course, it can't possibly cover everything.

[GoatBoy]

The tier system is based on theoretical optimization, assuming a player who is using all materials available to them, and a DM who is actively trying to find ways to defeat the players.

I can't speak for everyone here, but many games, especially those more focused on story, are far more likely to revolve around opponents of CR roughly equal to average level of a four-member party, and who rely on doing damage for offence and upon AC and saves for defence. In these cases, and for players who either haven't learned to or don't wish to push the limits of the system and their character classes, the divide isn't as harsh as some of the high-op players might lead you to believe.

What I mean is, fighters are pretty good at hitting things and getting hit by things, and these are skills that many challenges and encounters were designed around. But they are also easy to render irrelevant by a DM who is out to kill his players, where creature offence is more likely to involve touch attacks and no-save effects, and defences are more based on effects like flight, flat miss chance, and freedom of movement. But a fighter will do fine in a more casual game, based more on story or casual attack-them-then-they-attack-you play.

Just be wary that when playing a fighter, or any sub-optimal class/build, you may have people standing by your table and telling you that any game without the fear of losing your character is not worth playing hey I said games are more fun when there is danger involved and DANG IT YOU GUYS STOP HAVING FUN.

[Callista]

It's a useful guide, but if you try to use it to limit people's class choices, you'll be disappointed. The tier system assumes that everyone is optimizing to the most powerful practical build, and that's not the case in a real game. You'll have newbies who just take a straight Fighter, you'll have people who need to take a mechanically weaker option to fit with a character concept, and you'll have people who just simply like to play a lower or higher tier class.

You're not going to be able to use the tier system to automatically re-balance power levels. Because there are so many choices and so many ways to build characters, the only realistic option is to build your characters together, check their power levels, and adjust them before beginning play.

[Water_Bear]

The thing I've always found the Tier System to be good for is estimating the power of classes you aren't familiar with. With so many supplements out there and many people who are uncomfortable with piracy, it is useful even if you are familiar with the game. I personally like the Prestige Class sections, because they tend to blur together after you've read 200 or so.

The Tiers aren't absolute; heck the version I've read specifically says good optimization can bump a class up a full Tier even ignoring the modifiers from Prestige Classes. My players and I like obscure stuff and I like to know how it will stack up in play before dice hit the table.

So yeah, it can be helpful as a banlist, a tool for new players to avoid traps, or to help DMs maintain party balance (I use the variable point-buy myself). When you use it that way, I've found it's very accurate.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The Tier System is generally valid, but it's greatest contribution is in its selection of criteria.

Judging Classes by their ability to respond to varied situations (both in general and by degree) is probably the best way for them to be judged within the context of a cooperative RPG.

If the Purpose of a RPG is to have a bunch of people work together to solve something as a team then it would be best for each member of the team to be able to contribute to solving problems or, at the very least, be necessary for solving some problems that the others cannot solve on their own. In a Tier III game, this is fairly easy to do -- no one Class can cover all the situation, so teamwork is encouraged. In a Tier I game everyone can solve all the problems but there is still room for division of labor. The problem comes when you mix Tiers (particularly I & III) since it invariably reveals someone to be "dead weight" unless the higher Tier characters take special care to create a purpose for the lower. By separating the classes by Tiers, conscientious Players can create parties with minimal "dead weight" issues while DMs can better tailor their game to either "everyone has a role" or "everyone helps all the time."

You can, of course, play a different game (i.e. not a cooperative RPG) using the same system in which case the Tiers are relatively useless.

[Tyndmyr]

It's a useful guide, but if you try to use it to limit people's class choices, you'll be disappointed. The tier system assumes that everyone is optimizing to the most powerful practical build, and that's not the case in a real game.

It does not. It assumes equal optimization levels.

It's true that some classes are more affected by optimization levels than others, but this only tends to be a concern at extremes, like pun-pun or wizards with a negative int mod. In practice, almost nobody plays games with such extreme chars, and the guide's assumptions are decent.

[LordBlades]

The tier system is based on theoretical optimization, assuming a player who is using all materials available to them, and a DM who is actively trying to find ways to defeat the players.

Not really. The tier system is meant for playable character, and therefore practical optimization. It does assume that the DM will give a party varied challenges, not merely 'here's the monster 30 ft. away, kill it'.




What I mean is, fighters are pretty good at hitting things and getting hit by things, and these are skills that many challenges and encounters were designed around. But they are also easy to render irrelevant by a DM who is out to kill his players, where creature offence is more likely to involve touch attacks and no-save effects, and defences are more based on effects like flight, flat miss chance, and freedom of movement. But a fighter will do fine in a more casual game, based more on story or casual attack-them-then-they-attack-you play.

From the description of tier 5 (where the fighter is) wit bolded relevant parts:



Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute.



As you said, fighter is good at hitting things. Not that good, as barbarians and especially ToB classes do it better, but decent. Once you go beyond hitting things however, the fighter simply can't contribute. He lacks the class features, class skills and skillpoints to contribute in a meaningful way outside combat.


Just be wary that when playing a fighter, or any sub-optimal class/build, you may have people standing by your table and telling you that any game without the fear of losing your character is not worth playing hey I said games are more fun when there is danger involved and DANG IT YOU GUYS STOP HAVING FUN.

That's why it's advisable to sit down before the game and agree what kind of campaign you wish to be playing. A Fighter is fine in a party of similar ability. A Fighter is however NOT fine when the rest of the party is something like Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Artificer.

[Man on Fire]

While i have seen that as an argument i find it half true. Even if the fighter's bluff is rather intelligently built and believable, he still needs to roll. DM's choise may be to give a circumstance bonus but still, he is pretty bad at it.

For me DM who won't give bonus for roleplaying especially for Charisma-based skills, is a bad one. And you're making a mistake thinking that "finding peaceful solution" equals only bluff/diplomacy. Fighter in question may as well utilize skills of entire team sans powergamer wizard in a interesting way that they use to make friends with every enemy, find a way to avoid the enemy, make enemy focus on something else, prove to him he was betrayed, many of which may not even require fighter to say a word to him.



And btw, a wizard doesn't need to reach above the rules. He has 'I win' clearly spelled within them(read planar binding, wish and gate for example).

On the other hand finding yourself in this variety of spells will give you a hedache.


If you're not going to use the rules class does not matter at all, but at the same time why not play freeform?

Stormwind Fallancy - just because I'm roleplayer doesn't mean I abhore rolling. I actually like it. I'm just respresenting reasonable approach to it, one that doesn't turn entire game into 4 hours of nothing rolls and I know that sometimes there are situations in which good roleplaying should have in-gameplay effect. Roleplay isn't just addition to these games.

[*.*.*.*]

For me DM who won't give bonus for roleplaying especially for Charisma-based skills, is a bad one.

This is something I'm a bit torn on while DMing. Should I allow characters to diplomacy things(just by talking, not bribery or other methods) without rolls by convincing arguments and real life sensibility? At the same time, should I make characters who attempt bluff checks actually make convincing arguments, regardless of how the roll turned out?

If I say yes to either, I feel as if I am cheating out a type of player. Many players tend to play characters nothing like themselves, the suave rogue being one of them. If they have very little real life social skills and couldn't argue the difference of red v.s. blue, I feel I cheat them out if I follow the aforementioned diplomacy rule. I also don't want the guy who has massive amounts of real life charm and debate ability to be able to dump social skills and use his real life ability to invalidate those who invested points. I understand that the 1st situation seems more like 'roll playing', but I know many of a people who are very shy; but still desire to play the social butterfly character.

[Tyndmyr]

For me DM who won't give bonus for roleplaying especially for Charisma-based skills, is a bad one. And you're making a mistake thinking that "finding peaceful solution" equals only bluff/diplomacy. Fighter in question may as well utilize skills of entire team sans powergamer wizard in a interesting way that they use to make friends with every enemy, find a way to avoid the enemy, make enemy focus on something else, prove to him he was betrayed, many of which may not even require fighter to say a word to him.

Dude, you can roleplay good as any class. Roleplaying good is not a fighter class feature. Ditto for playing smart.

Those things are great, but they do not make fighter a powerful class.

[PersonMan]

For me DM who won't give bonus for roleplaying especially for Charisma-based skills, is a bad one.

In some cases, at least, it doesn't really make sense - telling me what you say rather than just describing the outline of your lie doesn't help you repress the small telltale signs of deception the other party might notice.

For me, giving bonuses to Charisma-based skills based on roleplaying is a tough issue. If the group is into more descriptive roleplaying ('I say "blah yadda lie lie"' rather than 'I tell him [insert lie here]') in the first place, it won't make much of a difference whether or not I give the benefits, apart from removing incentive to max the skill, and in a group that goes after every mechanical bonus they can find, you get tons of description for the 'wrong' reason.

Apart from Charisma-based skills, though, what would you personally give bonuses to for roleplaying? Knowledge(x)? Sense Motive? Spot? Search*?

*Apart from the obvious 'super in depth description of how you search = take 20' thing, I don't see how something like an explanation of how you look for something would be useful. If you fail the roll, it's just that you skipped over, failed or otherwise didn't complete one of the steps you mentioned, or that you just didn't have the ability to see anything anyways.

Hiding something in a false bottom of a boot might make it logically impossible to find with anything but a strip-search+, but someone with experience in doing checks for hidden things might be able to tell by posture, sound and small visual cues that something is amiss with that boot.

(I'm assuming, for the sake of my post, that you're excluding skills like Jump from the 'roleplaying should give bonuses' category.)

[Gharkash]

Am i misunderstanding or does:

Fighter in question may as well utilize skills of entire team sans powergamer wizard in a interesting way that they use to make friends with every enemy, find a way to avoid the enemy, make enemy focus on something else, prove to him he was betrayed, many of which may not even require fighter to say a word to him.

mean that the fighters in question uses other party members to find a way around a fight? Aside from the weirdness of that (arguing that a fighter is usefull because he can give ideas or lead his team mates thus he is a good class), a fighter that tries to avoid combat? Seriously?


(I'm assuming, for the sake of my post, that you're excluding skills like Jump from the 'roleplaying should give bonuses' category.)

I jump high. Like, really high y'know? I jump like the dudes from Hero, remember those chinese dudes? That high.

[Fineous Orlon]

One of the big problems with the tier system is illustrated by this post.

What the tier system illustrates best is how many different roles members of different tiers can fulfill, and how well they can fulfill those roles.

Game-breaking, used here [by use of one particular spell or class ability], in the context of the tier system, really means something more like 'fulfills this particular role very or exceedingly well.'

The tier system correlates with and includes the aspect of game-breaking capability BECAUSE the higher tier characters can fulfill certain [or many] roles exceedingly well.

The line between tier 1 and tier 2 is not fuzzy because both can break games. The line between tier 1 and tier 2 is pretty clear because tier 1 has much greater versatility than tier 2. Both can break games.

So, one of the problems with the tier system is that people notice correlations that apply to, or aspects of, the tier system [like ability to break games, even with only 1 spell] and think that is what the tier system is supposed to measure.

Then they criticize the tier system because it does not perfectly measure what it in fact only correlates to, or does not perfectly differentiate an aspect of the system between tiers, when tiers may share an aspect or ability. This is not the totality of what the tier system is actually designed to illustrate in the first place.


The big problem with the Tier system is that people don't seem to realize that some of the tier borders are fuzzier than others. Tier 1-2 are gamebreakers with versatility and without, it's possible to be ambiguous between them (psion). The border between tier 2 and tier 3 on the other hand is the difference between something that can break the game and something that is merely powerful within the bounds of the game. Chain gating is a whole other level of broken compared to 10k damage on an attack, and much easier to set up.

There's a hard line between tier 2 and below. If the character can pick one spell (or ability, but it's always a spell or power) that's usually in core and break the game by accident the class is at least tier 2. This is why Wilders are (low) tier 2 even though they only get 11 powers. They can get all the tricks psions can, just fewer of them.

Anyone can break the game, but if you want people to avoid doing it with class features you need to keep your eye on tier 1-2 classes.

[Fineous Orlon]

One of the big problems with the tier system is illustrated by this post.

What the tier system illustrates best is how many different roles members of different tiers can fulfill, and how well they can fulfill those roles.

Game-breaking, used here [by use of one particular spell or class ability], in the context of the tier system, really means something more like 'fulfills this particular role very or exceedingly well.'

The tier system correlates with and includes the aspect of game-breaking capability BECAUSE the higher tier characters can fulfill certain [or many] roles exceedingly well.

The line between tier 1 and tier 2 is not fuzzy because both can break games. The line between tier 1 and tier 2 is pretty clear because tier 1 has much greater versatility than tier 2. Both can break games.

So, one of the problems with the tier system is that people notice correlations that apply to, or aspects of, the tier system [like ability to break games, even with only 1 spell] and think that is what the tier system is supposed to measure.

Then they criticize the tier system because it does not perfectly measure what it in fact only correlates to, or does not perfectly differentiate an aspect of the system between tiers, when tiers may share an aspect or ability. This is not the totality of what the tier system is actually designed to illustrate in the first place.


The big problem with the Tier system is that people don't seem to realize that some of the tier borders are fuzzier than others. Tier 1-2 are gamebreakers with versatility and without, it's possible to be ambiguous between them (psion). The border between tier 2 and tier 3 on the other hand is the difference between something that can break the game and something that is merely powerful within the bounds of the game. Chain gating is a whole other level of broken compared to 10k damage on an attack, and much easier to set up.

There's a hard line between tier 2 and below. If the character can pick one spell (or ability, but it's always a spell or power) that's usually in core and break the game by accident the class is at least tier 2. This is why Wilders are (low) tier 2 even though they only get 11 powers. They can get all the tricks psions can, just fewer of them.

Anyone can break the game, but if you want people to avoid doing it with class features you need to keep your eye on tier 1-2 classes.

[Sutremaine]

For me DM who won't give bonus for roleplaying especially for Charisma-based skills, is a bad one.
If you want bonuses on your Charisma-based checks you should have them on your character sheet, same as for Wis and Int checks. A good DM might work with you to boost those numbers, but once the dice start rolling you shouldn't be able to make a minor positive modifier act like one ten numbers higher.



I jump high. Like, really high y'know? I jump like the dudes from Hero, remember those chinese dudes? That high.
I jump like Judge Doom. Like, BOING! Leap Attack in your face, hell yeah.

I like rolling stuff anyway, even if what I wrote (I only play PbP) is enough for the DM to work with. It gives me some feedback on how things are going.

[Suddo]

For me DM who won't give bonus for roleplaying especially for Charisma-based skills, is a bad one. And you're making a mistake thinking that "finding peaceful solution" equals only bluff/diplomacy. Fighter in question may as well utilize skills of entire team sans powergamer wizard in a interesting way that they use to make friends with every enemy, find a way to avoid the enemy, make enemy focus on something else, prove to him he was betrayed, many of which may not even require fighter to say a word to him.
The main problem with this is that I dislike the idea that an intelligent player playing a fighter with 3s in all his mental stats should be able to bluff and diplomacy as well as the Bard with 24 Charisma, max points and skill focuses in the appropriate skills. I understand that yes give some bonuses to the character is appropriate but at the same time causing several stats to become meaningless outside of mechanics specific to them (such as Char to Saves or spell).




Stormwind Fallancy - just because I'm roleplayer doesn't mean I abhore rolling. I actually like it. I'm just respresenting reasonable approach to it, one that doesn't turn entire game into 4 hours of nothing rolls and I know that sometimes there are situations in which good roleplaying should have in-gameplay effect. Roleplay isn't just addition to these games.

I wouldn't consider that to be Stormwind fallacy. As I argued above rolls are important now figuring out that you should use the rolls, which are your tools, is another thing and that is where the players should shine. If the fighter figures out that this is a guy we should bluff he should signal the bard character (who may have no social capability as a player) to bluff this guy. This allows the Fighter to still get his flash of inspiration but not take away something that another character has invested effort into.

[Sutremaine]

For me DM who won't give bonus for roleplaying especially for Charisma-based skills, is a bad one.
If you want bonuses on your Charisma-based checks you should have them on your character sheet, same as for Wis and Int checks. A good DM might work with you to boost those numbers, but once the dice start rolling you shouldn't be able to make a minor positive modifier act like one several numbers higher.



I jump high. Like, really high y'know? I jump like the dudes from Hero, remember those chinese dudes? That high.
I jump like Judge Doom. Like, BOING! Leap Attack in your face, hell yeah.

I like rolling stuff anyway, even if what I wrote (I only play PbP) is enough for the DM to work with. It gives me some feedback on how things are going.

[eggs]

Tier 1 is defined as the classes that "can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat" and tier 2 as "[potential] campaign smashers."

If your argument relies those classes not having the potential to shatter a campaign by definition, it's going to have some problems.


The line between tier 1 and tier 2 is not fuzzy because both can break games. The line between tier 1 and tier 2 is pretty clear because tier 1 has much greater versatility than tier 2. Both can break games.
Erudite, Shaman and Wu Jen blur that line pretty hard. Each has about the versatility of the core prepared casters, minus splatbooks. It could be argued that they can emulate all the T1 classes' effects through magic like Spirit Binding or Shapechange, but that

And w/r/t the T2/T3 line, it has plenty of its own problems with things like the Summon-spam binder and Psychic Warrior.

None of its lines are empirical or reliable; there's plenty of dissent at every level. It's a useful communicative tool, but that doesn't make it robust enough to be treated as a set of absolute guidelines or an objective decisionmaking tool.

[Lord_Gareth]

One thing that needs clearing up badly:

The tier system assumes equal levels of optimization and/or game mastery around the table.

It is not designed to handle situations in which optimization is significantly unequal. All it tells you is on what level the classes it rates play compared to the rest of the group. The higher the op level goes, the more true it is, and the lower the op level goes, the less of a problem those differences represents, but that doesn't alter the fact that they're present.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The tier system is based on theoretical optimization,Wrong. That would mean everyone is tier 0, they just achieve it at different levels.
assuming a player who is using all materials available to them,Also wrong. A Wolf Totem barbarian with Stand Still (one variant and one feat that aren't core, both from the online SRD) is tier 4, because it has decent skills and good combat ability, it's a good solid build.
and a DM who is actively trying to find ways to defeat the players.
So using the balor's at-will SLAs (which is basically the balor being just using the bare minimum) is actively trying to kill your players? That's funny, I don't remember hearing that anywhere.

I can't speak for everyone here, but many games, especially those more focused on story, are far more likely to revolve around opponents of CR roughly equal to average level of a four-member party, and who rely on doing damage for offence and upon AC and saves for defence. In these cases, and for players who either haven't learned to or don't wish to push the limits of the system and their character classes, the divide isn't as harsh as some of the high-op players might lead you to believe.
I balk at the idea of playing fighter, paladin, or CW samurai (and maybe healer, I don't have the book). Why? Because 2+int skill points on MAD classes. Monk is also tossed in favor of other, better classes with less alignment restrictions. Knight and OA samurai are only if ToB is banned. The only time I'd play a fighter is with Thug and Zhent Soldier, for a fear-based build with the bare minimum skill points, and a dip into other classes gets me extra armor proficiencies if I want them. CA ninja is just weak compared to rogue.

But that thing that's not making any difference? That's either called low-op (where the wizard's best spell is un-metamagicked Fireball), or gentleman's agreement (where the wizard's signature spell is Haste, and he's not a summoner). High tier and low tier classes can play together. That doesn't mean that if PVP ever comes up, the wizard can't roflstomp the fighter.

What I mean is, fighters are pretty good at hitting things and getting hit by things, and these are skills that many challenges and encounters were designed around. But they are also easy to render irrelevant by a DM who is out to kill his players, where creature offence is more likely to involve touch attacks and no-save effects, and defences are more based on effects like flight, flat miss chance, and freedom of movement. But a fighter will do fine in a more casual game, based more on story or casual attack-them-then-they-attack-you play.
The problems can be compensated. Why do you think 3.5 is playable to those who don't know about or haven't figured out their own version of the tier system? That doesn't mean the tier system isn't helpful, because it helps explain that Tome of Battle isn't overpowered, yes, the wizard can do that, and no, the monk isn't the most powerful class there is.

Just be wary that when playing a fighter, or any sub-optimal class/build, you may have people standing by your table and telling you that any game without the fear of losing your character is not worth playing hey I said games are more fun when there is danger involved and DANG IT YOU GUYS STOP HAVING FUN.

...Okay? This doesn't make sense. People who want to have an element of danger and a chance of death are telling you not to play a character that might die? Or are you talking about in a game where everyone else is more powerful, and the DM has to make things weaker so you won't die? Because in that case, you should build a character at the party's op level. Believe me, I once played a warblade in a low-op game.

[Man on Fire]

Dude, you can roleplay good as any class. Roleplaying good is not a fighter class feature. Ditto for playing smart.

Those things are great, but they do not make fighter a powerful class.



arguing that a fighter is usefull because he can give ideas or lead his team mates thus he is a good class

{Scrubbed}
I never argued against that. I argued that creative player may make up differences between tiers and be more useful with a fighter than uncreative player with a wizard. I never said that fighter is better than wizard.


a fighter that tries to avoid combat? Seriously?

Nothing stops me from making one. I can give my fighter any personality and backstory I like and if I want him to be technical pacifist or be tired from having to fight all his life or terrified by latest war, what stops me from doing so? He is still fighter he just doesn't like his job.
now I need to make that character in some game, will look nice next to my Half-orc Mystic Theurge.


Apart from Charisma-based skills, though, what would you personally give bonuses to for roleplaying? Knowledge(x)? Sense Motive? Spot? Search*?

Not "what". When. And the answer for when is "When it's cool, creative from the player's part and/or climatic".


This is something I'm a bit torn on while DMing. Should I allow characters to diplomacy things(just by talking, not bribery or other methods) without rolls by convincing arguments and real life sensibility? At the same time, should I make characters who attempt bluff checks actually make convincing arguments, regardless of how the roll turned out?

If I say yes to either, I feel as if I am cheating out a type of player. Many players tend to play characters nothing like themselves, the suave rogue being one of them. If they have very little real life social skills and couldn't argue the difference of red v.s. blue, I feel I cheat them out if I follow the aforementioned diplomacy rule. I also don't want the guy who has massive amounts of real life charm and debate ability to be able to dump social skills and use his real life ability to invalidate those who invested points. I understand that the 1st situation seems more like 'roll playing', but I know many of a people who are very shy; but still desire to play the social butterfly character.

This isn't a rue you should have set for everybody. This is a reward for good roleplaying. Not everybody has to get a reward. You are rewarding a player for doing what he is good at. Reward shy guy for creative use of rolls or somethign else he did.


I wouldn't consider that to be Stormwind fallacy. As I argued above rolls are important now figuring out that you should use the rolls, which are your tools, is another thing and that is where the players should shine. If the fighter figures out that this is a guy we should bluff he should signal the bard character (who may have no social capability as a player) to bluff this guy. This allows the Fighter to still get his flash of inspiration but not take away something that another character has invested effort into.

Unless the bard's player made his character a bard for some optimized character build and doesn't care about rp-ing and negotiations and just want to hit things, in which case he will ignore the fighter and attack.


The main problem with this is that I dislike the idea that an intelligent player playing a fighter with 3s in all his mental stats

Inteligent player won't be playing fighter with 3s in all his mental stats.


If you want bonuses on your Charisma-based checks you should have them on your character sheet, same as for Wis and Int checks.

Yeah, because it's very fair that a player who gets into the role, probably even reflecting upon his low scores in that role and who is overall very useful to the party wll be rewarded less than a munchkin who maximalized his Charisma and whenever it comes to use it ask for skill and rolls without a word.

[MagnusExultatio]

words

This is all well and good, but your vaunted creativity means nothing in the face of creativity used by Wizards. Or the fact that creativity won't get you far when the Fighter interacts with the skill system in any fashion. Or the fact that you're basically talking about houserules having to make up for the Fighter's gross weaknesses.

P.S: Nice condescension about optimizing/minmaxing.

[Amphetryon]

Inteligent player won't be playing fighter in 3s in all his mental stats.An intelligent player can't choose to make an Ubercharger? Really?

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

Intelligent fighter can't teleport. Intelligent fighter can't grapple dragons. Intelligent fighter can't create illusions to easily cheat in social interactions.

[Water_Bear]

This isn't a [rule] you should have set for everybody. This is a reward for good roleplaying. Not everybody has to get a reward. You are rewarding a player for doing what he is good at. Reward [the] shy guy for creative use of rolls or [something] else he did.


That's one way of playing, and a fairly permissive one at that. The way I see it, being smart or socially aware or being unusually perceptive will tend to pay off in terms of the metagame; a good role player will get more "rewards" anyway because they are interacting with the game world in more sophisticated ways.

I understand the desire to reward good RP, I even have parameters for Roleplaying XP (in 100xp - 500xp chunks) written into the loot/experience tables of adventures I run. But a lot of DMs, myself included, are wary of giving out circumstance bonuses without a good rules reason.


Unless the bard's player made his character a bard for some optimized character build and doesn't care about rp-ing and negotiations and just want to hit things, in which case he will ignore the fighter and attack.

That's a fairly specious argument. The point is that few Fighters will have credible Diplomacy skills, and they are sacrificing valuable resources to do it. A Bard sacrifices very little and can easily have a much better score while still being well optimized for other scenarios. Thus it makes more sense for a Charisma-dependent high-skill class to do negotiations than a Strength-based low-skill class.

In fact, that kind of thing is the basis on the Tier system. How well can you do something? How does building your character to do that impact your other abilities? Hence a Bard is Tier 3 and a Fighter is Tier 5; a Bard can simultaneously be good at many more things than a Fighter can without taxing the build.

[Man on Fire]

This is all well and good, but your vaunted creativity means nothing in the face of creativity used by Wizards. Or the fact that creativity won't get you far when the Fighter interacts with the skill system in any fashion. Or the fact that you're basically talking about houserules having to make up for the Fighter's gross weaknesses.

No, i'm talking about being elastic with the rules. I'm not going to the game so I can participate in S&M session where I'm dominated by bunch of Dices, but to role-play and I want to do that first and foremost.
Oh, and magic everything away is not what I would call creativty.


Intelligent fighter can't teleport. Intelligent fighter can't grapple dragons. Intelligent fighter can't create illusions to easily cheat in social interactions.

On the other hand... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html)


P.S: Nice condescension about optimizing/minmaxing.

Where?


An intelligent player can't choose to make an Ubercharger? Really?

And what is that?


That's one way of playing, and a fairly permissive one at that. The way I see it, being smart or socially aware or being unusually perceptive will tend to pay off in terms of the metagame; a good role player will get more "rewards" anyway because they are interacting with the game world in more sophisticated ways.

Good DM will make the game this way so everyone have something to do so they can get rewards for what they want.


I understand the desire to reward good RP, I even have parameters for Roleplaying XP (in 100xp - 500xp chunks) written into the loot/experience tables of adventures I run. But a lot of DMs, myself included, are wary of giving out circumstance bonuses without a good rules reason.

As a player who doesn't give a two cents about how many XPs I have I would feel discriminated if I'm not getting any rewards for roleplaying.


That's a fairly specious argument. The point is that few Fighters will have credible Diplomacy skills, and they are sacrificing valuable resources to do it. A Bard sacrifices very little and can easily have a much better score while still being well optimized for other scenarios. Thus it makes more sense for a Charisma-dependent high-skill class to do negotiations than a Strength-based low-skill class.

And my point still is that creative player will make up for that anyway.

[The Glyphstone]

MoF, you're missing the point of what people (I think) are trying to tell you. All of what you've said is true, possible, even sensible...but none of it is something inherent to the Fighter. Therefore, it has no bearing on the Fighter's tier, because the Tier list is a strictly mechanical assessment that assumes equal optimization, or more simply, the same exact player behind each class. Any roleplaying techniques or tricks used by the Fighter's player could just as easily be used if he were playing a Wizard or Rogue, making them a null-sum contribution from the actual class.

[TheCountAlucard]

Glyphstone, if I may, could we just sticky a thread that explains the tiers so that people stop making threads asking about them? :smallconfused:

And for that matter, explain why a person's initial assessment of the tier system is almost certainly objectively wrong? :smalltongue:

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

On the other hand... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0808.html)Intelligent commoner can do that, too. You really are missing the point.

[Gharkash]

And my point still is that creative player will make up for that anyway.

Even if your creativity level is over 9000, there are rules. They are not meant to be a bible, but you cannot bend them for one player and not for the other (that has more options) and expect zero complaints.

[Soranar]

Example of a tier discussion

aspects to consider:

1 fighting ability

-Can go nuclear (Tier 1 or 2, your character is so powerful he curbstomps every encounter, even those above his recommended CR)

-Gets by (Tier 3 or 4, assuming normal rolls, your character can match encounters appropriate for his CR)

-Is likely to fail (Tier 5 or less, your character cannot handle encounters of his CR and may be challenged by encounters of a lower CR)

2 social ability

-Can go nuclear (Tier 1 or 2, your character cannot fail: for example charm person can replace any kind of diplomacy roll)

- Gets by

etc

Typically, a tier 3 character can get by in many many roles. For example, a bard can contribute to fights, social encounters and has access to several tricks which can be useful outside combat (bardic knowledge, utility spells, etc). However, his abilities can fail. Nothing is set in stone with a bard: luck is still involved and he can still fail a roll.

A tier 1 character is almost immune to bad luck: there is no risk for failure (thus your campaign is broken as nothing he faces is challenging).

In some ways, a tier 3 character might be more versatile than a tier 2 character but he doesn't dominate in any given field the way a tier 2 character does. Thus, a sorcerer is far more potent in combat but is somewhat lackluster outside of it.

Now, the reason this is so debatable is that none of this entails quantifiable things, and if you can't really attribute numerical values it becomes that much more difficult to reach a consensus on anything.

It also explains why tier 1 characters can make very boring campaigns, unless everyone involved is also tier 1 (which means the DM just has to arbitrarily increase the difficulty of everything to keep them challenged).

Finally, I don't see how this discussion can really get anywhere. As mentioned before, a well optimized character can break is assumed tier (using ACF, feats, races or templates) or enter a PrC that belongs to a higher tier. Just like a poorly designed character can fail at everything.

[BlueEyes]

I like the Tier System.


And my point still is that creative player will make up for that anyway.
What does it have to do with his class?

[Amphetryon]

And what is that?Ubercharger is an extremely commonly used name on 3.5 forums for a build template, centered around using Whirling Frenzy, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack, and additional damage multipliers to do ZOMG levels of damage to anything that's at the end of your charge attack. INT, WIS, and CHA are almost entirely unnecessary for the concept, though it can benefit from the typical 2-level dip into the Fighter class for bonus feats. Granted, you didn't specify Fighter as class, rather than concept, meaning you could have been referencing a "fighting person" archetype, which the Barbarian again fills handily without needing much in the way of INT, WIS, or CHA.

Finally, having a 3 in all three of your mental stats - your proposal - indicates really horrid rolls or a really unusual character creation method, in general. I'm not sure how you would manage it and not wind up with a character that RAW qualifies as "hopeless."

[Sutremaine]

Yeah, because it's very fair that a player who gets into the role, probably even reflecting upon his low scores in that role and who is overall very useful to the party wll be rewarded less than a munchkin who maximalized his Charisma and whenever it comes to use it ask for skill and rolls without a word.
You're conflating those two things you're changing between comparisons. Maximising Charisma and its associated checks doesn't stop you from roleplaying, but it does make it more likely that you'll succeed in your attempts at Diplomacy or whatever. The Fighter (or any other class with little mechanical need for Cha and few Cha-based skills) with low modifiers shouldn't expect free stuff because the player chose to put their points/high rolls in other stats. Likewise, the player who did choose to pump Cha shouldn't expect those roleplaying bonuses.

[navar100]

The Tier System as it was originally intended is fine. It provides a scale of power level of a given class that a DM can use to measure a party's strength. The DM needs to watch out for Tier 1's Winning D&D because of potential of defeating bad guys too easily and Tier 5's Losing D&D because of potential of great difficulty defeating bad guys. "Potential" is the key word, not guarantee.

The problem with the Tier System is how often it's cited to justify bashing 3E in general because the person hates the game or specific classes as BadWrongFun. I used to say there are three general categories of Tier System abusers, but now I recognize a fourth.

Group 1: Tier 1 is an abomination. Players should not have such power. Ban! Ban! Ban! Spellcasters always win at everything. They always have every spell ever published all the time whenever they need it. Bad guys always fail their saving throws. Natural Spell and Gate exists! It's the Apocalypse!

Group 2: You are The Suck for playing Tier 4 or 5. You are a burden on resources. Why should spellcasters waste their spells on you? You always fail your Will saving throws. You're pathetic because you can't fly or want to trip. AC is useless. You are beneath contempt because you use equipment. Just play a cleric or druid if you want to fight. Monk? Points. Laughs.

Group 3: Praise be the Holy Tier 3. It is Nirvana. All come together and supplicate yourselves to the Great Balance of the Universe. It is the One True Way to play. Everything not of the Balance is banished to the cornfield. Play Tier 3 and all your problems will go away.

Group 4: This is why 3E sucks. It's horribly unbalanced. The fact that there is a Tier System is proof in itself. What a pathetic system. It's all about the POWR. I moved on and never looked back. I play (insert gaming system) now, and it's so superior. "We all know spellcasters are broken/monks suck/fighter is obsolete to a riding dog ..."

[erikun]

The tier system is good for what it is intended: high-level games with significant understanding of how the game works. It holds together for mid-level games, as well.

In low-level games and games where the players don't have a good grasp on the mechanics, the tier system doesn't function as well, if at all. This is why E6 generally doesn't use the tier system; Glitterdust is still good, but you'll still want someone to run over there and bash their heads in, even if it is just a fighter.


The big problem with the Tier system is that people don't seem to realize that some of the tier borders are fuzzier than others. Tier 1-2 are gamebreakers with versatility and without, it's possible to be ambiguous between them (psion). The border between tier 2 and tier 3 on the other hand is the difference between something that can break the game and something that is merely powerful within the bounds of the game. Chain gating is a whole other level of broken compared to 10k damage on an attack, and much easier to set up.
This is true, and a point that doesn't seem to be brought up very much. Tier 1-2 vs Tier 3-4 is much the difference between breaking the game and wrecking anything inside the game. Tier 3-4 vs Tier 5-6 is frequently the difference between having your own abilities and being able to optimize feats and common abilities well. It really isn't strange that the Zhentarim Fighter (and pounce Barbarian) are Tier 4, while the standard Fighter is Tier 5.

[BlueEyes]

In low-level games and games where the players don't have a good grasp on the mechanics, the tier system doesn't function as well, if at all.
From what I understand the Tier System works the same on low levels and high levels and with players who don't or do have a grasp on mechanics, as long as each class is comparatively optimized.

[mucco]

The tier system is based on theoretical optimization, assuming a player who is using all materials available to them, and a DM who is actively trying to find ways to defeat the players.

This is the key.

The tiers hold together when people are optimizing, even a bit. If your group is low-op, and I'm talking Toughness (or WotC) low-op, the tier list goes straight in the bin. That's when ToB gets broken because suddenly melee can do something, and when the Psion gets broken because 5d6+5 at will vs 4d4 as many times as you have it prepared (Scorching Ray).

The tier system doesn't take into account the lower bound for optimization for the classes.

[Man on Fire]

MoF, you're missing the point of what people (I think) are trying to tell you. All of what you've said is true, possible, even sensible...but none of it is something inherent to the Fighter.

And my point is that class doesn't matter so it's they who are missing my point.


Therefore, it has no bearing on the Fighter's tier, because the Tier list is a strictly mechanical assessment that assumes equal optimization, or more simply, the same exact player behind each class. Any roleplaying techniques or tricks used by the Fighter's player could just as easily be used if he were playing a Wizard or Rogue, making them a null-sum contribution from the actual class.

That's what I'm trying to say since the begining - class and tier doesn't matter, player do. Player will be equally effective with tier 1 or 5 character because he will either think how utilize what he has to be most oeffective or just be lazy and pick random spell or say "I hit him".


Intelligent commoner can do that, too. You really are missing the point.

You are missing the point. If intelligent commoner can do that then he is as useful as wizard. Classes and tiers doesn't matter, players do.


Even if your creativity level is over 9000, there are rules. They are not meant to be a bible, but you cannot bend them for one player and not for the other (that has more options) and expect zero complaints.

If rules cannot make good game for everybody who aren't optimizing and playing classes favored by majority of players and developers, then you need to change the ru...no, you need to change the game.


Finally, having a 3 in all three of your mental stats - your proposal - indicates really horrid rolls or a really unusual character creation method, in general. I'm not sure how you would manage it and not wind up with a character that RAW qualifies as "hopeless."

It's not my proposal, the person who I was responding to brougth up "Fighter with 3 in all mental stats". And you pretty much proved my point - intelligent player won't make a character with 3 in all his mental stats because he will wind up with hopeless caracter.


You're conflating those two things you're changing between comparisons. Maximising Charisma and its associated checks doesn't stop you from roleplaying, but it does make it more likely that you'll succeed in your attempts at Diplomacy or whatever. The Fighter (or any other class with little mechanical need for Cha and few Cha-based skills) with low modifiers shouldn't expect free stuff because the player chose to put their points/high rolls in other stats. Likewise, the player who did choose to pump Cha shouldn't expect those roleplaying bonuses.

If roleplay is only addition to the game, then I'm not interested in that kind of game. If how much I try to get into my character, play him well, understand his motives and behavior, try to contribute to the story - if that just doesn't have any reflection o nthe game, then I'm not playing Role Playing Game, but participate in S&M Session with the Dices as Doms. if this is what RPGs are about then we should change the medium from "Role-Playing Games" to DRGWSRBNTMANTITNDTD - "Dice Rolling Games With Some Roleplay But Not Too Much And Not Too Important To Not Disturb The Dice".

[Amphetryon]

It's not my proposal, the person who I was responding to brougth up "Fighter with 3 in all mental stats". And you pretty much proved my point - intelligent player won't make a character with 3 in all his mental stats because he will wind up with hopeless caracter.Moving goalposts, much?

[BlueEyes]

And my point is that class doesn't matter so it's they who are missing my point.
No, I'm pretty sure that class matters in a system that compares classes.


You are missing the point. If intelligent commoner can do that then he is as useful as wizard. Classes and tiers doesn't matter, players do.
Can an intelligent commoner create a demi-plane with his own power?

[Lord_Gareth]

I think the point you're missing, MoF, is that the tier system also represents practical limits as to the extent of the actions your character can take - barriers, in effect, to achieving roleplaying. After all, you can be much, much more creative with a pile of spells than with a sword. Fighter throws sand in an enemy's face? Wizard uses scorching ray on their eyes. Craft check? No, Fabricate. Fighter attempts to negotiate peaceful solution? Wizard can do the same - and offer personal boons to those that accept his offer.

The measurement of the Tier System is problem solving, not fight winning. The stone-cold fact is that even at the highest levels of optimization or the most loose levels of roleplaying, the 3.5 T1 classes can solve the most problems natively without recourse to outside aid of any kind (with WBL defined as 'internal aid', for all future reference) whereas there are some classes that simply....can't.

[The Glyphstone]

This is the key.

The tiers hold together when people are optimizing, even a bit. If your group is low-op, and I'm talking Toughness (or WotC) low-op, the tier list goes straight in the bin. That's when ToB gets broken because suddenly melee can do something, and when the Psion gets broken because 5d6+5 at will vs 4d4 as many times as you have it prepared (Scorching Ray).

The tier system doesn't take into account the lower bound for optimization for the classes.

That's because the lower optimization bound for all classes is equal at 0, the same as how every class can theoretically be Pun-Pun at the upper optimization bound. Low-Op is where the Tier differentials are at their worst, though low-Op players are also most likely to be the ones unaware of the potential power they have - the Tier system is guidelines, not hard-and-fast guarantees. A Tier 1 will always have the ability to break a game into little pieces unless stomped down, the list does not say all Tier 1's will inevitably break the game into little pieces.

[GoatBoy]

...Okay? This doesn't make sense. People who want to have an element of danger and a chance of death are telling you not to play a character that might die? Or are you talking about in a game where everyone else is more powerful, and the DM has to make things weaker so you won't die? Because in that case, you should build a character at the party's op level. Believe me, I once played a warblade in a low-op game.

I was talking about a game where everyone is playing at the same level, either by lack of experience or voluntarily creating a sub-optimal build as not to out-shine less optimized members. If only one player optimizes or even plays a high-tier class in a moderately competent manner, even in a large group, the whole game must change, yes. My post was in reference to the whole group, not individual players.

[daemonaetea]

Here, let's try putting it this way. What the tier list shows is the capabilities present solely within the confines of the class itself. That is, the mechanical, not role playing, abilities of the class to interact with the game world.

Anyone can attempt to play out a diplomacy situation. You can attempt to discuss with an NPC, trying to persuade them. However, let's compare how a Bard and a Fighter might approach that situation. The Bard has mechanical, in game abilities that help with this task. He may have spells that either make the NPC more pliable or enhance his ability to persuade. He also probably has high investment in the skills that will help with negotiation, namely Bluff, Sense Motive, and Diplomacy. That is, as I said before, the Bard has mechanical, defined ways to go about this encounter.

The Fighter, on the other hand, is usually limited to solely role playing out the encounter. The outcome will not be decided mechanically. You may say that it will, that the Fighter can certainly roll those checks, with appropriate bonuses from the DM for his role playing. To which my response would be that that's exactly the point. It's no longer the class making this possible, it's the sole discretion of the DM, of how much he cooperates. Maybe he finds your arguments compelling and gives a big bonus to you. Maybe not. Either way, your success or failure depends solely on the DM. And that is because you have no mechanical ability to fulfill this interaction beyond the most basic level.

It's the same for other situation. An invasion is coming. Your Fighter may very well have the idea to erect defenses, set up choke points, and any number of other things. However, your ability to actually carry through on these ideas are limited. For a powerful caster, they are not. The Wizard or Sorcerer can create Walls of Iron to setup these defenses, as well as other walls as the enemy gets near to further channel and control their approach. Your Cleric can use various symbols to do the same. Even the Bard can get their hands on a Lyre of Building and have the town ready in no time flat, as well as Inspiring the entire town in their fight when it comes. The Fighter can have the ideas and then, when the battle starts, he can fight the enemy one on one. His mechanical ability to influence the fight is limited.

That's the difference, again and again. Personally I only enjoy playing casters. Not full-on, break the game into pieces casters, but generally low end tier 2s and tier 3s. Why? Because I enjoy having the ability to effect the game world at a mechanical level, which is that level which is least dependent on the whims of the DM. It is a known, defined way for my character to interact with the game world. And, for a Fighter, the only mechanical way they have to interact with the game world is to kill things and, maybe, really frighten people. Can they do more than that, depending on the player? Absolutely. But each of those other things either relies upon them shifting some of their limited resources away from the one things they're actually mechanically good at (i.e. using their few skill points to cross class to something else, using their limited gold to boost social skills, things of that nature), or relies upon the DM helping you or even allowing you (through bonuses that come at their whim). And for myself, that's not really enough.

[Lans]

:


As you said, fighter is good at hitting things. Not that good, as barbarians and especially ToB classes do it better, but decent. Once you go beyond hitting things however, the fighter simply can't contribute. He lacks the class features, class skills and skillpoints to contribute in a meaningful way outside combat.
. The fighter is roughly on par with the warblade and barbarian at hitting things. The difference between them is that hitting things isn't really a thing. Its a part of a thing called being in melee combat. The fighter might deal about the same damage, but the warblade and barb(outside whirling frenzy) have more hp, survivability, and versatility.

[LordBlades]

The fighter is roughly on par with the warblade and barbarian at hitting things. The difference between them is that hitting things isn't really a thing. Its a part of a thing called being in melee combat. The fighter might deal about the same damage, but the warblade and barb(outside whirling frenzy) have more hp, survivability, and versatility.

Not really. Unlike ToB and pounce barbs, fighter lacks the ability to effectively hit stuff that doesn't want to stay put and trade full attacks

[Sutremaine]

It's not my proposal, the person who I was responding to brougth up "Fighter with 3 in all mental stats". And you pretty much proved my point - intelligent player won't make a character with 3 in all his mental stats because he will wind up with hopeless caracter.
Yes. Roleplaying will only take you so far. It changes what you do and what action the dice are being used to measure, but it's your modifiers and your luck that decide how effective you are. That assumes that the dice are being rolled; if you're just talking through what's happening it doesn't really matter what the numbers are. If dice aren't being rolled then this should be discussed with players in advance, so that nobody spends gold, feats, or skill points on modifiers that are never going to come into play.


If roleplay is only addition to the game, then I'm not interested in that kind of game. If how much I try to get into my character, play him well, understand his motives and behavior, try to contribute to the story - if that just doesn't have any reflection o nthe game, then I'm not playing Role Playing Game, but participate in S&M Session with the Dices as Doms. if this is what RPGs are about then we should change the medium from "Role-Playing Games" to DRGWSRBNTMANTITNDTD - "Dice Rolling Games With Some Roleplay But Not Too Much And Not Too Important To Not Disturb The Dice".
D&D is a rules-heavy system. You can play it otherwise, but the baseline is the ruleset given in the Core books and available (sans fluff) to everyone with internet access. In that ruleset, the in-universe effect of your roleplaying is bounded by your stats, your skill ranks, and any items or conditions that have mechanical effects. There's nothing to stop you from roleplaying, but it's going to be frustrating if your rolls don't back up your character. There's also nothing to stop you from declining to actively roll anything whose modifiers you don't like, which is where your roleplaying skills get to have indirect mechanical effects. :smallbiggrin: There are diceless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Diceless_Roleplaying_Game) RPGs out there, but between D&D's market saturation and this being a forum for a D&D webcomic, D&D and its particular way of making your roleplaying interact with the game world is what you're going to see most often.

I would also like to point out that in your S&M metaphor, it's the players who are still calling the shots. The dom isn't the one who gets to wield the safe word, and the dom isn't the only one writing the pre-session contract.

[BlueEyes]

If roleplay is only addition to the game, then I'm not interested in that kind of game. If how much I try to get into my character, play him well, understand his motives and behavior, try to contribute to the story - if that just doesn't have any reflection o nthe game, then I'm not playing Role Playing Game, but participate in S&M Session with the Dices as Doms. if this is what RPGs are about then we should change the medium from "Role-Playing Games" to DRGWSRBNTMANTITNDTD - "Dice Rolling Games With Some Roleplay But Not Too Much And Not Too Important To Not Disturb The Dice".
If rolls are only an addition to the storytelling, then I'm not interested in that kind of game. If how much I roll on a dice, build my character well, understand the mechanics, try to contribute to the story through mechanical means - if that just doesn't have any reflection on the game, then I'm not playing Role Playing Game, but participate in Theater Session with the DM as a Storyteller. if this is what RPGs are about then we should change the medium from "Role-Playing Games" to RPST - "Role Playing Storytelling".

[2xMachina]

Fighting movie choreographer playing a monk:

What do you mean I can't hit? Can't you see how awesome I describe the fighting? I should get bonuses for that.

[Eloel]

Then there's the "I roleplay awesomely!!!" guy who plays a Bard with 20+ Cha vs the exact same guy playing a 8 Cha Fighter. If for the same roleplay, you get the same chance of succeeding with the two classes, you're not playing D&D.

Given that we're in the D&D (3.5 to be specific) sub-forum, discussing a system designed for D&D, I think we need to keep to D&D-related discussions.

[TheCountAlucard]

Fighting movie choreographer playing a monk:

What do you mean I can't hit? Can't you see how awesome I describe the fighting? I should get bonuses for that.That's why I like Exalted 2e's stunt system. :smallcool:

[erikun]

From what I understand the Tier System works the same on low levels and high levels and with players who don't or do have a grasp on mechanics, as long as each class is comparatively optimized.
Not really. A low levels, especially first level, you'll see classes like Crusader and Barbarian significantly better than a Wizard. Sure, Sleep is still good at that level, but you really shouldn't expect to have enough castings for multiple encounters in a row, to say nothing about everything losing its saving throw and getting to coup-de-grace them all every time.

Having a grasp of mechanics is the optimization. Understanding that Glitterdust does a better job of knocking out opponents than Fireball is an understanding of the mechanics, and not knowing that means that a player would have little hope of using even a pre-optimized character effectively.

Sure, someone with a good grasp of the mechanics could choose to not optimize a character, but someone without an understanding of how the game works can't really choose to do so.

[Callista]

Then there's the "I roleplay awesomely!!!" guy who plays a Bard with 20+ Cha vs the exact same guy playing a 8 Cha Fighter. If for the same roleplay, you get the same chance of succeeding with the two classes, you're not playing D&D.But if he's role-playing a guy with CHA 8 the same way he's playing that 20+ CHA bard, then he's not role-playing awesomely, is he? One of the biggest challenges for a role-player is portraying a character with a significant weakness. That fighter with the 8 charisma could be brusque, socially clumsy, introverted, or uncouth. When the player rolls that botched diplomacy check, he's got himself just as much of an RP challenge as when he rolls the natural 20 for his socially talented bard. And the other players have the chance to play off his faux pas, having their characters try to smooth things over--or possibly just punch him in the face for his accidental insult, depending on their temperament.

DMs who give role-playing XP will generally give it for playing out a character's weaknesses as well as his strengths. And often a character's weaknesses are what make him really interesting--more so than the talents that make them viable adventurers.

[eggs]

Roleplaying is sweet, but one of the design goals in D&D 3e was minimizing the DM's effect on game adjudication. One of the ways that was implemented was that the game was the rule providing benefits and penalties to particularly clever or poor play: the +/- 2 penalty.

You might notice that +/- 2 is tiny. That's all that the bonus that the rules permit the Fighter to get on its Diplomacy roll, even for the most brilliant roleplay. Changing that is changing the rules, which is a problematic assumption, because even if everyone does change the rules, it's senseless to assume they do it in the same way; there's a reason conversation defaults to RAW in cross-class comparisons - it's consistent, regardless of whether it's used directly.

Anyway, I agree that player savvy plays a large enough role in a character's power that specific class selection is basically meaningless to me as either a DM or a player, but that doesn't have anything to do with any particular group who plays by an alternate ruleset.

[Eloel]

But if he's role-playing a guy with CHA 8 the same way he's playing that 20+ CHA bard, then he's not role-playing awesomely, is he? One of the biggest challenges for a role-player is portraying a character with a significant weakness. That fighter with the 8 charisma could be brusque, socially clumsy, introverted, or uncouth. When the player rolls that botched diplomacy check, he's got himself just as much of an RP challenge as when he rolls the natural 20 for his socially talented bard. And the other players have the chance to play off his faux pas, having their characters try to smooth things over--or possibly just punch him in the face for his accidental insult, depending on their temperament.

DMs who give role-playing XP will generally give it for playing out a character's weaknesses as well as his strengths. And often a character's weaknesses are what make him really interesting--more so than the talents that make them viable adventurers.
Since "play your weaknesses!" IS a great point, try this - although keep in mind I was (and am) addressing the "classes mean nothing, it's only the player that matters" argument:

Assume a socially awkward person (or just someone not a social butterfly). Being a D&D player, not a particularly rare situation.
He just can't RP a 20 Cha Bard with full skills in Bluff. As in, he's incapable of such. (same argument goes for any high stat, but we're talking on Diplomacy and Bluff and such right now)
Is he supposed to not be better off in social situations than playing a 18 Cha Bard? A 6 Cha Fighter?
If no, why not?

[Hiro Protagonest]

The tier system is good for what it is intended: high-level games with significant understanding of how the game works. It holds together for mid-level games, as well.

In low-level games and games where the players don't have a good grasp on the mechanics, the tier system doesn't function as well, if at all. This is why E6 generally doesn't use the tier system; Glitterdust is still good, but you'll still want someone to run over there and bash their heads in, even if it is just a fighter.

Level doesn't matter. At level 1, a focused conjurer with Abrupt Jaunt and Improved Initiative, using Grease, Color Spray, and Mage Armor, is very powerful. However, at high levels, Meteor Swarm is still just fire damage. For very low-op games, tier system doesn't work. For mid-op games, fighters have a shot at being competitive with cooperative wizards/sorcs/clerics, or good ACFs like a Zhentarim Dungeoncrasher Thug. In high-op games, warblades and crusaders are the bare minimum, and Zhentarim Soldier might be able to survive to level 9.


That's why I like Exalted 2e's stunt system. :smallcool:

Iron Heroes also has a stunt system.

[willpell]

Understanding that Glitterdust does a better job of knocking out opponents than Fireball is an understanding of the mechanics.

Glitterdust doesn't seem that powerful to me. It only blinds creatures that fail their Will save, and it's not like a blinded creature is completely incapable of fighting anyway, even without Blindsight or Blindsense or the Blind-Fight feat. In particular, Glitterdust won't do you any good if you don't have a way to kill the creature while it's blinded, whereas Fireball is pretty good at killing creatures in the first place. Maybe with enough optomization work, Glitterdust can be better than Fireball, but in a vacuum I don't think it's fair to claim the same. Fireball is a better spell in the abstract, it's just that there are numerous exceptions and Glitterdust is useful for a lot of those.

[Urpriest]

It's been said in this thread already, but the Tier system is fundamentally about the tools a given class gives you, not about any individual character of that class, low or high op. This is, furthermore, the only relevant question in this context anyway: as a player, you pick a class that gives your character some range of capabilities based on how you want to depict them. The Tier system gives you an idea of what qualitative ranges of capabilities the classes can give you.

[Lans]

Not really. Unlike ToB and pounce barbs, fighter lacks the ability to effectively hit stuff that doesn't want to stay put and trade full attacks

That's were the barb and warblade have the versatilityd advantage, of being able to engage the enemy.

[Wings of Peace]

Not really. A low levels, especially first level, you'll see classes like Crusader and Barbarian significantly better than a Wizard. Sure, Sleep is still good at that level, but you really shouldn't expect to have enough castings for multiple encounters in a row, to say nothing about everything losing its saving throw and getting to coup-de-grace them all every time.


This is only half true. Yes the tier system acknowledges that there is less differentiation between the classes at low levels (as you said) but the counter argument would be that if the Wizard's player has so little knowledge that not only is his character unoptimized but so are his tactics then the same would be true of the Crusader and Barbarian's players.

As an example I'd say that if a Wizard character is blasting then the melee equivalent in terms of class mastery would be using light one-handed weapons on a str build.

Edit: Or a melee dex build wielding a club.

[Man on Fire]

Yes. Roleplaying will only take you so far. It changes what you do and what action the dice are being used to measure, but it's your modifiers and your luck that decide how effective you are. That assumes that the dice are being rolled; if you're just talking through what's happening it doesn't really matter what the numbers are. If dice aren't being rolled then this should be discussed with players in advance, so that nobody spends gold, feats, or skill points on modifiers that are never going to come into play.


D&D is a rules-heavy system. You can play it otherwise, but the baseline is the ruleset given in the Core books and available (sans fluff) to everyone with internet access. In that ruleset, the in-universe effect of your roleplaying is bounded by your stats, your skill ranks, and any items or conditions that have mechanical effects. There's nothing to stop you from roleplaying, but it's going to be frustrating if your rolls don't back up your character. There's also nothing to stop you from declining to actively roll anything whose modifiers you don't like, which is where your roleplaying skills get to have indirect mechanical effects. :smallbiggrin: There are diceless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_Diceless_Roleplaying_Game) RPGs out there, but between D&D's market saturation and this being a forum for a D&D webcomic, D&D and its particular way of making your roleplaying interact with the game world is what you're going to see most often.

I would also like to point out that in your S&M metaphor, it's the players who are still calling the shots. The dom isn't the one who gets to wield the safe word, and the dom isn't the only one writing the pre-session contract.


If rolls are only an addition to the storytelling, then I'm not interested in that kind of game. If how much I roll on a dice, build my character well, understand the mechanics, try to contribute to the story through mechanical means - if that just doesn't have any reflection on the game, then I'm not playing Role Playing Game, but participate in Theater Session with the DM as a Storyteller. if this is what RPGs are about then we should change the medium from "Role-Playing Games" to RPST - "Role Playing Storytelling".

Thanks for missing my point again and thanks for commiting Stormwind Fallancy - just because I'm against game where rolls decide on everythign doesn't mean I abhore them. No, I want a game where roleplaying is equally as important as rolls. Thats why I deny tier system - it's a system for a game where rolls decide on everything o it's not or a game I'm interested in playing.

Now, for people who say that wizards can throw glitterdust at enemy or create demiplanes - none of that is creativity, it's using resources that are handed to you by creators. That's what I mean when I said that tier system is for uncreative players - it favorises players who doesn't have to be creative to accomplish something, but may use resources given to them by developers, namely huge pile of spells. Creative player will make up for the difference. It won't be easy because his classes have less resources, but it is possible. And that's what makes low-tier classes better than high tier for me - playing them is much harder and requires different abilities than playing tier 1.

Now, I would also like to express my complaint about moderations decision to give me infraction for my first post in this thread. I'm offended by the suggestion that I would us term "uncreative player" as an insult. Not everyone go to these games to be creative and not everyone are creative players. People who play tier 1 have other skills, like resources management. There is nothing wrong with their playstyle, it's just not what I'm looking for in the game. I never meant this as an insult and I feel offended by the idea that somebody would fin it insulting.

[daemonaetea]

Thanks for missing my point again and thanks for commiting Stormwind Fallancy - just because I'm against game where rolls decide on everythign doesn't mean I abhore them. No, I want a game where roleplaying is equally as important as rolls. Thats why I deny tier system - it's a system for a game where rolls decide on everything o it's not or a game I'm interested in playing.

Now, for people who say that wizards can throw glitterdust at enemy or create demiplanes - none of that is creativity, it's using resources that are handed to you by creators. That's what I mean when I said that tier system is for uncreative players - it favorises players who doesn't have to be creative to accomplish something, but may use resources given to them by developers, namely huge pile of spells. Creative player will make up for the difference. It won't be easy because his classes have less resources, but it is possible. And that's what makes low-tier classes better than high tier for me - playing them is much harder and requires different abilities than playing tier 1.

D&D is a rules framework for playing a game and telling a story. If you don't want the rules, I really don't know what to tell you. You say you don't want a game where the rules take precedence over the role playing. As the others have already told you: I think you might be happier with another game. No matter how well you role play, no matter how much of a bonus the DM gives you, it all comes down to a single roll. That roll, if it goes badly enough, simply says you lose. That's the rule, that's how the game works. If you don't want the roll to be all important, then why play D&D?

Ok, let's try another tact. Diplomacy is an often used skill for these sort of discussions, because it's so easy so often role played out. So you obviously feel strongly that the role playing should matter for a lot here, and thus any class can do equally well. How about fighting? Should a wizard player's role playing make up for the wizard's disadvantages there? Should a player just be able to describe a "creative" attack and have it work, just because it's clever? Again, if you don't want the rolls to be the deciding factor, why a play a game where, well, they are? Can you make D&D be what you want? Absolutely, if you cut off enough chunks and arrange what's left. But why bother, when there are other systems that are exactly what you want without all that work?

Personally, I don' feel creative when I go beyond the rules to accomplish something. I feel more like I've just managed to convince the DM to let me get away with something. Really, should my Fighter be as good as a Bard who's got huge charisma and ranks in diplomacy at convincing someone of something? Maybe I do roleplay it really well. But then all I've done is cause Charisma and the Diplomacy skill to be rendered moot. I then just feel bad for the guy that wasted his resources on something that he could've done, apparently, without even trying to accomplish it in game mechanics. See? D&D is designed as a system where roleplaying is only part of it and, ultimately, subservient to the rolls. A large part of what this board does is to try to help people bring their roleplaying into line with the rules precisely because D&D places a great deal of emphasis on mechanical abilities.

Ultimately, the tier system recognizes something inherent in the system. What you really don't like is how D&D is designed, not the tiers themselves which (most agree) just categorize something inherent in the system.

(I'm not knocking playing a game where the rolls matter less. That can be a cool system too. I just think that, if you're trying to do that with D&D, you have to alter the game beyond anything recognizable. If classes don't matter anymore, why have classes? If rolls aren't what decides things, why have stats to influence those (skipped) rolls? If, say, you don't want to use the Diplomacy skill to decide arguments, why even allow players to put skill points into it?)

[Sutremaine]

Thanks for missing my point again and thanks for commiting Stormwind Fallancy
Do you accept that a character can be both powerful on paper and roleplayed well? One mention of using pre-made optimised builds aside, your posts read as though you can only roleplay the things your character isn't mechanically built for.


No, I want a game where roleplaying is equally as important as rolls.
And equally, one in which rolls are as important as roleplaying, in which case you should raise the numbers for the skills you want your character to be good at.

[sonofzeal]

As an example I'd say that if a Wizard character is blasting then the melee equivalent in terms of class mastery would be using light one-handed weapons on a str build.
Disagreed. That approach is intuitively flawed, while there's nothing intuitively wrong with blasting - indeed, in many other games blasting is indeed the best option for mages.

If the Wizard is blasting, the Fighter is using Weapon Focus, and possibly S&B. That's a better parallel.

[erikun]

Now, for people who say that wizards can throw glitterdust at enemy or create demiplanes - none of that is creativity, it's using resources that are handed to you by creators.
That is what the tier system is - a listing of what resources are handed to different classes by the creators. High tier classes get more resources. Low tier classes get less.

[Menteith]

Now, for people who say that wizards can throw glitterdust at enemy or create demiplanes - none of that is creativity, it's using resources that are handed to you by creators. That's what I mean when I said that tier system is for uncreative players - it favorises players who doesn't have to be creative to accomplish something, but may use resources given to them by developers, namely huge pile of spells. Creative player will make up for the difference.

A creative fighter will not be able to Teleport/Plane Shift, use Mind Blank/Death Ward/Freedom of Movement, kill a target with persisted Delay Death + Beastland Ferocity, or a thousand other problems. I personally like to run lower powered characters - I'm running a Paladin/Ashworm Dragoon right now, and loving it. But that doesn't change the fact that a Wizard is simply a more powerful class with more options. Additionally, T1 classes typically benefit from from creative players, since they have a much higher power cap.



It won't be easy because his classes have less resources, but it is possible. And that's what makes low-tier classes better than high tier for me - playing them is much harder and requires different abilities than playing tier 1.

Sure, I can see that viewpoint. It's not terribly relevant toward the thread, though. The thread is about whether or not the tier list is an effective way of measuring a class's raw power - and I would say that it is.


Now, I would also like to express my complaint about moderations decision to give me infraction for my first post in this thread. I'm offended by the suggestion that I would us term "uncreative player" as an insult. Not everyone go to these games to be creative and not everyone are creative players. People who play tier 1 have other skills, like resources management. There is nothing wrong with their playstyle, it's just not what I'm looking for in the game. I never meant this as an insult and I feel offended by the idea that somebody would fin it insulting.

See, it's insulting to call me uncreative when you don't know me, and have never met me. Here's a self demonstrating article for why this might be hurtful, if you have trouble understanding.

"Man on Fire, you're an unintelligent player because you like to play lower tier classes. It's ok, not everyone is smart enough to handle a higher power class and keep track of everything."


See how ridiculous that sounds? You offended people because you insulted them, assumed that you are superior, that your gaming style is better, and that the only reason anyone would choose to play a more powerful class is because they lack the ability to play "good" classes. That's hurtful, insulting, and incredibly arrogant.

[Fatebreaker]

Thanks for missing my point again and thanks for commiting Stormwind Fallancy - just because I'm against game where rolls decide on everythign doesn't mean I abhore them. No, I want a game where roleplaying is equally as important as rolls. Thats why I deny tier system - it's a system for a game where rolls decide on everything o it's not or a game I'm interested in playing.

The tier system is unrelated to how well you do or do not roleplay.

Imagine you're at the hardware store. They've got a section for toolboxes. Well, needing a new set of tools, you mosey over and start taking a look. Some toolboxes come with more tools. Some come with less. No matter how skilled you are at using those tools, some toolboxes objectively come with more of them.

That's all the tier system is -- an assessment of the variety and quality of tools made available by a class.


Now, for people who say that wizards can throw glitterdust at enemy or create demiplanes - none of that is creativity, it's using resources that are handed to you by creators. That's what I mean when I said that tier system is for uncreative players - it favorises players who doesn't have to be creative to accomplish something, but may use resources given to them by developers, namely huge pile of spells. Creative player will make up for the difference. It won't be easy because his classes have less resources, but it is possible. And that's what makes low-tier classes better than high tier for me - playing them is much harder and requires different abilities than playing tier 1.

Again, your personal creativity has nothing to do with the tier system. It has everything to do with the mechanical options made available by your class.

[BlueEyes]

Thats why I deny tier system - it's a system for a game where rolls decide on everything o it's not or a game I'm interested in playing.
Looking at this sentence I can conclude that I didn't miss the point.
Tier System is just a tool that you can, but don't have to use. It tells you things that can be useful. You're taking it like it somehow forces you to do something or that it limits your roleplaying. It doesn't.

(Man, are this boards glitchy. :/)

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

actually the only one who is committing stormwind fallacy is you, man on fire.
You assume that tiers are irrelevant (system is OK) because players can be creative (out of system intervention)

[PersonMan]

actually the only one who is committing stormwind fallacy is you, man on fire.
You assume that tiers are irrelevant (system is OK) because players can be creative (out of system intervention)

I don't think this is Stormwind - unless he's said that optimizing keeps you from roleplaying at some point.

(Interestingly enough, in games where the DM gives roleplaying XP or roleplaying bonuses, roleplaying is optimization!)

[Man on Fire]

Sure, I can see that viewpoint. It's not terribly relevant toward the thread, though. The thread is about whether or not the tier list is an effective way of measuring a class's raw power - and I would say that it is.

And we agree here. I just expressed my desire for game to have more free approach to that than the one I see.


See, it's insulting to call me uncreative when you don't know me, and have never met me. Here's a self demonstrating article for why this might be hurtful, if you have trouble understanding.

"Man on Fire, you're an unintelligent player because you like to play lower tier classes. It's ok, not everyone is smart enough to handle a higher power class and keep track of everything."


There is a difference between uncreative player and being uncreative. People come to roleplay to relax, to have fun. For some people having to use as small amount of resources and their own creativity is what they're looking for. For some it's feel of power,cchallenge of their management skills and strategic planning as they prepare your tactics and manage vast resources in their hands. "Creative or uncreative player" doesn't mean for me the same thing "creative or uncreative person" does, same with "intelligent or unintelligent player" and "intelligent or unintelligent person. It just means what people find fun in the game.


You offended people because you insulted them, assumed that you are superior, that your gaming style is better, and that the only reason anyone would choose to play a more powerful class is because they lack the ability to play "good" classes. That's hurtful, insulting, and incredibly arrogant.

1) I never asumed I'm superior. I assumed I'm different and I desire different things in the game, but never I assumed I'm better than anyone else.
2) I never said my gaming style is better. I said my gaming style desires different things from the game than gaming style of people playing tier 1, that's all.
3) I never said that people who choose tier 1 lack the ability to play "good" classes. I don't even belive in good or bad classes, for me they're all equal. It all boils down to what the player wants from the game.

I understand that some people could find that insulting and I'm sorry, but it was not my intention and it never occured to me someone could find that insulting - as I said, after reciving infraction I was even offended by the idea someone could find that insulting, therefore my outburst above.


Do you accept that a character can be both powerful on paper and roleplayed well?

I do. Hell, I'm doing that with several of my characters.


And equally, one in which rolls are as important as roleplaying, in which case you should raise the numbers for the skills you want your character to be good at.

And if GM will handle bonuses for roleplaying, as rewards for it, it will be good system.


I think that prolem here is that everybody assumed I want system where everything can always be infulenced by roleplaying. That isn't true. I want it to be rewarded and have in-game consequences, but not be abused. If player will give me climatic describtion how he puts all his strenght in last strike at ogre with who he traded several blows, I would give him bonus to attack roll. I wouldn't give it to every describtion, only when it's climatic, through. If fighter gives amazing performance at convincing enemy forces that outnumbers them to leave them be I'll let it go, say a dumb brute connected better with bunch of orcs than slim and girly bard if I have to. But I won't let him talk himself out of every ecounter this way, only when it's climatic for the story. It's not a rule but a reward.

[Amphetryon]

2) I never said my gaming style is better. I said my gaming style desires different things from the game than gaming style of people playing tier 1, that's all.This is a claim you've yet to demonstrate, and which reeks of Stormwind Fallacy.

[D@rK-SePHiRoTH-]

I don't think this is Stormwind
D'oh! :smalleek:
I meant oberoni

[BlueEyes]

2) I never said my gaming style is better. I said my gaming style desires different things from the game than gaming style of people playing tier 1, that's all.
And what are the desires of people playing tier 1, in your opinion?

[Kaeso]

The Tier system is mostly correct, but I believe it should be used as guidelines rather than some kind of dogmatic truth claim. For example, while it's as clear as day that a semi-intelilgently played cleric can outshine a fighter brighter than the light of the sun, one could debate whether a knight belongs in tier 4 or tier 5.

[Man on Fire]

And what are the desires of people playing tier 1, in your opinion?

Being given vast resources they can manage and use to accomplish their goals and power they can use and control, challenge for their strategic mind.


This is a claim you've yet to demonstrate, and which reeks of Stormwind Fallacy.

I'm playing a caster in one of the games now. Mystic Theurge. I already see that it requires different things from me than playing meele character, it requires more strategic thinking, playing mroe carefully, being able to choose from insane amount of posibilities. I see the appeal and I enjoy the game, but I doubt I'll be playing many casters, because if it wasn't for help of amazing players from that game, I would get lost in all posibilities and be totally useless. Playing casters requires things I'm apparently not good at, through it's still enjoyable, just in different way than playing meele classes and I think I preffer that other way more.

[Amphetryon]

Being given vast resources they can manage and use to accomplish their goals and power they can use and control, challenge for their strategic mind.



I'm playing a caster in one of the games now. Mystic Theurge. I already see that it requires different things from me than playing meele character, it requires more strategic thinking, playing mroe carefully, being able to choose from insane amount of posibilities. I see the appeal and I enjoy the game, but I doubt I'll be playing many casters, because if it wasn't for help of amazing players from that game, I would get lost in all posibilities and be totally useless. Playing casters requires things I'm apparently not good at, through it's still enjoyable, just in different way than playing meele classes and I think I preffer that other way more.

A bunch of folks who prefer Tier 1 (or any other caster) also want a fun and challenging roleplay experience. That desire doesn't automatically change just because the Class chosen is more powerful or less powerful than the Class chosen by another player.

[BlueEyes]

Being given vast resources they can manage and use to accomplish their goals and power they can use and control, challenge for their strategic mind.
And you don't want that? Why not? It can certainly make the game even more fun, IMO.

[Gwendol]

And you don't want that? Why not? It can certainly make the game even more fun, IMO.

People choose what class/heroic archetype to play for many different reasons. The tier "system" does nothing to change that other than classifying what people with more knowledge of the game already are aware of. Namely that:

1. Magic > no magic and
2. SAD > MAD

More "power" does certainly equate more fun. I do however think that some classes or builds can be more fun to play than others but power rarely comes into that equation.

[Man on Fire]

And you don't want that? Why not? It can certainly make the game even more fun, IMO.

It's too complicated for me. Once, from time to time, it's okay, but I just don't think it's my thing.

[huttj509]

People choose what class/heroic archetype to play for many different reasons. The tier "system" does nothing to change that other than classifying what people with more knowledge of the game already are aware of. Namely that:

1. Magic > no magic and
2. SAD > MAD

More "power" does certainly equate more fun. I do however think that some classes or builds can be more fun to play than others but power rarely comes into that equation.

Eh, I've seen people who [refer playing objectively weaker characters. However, this is by choice, not "well, I like archetype ____ so I'm stuck with it."

What does more power equate to? Power. Power is power. </Xykon>

[Z3ro]

More "power" does certainly equate more fun.

I have to disagree with this sentiment entirely, and would point out that it's existence is the reason many have negative views on optimizers in the first place.

[BlueEyes]

People choose what class/heroic archetype to play for many different reasons. The tier "system" does nothing to change that other than classifying what people with more knowledge of the game already are aware of. Namely that:

1. Magic > no magic and
2. SAD > MAD
Not exactly. There still are magic classes that are lower tier than non-magic classes. Warblade T3 > Healer T5, for example.


More "options" does certainly equate more fun.
FTFY. Tiers are primarily about versatility (but power also plays a bi part in them).
Playing a straightforward character with few options can of course be more fun than playing an overcomplicated character if the second is not something for you, but sooner or later it'll inevitably become boring. How long can you possibly have fun with only full attacking or spaming the same spell over and over again? Not long, I can tell you, unless you're that easily entertained, in which case you're blessed.


I have to disagree with this sentiment entirely, and would point out that it's existence is the reason many have negative views on optimizers in the first place.
Opinion of optimizers (which is more a misconception, BTW) has nothing to do with the sentiment presented by Gwendol, although I too don't entirely agree with it.

[Ceaon]

More "power" does certainly equate more fun. I do however think that some classes or builds can be more fun to play than others but power rarely comes into that equation.


I have to disagree with this sentiment entirely, and would point out that it's existence is the reason many have negative views on optimizers in the first place.


Tiers are primarily about versatility (but power also plays a bi part in them). Opinion of optimizers (which is more a misconception, BTW) has nothing to do with the sentiment presented by Gwendol, although I too don't entirely agree with it.

Looking at the context of Gwendol's post, I think he meant to say "More "power" certainly doesn't equate more fun."

[Sutremaine]

It's not a direct relationship.

More power = more options.
More options = more fun.

Even if you don't use the options available to you as a player of the Wizard class, they're still there and you always have your spells no matter what your feat and skill and item choices are. These spells each offer at least one option, and can be changed out daily at no cost and without any DM intervention.

Compare this reshuffling of potential ability with that of feat retraining, or the swapping out of known spells or known manoeuvres, or the selling-off and rebuying of magical equipment.

Wizards (and Clerics and Druids) have mechanical power.
Other classes have roleplaying power, that is, the option to affect the world through their player interacting with the DM and not through hitting predetermined numbers laid down in the rules.
Wizards also have this roleplaying power.

[Gwendol]

Looking at the context of Gwendol's post, I think he meant to say "More "power" certainly doesn't equate more fun."

That is correct and I blame the iPhones autofill function for that. Though it does depend on how power be defined, and the context of the game.

[Rubik]

I may have missed it over the last page or so, since I haven't read it all yet, but one thing I wanted to point out:

Playing your 8 Cha fighter with 0 ranks in Diplomacy as a suave and competent purveyor of diplomatic acrobatics is BAD ROLEPLAYING, because that's not who he is. That shouldn't be rewarded, that should be penalized. Allow the suave and savvy player's arguments to be used by the bard if you want, but it's not good RP to let the fighter do it.

If he was good at that, it'd be on his sheet as such.

[PersonMan]

It's not a direct relationship.

More power = more options.
More options = more fun.

Not always. Some people are perfectly happy with a single or two options. They like "I full attack. Again".

[Callista]

I've had a lot of fun playing very low-power games--even games where my character was less powerful than everyone else's. The critical factor seems to be not how powerful your character is, but how fully your character can participate in the story. While power level is one thing that could let your character do that, there are many other reasons--a good backstory, for example; ties between party members; a world that offers opportunities for your character and their personality and skill set.

That's not to say you should be playing a Commoner in a party of Wizards; but in my experience, absolute balance is not needed for a fun game. You just need enough balance that everyone can participate. The tier system is mostly useful for guiding you in optimizing your character's abilities to fit in with your group.

Banning classes by tier is often a mistake: Depending on optimization level, you can fit a high-tier character into a low-tier party and vice versa. It's better to use the tier system as a guide for how much you should be choosing options for power and flexibility in order to fit your character into the party.

[Man on Fire]

I may have missed it over the last page or so, since I haven't read it all yet, but one thing I wanted to point out:

Playing your 8 Cha fighter with 0 ranks in Diplomacy as a suave and competent purveyor of diplomatic acrobatics is BAD ROLEPLAYING, because that's not who he is. That shouldn't be rewarded, that should be penalized. Allow the suave and savvy player's arguments to be used by the bard if you want, but it's not good RP to let the fighter do it.

If he was good at that, it'd be on his sheet as such.

but what if player roleplays his low Charisma? What if he gives good performance of rude and dumb berserker who communicates mostly in roars when he tries to reason with bunch of Orcs? Or what if he and GM agreed that his low Charisma is reflected by a quirk he is forbidden from roleplaying because it would be too annoying? Like stutter? Hevens help you if you will allow somebody roleplay that. And stutterer may still be highly talktive. Hell, if stutterer would pick up a large book and tell man they're trying to interrogate "Y-y-y-y-you w-w-w-will t-t-t-tell u-u-u-us e-e-e-everything w-w-w-we w-w-w-want t-t-t-to k-k-k-now, o-o-or I-I-I w-w-w-will s-s-s-start r-r-r-reading t-t-t-this b-b-b-book t-t-t-to y-y-y-you" I would give him automatic succes on Intimidate no matter how small his Charisma is.

[BlueEyes]

I certainly have more fun if my character has more power or more options (preferably both).

[Rubik]

but what if player roleplays his low Charisma? What if he gives good performance of rude and dumb berserker who communicates mostly in roars when he tries to reason with bunch of Orcs? Or what if he and GM agreed that his low Charisma is reflected by a quirk he is forbidden from roleplaying because it would be too annoying? Like stutter? Hevens help you if you will allow somebody roleplay that. And stutterer may still be highly talktive. Hell, if stutterer would pick up a large book and tell man they're trying to interrogate "Y-y-y-y-you w-w-w-will t-t-t-tell u-u-u-us e-e-e-everything w-w-w-we w-w-w-want t-t-t-to k-k-k-now, o-o-or I-I-I w-w-w-will s-s-s-start r-r-r-reading t-t-t-this b-b-b-book t-t-t-to y-y-y-you" I would give him automatic succes on Intimidate no matter how small his Charisma is.If he RPs his low Cha, fine, but part of that low Cha is the fact that he has very little personal presence.

People like that just aren't intimidating, no matter how much they try to ham it up (barring really high rolls at low levels).

[Menteith]

but what if player roleplays his low Charisma?

Then he's doing a good job of roleplaying? Not sure what the issue is, here.


What if he gives good performance of rude and dumb berserker who communicates mostly in roars when he tries to reason with bunch of Orcs?

Then he should have the ranks in Intimidate to reflect that part of his character, or a decent Cha score to reflect the powerful and fierce aspect? This doesn't seem terribly complicated to me.


Or what if he and GM agreed that his low Charisma is reflected by a quirk he is forbidden from roleplaying because it would be too annoying? Like stutter? Hevens help you if you will allow somebody roleplay that. And stutterer may still be highly talktive. Hell, if stutterer would pick up a large book and tell man they're trying to interrogate "Y-y-y-y-you w-w-w-will t-t-t-tell u-u-u-us e-e-e-everything w-w-w-we w-w-w-want t-t-t-to k-k-k-now, o-o-or I-I-I w-w-w-will s-s-s-start r-r-r-reading t-t-t-this b-b-b-book t-t-t-to y-y-y-you"

I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with anything. Like, at all. If you decide that a lower Cha is solely reflected in a physical deformity, instead of, you know, what the stat is actually reflective of, then yes, you might run into this problem. See, Charisma isn't based around verbal communication - you can have a high charisma, but not speak someone's language. The inability to talk or communicate with something doesn't mean charisma is low.

For reference, "Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting"


I would give him automatic succes on Intimidate no matter how small his Charisma is.

See, I wouldn't give a character who's not remotely role-playing a character according to his stats a free success because he stuttered. I also wouldn't let a character one shot a Great Wyrm at level one because they gave an excellent description of doing so, nor would I allow a Wizard to spontaneously cast a Cleric spell, despite their wonderful narration of it. Because the character physically do not have the abilities to do that, and if they RP that they do, then they're not really RPing that character at all, are they?

[Sutremaine]

Not always. Some people are perfectly happy with a single or two options. They like "I full attack. Again".
What about when full-attacking isn't an option, or an appropriate action?

[Gwendol]

I certainly have more fun if my character has more power or more options (preferably both).

Right. But what you consider power and options may not be what the person at the next table is considering.

[Gwendol]

What about when full-attacking isn't an option, or an appropriate action?

They take their other option/action?

[Roguenewb]

{Scrubbed}
JaronK's tier system, and SonOfZeal's based on it, are excellent measures of what they say they're measures of. Go read the original threads, and they do an *amazing* job of telling you what they intend to do, and then doing it!

My only complaint with the tier system as originally presented is that it failed to call out the three tier zeroes: StP Erudite, Archivist, and Artificier. Who, like the tier 1s have the ability to use many different powerful tricks, except they get them from multiple classes of tricks!

{Scrubbed}

[BlueEyes]

Right. But what you consider power and options may not be what the person at the next table is considering.
Why should that concern me?

[Amphetryon]

They take their other option/action?

For several low-Tier classes, thier other option is "wait for someone else to fix the problem." Not everyone enjoys that aspect of the roleplay experience.

[Gwendol]

Blueeyes: it shouldn't.

Amphytreon: quite right, although it doesn't disqualify the player from having fun nonetheless.

[MukkTB]

The tier system is accurate. It isn't high fidelity. I like the toolbox description. If you consider roleplay skill equivalent to construction skill its still nice to have a bigger toolbox. In fact there are things you cannot do no matter how good you are if you don't have the tool. Hammers are nice. If you want to build a house its nice to have a bulldozer. If you want to build a skyscraper its nice to have a crane.

I prefer to play tier 3. Can always contribute, doesn't give the DM headaches. I'm about to play a tier 2 in my next game. Feels like cheating somehow.

[LordBlades]

{Scrubbed}
My only complaint with the tier system as originally presented is that it failed to call out the three tier zeroes: StP Erudite, Archivist, and Artificier. Who, like the tier 1s have the ability to use many different powerful tricks, except they get them from multiple classes of tricks!


None of these classes are really tier 0, since they aren't significantly more powerful than a Cleric or Wizard. Clerics and Wizards already have more than enough ways to do everything. Adding more ways to do everything doesn't really change much.


And you don't want that? Why not? It can certainly make the game even more fun, IMO.

There are several reasons why people would opt for a lower tier:

-DM isn't up to it. Not all DMs have the optimization knowledge needed to challenge tier 1s all the time. Sometimes you need to choose between breezing through a tier 1 game, or having a challenging tier 3 game.

-Some people enjoy unlikely heroes. They enjoy guys that struggle, and succeed despite not having the right tools for the job.

-Some people enjoy certain archetypes that the system doesn't support very well. Take mundane fighting man for example: you can portray that accurately up to tier 3 (Warblade), but there's no way of bringing one in a Tier 1 game and not sucking horribly.

[BlueEyes]

Blueeyes: it shouldn't.
Then why bring that up?


-DM isn't up to it. Not all DMs have the optimization knowledge needed to challenge tier 1s all the time. Sometimes you need to choose between breezing through a tier 1 game, or having a challenging tier 3 game.
I was talking about strong characters, not tier 1s in particular. You don't need tier 1 classes to be strong.


-Some people enjoy certain archetypes that the system doesn't support very well. Take mundane fighting man for example: you can portray that accurately up to tier 3 (Warblade), but there's no way of bringing one in a Tier 1 game and not sucking horribly.
Again, wasn't talking about tier 1s. When I want to play a subpar concept or class, I still can make it stronger through optimization.

[LordBlades]

I was talking about strong characters, not tier 1s in particular. You don't need tier 1 classes to be strong.


Again, wasn't talking about tier 1s. When I want to play a subpar concept or class, I still can make it stronger through optimization.

I see, misunderstood your post then. Sorry about that

[Darth Stabber]

I woule argue that a 6cha fighter, with no ranks in bluff or diplomacy, making eloquent arguments is exceedingly poor roleplaying. If those things are with in your character's conceptualization, that should be reflected in your mechanical abilities. MoF is putting the cart before the horse so to speak. Besides doing this is just as much metagaming as the character with 6int knowing every monster in the 5 monster manuals like back of his hand.

[BlueEyes]

Stats should supplement roleplaying and roleplaying should supplement stats.

[Rubik]

Stats should supplement roleplaying and roleplaying should supplement stats.Agreed.

That's why I go for 'classes as metagame constructs,' not 'classes as in-game constructs.' I build the character I want to build, and use multiclassing and refluffing to ensure that the character I envision in my head is the one written on the sheet.

[Fineous Orlon]

Tier 1 is defined as the classes that "can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat" and tier 2 as "[potential] campaign smashers."

If your argument relies those classes not having the potential to shatter a campaign by definition, it's going to have some problems.




Actually, my argument depends on the definitions given within the tier system.

For instance, and specifically, Tier 1 and tier 2 are both capable of breaking a game but tier 1 is capable of doing absolutely everything, while tier 2 cannot pull off nearly as many tricks.



http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=tjss7l194e0t19b6hph2ea8s51&topic=1002.msg24720#msg24720 (here)
Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player.

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes.

So, I said,
....

The line between tier 1 and tier 2 is not fuzzy because both can break games. The line between tier 1 and tier 2 is pretty clear because tier 1 has much greater versatility than tier 2. Both can break games....



I said that because raw power is often promoted as what the tier system measures, while the tier system itself claims to measure power [b]AND versatility, with versatility being one of the main differences between the tiers.

So, the ability to break a game does not differentiate between tier 1 and tier 2.
Versatility, or how many different ways the class can break a game, differentiates between tier 1 and tier 2.