Is versatility more important than power?

[killianh]

I'm wondering this simple because one thing that a lot of class power comparisons like the tier system don't take into consideration (or at least I haven't seen many comment from this point of view) is that any given character class is not a stand alone. You play in a party of people all capable of doing different things. A party could have a wizard capable of doing everything that the party needs, but then you end up with the rest of the party being useless or the wizard being poorly optimized because he's taking advantage of all that versatility but losing power in his ability to do the things that the other party members can't.

I understand that hard control>damage and that versatility>single focus if you're the only person that needs to take care of things, but when you have a mixed party of people all capable of doing certain things it starts to give way. If you have an ubercharger (melee), a mailman (damage), a DMM cleric (buff\debuff\heal), and a Beguiler (for face, skillmonkey, and extra utility) then the need for versatility starts to go down for any given one of those classes, and straight power and role focus become the order of the day for any given build in that party.

There's no fun to playing a build that outshines the rest of your party, unless it outshines them in your given focus. Being able to do what everyone else can do, but better takes away from the idea of an adventuring party and if you're spread thin trying to do everything then you'll become more ineffective to aiding the party. A lot of arguments come down to someone saying that versatility matters more because it lets you take care of more potential problems that the party might encounter, and thus increases your contributions to the party. The flip side to this though is that if you're build to take care of things the party can't, then you are focused on one particular thing and it stops being about versatility and becomes focused utility. Sometimes a straight power build adds more to the party than a utility character depending on what the party needs.

That said what are your thoughts on the matter?

[Aegis013]

I, and I suspect many others, would agree with you. However the tier list is basically comparing the classes alone. The idea being "How well would a single wizard be able to handle the vast scope of scenarios that a party may encounter?" with the answer being "Very probably fairly well, or at least better than all of the lower tiers." Or restate the question for Fighter and it becomes "Just not very well, and definitely not better than the higher/est tiers."

This of course assumes similar optimization levels, etc.

In the case of a party and inter-party balance, people recommend sticking around the same tiers, so if your wizard can do everything, so can your DMM cleric. Nobody steps on anybody's toes, because one guy's toes are the next guy's toes. If you play at lower tiers, you simply specialize your toes away from the next guy's toes so they do not occupy the same point in space at the same time.

[TuggyNE]

I would add two caveats. The first is that the Wizard class, along with any other tier 1 or tier 2, can take on nearly any given party role with near-full effectiveness.

The second is that a given Wizard build, along with essentially any other tier 1 build, need not sacrifice a great deal of power to gain a very great deal of versatility. The classic example might be use of shapechanging magic to handle most situations with a great deal of effectiveness. Certainly there is likely to be some tradeoff, but extra optimization can more than compensate for it.


The combination of these is that, whether you have a soloer, a member of a rather diverse party, or a member of a broadly similar party, a T1 will perform with at least moderate effectiveness without necessarily changing the build much at all.

Your observation is more accurate when taking into account constraints like the action economy; a player's optimization skill must be considerably higher than the DM's (not a particularly desirable state of affairs) before the action economy stops limiting things. In other words: just because you can do all things rather well doesn't mean specialists can't do certain things even better. However, generally speaking there is a certain level of "good enough" in a campaign, and if you are capable of doing (nearly) everything "good enough", you might not really care.

OK, I'll stop rambling now.

[sonofzeal]

As the Tier system looks at both power and versatility, I'm not really sure what you're getting at. One of the key traits is how many things the class can do well. That's why Barbarians are a higher tier than Fighters - they don't have that much they can do that the Fighter can't (both pretty much come down to "hit it with a metal thing"), but they're usually able to fill their roll more effectively.

Both power and versatility are important. The Factotum is in some ways even more versatile than the Wizard, but lacks the game-shattering power to back it up and so is relegated to T3 instead of T1. The Warlock (T4) can craft any item like the Artificer (T1) can, but their ability to get items just a little bit earlier and get a lot more out of them is a big shift.

Still, T1 almost by definition have to be widely versatile, and maybe that's what you're hearing. But it isn't the whole story.

[moritheil]

There is not a yes/no answer to that question. The issue is, how much versatility versus how much power.

As an extreme example, let's say a level 2 character has, instead of class levels, 2 racial hit dice and the spell-like ability to cast a maximized disintegrate at will. When compared to a rogue with a lot of different skills, does the rogue have more versatility? Sure. But there is so much power in this imbalanced spell-like ability that the versatility is almost irrelevant. One character has an "I win" button for any combat at that level, and that is going to overshadow the rogue unless it's a non-combat campaign.

On the other hand, consider a pounce attacking barbarian against that rogue. The barbarian has more "power" in that a power attack and pounce will probably dish out more damage than the rogue's sneak attack. But it's not a ludicrous amount of power. The rogue's contribution to combat is not irrelevant, and outside of combat the situations are reversed: the rogue can Bluff, Gather Information, use Sleight of Hand or stealth . . . and the Barbarian can most likely just Intimidate people.


I used combat as the "power" example, but we can easily switch that up by considering a focused Diplomancer build, who gets over +100 to the Diplomacy skill and runs around making peace with everyone. There's only one trick in that build - it's not versatile, but it is powerful.

[killianh]

I understand that the tier class system is set up by both, and that power is an important part of it. The question I am making (as per the title of the thread) is if versatility is more important than straight power. What I'm getting at is that as important as versatility is, when you take into account party diversity and dynamics you end up asking if you're contribution more by being general and capable of doing the whole party's job (like any tier 1 can pull off) or its better to focus on a few things and excel at them while leaving the remaining roles to the other party members. Hence versatility vs. power

[kardar233]

Depends on how much power.

A powerful but not-versatile class (like Barbarian) is lower tier than a versatile class that's not particularly powerful in one thing (Factotum).

However, when you amp up the power, you're also amping up the tier. The reason the Sorcerer is Tier 2 is not because he's versatile, it's because he can solve encounters in a single spell. In many cases, that's better than being versatile.

[Knaight]

The thing about versatility is that you need to have enough power/competence in all areas to have an effect. A jack of all trades is valuable. A hack in all trades? Not so much.

[TuggyNE]

I might also suggest separating mechanical, problem-solving (or campaign-changing) ability from the ability to mesh well with a party; the tier system more or less tries to include both to some extent, but focuses more on the former, while what you're asking is mostly referring to the latter.

[Gwendol]

As the Tier system looks at both power and versatility, I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

And yet, that is the greatest weakness of the Tier system. While it has correctly identified the Tier 1 classes, and the general power of most other classes, versatility in a given context is not fully taken into account.

Take the sorcerer, or similar casting class. It is considered powerful but not as versatile since the spell selection is limited. However, it can also be more versatile in the sense that outside of a 15 minute work day, the sorcerer can continue to spam Haste, or whatever other spells he knows, adapting to the situation while the CoD/W are bound to the spells they have memorized for the day.

A barbarian is one of the highest tier non-magic classes because it so very focused on staying power and damage output. At least as long as he doesn't run out of rages. If he does, the barbarian becomes a fighter without the feats. A class like the Knight is lower tier because it is more MAD than the barbarian, even though it offers more versatility in terms of skills, class features and bonus feats.

So no, when judging martial classes at least, power > versatility in the Tier system.

[sonofzeal]

Take the sorcerer, or similar casting class. It is considered powerful but not as versatile since the spell selection is limited. However, it can also be more versatile in the sense that outside of a 15 minute work day, the sorcerer can continue to spam Haste, or whatever other spells he knows, adapting to the situation while the CoD/W are bound to the spells they have memorized for the day.
I don't understand what you mean here. Yes, CoD/W are bound to the spells they have memmed. But the Sorc is bound by the spells they have Known. At any given point in any given day, both have finite versatility... with the difference that Wizards can adapt from one day to the next, and can even adapt within a day by leaving certain slots open and prepping them as-needed later on. That categorically trumps the Sorc's advantage in being spontaneous.


So no, when judging martial classes at least, power > versatility in the Tier system.
What the Tier System asks is how many effective tools the character has at their disposal. In other words, both power and versitility are important. Versitility isn't relevant unless the options are actually effective - and once they're effective, adding more power doesn't really add much. It doesn't matter if you're doing 200 or 2000 damage on a charge, if you're killing either way. And it doesn't matter if you've got two options or twenty, if only one of them is reliably effective either way.

What you're pointing to isn't specifically a trait of martial classes, it's a trail of weaker classes in general (it just happens that most of those are martial). T6 don't have anything even remotely effective, T5 have something but it's only marginally effective, and T4 either has one definitely effective thing or a bunch of marginally effective things.

So yes, the primary difference between T6 and T5/T4 is power within their specialty, and versitility only starts becoming relevant once there's a basic core of functionality there. But I think that's more just an artifact of the flawed class designs in 3.5; IMO there really shouldn't have been any T5/T6 classes in the first place, unless they were filling a roll closer to NPC classes.

[Gwendol]

I don't understand what you mean here. Yes, CoD/W are bound to the spells they have memmed. But the Sorc is bound by the spells they have Known. At any given point in any given day, both have finite versatility... with the difference that Wizards can adapt from one day to the next, and can even adapt within a day by leaving certain slots open and prepping them as-needed later on. That categorically trumps the Sorc's advantage in being spontaneous.


Sure, though it is not hard to produce a scenario where it is better to be able to repeatedly cast the same spell, than to have to solve the situation without it. In the Tier system however the ability to adapt (and the fact that in general T1 casters simply get more spells) from day to day is viewed as being more versatile than the ability to cast spells over and over again.

I'm not arguing the general layout of the Tiers, just commenting on the fact that for casters versatility > power (or at least is viewed as equally important) while for martial classes (including paladins and rangers) power > versatility

This could very well be due to the fact that while versatile, most martial classes aren't particularly effective at whatever non-combat situation they are in.

[sonofzeal]

Sure, though it is not hard to produce a scenario where it is better to be able to repeatedly cast the same spell, than to have to solve the situation without it. In the Tier system however the ability to adapt (and the fact that in general T1 casters simply get more spells) from day to day is viewed as being more versatile than the ability to cast spells over and over again.

I'm not arguing the general layout of the Tiers, just commenting on the fact that for casters versatility > power (or at least is viewed as equally important) while for martial classes (including paladins and rangers) power > versatility

This could very well be due to the fact that while versatile, most martial classes aren't particularly effective at whatever non-combat situation they are in.
It's not hard to produce such a situation, sure. But it's also pretty darn easy to do the reverse. And one class has Scribe Scroll while the other doesn't. :smallamused:


And I still think it's wrong to split it by martial/caster. Instead, I think it's better to go by tiers.

T6 vs T5: this is largely defined by power.
T5 vs T4: both power and versatility are relevant here
T4 vs T3: this is largely defined by versatility.
T3 vs T2: I'd say this is power again. T2 generally needs world-shattering potential.
T2 vs T1: This is back to versatility; the pinnacle of power has been reached, and the rest is about how well you can apply it in a variety of situations.

[Gwendol]

Well, I like to think of classes being organized along two axes rather than tiers:

axis one: MAD -> SAD
axis two: no magic -> lots of magic

You end up with almost the same organization of classes as the tiers but with less debate on versatility vs power.

[sonofzeal]

Well, I like to think of classes being organized along two axes rather than tiers:

axis one: MAD -> SAD
axis two: no magic -> lots of magic

You end up with almost the same organization of classes as the tiers but with less debate on versatility vs power.
Monk has more magic than most Martial Adepts, while Martial Adepts benefit more from the things magic lets you do than Monk does. Warlock is about as SAD as they come and fairly magic-heavy, as is Adept, but both aren't all that effective. Clerics have huge MAD since they benefit from all the same stats as Fighter, for all the same reasons, and also need high Wis and benefit from Cha for extra turning - and often need at least a little Int for skills to meet PrC requirements.

I don't think your categorization ends up working all that well. I just don't see where it would be useful. MAD-SAD is usually ascertainable at a glance by a neophyte, as is amount of magic. Nobody would need your table in order to figure out that Wizards are SAD and high magic. The Tier, by contrast, is not something that's immediately apparent unless you're familiar with the class and with the rules of the game... and while that makes it controversial, it also makes it useful. We don't need a system to tell us something we already know. We need a system to help point out things we don't know.

[Gwendol]

Monk is horribly MAD and will therefore still sit in the left hand side of the diagram (think of a 2-axis coordinate system). Clerics can concentrate on WIS and do fine, just as druids.

Warlocks may be SAD, but have access to less "magic" than do a full caster.

I don't see how the tier system can tell me anything I don't already know.

[BlueEyes]

I don't see how the tier system can tell me anything I don't already know.
Not everyone is as smart as you. Not everyone knows everything about D&D. not everyone is as versed in the system as you. You might not need it, but many people do. I like that the Tier System spells out this things for me. Saved me time and trouble. And potential problems during future games.

[Gwendol]

Not everyone is as smart as you. Not everyone knows everything about D&D. not everyone is as versed in the system as you. You might not need it, but many people do. I like that the Tier System spells out this things for me. Saved me time and trouble. And potential problems during future games.

Please do away with the false modesty. I know but a little D&D, and I don't claim anything else. In fact, my rather naive classification is a result of that, as I don't have the time or the interest to go through pages upon pages of text detailing the debates and arguments for tier classification. I made up my own system to cater for my needs, and it works well for me. The tier system does nothing more for me than what I set up myself.

[truemane]

I made up my own system to cater for my needs, and it works well for me.

Well done. But everyone doesn't think the same way you do. The Tier System serves the same purpose most classification systems do. It offers a sort of short-hand by which you can organize a large number of variables into a manageable number of variables. Take it as inviolable gospel, and you're looking for trouble, but taken for what it's worth, it can be of great use.

If I'm putting up a game ad, i can say that I'm looking to play around 'Tier 3' and anyone who knows the system has some idea of what I'm talking about. You can play a Tier 3 Wizard just like you can play a Tier 3 Rogue. It all depends. But if we both know more or less what 'Tier 3' means, then we can have a conversation about it.

[BlueEyes]

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5070.0

[sonofzeal]

Monk is horribly MAD and will therefore still sit in the left hand side of the diagram (think of a 2-axis coordinate system). Clerics can concentrate on WIS and do fine, just as druids.

Warlocks may be SAD, but have access to less "magic" than do a full caster.


I don't see how the tier system can tell me anything I don't already know.
I find it useful from time to time. Spellthief, for instance, is a class I'd never played nor seen played until a couple months ago, and the mechanic and structure is odd enough that I wasn't sure if it was functional or not. My first stop was thus to the Tier list, where I saw that it's got a respectable-if-not-excellent T4 rating, and decided I'd make a go of it. If it'd been T5 or T6 that would have indicated some significant structural flaws in the class that likely would have made it frustrating to play, but a T4 indicates that there's nothing inherently wrong with the class and that good basic system sense should be enough to make it viable and effective.

I might have played it either way, but I probably would have set myself up differently if it'd been T5/T6. I probably would have gone for more of a quirky, comedic approach to the rp, and focused less on solving problems and more on making small contributions to whatever the rest of the party was doing. Instead I went for a bit more of a slightly tortured rp under the glib veneer, and set myself up so that I had a wide array of tools to solve problems with (and then generally defer to my party members in how to use them, thereby involving them in the process even when they can't contribute directly).

It's the same basic character either way, but knowing the Tier helped calibrate my expectations and allowed me to tailor my approach to the class. A tortured soul who's also halfways incompetent is not really fun to play for me, and seeing the Tier in advance helped me - and I've been playing this game for over a decade!

The Tiers are not self-evident, not in most cases and not with much precision, unless you're either exceptionally experienced or exceptionally good at eyeballing balance. If you are, great, carry on. For the rest of us, a standarized and generally agreed-upon ranking from people who've actually used each class is useful foreknowledge when poking your nose in for the first time.

[Gwendol]

But the wizard is T1?

If you want a lower tier caster you need to look at bards or warlocks, no?

[sonofzeal]

But the wizard is T1?

If you want a lower tier caster you need to look at bards or warlocks, no?
Going down is easy. It's going up that's hard.

The Wizard doesn't have to use their T1 power. They can spend their feats on item creation for the party, prepare a bunch of unmetamagic'd blast spells and some basic utility, and call it a day. Or, they can sacrifice caster level through unusual multiclassing/PrCing to end up with something a bit more unique but which loses power compared to a straight Wizard. Either way, if they know to aim for T3 they should be able to manage.

[Jarian]

But the wizard is T1?

If you want a lower tier caster you need to look at bards or warlocks, no?

Dread Necromancer, Warmage, Beguiler, etc.

[Gwendol]

I find it useful from time to time. Spellthief, for instance, is a class I'd never played nor seen played until a couple months ago, and the mechanic and structure is odd enough that I wasn't sure if it was functional or not. My first stop was thus to the Tier list, where I saw that it's got a respectable-if-not-excellent T4 rating, and decided I'd make a go of it.

This. If I was intrigued by a class, I'd make a trial build, and try it out in a game to see if it does what I want. Looking up the class in the Tier table and decide if I want to play it depending on its score seems odd. But to each his own!

Jarian: Yes, of course. I just was lazy enough not to type the whole list. :-)

[sonofzeal]

This. If I was intrigued by a class, I'd make a trial build, and try it out in a game to see if it does what I want. Looking up the class in the Tier table and decide if I want to play it depending on its score seems odd. But to each his own!
My IRL gaming group meets about every two weeks, for sessions that are usually around eight hours long or longer. A "trial build" would require a massive investment - all the work of parsing the rules for the class in question (no easy feat some times), designing the character, and running them through the game -and by that point there's nothing "trial" about it. Once they're in game, they're in game and switching in and out is not something we generally do in our group. And either way you're talking literally hours of work and investment in it, compared to maybe twenty seconds finding the link to the Tier ranking.

I, for one, will take those twenty seconds gladly, if it gives me a better foundation to decide how or even if I want to spend the time mastering the class's mechanic and building a full charsheet for game.

[Gwendol]

But my point is that you could eyeball that without the tier ranking. I feel like it used as an excuse, or a crutch if you will, instead of making decisions (good or bad) oneself.

EDIT: What I found lacking with the Tier system (Jaronk's) is that it had no predictive power. If a PrC or class for some reason isn't listed, it isn't accounted for. A minor issue for sure, since most who have played for a while can compare a class with another known and draw their own conclusions, but still. With my simple system I can fairly easily assess any class I come across, even homebrew or variants. I like to be able to do that.

[sonofzeal]

But my point is that you could eyeball that without the tier ranking. I feel like it used as an excuse, or a crutch if you will, instead of making decisions (good or bad) oneself.
Not really.

I mean, take Spellthief. That cursory glance tells me it's simultaneously badass and highly limited. The signature abilities are awesome in ideal cases and useless a lot of the time, and the Sneak Attack that powers it progresses at a snail's crawl. It gets built-in spells off a decent list, but the spell progression is similarly lethargic. So much of actually making the class work is tied up in the details of exactly how and when the signature abilities functions, and the rules for them span multiple pages. It's not an easy class to eyeball. I probably would have guessed it as somewhere in the T3-T6 range, but that's a pretty wide spread and seeing it firmly listed in T4 was legitimately helpful to me.

Now, I don't always agree fully with the official Tier, and there's a lot of borderline cases. I think Fighter is actually fairly high on T5 if you've got feats from all supplements, and I think Barbarian's a bit low on the T4 side, at least at my table where Complete Champion is banned (our only banned book, btw). I think Artificer is too campaign-dependent to truly be T1, that Erudites have all the markings of T1 even without StP, and that CW Samurai have more in common with low T5 than they do with T6.

But those are mostly classes I have hands-on experience with. For classes I haven't seen before, yeah, I'm going to take an outside opinion on even as I form my own judgement. The Tier rankings had a lot of community collaboration from people who'd played the various classes, and reflects a depth of experience I don't always have. So yeah, I'm going to consult it. I may end up disagreeing, but at least it gives me a solid starting point.

[Essence_of_War]

But my point is that you could eyeball that without the tier ranking. I feel like it used as an excuse, or a crutch if you will, instead of making decisions (good or bad) oneself.

You may be able to do that quickly and accurately. More power to you :smallsmile:.

With a class or a mechanic system that is unfamiliar to me, I often can't do it quickly OR accurately. It's really quite nice to have the basic details sketched in for me so I can quickly decide how easily this concept will mesh with my group, what sort of optimization level I'll need to make it relevant, etc etc.

[Urpriest]

Versatility is more important than power once you understand what it means in the Tier system.

Consider the following: ToB classes are almost universally regarded as Tier 3. Despite various common examples, however, ToB classes generally have very low utility. The ability to dig yourself out of prison with a spoon is cool, but in most practical situations you can manage the same thing with Power Attack. Similarly, most of the movement abilities are impractical for general utility use, since you have to wait or make attacks to reactivate them. ToB classes also don't tend to span combat roles. At most you've got a Crusader functioning as "tank" and "leader", or a Swordsage who debuffs and does damage. A ToB character generally is not a replacement for a caster, and the only ToB character who can replace a skillmonkey is a skillmonkey itself.

ToB classes do have versatility though, and lots of it. Their versatility comes not from being able to cover other classes' roles, but by doing their own shtick in as many situations as possible. If your job is damage, you want to be able to do it when your enemies are flying, or when they hit so hard you normally can't take their full attack, or when they're far away or hard to get to, or when they're hard to see. A ToB character can be a guy who only does damage, and still showcase ToB's versatility by being able to deal damage in lots of different situations.

The Mailman's point is not power, but versatility. That's why he's called the mailman: neither rain nor snow nor dark of night nor fire immunity nor evasion nor even antimagic shall keep him from shooting you in the face. A Monk can be quite powerful: size-stacking on unarmed strikes can lead to a fairly beastly full attack. What the Monk lacks is versatility: the ability to apply that power to enemies with any mobility whatsoever, or with attacks that are even moderately dangerous. An Enchanter with sky-high DCs who only could prepare enchantment spells would be Tier 4 at best, and even though they would have more power than a Beguiler, you would prefer to have a Beguiler in your party, because the Beguiler can do what it does even when you're facing mind-affecting-immune foes. The Beguiler is more versatile.

[sonofzeal]

EDIT: What I found lacking with the Tier system (Jaronk's) is that it had no predictive power. If a PrC or class for some reason isn't listed, it isn't accounted for. A minor issue for sure, since most who have played for a while can compare a class with another known and draw their own conclusions, but still. With my simple system I can fairly easily assess any class I come across, even homebrew or variants. I like to be able to do that.
But how useful is your categorization? What does it actually tell you, that a five-second glance couldn't?



(edit)

Versatility is more important than power once you understand what it means in the Tier system.

Consider the following: ToB classes are almost universally regarded as Tier 3. Despite various common examples, however, ToB classes generally have very low utility. The ability to dig yourself out of prison with a spoon is cool, but in most practical situations you can manage the same thing with Power Attack. Similarly, most of the movement abilities are impractical for general utility use, since you have to wait or make attacks to reactivate them. ToB classes also don't tend to span combat roles. At most you've got a Crusader functioning as "tank" and "leader", or a Swordsage who debuffs and does damage. A ToB character generally is not a replacement for a caster, and the only ToB character who can replace a skillmonkey is a skillmonkey itself.

ToB classes do have versatility though, and lots of it. Their versatility comes not from being able to cover other classes' roles, but by doing their own shtick in as many situations as possible. If your job is damage, you want to be able to do it when your enemies are flying, or when they hit so hard you normally can't take their full attack, or when they're far away or hard to get to, or when they're hard to see. A ToB character can be a guy who only does damage, and still showcase ToB's versatility by being able to deal damage in lots of different situations.

The Mailman's point is not power, but versatility. That's why he's called the mailman: neither rain nor snow nor dark of night nor fire immunity nor evasion nor even antimagic shall keep him from shooting you in the face. A Monk can be quite powerful: size-stacking on unarmed strikes can lead to a fairly beastly full attack. What the Monk lacks is versatility: the ability to apply that power to enemies with any mobility whatsoever, or with attacks that are even moderately dangerous. An Enchanter with sky-high DCs who only could prepare enchantment spells would be Tier 4 at best, and even though they would have more power than a Beguiler, you would prefer to have a Beguiler in your party, because the Beguiler can do what it does even when you're facing mind-affecting-immune foes. The Beguiler is more versatile.
Actually, I think the term you're looking for is robustness. A thing is robust if it can handle a wide array of situations and still do its shtick. A thing is versatile if it can do many shticks. Key distinction.

[Gwendol]

Let's take on the spellthief then.
It's not overly MAD, but will rely on having at least DEX or STR high enough to hit with SA when needed. You probably don't want to dump INT either. Let's put the spellthief in the middle. Then it has magic of its own, but fairly slow caster progression, so that puts it at the lower end of the scale, without taking into account the signature ability. And that's it.
The spell-thieving then will have to be risked based on the knowledge of the campaign in question. If you will be fighting undead or constructs all the time, the class simply will not function. In a mage-heavy setting, or where creatures have a lot of SLA's, it will shine, provided the character is built like a SA rogue.

[Gwendol]

But how useful is your categorization? What does it actually tell you, that a five-second glance couldn't?

It's as useful as any other categorization. It tells me the potential of the class, and gives a hint at how much planning will be needed for not to avoid any (severe) pitfalls later on (when a player). If I'm DM'ing it helps gague the potential power of the class (or combo of classes) which is useful for planning encounters for example.

[Urpriest]

Actually, I think the term you're looking for is robustness. A thing is robust if it can handle a wide array of situations and still do its shtick. A thing is versatile if it can do many shticks. Key distinction.

In real usage, sure. But in the Tier system, robustness is a big part of what gets a class labeled as versatile. Hence my ToB example.

Edit: Also, debating the Tier system's usefulness is beside the point. The Tier system is an observation about the classes of 3.5, namely that many of them fall quite neatly into qualitative categories. To reject the Tier system you need to argue that that observation is false, that those qualitative categories are not well-behaved. And let's face it, they are well-behaved. Prepared full-list casting enables a different playstyle than spontaneous spells-known casting, which in turn enables a different playstyle than spontaneous-limited list casting, a playstyle which has many traits in common with the more well-designed SLA/SU systems and with ToB. The lower tiers function similarly, and while some obscure classes have ambiguous positions, the majority of the structure is sound.

[sonofzeal]

Let's take on the spellthief then.
It's not overly MAD, but will rely on having at least DEX or STR high enough to hit with SA when needed. You probably don't want to dump INT either. Let's put the spellthief in the middle. Then it has magic of its own, but fairly slow caster progression, so that puts it at the lower end of the scale, without taking into account the signature ability. And that's it.
The spell-thieving then will have to be risked based on the knowledge of the campaign in question. If you will be fighting undead or constructs all the time, the class simply will not function. In a mage-heavy setting, or where creatures have a lot of SLA's, it will shine, provided the character is built like a SA rogue.
I still don't see the point. The magicalness is trivial to spot just by scanning for (Ex)/(Su)/(Sp) tags, and for casting progression (except for Swordsage, where the (Su) tags are buried on individual maneuvers). The MADness is trivial to figure out with even a basic look at the class features.

Spellthief is about as MAD and as magical as a Paladin or a Swordsage, yet the three classes are on three different Tiers. And the Tiers are relevant, but not self-evident. A quick glance would not be able to tell you which class got the top and which the lowest - Swordsage is obviously in the top two because of sheer pwnage, but it's also 3/4 BAB on a melee-heavy class, so one could imagine the full-BAB Paladin might come out ahead with its higher HP, heavy armor proficiency, and enormous saves. And then Spellthief is finicky enough that subtle changes in reading could do crazy things - for example, SLAs aren't expended when you steal them, turning any (Sp) tag into an infinite source of energy if you can harness it appropriately. If the same thing applied to actual spells or to (Su), that'd be ridiculously awesome and potentially put it above Swordsage; if there were extra caveats on the signature abilities that made the impractical to pull off then it might be worse than Paladin.

Here's three classes that would be clustered very close together on your system, spanning a fairly wide range of effectiveness levels, where the relative effectiveness is in no way immediately apparent until you actually grok the class. And once you grok the class, you don't need any system... but it can take a while to get there.

[hoverfrog]

As a player I want to be involved in situations whether they are fights with monsters, puzzles, traps, role playing or just buying equipment.

I can barely tolerate playing a straight fighter because my actions in a fight are constrained to hitting and doing damage though I can make that better or give myself a few bonuses with feats. I don't have the skill points to have many other useful abilities and my social skills and sneaking, trap finding, etc are often lacking or completely non-existent. I am specialised and very good at what I do as a fighter but when the party isn't fighting I'm left out on a limb.

As a wizard I'm rubbish in a fight, possibly the worst person to stand by your side and do battle. I can summon monsters for that though or pick off the enemy with magic missile. I can climb walls like a spider, turn invisible, rain fiery death on my enemies, charm the shop keeper and a whole host of other interesting things. Even without my magic my smarts and skills mean I am the holder of obscure and dangerous knowledge, the master of forgotten languages etched in stone or in the ancient scripts of otherworldly denizens. In short I'm more interesting to play.

I also know that until I get past those mid levels the fighter will be able to kill me with a toothpick without even breaking a sweat and the only thing that can save me is the fact that I can run away faster without that heavy armour.

Versatility is so much more important than power.

[Gwendol]

Let's just say that I don't have a problem with the faukts of my system. I haven't found that I need laser-like precision for categorizing classes in the games I participate in or run.

[Urpriest]

Let's just say that I don't have a problem with the faukts of my system. I haven't found that I need laser-like precision for categorizing classes in the games I participate in or run.

What you need is irrelevant. The Tier System is a property of the classes, not an algorithm for your convenience. Remember, 90% of D&D 3.5 these days is forum discussion. Much like academic communities study facets of the physical and conceptual worlds, the forums study the properties of D&D 3.5. And the Tier System is an incredibly robust, interesting property that provides for a vast amount of productive discussion. Dismissing it because you don't use it in games is completely misunderstanding its purpose, and arguably missing the point of 3.5 in general, at least as played these days.

[Gwendol]

I don't dismiss it, and my needs are hardly irrelevant for me.

[killianh]

From what I've seen so far (ignoring the arguments over the tier system(which I regret mentioning since I should have know it would devolve into a tier debate)) versatility seems to be the game winner. On the note of the debate about the tier system: the tier system from what I have seen of it, and its uses, is primarily a comparison of a class on its own as stacked against another class based entirely on the class's mechanical capabilities in regards to versatility and power.

My question has nothing to do with the set up of the tier system. It has to do with inter-party relations and character builds. You can have a party of all sorcerers, but you're going to end up at a bit of a disadvantage in comparison to a better rounded out party (ignoring full on build breaking). Versatility is obviously important, but when you consider how well rounded a party should be you have to ask if you should excel at your role and add more power to the party or try and do everything since you have the power to do so