Tiers?

[Cranthis]

Who wants tell me what all the tiers of optimization are? As I have no idea, I just do it.

[Tebryn]

Who wants tell me what all the tiers of optimization are? As I have no idea, I just do it.

They're a myth. Ignore them, and enjoy your game.

[Spuddles]

Let me google that for you (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=D%26D+tiers)

[Cranthis]

I love you spuddles.

[Kelb_Panthera]

They're a myth. Ignore them, and enjoy your game.

This isn't quite true. There is something to it though.

The importance of the tiers is proportional with your group's average or highest optimization ability. Sometimes that proportion is direct, other times it's inverse.

At a certain level of optimization the tiers are almost completely irrelevant. At the other end of the optimization spectrum it's nearly impossible for characters in the lower tiers to keep up with members of the higher tiers in overall effectiveness.

There are simply too many variables to make an assumption of where someone else's group lies on the spectrum.

[TopCheese]

They're a myth. Ignore them, and enjoy your game.


They're a myth. Ignore them, and enjoy your game.

There that's better.. I fixed it for you! Blue is sarcasm afterall!

[Firechanter]

To give an example of what Kelb is talking about:

s'pose your group is composed of a Fighter, a Rogue, a Cleric and a Wizard. If the Cleric is played as a healbot with a mace and the Wizard as a no-frills blaster, there's not much to worry about. With some moderate splatbook usage the Fighter and Rogue can make themselves useful; nothing fancy needed.

The Tiers come into play when the caster players take a closer look at their spell lists and realize what they can do. Both the Cleric and the Wizard can do any job in the party and do it well; basically they become the Angel Summoners while Fighter and Rogue remain the BMX Bandits. Using splatbooks for full casters just adds some bacon, they can break the game just fine using only Core material.

To briefly sum up the meaning of the tiers:
T1: can do any job and do it well, has many potential ways of breaking the game. Such as the "Big Three", Cleric, Druid and Wizard.
T2: has to focus on a more narrow selection of tricks, but in his field of expertise is at least as good as a T1. Has to choose in which ways he wants to break the game. Example: Sorcerer.
T3: Can do his job extremely well, but not gamebreakingly so, and has some other tricks when his primary shtick doesn't apply. Considered by many to be the "sweet spot". Example: Bard (with splatbook usage), ToB classes (Warblade etc.)
T4: Can do his job pretty well, but quickly becomes useless when his primary field of expertise isn't applicable, or does an average job at a slightly wider variety of tasks. Examples: Ranger, Rogue
T5: can do only a single thing, and not necessarily all that well, or is so unfocused that he has trouble doing anything at all. Example: Monk
T6: about the power level of a Commoner.

[Kelb_Panthera]

To give an example of what Kelb is talking about:

s'pose your group is composed of a Fighter, a Rogue, a Cleric and a Wizard. If the Cleric is played as a healbot with a mace and the Wizard as a no-frills blaster, there's not much to worry about. With some moderate splatbook usage the Fighter and Rogue can make themselves useful; nothing fancy needed.

The Tiers come into play when the caster players take a closer look at their spell lists and realize what they can do. Both the Cleric and the Wizard can do any job in the party and do it well; basically they become the Angel Summoners while Fighter and Rogue remain the BMX Bandits. Using splatbooks for full casters just adds some bacon, they can break the game just fine using only Core material.

To briefly sum up the meaning of the tiers:
T1: can do any job and do it well, has many potential ways of breaking the game. Such as the "Big Three", Cleric, Druid and Wizard.
T2: has to focus on a more narrow selection of tricks, but in his field of expertise is at least as good as a T1. Has to choose in which ways he wants to break the game. Example: Sorcerer.
T3: Can do his job extremely well, but not gamebreakingly so, and has some other tricks when his primary shtick doesn't apply. Considered by many to be the "sweet spot". Example: Bard (with splatbook usage), ToB classes (Warblade etc.)
T4: Can do his job pretty well, but quickly becomes useless when his primary field of expertise isn't applicable, or does an average job at a slightly wider variety of tasks. Examples: Ranger, Rogue
T5: can do only a single thing, and not necessarily all that well, or is so unfocused that he has trouble doing anything at all. Example: Monk
T6: about the power level of a Commoner.

While the above is mostly accurate, most of the T3's do have at least one method of breaking the game, that only takes a moderately high level of optimization, and if somebody cuts the brake-line on your op-fu even a commoner can be game-shattering. Seriously, google bubs the commoner.

[Soranar]

I'll just add my 2 cents

rule of thumb, most classes can go up 2 tiers (possibly reaching tier 0, see below for explanation on that) with the right optimization

tiers not covered by previous posts

tier 0 , technically possible but never meant to be played in a game (first that comes to mind is Pun-Pun). Trying to play such a character usually means a DM will just reboot the game and say ''no , you cannot do that'' or ''your character dies/goes insane/becomes unplayable for x reason''

One of the challenge of high level optimization is to reach tier 1, as high as possible, without ever entering tier 0 territory.

[navar100]

They're a myth. Ignore them, and enjoy your game.


There, that's better. Refixed as black is making a statement after all.

[Flickerdart]

To clarify, OP, the JaronK Tier system is what everyone is talking about. They have nothing to do with optimization, since they measure classes, not builds.

[Lord_Gareth]

Oh sweet Asmodeus people, the OP is genuinely looking for information. If we want to have our monthly fight about the tier thread can we at least go make a new thread for it?

@Original Poster: Essentially, the tier system measures where classes fall on their ability to affect the game world when all amounts of optimization are equal. So if everyone optimizes at the same level and has the same resources, then Wizard will generally be more versatile and powerful than a Sorcerer, who is in turn more versatile and powerful than a Factotum, who is more versatile and powerful than a Warlock, and so on. It is in no way a value judgement on the 'worth' of a class, and instead measures that class's mechanical ability to solve problems in terms of both breadth and depth.

If players at the table operate at different levels of optimization, then the tier system starts to shake apart. Likewise, at bizzarely low levels of optimization, it starts failing to apply as the players' own inability to comprehend the system takes precedent, but otherwise it's a pretty good way to summarize what to expect from any given class.

[Aharon]

For the reasons given above (real strength depends on optimization, not on the class you choose to optimize), there's also the lesser known Test of Spite Tier System:



Here's the ToS Tier System as I remember it:

Tier -2: Pun Pun

Tier -1: An unbeatable build.

Tier 0: An effectively unbeatable build, though it can actually be beaten by the higher Tiers.

Tier .5: A build that can probably only be beaten if you have specifically prepared for it. Example: Sofawall's Cube build.

Tier 1: A build that has many effective tricks, insanely high defenses, and can end most encounters in a round. Example: A very effectively played Batman wizard.

Tier 2: Multiple great tricks and great defenses. Where I usually build for. Example: A CoDzilla or a Warmarked.

Tier 3: A build that either has one great trick or a lot of moderately good ones, while still having stellar defenses. Example: A well made Warblade, a good tripper, or a buff focused Sorcerer.

Tier 4: A build that, while still having a trick or two, has fallen very short on the defensive side of the line or has great defenses without being able to defeat an opponent on its own very easily. Example: A Charging Fighter or a VoP Monkadin.

Tier 5: A build that, while attempting to be optimized, still has neither good defenses nor a worthwile trick. Example: A typical fighter.

Tier 6: A build that *twitch* chooses feats for flavor reasons *twitch*

[ThiagoMartell]

Because caring about fluff is doing it wrong :smallsigh:

[Lord_Gareth]

Because caring about fluff is doing it wrong :smallsigh:

There's 'caring about fluff' and then there's 'shackling yourself to published fluff'. There's a lot of ways to express a concept and deliberately choosing not just sub-par, but hideously crippling options "for flavor reasons" usually shreds other parts of your concept. If my character was raised by his parents (who were shepherds) before finding his calling as a paladin, taking a few points in Profession (Herding) is probably a good idea. Taking Skill Focus: Profession (Herding) is not.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Because caring about fluff is doing it wrong :smallsigh:

Who said that? I didn't read where anyone said that.

I suppose it could be implied by the T6 entry quoted from the test of spite tier system, but nobody uses that when they refer to the tiers anyway.

[ThiagoMartell]

Who said that? I didn't read where anyone said that.

I suppose it could be implied by the T6 entry quoted from the test of spite tier system, but nobody uses that when they refer to the tiers anyway.
That's exactly what I was talking about (should have quoted it). I'm not against tiers, I'm against the notion the T6 entry in the ToS tiers enforces.


There's 'caring about fluff' and then there's 'shackling yourself to published fluff'. There's a lot of ways to express a concept and deliberately choosing not just sub-par, but hideously crippling options "for flavor reasons" usually shreds other parts of your concept. If my character was raised by his parents (who were shepherds) before finding his calling as a paladin, taking a few points in Profession (Herding) is probably a good idea. Taking Skill Focus: Profession (Herding) is not.
And that is not what the T6 entry says. It's an absolute statement - "choosing feats for flavor reasons makes you weak". If your concept is master of Scorching Ray so you take Arcane Thesis (scorching ray), according to that lovely ToS tier, you're doing it wrong.
The point being made there is quite clear - your options should be guided by what is mechanically more powerful, not what fits your character more.

[Lord_Gareth]

And that is not what the T6 entry says. It's an absolute statement - "choosing feats for flavor reasons makes you weak". If your concept is master of Scorching Rat so you take Arcane Thesis (scorching ray), according to that lovely ToS tier, you're doing it wrong.
The point being made there is quite clear - your options should be guided by what is mechanically more powerful, not what fits your character more.

Test of Spite was a PvP arena designed to brutally beat the mechanical flaws out of 3.5 and flavor was at a minimum there. In that competition, that is doing it wrong.

[Kelb_Panthera]

That's exactly what I was talking about (should have quoted it). I'm not against tiers, I'm against the notion the T6 entry in the ToS tiers enforces.


And that is not what the T6 entry says. It's an absolute statement - "choosing feats for flavor reasons makes you weak". If your concept is master of Scorching Rat so you take Arcane Thesis (scorching ray), according to that lovely ToS tier, you're doing it wrong.
The point being made there is quite clear - your options should be guided by what is mechanically more powerful, not what fits your character more.

In fairness, those tiers are for measuring builds for the test of spite contest. A PvP contest centered around optimizing for the most powerful build you can make. In that context, flavor based choices miss the point of the contest, and are in fact doing it wrong.

I agree with you in the more general sense though. There's absolutely no reason a person shouldn't build a character with flavor ahead of mechanics if that's their thing.

[ThiagoMartell]

Test of Spite was a PvP arena designed to brutally beat the mechanical flaws out of 3.5 and flavor was at a minimum there. In that competition, that is doing it wrong.

No, it's not. In any 3.5 arena, if you only care for power and power alone, there is only one possible build and we know which build that is. By it's own definition, all builds end up at tier 6, since not going for that one build is (guess what?) a flavor decision.

[Lord_Gareth]

No, it's not. In any 3.5 arena, if you only care for power and power alone, there is only one possible build and we know which build that is. By it's own definition, all builds end up at tier 6, since not going for that one build is (guess what?) a flavor decision.

Untrue, mostly because of how Test of Spite works. Here, lemme dig up a link for you so you can read it.

Here it is! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150821).

Remember when I said it was designed to 'beat out' the flaws? Part of that was the creation of the ToS banlist (eventually, ToS was abandoned in favor of creating Legend, and the banlist remains unfinished as a result) that winnowed away build options as unacceptable combinations were discovered, thus creating an environment where more than one build is possible for non-flavor reasons, and also to the creation of niche builds such as ShneekeyTheLost's samurai.

[Kelb_Panthera]

No, it's not. In any 3.5 arena, if you only care for power and power alone, there is only one possible build and we know which build that is. By it's own definition, all builds end up at tier 6, since not going for that one build is (guess what?) a flavor decision.

You're right, when the only concern is power, pun-pun is the answer. That answer's almost 10 years old now though, so it's kinda boring. Test of spite was a contest about finding the most powerful builds within a series of categories with pun-pun being defacto banned by the contest's rules. Specifically the no infinite loops rule.

[Leon]

{Scrubbed}

[TheOOB]

Understanding the class tiers is incredibly important to gaining the maximum enjoyment out of D&D. While some people only care about telling a story or acting out a role, it's fair to say most players want their characters to at least be effective, and the only way to tell how effective your character is is to compare them to your party members.

You see, a well played fighter will never be effective in a party with a well played cleric or wizard. It just won't happen. If the fighter is more useful in a brawl than the cleric, the fight was either a)tailor made to screw the cleric, or b)the cleric felt bad to the fighter and didn't fight well. And if the fighter had a chance to do well at all the wizard really isn't doing their job.

Thus, if you want your character to be effective, you shouldn't play a fighter when a wizard or cleric is in the party.

In general, I prefer if every character is within 1 or 2 tiers of eachother. If any tier 1 characters are in the party, the lowest tier in the party should be a 3, and knowing this, if you choose to play a lower tier, you don't have a right to complain when you feel useless or when the rest of the party treats you like a liability.

[Tebryn]

Understanding the class tiers is incredibly important to gaining the maximum enjoyment out of D&D. While some people only care about telling a story or acting out a role, it's fair to say most players want their characters to at least be effective, and the only way to tell how effective your character is is to compare them to your party members.

I'm going to ask this, because actual sarcasm is difficult to read over text but are you implying that people who ignore the teir system are somehow playing the game wrong?

[Lord_Gareth]

I'm going to ask this, because actual sarcasm is difficult to read over text but are you implying that people who ignore the teir system are somehow playing the game wrong?

No, but they are deliberately ignoring realities of the system and thus impairing their ability to enjoy the game to its fullest.

[Tebryn]

No, but they are deliberately ignoring realities of the system and thus impairing their ability to enjoy the game to its fullest.

How? Saying those very words implies that there is a correct way to play the game and they're -not- playing it correctly. If they're enjoying it, who are you or anyone else to tell them that they aren't enjoying it to the fullest?

[Lord_Gareth]

How? Saying those very words implies that there is a correct way to play the game and they're -not- playing it correctly. If they're enjoying it, who are you or anyone else to tell them that they aren't enjoying it to the fullest?

No, saying those words doesn't imply that there's a correct way to play. It does imply that there's more than one way to play, and that deliberately rejecting a method of play and keeping oneself ignorant about that method of playing means you're not experiencing the whole game. If optimization isn't for you, or if your group's optimization levels are so low/wildly differing that the tier system isn't relevant, then fine, that's great. But denying that it's a thing at all and deliberately failing to learn about it? That's cutting off a whole new kind of fun you could be having, but aren't.

'New' fun isn't necessarily 'better' fun, but it's certainly still fun.

[Menteith]

If people are having fun, the game's being played right. Regardless of power level, game balance, or fluff restrictions, if a group is enjoying a game then it's being done right.

With that said, it's remarkably incorrect to say that they're a myth. The Tier System is a ranking of classes against each other, when one assumes that the optimization level is equal. For those interested, it can be helpful to have a guideline (even if one disagrees with specifics, I feel that the original tier rankings are reasonably appropriate) with which to rate a class's power, and more importantly, establish criteria for evaluating what's powerful within 3.5. It is an observation that individuals can use in whatever way they please; nothing more, and nothing less. But it is not a myth, and to state as such without any explanation or context is incorrect, uninformative, and unhelpful toward the OP.

The Tier System doesn't promote power gaming or optimization, though it can be used to help evaluate a more powerful choice against less powerful choices, and one can use it in that capacity if they chose. All that it does is inform individuals of how much potential power a given class has. End of the day, everyone should enjoy their games regardless of the way that they're being played - but don't bash a tool which many people find useful without explaining your position.

[Tebryn]

No, saying those words doesn't imply that there's a correct way to play. It does imply that there's more than one way to play, and that deliberately rejecting a method of play and keeping oneself ignorant about that method of playing means you're not experiencing the whole game. If optimization isn't for you, or if your group's optimization levels are so low/wildly differing that the tier system isn't relevant, then fine, that's great. But denying that it's a thing at all and deliberately failing to learn about it? That's cutting off a whole new kind of fun you could be having, but aren't.

'New' fun isn't necessarily 'better' fun, but it's certainly still fun.

That would require the person to be ignorant of that style of play to begin with. Some people just don't like certain styles of play and don't need to go into extensive play throughs to figure it out. The whole game is what you make of it. Not everyone plays the same or wants the same things out of the game and aren't somehow "missing out" on something just because they don't play the way other people think they should be playing.

[Telonius]

I consider myths to be lies that reveal the truth... so yeah, the tier system is a myth, and a very useful one at that.

You're almost never going to see a gaming group sit down before the first session and say things like, "Okay, we want to have an average tier of 2, plus or minus 0.5..." And it's even rarer that you'll actually see anybody in a group playing their character to the fullest mechanical potential. Yes, there are people who don't mind playing a much weaker class, and groups who don't mind having a weaker character around.

But if a Swashbuckler and a Rogue seem to be having major difficulties, while the Druid and Wizard seem to be mopping the floor with every encounter, the Tier system can give the players (and the DM) an idea of why that might be. That doesn't mean that it's impossible to play in that kind of a group - most people can work out some sort of compromise. (The more powerful classes can tone things down; the less powerful classes can use a bit more optimization; the DM can always houserule, or give some special items to balance things). But putting the whole thing in some kind of numeric form can really help people understand just how much of a gulf there is between what a Samurai can do, and what a Cleric can do.

[Lord_Gareth]

That would require the person to be ignorant of that style of play to begin with. Some people just don't like certain styles of play and don't need to go into extensive play throughs to figure it out. The whole game is what you make of it. Not everyone plays the same or wants the same things out of the game and aren't somehow "missing out" on something just because they don't play the way other people think they should be playing.

Did I not just explain that I wasn't implying any kind of 'should'? I was implying 'can'. Additionally, stating that the tier system is a myth is, as Menteith just stated, both unhelpful and inaccurate to the original poster.

Now, we really are getting pretty seriously off-topic. Anyone care to start a new thread for this?

[Answerer]

No, it's not. In any 3.5 arena, if you only care for power and power alone, there is only one possible build and we know which build that is. By it's own definition, all builds end up at tier 6, since not going for that one build is (guess what?) a flavor decision.
The tier list you're talking about is for a heavily (heavily) houseruled fluff-less arena match. The Test of Spite had an enormous banlist, including (you guessed it) Manipulate Form.

Pun-pun was not an option in Test of Spite. Nor were numerous other TO builds, having been killed by various bans. As a result, players were free to experiment with other builds to try and find new broken combinations. The entire thing was a way to have fun while finding those broken combinations so they could be added to the banlist.

It makes no sense in this context to make any significant decisions for flavor reasons. Test of Spite didn't involve any role playing. It's just that it was not always obvious what the most powerful combinations were, since any particularly broken ones that came to light were quashed with a ban.

You are taking something grossly out of context and making a straw man argument out of it. Really, I highly doubt you're fooling anyone with it, so you might as well stop.

[Menteith]

Now, we really are getting pretty seriously off-topic. Anyone care to start a new thread for this?

Is it time to have another Tier thread already? I thought that they normally don't happen until midweek or so....

[Lord_Gareth]

Is it time to have another Tier thread already? I thought that they normally don't happen until midweek or so....

Eh, the monk threads got discontinued and ToBuesday stopped running on time. I think the Playground is going through an unscheduled phase.

[Tebryn]

Did I not just explain that I wasn't implying any kind of 'should'? I was implying 'can'. Additionally, stating that the tier system is a myth is, as Menteith just stated, both unhelpful and inaccurate to the original poster.

Now, we really are getting pretty seriously off-topic. Anyone care to start a new thread for this?

I was mostly using it for dramatic effect. I would have better been served by saying "It's an optional system but not vital for the enjoyment of your game." The thing is, this isn't "Every opinion is equal." The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the group in question. Doesn't matter "Can" or anything else. Telling someone that they're somehow "missing out" is presumptuous at best.

[Menteith]

I was mostly using it for dramatic effect. I would have better been served by saying "It's an optional system but not vital for the enjoyment of your game." The thing is, this isn't "Every opinion is equal." The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the group in question. Doesn't matter "Can" or anything else. Telling someone that they're somehow "missing out" is presumptuous at best.

If someone's completely ignorant about it - as the OP stated - it's a bit more helpful to actually explain what it is rather than give a pithy one liner to them. Calling it a system isn't exactly right either. It's not like reading it actually alters anything in game or inherently changes a playstyle. The Tier System is a set of observations that have been compiled in a way to help facilitate a better understanding of game balance. If one is looking for a way to create homebrew or enact houserules for the sake of game balance, it can help an individual understand both what is potentially powerful and more importantly, why it's powerful. If one is looking to create a powerful BBEG, knowing that a Wizard has a great deal of potential and can be a more credible villain who requires less DM fiat than a Fighter is a good thing. The Tier System is about informing people, rather than forcing a particular style of play on a group - and in my experience, more knowledge is rarely a bad thing.

I do disagree with the notion that greater understanding is some kind of necessity for fun, however - we agree on that wholeheartedly.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Understanding the class tiers is incredibly important to gaining the maximum enjoyment out of D&D. While some people only care about telling a story or acting out a role, it's fair to say most players want their characters to at least be effective, and the only way to tell how effective your character is is to compare them to your party members.

You see, a well played fighter will never be effective in a party with a well played cleric or wizard. It just won't happen. If the fighter is more useful in a brawl than the cleric, the fight was either a)tailor made to screw the cleric, or b)the cleric felt bad to the fighter and didn't fight well. And if the fighter had a chance to do well at all the wizard really isn't doing their job.

Thus, if you want your character to be effective, you shouldn't play a fighter when a wizard or cleric is in the party.

In general, I prefer if every character is within 1 or 2 tiers of eachother. If any tier 1 characters are in the party, the lowest tier in the party should be a 3, and knowing this, if you choose to play a lower tier, you don't have a right to complain when you feel useless or when the rest of the party treats you like a liability.

This is simply not true. There are entirely too many variables for it to be. The example well played fighter can do very well next to the well played wizard if the wizard is a buffer. In fact, he'll actually be more effective for playing in the same group as a well played wizard in that case.

More importantly, "well played" is an inherently subjective thing. It's not at all difficult to argue that while a mailman being played next to a straight monk is well optimized, it's a sorcerer being played poorly, in that playing any build in such a way as to trivialize either the rest of the party or the encounters they face is playing poorly. In this case playing poorly, means playing in a disruptive manner by making the presence of the other 3-5 people at the table rather unnecessary.

All the tier list is intended to do is to show the order in which classes are capable of taking on the widest variety of challenges. It became a list of tiers because build choices have such a noticeable effect on how broad a variety of challenges an individual of a given class can take that an exact numeric sequence is impossible, but a general grouping is reasonably accurate.

[TheOOB]

The tier list is a useful tool for ensuring maximum enjoyment of D&D. If you don't know about the tier list, then you unfortunately don't have access to a good and useful tool. If you know about the tier list and decide not to use it, you are ignoring a useful tool.

Whenever someone explains about tools to make a D&D game better, people always use the same arguments, "There's no one way to play D&D", "Are people who aren't doing this wrong", "If you're having fun you're doing it right". These are tired arguments used to avoid a topic rather than learn.

Fact, D&D is a complex game with lots to learn. Very few people have anything approaching a complete knowledge of D&D, and becoming knowledge of all the tricks and tools takes years. Fact, there are many tools, techniques, and pieces of knowledge you can use to make your game more enjoyable. If you are having fun without the tools, good for you. That doesn't mean you can't be having more fun with these tools, or that there won't be a situation where your enjoyment of the game will be compromised due to ignorance or a refusal to use these tools.

So the answer those questions, people who understand and use the tier system are in fact playing D&D more right than those who are not. By learning about a quirk of the D&D system, and using it to improve your game and solve potential issues before they start you can make your game better or more enjoyable. Learning more about the game won't make it worse, only better.

[Menteith]

Stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. There is no right way to play D&D. There is no wrong way to play D&D. At the end of the day, the only criteria which should ever be considered in "rightness" is how much fun everyone had. If a group's running straight Fighters with Weapon Focus [Bastard Sword], and having a blast, they're playing the game right. No one has the authority to say that another person's playing the game wrong because they're not optimizing enough or playing with a certain amount of understanding of the game.

Learning more about the game can lead to more fun for some people, but there are a plethora of reasons why an intricate, very mechanically driven, huge time sink of a game might not appeal to people (seriously, CharOp can be downright Byzantine at time). There are a lot of reasons why people might not enjoy playing in TippyVerse. Sometimes people want to run a truly epic Mundane, which really isn't possible at a certain level of play. I personally believe that a game benefits when everyone at the table is well educated about the game, but there are many reasons why that can't occur, and is certainly doesn't need to occur to run the game "right". In another note, I'm just realizing how much I hate the word "right" in an argument, when it's not defined....

[Tebryn]

{Scrubbed}

[Lord_Gareth]

Stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. There is no right way to play D&D. There is no wrong way to play D&D. At the end of the day, the only criteria which should ever be considered in "rightness" is how much fun everyone had. If a group's running straight Fighters with Weapon Focus [Bastard Sword], and having a blast, they're playing the game right. No one has the authority to say that another person's playing the game wrong because they're not optimizing enough or playing with a certain amount of understanding of the game.

The important point in his post is that no one ever started having less fun by learning more about the game, so if the only options are "same amount of fun," and "have more fun," then learning about the game can only be a good thing.

Well, unless you read BoEF. That's just...no. Just no.

[Menteith]

The important point in his post is that no one ever started having less fun by learning more about the game, so if the only options are "same amount of fun," and "have more fun," then learning about the game can only be a good thing.

I have seen people who've had less fun after learning more about the game. Individuals who have different mechanical know-how than the rest of the group are in a horrible state a lot of the time. If they are more knowledgable, they're either intentionally kneecapping themselves with every character (which certainly can be painful to do), or they're running a character at too high of an optimization level and are risking wrecking a campaign. If a group's learning more and someone can't keep up, there's going to be some bad blood as they're either holding everyone back, or are just getting handed a toon to play and being told how to execute.

I'll qualify my position a bit here - If everyone in a group wants to learn more about the game, and everyone within a group is capable of learning more about the game (everyone has enough time to read a few dozen books/handbooks, everyone has access to enough material, everyone has the capacity to keep up, etc) then learning more about the game is probably a good thing. But in a general statement? No, I don't think I can agree to that.

[TheOOB]

There is no right way to play D&D.

But if you read my post, I think I made it clear right there. There is a right way to play D&D. The way that makes the game fun. And learning more about the game system, and learning tools to improve your game or solve problems give you more ways to make the game fun. Period. End of Story. That is the sum total of my point. If you refuse to read and learn new things about D&D, you are intentionally denying you and your players the chance to have more fun, which is just silly.

No where did I say you should optimize, a certain amount, or allow certain things in your game, I simply said that having more knowledge can help you make better informed choices as to what to do in your game to maximize enjoyment.

About the only thing I will for sure tell people to do is to play a different game system if they don't like tactical fantasy combat, as that is kind of the heart of D&D(people will say otherwise, they're wrong. D&D started as a mod for chainmail, a tactical fantasy wargame, and it has never strayed too far from it's roots, if you don't want a fantasy wargame, you're doing a disservice to yourself by playing D&D as opposed to any of the hundreds of RPGs out there.)

[Tebryn]

But if you read my post, I think I made it clear right there. There is a right way to play D&D. The way that makes the game fun. And learning more about the game system, and learning tools to improve your game or solve problems give you more ways to make the game fun. Period. End of Story. That is the sum total of my point. If you refuse to read and learn new things about D&D, you are intentionally denying you and your players the chance to have more fun, which is just silly.

No where did I say you should optimize, a certain amount, or allow certain things in your game, I simply said that having more knowledge can help you make better informed choices as to what to do in your game to maximize enjoyment.

About the only thing I will for sure tell people to do is to play a different game system if they don't like tactical fantasy combat, as that is kind of the heart of D&D(people will say otherwise, they're wrong. D&D started as a mod for chainmail, a tactical fantasy wargame, and it has never strayed too far from it's roots, if you don't want a fantasy wargame, you're doing a disservice to yourself by playing D&D as opposed to any of the hundreds of RPGs out there.)

Ya, lucky for us declarative and general statements without proof based solely on personal opinion doesn't make something right.

[Menteith]

But if you read my post, I think I made it clear right there. There is a right way to play D&D. The way that makes the game fun. And learning more about the game system, and learning tools to improve your game or solve problems give you more ways to make the game fun. Period. End of Story. That is the sum total of my point. If you refuse to read and learn new things about D&D, you are intentionally denying you and your players the chance to have more fun, which is just silly.

It doesn't make sense to phrase it as "Refusing to learn more about D&D". It's actually remarkably complicated for a person with little/no knowledge of the game to really grasp practical optimization. Even something as simple as how difficult/expensive it is to gain access to much of 3.5's content legally can be a deal breaker. (Most) people I know aren't resistant to knowledge; rather, those that plateau in knowledge typically don't have the hours and hundreds of dollars needed to jump to the next level within 3.5, and are completely fine with how they're doing already.

And, as I talked about in the post above yours, your point really only holds true if you're referring to a group learning more, rather than an individual, as it certainly can be less fun to give all your character lobotomies so you don't wreck a campaign. If a given group wants to learn more about the game, and everyone within that group has the means to learn more about the game, you are absolutely correct. But there are situations where learning more about the game can certainly lead to less fun for people.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But if you read my post, I think I made it clear right there. There is a right way to play D&D. The way that makes the game fun. And learning more about the game system, and learning tools to improve your game or solve problems give you more ways to make the game fun. Period. End of Story. That is the sum total of my point. If you refuse to read and learn new things about D&D, you are intentionally denying you and your players the chance to have more fun, which is just silly.

No where did I say you should optimize, a certain amount, or allow certain things in your game, I simply said that having more knowledge can help you make better informed choices as to what to do in your game to maximize enjoyment.

About the only thing I will for sure tell people to do is to play a different game system if they don't like tactical fantasy combat, as that is kind of the heart of D&D(people will say otherwise, they're wrong. D&D started as a mod for chainmail, a tactical fantasy wargame, and it has never strayed too far from it's roots, if you don't want a fantasy wargame, you're doing a disservice to yourself by playing D&D as opposed to any of the hundreds of RPGs out there.)

You're unfamiliar with choice overload, aren't you?

There are people for whom learning more about the game is a chore that sucks the fun out of it and, worse, actually makes it harder for them to make characters, detracting from their fun further. Knowing and understanding the tier system, which by one of your previous posts I suspect you may have issues with, -can- lead to greater enjoyment of the game. Just because it -can- doesn't mean it -will-.

On a personal note, learning about the tier list didn't change how much fun I was having one iota. Learning how to optimize has been entertaining to me, but the 6 levels of the tier system where utterly meaningless to me by the time I discovered them because I had already come to a firm enough grasp of optimization to realize that they're too subjective to be more useful than a label for a class's mean ability.

Bonus points: I've actually reached a point where, while I can optimize quite heavily if I choose, it will have only a marginal effect on my enjoyment of a character. I'm much more interested in the character's personality and motivations than what he can do, and I'm more than clever enough to make up for his mechanical deficiencies, if the DM doesn't place all of our combats in a sterile box with no terrain features.

[GoatBoy]

There is a spell called incite flamewar. It consists of a single verbal component, namely the spoken phrase "tiers don't exist."

If your goal is to wring as much potential as possible out of the mechanical aspects of D&D, tiers are a brilliant and indispensable core concept. If you and your group have enjoyed the game up until now without knowledge of tiers and think you'll continue to enjoy the game regardless, I suggest leaving that particular can of worms unopened.

Also, every single post related to the discussion of tiers ends with the unspoken boast, "and THAT is the last word on tiers."

[vrigar]

I recently experimented with the tier system.
Our group was going through the adventure very slowly and my PCs were a fighter and a ranger. I replaced the ranger with a shape shifting ranger.
Presto!
The amount of challenges that went from 'very hard' to 'trivial' was amazing!
Combat remains similar though (the fighter still deals the bulk of the damage).

[TheOOB]

You're unfamiliar with choice overload, aren't you?

There are people for whom learning more about the game is a chore that sucks the fun out of it and, worse, actually makes it harder for them to make characters, detracting from their fun further. Knowing and understanding the tier system, which by one of your previous posts I suspect you may have issues with, -can- lead to greater enjoyment of the game. Just because it -can- doesn't mean it -will-.

On a personal note, learning about the tier list didn't change how much fun I was having one iota. Learning how to optimize has been entertaining to me, but the 6 levels of the tier system where utterly meaningless to me by the time I discovered them because I had already come to a firm enough grasp of optimization to realize that they're too subjective to be more useful than a label for a class's mean ability.

Bonus points: I've actually reached a point where, while I can optimize quite heavily if I choose, it will have only a marginal effect on my enjoyment of a character. I'm much more interested in the character's personality and motivations than what he can do, and I'm more than clever enough to make up for his mechanical deficiencies, if the DM doesn't place all of our combats in a sterile box with no terrain features.

While I'll admit choice overload is a possibility, I think that's an unusual situation. Anyone on an Unofficial D&D board should be willing to learn about the system, otherwise why are they here, and I think choice overload is more of an overreaction to the idea of learning too much rather than an effect actually learning.

The fact is, proper knowledge about a subject can never make a subject worse, only better.

It's fair to say most players want their characters to feel mechanically useful and beneficial to the party. Lets say Alice is playing a Druid and Bob is playing a Fighter. Alice picks a few good feats and ends up blowing Bob out of the water, to the point where Bob doesn't feel useful in combat anymore. Even after spending hours looking through source books and optimizing his character, he still can't hold a candle to Alice. Without understanding the tier system, Bob may think that he is bad at building D&D characters, which may make him not want to play. This is bad.

By understanding the Tier system Bob will learn that the fighter is just a plain mechanically poor class, and even a super optimized fighter is likely to be vastly inferior to even an average druid. He may next time decide to roll a warblade or a psychic warrior when someone in his party picks a Tier 1 class(he still wants to play a tough warrior type), and find himself feeling more useful and thus enjoying the game much more. By learning something new, Bob was able to have more fun, and possibly even make the game more fun for Alice who always had the lingering guilt that she was making the game un-fun for Bob.

Roleplaying and storytelling are great parts of D&D, but very very few D&D groups are completely filled with people who care nothing about the mechanics of the game(and as I stated before, if you care nothing about the mechanics, playing a mechanically dense pseudo fantasy wargame might not be the best choice).

Many people understand the balance of class power well before the Tier list was made, but the Tier list provides an easy way for players unfamiliar with class power balance to understand it, and helps to provide some useful tools with dealing with power imbalance(namely having vastly different Tiers in the party is typically not a great idea).

Also, I hate it when people equate knowledge to optimization, and optimization to playing an overpowered wreck. I understand how to make a stupid overpowered character, I have literally won a D&D championship. That said, I rarely make characters who are hugely more powerful than other party members, even though I typically play arcane casters. I like to build fun and interesting characters rather than uber powerhouses, though I also make sure all of the my characters are useful to the party and fulfill some role. Making a character that is vastly overpowered for a group is typically a sign of a lack of understanding of the system, not the other way around(or just a sign you're mean).

And know you know, and knowing is half the battle.

[Kelb_Panthera]

While I'll admit choice overload is a possibility, I think that's an unusual situation. Anyone on an Unofficial D&D board should be willing to learn about the system, otherwise why are they here, and I think choice overload is more of an overreaction to the idea of learning too much rather than an effect actually learning.

The fact is, proper knowledge about a subject can never make a subject worse, only better.

It's fair to say most players want their characters to feel mechanically useful and beneficial to the party. Lets say Alice is playing a Druid and Bob is playing a Fighter. Alice picks a few good feats and ends up blowing Bob out of the water, to the point where Bob doesn't feel useful in combat anymore. Even after spending hours looking through source books and optimizing his character, he still can't hold a candle to Alice. Without understanding the tier system, Bob may think that he is bad at building D&D characters, which may make him not want to play. This is bad.

By understanding the Tier system Bob will learn that the fighter is just a plain mechanically poor class, and even a super optimized fighter is likely to be vastly inferior to even an average druid. He may next time decide to roll a warblade or a psychic warrior when someone in his party picks a Tier 1 class(he still wants to play a tough warrior type), and find himself feeling more useful and thus enjoying the game much more. By learning something new, Bob was able to have more fun, and possibly even make the game more fun for Alice who always had the lingering guilt that she was making the game un-fun for Bob.

Roleplaying and storytelling are great parts of D&D, but very very few D&D groups are completely filled with people who care nothing about the mechanics of the game(and as I stated before, if you care nothing about the mechanics, playing a mechanically dense pseudo fantasy wargame might not be the best choice).

Many people understand the balance of class power well before the Tier list was made, but the Tier list provides an easy way for players unfamiliar with class power balance to understand it, and helps to provide some useful tools with dealing with power imbalance(namely having vastly different Tiers in the party is typically not a great idea).

Also, I hate it when people equate knowledge to optimization, and optimization to playing an overpowered wreck. I understand how to make a stupid overpowered character, I have literally won a D&D championship. That said, I rarely make characters who are hugely more powerful than other party members, even though I typically play arcane casters. I like to build fun and interesting characters rather than uber powerhouses, though I also make sure all of the my characters are useful to the party and fulfill some role. Making a character that is vastly overpowered for a group is typically a sign of a lack of understanding of the system, not the other way around(or just a sign you're mean).

And know you know, and knowing is half the battle.

You did it again. Alice's druid, with no effort at optimization is not guaranteed to outperform Bob's fighter. In fact, Bob heavily optimizing his fighter may well lead to Alice feeling useless if she doesn't understand how important spell-casting is.

And choice overload is definitely a real thing. I think it's even an officially recognized psychological state, though I'd have to verify that. The fact of the matter is, learning how to heavily optimize requires quite a bit of time, unless you're some kind of savant. Worse, once you understand it, actually building a highly optimized character takes significantly longer than just slapping something together that sounds good, and the system was built so that the latter actually is viable most of the time.

If you're not the kind of person who enjoys putting that level of effort into learning how to, or even just making such highly optimized characters then the tier system is a waste of your time. You'll either just wing it and hope for the best, or you'll google a handbook and blindly follow the advice there without really understanding what you're doing.

I'll admit that going with either of those routes can end poorly if your group's average op level is somewhere in the mid-op range. You'll either end up far enough behind that your play group will have to help you, or you'll start to overshadow them as you get the hang of that build you copied. The former is only a temporary problem though. You'll eventually learn through trial and error what works in your group and the tiers will still be meaningless to you. In the latter, the tier system may very well be at fault.

I can't deny that there are probably better systems out there for people who do like to stick to simpler characters and plot-driven games, but that doesn't really mean much if there aren't any play-groups in your area that use those systems, or if you want to play with a particular group of friends that only runs 3.5 games.

The tiers are useful for discussion on boards like this, and they -can- be useful if your group is looking to make their characters more effective overall, but learning about the tiers can, and often does, cause issues in gaming groups, especially when its purpose and meaning are (frequently) misunderstood.

As for deliberately building overpowered characters, that's not possible without understanding how to game the system. Deliberately creating an overpowered character may be a lack of understanding of the social moores surrounding PnP RPG's, but it can never stem from a lack of understanding the system.

[TheOOB]

You did it again. Alice's druid, with no effort at optimization is not guaranteed to outperform Bob's fighter. In fact, Bob heavily optimizing his fighter may well lead to Alice feeling useless if she doesn't understand how important spell-casting is.

I mentioned Alice picked a few good feats, which implies a)Natural Spell, and b)She's at least semi-optimized, and I also made mention of an average druid a few times, which implies informed use of wild shape and spells. If a single classed fighter is outclassing a druid, there is a very serious gap in optimization, like incredibly large amount that it's silly.

Once again, I'm sure Choice Overload exists, but considering the topic at hand I don't feel it's terribly relevant. Anyone worrying about it shouldn't be playing D&D in the first place, much less asking about the Tier system on an unofficial D&D forum.

Also, seriously, when did this thread become about optimization. This thread is about how the different base classes are mechanically better or worse than once another, and how that can have an impact on your game. How well you do or don't optimize characters has nothing to do with this situation other than as something to keep in mind when you choose what tier to play in when compared to your party.

Human beings are creatures of knowledge. We learn things, it's what we do, it's what makes us different from animals. Some of our best horror comes from the idea that learning things, one of the most natural human traits, and what makes us dominate, could endanger us(via things that should not be, unspeakable horrors, ect). Knowledge is a good thing and should be pursued, and I honestly find it odd that people are opposing this on a forum about learning more about D&D.

[eggs]

TheOOB and others seem equating knowledge and use of JaronK's Tier system with knowledge of optimization and mechanical knowledge in a general sense. I disagree with that notion. I think the premise of differentiating the classes themselves is misguided and oversimplistic, and that the values asserted in that thread do not accurately reflect a character's competence. I think echoing and unflinchingly supporting that thread every time it is mentioned presents misleading information for inexperienced optimizers.

On its premise:

First, on the validity of tiering the classes, I would to a comparison of Mantled and Educated Wilders - one shoehorned into picking bad spells, and into giving up a genuinely useful class feature; the other given benefits that counterbalance the Wilder's major weakness in exchange for a nearly useless class ability. Or, if comparing class variants seems disingenuous, a Wilder who specifically learns niche unaugmenting powers with a Wilder who learns versatile and powerfully-scaling powers. JaronK handwaves these distinctions by claiming to hold optimization equal across builds, but without an objective measure of a build's degree of optimization, the definition of "degrees of optimization" of a class is tautological and does not adequately account for differences in power and versatility between builds within the same class.
Second, the nature of the Tier system does not allow it to account for the fluidity of a straightclassed build's power. Looking at a Good Incarnate for a moment, that class starts as an absolute powerhouse - able to fly, kill most creatures it faces with a ranged touch attack, muster higher skill and attack modifiers than most specialists, do all those all day and to rewrite its abilities on a daily basis. But at higher levels, it goes from powerhouse to a frankly mediocre combatant. It still has good utility, but probably not as much as the Shifter Wilder with Metamorphic Transfer and Time Hop.
Thirdly, by necessity, the Tier system cannot account for multiclassed builds. Looking at these boards, it's hard to find a build which the Tier system actually attempts to model: a Monk taking prestige classes specifically available to the Monk like Fist of Zuoken can lose the defining qualities of its Tiering; as can something like a Sorcerer entering a class specifically available to it, like the Dragon Disciple.

On the specific values asserted by the thread, there are certain character qualities that are fetishized and I would say overprioritized. Self-sufficiency is a major one: an idealized single-classed build that's merely competent in many areas is given the same rating as an idealized single-classed build that's very good at only a handful of things (specifically looking at its T4 specifications). Given that general play is with a party, probably containing characters specializing or able to give decent showings in many fields, jacks of all trades tend to add much less new to a party than builds which can do one thing exceptionally well, whether it's locking down encounters, mastering scouting roles or just spewing enough damage to make enemies splatter. Similarly, the parameters at the high end of the tier system wind up redundant, handwavey and self-defining, when access to spells like Planar Binding or Shapechange alone are frankly enough to do "absolutely anything" a player wants.

I believe the unwavering support of this system is misleading. First of all, I believe this is a problem because new players are given feedback like "Monk is a terrible class," which is an overly simplistic guideline, given other considerations left unaddressed by its Tier ranking (such as the value of a dip, ACFs, prestige class combinations, and so on) and are left to echo and devalue any use of the poorly-rated class. Secondly, I believe the unqualified backing of the system

After saying this, I want to make it clear that I'm not trying to say that all builds are made equal or that all of the principles involved in assessing character balance are misguided. My point is that it would be more useful to introduce and assess character balance in a per-build level and to introduce the underlying optimization principles which predate JaronK's post than it is to echo, herald and dogmatically defend that ranking system or its contents.

[rockdeworld]

Here it is! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150821).
Holy smokes! How did the fighter get banned?

[ThiagoMartell]

You are taking something grossly out of context and making a straw man argument out of it. Really, I highly doubt you're fooling anyone with it, so you might as well stop.
This is highly offensive and I would request you to avoid personal attacks. I'm no trying to fool anyone. I was just unfamiliar with the Test of Spite and was replying to someone who did not provide the context you mentioned.
After knowing more about, the Test of Spite seems like a bad solution for a nonissue. That is something the creators themselves seem to have noticed, since they gave up on trying to fix a square in a round hole and just created their own system.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It became about optimization because there's an inherent link between optimization and the notion of tiers.

I agree that in a more general sense, knowledge is a good thing. However, some knowledge can be detrimental if given to people that either won't use it properly, or will deliberately misuse it. It can also be harmful to give information to people that can't handle the information. I was told about germs when I was about 4 and it left permanent psychological scars. To this day I can't eat off of the same plate or drink out of the same glass as someone else until it's been thoroughly washed. That's not "I won't" mind, it's an actuall psychological block. Being forced to do so would push me to the edge of panic, and I can almost guarantee that someone would get hurt.

Back to the tiers and optimization; lack of knowledge of the tier system isn't inherently harmful, and having the knowledge isn't inherently helpful. There's no logical argument to the contrary on either side of that which doesn't have myriad exceptions and special cases.

Like so many other tools, the tier system isn't necessarily good or bad, it just is. Combine this with the fact that different levels of optimization can take it anywhere from moot to completely misorganized (paladin for instance has an op cieling that puts it somewhere around tier 2) and you realize that it's little more than a label, and all too often an excuse to say "class X is better than class Y" as an objective statement when it's just not objectively true (sorc V wiz for example, when which is better depends so much on playstyle that you can't really call either the objectively best choice in all cases).

[Morph Bark]

No, it's not. In any 3.5 arena, if you only care for power and power alone,

Except that's not what Gareth said.

[ThiagoMartell]

Except that's not what Gareth said.

I didn't know much about the Test of Spite, but after being shown more about it, yeah, it's goes are all about power and power alone. The only reason it could exist (instead of being the same build over and over) was due to a banlist.


It became about optimization because there's an inherent link between optimization and the notion of tiers.

I agree that in a more general sense, knowledge is a good thing. However, some knowledge can be detrimental if given to people that either won't use it properly, or will deliberately misuse it. It can also be harmful to give information to people that can't handle the information. I was told about germs when I was about 4 and it left permanent psychological scars. To this day I can't eat off of the same plate or drink out of the same glass as someone else until it's been thoroughly washed. That's not "I won't" mind, it's an actuall psychological block. Being forced to do so would push me to the edge of panic, and I can almost guarantee that someone would get hurt.

Back to the tiers and optimization; lack of knowledge of the tier system isn't inherently harmful, and having the knowledge isn't inherently helpful. There's no logical argument to the contrary on either side of that which doesn't have myriad exceptions and special cases.

Like so many other tools, the tier system isn't necessarily good or bad, it just is. Combine this with the fact that different levels of optimization can take it anywhere from moot to completely misorganized (paladin for instance has an op cieling that puts it somewhere around tier 2) and you realize that it's little more than a label, and all too often an excuse to say "class X is better than class Y" as an objective statement when it's just not objectively true (sorc V wiz for example, when which is better depends so much on playstyle that you can't really call either the objectively best choice in all cases).
QFT.
This is not even mentioning that even within the confines of the tier system, it is based on the opinions of one person, a person who admits a lot of bias. His willingness to receive feedback went progressively down until he gave up on it and the list remains incomplete to this day.

[Gnorman]

If it's a tool, then treat it as one and don't moralize against it by attributing it functions beyond its scope. It's like attacking a screwdriver by saying that it encourages power-carpenters.

[ThiagoMartell]

If it's a tool, then treat it as one and don't moralize against it by attributing it functions beyond its scope. It's like attacking a screwdriver by saying that it encourages power-carpenters.
Why is saying that something encourages X bad, mind you? DO you have anything against power-carpenters or optimizers? :smallconfused:

[Gnorman]

Why is saying that something encourages X bad, mind you? DO you have anything against power-carpenters or optimizers? :smallconfused:

I have nothing against either, and in fact land squarely in the optimization camp. I don't think you quite understood the thrust of my admittedly haphazard analogy, which is: Don't blame the tool. Blame the tool user. The tier list is a tool. An imperfect tool, maybe, but a useful one nonetheless.

[Killer Angel]

Who wants tell me what all the tiers of optimization are? As I have no idea, I just do it.


They're a myth. Ignore them, and enjoy your game.

You certainly can enjoy the game, but tiers are not a mith.


@Original Poster: Essentially, the tier system measures where classes fall on their ability to affect the game world when all amounts of optimization are equal. So if everyone optimizes at the same level and has the same resources, then Wizard will generally be more versatile and powerful than a Sorcerer, who is in turn more versatile and powerful than a Factotum, who is more versatile and powerful than a Warlock, and so on. It is in no way a value judgement on the 'worth' of a class, and instead measures that class's mechanical ability to solve problems in terms of both breadth and depth.

If players at the table operate at different levels of optimization, then the tier system starts to shake apart.

This is absolutely true. I would like to add an example to explain the concept that, even if you are not aware of tiers, they’re there.
Low optimization.
Pick a fighter and develop it in a classic way, with combat feats, your magical sword / shield (or 2h weap)/ armor. Acceptable protection, acceptable damage.
Now pick a wizard and imagine a novice player choosing the spells.
1st lev. Spells: magic missile (oooh, damage!), magic armor (ooooh, protection!).
2nd. Lev. Spells: scorching ray (moar damage!), Invisibility (Can I be invisible?!?, that rocks!)
3rd level spells: fireball (MOAR damage!!!), Fly (I can fly! I’m invincible!!!).
The wizard is far from optimal (AC for protection instead of miss chance, too much damage spells, and also of the same type, yadda yadda), but compare it to the fighter: who is the one with more options?

[Gnorman]

The fighter has: A.) fewer choices and B.) crappier choices. Demonstrably so. This should not be a point of contention - it is evident in theory as well as application.

This is why the tier system is helpful to a new player. It exposes the traps of poor system mastery. It's not enough to just examine the classes, systems, and rules, and how they bear out in play, because each table does have a drastically different idea of how the game should be played and what is fun.

But one must also analyze the hidden agenda inherent in the "ivory tower" school of game design that formed the foundation of D&D 3E. There, you will see that things like Skill Focus and the Fighter were at least partially designed to punish poor players (as in, players less inclined to page through the list of feats or with a less masterful grasp on the rules).

The roleplayer vs. power-gamer is, and always has been, a false dichotomy. They are not mutually exclusive; they are not on a sliding scale where being one makes you inherently worse at the other. Playing a fighter instead of a warblade does not make you "better". You might have other reasons for playing a fighter (lack of access or approval, distaste for the fluff, resistance to ToB mechanics, resistance to new systems in general, an adherence to tradition, et cetera), but that doesn't mean that the player who chooses to be a warblade is somehow compromising himself.

[TheOOB]

TheOOB and others seem equating knowledge and use of JaronK's Tier system with knowledge of optimization and mechanical knowledge in a general sense.

No. That's not it at all. First, I've mentioned I don't care about optimization in the context of this thread too many times to be misinterpreted like that. The tier system is a tool for understanding a game phenomenon, and can be used to help run a more balanced game, nothing more, nothing less. Anything more you think is implied is something you brought to the conversation, so don't bring me into it.

Second, you're points don't prove the tier list is wrong, and as that list has been used for years, and is based on even more years of play, it's difficult to greatly refute. A few classes might be a little off(bringing up a semi-obscure class from a late game sourcebook, especially when the tier list explicitly is not designed to cover psionics.)

The Tier list does tend to care more about late game power than early game, but ultimately, it's design philosophy(places classes in tiers based on their ability to solve problems), is solid. Classes who are better able to solve problems, or can solve more types of problems, get a higher tier.

The system does mention multi-classing if you'd read it. Further, that doesn't change that it is a look of comparative power between classes. The fact that you can multiclass rogue and samurai doesn't mean the samurai isn't a crap class.


I believe the unwavering support of this system is misleading. First of all, I believe this is a problem because new players are given feedback like "Monk is a terrible class," which is an overly simplistic guideline, given other considerations left unaddressed by its Tier ranking (such as the value of a dip, ACFs, prestige class combinations, and so on) and are left to echo and devalue any use of the poorly-rated class. Secondly, I believe the unqualified backing of the system

Who said unwavering support. I said it's a good tool to understand and balance the game. It's not a guide on how to play your game or build a character, and it makes no assumptions on how to play the game.

The fact is, mechanically, the monk is a terrible class. It's primary problem solving method, melee combat, it's not terribly good at(low hp, can't use good magic eq, medium BAB, underpowered abilities). They don't have enough skills to be all that spectacular outside of combat, and they have little to do in combat other than punch people. Honestly, a cleric in heavy armor with a shield is nearly just as good of a fighter even before spells. Yes there are occasions where taking a few levels of monk may be useful(though i have seen few builds where taking make monk makes them more powerful than if they did not), but that doesn't change the fact that monks will have little to do in a party full of druids, wizards, and clerics of similar optimization levels.

If a newer player wants to make a character and be useful to such a party, might it be good to know that say a monk might not be very useful, and an unarmed variant swordsage might be more useful to the party while still keeping the same concept. Might it be useful for a DM to know ahead of time when they have a party with a fighter, a bard, a rogue, and a beguiler that the new player bringing in an artificer might cause some problems in the future?

[Firechanter]

Holy smokes! How did the fighter get banned?

Probably because it's considered altogether too weak, so any Fighter who isn't a Dungeoncrasher would be considered a waste of everybody's time.

[ThiagoMartell]

I have nothing against either, and in fact land squarely in the optimization camp. I don't think you quite understood the thrust of my admittedly haphazard analogy, which is: Don't blame the tool. Blame the tool user. The tier list is a tool. An imperfect tool, maybe, but a useful one nonetheless.

Yeah, but that's exactly what Kelb was saying. Going further down the analogy, handheld drills encourage users to use it one handed, which causes spiral fractures. Is it always the user's fault? Or is it because the drill lacked a handle? I don't know, but my company installed handles on all handheld drills to prevent that.
Basically, tools can encourage certain behaviors while using them. JaronK's tier list fits in a weird spot as a tool, because it takes some assumptions for it to even work (making it a specialized tool) and encourages using it in some ways within that specialized context (though you can tweak it in your own way, 'installing a handle', if you will).

[Gnorman]

Yeah, but that's exactly what Kelb was saying. Going further down the analogy, handheld drills encourage users to use it one handed, which causes spiral fractures. Is it always the user's fault? Or is it because the drill lacked a handle? I don't know, but my company installed handles on all handheld drills to prevent that.
Basically, tools can encourage certain behaviors while using them. JaronK's tier list fits in a weird spot as a tool, because it takes some assumptions for it to even work (making it a specialized tool) and encourages using it in some ways within that specialized context (though you can tweak it in your own way, 'installing a handle', if you will).

If we educate people about the risks of using handheld drills one-handed, can we not then hone and improve our skill with the tool?

There are risks and flaws in the tier system, as stated. That doesn't mean you should throw out the drill with the bathwater.

[ThiagoMartell]

The Tier list does tend to care more about late game power than early game, but ultimately, it's design philosophy(places classes in tiers based on their ability to solve problems), is solid. Classes who are better able to solve problems, or can solve more types of problems, get a higher tier.
It doesn't. The tier list is focused on mid op games around mid to high levels.

The system does mention multi-classing if you'd read it. Further, that doesn't change that it is a look of comparative power between classes. The fact that you can multiclass rogue and samurai doesn't mean the samurai isn't a crap class.



If a newer player wants to make a character and be useful to such a party, might it be good to know that say a monk might not be very useful, and an unarmed variant swordsage might be more useful to the party while still keeping the same concept. Might it be useful for a DM to know ahead of time when they have a party with a fighter, a bard, a rogue, and a beguiler that the new player bringing in an artificer might cause some problems in the future?
Bringing in an Artificer might create problems... for the Artificer. Artificer is a class that's very hard to play and requires plenty of support from multiple splatbooks and downtine to actually be up to tier 1 status. Badly played artificers are just Soulknives with a limit of charges per day.
You mentioned Swordsages. ToB classes are pretty much optimized by default - they have a lower ceiling but start higher. The tier system does not address that, because it is based on a specific level of optimization and system knowledge.
It's a useful tool, but it's far, far from perfect and universal. It simply does not apply to many games.

[Gnorman]

It doesn't. The tier list is focused on mid op games around mid to high levels.

Can you cite your evidence for this? I'm not familiar with this element.

[Kelb_Panthera]

To take the drill analogy a bit further, part of what I was saying is indeed what Thiago was attributing to my statements, use of certain tools does encourage certain behavoirs, but I was also saying that it's not always a good idea to give someone a tool unless you know they won't cause problems with it. You don't hand a power drill to somebody that's never shown any interest in drilling, and you certainly don't hand a drill to somebody you think is going to start punching holes in random objects/people.

Read: showing the tier list to someone with no interest in optimization is a waste of both your time, and handing it to a munchkin will lead to him playing T1 and T2 classes almost exclusively.

It's only a useful tool for a DM if he understands both the list, and optimization to rather a significant extent.

[Killer Angel]

Can you cite your evidence for this? I'm not familiar with this element.

I would like also an evidence for this:


The tier system does not address that, because it is based on a specific level of optimization and system knowledge.


'cause I don't recall it.

[ThiagoMartell]

Can you cite your evidence for this? I'm not familiar with this element.

JaronK says this regularly. You'll note it is not on the OP for his tier system and that his rating don't account for the assumptions he presents there.
This 'mid op, mid level' thing is one of the only things stated consistently by him. Finding it by google is proving to be too much of a hassle, so if you don't want to believe it, well, don't. I did think at least another guy quoting it as such (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13825648&postcount=26), but guessing where JaronK started saying it is anyone's guess.

Spoiled for side rant
The Factotum is infamous: JaronK says you should consider core + completes plus the book the class is on... then he considers Oriental Adventures as a given for his Factotum. Oh, and Races of Stone, as well. And Spell Compendium. You'll note he even says in the OP that 3.0 books are "less likely to be used" (and OA is 3.0). Bias, bias, bias. But I digress.

In fact, this is the first reply to tier system back when it was just posted (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19520582/Tier_System_for_Classes&post_num=2#331702054).

[eggs]

Second, you're points don't prove the tier list is wrong, and as that list has been used for years, and is based on even more years of play, it's difficult to greatly refute.
In case you missed it, when I talk about dogmatic support, this is exactly what I'm referring to. Saying it's been used for years does not resolve its deficiencies or flaws.

The system does mention multi-classing if you'd read it.Believe me. I've read it. That's exactly why I have beef with it. If you've forgotten how utterly uninformative that section is (ie. you should categorize the build in the better tier, unless you shouldn't), you might want to revisit the thread in question yourself.

Yes there are occasions where taking a few levels of monk may be useful(though i have seen few builds where taking make monk makes them more powerful than if they did not), but that doesn't change the fact that monks will have little to do in a party full of druids, wizards, and clerics of similar optimization levels.This encapsulates two of the major problems I mentioned with the Tier thread:
1. When you say "monks," you refer to every monk build, and your statement simply isn't true. A Kalashtar Wild Shape monk with Metamorphic Transfer would be the easiest illustration for the problem involved.
2. Defining "levels of optimization" is not as objective or trivial as you seem to be indicating. Even in the gauged-by-splatbook dive method that cropped up soon after the first tier thread, the previously-mentioned Eberron+Dragon Mag Monk and a Wizard dipping Spell Sovereign would ping equally for player effort in character building, despite the Wizard arguably becoming weaker from that investment.


Might it be useful for a DM to know ahead of time when they have a party with a fighter, a bard, a rogue, and a beguiler that the new player bringing in an artificer might cause some problems in the future?
Any of those characters may cause problems. The significance of the builds themselves and player abilities overshadow character classes to such a degree that class tiers would be pretty far from the first thing I'd worry about in assessing party balance.

[ThiagoMartell]

The tier system as it stands is flawed. Anyone posting here seems to know that.
If instead of arguing back and forth and nitpicking we spent all that energy into actually improving said system, the world would be a better place.
Well, no, it wouldn't, but at least the system would be.

[LordBlades]

From my own experience, the tier system stays valid until very low levels of optimization.

At the lowest end of optimization you start to run into the issue of different optimization floors. Assuming you're not deliberately trying to cripple your char (like a spellcaster with a negative casting stat for example), you can screw up some classes a lot more than others.

Take ToB classes as an example of high optimization floor. There's almost nothing you can do to inadvertently screw up a ToB class. There really aren't any horrible maneuvers, so no matter what you do, you'll probably be hitting stuff decently.

Now consider a sorcerer. There's ton of bad/trap spells published, and if you pick one you're pretty much stuck with it.

[ThiagoMartell]

From my own experience, the tier system stays valid until very low levels of optimization.

At the lowest end of optimization you start to run into the issue of different optimization floors. Assuming you're not deliberately trying to cripple your char (like a spellcaster with a negative casting stat for example), you can screw up some classes a lot more than others.

Take ToB classes as an example of high optimization ceiling. There's almost nothing you can do to inadvertently screw up a ToB class. There really aren't any horrible maneuvers, so no matter what you do, you'll probably be hitting stuff decently.

Now consider a sorcerer. There's ton of bad/trap spells published, and if you pick one you're pretty much stuck with it.
You mean a high optimization floor.
Paladin is a class with high optimization ceiling, because it starts very weak and ends very strong.

[LordBlades]

You mean a high optimization floor.
Paladin is a class with high optimization ceiling, because it starts very weak and ends very strong.

True, wrote the other thing by accident. edited now

[Wings of Peace]

Some of what I am about to say will have already been said but I don't feel like wading through the debate over the credibility of the tier system to find out what has and hasn't been said already.

The tier system by JaronK is a rating system of each class' problem solving abilities. Problems can be anything from solving social encounters, to combat encounters, to poodle grooming encounters. It's impossible to list every type of problem that can be solved because some like combat are actually a conglomeration of problems that can be described usually as "empty his hp box".

People will tell you it's not necessary to know the tier system and ostensibly they're right. Knowing the tier system, especially if you're not the DM, is not necessary to enjoy the game. However, learning the patterns of thought that the tier system encourages is incredibly helpful if you want to understand hypothetically how your party is going to perform.

I tend to DM quite often in my gaming groups and in the case of a 3.5 party I can generally eyeball each players character and make educated guesses about what situations I should put into an adventure to give each character their moment to shine.

Note that I don't use 'just' the tier system for these educated guesses. Earlier I said the value of the tier system is in the patterns of thought that it encourages and I meant it. When I look at the parties I dm I don't have a mental copy of the tier system in my head. What I do have is a basic mechanical understanding of the potential abilities each class has and from that I can extrapolate roughly how all the characters will interact mechanically in the situations I place them in. Understanding things in this way is useful because it means I can make adventures everyone will enjoy but it also means that if one party member is going to lag behind the others build wise I can spot it early on and offer advice.

[Firechanter]

But one must also analyze the hidden agenda inherent in the "ivory tower" school of game design that formed the foundation of D&D 3E. There, you will see that things like Skill Focus and the Fighter were at least partially designed to punish poor players (as in, players less inclined to page through the list of feats or with a less masterful grasp on the rules).

I know what article you are referring to, but still, I beg to differ. As I see it, said article was a late apology/attempt at justification of what was nothing more or less than bad design. I suspect that in fact the authors of 3.0 simply didn't really know what they were doing, and grossly misjudged the value of a lot of feats, in both directions.

Exhibit A (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html) is the attempt of a "Feat Point System" by Mr Sean K. Reynolds, back then co-designer of 3E (mainly the Monster books) and crucially involved with Pathfinder. Apparently Mr Reynolds seriously believes - or at least used to believe in 2003 - that the +3HP of Toughness are not only equal, but _twice as valuable_ as being able to cast two spells per round (i.e. Quicken Spell). or that Skill Focus is twice as good as Natural Spell.

I rest my case.

[Answerer]

This is highly offensive and I would request you to avoid personal attacks. I'm no trying to fool anyone.
I didn't actually say you were trying to fool anyone, I only said you weren't succeeding.


I was just unfamiliar with the Test of Spite and was replying to someone who did not provide the context you mentioned.
This confuses me immensely since I count no less than three posts by Lord_Gareth before mine where he explained it to you.

[Gwendol]

If someone's completely ignorant about it - as the OP stated - it's a bit more helpful to actually explain what it is rather than give a pithy one liner to them. Calling it a system isn't exactly right either. It's not like reading it actually alters anything in game or inherently changes a playstyle. The Tier System is a set of observations that have been compiled in a way to help facilitate a better understanding of game balance. If one is looking for a way to create homebrew or enact houserules for the sake of game balance, it can help an individual understand both what is potentially powerful and more importantly, why it's powerful. If one is looking to create a powerful BBEG, knowing that a Wizard has a great deal of potential and can be a more credible villain who requires less DM fiat than a Fighter is a good thing. The Tier System is about informing people, rather than forcing a particular style of play on a group - and in my experience, more knowledge is rarely a bad thing.

I do disagree with the notion that greater understanding is some kind of necessity for fun, however - we agree on that wholeheartedly.

Quoted for truth.

[etrpgb]

Because caring about fluff is doing it wrong :smallsigh:

It is weird, but some people think the opposite way. They think the fluff first and the mechanics after. It does not work at all.

The correct way is thinking the mechanics, thinking if they are fun to play and if they work in the game well. It is important making the famous question: this using this class/feat/power a reasonable choice? Will everyone want to make it? Or no-one will?

Once the mechanics is done, you can think the fluff as a toolbox for ideas characters.

The authors hardly ever did this way... They seem thinking the fluff and writing some random number for it. Seldom it works (Bard), usually it does not (Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Paladin...).


The Ur-Priest from the Book of Vile Darkness is a good example: the mechanics are fairly well done. But the fluff makes the class unplayable in many campaigns. What the hell?!?

With a little fix to the requirements the Ur-Priest, that mechanically is indeed an half-cleric, can be used in many contexts:
the Complete Divine idea of clerics who lost the god;
Warrior/Priests of some sorts,
Divine Wizards Theurges... let the fantasy run!

[Kelb_Panthera]

It is weird, but some people think the opposite way. They think the fluff first and the mechanics after. It does not work at all.

The correct way is thinking the mechanics, thinking if they are fun to play and if they work in the game well. It is important making the famous question: this using this class/feat/power a reasonable choice? Will everyone want to make it? Or no-one will?

Once the mechanics is done, you can think the fluff as a toolbox for ideas characters.

The authors hardly ever did this way... They seem thinking the fluff and writing some random number for it. Seldom it works (Bard), usually it does not (Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Paladin...).


The Ur-Priest from the Book of Vile Darkness is a good example: the mechanics are fairly well done. But the fluff makes the class unplayable in many campaigns. What the hell?!?

With a little fix to the requirements the Ur-Priest, that mechanically is indeed an half-cleric, can be used in many contexts:
the Complete Divine idea of clerics who lost the god;
Warrior/Priests of some sorts,
Divine Wizards Theurges... let the fantasy run!

No.

A) there is no "correct" way to build characters. Whether you put fluff or mechanics first is an entirely personal decision. It's a generally good idea to put at least some effort into both, but you can get away with picking one or the other.

B) There is no class in D&D that just plain doesn't work ever. Even monks and fighters have a reasonable chance at overcoming most creatures in the MM of a CR equal to their level, with no more mechanical consideration than putting at least 14 in their attack stat and getting a few plusses here and there. There are monsters that will have a nearly equal chance of killing them, and a few that they will be more likely to fall to than not, but there is not a single one that they have absolutely zero chance of overcoming. Not that it'd matter much if there were, since no PC travels alone.

The idea that there are unplayable classes in print is the single biggest fallacy that gets tossed around on the internet, in regards to 3.5.

T6's can certainly struggle in certain games and against certain enemies, but only a massive gap in the optimization between the T6 and a T2+ in his party will actually render his presence entirely moot.

[ThiagoMartell]

The Ur-Priest from the Book of Vile Darkness is a good example: the mechanics are fairly well done. But the fluff makes the class unplayable in many campaigns. What the hell?!?

Actually, the mechanics are a wreck. It's a ridiculously overpowered class.


I didn't actually say you were trying to fool anyone, I only said you weren't succeeding.
Splitting hairs when it comes to insulting someone is even more insulting.


This confuses me immensely since I count no less than three posts by Lord_Gareth before mine where he explained it to you.
Yes, but there was no mention of the banlist.


No.

A) there is no "correct" way to build characters. Whether you put fluff or mechanics first is an entirely personal decision. It's a generally good idea to put at least some effort into both, but you can get away with picking one or the other.

B) There is no class in D&D that just plain doesn't work ever. Even monks and fighters have a reasonable chance at overcoming most creatures in the MM of a CR equal to their level, with no more mechanical consideration than putting at least 14 in their attack stat and getting a few plusses here and there. There are monsters that will have a nearly equal chance of killing them, and a few that they will be more likely to fall to than not, but there is not a single one that they have absolutely zero chance of overcoming. Not that it'd matter much if there were, since no PC travels alone.

The idea that there are unplayable classes in print is the single biggest fallacy that gets tossed around on the internet, in regards to 3.5.

T6's can certainly struggle in certain games and against certain enemies, but only a massive gap in the optimization between the T6 and a T2+ in his party will actually render his presence entirely moot.
QFT. The bolded part is sig-worthy.

[Axier]

The tier system can be used as a method of choosing the mechanical elements of a class. If you consider multiclassing, you can get a very general idea that combining two classes from different tiers would affect their overall play style. This is not necessairly a bad thing. I have also used the tier system to balance myself out, and make sure I wouldn't be stepping on too many toes.

That being said, the tier system is not nearly dynamic enough to cover true Optimization. I can take enough dips and ACFs in apparently low-tier classes, and make a fairly high tier character.

Using the Tier system as an end-all reference to optimization, I would have to disagree. It could be useful in introducing new players into the general power level of the classes. This can, so long as it is clear that it is not definite, can be a useful teaching aide in character optimization.

As for the Stormwind Fallacy that tends to follow these discussion, I feel that it depends on the person. For example, I have played a masochistic blood worshipping healer that doesn't do anything but heal. The literal T5 healing class. One of the only sevierly low tier casters. Would I be terribly effective at much? Not really. But I enjoyed the concept of worshiping blood, and even planed on writing a book in character about Healing and the Life Blood, out of my own blood.

Just because you aren't contributing as much as the wizard does not mean that you can't have fun with it. It really just depends on who you are.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Actually, the mechanics are a wreck. It's a ridiculously overpowered class.


Splitting hairs when it comes to insulting someone is even more insulting.


Yes, but there was no mention of the banlist.


QFT. The bolded part is sig-worthy.

Using Ur-priest as an example of anything but an overpowered class or a sample of self-contradictory RAW is indeed a bit silly.

If the comment about the bolded part is a request, then feel free to sig away.

[navar100]

Oh sweet Asmodeus people, the OP is genuinely looking for information. If we want to have our monthly fight about the tier thread can we at least go make a new thread for it?

@Original Poster: Essentially, the tier system measures where classes fall on their ability to affect the game world when all amounts of optimization are equal. So if everyone optimizes at the same level and has the same resources, then Wizard will generally be more versatile and powerful than a Sorcerer, who is in turn more versatile and powerful than a Factotum, who is more versatile and powerful than a Warlock, and so on. It is in no way a value judgement on the 'worth' of a class, and instead measures that class's mechanical ability to solve problems in terms of both breadth and depth.

If players at the table operate at different levels of optimization, then the tier system starts to shake apart. Likewise, at bizzarely low levels of optimization, it starts failing to apply as the players' own inability to comprehend the system takes precedent, but otherwise it's a pretty good way to summarize what to expect from any given class.

Quite true. This is the Tier system as it was originally presented to be, something I have no issue with. However, the problem is people have taken it to mean it is a value judgment on the worth of a class. They use it as a crutch to claim you're Doing It Wrong.

As I've mentioned many times before, there are four groups:

Group 1: Tier 1 is an abomination. Gate exists. Natural Spell is a horror. How dare players have such power. Spellcasters have any spell they need any time all the time at the exact moment they need it, and it always works every time all the time. Ban! Ban! Ban!

Group 2: If you play Tier 4 or 5 you are The Suck. You can't do anything. You always fail your saving throws. You're pathetic because you rely on equipment. You are a waste of resources and space. You are a loser when faced with a large flying four-legged creature with 10 ft reach or any combination there of.

Group 3: All Praise Be the Holy Tier 3. It is the One True Way. It is perfect Balance. All your troubles will go away if you only just play Tier 3. You are a power-hungry munchkin for wanting Tier 1 or 2. You are doomed to have no fun for wanting Tier 4 or below.

Group 4: This is why 3E sucks donkey. It is horribly unbalanced, a stupid game. That's why I play (insert system), It is so superior in every way.

I will say, thankfully, that such talk has been quiet lately. I'll read a snippet here and there, but nothing more comes from it.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Quite true. This is the Tier system as it was originally presented to be, something I have no issue with. However, the problem is people have taken it to mean it is a value judgment on the worth of a class. They use it as a crutch to claim you're Doing It Wrong.

As I've mentioned many times before, there are four groups:

Group 1: Tier 1 is an abomination. Gate exists. Natural Spell is a horror. How dare players have such power. Spellcasters have any spell they need any time all the time at the exact moment they need it, and it always works every time all the time. Ban! Ban! Ban!

Group 2: If you play Tier 4 or 5 you are The Suck. You can't do anything. You always fail your saving throws. You're pathetic because you rely on equipment. You are a waste of resources and space. You are a loser when faced with a large flying four-legged creature with 10 ft reach or any combination there of.

Group 3: All Praise Be the Holy Tier 3. It is the One True Way. It is perfect Balance. All your troubles will go away if you only just play Tier 3. You are a power-hungry munchkin for wanting Tier 1 or 2. You are doomed to have no fun for wanting Tier 4 or below.

Group 4: This is why 3E sucks donkey. It is horribly unbalanced, a stupid game. That's why I play (insert system), It is so superior in every way.

I will say, thankfully, that such talk has been quiet lately. I'll read a snippet here and there, but nothing more comes from it.

Now that you mention it, I have noticed a down-trend in that sort of post too.

I'm certainly not complaining about it. :smallsmile:

[Provengreil]

No, but they are deliberately ignoring realities of the system and thus impairing their ability to enjoy the game to its fullest.

MY fullest enjoyment of the game has come solidly at tier 4, every time. Stop using absolutes.

[LordBlades]

Quite true. This is the Tier system as it was originally presented to be, something I have no issue with. However, the problem is people have taken it to mean it is a value judgment on the worth of a class. They use it as a crutch to claim you're Doing It Wrong.



Sometimes value judgements are useful (maybe even necessary). Sometimes realizing pre-game that the fighter in the CoDzilla, God Wizard and Mailman Sorc might be a bit out of his league (polite understatement for hopelessly outclassed and only able to contribute as much as the others care to enable him to) is useful, both as a player and a DM.

What I can agree on is that telling people they're doing it wrong for playing weaker classes in a vacuum is not constructive at all. Some times playing a Monk is perfectly fine.

[etrpgb]

Do anyone actually played a Tier 4 character in a party of Tier 1/2 where mechanics are indeed used?
If you did you should understand that it is not an empty problem.

About my previous comment, I was talking about the rules. Not the characters.

About the ur-priest I am confused. Lower caster level (without strange mixes), half spells per day, half rebuke undead... how can it be overpowered compared the simple cleric?

[LordBlades]

Do anyone actually played a Tier 4 character in a party of Tier 1/2 where mechanics are indeed used?


I have. Or actually have seen it happen as a tier 1 caster (druid): ninja brought in a party where the least optimized character was a spellthief/wizard. At best he was comic relief. At worst, keeping the ninja alive was more of a pain in the rear than winning the encounter.

[etrpgb]

I have the feeling that most ``fluff over mechanics'' and ``not a problem arguments'' is made from masters or players who used powerful classes...

[ThiagoMartell]

About the ur-priest I am confused. Lower caster level (without strange mixes), half spells per day, half rebuke undead... how can it be overpowered compared the simple cleric?

Steal spell-like ability, 9s by ECL 15, allows you to use tons of levels to cherry pick abilities while keeping full casting... Ur-Priest is pure optimization gold.

[Lord_Gareth]

Do anyone actually played a Tier 4 character in a party of Tier 1/2 where mechanics are indeed used?
If you did you should understand that it is not an empty problem.

About my previous comment, I was talking about the rules. Not the characters.

About the ur-priest I am confused. Lower caster level (without strange mixes), half spells per day, half rebuke undead... how can it be overpowered compared the simple cleric?

Well, the first and most important part is that the Ur-Priest gets all of its spells (including 9th) earlier than Cleric, and the second bit is that since the Ur-Priest doesn't exist in a vacuum and more importantly is a PrC, you definitely have to take strange mixes into account.

[etrpgb]

A little earlier, true. But half of them, and half caster level. Sure there is space from some game breakage pushing the caster level over the top. But I still see nothing that make it so much better than the Cleric or the Artificer...

[Lord_Gareth]

The idea that there are unplayable classes in print is the single biggest fallacy that gets tossed around on the internet, in regards to 3.5.

Truenamers, sir, would like a word with you about this statement.

[etrpgb]

It might be true that nothing is unplayable by itself, but the difference is the problem.


With friends I am trying a Tier 3 Classes (and 0, +1 PrC) only game and it works fairly well; because there is no much space to transform a fellow player in a waste of space.

Time ago we played a Tier 4 only (a part of a bard) it is was not a deliberate decision... it just happened and same thing. No big problems.

Instead, put capable players in the same table with classes with great Tier difference (e.g. a cleric, a wizard, a fighter and a rogue) and the weaker character will make the problem evident.

[only1doug]

Truenamers, sir, would like a word with you about this statement.

True namers are playable. You'll just wish you hadn't.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

My two cents on the topic:

The tier system is a system of relative theoretical maximum power. One which casters blow the top off of, simply by virtue of having so many 'win' buttons at their fingertips.

A low tier class is not 'unplayable', because I've done it. However, I had to exert my optimization skills *FAR* more, even invented a couple of tricks no one else had come up with before, just to make it able to not be completely ineffective.

For example, the build Takahashi no Onisan (seen in sig) was a Test of Spite build using exclusively CW Samurai levels (the updated version had one level of Rogue, one level in Exemplar, and one level in Ronin, but still had 10 levels in CW Samurai). Was he effective? Sure was. I completely locked my opponent down.

However, it's a fragile build, because anything immune to Fear is immune to the character, because his overall damage-per-turn output is pathetic.

Even at the highest levels of optimization, inventing brand new tactics and finding previously undiscovered synergies... he's still not a powerful character, particularly not if opponents are either immune to fear or stay away from him.

When I applied the same level of optimization to a Warblade, I got a build which could deliver an arbitrary amount of damage to every opponent within line of sight. Because he received between two and three bonus attacks for every opponent he killed (Boomerang Ricochet + Snap Kick + Great Cleave, an Aptitude Weapon, and four levels in Bloodstorm Blade), and he would only miss on a natural 1 (Blood In The Water) and his damage kept increasing the more he hit (again, Blood In The Water), he simply used the Bag O' Puppies/Rats trick to start himself off with something like thirty or fourty bonus attacks to provide him with a buffer to ensure the combo would not end prematurely.

Do you see the difference here? CW Samurai can, at the HIGHEST levels of optimization, lockdown opponents not immune to fear within 30' of him. Warblade can deal an arbitrary amount of damage to every opponent within line of sight.

Now let's look at another paradigm shift...

At level 9, a Wizard is functionally immortal by using Lesser Planar Binding on a Nightmare to Astral Projection himself, meaning he's not even able to be targeted in combat!

By level 20, using Spell Matrix, Spellsurge, the spell Celerity, Arcane Thesis, and several other Mailman-esque Metamagic Optimization tricks, he has effectively an arbitrary number of turns available to him.

Think about that. He has every turn in the game before you have a chance to react. Yes, even in a Surprise round (which isn't surprising to him, either through Foresight or Contingency).

Can you not see the power level disparity here?

Tier 6, at the highest level of optimization, can be built to be a one-trick pony. A Tier 3 character, at the highest levels of optimization, have the potential to break a game. A Tier 1 character, however, can not only break the game, but be invincible while doing it, and can break the game in multiple independent ways.

It's not saying you *HAVE* to. It's saying these are the theoretical limits of what the chassis is capable of.

[Malanorea]

The tier system, in short, is not a way of defining the playability of a given class. It is a way for you as a player to balance the power level of your party, and for you as a DM to balance the campaign to the party's general capabilities. If you have a party that likes playing fighters and the like, you making a wizard will blow them all out of the water and spoil the campaign for them. Conversely, playing a monk, for example, in a party of top- or high-tier classes will result in you holding the rest back or not contributing as heavily while still taking a share of the treasure and experience.

[gkathellar]

True namers are playable. You'll just wish you hadn't.

Yeah, basically this.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Truenamers, sir, would like a word with you about this statement.

You haven't actually crunched the numbers, he tells me.

Truenamer is perfectly capable of auto-hitting his target truename DC's at all but a couple levels around 17-19 with no cheese even by following the designers' assumption of building on the elite array. Even then he's hitting them fairly reliably, and at 20 he can produce several gates per day with no cost, before he even has to start making a check.

Since he -can- produce the effects he's supposed to, several times per day each, with no checks, he's perfectly useable. He's certainly not overwhelmingly poweful, but he belongs somewhere around T4.

@shneeky: The tier system doesn't assume highest level optimization. If it did it would be completely misorganized. Paladin should be somewhere around the low end of T2 just for example, and none of the martial adepts would belong in T3. Though honestly, I'm not entirely convinced that warblade and crusader belong in T3 even as the system stands, though that's a completely different discussion.

Noone's denying that the tier system can have some use. Well, most of us aren't anyway. What we are arguing is that its usefulness is far more limited than it's generally given credit for.

@ whoever said it: I have played a god wizard in a party with a druid a fighter and a monk. I let the druid take care of himself and I boosted the fighter and to a surprisingly (to most of the folks here it'd be surprising) lesser extent the monk. Everybody had a blast and noone felt useless. The key was in the DM talking over our characters with us and giving each of us a chance to shine. The fact that we were at opposite ends of the tier spectrum and my character was a bit more optimized than the others had zero impact on the game.

No amount of mechanical mastery can ever substitute for good communication and cooperation within the group.

[etrpgb]

as I said, I agree. If you are the god wizard and the monk is another player you might see no problems.

[LordBlades]

No amount of mechanical mastery can ever substitute for good communication and cooperation within the group.

Technically with enough system mastery you can have around a couple of semi-permanent fully obedient minions that are more competent than any other party member. So enough mechanical mastery can substitute for communication and cooperation.

Seriously now you're right. In the end everything that matters if everybody is happy with how the things are going. If the wizard player is happy dragging up the monk, and the monk player is happy with being only as good as the amount of spell slots the wizard invests into him, then nobody should have a problem with that (apart from purely theoretical discussions regardign wizard vs. monk ofc).

[navar100]

Do anyone actually played a Tier 4 character in a party of Tier 1/2 where mechanics are indeed used?
If you did you should understand that it is not an empty problem.

About my previous comment, I was talking about the rules. Not the characters.

About the ur-priest I am confused. Lower caster level (without strange mixes), half spells per day, half rebuke undead... how can it be overpowered compared the simple cleric?

Kinda. In actuality, I was playing the Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell cleric way back when Persistent Spell was only +4 levels. The rogue was having a blast with his two-weapon style sneak attack. We called him "Fireball on a stick." There was also a single class fighter happy enough hacking away at his foes. The barbarian multiclassed with psionic warrior to become a War Mind. There was also a wizard in the party. No one had any issues whatsover with my character. They were happy enough I did what I did. They loved my Extended Heroes' Feast breakfast of champions every game day. We worked together as a team like a party should. I knew when it was time to go womping on the bad guys. I knew when it was time to go full heal-bot let everyone else do the womping and do my darndest just keeping them alive. I had great versatility, true, and the party loved me for it.

[Gnaeus]

Kinda. In actuality, I was playing the Divine Metamagic Persistent Spell cleric way back when Persistent Spell was only +4 levels. The rogue was having a blast with his two-weapon style sneak attack. We called him "Fireball on a stick." There was also a single class fighter happy enough hacking away at his foes. The barbarian multiclassed with psionic warrior to become a War Mind. There was also a wizard in the party. No one had any issues whatsover with my character. They were happy enough I did what I did. They loved my Extended Heroes' Feast breakfast of champions every game day. We worked together as a team like a party should. I knew when it was time to go womping on the bad guys. I knew when it was time to go full heal-bot let everyone else do the womping and do my darndest just keeping them alive. I had great versatility, true, and the party loved me for it.

I would have hated you for it. You were heavily metagaming, using OOC information to create a result that pleases other players OOC but which would be highly unlikely to actually please anyone IC. If you think this does not break suspension of disbelief into tiny little pieces, can you imagine a special operations team in a war actually saying to one of its members "Hey, thanks for giving me a chance to charge in and get shot by the enemy when you could have trivially ended the fight. I really appreciate you giving me a chance to shine, even though it involved me getting shot 3 times. I was really looking to get a purple heart out of this encounter."

And of course, the fact that a T1 and T5s can coexist nicely in a certain game does not disprove the tier system. In your example, for it to work, it called for the high tier character to metagame and intentionally hold his character back, and for the other players to be ok with the fact that their characters were really only there because that guy chose to stroke their egos.

[Answerer]

You haven't actually crunched the numbers, he tells me.

Truenamer is perfectly capable of auto-hitting his target truename DC's at all but a couple levels around 17-19 with no cheese even by following the designers' assumption of building on the elite array. Even then he's hitting them fairly reliably, and at 20 he can produce several gates per day with no cost, before he even has to start making a check.

Since he -can- produce the effects he's supposed to, several times per day each, with no checks, he's perfectly useable. He's certainly not overwhelmingly poweful, but he belongs somewhere around T4.
You're ignoring some important details here.

First, there's the fact that a lot of the utterances in Tome of Magic are really weak. Especially at higher levels, even though you can use your utterances doesn't mean much, because you don't really have any good utterances to use.

Second, and more important for this argument, the Truenamer takes a lot of optimization to hit those DCs. A low-optimization Truenamer (nothing more than max ranks, 16 starting Int, +6 Int item, +5 Int from levels) is not going to hit a lot of them. You can optimize the Truenamer into playability. But no other class, not even NPC classes, has that requirement. That's why the Truenamer cannot be a part of the Tier list. It simply cannot fit in what is supposed to be an optimization-agnostic list.

[Spuddles]

I would have hated you for it. You were heavily metagaming, using OOC information to create a result that pleases other players OOC but which would be highly unlikely to actually please anyone IC. If you think this does not break suspension of disbelief into tiny little pieces, can you imagine a special operations team in a war actually saying to one of its members "Hey, thanks for giving me a chance to charge in and get shot by the enemy when you could have trivially ended the fight. I really appreciate you giving me a chance to shine, even though it involved me getting shot 3 times. I was really looking to get a purple heart out of this encounter."

And of course, the fact that a T1 and T5s can coexist nicely in a certain game does not disprove the tier system. In your example, for it to work, it called for the high tier character to metagame and intentionally hold his character back, and for the other players to be ok with the fact that their characters were really only there because that guy chose to stroke their egos.

None of the people I play with actually roleplay. I tend to roll with overbuilt monstrosities and hold back until I need to save the party from their poor decision making, bad tactics, terrible builds, and fundamental failure to understand the system.

I mean it's great that all your parties are analogous to real life special forces teams of all humans with no more than three or four hit dice and no magic and masterwork gear and a complex gritty armor-as-DR wounds system, but there are often characters in my party that regrow lost body parts, shoot spells, worship a deific embodiment of pain and misery, revel in slaughter and bloodshed, summon things from other worlds, leap off flying ships, fall a mile and walk away, cut their way out of the stomach of a fire breathing monster because, hey, we haven't done that before, and, well, just have damage so damn abstracted from actually getting hurt that everyone wants to run in and roll crits until they're losing to many precious bodily fluids.

So yeah, it's more like airborne jumping from a burning plane, missing the DLZ, humping through hostile territory, rationing every grenade and M249 round, keeping their predator drone and SARH safe until they get to the target, then unleashing hellfire. Militaries have multimillion dollar planes and tanks with extremely sophisticated ordinance delivery systems, but they still put boots and rifles all over the place. You don't use a $16 million payload to solve something that only requires $100 in 5.56mm rounds and diesel.


You're ignoring some important details here.

First, there's the fact that a lot of the utterances in Tome of Magic are really weak. Especially at higher levels, even though you can use your utterances doesn't mean much, because you don't really have any good utterances to use.

Second, and more important for this argument, the Truenamer takes a lot of optimization to hit those DCs. A low-optimization Truenamer (nothing more than max ranks, 16 starting Int, +6 Int item, +5 Int from levels) is not going to hit a lot of them. You can optimize the Truenamer into playability. But no other class, not even NPC classes, has that requirement. That's why the Truenamer cannot be a part of the Tier list. It simply cannot fit in what is supposed to be an optimization-agnostic list.

By the same argument, casters should not fit into the tier system, because it requires system mastery and optimization to pick out the good spells and know when to target which saves, and when. You can't just pick planar binding and cast it and expect it to work. You have to read like 2 pages of stuff, optimize your cha, make magic circles backwards, cast geas' on confined monsters.

I think people too frequently overlook the amount of optimization that is inherent in even knowing what spells to use. I know when I first picked up 3.5, it was all shocking grasp (5d6!!!) and omg I want to use meteor storm! Knowing what spells are force multipliers or battlefield controllers requires optimization. Do you remember when TLN came out with his treatise on going after saves, divination use, and some generic party buffs? That stuff was revolutionary, and really no less different than the kit optimization that Truenamers require.

I play with people that don't optimize their characters. In my experience, druids are almost universally played by people that don't know how to optimize- they have terrible spell selection, they don't know or use wildshape right (d8 HD on a half elf and the AC of a leopard sucks), their animal companion is a goat sans barding, they spend a bunch of their gold on a +3 scimitar. These are real life examples, from playing in 3 different groups and seeing 4 different druids played. Just because it has a rank 1 tier doesn't mean it plays well without optimization. A guy throwing +2 sling stones at hill giants is terrible. What good are class features if they aren't used well?

[Firechanter]

I think the military analogy has done its due by now. It only goes so far.

I understand Gnaeus; in fact, I think along similar lines, though not even so roleplay-centric. But it ruins my game if I realize that all my character ever does is just pointless, because the Mighty CoDzilla could have done the same thing, possibly even better, without breaking a sweat.

It kind of reminds me of a scene of a small child trying to reach a high shelf, reaching and hopping and groaning, when all the time a grownup stands right next to it and watches with a grin before he finally gets the cookie jar from the shelf with one easy grab. That's exactly the same as a T1 char "holding back" while the T4-5s get their asses handed to them.

Note that I'm not saying the T1 char should do everything himself and take along lower tier fellows just as water-carriers who get to watch a show. Instead, all characters should be of a similar power level to begin with.

[eggs]

Do anyone actually played a Tier 4 character in a party of Tier 1/2 where mechanics are indeed used?
If you did you should understand that it is not an empty problem.
Yes. Which is why I say class is not the problem that needs a tool to address.

One of the games when I was still figuring stuff out for the Divine Mind handbook, the rest of the party consisted of a Wilder, a control wizard and an Unseen Seer. The Divine Mind's astral constructs, debuffs, enchantments, tactical teleports and eventual metamorphic transferred abilities were plenty for it to keep up. If anyone was out of place, it was the Wilder, who was too miserly with his PP to ever make a major impact.

That's not to say character build-based imbalance isn't a problem, but this notion that balance problems will occur if tiers are mixed is just untrue.

I think the Tier system did sprout out one useful idea, despite my objections to its initial premise: gauging performance with a set gauntlet of challenges, such as the ones Frank&K referred to in their class design discussions (ie. Directly examining how well a character would perform in a social scenario, a stealth scenario, a trap scenario, mass combat, single-opponent combat, overcoming mobility obstacles, etc.). But those gauntlets are much more informative when applied to specific character builds than they are to classes as a whole.

[Axier]

I think the military analogy has done its due by now. It only goes so far.

I understand Gnaeus; in fact, I think along similar lines, though not even so roleplay-centric. But it ruins my game if I realize that all my character ever does is just pointless, because the Mighty CoDzilla could have done the same thing, possibly even better, without breaking a sweat.

It kind of reminds me of a scene of a small child trying to reach a high shelf, reaching and hopping and groaning, when all the time a grownup stands right next to it and watches with a grin before he finally gets the cookie jar from the shelf with one easy grab. That's exactly the same as a T1 char "holding back" while the T4-5s get their asses handed to them.

Note that I'm not saying the T1 char should do everything himself and take along lower tier fellows just as water-carriers who get to watch a show. Instead, all characters should be of a similar power level to begin with.

Id still rather be the guy with all the power, and never use it. The argument works if you aren't telling a story... Say I want to be a wizard, my decision as a player should be just as important as the DM's ability to say no, but I will reassure that I will make it an epic experience for everyone.

If Gandalf had merely played the clearly Tier 1 character to full potential, it would have made The Lord of The Rings into a short comic strip in the paper.

Not everyone has to be balanced power wise for a good game. If people are that upset about being weaker than others, then they need to grow up.

The other side is not without flaw. The power hungry that do everything as efficiently as possible and step on others toes because they can are just as childish.

If we get back to the brass tacks of roleplaying, the fact that you are telling a story together should be enough...

If it isn't, then yes, everyone should be balanced and power should be evenly divided. If we are roleplaying like a videogame, with over the top action, it is a perfectly good reason to ensure everyone is optimizing to an equal tier.

This is the choice you have, both very reasonable. IF you prefer roleplaying and story elements, then the tier system is COMPLETELY worthless. If you prefer over the top action, where battle is the main focus, then the Tier system is somewhat useful for party balance. It is however, still not as amazingly biblical as some people are pointing it out to be.

[Gavinfoxx]

Gandalf was a level 5 or so Paladin with lots of racial abilities that he couldn't access under most circumstances.

[Answerer]

By the same argument, casters should not fit into the tier system, because it requires system mastery and optimization to pick out the good spells and know when to target which saves, and when. You can't just pick planar binding and cast it and expect it to work. You have to read like 2 pages of stuff, optimize your cha, make magic circles backwards, cast geas' on confined monsters.

I think people too frequently overlook the amount of optimization that is inherent in even knowing what spells to use. I know when I first picked up 3.5, it was all shocking grasp (5d6!!!) and omg I want to use meteor storm! Knowing what spells are force multipliers or battlefield controllers requires optimization. Do you remember when TLN came out with his treatise on going after saves, divination use, and some generic party buffs? That stuff was revolutionary, and really no less different than the kit optimization that Truenamers require.
There is such a massive difference in quantity here that it becomes its own quality.

A poorly-optimized wizard will be a sub-par damage-dealer with very limited resources.

A poorly-optimized, or even moderately-optimized, Truenamer, will be able to do little-to-nothing at all.

You have to optimize a Truenamer to a certain degree just to use its class features. No other class has that serious a problem. A Monk running his full move speed every other turn, Flurrying on the others, may not be a particularly effective combatant, but at least his class features are getting used.

A truenamer who didn't know that he really needed to absolutely maximize his Int (i.e. a 16 is not good enough), and needed to pick up every single bonus to Truenaming he could find, and that he really had to go digging to find them? His utterances are failing more often than not, and it's only getting worse as he levels.

[Spuddles]

I think the military analogy has done its due by now. It only goes so far.

I understand Gnaeus; in fact, I think along similar lines, though not even so roleplay-centric. But it ruins my game if I realize that all my character ever does is just pointless, because the Mighty CoDzilla could have done the same thing, possibly even better, without breaking a sweat.

It kind of reminds me of a scene of a small child trying to reach a high shelf, reaching and hopping and groaning, when all the time a grownup stands right next to it and watches with a grin before he finally gets the cookie jar from the shelf with one easy grab. That's exactly the same as a T1 char "holding back" while the T4-5s get their asses handed to them.

Note that I'm not saying the T1 char should do everything himself and take along lower tier fellows just as water-carriers who get to watch a show. Instead, all characters should be of a similar power level to begin with.

It really depends on the group. I like having characters that can do more than hit things with a stick. I happen to play with a bunch of people who want to do nothing more than hit stuff with a stick. Their builds are basically me putting something together that they can't mess up, giving them two options (attack and full attack), and then trying to coax them into a dungeon. Their entire enjoyment in the game is rolling criticals and getting to use great cleave.

I show up with T1 characters because rerolling every other session just doesn't appeal to me. I end up carrying the group because the group is colossally incompetent.

Hmm, makes my group sound dysfunctional. It kind of is, I guess.


There is such a massive difference in quantity here that it becomes its own quality.

A poorly-optimized wizard will be a sub-par damage-dealer with very limited resources.

A poorly-optimized, or even moderately-optimized, Truenamer, will be able to do little-to-nothing at all.

You have to optimize a Truenamer to a certain degree just to use its class features. No other class has that serious a problem. A Monk running his full move speed every other turn, Flurrying on the others, may not be a particularly effective combatant, but at least his class features are getting used.

A truenamer who didn't know that he really needed to absolutely maximize his Int (i.e. a 16 is not good enough), and needed to pick up every single bonus to Truenaming he could find, and that he really had to go digging to find them? His utterances are failing more often than not, and it's only getting worse as he levels.

But I've seen monks with multiple 18s and no stats below a 14, with poor feat selection and combat choice, run around, flurry of misses, get chewed up, then flee. They essentially contribute nothing to the combat, other than maybe a flanking bonus and a distraction for a couple rounds, then suck down healing resources and xp. I mean, fighters pick up weapon focus and chunky armor, and need a constant stream of magic gear to stay competitive just in the to hit and not to get hit realm. I don't see what's so different about a Truenamer needing similar gear and avoiding the Toughness traps in utterance & feat selection. Besides, the lower level stuff is actually easier than the higher level stuff. Making a check to cast a spell is actually pretty similar to, say, how everyone who isn't a caster works. That you have the law of sequence and a generally bad selection of things to work with makes Truenamers worse than their spellcasting relatives, certainly. But a Level 1 fighter swinging at AC 16 is going to have trouble unless they went with a race that gives them some +hit, weapon focus, and put 16 or 18 in str.

I think it's also common to forget how hard it can be to pick the number of appropriate spells on a prepared caster. In my experience, I find T2 and sometimes T3 more practically powerful than T1 as the global optima is almost impossible to reach without resorting to foul cheese. A wizard may have a tool to use on every situation, but having a larger array of hammers tends to work better in D&D, especially if there are constraints on taking the 9 hours to reshuffle spells. I am not entirely sure where I am going with this line of reasoning, other than saying in my experience, prepared casters often end the day with spells they don't cast because they couldn't find a use for them. Spontaneously turning them into nature's allies is totally OP, of course, but then I've played for years with a druid who cast a couple goodberries and maybe cure light wounds. Maybe. Never once did anything memorable with spells. I'm not sure if that falls into some special terrible player category, but I think I'd definitely put it on the optimization spectrum.

[Gnorman]

I think people too frequently overlook the amount of optimization that is inherent in even knowing what spells to use. I know when I first picked up 3.5, it was all shocking grasp (5d6!!!) and omg I want to use meteor storm! Knowing what spells are force multipliers or battlefield controllers requires optimization. Do you remember when TLN came out with his treatise on going after saves, divination use, and some generic party buffs? That stuff was revolutionary, and really no less different than the kit optimization that Truenamers require.

I think you're overstating the difficulty here. It doesn't take much system mastery to realize that Sleep is better than Magic Missile. A chance to take multiple foes out of the fight entirely vs. 1d6+1 damage to one of them? That should be obvious to even new players. It does require a basic framework of mathematics and probability, but then so does any other class.

It's really not hard to optimize a wizard. Many people do it accidentally.

A wizard has a demonstrably higher number of choices for dealing with problems. Even a straight-up blaster is liable to take spells that attack Reflex saves and spells that attack armor class (without even perhaps considering the rational behind them), whereas the fighter is restricted to the one.


I think it's also common to forget how hard it can be to pick the number of appropriate spells on a prepared caster. In my experience, I find T2 and sometimes T3 more practically powerful than T1 as the global optima is almost impossible to reach without resorting to foul cheese. A wizard may have a tool to use on every situation, but having a larger array of hammers tends to work better in D&D, especially if there are constraints on taking the 9 hours to reshuffle spells. I am not entirely sure where I am going with this line of reasoning, other than saying in my experience, prepared casters often end the day with spells they don't cast because they couldn't find a use for them. Spontaneously turning them into nature's allies is totally OP, of course, but then I've played for years with a druid who cast a couple goodberries and maybe cure light wounds. Maybe. Never once did anything memorable with spells. I'm not sure if that falls into some special terrible player category, but I think I'd definitely put it on the optimization spectrum.

Just because you didn't play the class according to its intended function (spontaneous nature's ally, in this case, being that intended function, which is supported by the ability existing in the first place) doesn't mean that doing so is overpowered. It may be for different reasons.

Seriously, we need to stop putting a value judgment on "optimization", just like we should not put a value judgment on "roleplaying." Everybody optimizes. Picking Power Attack instead of Spell Focus on a fighter is "optimizing."

[Spuddles]

It's really not hard to optimize a wizard. Many people do it accidentally.

I've never seen it happen.

You'd be surprised how much blaster wizard baggage is out there.


I think you're overstating the difficulty here. It doesn't take much system mastery to realize that Sleep is better than Magic Missile. A chance to take multiple foes out of the fight entirely vs. 1d6+1 damage to one of them? That should be obvious to even new players. It does require a basic framework of mathematics and probability, but then so does any other class.

It's really not hard to optimize a wizard. Many people do it accidentally.

A wizard has a demonstrably higher number of choices for dealing with problems. Even a straight-up blaster is liable to take spells that attack Reflex saves and spells that attack armor class (without even perhaps considering the rational behind them), whereas the fighter is restricted to the one.



Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal. Just because you didn't play the class according to its intended function (spontaneous nature's ally, in this case, being that intended function, which is supported by the ability existing in the first place) doesn't mean that doing so is overpowered. It may be for different reasons.

I'm not debating the veracity of ranking wizard above fighter. I have a fairly large contention with the "no optimization" rule of tier ranking, with a surprisingly arbitrary and poorly defined set of what counts as optimization. Cherry picking the best spells across nearly 10 years of books? Somehow not optimization. The player magically knows all those rules and that average damage from haste is better than a fireball, or that forcing ability checks (web, grease) is often way meaner than saves. Or memorizing which monsters have good/bad saves, or high HD. That's all apparently a class feature of a wizard- automatically know good spells.

But using a MW item, making int your highest stat, skill focus: truespeak, and an utterance that makes you better at truespeak? Way too much optimization. Using Core + Tome of Magic, truespeak of level+3(ranks)+3(skill focus) + 3 (16 int) + 5 (utterance) + 10/20/30 (competence) + 5 (libram of the thing) + 2 (circumstance) is level + 29 to + 49. You need a check of 15 + (2xlevel). That's plenty competent, and with smart utterance choices, probably puts you in T4, maybe approaching T3. Probably more useful than most ToB classes, if lacking stamina. But of course, knowing items relevant to your class, that's optimization. A fighter wanting a better a sword or a truenamer wanting a boost to truespeak, that's different than a wizard getting every good spell.


Oh yeah, do you happen to have ANY evidence to support your assertions that playing Batman or GOD or Cindy or the Wish & the Word is self evident?

[Flickerdart]

Just because blasting isn't as good as the wizard's other options doesn't mean that it isn't good.

[Gnorman]

Just because blasting isn't as good as the wizard's other options doesn't mean that it isn't good.

Amen.

The wizard is tier 1 because he is theoretically capable of "breaking" the game (taken here to mean: solve an inordinately large comparison of challenges compared to what other classes are capable of solving, and/or drastically shift what kind of challenges he can solve on a day-to-day basis). Just because he chooses not to (or does not realize that he is capable of it) does not mean that the class itself is diminished.

Just because your wizard doesn't "break" the game doesn't mean that the wizard class isn't itself "broken."

[Spuddles]

Just because blasting isn't as good as the wizard's other options doesn't mean that it isn't good.


Amen.

The wizard is tier 1 because he is theoretically capable of "breaking" the game (taken here to mean: solve an inordinately large comparison of challenges compared to what other classes are capable of solving, and/or drastically shift what kind of challenges he can solve on a day-to-day basis). Just because he chooses not to (or does not realize that he is capable of it) does not mean that the class itself is diminished.

Just because your wizard doesn't "break" the game doesn't mean that the wizard class isn't itself "broken."

See my edit.
I'm in favor of moving classes up tiers, because hey, internet + discussion = more from less.

Nowhere have I claimed wizards aren't broken, but to break them, like any other class, requires a certain level of system mastery and optimization.

[Gnorman]

Oh yeah, do you happen to have ANY evidence to support your assertions that playing Batman or GOD or Cindy or the Wish & the Word is self evident?

Straw man is made of straw.

Did I claim that that was the natural outcome of playing a wizard? No. What I said was that it was easy to optimize a wizard, because of all the various options they have. When you have a wealth of options, it is much easier to choose a better one for the situation. I didn't say that you have to use Orb of Acid with metamagic up the wazoo, or Scry-and-Die. Take a simple hypothetical, two encounters faced by a level one wizard. One is four goblins. The other is a kobold sorcerer. I have Sleep and Magic Missile prepared. One is clearly better for one situation - Sleep gives me a very good chance of taking at least one goblin out of the fight, maybe even all four. Magic Missile maybe takes out one. The other may or may not be better for the single-target situation, but Sleep is still not a bad choice. And those are just spells - the wizard can just straight up attack with a crossbow or something, or get his familiar to attack as well.

The fighter? "Attack."

Is it "optimization" to recognize that, on its face, Sleep is generally a better spell? Your assertions seem to imply that yes, it is.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Locked for review.