Tier System for Classes (Rescued from MinMax) [Archive]

View Full Version : Tier System for Classes (Rescued from MinMax)

Pages : [1] 2

JaronK

2013-01-04, 06:17 PM

My general philosophy is that the only balance that really matters in D&D is the interclass balance between the various PCs in a group. If the group as a whole is very powerful and flexible, the DM can simply up the challenge level and complexity of the encounters. If it's weak and inflexible, the DM can lower the challenge level and complexity. Serious issues arise when the party is composed of some members which are extremely powerful and others which are extremely weak, leading to a situation where the DM has two choices: either make the game too easy for the strong members, or too hard for the weak members. Neither is desireable. Thus, this system is created for the following purposes:

1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the classes of the PCs in their group before applying their own changes.

2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.

3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).

4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a Fighter, and a Rogue, maybe you shouldn't let that fly.

5) To help homebrewers judge the power and balance of their new classes. Pick a Tier you think your class should be in, and when you've made your class compare it to the rest of the Tier. Generally, I like Tier 3 as a balance point, but I know many people prefer Tier 4. If it's stronger than Tier 1, you definitely blew it.

Psionic classes are mostly absent simply because I don't have enough experience with them. Other absent classes are generally missing because I don't know them well enough to comment, though if I've heard a lot about them they're listed in itallics. Note that "useless" here means "the class isn't particularly useful for dealing with situation X" not "it's totally impossible with enough splat books to make a build that involves that class deal with situation X." "Capable of doing one thing" means that any given build does one thing, not that the class itself is incapable of being built in different ways. Also, "encounters" here refers to appropriate encounters... obviously, anyone can solve an encounter with purely mechanical abilities if they're level 20 and it's CR 1.

Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level. As a rule, parties function best when everyone in the party is within 2 Tiers of each other (so a party that's all Tier 2-4 is generally fine, and so is a party that's all Tier 3-5, but a party that has Tier 1 and Tier 5s in it may have issues).

The Tier System

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

Examples: Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges)

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Examples: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psionic Warrior

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Examples: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Dungeoncrasher Variant)

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the rest of the party is weak in that situation and the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Examples: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight

Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

Examples: CW Samurai, Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner

And then there's the Truenamer, which is just broken (as in, the class was improperly made and doesn't function appropriately, and has no tier ranking).

Now, obviously these rankings only apply when mechanical abilities are being used... in a more social oriented game where talking is the main way of solving things (without using diplomacy checks), any character can shine. However, when the mechanical abilities of the classes in question are being used, it's a bad idea to have parties with more than two tiers of difference.

It is interesting to note the disparity between the core classes... one of the reasons core has so many problems. If two players want to play a nature oriented shapeshifter and a general sword weilder, you're stuck with two very different tiered guys in the party (Fighter and Druid). Outside of core, it's possible to do it while staying on close Tiers... Wild Shape Variant Ranger and Warblade, for example.

Note that a few classes are right on the border line between tiers. Duskblade is very low in Tier 3, and Hexblade is low in Tier 4. Fighter is high in Tier 5, and CW Samurai is high in Tier 6 (obviously, since it's pretty much strictly better than the same tier Warrior).

For an explanation of why classes are in their tiers, see this thread (work not by me, but useful): http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269440

JaronK

JaronK

2013-01-04, 06:19 PM

FAQ:

Q: So, which is the best Tier?

A: In the end, the best Tier is the Tier that matches the rest of your party and appeals to you. If your party is Fighter, Rogue, Healer, Barbarian, then Tier 4 or 5 is going to be the best. If your party is Sorcerer, Beguiler, Crusader, Swordsage, then Tier 2-3 will be best. Really, if you're having fun and no one in the party feels either useless or overpowered, then you're doing it right. Personally, I prefer Tier 3, but I still match to whatever party I'm in if I join after other characters are created.

That said, here's something that might help some DMs decide which tier is best for their campaigns:

So, I was thinking about the whole "what is the best Tier" thing. And of course it varies by campaign, but I'll talk about it a bit.

Tier 1 is the best tier if you want the PCs to be super powered... similar to an Exalted campaign (the RPG, not BoED). I've heard of one great campaign where the DM made the only character creation rule be that your character had to be evil and be after immortality. They had a Wizard who turned into a Lich, a Druid who used Reincarnation cheese, and so on. When they hit level 20 after having totally thrashed the campaign world, the DM ended the campaign and started a new one. It was 1000 years in the future, and the evil characters were all epic now, and ruling the whole land. The players had to start over as first level good characters and try to defeat their old PCs. Neat. Also, Clerics and Druids can be very nice for newbies because any poor build choices they make early on really won't matter that much later... sure, Weapon Focus Scimitar on the Druid may have been dumb, but you can turn into a Dire Bear so who cares? And if you picked the wrong spells today, that's okay... pick better ones tomorow. That said, I only recommend this tier for veteran DMs who can keep the PCs in line in agreeable ways, as campaigns can be broken very quickly by the unpredictable and powerful tools available to the players.

Tier 2... I'm not sure how many people would specifically want this one because it's pretty small, but it does have the advantage of giving you big power spells while still being at least a bit more predictable with your tricks. Newbies who might be overwhelmed with the number of spells constantly available to Clerics and Druids and Wizards might be more comfortable if they don't have to repick every day, so it might be best for them.

Tier 3 is the best tier for me. Everyone in the party has great tricks and can still throw some big surprises at me when I'm DMing, but everyone else still needs a party to work with them, which makes it easier to make sure specific party members have chances to shine. I like the versitility of players at this level, and power wise they're still managable without flat out saying "no, you can't do that."

Tier 4 is best for a lot of people too. At this Tier you can start predicting what the players will do in a situation, so DMs can better gauge how encounters will go. That Barbarian is going to deal a lot of damage through charging... if you want a hard encounter, use difficult terrain or whatever, and if you want an easier encounter, make sure he's got a target he can charge. The more flexible Tier 4s will be less predictable but they won't blow you away with a sudden trick you didn't see coming... that Rogue may have awesome tricks with his UMD, but only with items that you give him. Plus, teamwork is definitely important at this level. That Barbarian may be awesome in combat, but when it's time for stealth, he's not going to shine, and someone else will.

Tier 5 is probably best for new DMs, especially when dealing with veteran players. PCs at this point are getting very predictable. That Fighter with Improved Trip and a Spiked Chain will trip enemies, the Healer will be a healbot, the Monk can run fast and make a lot of attacks, but generally speaking you know what's going to happen in advance, especially in combat. This predictability makes it easy for a DM to guide the plot where he wants without it looking like railroading, as the limitations of the classes provide the railroad tracks for you. If the PCs are supposed to kill a dragon by going in through his cave, that's what they'll do... they're not going to Love's Pain nuke said dragon from miles away and then float ethereally through his lair or something.

Tier 6 is best when what you want is a fun little low powered game. The PCs are very limited, so challenges should be primarily player-centric in nature, since the classes themselves won't create many good solutions to situations. Puzzles that the players must solve, fights that are more about organization than damage dealing, and so on. I don't recommend this Tier to anyone but veterans though, as it's very limited in a lot of ways. Really, if you want to play at this low power level, you may be more satisfied playing a game like A|State than D&D.

Q: Why is my favorite class too low? It should TOTALLY be much higher!

A: Remember, you're probably more experienced with your favorite class than with other classes. Plus, your personality probably fits well with the way that class works, and you probably are better inspired to work with that class. As such, whatever your favorite class is is going to seem stronger for you than everyone else. This is because you're simply going to play your favorite class in a more skillfull way... plus you'll be blinded to the shortcomings of that class, since you probably don't care about those anyway (they match with things that you as a player probably don't want to do anyway). As such, if I did this right most people should think their favorite class is a little too low, whether that class is Fighter or Monk or Rogue or whatever else.

Q: I totally saw a [Class X] perform far better than a [Class Y] even though you list it as lower. What gives?

A: This system assumes that everything other than mechanics is totally equal. It's a ranking of the mechanical classes themselves, not of the players who use that class. As long as the players are of equal skill and optimize their characters roughly the same amount, it's fine. If one player optimizes a whole lot more than the other, that will shift their position on the chart.

Q: So what a minute, how can I use it then? My players all play differently.

A: First, determine what you'd say is the average optimization and skill level in the group, then make adjustments for people who are noticably different from that. I can't give examples of skill level, but here's an example for optimization. Imagine for a moment that your party has a Cleric with DMM: Persistant Spell, a Fighter with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack, a Beguiler with a Mindbender dip and Mindsight, and a traditional Sword and Board Fighter. Now, the first three are pretty optimized, but the fourth is pretty weak. So in that case, what you've actually got is a Tier 1, a Tier 3, a Tier 5, and a Tier 6, with that second Fighter being Tier 6 because he's far less optimized than the rest of the group. However, if your group is instead a healbot Cleric, a Beguiler who hasn't figured out how to use illusions effectively, a Sword and Board Fighter, and a Shock Trooper/Leap Attack Fighter, then the charge based Fighter is the odd one out. Bump him up a Tier... maybe even 2. So now you've got a Tier 1, a Tier 3, a Tier 5, and maybe a Tier 4. Remember, this whole thing is about intra party balance... there's no objective balancing, because each campaign is different.

Q: Why didn't you rank this from best to worst, like Wizard first, Archivist second, and so on? Why tiers?

A: There are too many variables in the game to actually rank the classes from best to worst. If the DM allows the Archivist to just research any spell he wants and is including the Divine Magician and Divine Bard varients in his game, plus the other ways for Archivists to get all Wizard/Sorcerer spells, then the Archivist is clearly stronger than the Wizard. If not, the Wizard may be stronger than the Archivist. Factors like that, plus questions of which books are allowed, what the wealth by level is, and what access to magic shops is allowed to the players... these things make it impossible to make a specific ranking of best to worst without assuming a heck of a lot, and I wanted this system to work for the vast majority of games. As such, I ranked them in tiers of power... regardless of the general campaign, an Archivist and a Wizard will be reasonably close to each other in power, and both will be far stronger than a Monk, for example. I do still have to make a few basic assumptions, such as that player skill and optimziation are reasonably close and that for the most part RAW is being played, but that's about it.

Also, the purpose of this system isn't to say "X class is the best!" It's to allow players and DMs to maintain intraparty balance... for that purpose, tiers are specific enough.

Q: So what exactly is this system measuring? Raw Power? Then why is the Barbarian lower than the Duskblade, when the Barbarian clearly does more damage?

A: The Tier System is not specifically ranking Power or Versitility (though those are what ends up being the big factors). It's ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in any given situation. Highly versitile classes will be more likely to efficiently apply what power they have to the situation, while very powerful classes will be able to REALLY help in specific situations. Classes that are both versitile and powerful will very easily get what they want by being very likely to have a very powerful solution to the current problem. This is what matters most for balance.

For example, here's how the various Tiers might deal with a specific set of situations, cut to spoilers due to size:

Situation 1: A Black Dragon has been plaguing an area, and he lives in a trap filled cave. Deal with him.

Situation 2: You have been tasked by a nearby country with making contact with the leader of the underground slave resistance of an evil tyranical city state, and get him to trust you.

Situation 3: A huge army of Orcs is approaching the city, and should be here in a week or so. Help the city prepare for war.

Okay, so, here we go.

Tier 6: A Commoner. Situation 1: If he's REALLY optimized, he could be a threat to the dragon, but a single attack from the dragon could take him out too. He can't really offer help getting to said dragon. He could fill up the entire cave with chickens, but that's probably not a good idea. Really, he's dead weight unless his build was perfectly optimized for this situation (see my Commoner charger build for an example). Situation 2: Well, without any stealth abilities or diplomacy, he's not too handy here, again unless he's been exactly optimized for this precise thing (such as through Martial Study to get Diplomacy). Really, again his class isn't going to help much here. Situation 3: Again, no help from his class, though the chicken thing might be amusing if you're creative.

Tier 5: A Fighter. Situation 1: If he's optimized for this sort of thing (a tripper might have trouble, though a charger would be handy if he could get off a clear shot, and an archer would likely work) he can be a threat during the main fight, but he's probably just about useless for sneaking down through the cave and avoiding any traps the dragon has set out without alerting said dragon. Most likely the party Rogue would want to hide him in a bag of holding or something. Once in the fight if he's optimized he'll be solid, but if not (if he's a traditional SAB build or a dual weilding monkey grip type) he's going to be a liability in the combat (though not as bad as the Commoner). Situation 2: As the commoner before, his class really won't help here. His class just doesn't provide any useful tools for the job. It's possible (but very unlikely) that he's optimized in a way that helps in this situation, just as with the Commoner. Situation 3: Again, his class doesn't help much, but at least he could be pretty useful during the main battle as a front line trooper of some sort. Hack up the enemy and rack up a body count.

Tier 4: The Rogue. Situation 1: Well he can certainly help get the party to the dragon, even if he's not totally optimized for it. His stealth and detection abilities will come in handy here, and if he puts the less stealthy people in portable holes and the like he's good to go. During the combat he's likely not that helpful (it's hard to sneak attack a dragon) but if he had a lot of prep time he might have been able to snag a scroll or wand of Shivering Touch, in which case he could be extremely helpful... he just has to be really prepared and on the ball, and the resources have to be available in advance. He's quite squishy though, and that dragon is a serious threat. Situation 2: With his stealth and diplomacy, he's all over this. Maybe not 100% perfect, but still pretty darn solid. An individual build might not have all the necessary skills, but most should be able to make do. Situation 3: Perhaps he can use Gather Information and such to gain strategic advantages before the battle... that would be handy. There's a few he's pretty likely to be able to pull off. He might even be able to use Diplomacy to buff the army a bit and at least get them into a good morale situation pre battle. Or, if he's a different set up, he could perhaps go out and assassinate a few of the orc commanders before the fight, which could be handy. And then during the fight he could do the same. It's not incredible, but it's something.

Tier 3: The Beguiler. Situation 1: Again, getting through the cave is easy, perhaps easier with spell support. And again, if he's really prepared in advance, Shivering Touch via UMD is a possibility. But he's also got spells that could be quite useful here depending on the situation, and if he's optimized heavily, this is going to be pretty easy... Shadowcraft Mage, perhaps? Or Earth Dreamer? Either way, he's got a lot of available options, though like the Rogue he's somewhat squishy (and that Dragon won't fall for many illusions with his Blindsense) so he still needs that party support. Situation 2: Again, with his skills he's all over this one, plus the added ability to cast spells like charm makes this one much easier, allowing him to make contacts in the city quickly while he figures out where this guy is. Situation 3: Like the Rogue, he can get strategic advantages and be all over the Diplomacy. He's not quite as good at assassinating people if he takes that route (though sneaking up invisible and then using a coup de gras with a scythe is pretty darn effective), but using illusions during the fight will create some serious chaos in his favor. A single illusion of a wall of fire can really disrupt enemy formations, for example.

Tier 2: The Sorcerer. Situation 1: It really depends on the Sorcerer's spell load out. If he's got Greater Floating Disk, Spectral Hand, and Shivering Touch, this one's going to be easy as pie, since he can just float down (and carry his party in the process) to avoid many traps, then nail the dragon in one shot from a distance. If he doesn't he'd need scrolls with the same issues that the UMD Rogue and Beguiler would need. If he's got Explosive Runes he could create a bomb that would take out the Dragon in one shot. If he's got Polymorph he could turn the party melee into a Hydra for extra damage. If he's got Alter Self he could turn himself into a Skulk to get down there sneakily. Certainly, it's possible that the Sorcerer could own this scenario... if he has the right spells known. That's always the hard part for a Sorcerer. Situation 2: Again, depends on the spell. Does he have divinations that will help him know who's part of the resistance and who's actually an evil spy for the Tyranical Govenerment? Does he have charm? Alter Self would help a ton here too for disguise purposes if he has it. Once again, the options exist that could totally make this easy, but he might not have those options. Runestaffs would help a bit, but not that much. Scrolls would help too, but that requires access to them and good long term preparation. Situation 3: Again, does he have Wall of Iron or Wall of Stone to make fortifications? Does he have Wall of Fire to disrupt the battlefield? How about Mind Rape and Love's Pain to kill off the enemy commanders without any ability to stop him? Does he have Blinding Glory on his spell list, or Shapechange, or Gate? Well, maybe. He's got the power, but if his spells known don't apply here he can't do much. So, maybe he dominates this one, maybe not.

Tier 1: The Wizard. Situation 1: Memorize Greater Floating Disk, Shivering Touch, and Spectral Hand. Maybe Alter Self too for stealth reasons. Kill dragon. Memorize Animate Dead too, because Dragons make great minions (seriously, there's special rules for using that spell on dragons). Sweet, you have a new horsie! Or, you know, maybe you Mind Rape/Love's Pain and kill the dragon before he even knows you exist, then float down and check it out. Or maybe you create a horde of the dead and send them in, triggering the traps with their bodies. Or do the haunt shift trick and waltz in with a hardness of around 80 and giggle. Perhaps you cast Genesis to create a flowing time plane and then sit and think about what to do for a year while only a day passes on the outside... and cast Explosive Runes every day during that year. I'm sure you can come up with something. It's really your call. Situation 2: Check your spell list. Alter Self and Disguise Self can make you look like whoever you need to look like. Locate Creature has obvious utility. Heck, Contact Other Plane could be a total cheating method of finding the guy you're trying to find. Clairvoyance is also handy. It's all there. Situation 3: Oh no, enemy army! Well, if you've optimized for it, there's always the locate city bomb (just be careful not to blow up the friendly guys too). But if not, Love's Pain could assassinate the leaders. Wall of Iron/Stone could create fortifications, or be combined with Fabricate to armour up some of the troops. Or you could just cast Blinding Glory and now the entire enemy army is blind with no save for caster level hours. Maybe you could Planar Bind an appropriate outsider to help train the troops before the battle. Push comes to shove, Gate in a Solar, who can cast Miracle (which actually does have a "I win the battle" option)... or just Shapechange into one, if you prefer.

So yeah, as you move up the Tiers you go from weak, unadaptable, and predictable (that Commoner's got very few useful options) to strong, adaptable, and unpredictable (who knows what that Wizard is going to do?). A Wizard can always apply a great deal of strength very efficiently, whether it's Shivering Touch on the Dragon or Blinding Glory on an enemy army. The Sorcerer has the power, but he may not have power that he can actually apply to the situation. The Beguiler has even less raw power and may have to use UMD to pull it off. The Rogue is even further along that line. And the Fighter has power in very specific areas which are less likely to be useful in a given situation.

So yeah, that's really what the Tiers are about. How much does this class enable you to achieve what you want in a given situation? The more versitile your power, the more likely that the answer to that question is "a lot." If you've got tons of power and limited versitility (that's you, Sorcerers and charging Barbarians) then sometimes the answer is a lot, but sometimes it's not much. If you've got tons of versitility but limited power (hi, Rogue!) then it's often "a decent amount." If you've got little of both (Commoner!) then yeah, it's often "it doesn't."

And of course reversing that and applying it to DMs, you get "how many effective options does this class give for solving whatever encounters I throw at them?" For Commoners, the answer may be none. For Fighters, it's sometimes none, sometimes 1, maybe 2, but you generally know in advance what it will be (if he's got Improved Trip and a Spiked Chain and all that, he's probably going to be tripping stuff, just a hint). For Wizards, it's tons, and they're all really potent, and you have no idea how he's going to do it. Does he blind the enemy army or assassinate all its leaders or turn into a Solar and just arbitrarily win the battle? There's no way to know until he memorizes his spells for the day (and even then you might not see it coming).

Q: But what about dips? I mean, I rarely see anyone playing single class characters. What would a Barbarian 1/Fighter 6 be, for example?

A: It's pretty simple. This system is paying attention to the fact that people are more likely to take the early levels of a class than the later levels, either because they simply don't get to a level where they'd see the late levels, or because of dipping. Generally speaking, a mix of classes should end up being as high up as the most powerful class in the mix if it's optimized, or somewhere in the middle of the classes used if not very optimized, and below them both if it's really strangely done. A Barbarian 1/Fighter 6 that's optimized would thus be Tier 4 generally, because it took the best qualities of a Barbarian (probably pounce, rage, and so on) and then made it stronger. Generally, you don't multiclass out unless you get something better by doing so, so you're usually going to end up at least as strong as the strongest class. This isn't always true, but it generally is. Meanwhile, if you do something silly like Wizard 4/Sorcerer 4, you might end up much lower. But assuming you're not doing anything rediculous, a combination of Tier 4 and Tier 5 classes will usually be Tier 4, though it might be Tier 5. Similar examples would be that a Scout/Ranger is probably going to be Tier 4 (though because there's a multiclassing feat for that, it could end up Tier 3), a Monk 1/Druid X will be Tier 1, a Fighter 2/Warblade X will be Tier 3, and so on.

Q: My players want to play classes of wildly different Tiers. What can I do about this?

A: Well, this will be a test of your DMing skill. The easiest solution is to convince them to play classes that are similar conceptually but different in power. For example, if they're currently going with Paladin, Druid, Monk, Illusionsist, then maybe you can get them to try out Crusader, Wild Shape Varient Ranger, Unarmed Varient Swordsage, Beguiler. That would make your life a lot easier. But if they're attached to their classes or feel that their class choice bests fits their character, then you've got a few options. One is to see the house rule section above and try something like that. Another is to simply provide extra support for the weaker classes... for example, perhaps more random magic items that drop are useful for unarmed strikers, while Wildling Clasps just don't seem to exist in your game. Maybe allowing more oddball "broken" tricks for the Monk (and perhaps Paladin) while being much more strict with the Illusionist and Druid. You can also allow more PrC options for the weaker guys... Monk 6/Shou Disciple 5/Unarmed Swordsage 4/Master of Nine 5 is fine for that Monk, but Illusionist 10/Earth Dreamer 5/Shadowcraft Mage 5 is not acceptable, and Druid/Planar Shepard is right out. You can also make sure that the challenges being put forward suit the strengths of the weaker classes. Something that makes good use of the Monk and Paladin's diplomacy would be advisable, for example. A challenge where being able to run really fast is handy might work too. And finally, you can bring the Druid and Illusionist aside and tell them the answer to the next question.

Q: My party mates all want to play classes of wildly different Tiers. What can I do about this?

A: First... see if you can get them to play something closer together, as above. If that won't work, okay. Now, if the class you're playing is noticably stronger than everyone else, try focusing your energy on buffing your party mates. Channel your power through them... it helps. If you're a DMM Cleric in a party with a Monk and Fighter, try persisting Recitation, Lesser Vigor, and Righteous Wrath of the Faithful instead of Righteous Might, Divine Power, and Divine Favor. You're still very powerful, and definitely getting results, but since you use your party mates to get those results, they feel useful too. Also, let them shine in their areas. If they're melees and you're a Cleric, don't turn into Godzilla and smash Tokyo. It's not polite. Focus on the other areas a bit more. If one of them is playing a Rogue, using Divine Insight to beat him on skills isn't nice. Let him have his fun, and save your spells for other areas if you can. If, however, you're playing a weaker class, then optimize optimize optimize! A CW Samurai is going to have a lot of trouble in a party full of Tier 3s and up, so maybe try being a Necropolitan CW Samurai 10/Zhentarium Fighter 10 with Imperious Command, Eviscerator, Improved Critical, and a pair of Lifedrinker Kukris. Carve out a niche where you're the king... they can have everything else. Also, make sure you've got something to do when you do have to sit out. Give your character a drinking habit or something.

JaronK

Larkas

2013-01-19, 04:45 PM

Nice! Thanks for the repost, JaronK! I was afraid that this would be lost to the sands of Google Cache time!

Lans

2013-01-19, 10:50 PM

Are you ever going to add any more classes to the list?:smallbiggrin:

Seer_of_Heart

2013-01-19, 10:52 PM

Thank you! We need to coordinate efforts to rescue more things before google cache's time limit runs out.

JaronK

2013-01-20, 07:52 AM

Are you ever going to add any more classes to the list?:smallbiggrin:

Only if I play them or see them in action. I'm fine with other people adding in their opinions of course, but I don't want to misplace anything. The system's acceptable if it just gives people a solid idea of what the tiers mean... it doesn't have to be completely exhaustive.

As it stands, I don't know if Incarnum stuff will end up in there... I find them so uninspiring that I just can't rank them.

JaronK

Gotterdammerung

2013-01-20, 09:46 AM

Con_Brio1993

2013-01-20, 10:27 AM

Zaq

2013-01-20, 11:49 AM

I weep for all the GM's and players who come here for help and instead get taught how to be prejudice towards classes. D&D is supposed to be a game that plunges you into a world of imagination and instead people around the world are standing around a table arguing over "tiers".

I can see the idea behind creating a system of measurement in the hopes of having more compatible power levels in adventuring groups. But in reality this list does not achieve that goal, and instead just causes conflict between GM's and players. Even among amicable players it still does not achieve its goal, because the "tier" shouldn't be on the classes. The "tier" system should define players. You can take a tier 1 player and give him anything, and he will always shine in the group. He will always spend the time and effort to make sure his character is efficient and competent. And vice versa you can give a tier 4 player the best build in the world and he will still be jealous and incompetent.

Here are some other flaws with the tier system for classes.

Team Composition:

The tier system completely ignores this ever present factor in D&D. Team composition is as important to D&D, as it is to E-sport competitive online games. Take League of Legends for instance, You see teams try to win by picking an entire group of mechanically strong characters. But they always lose to teams who pick characters designed to compliment a team strategy. The first team may have definably more raw power, but the synergy of the second group wins out in the end. It is the same in D&D. The tier system ends up functionally limiting the characters available to a player thus limiting the final possible team combos.

Prestige, Multiclassing, and the Bigger Picture:

The tier system examines the class as it is 1-20. It doesn't factor in the merging of 2 or 3 classes or the enrichment available through prestige classes. It doesn't look at the final build. You now run into campaigns where you lose a key component to a build because it is on a restricted list because some DM read this guide and is now on red alert for tier 1 classes. Or you get some pompous blowhard telling you about how your tier 5 will drag the group down and get everyone killed. ect, ect...

In closing, this system is a blight. It does nothing good. It accomplishes no goals. It is seeped in misunderstanding and flawed logic. It causes class bigotry, gm to player friction, gm stress, and player stress. And I personally wish it would die in a fire.

I have been discussing the tier system with a whole lot of people in a whole lot of groups for years now. I've never seen these discussions cause an argument, or disharmony, or anything like that. On the contrary, I've seen them help people understand why they were feeling frustrated (dude, you were comparing your Ranger to a Druid! Of course he was overshadowing you!), thereby providing them with ways of improving the situation. I've seen them provide GMs with better points of reference for how to balance the monsters against the party, and for how to balance the party against each other (for example, lower-tier classes are given more leeway with dicey rules interpretations, more freedom of choice in items, greater access to flaws, greater access to relaxed prereqs, and so on, and since the group knows that this is the case, we're all cool with it). I've seen it help GMs understand how to balance encounters in the absence of the party, letting them realize what having different class levels does to different baddies and what that means for the game.

I have never, ever seen anyone say "I don't want to play a T4 class because they're too weak." I have never, ever seen anyone say "You're bringing a T5 class to the game? You're worthless." I have seen people say "Dude, that's a pretty big tier difference we're looking at. Are you sure you're going to be cool with that?" And if they're not cool with that, we work together to make the party harmonize without hurting anyone's character concept. (If they are cool with it, they aren't surprised when other people sometimes get the spotlight, because they knew going in that a Crusader does a Knight's job better.) I have seen people say "wait, my Psion's going to be the only T2 in a bunch of T4/T5s? You know, maybe I'd have more fun bringing in that Rogue build I've had in my head for a while." And then they do.

The plural of anecdote is not data, as the saying goes. But my experiences are just as valuable as yours, and I think that what you're saying here is, at best, a highly skewed representation of how it goes for many, many people. In fact, in my experience, lack of understanding of the tier system is a far, FAR greater source of GM stress, player stress, and group disharmony than ANY discussion of how the tier system actually works. I'd also argue that you're missing a lot of the point of what JaronK's actually saying, but I'll let someone else handle that.

Hirax

2013-01-20, 11:56 AM

For what it's worth, my experience is basically the same as Zaq's. I think the tier list is a great tool.

Arundel

2013-01-20, 11:57 AM

I have always seen the tier system not as a ranking system, but as a classification system. It is not as much the relative power of the classes, but can be seen as the relative reactivity of the classes. It is more akin to the periodic table of elements than a list of tournament rankings. for the purposes of this analogy we can consider an encounter to be a known set of random atoms. (NOTE: For the purposes of analogy, most of the chemistry is simplified to basic levels)

Lets call the tier 1 classes the alkali metals, we'll use lithium. When you take any set of random atoms and set it as an encounter for lithium, the results can be difficult to predict. The lithium can react with nearly anything, making for a very interesting encounter but a very quick one. The numbers of options that the lithium has is immense, just like a standard tier 1 class.

Now lets look at a encounter between another known set of atoms and an alkaline earth metal, magnesium in this case. Magnesium has fuller valence shell, so it is not quite as able to react to nearly everything. It will still react with something, but it is slightly more predictable than lithium. The number of potential reactions is still staggering given a complex enough "encounter', but it will always pale in comparison to those available to lithium. This is equivalent to a tier 2 class.

Let us skip a few now and look at the halogen family, namely chlorine. With a nearly full valence shell the ability of chlorine to react is extremely limited compared to magnesium and nearly incomparable to lithium. In a reaction with a given "encounter" the possible interactions of the chlorine are easily predictable. Here fall our lowest tier classes.

Actually the preceding statement is a lie. The lowest tier of classes in our metaphor is the noble gasses. Given nearly any possible random encounter, a noble gas will do approximately nothing. With a full valence shell, there are nearly no possible reactions for neon to be a part of. It will have almost no impact on the overall situation. This is the true lowest class; the unoptimized monk, the poorly played truenamer.

In closing, I believe that it is in fact a fallacy to see the tier system as a measure of power rankings in the classical sense. The tier system is not a measure of who has the most plusses in an individual category. The system is using power in the same way that I have been using reactivity. The system measures how many options a character has. The power comes more as a byproduct. In a given set of moves, some are more powerful as a matter of statistics. In a big enough group, the outliers can be very extreme. The power of tier 1 comes from these outliers, which is by definition only existent due to their large availability of the moves.

AmberVael

2013-01-20, 12:45 PM

Piggy Knowles

2013-01-20, 01:08 PM

The other nice thing about the tier system is that it helps prepare DMs for what players are capable of. This is as true for an unoptimized player as it is for one with near-total system mastery.

As an example, the first character I ever played when 3.5 came out was a sorcerer. I was in a game with an archer ranger, a Power Attacking fighter, an OA-heavy monk and a cleric who ended up dipping a level of fighter because cleric just wasn't cutting it for him.

My sorcerer was not a very well-optimized PC. I wanted to play a very shaman-y character, with a lot of minor charms and just about anything animal-themed I could find. Most of my feats were skill-focused. The only really good spell I had was Sleep, and even that didn't stay good for long.

That is, until I hit level 8. I'd been keeping up with my animal/charm theme, and the first spell that caught my eye in 4th-level was Polymorph. 3.5 was brand new and I'd only played in one 3.0 campaign prior to that, so I didn't know anything about all the headaches and power disparity Polymorph caused.

So I took Polymorph because I thought it was cool, and the first time I used it, I flipped through the Monster Manual to figure out what to change into, when I stumbled on the remorhaz.

So, in my first combat session of 8th-level, I went from being the mostly useless sorcerer whose primary contributions tended to involve bluff checks to a 20' long multi-legged beast of fury. I completely overwhelmed the first couple of encounters, and was consistently out-damaging the fighter and monk, who had hitherto been our primary melee tanks.

As I kept messing around with Polymorph, I found a lot of really cool and unintentionally abusive forms to be, and I ended up completely overshadowing the rest of the party and frustrating my DM. Not because I was a min/maxer, or because I had any great system mastery. Not because I built to be a power player. Just because I picked a spell I thought was cool, and the DM hadn't ever given much thought to the idea of using Polymorph for combat.

I can't help but think that the DM, if he had been aware of the tier system, would have recognized the potential tools a sorcerer might have at her disposal, and been better prepared to deal with that, or might have directed me away from spells like Polymorph.

It's the same thing for wizards or clerics. A wizard can play like a crappy archer for 3/4 of the game, slinging around damage spells that don't even compare favorably to the fighter's greatsword. A cleric can spend his whole time healing. But all it takes is one day where the wizard player thinks, "hey, this Solid Fog spell seems cool" and upon using it realizes that it completely locks down 75% of enemies in the SRD, or one day where the cleric decides to prepare Find the Path on a whim, and inadvertently bypasses the majority of the planned adventure, for everything to change.

Chambers

2013-01-20, 03:15 PM

Con_Brio1993

2013-01-20, 03:34 PM

The Tier system is simply a method of classification that can help people understand the inherent flaws in class balance in D&D. If you don't find it useful then don't use it, but posting a rant like this is simply in poor taste.

He appears to be arguing that there is no such thing as class imbalance. Apparently every game he plays has a terrible player picking Wizard, with the experienced players picking Monk/Fighter.

Darius Kane

2013-01-20, 04:14 PM

In closing, this system is a blight. It does nothing good. It accomplishes no goals. It is seeped in misunderstanding and flawed logic. It causes class bigotry, gm to player friction, gm stress, and player stress. And I personally wish it would die in a fire.
http://cdn.derpiboo.ru/media/BAhbBlsHOgZmSSJoMjAxMi8xMi8yMC8wMF81Nl80OF8zNThfMT g4MDAxX19VTk9QVF9fc2FmZV9pbWFnZV9tYWNyb19kaXNjb3Jk X2NhcHRpb25fcmVhY3Rpb25faW1hZ2VfaG93X2Fib3V0X25vBj oGRVQ/188001__safe_image-macro_discord_caption_reaction-image_how-about-no.jpg.jpg

TuggyNE

2013-01-20, 06:13 PM

The "tier" system should define players. You can take a tier 1 player and give him anything, and he will always shine in the group. He will always spend the time and effort to make sure his character is efficient and competent. And vice versa you can give a tier 4 player the best build in the world and he will still be jealous and incompetent.

You may possibly have missed the meaning of the tiers, because you appear to be equating Tier 1 with "super-awesome good things and full of kittens and puppies" and Tier 4 with "this is the worst thing except for the other even worse things", which is not at all the intent; JaronK in fact suggests using Tier 3 and Tier 4 classes preferentially in most games.

That said, the idea of a tier ranking for players is interesting, though I'm not quite sure how you'd arrange it. Care to expand on that in another thread?

In closing, this system is a blight. It does nothing good. It accomplishes no goals. It is seeped in misunderstanding and flawed logic. It causes class bigotry, gm to player friction, gm stress, and player stress. And I personally wish it would die in a fire.

Ironically, just about the only dissent and friction I've seen in regard to the tier system is between people who think it's a fairly good description of existing class imbalance in 3.5, and people who think the concept is nuts.

So far, we've managed to avoid flaming responses, though, so that's good.

afroakuma

2013-01-20, 06:20 PM

With regards to preserving material from MinMax, there's been a refugee camp set up on the Rule of Cool Forums (ruleofcool.com/smf). Quite a few members have made it over there with recovered material. Answer to the security question is "Legend" if you're interested.

demigodus

2013-01-20, 06:27 PM

Team Composition:

The tier system completely ignores this ever present factor in D&D. Team composition is as important to D&D, as it is to E-sport competitive online games. Take League of Legends for instance, You see teams try to win by picking an entire group of mechanically strong characters. But they always lose to teams who pick characters designed to compliment a team strategy. The first team may have definably more raw power, but the synergy of the second group wins out in the end. It is the same in D&D. The tier system ends up functionally limiting the characters available to a player thus limiting the final possible team combos.

Pick any level of 10 or above. Make any team of 4 using Tier 4 or lower classes. I could give you a team who's composition is Cleric 10, Cleric 10, Cleric 10, and Cleric 10 that is simply better than they are.

There is a point where raw power beats synergy. You need both. Also, read the tier descriptions again. T1 isn't T1 only because of raw power. It is also that because of versatility. In fact they have such versatility that they can synergize with minimal coordination during creation.

Finally, the tier system does NOT limit characters available. DMs limit characters available.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-01-20, 06:53 PM

JoshuaZ

2013-01-20, 07:23 PM

Prestige, Multiclassing, and the Bigger Picture:

The tier system examines the class as it is 1-20. It doesn't factor in the merging of 2 or 3 classes or the enrichment available through prestige classes. It doesn't look at the final build.

The tier system is a very rough estimate that isn't the be-all and end-all to talk about flexibility and optimization. There are tens of prestige classes. This complaint seems to amount to that rather than make a perfect system for every possible situation, that the tier system provides a set of useful heuristics. It would make even less sense to talk about every build because the main point of the tier system is what will happen given roughly the same amount of optimization.

But even at a very rough level it still works when including PrCs. In most cases, if a class is in a given tier, PrCs that it naturally fits with are in about the same tier. There are of course some exceptions. PrCs that lose a lot of caster levels can change T1 to T3- Green Star Adept would be one of the more obvious examples. And there are some cases where the tier itself doesn't change often, but going into a PrC almost always makes sense- the most obvious examples here is a sorcerer who loses nothing by PrCing into a fullcasting PrC.

You now run into campaigns where you lose a key component to a build because it is on a restricted list because some DM read this guide and is now on red alert for tier 1 classes. Or you get some pompous blowhard telling you about how your tier 5 will drag the group down and get everyone killed. ect, ect...

I'm curious. Have you personally experienced either of these happenings?

The LOBster

2013-01-20, 07:24 PM

So, what about PF's tier list? I heard PF massively fixed Fighters, Rangers and Paladins while kinda screwing over Rogues.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-01-20, 07:39 PM

So, what about PF's tier list? I heard PF massively fixed Fighters, Rangers and Paladins while kinda screwing over Rogues.

Fighter, ranger, and rogue are largely unchanged (fighter gets some bigger numbers, but I'm not sure if that's enough to make him even a 4. Ranger is now solidly tier 4, rather than on the edge between 4 and 5. Rogue is still 4). Paladin is tier 4. Lord_Gareth thinks paladins still aren't good enough (I agree, they still don't really have ways of dealing with the large amount of outsiders with flight and/or teleportation), Toapat thinks they're worse because of lack of splat support (3.5 had SpC and some good feats).

Chess435

2013-01-20, 07:42 PM

So, what about PF's tier list? I heard PF massively fixed Fighters, Rangers and Paladins while kinda screwing over Rogues.

PF's Tier list is mostly the same as 3.5, with Paladins and possibly Monks moving up to T4 (maybe even T3 with certain archetypes) Rouges are still T4, Fighters are still probably T5. Interestingly enough, a case can be made for Human Sorcerers moving up to low T1 due to the 20 extra spells they can learn through their Favored Class bonus, giving them a large increase in versatility.

Edit: Partially ninja'd.

Sith_Happens

2013-01-20, 08:00 PM

Polymorph

So how long before you noticed that you can cast that on other people? Definitely helps with the "making the melees sad" issue, not so much the "making the DM cry" issue.

Raven777

2013-01-20, 08:01 PM

Currently playing one of said Human Sorcerers in PF, and I can vouch for the 20 more spells making them much more interesting. Plus, the Bloodlines offer nice perks too. But the inability to switch spell selection like a Wizard, Cleric or Druid would still confines them to T2 in my opinion. They have the raw power, but still not boundless versatility.

Now, if we get into shenanigans like Paragon Surge (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/p/paragon-surge) + Expanded Arcana (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/expanded-arcana) giving you spontaneous access to any spell on your class list for the low, low cost of a third level spell...

Or crafting a Staff of Wish to use through Arcane Apotheosis (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/sorcerer/bloodlines/bloodlines-from-paizo/arcane-bloodline)...

... Yup, they can be made Tier 1. Just not right out of the box.

Threadnaught

2013-01-20, 08:08 PM

Cranthis

2013-01-20, 08:14 PM

What happened to the Min/Max board?

Threadnaught

2013-01-20, 08:26 PM

The parent site was hacked, everything involved with "howsyourmuffin" is offline for the foreseeable future. So people from the boards have been working around the clock to salvage as much as possible.

Chess435

2013-01-20, 08:32 PM

Out of curiosity, how big of a "spells known" list do you think a spontaneous caster would need to have the sort of versatility commonly exhibited by T1 characters?

Piggy Knowles

2013-01-20, 09:12 PM

So how long before you noticed that you can cast that on other people? Definitely helps with the "making the melees sad" issue, not so much the "making the DM cry" issue.

I did eventually start buffing the party a bit too, although again, this was my first time ever playing with the then-new rules and the campaign only ended up going to around level 10. (And most of the players didn't really like their PCs to be turned into beasts - they had dedicated quite a lot of resources into their own fighting styles, be it falchion, bow or fist.)

But the problem still stood - a single 4th-level spell completely redefined class roles and the game itself. There was no real system mastery involved, just a cool-looking spell in the PHB and a few cool-looking monsters that happened to be pretty tough for their HD.

Out of curiosity, how big of a "spells known" list do you think a spontaneous caster would need to have the sort of versatility commonly exhibited by T1 characters?

Personally, I think that the gap is closed not so much by any particular number of spells, but by the ability to have the perfect spell when necessary. A cleric has hundreds and hundreds of spells to choose from; chances are at least one of them is going to be pretty good in any given situation.

That said, I think that there are some spells that are versatile enough to be worth tier 1 status on their own. That's why I personally believe the tiers start to break down at the very highest levels (17-18+). I think that a sorcerer with Shapechange or a favored soul with Miracle is functionally a tier 1 caster.

Prime32

2013-01-20, 09:15 PM

So how long before you noticed that you can cast that on other people? Definitely helps with the "making the melees sad" issue, not so much the "making the DM cry" issue.The fighter and sorcerer have physical strength of "good" and "terrible" respectively. Polymorph sets your physical strength to "very good", regardless of what it was before. Having good + very good is better than having terrible + very good, and someone who goes into life-or-death situations regularly is going to choose the option most likely to keep his team alive.

Also alter self + shapechange are self-only, as is wild shape.

TuggyNE

2013-01-20, 09:15 PM

Out of curiosity, how big of a "spells known" list do you think a spontaneous caster would need to have the sort of versatility commonly exhibited by T1 characters?

At least 4 per spell level, maybe more like 5.

Con_Brio1993

2013-01-20, 09:32 PM

Does anyone know if the "why" part of the tier list was saved? I liked reading the rationale behind all the choices made.

vasharanpaladin

2013-01-20, 09:32 PM

In closing, this system is a blight. It does nothing good. It accomplishes no goals. It is seeped in misunderstanding and flawed logic. It causes class bigotry, gm to player friction, gm stress, and player stress. And I personally wish it would die in a fire.

I'd like to point out, first, that I agree with this statement. I'm of the opinion that "ignorance is bliss;" without knowledge of a tier list, my group could happily play 3.X with no complaints save perhaps the DM's workload, which is, yes, still greater regardless of what classes the PC's are using.

However, unlike you, I freely accept that it exists and take it as the guideline - guideline, not straitjacket! - that it is intended to be. I can still play 3.X just as happily as a fighter (hypothetically speaking; they're still boring as hell) as a wizard, or anything in-between, the only difference from the above being that I'm more conscious of where and when I can contribute my best. Provided, of course, that I can find a game that doesn't die as soon as I take interest in it! :smallwink:

Larkas

2013-01-20, 09:47 PM

Edit: I'm wondering if/when the PrC version will be rescued. If it actually exists that is.

It exists, and people at RoC already made a backup (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php?topic=672.0).

Spuddles

2013-01-20, 10:02 PM

Thanks for rescuing this, JaronK. I think it's one of the most important pieces of work to come out of 3.5 charop.

JoshuaZ

2013-01-20, 10:31 PM

So, what about PF's tier list?

Other people have summarized the tiers for PF classes that aren't new. The other PF classes breakdown as follows: Witch- low end of T1, Magus-T3, Summoner- T3 (although I've heard a claim that it is T2), Alchemist- T3, Cavalier- T4, Gunslinger- I haven't seen in play but seems to be T4 based on mechanics, Inquisitor- T4, Oracle- T2, Summoner- not sure it seems to be all over the place.

Answerer

2013-01-20, 10:36 PM

Barring Archetypes (with which I am unfamiliar), Pathfinder changed nothing about the Tier of the Core classes, other than probably bumping Paladin solidly into Tier 4 (which he was pretty close to anyway, more than likely).

HalfGrammarGeek

2013-01-20, 10:47 PM

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite
I keep hearing about this erudite class, but I can't remember ever seeing it printed. Is it a homebrew?

JoshuaZ

2013-01-20, 10:48 PM

I keep hearing about this erudite class, but I can't remember ever seeing it printed. Is it a homebrew?

It is in Complete Psion.

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-20, 10:51 PM

Fighter, ranger, and rogue are largely unchanged (fighter gets some bigger numbers, but I'm not sure if that's enough to make him even a 4. Ranger is now solidly tier 4, rather than on the edge between 4 and 5. Rogue is still 4). Paladin is tier 4. Lord_Gareth thinks paladins still aren't good enough (I agree, they still don't really have ways of dealing with the large amount of outsiders with flight and/or teleportation), Toapat thinks they're worse because of lack of splat support (3.5 had SpC and some good feats).

...I find it odd that I've become famous for this. For all future reference, my precise feeling is that PF bumped paladin's NUMBERS without altering its TIER.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-01-20, 10:59 PM

...I find it odd that I've become famous for this.

I just tend to reference you a lot.

Spuddles

2013-01-21, 01:23 AM

At least 4 per spell level, maybe more like 5.

If T1 is always defined as "has schrodinger's access to all spells", then t2 will never get to be t1.

For t2 in play to move to t1 as it currently stands, I agree with your assessment of 4 to 5 spells per level.

There are enough spells out there to always be good in enough situations that shark repellant typically ends up being a waste of a memorized slot.

Story

2013-01-21, 01:46 AM

Fortunately you have scrolls/Spontaneous Divination/Alacritous Cogitation for that.

LordBlades

2013-01-21, 02:23 AM

+1 to the usefulness of the tier system.

Before the tier system existed and my group knew much about optimization, we've had people break the game by mistake due to not understanding how much their classes can actually do(I for example tried to run a half-orc cleric with a greatsword as a secondary melee to a human sword&board fighter once; everyone can guess how that turned out) and also we've stopped blaming people for system flaws(before realizing how big the differences between various 3.5 classes were we used to think that if somebody built something game breaking it was because he was a munchkin, even if that dude was doing nothing more than running a druid in a ranger, monk, paladin rogue group).

Spuddles

2013-01-21, 02:34 AM

Fortunately you have scrolls/Spontaneous Divination/Alacritous Cogitation for that.

Does that sort of optimization count towards tier ranking? ACFs & feats included?

Regardless, that just means you're mimicing the sorcerer's schtick. They can play wizard with versatile spellcaster and magical training.

I think shark repellent tends to be overrated. The spells that end up on every wizard list fit fairly well onto the sorcerer's spells known. Command undead, web, glitterdust, ray of stupid. You have exactly enough spells to deal with virtually any level 4 to 8 encounter. A wizard (vanilla) won't have enough of one sort of spell prepared to dominate every encounter. That is a very real limitation to wizards in games, which is why wizards prep such generally useful spells.

When shark repellent becomes useful is when you're in town and can switch out haste for tongues and magic missile for disguise self.

Sorcerers eventually get to do that (trade out sleep for disguise self, etc), but not until like 2x the wizard's level. Later access to spells really hurts, too.

I think in actual play, and JaronK mentions this in OP, that T1 and T2 are really close in breaking the game. The only real difference per jaronk's assessment is that t1 gets all the ways, t2 gets about 3 new ways every 2 levels.

So per that definition of tiers, spontaneous casters never hit t1 unless there are warsnakes or you get 80 spells known and literally know every spell worth knowing for a level.

But in the way that t1 gets thrown around in more general use, t2 is pretty darn close, if you have a clear idea of what spells to pick and what roles you want to fill at any time for a given level. Prepared casters end up severely limited in their ability to repeat a trick. In my experience, the cost of breadth of shark repellent vs number of sharks to repel isn't ignorable.

Note this is at low to mid levels. When you get to 9ths, the game sort of falls apart. Planar binding and simulacra breaks the game, and at that point, I think a lot of houserules and gentleman's agreements appear. So for actual experience, we drift farther away from a sensible RAW-based discussion, and I am not sure a useful discussion can be had without really working a lot of stuff out. Shapechange all day ery day pretty much negates everything bad about prepared casters I said above, for instance. Then you get to prepare the sharkiest of repellents knowing that there is always something in the fiend folio that will solve your problems.

Gotterdammerung

2013-01-21, 02:37 AM

I'm curious. Have you personally experienced either of these happenings?

Yes, I have experienced both and have talked with others who have also had these things happen to them.

However, unlike you, I freely accept that it exists and take it as the guideline - guideline, not straitjacket! - that it is intended to be. I can still play 3.X just as happily as a fighter (hypothetically speaking; they're still boring as hell) as a wizard, or anything in-between, the only difference from the above being that I'm more conscious of where and when I can contribute my best. Provided, of course, that I can find a game that doesn't die as soon as I take interest in it! :smallwink:

I know it exists. I also do not wear it as a straight jacket. I also play characters without the tier list affecting my enjoyment from a personal standpoint (assuming someone else isn't imposing restrictions on what I can play as a direct result of the tier list). I am no more or less conscious of where and when i can contribute because i didn't need a list to tell me the theoretical parameters of my character, and how that character relates to the rest of the group in the first place.

And that is part of the problem. The tier system inspects classes in a scientific and clinical environment which is not an accurate representation of a real live game. As a result, all data gained from the study of the tier system is useless until it is translated into a format that matches your specific gaming table. Many players lack the capability and understanding of the game to properly translate this information from its clinical format into an organic format of their personal gaming table. As a result, they use the list as a shortcut and apply it directly to their game. I understand that this is not the correct way or the intended way to use the tier list. My complaint was never about the "intentions of" or "proper uses for" the tier list. My complaint was about the negative consequences caused by the tier list, as I have witnessed it, and my general disdain for those consequences.

If you wanted to truly balance a table, the most accurate way of doing so would be to rate the players on a tier and then use that list in conjunction with the class tier list to restrict a higher tier player to only low tier classes. And vice versa, suggest low tier players play higher tier classes. And this is indeed a capability of the tier list as it exists in this post. Nothing must be changed to achieve this final affect. But even with this perfect scenario, I find the concept of playing the Marxist edition of D&D appalling and unnecessary and would much prefer a light discussion with my table about party roles and intentions.

TuggyNE

2013-01-21, 03:05 AM

And that is part of the problem. The tier system inspects classes in a scientific and clinical environment which is not an accurate representation of a real live game. As a result, all data gained from the study of the tier system is useless until it is translated into a format that matches your specific gaming table. Many players lack the capability and understanding of the game to properly translate this information from its clinical format into an organic format of their personal gaming table. As a result, they use the list as a shortcut and apply it directly to their game. I understand that this is not the correct way or the intended way to use the tier list. My complaint was never about the "intentions of" or "proper uses for" the tier list. My complaint was about the negative consequences caused by the tier list, as I have witnessed it, and my general disdain for those consequences.

Given that you seem to be complaining largely about the consequences of inadequate understanding of both the tier system itself, and 3.x in general, perhaps it would be better to focus on increasing understanding, rather than tearing down what attempts have been made, no?

Unless, that is, you don't consider it possible to make useful generalizations about the game's balance even in principle, which I find hard to swallow.

Gotterdammerung

2013-01-21, 03:43 AM

perhaps it would be better to focus on increasing understanding, rather than tearing down what attempts have been made, no?
Why can't I do both? In a way, by strongly attacking the tier system, I am more strongly highlighting the pitfalls it might create, thereby decreasing the number of future abuses.

In my own personal games I now try to increase understanding discussing builds in a pre-campaign meeting. But we analyze the classes in the context of the intended campaign thereby removing the need for the clinical data provided by the tier system.

Unless, that is, you don't consider it possible to make useful generalizations about the game's balance even in principle, which I find hard to swallow.

Yes, I question the value of generalizations. People too often make decisions based on the generalization without properly adjusting the information to the relevant situation.

MeiLeTeng

2013-01-21, 05:48 AM

I mean, if you're really having problems with the Tier system actually causing internal problems in your group, seems to me that might be an issue with the people in your group and not the system in and of itself.

Personally, I've had significantly more fun with the game since I discovered the Tier system a year or so ago. It explained a lot of the issues I had been having with the game and as a DM it has helped me to tailor my games towards my players much better.

As far as some of the classes JaronK isn't as familiar with, where would the Ardent or the Incarnum classes wind up?

Gotterdammerung

2013-01-21, 07:15 AM

seems to me that might be an issue with the people in your group and not the system in and of itself.

Good point. I will remember it next time I have a discussion about communism with my Russian friend.

LordBlades

2013-01-21, 07:34 AM

Yes, I question the value of generalizations. People too often make decisions based on the generalization without properly adjusting the information to the relevant situation.

Not everyone has seen enough particular situations to be able to draw conclusions by analogy or from experience. To such people generalizations are useful.

If a DM is trying to run a game where he wants characters capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area and has a group of inexperienced players (who most likely can't gauge what that description really means) he could have to veto character concepts on a case by case basis, or he could show his players the tier system as a guideline for what's roughly expected of them.

MukkTB

2013-01-21, 08:22 AM

I have not experienced the party having difficulty with the tier system. On occasion we make sure that we create characters that are within range of each other, but we don't stress it. Since it isn't a pvp game we don't really get too upset if someone is more powerful. The worst I've had is someone displaying annoyance I chose to use a ToB class and they went with a ranger.*Thats from someone who has only the most basic grasp of the tier system. I generally do my best to stay tier 3. It gives me enough options to be happy, and I fit in pretty much everywhere. The party sticks mostly to tiers 3 and 4. When a less experienced player comes along they often get started in tier 1 or 2. The system has done our group a small amount of good.

On the boards however I have seen endless arguments over the tier system. We have a situation where:
#1 Monkday is a thing.
#2 'Can a Wizard outperform a Fighter at level 1?' arguments waste space.
#3 'What the tier system again?' threads come along.
#4 'The tier system is evil,' is stated repeatedly as if it murdered someone's babies.
#5 'The DM lets them get away with too much,' is said, implying that DM fiat should keep tier 1 in check. - For example one guy suggested dropping wizards into hellpits if they try to teleport around.
#6 'Why not only play a tier 1?' is used as an attack on the system.
#7 'How can a fighter be made to kill a wizard beyond about level 7?' is asked over and over and over again.

Posts about build help sometimes only get a few replies. Arguments about the tier system go many pages long. There are some definite negative side effects the forum is suffering related to the system. Some people are ignorant of the system. Some people don't believe the system. I'm sure some trolls manage to disguise themselves as people trying to discuss the system. The tier system is the most likely place to find someone angry at someone else on these boards.

So its a tool we sit around and argue about more than most of the other tools combined. Its good to have the tool. The argument gets tiring after you've seen it loop once or twice.

Krazzman

2013-01-21, 11:33 AM

As it has been said the Tier System can spook people out.

I already saw this, but this is mostly when they don't grasp it and counter it with: "But my Monk can kill a wizard quite easily."

In the beginnings of our group of people we played a Low-powered-high-power game. How that is possible? Well, we started on level 6 and in the beginning it was quite low powered. We battled Skelettons as an Archery Focused Fighter, a Dwarven Druid and an elven Rogue. We had fun, nearly no magic items and got them while playing. No magic mart or such stuff. Later on when we were level 10 a Wizard and a "Paladin" joined us and well suddenly we encountered hard enemies that my rogue could only pling against, the fighter died because the DM only gave melee loot for him and the Paladin dealt 150 dmg every round. A sudden shift in-game and we never touched the campaign again after reaching level 11.

Afterwards we always played one-shots or short-sessions without ever really resolving any plot. In such an environment the Tier system can't be used anyway. Everything was considered fine since no one had genuine defenses and we were limited in source material. Core + Completes (- Mage, Psionic, Champion and Scoundrel) + the Races of (-Destiny) + Faerun/ later Eberron.
I tried to introduce Psionics and Tome of Battle or the BoED (as the BoVD was already used by one of us). Everything was considered WAAAAAAY too powerful. We had a break due some shifts and well I still was called a "Powergamer" without being one. The strongest character I played was either a Duskblade with under Elite Array stats or a Psion with Skate, Animate Object and Mindblast (the 1d10 dmg one).

Now with our new group we have another problem.
We have one newbie who plays a Rogue/Ranger (I sort of nudged him to it as I wanted him to choose his feats and such himself) He has Weapon Finesse, Skill Focus and Improved Initiative and is more or less a skill monkey.
A Favoured Soul that messes up nearly every encounter now we reached level 5 (level 1 to 3 he was doing ok, the last two levels he lacked a bit) but a good roleplayer.
A Druid that is played on Tier 4 or 5, ignoring her Animal Companion except for one Instance, uses Flamesphere while knowing that is was never "that effective" and finally has call lightning.
An "ineffective" build as it hasn't reached it's sweet spot yet (Warlock1/Bard1/Warlock+3).
And me as a Warblade/Fighter utilizing Improved Trip, Spiked Chain (although I would still use it if we nerfed it) and Powerattack + Maneuvers. The DM understands that I'm ok and that the others lack but my fiance (the Bardlock) is a bit annoyed because we already gave the druid advice on what spells are good (SNA instead of Produce Flame and Flaming Sphere). But so far she still uses them. Next meeting there will probably some InTime comments from the BardLock about her spell selection as... well she can't understand why anyone would choose such ineffective spells.
Bringing the Tier System into that group would probably be again too much. I tried it a bit and directly said that it isn't about power but about how many options you have and well that's as far as I would go in this situation as I like the game as it is now. I know the Tier System and either use it to play a Tier3/4 char or I don't try to overshadow everyone when I play a Cleric or similar. (In another group I play a Buffing focused Sorcerer that has been told to switch to blasting as we already have a Controller/Buffer combination).

Gigas Breaker

2013-01-21, 12:55 PM

I like the tier system for increasing understanding of what makes a character powerful. My group doesn't have any rules regarding tiers or anything though.

Chambers

2013-01-21, 01:07 PM

Are you seriously suggesting that using the Tier system to interpret game balance is somehow akin to Marxist theory and Communism? That is absurd.

RFLS

2013-01-21, 01:21 PM

Yes, I question the value of generalizations. People too often make decisions based on the generalization without properly adjusting the information to the relevant situation.

Good point. I will remember it next time I have a discussion about communism with my Russian friend.

I'm just going to leave these two statements here, next to each other.

Lord_Gareth

2013-01-21, 01:23 PM

I'm just going to leave these two statements here, next to each other.

I...I think I love you.

Larkas

2013-01-21, 01:31 PM

Are you seriously suggesting that using the Tier system to interpret game balance is somehow akin to Marxist theory and Communism? That is absurd.

I think he meant it in the sense of "making the game too rules-heavy". Which is kind of an oxymoron, since 3.5 is anything but a rules-light system. He might also have meant it in the sense of "the DM is choosing what I can or can't play". Which is also a little absurd, games where the DM allows "only Core +X books" are the rule, not the exception, and banning by tier is no different from that. Scratch that, it is different in the sense that it's less arbitrary, banning by tier at least tries to accomplish something, banning by book only accomplishes not using subsystems the DM is not familiar with/has no access to, since some of the worst classes (balance-wise) are all present in the PHB, and I've never seen a DM banning that.

Gotterdammerung

2013-01-21, 01:33 PM

{Scrubbed}

Big Fau

2013-01-21, 02:04 PM

I understand that this is not the correct way or the intended way to use the tier list. My complaint was never about the "intentions of" or "proper uses for" the tier list. My complaint was about the negative consequences caused by the tier list, as I have witnessed it, and my general disdain for those consequences.

Except you are arguing about just that. Your issue stems from the fact that some people you know have a poor understanding of the intent behind the Tiers list, and that these misunderstandings have caused friction. It's classic miscommunication.

Merely having the Tier list does not cause friction, it's people who do not understand it's purposes. This is true for any tier system for any game, not just D&D. I've seen similar arguments over Pokemon tiers and fighting games as I have for D&D, simply because those people don't understand the system.

Petrocorus

2013-01-21, 02:21 PM

What about the Spirit Shaman?

It's from Complete Divine like the Favoured Soul but it's not included in the Tier list.

What tier should it be in? 2?

And what about the Dragon Shaman and DFA?

Answerer

2013-01-21, 02:30 PM

Spirit Shaman is weird, it's probably borderline between Tier 1 and Tier 2.

Lans

2013-01-21, 02:31 PM

What about the Spirit Shaman?

It's from Complete Divine like the Favoured Soul but it's not included in the Tier list.

What tier should it be in? 2?

And what about the Dragon Shaman and DFA?
bottom tier 1, 4, 3

MukkTB

2013-01-21, 02:32 PM

LordBlades

2013-01-21, 03:07 PM

Spirit Shaman is low tier 1.
A. Given a days preparation he can cast any spell on his list.
B. The Druid spell list is a tier 1 list.
That said the druid list is weaker than the Wizard list and the loss of the animal companion reduces him from doing 2.5 party members worth of work down to 1.5 or so.

I don't know what tier the favored or DFA is soul is.

I believe the dragon shaman clocks in at tier 4. It has a few things going for it here or there, but they don't come together convincingly.

Honestly, I'd say it's high tier 2 rather than low tier 1. Compared to druids it loses a ton of versatility. The druid's spell list, while good lacks both strong divinations as well as many open-ended spells (like planar binding, wish or polymorph). Yes, a spirit shaman that knows what's coming can adjust his spell list accordingly, but a spirit shaman doesn't really have the tools to know what's coming. A druid doesn't either, but as a druid you get to prepare for a larger variety of situations, especially since no situational spell is wasted on a druid as you can convert them to SNA, and there's very few situations in D&D where throwing more warm bodies at them isn't at leas somewhat beneficial.

Arbane

2013-01-21, 03:11 PM

Did I imply that Marx's goal of a classless society where idealistic equality takes precedent over individual merit was reminiscent of the goals and final result of the tier system?

I think you are mistaking a diagnosis of the problem for a prescription for the solution.

One solution, BTW, is to play something BESIDES D&D. There are plenty of non-class-and-level RPGs out there, folks.

obryn

2013-01-21, 03:20 PM

I don't play much 3.x anymore, but I wish I'd had this when I did. :D

Has anyone looked into this with Arcana Evolved classes? I still have d20 PTSD from when my party's Magister and Greenbond chain-demolished every obstacle while our totem warrior, champion, and ... well, whoever the other guys were; they made such little impact I can't even remember ... cheered them on. I'm guessing that, while there might be some 'buyback' for a generally more restricted spell list, combining the best aspects of wizard and sorcerer (along with some insane feats which auto-stun or force monsters to use their Int scores for saving throws, along with general higher save DCs) would push them into T1 easily.

...the game dissolved around 12th level or so.

-O

MukkTB

2013-01-21, 03:29 PM

Honestly, I'd say it's high tier 2 rather than low tier 1. Compared to druids it loses a ton of versatility. The druid's spell list, while good lacks both strong divinations as well as many open-ended spells (like planar binding, wish or polymorph). Yes, a spirit shaman that knows what's coming can adjust his spell list accordingly, but a spirit shaman doesn't really have the tools to know what's coming. A druid doesn't either, but as a druid you get to prepare for a larger variety of situations, especially since no situational spell is wasted on a druid as you can convert them to SNA, and there's very few situations in D&D where throwing more warm bodies at them isn't at leas somewhat beneficial.

It comes down to the spell list. The Druid's animal companion alone is tier 4. The Druids shapeshifting alone seems to be agreed to be tier 3. The ranger with Druid shapeshifting as an ACF is reported at tier 3. So if the Druid is tier 1, its because his spell list put him there.

MeiLeTeng

2013-01-21, 03:37 PM

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

It's a tool, dude. You're complaining about the equivalent of a hammer. I mean I guess if you don't like hammers great, just don't use them. Right now, though, you're doing the equivalent of running through the hardware store screaming about how they ruined carpentry when they invented hammers.

Pandoras Folly

2013-01-21, 03:39 PM

WhatBigTeeth

2013-01-21, 03:40 PM

The argument gets tiring after you've seen it loop once or twice.
How could 5 more years of the same dang threads possibly not enthrall?

Gavinfoxx

2013-01-21, 03:47 PM

Can we add some of the elaborations from here?

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php%3Ftopic%3D11714

Con_Brio1993

2013-01-21, 03:49 PM

It's a tool, dude. You're complaining about the equivalent of a hammer. I mean I guess if you don't like hammers great, just don't use them. Right now, though, you're doing the equivalent of running through the hardware store screaming about how they ruined carpentry when they invented hammers.

It really is hilarious.

"I understand that the people I interact with are using the tier system wrong, ergo the whole tier system is a blight on the universe with no positives!"

Zale

2013-01-21, 03:58 PM

Did i imply that Communism, an idea that is noble on paper and even works for certain cultures but on the whole is usually ruined by the people who practice it, is similar to the tier system.

I am beginning to wonder if you understand that the Tier System is not some magical game-ruining force.

The Tier System is simply a nice rule of thumb that says X class has more options/power than Y class, provided all classes are equally optimized.

I fail utterly to see how that can ruin anything. Any problems are the fault of the game system of D&D itself, not the information that can be derived from it.

navar100

2013-01-21, 04:11 PM

I am beginning to wonder if you understand that the Tier System is not some magical game-ruining force.

The Tier System is simply a nice rule of thumb that says X class has more options/power than Y class, provided all classes are equally optimized.

I fail utterly to see how that can ruin anything. Any problems are the fault of the game system of D&D itself, not the information that can be derived from it.

That is what the Tier System is.

That is not how the Tier System is used. It is that incorrect use that leads to ruin. That is where the fault truly comes from.

Philistine

2013-01-21, 04:20 PM

Pandoras Folly

2013-01-21, 04:41 PM

What your DM did was in fact against the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#components).

The dm did say are you sure you want to do this several times. The cleric also seconded the dms ruling as he confirmed the dm had stated it as one of his house rules at the beginning of the game. Frankly I hardly ever play a caster, if I want to be a wizard I play mage: the ascension:smallcool: although i've always favored a perma.ent HP loss rather than a loss in XP, has much more of a "sacrificed vital force" feel to it....and plays into the weak old man wizard stereotype to boot.

IdleMuse

2013-01-21, 04:44 PM

What your DM did was in fact against the rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#components).

Even rule zero? :smallannoyed:

Pandoras Folly

2013-01-21, 05:03 PM

Also. No responses to my original question.

In my experience when rules and ingredients are not ignored tier one players tend to tone it down a bit. Like in middle of a long long dungeon and the dm reminds the wizard he only has 5 more spell components. The implication of course is not x spell components, but I'm watching you like a hawk. I actually witnessed a wizard run out once.....still pretty effective though, not everything requires components.

WhatBigTeeth

2013-01-21, 05:07 PM

In my experience when rules and ingredients are not ignored tier one players tend to tone it down a bit. Like in middle of a long long dungeon and the dm reminds the wizard he only has 5 more spell components.
That's not "not ignoring the rules," that's "making up new caster-unfriendly rules." The difference isn't subtle.

Pandoras Folly

2013-01-21, 05:24 PM

That's not "not ignoring the rules," that's "making up new caster-unfriendly rules." The difference isn't subtle.

how is requiring a wizard to have balls of guano and sulfur on him if he wants to throw fireballs making up rules? Or a 25gp of oynx for each hit die for an animate dead?

Larkas

2013-01-21, 05:28 PM

how is requiring a wizard to have balls of guano and sulfur on him if he wants to throw fireballs making up rules? Or a 25gp of oynx for each hit die for an animate dead?

Read this (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#spellComponentPouch).

Amphetryon

2013-01-21, 05:30 PM

how is requiring a wizard to have balls of guano and sulfur on him if he wants to throw fireballs making up rules? Or a 25gp of oynx for each hit die for an animate dead?

Except for specifically costly components, the ownership of a spell component pouch should provide sufficient materials for a caster. A DM that's requiring the specific tracking of extremely cheap components like guano and sulfur (or inflating the prices of same) is engaging in a houserule with the apparent intent of reigning in the caster's abilities.

Story

2013-01-21, 05:32 PM

RAW a caster has infinite (noncostly) components as long as they have a pouch. And houseruling otherwise is generally pretty stupid because it adds annoyance and complication without doing anything to address the Wizard's actual power. It's like putting out a "you must be this munchkinny to play" sign.

Assuming that they also banned Eschew Material Components of course.

JaronK

2013-01-21, 05:34 PM

Honestly, if a DM started caring about the free components that come in the pouch (I think they all care about the costly ones, but that's different), I'd just take Eschew Materials and call it a day. Or be a Shadowcraft Mage, since all you need then is some fleece (which you're probably wearing).

JaronK

Hirax

2013-01-21, 05:34 PM

There are people that make casters obtain individual spell components worth less than 1GP? The thing that the rules themselves suggest that you not do? D&D involves enough bookkeeping without that as it is, trying to fix something by making it more tedious with more real life bookkeeping hassles is a stupid approach. Especially given that those components generally only apply to arcane spells, so you're just going to cause people to sidestep the issue by either being a cleric, or even just taking eschew materials.

Pandoras Folly

2013-01-21, 05:39 PM

Con_Brio1993

2013-01-21, 05:40 PM

Pandoras Folly

2013-01-21, 05:44 PM

Im totally escheing materials on my shurikin happy thri kreen monk/scout.

Answerer

2013-01-21, 05:45 PM

Frankly, I've never had a DM that demanded that I keep track of mundane ammunition, either. Seems like a waste of game-time to do that.

Hirax

2013-01-21, 05:46 PM

Frankly, I've never had a DM that demanded that I keep track of mundane ammunition, either. Seems like a waste of game-time to do that.

This, too. I don't know that I'd want to play with one that did.

Pandoras Folly

2013-01-21, 05:49 PM

You've obviously not played Dark Sun.

9 kinds of desert. you want to be undead not for the fort saves but because you dont have to worry about water and food.

Chambers

2013-01-21, 05:52 PM

Did I imply that Marx's goal of a classless society where idealistic equality takes precedent over individual merit was reminiscent of the goals and final result of the tier system?

Please explain how any of these goals are reminiscent of promoting a classless society where idealistic equality takes precedent over individual merit.

1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the classes of the PCs in their group before applying their own changes.

2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.

3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).

4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a Fighter, and a Rogue, maybe you shouldn't let that fly.

5) To help homebrewers judge the power and balance of their new classes. Pick a Tier you think your class should be in, and when you've made your class compare it to the rest of the Tier. Generally, I like Tier 3 as a balance point, but I know many people prefer Tier 4. If it's stronger than Tier 1, you definitely blew it.

Did i imply that Communism, an idea that is noble on paper and even works for certain cultures but on the whole is usually ruined by the people who practice it, is similar to the tier system.

That may be your opinion of Communism and as such if you view the Tier system in a similar light then I see why you would make that comparison. We're skirting the edges of the 'no politics' rule here, so I'll just say that your premises (understanding of Communism & Tier system) can lead to a logically valid result (treating the two as similar), even though the premises are not true (in the logical sense of the word, not implying value of your opinion). In other words: The moon is square, square things are made of cheese, therefore the moon is made of cheese. Logically valid but not true.

Pandoras Folly

2013-01-21, 05:57 PM

This, too. I don't know that I'd want to play with one that did.

you mean you dont do this on your own? " :smallfurious:

Hirax

2013-01-21, 06:19 PM

you mean you dont do this on your own? " :smallfurious:

Only in scenarios where it's relevant, which is rare enough that I'll just go ahead and say no. D&D has enough things to keep track of already, I can't picture going through the hassle you describe adding anything of value, except in a few oblique circumstances at low levels.

Hiro Protagonest

2013-01-21, 06:29 PM

So...its a single use bag of holdin...

Im going to get one of those, be a thrikreen and say the bag holds all the thousands of daggers im spaming. Because that wont fly with most people. I have to account for arrows, daggers,and how many feet of rope I have. How much did raw sulphur cost in the middle ages? Also assuming you are in an area that has bats to begin :smallwink:with.
Daggers aren't ammunition. Arrows are technically supposed to be kept track of, but it's just a nuisance outside of survival games like Dark Sun. At this point, you're just ignoring the rules because you want to arbitrarily restrict a wizard. And if I am playing in Dark Sun... why wouldn't all Dark Sun casters have Eschew Materials? Did your DM ban it? Fine, one in five Templars is out of spell components. And I'm playing a psion.

Im totally escheing materials on my shurikin happy thri kreen monk/scout.

Except that doesn't work. It specifically only works for spell components. Also, infinite shurikens don't make you tier 4, let alone tier 1.

As for your complaints about not following xp costs... take a good look at the list and amount of spells with xp costs. That's what, Wish, Permanency, and Gate-for-summons? Besides, in D&D, by following the WBL guidelines (which you really should. Yes, even in Dark Sun. The game gets even more in favor of the casters when your fighter is deprived Winged Boots and a magic sword at 5th level), money is no object. And XP is a river.

Unless you decide to actually start following the RAW rather than complaining about how the rules aren't hardcore-survival enough (if Fireball requires me to seek out rare materials, I'll start using spells that are more effective, and have no expendable components, or at least easily found ones, like Summon Monster and Sleet Storm), I'm not going to take your arguments as valid reason to change tiers of casters.

Threadnaught

2013-01-21, 07:29 PM

Did I imply that Marx's goal of a classless society where idealistic equality takes precedent over individual merit was reminiscent of the goals and final result of the tier system?

Yes, yes i did.

Did i imply that Communism, an idea that is noble on paper and even works for certain cultures but on the whole is usually ruined by the people who practice it, is similar to the tier system.

Yes, yes i did.

If you think that is unreasonable or incongruous, I would like to point out that it was not my intent to assign the tier system a social value equivalent to these weighty real world issues.

In theory, you do have a good point. People playing the game need to be on the same table in more ways than one. However, where your point begins to break down and starts to become something you're wrong about, rather than just something people disagree with, is your stance on how a system that fails to people who abuse it shouldn't be used by anyone.

Let me just point out this little fact. Every system ever has something that can be abused that is beneficial to the abuser and detrimental to everyone else. Communism, Capitalism, Despotism, Democracy, Theocracy (no idea), Monarchy and every single gaming system ever. They all have their flaws and are ripe for abuse, but does that mean non of them ever deserve to be implemented? No, it just means they have flaws.

If you've been in groups with players and DMs who have read this, but only know which Tiers certain Classes are in and try to ban stuff based on tier rather than team composition and game style, then I doubt the players/DM know all that much about the game either. Next time you're playing, ask your fellow players and/or DM to take a look at the Tiers, demand that they read the entire post and understand the reason for them. Then ask them kindly to read the second post including the spoilers.

I still need to conjure up a bunch of Tier 1s for a thought exercise. :smallamused:

Raven777

2013-01-21, 07:44 PM

Con_Brio1993

2013-01-21, 07:47 PM

you mean you dont do this on your own? " :smallfurious:

Heck my current DM doesn't make us keep track of food, water, or ammunition. Otherwise it turns off newer players.

Answerer

2013-01-21, 08:12 PM

Abuse or resentment related to class tiering in D&D can be greatly mitigated by the group's adherence to some kind of gentlemen's agreement (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267097)... It is a simple matter of sportsmanship to ensure everyone is having fun and that no one's fun is had at the expense of another, after all. Isn't it expected by default from friends sitting together to play a game?
Ugh, don't link that thread. It entirely defeats the purpose of a gentlemen's agreement to try to standardize it.

Anyway, point is, Gotterdamung, your thesis is essentially "some people get it wrong and abuse it, therefore it should not exist." Non sequitur. You are fundamentally wrong – that is not a valid conclusion to make.

Threadnaught

2013-01-21, 08:25 PM

Heck my current DM doesn't make us keep track of food, water, or ammunition. Otherwise it turns off newer players.

It isn't just the players who would need to keep track of that stuff. Anyone here who's DMed knows how much of a pain the rules are, the more of the little stuff you watch out for, the more book keeping you have to do and the longer it takes for the players to perform their next actions.
It's hard enough for some people to keep track of Initiative, nevermind material components and hunger/thirst.

Karnith

2013-01-21, 08:47 PM

Let me just point out this little fact. Every system ever has something that can be abused that is beneficial to the abuser and detrimental to everyone else. Communism, Capitalism, Despotism, Democracy, Theocracy (no idea), Monarchy and every single gaming system ever. They all have their flaws and are ripe for abuse, but does that mean non of them ever deserve to be implemented? No, it just means they have flaws.

If you've been in groups with players and DMs who have read this, but only know which Tiers certain Classes are in and try to ban stuff based on tier rather than team composition and game style, then I doubt the players/DM know all that much about the game either. Next time you're playing, ask your fellow players and/or DM to take a look at the Tiers, demand that they read the entire post and understand the reason for them. Then ask them kindly to read the second post including the spoilers.
Importantly, the tier system is a positive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_science) classification scheme for describing characteristics of classes, specifically the (somewhat vaguely-defined) "power bands" that classes operate within. It attempts to describe empirical reality by grouping classes together based on characteristics that those classes share. These characteristics are born out through years of empirical testing, i.e. actually playing the game, and out of theory, i.e. theoretical optimization as occurs in this very forum. It does not impose value judgements on the classes or tiers, nor does it argue for any particular style of play. The tier system merely groups classes together for the sake of easy classification and reference; criticizing the tier system and those who use it is akin to criticizing biologists for classifying organisms according to kingdoms, i.e. Animalia, Plantae, Fungi etc. The tier system is no different (save for subject matter) than such scientific classification systems. There is no normative favor placed upon plants over animals in biology (or vice versa); the terms and classification system exists solely for the purpose of ease of reference. The same is true of the tier system.

This places it apart from normative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative) analysis, which explicitly does try to establish a particular value system, i.e. a "right way to play." Examples of normative theory include most political philosophy, including (and especially) Marxist theory. Aside from the vast difference in subject matter, the comparison between Marxist political theory and the tier system does not work because the former is normative, while the latter is explicitly positive.

The problems involving tiers arise from either the very phenomenon that the tier system was created to document, i.e. class imbalances leading to wildly imbalanced parties, or from people imposing normative analysis onto the tier system, i.e. "only play tier 3," or "tier 5 is trash, play tier 1 instead." This is not a problem with the tier system. It is a problem with people applying normative judgements to the tier system. People use the tier system to try to establish values on how the game can be best enjoyed. A common example (present in JaronK's FAQ) is "tier 3 is the sweet spot." That kind of analysis is also fine. Without normative analysis, the tier system would be rather useless; interesting to contemplate and look at, useful perhaps in providing an (extremely flawed) example for game designers working within the system, but it would have little use to most players. What is important is that such analysis is independent of the system itself; the system survives entirely on its own without value judgements being attached to it. JaronK's specific post contains quite a bit of normative analysis, especially in the FAQ. That does not make the positive aspects of the analysis presented invalid.

EDIT: Threadnaught, I'm quoting you because you were the most recent person commenting on this conversation thread; I'm not really directly replying to you.

Zale

2013-01-21, 10:47 PM

That is what the Tier System is.

That is not how the Tier System is used. It is that incorrect use that leads to ruin. That is where the fault truly comes from.

How?

The Tier System is just knowledge.

If it had never been written, Wizards would still have more options than Fighters.

How can it possibly be used incorrectly?

rockdeworld

2013-01-21, 11:24 PM

:smile: Hooray! JaronK you've saved this! Cookie for you! :smile:

Would it be possible to get back the "Why each class is in its tier" threads too?

How can it possibly be used incorrectly?
I suppose you could print it out with 72 pt Arial font, roll up the huge stack of papers, and start beating other gamers with it :smalltongue:

MeiLeTeng

2013-01-21, 11:31 PM

I suppose you could print it out with 72 pt Arial font, roll up the huge stack of papers, and start beating other gamers with it :smalltongue:

Use comic sans for extra evil.

Raven777

2013-01-21, 11:55 PM

Use comic sans for extra evil.

You monster.

TuggyNE

2013-01-22, 01:44 AM

Ugh, don't link that thread. It entirely defeats the purpose of a gentlemen's agreement to try to standardize it.

Perhaps it should be renamed "ideas and starting principles for gentlemen to agree on in a D&D game", but that would be clunkier.

Gotterdammerung

2013-01-22, 04:25 AM

Let me preface my response by apologizing. I have a very gruff writing style that is often misconstrued as aggressive or angry. I apologize for this and assure you it is not my intention to be arbitrarily confrontational. I am not angry, at best i am annoyed at the tier system and what i beleieve to be its negative impact on the community (by community I mean a few of my personal games, the climate of my local gaming store, and the climate of several D&D forum based sites.). I genuinely believe this system causes problems and my goal was to inform the community of these problems.

My argument is not Non-sequitur. You can't take one aspect of a multi-faceted argument, reduce that aspect to absurdity, and then argue your absurd version of my argument. Since you like rhetorical fallacies, that one is called a "Strawman".

Yes, part of my argument speaks out to the misuse of the tier system, but it does not stop there.

The tier system fails by trying to analyze data in a clinical environment. That data is inaccurate when carried over to a real world game where the factors are varied and uncontrolled. This makes the data derived from the system highly misleading to a large group of people. The data must be translated.
But, if you lacked the ability to gauge classes in the first place, then you will likely lack the ability to translate the data properly into your current environment. This makes the info the tier system provides a ticking time bomb destined for misuse. And if you had the ability to gauge classes to begin with, then you do not need the tier system to analyze obsolete data for you.

The tier system has 2 meritorious goals IMO. These are 2 saving graces of the system.

1. It tries to teach people how to accurately analyze data. I feel that this goal would be better served if it further tried to teach people the proper way to apply that data.

2. It identifies that a low powered character and a high powered character on the same table can create extreme difficulty on the dm from a game mechanics standpoint. This is a valid point and needed to come to the forefront. The problem is this factor of the game is not an exclusive point of the tier system and the tier system is not the only valid solution to this problem. There are many other valid solutions that don't carry the negative consequences of the tier system.

LordBlades

2013-01-22, 04:29 AM

Abuse or resentment related to class tiering in D&D can be greatly mitigated by the group's adherence to some kind of gentlemen's agreement (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267097)... It is a simple matter of sportsmanship to ensure everyone is having fun and that no one's fun is had at the expense of another, after all. Isn't it expected by default from friends sitting together to play a game?

Thing is, not everyone has the required mechanical knowledge to accurate judge the potential of a class/build. I've seen people that have been playing for years look surprised that somebody really thought a druid could overshadow a barbarian in melee.

Most people don't break the game because they want to, but because they don't know better.

TuggyNE

2013-01-22, 05:29 AM

JaronK

2013-01-22, 05:42 AM

Considering the FAQ pretty clearly tells people how to analyze and apply the data and most of the objections I've seen are actually answered by the FAQ, I'm really not sure how I could improve things. At the end of the day, some folks just assume instead of reading.

Honestly, it seems like any "negative consequences" of the system from people who clearly have the problem already. As a result, it's sort of like blaming a hammer for someone injuring themselves by hitting themselves on the head with that hammer. If the hammer weren't there, they're still the sort of person that hits themselves in the head with an object in their hands.

I mean, I often get "AHH, THIS SAYS WIZARDS ARE A BETTER CLASS THAN FIGHTERS, WHY PLAY FIGHTERS THEN!" Clearly, such a person sees no value to a class other than its power and/or versatility, because simply showing that one class can do more in more situations is enough for them to think there's no point in playing anything else. But if that's how they feel, the tier system only shows them what they're going to learn anyway in play.

JaronK

Pandoras Folly

2013-01-22, 07:17 AM

Chambers

2013-01-22, 07:40 AM

Thanks for apologizing but its pretty egotistical to think that you are "informing the community of the problems" when the majority of the community (or at least those that have posted) disagree that its a problem in the first place.

Also, you didn't answer my question about the goals being reminiscent, etc.

Pandoras Folly

2013-01-22, 07:43 AM

Daggers aren't ammunition. Arrows are technically supposed to be kept track of, but it's just a nuisance outside of survival games like Dark Sun. At this point, you're just ignoring the rules because you want to arbitrarily restrict a wizard. And if I am playing in Dark Sun... why wouldn't all Dark Sun casters have Eschew Materials? Did your DM ban it? Fine, one in five Templars is out of spell components. And I'm playing a psion.

Except that doesn't work. It specifically only works for spell components. Also, infinite shurikens don't make you tier 4, let alone tier 1.

As for your complaints about not following xp costs... take a good look at the list and amount of spells with xp costs. That's what, Wish, Permanency, and Gate-for-summons? Besides, in D&D, by following the WBL guidelines (which you really should. Yes, even in Dark Sun. The game gets even more in favor of the casters when your fighter is deprived Winged Boots and a magic sword at 5th level), money is no object. And XP is a river.

Unless you decide to actually start following the RAW rather than complaining about how the rules aren't hardcore-survival enough (if Fireball requires me to seek out rare materials, I'll start using spells that are more effective, and have no expendable components, or at least easily found ones, like Summon Monster and Sleet Storm), I'm not going to take your arguments as valid reason to change tiers of casters.

I'm not arguing that casters belong in a lower tier. Ha, definetly Not.

Also wizards surviving to fifth level in dark sun rarely happens unless everyone there is playing bodyguard for them.

I guess I was raised in a different era where the dm didn't have to help us pee and count our arrows for us, what you rolled inthe order you rolled were your stats, and a bonus to being a dwarf was extra encumbrance because we measured how much our stuff weighed.

Although by the rules most of the arguments raised are correct someone thought the spell component bag was a good idea, also someone thought the truenamer was awesome. Its just a game, though I still dont understand the intense discussion about tier system. Its a tool we aren't arguing over to measure from ontop at the root or underneath next to the sack:smallcool:

LordBlades

2013-01-22, 08:09 AM

Wizards surviving to fifth level in dark sun rarely happens unless everyone there is playing bodyguard for them.

Ever since Abrupt Jaunt got introduced theres very few low level things more survivable than a wizard.

I guess I was raised in a different era where the dm didn't have to help us pee and count our arrows for us, what you rolled inthe order you rolled were your stats, and a bonus to being a dwarf was extra encumbrance because we measured how much our stuff weighed.

The rolling stats s cerainly a matter of personal preference. Not a game I'd like to play in as I prefer to decide what to play and not rely on the dice to do it for me. Encumberance becomes irrelevant as soon as you can afford a Handy Haversack.

Karnith

2013-01-22, 08:24 AM

The tier system fails by trying to analyze data in a clinical environment. That data is inaccurate when carried over to a real world game where the factors are varied and uncontrolled. This makes the data derived from the system highly misleading to a large group of people.
In case you weren't aware, you are, by extension of this line of reasoning, arguing that science is useless. "Trying to analyze data in a clinical environment" is exactly how we are able to learn about things we don't understand; it is nearly impossible to accurately analyze a full system, i.e. the universe or a human body (or an economy, or a society), at once because there is so much happening and there are so many variables. Isolating a given variable or process is the best way to learn about it. Obviously, this is easier in the natural sciences as opposed to something with social aspects, such as Dungeons and Dragons (or politics, continuing on the theme), but it is still the best way to do so.

The tier system measures the inherent capabilities of each class, separate from all other considerations, such as optimization level, play style, character wealth, luck, campaign style, etc. This means that the descriptive portion of the tier system holds true ceteris paribus, or when all of those other things are held constant. Obviously, if those other variables are altered, then the descriptive portion of the tier system may not hold true, but that is because of the other variables changing, not because the tier system is invalid. Introducing additional variables to a formula can change how the equation functions. We must also endeavor to understand how changing those other variables can affect outcomes, and we should do so by isolating those variables and testing how they change outcomes when varied. This is how science works. The tier system is an admirable effort at applying scientific principles to the analysis of a game.

But, if you lacked the ability to gauge classes in the first place, then you will likely lack the ability to translate the data properly into your current environment. This makes the info the tier system provides a ticking time bomb destined for misuse. And if you had the ability to gauge classes to begin with, then you do not need the tier system to analyze obsolete data for you.
I was not able to fully gauge the power levels of the classes when I first discovered character optimization and the tier listings thread. I had a very low op-level when I discovered the original thread back on BrilliantGameologists, and reading and, more importantly, understanding what it was to be used for, helped me vastly expand my knowledge of how D&D works, and how (as a DM) I can help my players enjoy the game, and how to create new content that is at a power level that I am comfortable with. I did not have the skills to accurately do either of those things before I read the thread, but I was able to gain those skills by reading the tier list (as well as the accompanying explanations of why each class is in its tier) and understanding the logic underlying it. Learning about the class tiers and using the principles derived from it has not harmed my games in any way, shape, or form, and has actually allowed me to try to prevent the horrible party and game imbalances that had characterized my games beforehand.

1. It tries to teach people how to accurately analyze data. I feel that this goal would be better served if it further tried to teach people the proper way to apply that data.
Three things.
First, trying to impose value judgements onto the tier list (i.e. "this is how it should be used," or more specifically, "here is how you can enjoy D&D more once you understand the tier list") is going to create the exact problems that you have complained about. I think that it is worth doing, since the misunderstandings stem from people who don't fully comprehend what the tier list means, but your suggestion will cause exactly the problems that you have complained about.
Second, JaronK, in the FAQ attached to the tier list and occasionally in the main post itself, does provide examples of how the tier list ought to be used.
Third, since apparently you disagree with JaronK's normative analysis of the tier system, how do you propose that we, as a community, establish the best way that the tier list should be used, especially in light of the fact that you apparently disagree with the majority of posters here?

2. It identifies that a low powered character and a high powered character on the same table can create extreme difficulty on the dm from a game mechanics standpoint. This is a valid point and needed to come to the forefront. The problem is this factor of the game is not an exclusive point of the tier system and the tier system is not the only valid solution to this problem. There are many other valid solutions that don't carry the negative consequences of the tier system.
The tier system is not a "solution" to the problem of imbalanced parties. It is not a "solution" to anything, except perhaps the problem of differing reference points of players trying to compare experiences. Again, the tier system does not impose normative values. It does not judge, it does not try to establish a right way to play, and it does not even (by itself) recommend anything, though JaronK's particular post describing the tier system does so. The tier system is a description of how the classes function in a game.

Also, what exactly is an alternative to the tier system?

Saph

2013-01-22, 08:28 AM

In closing, I believe that it is in fact a fallacy to see the tier system as a measure of power rankings in the classical sense. The tier system is not a measure of who has the most plusses in an individual category. The system is using power in the same way that I have been using reactivity. The system measures how many options a character has. The power comes more as a byproduct. In a given set of moves, some are more powerful as a matter of statistics. In a big enough group, the outliers can be very extreme. The power of tier 1 comes from these outliers, which is by definition only existent due to their large availability of the moves.

I think this is probably the best way to see the tier system. (Surprised that no-one else commented on this post, to be honest.)

I generally find that the more experienced the DM, the more likely they'll ban said 'outliers', which goes a long way towards restricting the power of the tier 1 and tier 2s. If the really obviously busted stuff like Polymorph/Shivering Touch/Celerity is off the table, a Wizard and a Cleric can play in the same party as a Barbarian and a Rogue fairly comfortably.

Karnith

2013-01-22, 08:41 AM

I think this is probably the best way to see the tier system. (Surprised that no-one else commented on this post, to be honest.)

I generally find that the more experienced the DM, the more likely they'll ban said 'outliers', which goes a long way towards restricting the power of the tier 1 and tier 2s. If the really obviously busted stuff like Polymorph/Shivering Touch/Celerity is off the table, a Wizard and a Cleric can play in the same party as a Barbarian and a Rogue fairly comfortably.
I think that one problem that people have with the tier system might come from how tier systems are used elsewhere. I play and have played several fighting games competitively, and tier systems in those communities explicitly use tiers to refer to power levels, i.e. Eddie being S-tier (in a ranking of S, A, B, etc.) in Guilty Gear X2 Reload means that he is the most powerful character in the game. If your frame of reference is that tiers are explicitly related to power levels, and being in a higher tier is absolutely better than being in a lower tier because the point of the game is to win, then I can see how moving into D&D tiers might cause confusion. No one really thinks that Ganondorf is worth playing competitively in Super Smash Brothers Brawl, but plenty of people enjoy playing fighters and monks in D&D. The disconnect would occur there because while there is no reason to play low-tier characters in fighting games if you want to win, there are plenty of reasons to play a low-tier class in a D&D game, because the object isn't to win (or, at least, to beat the other players).

Answerer

2013-01-22, 08:46 AM

My argument is not Non-sequitur. You can't take one aspect of a multi-faceted argument, reduce that aspect to absurdity, and then argue your absurd version of my argument. Since you like rhetorical fallacies, that one is called a "Strawman".

Yes, part of my argument speaks out to the misuse of the tier system, but it does not stop there.

The tier system fails by trying to analyze data in a clinical environment. That data is inaccurate when carried over to a real world game where the factors are varied and uncontrolled. This makes the data derived from the system highly misleading to a large group of people. The data must be translated.
You know what also analyzes data in a clinical environment, and then attempts to extrapolate results into a real world where factors are varied and uncontrolled?

Every branch of science ever.

Regardless, your argument remains a non sequitur because the Tiers provide clinical information, and it is the fault of those who have not actually read and understood if they misapply it, not the fault of the system as a whole. The entire line of criticism that you are applying makes no sense. Might as well say we should never bother with any experiment ever, because if we do some people will expect real life to match the experiment in every particularity.

Threadnaught

2013-01-22, 08:49 AM

Pandoras Folly

2013-01-22, 09:41 AM

Ever since Abrupt Jaunt got introduced theres very few low level things more survivable than a wizard.

Obviously you havnt played Dark Sun. Undead sand sharks, brain eating seeds, and mind bullet cacti oh my.

huttj509

2013-01-22, 09:53 AM

Obviously you havnt played Dark Sun. Undead sand sharks, brain eating seeds, and mind bullet cacti oh my.

In Dark Sun, ANYONE surviving to 5 can be impressive. The wizard is not special that way.

EarFall

2013-01-22, 09:58 AM

Obviously you havnt played Dark Sun. Undead sand sharks, brain eating seeds, and mind bullet cacti oh my.

What does that have to do with abrupt jaunt making wizards more survivable?

Karnith

2013-01-22, 10:01 AM

Obviously you havnt played Dark Sun. Undead sand sharks, brain eating seeds, and mind bullet cacti oh my.
Being able to say "no" to attacks a number of times per day equal to your Int modifier seems pretty relevant in most any setting, honestly. It may not be enough to make them survive guaranteed, but what is? I'm not seeing how wizards with abrupt jaunt are particularly worse off than anyone else in Dark Sun.

Answerer

2013-01-22, 10:05 AM

Also, it's kind of weird to bring up Dark Sun in the 3e/3.5e/d20 section of the board when there has been no official release of it for any of those systems, and the official release of it for the most-closely-related system (4e) involved significant changes both to that system and to the way survival gear and supplies were handled (i.e. you basically just got a stat that was "the number of days you can survive on your own in the desert"). Wizards has largely repudiated the survival/supplies-accounting aspects of Dungeons & Dragons to begin with.

LordBlades

2013-01-22, 10:42 AM

I think this is probably the best way to see the tier system. (Surprised that no-one else commented on this post, to be honest.)

I generally find that the more experienced the DM, the more likely they'll ban said 'outliers', which goes a long way towards restricting the power of the tier 1 and tier 2s. If the really obviously busted stuff like Polymorph/Shivering Touch/Celerity is off the table, a Wizard and a Cleric can play in the same party as a Barbarian and a Rogue fairly comfortably.

Completely agree with the first part of your post and completely disagree with the latter.
It's not the outliers that make tier 1 classes so strong in actual play. Most play groups don't even touch them either due to DM banning them or the simple mutual agreement they make the game less fun. Putting Polymorph in the same bucket with Celerity and ShiveringTouch is again wrong IMO but I won't dwell on that.

What makes tier 1 so strong in actual play is number of options. Each class has a list of class features (aka spells) that uses up more space that all the class features for all non spellcasters combined. And unlike a non-spellcaster, who has access to a relatively small and hard to change sybset of features, a spellcaster has potential access to every spell ever printed for the respective class.

Saph

2013-01-22, 11:12 AM

What makes tier 1 so strong in actual play is number of options.

It's their strength, yes, but taking out the outliers makes a HUGE difference. Just take a look at the string of posts above arguing about Abrupt Jaunt.

If you have lots of options, of which the top 5% are brokenly powerful, and that 5% get banned, then that's a major hit to your power. You're still not going to be weak, since you can just select from the 91st to 95th percentile instead, but it makes a big difference.

LordBlades

2013-01-22, 11:24 AM

It's their strength, yes, but taking out the outliers makes a HUGE difference. Just take a look at the string of posts above arguing about Abrupt Jaunt.

If you have lots of options, of which the top 5% are brokenly powerful, and that 5% get banned, then that's a major hit to your power. You're still not going to be weak, since you can just select from the 91st to 95th percentile instead, but it makes a big difference.

It does, but not nearly enough to bring them on par with lower tiers.

Saph

2013-01-22, 11:32 AM

It does, but not nearly enough to bring them on par with lower tiers.

It depends on player skill. If you have access to the 'sledgehammer' style caster tricks (24-hour Polymorph, taking multiple turns to your opponent's one, 1-hit KO Arcane Thesis damage spells) then it's pretty easy to beat normal encounters. You just spam your win button.

If the sledgehammers are banned, though, then to make effective use of spells you have to think. (Out of the 50 spells you've got access to, 1 will end the encounter – but which one?) It's still possible to outperform the rest of the party, but it requires much more effort on the part of the player.

LordBlades

2013-01-22, 11:37 AM

It depends on player skill. If you have access to the 'sledgehammer' style caster tricks (24-hour Polymorph, taking multiple turns to your opponent's one, 1-hit KO Arcane Thesis damage spells) then it's pretty easy to beat normal encounters. You just spam your win button.

If the sledgehammers are banned, though, then to make effective use of spells you have to think. (Out of the 50 spells you've got access to, 1 will end the encounter – but which one?) It's still possible to outperform the rest of the party, but it requires much more effort on the part of the player.

Again i disagree. Loading up with save-or-suck (aoe if possible) targeting each save and fill the rest of the list with long term buffs and escape spells requires no great skill and is still enougn to outdo any non-caster with ease.

Answerer

2013-01-22, 12:26 PM

Togo

2013-01-22, 12:35 PM

Hm.. popular thread.

I'm very impressed with the level of analysis that goes into the Tier system. I'm greatly impressed with the thought and care that's gone into it, and I agree with most of what JaronK says about it.

I also think it does more harm than good, for exactly the reasons Gotterdammerung supplies. It's horribly prone to misuse, and the problems caused by said misuse are both more serious and more common than the problems it solves.

Obviously that's just my experience, and your experience may vary. Like any additional rule, guideline or peice of additional advice, you need to consider whether it's useful and relevent for the kind of game you want to run/play. The overwhelming majority of the community in which I play recommend against using it.

It makes a great talking point though.

I'd also agree with Saph's point that much of the additional utility of the higher tiers come from a very small proportion of abilities. A certain amount of judicious limiting of the available options that have the biggest impact on your style of game goes a very long way towards deleveraging the highest tiers.

afroakuma

2013-01-22, 12:41 PM

I haven't seen a lot of DMs ban, or people talk about on par with contingency or gate, stuff like grease, glitterdust, haste, solid fog, etc. All of which are singular actions of disproportionate effectiveness compared to any of the options available to Tier 4-ish classes.

I, of course, have, and it was an immense task to try to rein in even the core selection available to wizards, sorcerers, clerics and druids. "Disproportionate" is a vicious understatement.

gooddragon1

2013-01-22, 12:49 PM

I, of course, have, and it was an immense task to try to rein in even the core selection available to wizards, sorcerers, clerics and druids. "Disproportionate" is a vicious understatement.

Calling it an understatement is inappropriate. It's simply not comparable. The ability to do anything cannot be compared to the ability to only do certain things.

Karnith

2013-01-22, 01:30 PM

I also think it does more harm than good, for exactly the reasons Gotterdammerung supplies. It's horribly prone to misuse, and the problems caused by said misuse are both more serious and more common than the problems it solves.
I have to question the last assertion. D&D 3.5 is extremely unbalanced, and it takes a great deal of work to either homebrew effective fixes for it, or to come up with and adjudicate bans to keep power level down; Answerer's post farther up points out that it's not just chain-gating Solars or multiple crafted contingent spells that make tier 1 classes so good. It takes a lot of work to solve the problems that the tier system documents without actually using it. In fact, it especially takes a lot of work to fix 3.5's issues without using knowledge gleaned from the tier system, because understanding the problems of game balance in 3.5 is the same as understanding the tier system. Resolving not to use the tier system, and knowledge thereof, is essentially just hoping that the numerous, game-breaking class imbalance issues aren't going to come up when you play. And, quite frankly, that's not solving a problem, it's ignoring it.

Problems caused by people misusing knowledge gained from the tier system, however, can be resolved on an interpersonal level, and generally stem from either a misunderstanding of the tier system, or applying value judgements to the system.

In fact, maybe you (or anyone, for that matter) can help me here. What exactly are the problems that misusing the tier system cause? I have never experienced any, and the examples that I see on this forum are generally bizarre and symptoms of other problems.

Obviously that's just my experience, and your experience may vary. Like any additional rule, guideline or peice of additional advice, you need to consider whether it's useful and relevent for the kind of game you want to run/play. The overwhelming majority of the community in which I play recommend against using it.
I would also like to again point out that tier system is descriptive, not prescriptive; it is not a "solution" to 3.5's many, many problems, nor is it "optional" or "a guideline." It is an empirical reality. The tier system simply describes how the game works. Understanding the tier system does not necessitate any change in gameplay. At all.

Togo

2013-01-22, 02:45 PM

I have to question the last assertion. D&D 3.5 is extremely unbalanced, and it takes a great deal of work to either homebrew effective fixes for it, or to come up with and adjudicate bans to keep power level down; Answerer's post farther up points out that it's not just chain-gating Solars or multiple crafted contingent spells that make tier 1 classes so good. It takes a lot of work to solve the problems that the tier system documents without actually using it. In fact, it especially takes a lot of work to fix 3.5's issues without using knowledge gleaned from the tier system, because understanding the problems of game balance in 3.5 is the same as understanding the tier system.

No, it isn't. It's using your own appreciation of balance based upon the players and practices at your table, rather than based upon an article written by someone else citing a different set of practices and assumptions. If I want to rebalance my game, I do so in the knowledge of what players I will be dealing with, what the game itself will feature in terms of resources and challenges, and what sources are going to be allowed. There's no obvious reason to use a system, no matter how well refined, based around a set of generic assumptions that aren't going to feature in my game. Balancing an entire ruleset is extremely difficult and challenging. Balancing an individual game is much much easier.

Problems caused by people misusing knowledge gained from the tier system, however, can be resolved on an interpersonal level, and generally stem from either a misunderstanding of the tier system, or applying value judgements to the system.

In theory sure. In practice, noone here is capable of resolving all the interpersonal problems that crop up around this topic on these boards. To quote your own phrase back at you, you appear to be hoping that the problem will simply go away. :smallwink:

In fact, maybe you (or anyone, for that matter) can help me here. What exactly are the problems that misusing the tier system cause? I have never experienced any, and the examples that I see on this forum are generally bizarre and symptoms of other problems.

Hm.. problems involving misusing tiers? Just off the top of my head..
1) Not being allowed to play games because your character is 'the wrong tier', without any consideration of the character actually being submitted.
2) Interpretations of the rules based on the Tier system. 'That class ability can't possibly save you from the wizard's spell, because the wizard is a Tier 1 character and this is only a Tier 4 class.
3) Games where attempts at balance have been abanonded because Clerics are Tier 1 and fighters are tier 5 and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
4) People who actively taunt or tease other players about the uselessness of their 'low tier' characters irrespective of whether the character is useful or not.
5) People who play characters or run games where the tier system is a fact of life that colours everything they do. From "I'm sorry, I can't let you in to see the king, you're a tier 1 character and we can't protect him from you." to monsters who attack party members in strict tier order, based on their mode of dress.
6) Games where vast penalties have been levelled at high tier characters, and vast bonuses heaped upon low tier characters, distorting the game beyond all recognition.
7) Poorly balanced homebrew, justified through appeals to the Tier system. "Yes I know he has full psion ability progression and full BAB and more feats than a fighter and more special abilities than a monk and extra abilities on top and rogue skills, but that's because I wanted a melee character who was Tier 3!"

It is an empirical reality. tier system simply describes how the game works.

No, it isn't. It's an abstraction, based on a number of assumptions that don't hold true for most games. That's not a criticism, any set of assumptions woudn't hold true for most games, and JaronK is very open about the assumptions he makes.

I'm even less sure what you mean by 'emperical'. As far as I know it's never been tested, and even if it were emperical testing would involve testing predictions or hypotheses generated by the Tier system, rather than the description itself.

Understanding the tier system does not necessitate any change in gameplay. At all.

Then we don't need it. At all. I'm very impressed with the Tier system as a peice of scholarship. But 'using' the Tier system involves changing your game in some way, or else it's not been 'used'. If you want to argue that not changing your game has no negative effects, I doubt anyone will argue with you. All I'm saying is that of the changes inspired by the Tier system, most have been negative. Obviously that's my own experience, and someone else might disagree.

Oscredwin

2013-01-22, 03:20 PM

Is this me being turned away from a play-by-post because I show up with a druid when they say "Tier 3-4 game"? That's me not reading the guidlines. In person this would involve the DM suggesting I take a wild shape ranger or savage bard or something to get the same concept.[/B]

2) Interpretations of the rules based on the Tier system. 'That class ability can't possibly save you from the wizard's spell, because the wizard is a Tier 1 character and this is only a Tier 4 class.

People flat out ignore the rules for all sorts of reasons, but have you ever actually seen this? Based on wizards being tier 1 and not magic vs mundane

3) Games where attempts at balance have been abanonded because Clerics are Tier 1 and fighters are tier 5 and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

So games that are played without heavy house rules are both bad and the fault of the tier system?

4) People who actively taunt or tease other players about the uselessness of their 'low tier' characters irrespective of whether the character is useful or not.

I see more people on this board asking about help for being taunte and teased for being a god wizard by players who don't know how important buffs are.

5) People who play characters or run games where the tier system is a fact of life that colours everything they do. From "I'm sorry, I can't let you in to see the king, you're a tier 1 character and we can't protect him from you." to monsters who attack party members in strict tier order, based on their mode of dress.

This happens in Rohan in The Two Towers, Grima wants to keep the tier 1 character away from the king. I'm pretty sure that predates the tier system.

6) Games where vast penalties have been levelled at high tier characters, and vast bonuses heaped upon low tier characters, distorting the game beyond all recognition.

So in addition to a lack of house rules being bad and the fault of the tier system, having bad house rules is the fault of the tier system.

7) Poorly balanced homebrew, justified through appeals to the Tier system. "Yes I know he has full psion ability progression and full BAB and more feats than a fighter and more special abilities than a monk and extra abilities on top and rogue skills, but that's because I wanted a melee character who was Tier 3!"

Poorly balanced homebrew also predates the tier system.

Most of your complaints are people making mistakes that RPG players have always made and justifying it with a new thing.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2013-01-22, 03:33 PM

Togo, there's a selection problem. These people you encounter are making the same mistakes they did before, just with new reasoning. If people actually read the damn thing instead of just looking at the rankings, they wouldn't...

1. Ban people due to a low tier choice; instead they'd give them fair warning, or maybe a minor boost and more lenient rules interpretations.

2. Interpret the rules in a way that always favors T1s. If anything they'd favor harsher interpretations for T1s.

3. Abandon balance. JaronK even puts out suggested alterations to the game to help balance.

4. Taunt players for picking characters perceived as being weak. Or rather, before tiers they would have just taunted you for picking a bard instead of a monk, if they're the type to taunt.

5. Pull a metagame/fiat asspull that excludes or unduly harasses particular players. That said, in Shadowrun they know well enough to geek the mage first. Why not D&D?

7. Create a class with T2 spellcasting and a high T3 chassis and call it T3. This is the most obvious, and probably the least realistic example.

(Need more info to talk about 6)

Karnith

2013-01-22, 05:03 PM

No, it isn't. It's using your own appreciation of balance based upon the players and practices at your table, rather than based upon an article written by someone else citing a different set of practices and assumptions. If I want to rebalance my game, I do so in the knowledge of what players I will be dealing with, what the game itself will feature in terms of resources and challenges, and what sources are going to be allowed. There's no obvious reason to use a system, no matter how well refined, based around a set of generic assumptions that aren't going to feature in my game. Balancing an entire ruleset is extremely difficult and challenging. Balancing an individual game is much much easier.
Well, the obvious reason behind considering the tier system when (re-)balancing your game is that it describes how the base classes work. That is its purpose, it is what it was intended to do, and in fact that is what it does. And how on Earth you can rebalance a game without taking into account the mechanical capabilities of the character classes is beyond me; if you're at the point where you can mechanically balance the classes without referencing the tier system, then you already have knowledge of the system that obviates the need to use the tier system.

In theory sure. In practice, noone here is capable of resolving all the interpersonal problems that crop up around this topic on these boards. To quote your own phrase back at you, you appear to be hoping that the problem will simply go away. :smallwink:
I consider interpersonal problems, especially in gaming groups where I am friends with the people that I play with, to be much easier and more solvable than problems with game balance. In my experience, the former usually involves asking "Hey, would you mind not doing X? It's causing some problems in the game." At worst, it may involve banning someone from your gaming group or finding a new group. Based on your examples below, people who misunderstand the tier system and cause problems with their misunderstandings seem to be people who would cause problems regardless. Fixing game balance issues mechanically, however, requires a fairly deep understanding of the rules and how the game plays. Maybe I'm just an extraordinarily personable person (and I'm fairly certain that I'm not), but unless I need to leave the game group that I'm currently in, I would consider dealing with the group problems or problem players to be much easier than trying to mechanically balance a game as broken as 3.5.

*Snip*
In order:
1) That is a fault of the people running the game for being lazy, which has nothing to do with the tier system.
2) I have never heard of anyone doing this this, but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the tier system and what it is meant to describe. In addition, it involves unreasonable houseruling, when the tier list is dependent on actually printed rules.
3) Abandoning balance isn't a problem in an of itself, firstly, as long as people are enjoying the game. However, those class imbalances will be present whether or not you accept the tier system; the imbalance between a fighter and a cleric is a function of D&D's design.
4) How is this any different from teasing a player for playing any class, regardless of tier? In my experience, people playing monks take a lot of crap because monks aren't a Western fantasy concept, but I don't blame that on the monk's design. I see no reason that the players who would tease another player because of his character's tier (especially regardless of his character's usefulness) wouldn't find something else to tease him about if they didn't know about the tier system. This is a player problem, not a problem with the tier system.
5) Because of how the game works, wizards (and other tier 1 classes) tend to be extremely powerful. NPCs in-game ought to recognize and respect this. I honestly don't see a problem here, and I especially don't see why the tier system is the cause of this.
6) The tier system does not advocate altering the game to nerf powerful characters and buff weak characters. Bad houseruling to neuter characters who exceed their DM's expectations has been a staple of tabletop gaming since its inception.
7) People who make poorly-balanced homebrew will make poorly-balanced homebrew regardless of the justification. However, a proper understanding of the tier system will increase a person's understanding of game balance, and decrease the probability that they will create poorly-balance homebrew. In your (admittedly farcical) example, if the homebrewer understood the tier system, she would understand that putting tier 2 abilities (psion casting) on a better chassis with more abilities would not make a tier 3 class.

In sum, the problems that you say stem from the tier system stem, in fact, from poor gaming practices that are independent of the tier system. Practices that, in some form or another, people have been doing long before the tier system was proposed.

No, it isn't. It's an abstraction, based on a number of assumptions that don't hold true for most games. That's not a criticism, any set of assumptions woudn't hold true for most games, and JaronK is very open about the assumptions he makes.
Again, modeling behavior is useful, and using models is how science works. While the tier system is dependent on several assumptions, criticizing it because it does not take into account changes in outcome for every possible variable is absurd, and missing the point. Furthermore, the assumption that the tier system is based on is ceteris paribus - that all other factors are held constant. It does this because all that it is meant to do is measure the potential power levels and flexibility of the base classes in D&D 3.5. And it does this. It does not measure how powerful a particular character will be in a particular campaign. It does not measure how powerful particular classes are when houserules that affect game balance are introduced. It does not measure how well particular classes can adapt to being deprived of WBL. It doesn't do any of those things because it isn't meant to do any of those things.

I'm even less sure what you mean by 'emperical'. As far as I know it's never been tested, and even if it were emperical testing would involve testing predictions or hypotheses generated by the Tier system, rather than the description itself.
"Empirical" in the sense that it is derived from observation or experience. Tier system rankings are not just based on theoretical observations and reasoning about the system, but also reflect experience from playing the game.

Then we don't need it. At all. I'm very impressed with the Tier system as a peice of scholarship. But 'using' the Tier system involves changing your game in some way, or else it's not been 'used'. If you want to argue that not changing your game has no negative effects, I doubt anyone will argue with you. All I'm saying is that of the changes inspired by the Tier system, most have been negative. Obviously that's my own experience, and someone else might disagree.
Again: The tier system is a system of classification. It describes the phenomenon that a wizard is capable of more than a warmage in terms of contributing to an adventuring party. All it does is describe how the game works. It changes nothing, literally nothing, about the game. Wizards have more options, and more powerful options, than warmages, regardless of whether or not you like or accept the tier system. The tier system is positive, not normative. People use the knowledge gained by understanding the tier system to argue for playing the game in a certain way, but the tier system itself is neutral. If someone reads the tier system and enacts a bunch of changes that make the game worse, then that is their fault. It is not the fault of the tier system, it is the fault of the person making the changes for not understanding what the tier system is, and in all likelihood they would make bad changes to the game regardless of their knowledge of the tier system.

All in all, I get the impression that you don't entirely understand what the tier system is. Your post has indicated in a number of different places that you believe that using the tier system causes the game to behave differently. It doesn't. The tier system describes how D&D 3.5 plays. The rules of the game do not suddenly change if you understand the tier system unless you change them. You also seem to think that not accepting the tier system means that the problems that it documents are no longer present. This is also not true. The tier system is not an optional rule. It is not an expansion of D&D 3.5. It is not a guideline. It describes how the game functions.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2013-01-22, 05:43 PM

Though I defend the system, I also believe that in-game play comes with a lot of variance in things that the Tier system has to hold constant in order to remain coherent. The tier system isn't supposed to be an end-all judge of the strength of a character; all it's supposed to do is provide information on the general capabilities of each class, and you're supposed to fill in the gaps. (That some people suck at that last part isn't a failure of the system; it's their own failure.)

I'm lucky enough to be in a group with a similar playstyle and optimization level currently, but I've had a basic core-only barbarian considered OP in a group of mainly T1 casters. That means no whirlpounce, no shock trooper, no leap attack, no battle jump, no valorous. Just high strength, a reach weapon, combat reflexes and power attack. Overpowered. It didn't matter that he could only do one thing, and not even good enough to do it on his own. My character produced bigger numbers than the other party members; therefore it was overpowered.

This in no way invalidates the tier system, but I think it shows that the primary question of party balance is "what is the skill set and intent of each player?" Only after you've answered this question do you move onto class choices. If the noob is playing a sorcerer, you don't worry about him taking Wings of Cover and Shivering Touch and owning everything. You worry about him taking Detect Undead and Death Throes and being terrible at everything. If the optimizer decides to play a fighter, you don't worry about him not being able to contribute; he'll find at least one way to shine, be it damage, battlefield control or intimidation.

When the optimizer takes the high tier classes, and/or the noob takes the low tier classes... THEN you start to worry.

Threadnaught

2013-01-22, 07:40 PM

Hm.. problems involving misusing tiers? Just off the top of my head..
1) Not being allowed to play games because your character is 'the wrong tier', without any consideration of the character actually being submitted.
2) Interpretations of the rules based on the Tier system. 'That class ability can't possibly save you from the wizard's spell, because the wizard is a Tier 1 character and this is only a Tier 4 class.
3) Games where attempts at balance have been abanonded because Clerics are Tier 1 and fighters are tier 5 and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
4) People who actively taunt or tease other players about the uselessness of their 'low tier' characters irrespective of whether the character is useful or not.
5) People who play characters or run games where the tier system is a fact of life that colours everything they do. From "I'm sorry, I can't let you in to see the king, you're a tier 1 character and we can't protect him from you." to monsters who attack party members in strict tier order, based on their mode of dress.
6) Games where vast penalties have been levelled at high tier characters, and vast bonuses heaped upon low tier characters, distorting the game beyond all recognition.
7) Poorly balanced homebrew, justified through appeals to the Tier system. "Yes I know he has full psion ability progression and full BAB and more feats than a fighter and more special abilities than a monk and extra abilities on top and rogue skills, but that's because I wanted a melee character who was Tier 3!"

I'm going to go over these one by one kay?
1: This is a reasonable thing for some DMs to do if they're worried about one player overshadowing the entire party, or being so useless, the entire party has to waste time protecting them and doing stuff for them.
2: This is more about players misunderstanding the rules, due to poor analysis on their part.
3: Wait, 3.5 has imbalances? Screw it, let's use only broken stuff and ignore all balance. Of course this wouldn't be much of an enjoyable group for, I'm guessing most of us here, I'm guessing most players get a laid back game with any mention of Pun Pun earning a punch to the face and any cheese is quickly prevented.
4: If it's only a bit of teasing, then it's okay. As long as it doesn't turn into arguments about how much more everyone else does with complete and total ignorance of the specific player's contributions.
5: Intelligent NPCs are allowed to know certain things about certain Classes and Races, of course the smarter ones would gank the chanting people in robes first, then take on the guy in full plate. As for Tier 1s not being allowed to see certain important NPCs, said NPC may hate Nature (no Druids), be of a certain Religion (Cleric) and hate Magic (Wizard), in these cases Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers and Warlocks are unable to get in.
This problem you have, is not a problem with the Tiers, it is a problem with the DM creating intelligent NPCs. Question: Why shouldn't the DM be allowed to create intelligent NPCs and challenging encounters?
6: So, you have a problem with DMs who try to make sure every member of the party is able to contribute as equally as possible? JaronK suggests in the post below the Tiers, how to handle the higher and lower Tiers so the gap isn't as obvious. The suggested actions are, nerf the Tier 1-2s and boost Tier 5-6s.
7: Poorly balanced homebrew isn't an issue specific to the Tiers, it is an issue with the homebrewed content. The Tiers aren't to blame for someone making an unbalanced Class, the homebrewer is to blame and should accept any and all criticism for his/her creation.

Then we don't need it. At all. I'm very impressed with the Tier system as a peice of scholarship. But 'using' the Tier system involves changing your game in some way, or else it's not been 'used'. If you want to argue that not changing your game has no negative effects, I doubt anyone will argue with you. All I'm saying is that of the changes inspired by the Tier system, most have been negative. Obviously that's my own experience, and someone else might disagree.

Actually "using" the Tier system is akin to using a Gentlemen's Agreement (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267097), surely you don't have any issues with one of those?
DMs can build their game around a certain Tier, players can choose characters from specific Tiers to be within 1-2 Tiers of the rest of the team. With a decent understanding of the Tiers, someone playing as a high Tier character would know to hold back and hand the spotlight to their lower Tier team mates. Unless they're a douche and chose the Class with the intention of hogging the limelight.
This game is very rarely PvP, as such the "problem" the Tiers highlight rarely comes up in actual play. How often do you see someone asking how their Commoner can kill another player's Wizard?

WhatBigTeeth

2013-01-22, 07:41 PM

Any arguments about its contents aside, how many years of posts and reposts on how many boards does this thread really need?

Venusaur

2013-01-22, 08:20 PM

Any arguments about its contents aside, how many years of posts and reposts on how many boards does this thread really need?

This is a pretty commonly cited thread among the optimizer crowd to explain why some classes are better than others. It was important to repost because the original forum exploded, and since this thread has important historical context, it needed to be kept.

Arundel

2013-01-22, 08:26 PM

This is a pretty commonly cited thread among the optimizer crowd to explain why some classes are better than others. It was important to repost because the original forum exploded, and since this thread has important historical context, it needed to be kept.

That is not at all what this system is for or how it is used. You may do well to check my post on the first page.

eggynack

2013-01-22, 08:41 PM

Big Fau

2013-01-22, 09:01 PM

It really depends on how you're using the word "better". The tier system is non-evaluative in terms of which classes are better in the generic sense, but it would be correct to say that a higher tier class is better at accomplishing goals and surviving. Thus, while a wizard isn't better than a commoner, a wizard is better at fighting dragons than a commoner.

I'm pretty sure being able to rewrite reality to suit your whimsical desires at the drop of a hat makes the Wizard better than the Commoner, chicken infested or otherwise.

eggynack

2013-01-22, 09:04 PM

I'm pretty sure being able to rewrite reality to suit your whimsical desires at the drop of a hat makes the Wizard better than the Commoner, chicken infested or otherwise.
Not really. Being able to alter reality isn't objectively better than not being able to alter reality. On a more fundamental level, being able to alter reality can potentially lead to a less fun game. Altering reality definitely makes wizards better at stuff though.

Venusaur

2013-01-22, 09:11 PM

That is not at all what this system is for or how it is used. You may do well to check my post on the first page.

I meant better as stronger in context of sheer potential to defeat an encounter, not "use this, not that". I also don't like your analogy. A Barbarian is just as versatile as a fighter, and has the same amount of options. However, it just hits harder, and is a higher tier as a result.

Answerer

2013-01-22, 09:12 PM

I meant better as stronger, not "use this, use that". I also don't like your analogy. A Barbarian is just as versatile as a fighter, and has the same amount of options. However, it just hits harder, and is a higher tier as a result.
Eeeeh... Barbarians get trivial access to Pounce, and therefore mobility. Fighters don't. It's still combat, but it is more versatile: he can contribute to more encounters than the Fighter could have.

And then they can go ahead and grab Improved Trip without any prerequisites, beating the Fighter at his own game...

Gavinfoxx

2013-01-22, 09:12 PM

I meant better as stronger in context of sheer potential to defeat an encounter, not "use this, not that". I also don't like your analogy. A Barbarian is just as versatile as a fighter, and has the same amount of options. However, it just hits harder, and is a higher tier as a result.

Actually, the Barbarian both hits harder, has a large number of fantastic ACF's, has more useful class features, and has more and more useful skills than the Fighter...

RFLS

2013-01-22, 09:15 PM

Actually, the Barbarian both hits harder, has a large number of fantastic ACF's, has more useful class features, and has more and more useful skills than the Fighter...

You mean....Fighter is poorly designed? O.o

Lans

2013-01-22, 09:49 PM

Actually, the Barbarian both hits harder, has a large number of fantastic ACF's, has more useful class features, and has more and more useful skills than the Fighter...

I would argue doing something well is justification for raising a tier.

Togo

2013-01-22, 10:23 PM

Togo, there's a selection problem. These people you encounter are making the same mistakes they did before, just with new reasoning.

I knew the same people before and after exposure to the Tier system, and exposure increased the incidence of these mistakes and strengthed faulty justifications. That's why I think it does more harm than good.

If people actually read the damn thing instead of just looking at the rankings, they wouldn't...

Sure, I agree. Unfortunately, that doesn't change anything I said...

Hm.. problems involving misusing tiers? Just off the top of my head..
1) Not being allowed to play games because your character is 'the wrong tier', without any consideration of the character actually being submitted.

Is this me being turned away from a play-by-post because I show up with a druid when they say "Tier 3-4 game"?

No, it's being told that anyone who chooses to play a Tier 4 (it was actually a Tier 3) character isn't a skilled enough player to survive the game, even if they changed character.

2) Interpretations of the rules based on the Tier system. 'That class ability can't possibly save you from the wizard's spell, because the wizard is a Tier 1 character and this is only a Tier 4 class.

People flat out ignore the rules for all sorts of reasons, but have you ever actually seen this? Based on wizards being tier 1 and not magic vs mundane

Yes, I have actually seen this. Based explicitly on Tier.

And how on Earth you can rebalance a game without taking into account the mechanical capabilities of the character classes is beyond me; if you're at the point where you can mechanically balance the classes without referencing the tier system, then you already have knowledge of the system that obviates the need to use the tier system.

I already have a knowledge of the system that obviates the need to use tiers. I find that the tier system is not sufficient to rebalance the game without that knowledge, and not necessary to rebalance the game with that knowledge.

Maybe I'm just an extraordinarily personable person (and I'm fairly certain that I'm not), but unless I need to leave the game group that I'm currently in, I would consider dealing with the group problems or problem players to be much easier than trying to mechanically balance a game as broken as 3.5.

Different perspectives, I think. I find that in a group where everyone knows eachother well, the players are quite capable of making characters that are balanced with eachother without needing a rules change to artificially limit their choices to balanced options. Some of them need a little help, but as a group they're perfectly capable of creating a party on an even footing.

In a group of comparative strangers, I find it much easier to change the mechanics of the game than to resolve a passionate defence of misconceptions boosted by a half-understood and poorly recalled internet article.

In sum, the problems that you say stem from the tier system stem, in fact, from poor gaming practices that are independent of the tier system. Practices that, in some form or another, people have been doing long before the tier system was proposed.

The don't stem from the Tier system, they stem from the use of the Tier system. Or more precisely, the misuse or abuse of the system.

Yes, these poor practices are not the fault of JaronK or his writing, but I don't see how that obviates what I said. I find that the use of the Tier system makes these poor practices more frequent and harder to get rid of. I balance that with the very limited benefit I get from it, and decide it does more than good.

Again, modeling behavior is useful, and using models is how science works. While the tier system is dependent on several assumptions, criticizing it because it does not take into account changes in outcome for every possible variable is absurd, and missing the point

No, it's precisely the point. It's actually a standard criticism for using standard versus domain specific models in neuroscience, which I adapted for the purposes of this discussion. The fact that there exists a standard model is not in itself a case for abandoning specific models used in specific circumstances.

Furthermore, the assumption that the tier system is based on is ceteris paribus - that all other factors are held constant. It does this because all that it is meant to do is measure the potential power levels and flexibility of the base classes in D&D 3.5. And it does this. It does not measure how powerful a particular character will be in a particular campaign. It does not measure how powerful particular classes are when houserules that affect game balance are introduced. It does not measure how well particular classes can adapt to being deprived of WBL. It doesn't do any of those things because it isn't meant to do any of those things.

Agreed. That's why I say it's a well-designed general model that I don't find useful for any particular game, where the ideosyncratic characteristics are far more important. This is also a point JaronK made in his original posts about the Tiers, which is why he went to the effort to explain his reasoning.

All in all, I get the impression that you don't entirely understand what the tier system is.

That impression appears to be based on a misunderstanding.

1: This is a reasonable thing for some DMs to do if they're worried about one player overshadowing the entire party, or being so useless, the entire party has to waste time protecting them and doing stuff for them.

Reject a player without reading their character sheet, based on the tier of the character they chose to play? :smallannoyed: I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

5: Intelligent NPCs are allowed to know certain things about certain Classes and Races,

Sure, but g-cubes, animals and traps are little harder to justify.

6: So, you have a problem with DMs who try to make sure every member of the party is able to contribute as equally as possible?

If they do poorly, because they've been told how x class is high tier than Y class without understanding how the system works. The second time you come across a game where the wizard has penalty slapped onto their attack rolls "because they're a higher tier", it stops being quite so funny.

Actually "using" the Tier system is akin to using a Gentlemen's Agreement (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267097), surely you don't have any issues with one of those?

If they're a formal written document taken off the internet rather than tailored to the game, then yes, I do. And for broadly the same reasons.

It really depends on how you're using the word "better". The tier system is non-evaluative in terms of which classes are better in the generic sense, but it would be correct to say that a higher tier class is better at accomplishing goals and surviving. Thus, while a wizard isn't better than a commoner, a wizard is better at fighting dragons than a commoner.

Not necessarily. In a game where the DM is trying to adjust the challenge of the game to match the party's capabilities, having one or more high tier characters in the group reduces your survival chances quite sharply, because it's that much harder to challenge a high tier character without simply killing them outright.

Similarly, if you're playing in an enviroment such as these boards, where keeping a game going is a far greater challenge than keeping your character alive within the game, then playing a high tier character in a group of low tier characters is almost certainly counterproductive to your character's chances of achieiving any long terms goals within the campaign.

Karnith

2013-01-22, 11:46 PM

Yes, I have actually seen this. Based explicitly on Tier.
Out of curiosity, did the people who played the game this way have any understanding of the rules at all, either before or after their introduction to the tier system? Because that is, quite frankly, an insane ruling, and I would question the ability to DM/play the game of anyone who made such a ruling. I also somehow suspect that said players caused problems in gameplay long before their discovery of the tier system.

I already have a knowledge of the system that obviates the need to use tiers. I find that the tier system is not sufficient to rebalance the game without that knowledge, and not necessary to rebalance the game with that knowledge.
I am glad that you have already grasped the knowledge necessary to effectively balance games. I wish that I had been that knowledgeable about the game before I found the tier system. Before I found the tier list, I had only a general idea about how the game was balanced (roughly, that full spellcasters were more powerful than the other classes), but I did not grasp any of the finer intricacies (i.e. the different gradations between tiers 3-6), nor did I ever really consider just how important versatility is in party balance. Reading and understanding the explanation of the tier system greatly increased my knowledge of the game.

The don't stem from the Tier system, they stem from the use of the Tier system. Or more precisely, the misuse or abuse of the system.
Yes, these poor practices are not the fault of JaronK or his writing, but I don't see how that obviates what I said. I find that the use of the Tier system makes these poor practices more frequent and harder to get rid of. I balance that with the very limited benefit I get from it, and decide it does more than good.
First, people misusing knowledge, especially a positivistic explanation of how base classes in 3.5 function, is not an argument against said knowledge.

But to your other point, again, you get very limited benefit from the tier list because, by your own admission, you already grasped the principles of the tier list before you read it. Of course introductory material isn't useful to people who have already mastered it: They have already mastered it. For those of us who don't (or, I guess, didn't) already have that kind of extensive system mastery, it is an extremely useful explanation of how classes in the game are able to function. I have a much better understanding of how base classes are able to function now than I did before I read the explanation of the tier system. Not only did it help me realize why the parties in my game group were frequently imbalanced (and not merely that they were imbalanced), but the normative analysis provided by JaronK and others really helped me to balance my party members against each other and provide appropriate challenges for them. Similarly, it helped me to provide a reference for my players as to what levels of play that they should expect, and were expected to play to.

No, it's precisely the point. It's actually a standard criticism for using standard versus domain specific models in neuroscience, which I adapted for the purposes of this discussion. The fact that there exists a standard model is not in itself a case for abandoning specific models used in specific circumstances.
You'll have to forgive me for not being familiar with discussions of models in neuroscience, but am I correct in concluding that (one of) your problem(s) with the tier system is that it is not all-encompassing? That is to say, you take issue with the fact that the tier system does not accurately predict the strength of a particular character (or class, or build, etc.) in a given game, because there are too many other factors?

(If I am wrong, would you please elaborate?)

Agreed. That's why I say it's a well-designed general model that I don't find useful for any particular game, where the ideosyncratic characteristics are far more important. This is also a point JaronK made in his original posts about the Tiers, which is why he went to the effort to explain his reasoning.
I know that I've already said something similar in this post several times, but if in your games disparity between the characters' class tiers is much less relevant than other factors, then you have probably reached a level of system mastery that includes an intuitive understanding of class balance that obviates the need for tiers. That, or you're running a game that so deviates from standard D&D rules and gameplay assumptions that you are effectively playing a different game.

And, again, the tier system is not intended to predict the actual power of a given character, but merely the potential abilities of the class. If someone expects the tier system to give him information about the former, then he doesn't understand the tier system properly.

That impression appears to be based on a misunderstanding.
A misunderstanding that I am not at all embarrassed about making, given that your experience with the tier system seems to come from game groups that are apparently filled with numerous problem players with only the vaguest grasp of how the rules work, as well as what the tier list is and should be used for. I can understand why you might not like it based on your own experiences, but I'm not entirely sure that I would be comfortable allowing those players access to any form of discourse on the game, let alone something as nuanced as the tier system.

Not necessarily. In a game where the DM is trying to adjust the challenge of the game to match the party's capabilities, having one or more high tier characters in the group reduces your survival chances quite sharply, because it's that much harder to challenge a high tier character without simply killing them outright.

Similarly, if you're playing in an enviroment such as these boards, where keeping a game going is a far greater challenge than keeping your character alive within the game, then playing a high tier character in a group of low tier characters is almost certainly counterproductive to your character's chances of achieiving any long terms goals within the campaign.
This is misleading; higher-tier characters are, generally speaking, more capable of accomplishing any particular goal than lower-tier characters, and/or are able to accomplish said goal in more ways. If the DM changes the challenges, the higher-tier characters will still be more capable of dealing with said challenges, though they may be less successful at accomplishing those challenges than the previous challenges. Lower-tier characters will still be less able to deal with both challenges compared to the higher-tier characters. The changes in difficulty in this scenario do not stem from differences in tiers, but rather from DM action.

LordBlades

2013-01-23, 04:42 AM

Reject a player without reading their character sheet, based on the tier of the character they chose to play? :smallannoyed: I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

In some cases it's perfectly justified. Let's say I want to run a lower-power game and somebody shows up with a cleric or wizard. I don't need to check anything more than the fact that he has a non-negative casting stat. Even if he's put together the worst possible spell list and sunk all his feats into Skill Focus (Craft: basket weaving), there's nothing preventing him from realizing how stuff really works, putting together a good spell list and breaking the game in half. Unless it's somebody who knows the true potential of cleric/wizard and is deliberately gimping himself, that character isn't getting in the game regardless of how weak it looks right now.

If they do poorly, because they've been told how x class is high tier than Y class without understanding how the system works. The second time you come across a game where the wizard has penalty slapped onto their attack rolls "because they're a higher tier", it stops being quite so funny.

That's completely disconnected from the tier system. People without a firm understanding of game balance will make bad balancing calls based on their distorted perception. I've seen banlists for some groups that focus 99% on non-casters.

Not necessarily. In a game where the DM is trying to adjust the challenge of the game to match the party's capabilities, having one or more high tier characters in the group reduces your survival chances quite sharply, because it's that much harder to challenge a high tier character without simply killing them outright.

On the other hand, having one or more low-tier characters also decreases your survival chances if your DM relies on the CR system. Many low-tier characters lack abilities the system assumes you would have at a given level.

Togo

2013-01-23, 05:22 AM

Out of curiosity, did the people who played the game this way have any understanding of the rules at all, either before or after their introduction to the tier system?

Yes of course. Not a great one, obviously. They had, however, been repeatedly told that some classes were simply better than other based on Tier, and being a consciencious DM, had duely used that principle as a check and balance on their own rules calls. If a rules interpretation somehow broke the Tiers guidelines, then it must be suspect or non-standard in some way.

First, people misusing knowledge, especially a positivistic explanation of how base classes in 3.5 function, is not an argument against said knowledge.

So you keep on telling me. Why, I'm not sure, since I'm not arguing 'against knowledge'. I'm merely reporting that the Tier system does more harm than good in my experience. That this is the fault of individuals doesn't change that outcome.

But to your other point, again, you get very limited benefit from the tier list because, by your own admission, you already grasped the principles of the tier list before you read it.

I don't use the principles of the tier list to balance games. Yes, some characters are more effective than others, and yes flexibility is more important than power in most considerations, but it's easier to balance individual characters within a game than it is to try and balance potential for builds between classes.

You'll have to forgive me for not being familiar with discussions of models in neuroscience, but am I correct in concluding that (one of) your problem(s) with the tier system is that it is not all-encompassing? That is to say, you take issue with the fact that the tier system does not accurately predict the strength of a particular character (or class, or build, etc.) in a given game, because there are too many other factors?

Sort of. That's not 'my issue with the tier system' because I'm not claiming the tier system is mechanically flawed. My issue with the Tier system is that it does more harm than good, by inspiring misunderstandings and apparently justifying poor behaviour and practice to a greater extent than it helps the game, at least in my experience. I do think that while an abstract model is useful is some ways, modelling a particular phenomenon with which you are familiar and have accurate data - such as an individual game - is better done with the ideosyncracies of that particular phenomenon. An abstract model is what you use in the absence of better information.

That, or you're running a game that so deviates from standard D&D rules and gameplay assumptions that you are effectively playing a different game.

That's true of most games, depending on where exactly you draw the line.

And, again, the tier system is not intended to predict the actual power of a given character, but merely the potential abilities of the class. If someone expects the tier system to give him information about the former, then he doesn't understand the tier system properly.

Yes, the system is frequently misunderstood, and such misunderstandings cause a lot of damage.

This is misleading; higher-tier characters are, generally speaking, more capable of accomplishing any particular goal than lower-tier characters, and/or are able to accomplish said goal in more ways. If the DM changes the challenges, the higher-tier characters will still be more capable of dealing with said challenges, though they may be less successful at accomplishing those challenges than the previous challenges.

Which means their success rate has gone down. In a game where the challenges are adjusted to meet the capabilties of the characters, group of high tier characters with a wide variety of game-breaking abilities may die more often and fail more often than a comparable low-tier group.

Lower-tier characters will still be less able to deal with both challenges compared to the higher-tier characters.

Missing the point. They'll be more survivable than the comparable high tier group, because they won't be facing challenges geared towards high tiers.

The changes in difficulty in this scenario do not stem from differences in tiers, but rather from DM action.

Yes, that's the entire point. In a game where the challenges are altered to suit the party, ability to achieve goals ultimately does depend on the DM, and not on Tiers.

Togo

2013-01-23, 05:54 AM

In some cases it's perfectly justified...

Let me parse that for you one more time. Rejecting a player, based on the tier of their character. As in "You are not skilled enough at D&D to play this game, because if you were you would not have submitted a low-tier character, everyone knows they are bad."

I suppose I can see why, when faced with a submission for a character who is a ballarina, or a pony, or a time-travelling rainbow dragon, you might not want to look at any more characters from that particular player. But I have no hestitation in classing a player's competance based on the tier of the character he wanted to play as a misuse of the tier system.

On the other hand, having one or more low-tier characters also decreases your survival chances if your DM relies on the CR system. Many low-tier characters lack abilities the system assumes you would have at a given level.

Sure, if you're using CR mechanically to generate random encounters, or are using a published adventure, then the challenge level is set and won't be adapted to the party. In which case versality is king, and more powerful characters will make the adventure easier. That's because there's a cap on the mechanical difficulty so all you need to worry about is a situation where your party lacks the right capability.

Not all games work like that though. The DMG talks about tailoring challenges to the capabilities of the party and even ensuring that each character gets the chance to shine by showcasing their individual capabilities, so it shouldn't be a surprise that some games take this approach.

LordBlades

2013-01-23, 06:39 AM

Let me parse that for you one more time. Rejecting a player, based on the tier of their character. As in "You are not skilled enough at D&D to play this game, because if you were you would not have submitted a low-tier character, everyone knows they are bad."

I suppose I can see why, when faced with a submission for a character who is a ballarina, or a pony, or a time-travelling rainbow dragon, you might not want to look at any more characters from that particular player. But I have no hestitation in classing a player's competance based on the tier of the character he wanted to play as a misuse of the tier system.

My bad, misread what you said. What I meant is that it's justified sometimes to reject a char based on what he is, without needing to look into the details. An unoptimized wizard is still a wizard, and only one spell list change away from being an optimized wizard.

Sure, if you're using CR mechanically to generate random encounters, or are using a published adventure, then the challenge level is set and won't be adapted to the party. In which case versality is king, and more powerful characters will make the adventure easier. That's because there's a cap on the mechanical difficulty so all you need to worry about is a situation where your party lacks the right capability.

Not all games work like that though. The DMG talks about tailoring challenges to the capabilities of the party and even ensuring that each character gets the chance to shine by showcasing their individual capabilities, so it shouldn't be a surprise that some games take this approach.

Even if you tailor encounters to the party, a higher tier party makes for a much more entertaining game IMO. Let's say you have a typical low-tier party, with all characters being good at something, and most likely horrible at everything else (at least compared to a character that's good at that). If the first character is good at X, second one at Y, 3rd one at Z and 4th one at T, the DM probably wants to have a pretty even mix of X, Y, Z and T, to give everyone the time to shine. The problem is that while the 2nd character is doing Y, the rest of the party is relegated to the role of spectators as they most likely can't meaningfully contribute in that field since it's outside their area of expertise. Now consider the same situation with high-tier parties. The inherent versatility makes sure that everyone can contribute if they feel so inclined.

I also think you place too much emphasis on the mortality of high-tier characters.

Low-tier characters are subject to the RNG. The greataxe wielding orc can crit you and kill you, you can fail a saving throw and die, etc.

High tier characters are much less so. You can pile up so many bonuses and rerolls that you can pretty much guarantee you won't die because you rolled poorly. In high tier you die because you screwed up somewhere.

Offense is much stronger in high tier, it's true, which leads to more situations where death is likely. but death is also easier to undo. Even if stuff goes terribly wrong, if it's not a TPK, the survivor(s) of a high tier party can usually bring back the dead characters without much effort.

navar100

2013-01-23, 01:42 PM

Even if you tailor encounters to the party, a higher tier party makes for a much more entertaining game IMO. Let's say you have a typical low-tier party, with all characters being good at something, and most likely horrible at everything else (at least compared to a character that's good at that). If the first character is good at X, second one at Y, 3rd one at Z and 4th one at T, the DM probably wants to have a pretty even mix of X, Y, Z and T, to give everyone the time to shine. The problem is that while the 2nd character is doing Y, the rest of the party is relegated to the role of spectators as they most likely can't meaningfully contribute in that field since it's outside their area of expertise. Now consider the same situation with high-tier parties. The inherent versatility makes sure that everyone can contribute if they feel so inclined.

That, right there! That is your preference, fine, but then to use that preference and justify it for the general case of all games is the misuse. To say other people will not have fun in their games because they're playing a low-tier character is the misuse, the "problem" of the Tier System. They'll be having BadWrongFun.

Other people misusing the Tier System would say anyone playing the high tiers will automatically break the game.

Another group claims only Tier 3 gives you a satisfactory game at all because it's the holy grail of balance.

Then there are those who hate 3E in general and can't stop complaining about it.

Amphetryon

2013-01-23, 01:49 PM

That, right there! That is your preference, fine, but then to use that preference and justify it for the general case of all games is the misuse. To say other people will not have fun in their games because they're playing a low-tier character is the misuse, the "problem" of the Tier System. They'll be having BadWrongFun.

Other people misusing the Tier System would say anyone playing the high tiers will automatically break the game.

Another group claims only Tier 3 gives you a satisfactory game at all because it's the holy grail of balance.

Then there are those who hate 3E in general and can't stop complaining about it. People who make that complaint about the Tier system are essentially complaining that a hammer doesn't cut paper well. It's a tool. If you try to make the tool do something for which it wasn't designed, you're generally unlikely to be pleased with the result.

Darius Kane

2013-01-23, 01:52 PM

You cannot account for stupidity.

rockdeworld

2013-01-23, 02:16 PM

Then we don't need [the tier system].
I think this is true, and I don't see a problem. Is that just me?

killem2

2013-01-23, 02:19 PM

JaronK

2013-01-23, 02:25 PM

See, the funny thing is, when I wrote the tiers, those arguments were already happening... they were just less informed. It was "Wizards are awesome, Fighters suck" instead of "Wizards are stronger and more versatile than Fighters." There were epic debates online (50+ pages) about how Fighters could totally be played if you role played the skills and such. That's why I wrote it in the first place... so that we could move beyond "suck" and into "there are different power levels to play D&D at."

I didn't make class balance in D&D an issue. I just clarified it. And before, people were prejudiced about the classes... some were sure Fighters were the strongest thing out there. Now, they're informed. That's the difference.

But I can't account for complete stupidity, or misuse of what I wrote (at least, not after I wrote the FAQ making everything perfectly clear).

I'm just happy reading this thread and seeing that the vast majority of people use it correctly and understand how it works.

JaronK

Frozen_Feet

2013-01-23, 02:28 PM

You mean....Fighter is poorly designed? O.o

Seriously, the Fighter is not badly designed, save for maybe its list of class skills. The real problem is Fighter Feats, or maybe feats in general. The core selection of feats is poor, and it doesn't get much better with splatbooks - few gems are outshone by lots of clutter.

It would be possible to fix each and every problem with Fighter by rewriting feats to do something meaningfull. As a side-effect, it would fix problems with many other low tier classes.

rockdeworld

2013-01-23, 02:29 PM

May I sig this? Truer words have never been typed about D&D.

What about "if you're having fun and no one in the party feels either useless or overpowered, then you're doing it right."?

Gigas Breaker

2013-01-23, 02:44 PM

Togo, you seem like a smart guy but the dudes you are describing who ban PLAYERS for picking a lower tier sound like ignorant buttholes. I don't know them, but they are probably buttholes without the tier system.

JaronK

2013-01-23, 02:52 PM

Seriously, the Fighter is not badly designed, save for maybe its list of class skills. The real problem is Fighter Feats, or maybe feats in general. The core selection of feats is poor, and it doesn't get much better with splatbooks - few gems are outshone by lots of clutter.

It would be possible to fix each and every problem with Fighter by rewriting feats to do something meaningfull. As a side-effect, it would fix problems with many other low tier classes.

I dunno, I think Fighters are pretty poorly designed. I mean, if you look at their fluff, they're supposed to be guards, warlords, and combat veterans. But they're one of only two classes that can't take Profession (Soldier), they have no knowledge skills and thus know nothing about any of the races they're supposed to have fought and nothing about warfare, and have no leadership abilities of any kind. Plus they lack Spot and Listen and Sense Motive and really any ability that would make them a good guard. That's a design flaw, I'd say.

I think it's more than just the skills. They need feat abilities just for them (like, Dodge gives you +1AC, and an additional +1AC for every two Fighter levels you have... similar stuff for other static feats). They need stuff that actually makes them good at the jobs they're supposed to do.

Meanwhile, I think Monks are well designed, just underpowered compared to a lot of the other classes. There's a reason so many players are excited about playing Monks... they're fun.

But that's perhaps a discussion for another thread.

JaronK

Answerer

2013-01-23, 02:58 PM

May I sig this? Truer words have never been typed about D&D.
So someone's strawman argument about another person's work, which inserts words that JaronK has never spoken and embraces sentiments he has explicitly rejected, are the truest words you've ever seen typed about the game?

elvengunner69

2013-01-23, 04:01 PM

Gavinfoxx

2013-01-23, 04:17 PM

So I am in a group that doesn't talk 'tiers' and I think we are having fun - but I am afraid we are getting into a situation where my tier 1 (and our 2 wizards and 1 cleric who are tier 1) are really starting to dominate the game.

To use a MMORPG (is that the right letters lol) we have 2 tanks - a Dwarven Samurai and a Fighter. The problem is now that I can do large animals as a lvl 9 Druid I can out 'tank' them easily.

So what do I do? Stop tanking? (Again sorry for the terminology). It gets crazy when I go all Dire Lion and with buffs can do some pretty amazing damage and then the come in and do a 1/5th of that (with good rolls).

They are still having fun I think but I wonder how long that will last as I can get more powerful wild shape builds.

Same can be said for our wizards who are really starting to flex their arcane muscles. The Cleric plays a little more subdued but is still doing way more than our Ranger, Samurai and Fighter.

As I said we are all having fun - but should I be concerned? Should I play more subdued?

Why don't you just say, 'hey guys, I would like to have a sitdown talk with everyone regarding some metagame issues I've noticed.' And then say that you have noticed that the imbalances inherent in the game are rearing their head -- don't even mention the word tier -- and you want to know if the variance in capability, versatility, and effectiveness between the classes is bothering anyone. Say that this game is showing a distinct pattern that many people on the internet in other gaming groups have noticed, that some classes (wizard, druid, sorcerer, cleric) are profoundly more capable and versatile than others (fighter, paladin, monk, ranger, rogue). If the imbalance isn't bothering anyone or stopping fun, should we just continue to ignore it, or should we try to address it somehow? If so, how?

Answerer

2013-01-23, 04:21 PM

Why don't you just say, 'hey guys, I would like to have a sitdown talk with everyone regarding some metagame issues I've noticed.' And then say that you have noticed that the imbalances inherent in the game are rearing their head -- don't even mention the word tier -- and you want to know if the variance in capability, versatility, and effectiveness between the classes is bothering anyone. Say that this game is showing a distinct pattern that many people on the internet in other gaming groups have noticed, that some classes (wizard, druid, sorcerer, cleric) are profoundly more capable and versatile than others (fighter, paladin, monk, ranger, rogue). If the imbalance isn't bothering anyone or stopping fun, should we just continue to ignore it, or should we try to address it somehow? If so, how?
Very good advice.

I have to admit, I flinched when I read about the Dwarven Samurai. The Samurai is a particularly bad case, and the one thing it can do well (Intimidate) is taking a hit from the Dwarf's Charisma penalty (though it's a small hit and he could conceivably have over come that with ranks and such, but a new player seems unlikely to invest in a tactic that he chose to apply a racial penalty to).

elvengunner69

2013-01-23, 04:35 PM

Why don't you just say, 'hey guys, I would like to have a sitdown talk with everyone regarding some metagame issues I've noticed.' And then say that you have noticed that the imbalances inherent in the game are rearing their head -- don't even mention the word tier -- and you want to know if the variance in capability, versatility, and effectiveness between the classes is bothering anyone. Say that this game is showing a distinct pattern that many people on the internet in other gaming groups have noticed, that some classes (wizard, druid, sorcerer, cleric) are profoundly more capable and versatile than others (fighter, paladin, monk, ranger, rogue). If the imbalance isn't bothering anyone or stopping fun, should we just continue to ignore it, or should we try to address it somehow? If so, how?

Very good idea -- I think talking 'tiers' would get blank stares. I will discuss with DM first and see if he feels the need to bring it up (again I would say we are all having lots of fun atm).

navar100

2013-01-23, 04:53 PM

So I am in a group that doesn't talk 'tiers' and I think we are having fun - but I am afraid we are getting into a situation where my tier 1 (and our 2 wizards and 1 cleric who are tier 1) are really starting to dominate the game.

To use a MMORPG (is that the right letters lol) we have 2 tanks - a Dwarven Samurai and a Fighter. The problem is now that I can do large animals as a lvl 9 Druid I can out 'tank' them easily.

So what do I do? Stop tanking? (Again sorry for the terminology). It gets crazy when I go all Dire Lion and with buffs can do some pretty amazing damage and then the come in and do a 1/5th of that (with good rolls).

They are still having fun I think but I wonder how long that will last as I can get more powerful wild shape builds.

Same can be said for our wizards who are really starting to flex their arcane muscles. The Cleric plays a little more subdued but is still doing way more than our Ranger, Samurai and Fighter.

As I said we are all having fun - but should I be concerned? Should I play more subdued?

Not necessarily. Don't go looking through the Monster Manuals searching for the best creatures out there to do all sorts of stuff. Pick a few regular non-obscure creatures and stay with those.

The DM can do his part to help the non-spellcasters stay relevant. One way is to increase the number of enemies who aren't clumped together. Spellcasters cannot target them all even with area effect spells. Even when targeting many bad guys, some will make their saving throws. Meanwhile, the warriors engage enemies who are not attacked by the spellcasters.

Not saying one must, must, must, but a spellcaster casting a buff spell on the warrior is a valid tactic. A wizard casting Haste on the party can be just as effective in the combat as one who instead had cast Stinking Cloud against the enemy. Warrior classes like fighting with buffs. A wizard giving the fighter Displacement does wonders.

huttj509

2013-01-23, 05:15 PM

I have to say, some of these arguments remind me of a similar situation.

"Gosh, it's annoying in this video game to deal with all these different abilities and stats, trying to figure out how much damage/healing I'm actually doing, so I can improve my performance if I feel I'm lacking. I think I'll write a program to do the math for me and measure this stuff, so I don't need to do it manually when trying to compare different builds. It'd also be nice to see what the others in my group are putting out, so I know if I'm particularly low or something. I mean, if stuff dies, fine, but if I'm doing half what I could be, I'd like to know."

Response: "The only reason for damage meters is so elitist jerks can make people feel bad."

If you see a bunch of nails sticking up, so you get a hammer to use, and someone takes the hammer and brains their neighbor with it, should you have not bought the hammer? Should you have tried to just handle the nails with a handy rock?

Hiro Protagonest

2013-01-23, 07:17 PM

Not necessarily. Don't go looking through the Monster Manuals searching for the best creatures out there to do all sorts of stuff. Pick a few regular non-obscure creatures and stay with those.

You mean like a wolf?

I would also hardly call Dire Lions "obscure". Fleshrakers, Dire Hawks, Dire Eagles, sure, but not a monster that's in core and is a well-known animal with the word "dire" put in front of its name and given better stats.

MukkTB

2013-01-23, 07:25 PM

My party plays low level. We are bad optimizers. For a long time we experienced linear warriors quadratic wizards. It was our belief that the spellcasters were pretty good, but only if you could get them past the gauntlet of the first 3 or 4 levels. Somehow we hadn't figured out how to use the druid's animal companion as much more than a fancy familiar. We knew straight fighter was pretty terrible, but we still relied heavily on nonmagic means to solve problems.

By level 6 or 7 we expected the fighters and the rogues to be eclipsed, but we didn't make it that far too often so when it happened it felt like a great endcap for someone who struggled long and hard to get there rather than a balance problem.

Since then I read JaronK's system. I learned a bit more. The party has picked up a few things. We still rely heavily on nonmagic solutions, but there is more understanding about how to bring a caster online sooner.

navar100

2013-01-23, 07:32 PM

You mean like a wolf?

I would also hardly call Dire Lions "obscure". Fleshrakers, Dire Hawks, Dire Eagles, sure, but not a monster that's in core and is a well-known animal with the word "dire" put in front of its name and given better stats.

Exactly. Dire animals are fine. Personally I don't know what monsters exist in Monster Manual 2, 3, 4, or whatever to give examples, but the point stands - don't hunt for the bestest mostest at everything in every book ever published. Lions and tigers and bears oh my are fine.

Bovine Colonel

2013-01-23, 07:41 PM

Raven777

2013-01-23, 08:07 PM

I think you misunderstood his point. He used the wolf and dire lion as examples of monsters that will outdo the fighter.

Then, time to break out the dire badger. I suggest calling it Francis.

Threadnaught

2013-01-23, 08:24 PM

Reject a player without reading their character sheet, based on the tier of the character they chose to play? :smallannoyed: I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Now see, you didn't specify that the character hadn't been looked at by the DM. I said that with the impression that the DM learned about the character's Tier, by at least glancing at the character sheet.

Sure, but g-cubes, animals and traps are little harder to justify.

Of course, though I see some reason for animals to go for Wizards and Sorcerers first. They're squishier and easier prey, anyone lacking armour is also gonna be an easier meal, as long as Wizards and Monks get the same treatment... Until Monks start moving. :smallamused:

If they do poorly, because they've been told how x class is high tier than Y class without understanding how the system works. The second time you come across a game where the wizard has penalty slapped onto their attack rolls "because they're a higher tier", it stops being quite so funny.

I feel like I've mentioned how a large part of the problem is a lack of understanding of why Wizards are Tier 1. Have I highlighted the problem before?
Ah yes as I've said before, the analysis skills of those who misuse the Tier system seems to be comparable to those who continue to maintain the argument that the Tiers themselves are at fault.

If they're a formal written document taken off the internet rather than tailored to the game, then yes, I do. And for broadly the same reasons.

The gentlemen's agreement being written up here is being done, so as to be applicable to as wide a selection of games/groups as possible. So an important part about it is being generic and nonspecific. One poster had their own idealization on what the difficulty of a campaign should be, they were shot down for being too specific.
Also, it's a list of guidelines that aren't meant to be followed by the letter, but the spirit.
Okay, sure, the Tiers are to be followed more closely, but the problem has never been caused by the Tiers. The real problem the Tiers cause are inexperienced Munchkins picking the Tier 1 Classes, then complaining after they use them poorly or when the DM introduces the to Rule 0.

Amusingly this entire discussion reminds me of the guns don't kill people, people do mindset of many gun users. Now to the gun users I'd say guns make it easier to kill people, but in the case of the Tiers I'm arguing against them causing arguments. Difference between Guns and Tiers? Well guns are made for the purpose of killing others (people/animals), while the Tier system is a tool for unity.
Someone using the Tier system to start an argument is (to me at least) on the same ground as someone using a gun to restart someone's heart. They're both stupid and end badly for everyone involved.

eggynack

2013-01-23, 08:56 PM

Exactly. Dire animals are fine. Personally I don't know what monsters exist in Monster Manual 2, 3, 4, or whatever to give examples, but the point stands - don't hunt for the bestest mostest at everything in every book ever published. Lions and tigers and bears oh my are fine.
There's a few really good animals outside of core, like the desmodu hunting bat and the fleshraker dinosaur, but you hardly need to go that far to be super optimized. Those lions and tigers and bears you mention are some of the more optimal forms for a druid to take. Really, a druid can be close to perfectly optimized without leaving core at all. there's barely any sna's outside of MMI, and natural spell is sitting right there. It's apparently possible to build and play a druid in a poor manner, but the distance between any given druid and phenomenal cosmic power incredibly small.

Amphetryon

2013-01-23, 08:59 PM

It's apparently possible to build and play a druid in a poor manner, but the distance between any given player and phenomenal cosmic power incredibly small.

You can; use your Druid as a scout/trap activator and 1) don't use good scouting Wild Shape forms 2) use the variant that calls the same animal again and again to activate your traps. Not that I've seen it in play or anything. Still as good or better at the job than a Rogue that hasn't been optimized.

navar100

2013-01-23, 11:46 PM

I think you misunderstood his point. He used the wolf and dire lion as examples of monsters that will outdo the fighter.

And I'm saying they really don't, unless the player made poor feat choices.

elvengunner69

2013-01-24, 06:58 AM

And I'm saying they really don't, unless the player made poor feat choices.

A Wildshape Dire Lion with a couple of buffs (Greater Magic Fang, Claws of the Bear (SC) to name just two) can out damage a Fighter by an extreme amount...Add haste and the Dire Lion gets ANOTHER attack on top of it all.

Even with out the buffs, Wildshaped Druid will do a lot more damage than a Fighter (or Samurai).

Threadnaught

2013-01-24, 07:31 AM

A Wildshape Dire Lion with a couple of buffs (Greater Magic Fang, Claws of the Bear (SC) to name just two) can out damage a Fighter by an extreme amount...Add haste and the Dire Lion gets ANOTHER attack on top of it all.

Even with out the buffs, Wildshaped Druid will do a lot more damage than a Fighter (or Samurai).

When did Haste get added to the Druid's Spell list?

That's the only issue I have with your post btw. Druid is ridiculous.

elvengunner69

2013-01-24, 08:00 AM

When did Haste get added to the Druid's Spell list?

That's the only issue I have with your post btw. Druid is ridiculous.

One of the Wizards cast it. Should have said self-buffing and then buffs from the 2 wizards -- one prepared Haste.

rockdeworld

2013-01-24, 10:47 AM

A Wildshape Dire Lion with a couple of buffs (Greater Magic Fang, Claws of the Bear (SC) to name just two) can out damage a Fighter by an extreme amount...
You aroused my curiosity, so I tested this.
Dire Lion with Greater Magic Fang (+1 to all attacks for +5 net bonus as opposed to +2 to 1 attack) and Claws of the Bear (raising claw attacks from 1d6 to 2d6)
Charging Pounce:
2 Claws +16 melee (2d6+8) and bite +9 melee (1d8+4) and 2 Rakes +15 melee (1d6+4)
vs AC20 (average for CR8): 2*0.85*15 + 0.5*8.5 + 2*0.8*7.5 = 25.5 + 4.25 + 12 = 41.75

L8 Fighter:
Str 22 (18 + 2 levels + 2 item) = +6
BAB +8/+3
Feats (8):Weapon Focus/Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Lion-Tribe Warrior, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack
Heedless Charging Leap Attack: +1 Greatsword +19/+14 (2d6+2860) Edit: made a mistake with Leap Attack damage
vs AC20 (average for CR8): 0.95*35 + 0.75*35 = 33.25 + 26.25 = 59.5 0.95*67 + 0.75*67 = 33.25 + 26.25 = 113.9

Edit: Tattoo of Psionic Lion's Charge = cheap, +1 Greatsword = 2,350gp, Gauntlets of Ogre Power = 4,000gp (WBL 27,000)
Going by the 10% WBL rule, the Gauntlets of Ogre Power are a bit high, but I think we all agree that a Level 8 fighter should have them.

The fighter wins this one. Of course, without Shock Trooper or Lion-Tribe Warrior Pounce, that changes a lot. And the druid can have good feats/items too, the fighter could have better/worse feats/items, whatever. It's not conclusive, just an example.

Answerer

2013-01-24, 11:12 AM

rockdeworld

2013-01-24, 11:40 AM

First of all, Lion Tribe Warrior requires you to use a Light weapon; the Greatsword is out. It still wins, but it's closer.

But anyway, I think the fact that a Fighter can be optimized to out-fight a Core, obvious, default option for the Druid, doesn't really say very much.

For instance, if the Fighter in the group was already following the advice given to the Druid.
Ah, missed the light weapon bit. Replace that then. Otherwise, I already said it was just an example. I don't want to rehash the oldest and greatest scientific tradition.

Togo

2013-01-24, 12:17 PM

Ah yes as I've said before, the analysis skills of those who misuse the Tier system seems to be comparable to those who continue to maintain the argument that the Tiers themselves are at fault.

um.. Wouldn't you class using opinions about the Tier system as a criterion for judgement whether someone is an idiot, a misuse of the tier system? In which case, what does that say about your own analysis skills...?

The gentlemen's agreement being written up here is being done, so as to be applicable to as wide a selection of games/groups as possible. So an important part about it is being generic and nonspecific.

Sure, and while it's doubtless a fine document, I won't be using it. Rather than using something generic and nonspecific, I'd rather use something specific to the game I was applying it to, and the people in it.

Okay, sure, the Tiers are to be followed more closely, but the problem has never been caused by the Tiers.

I've run into problem using Tiers that appear greatly reduced when not using Tiers. Hence, I don't use Tiers. I understand some people find them handy, and I wish the best of luck. I'm really at a loss as why this is such a controvertial position.

Amusingly this entire discussion reminds me of the guns don't kill people, people do mindset of many gun users.

I can see the comparison. The presence of guns means more innocent people get shot. It really doesn't matter for our purposes whether the guns are at fault, or whether people are idiots for misusing them, the fact is still that there are problems that occur with guns that don't when the guns are withdrawn. So you need to weigh up the benefits and costs of having a lot of guns around the house, and make a decision. Same with Tiers. I keep on getting told that x problem or y problem is the fault of people rather than Tiers, but I don't see why I should care either way. I have fewer problems with no Tiers, and get very little benefit from using Tiers, so I don't use them. Whether that's somehow an inherent problem with the concept or a reoccuring problem with people is a philosophical question that makes very little practice difference to my game.

Someone using the Tier system to start an argument is (to me at least) on the same ground as someone using a gun to restart someone's heart. They're both stupid and end badly for everyone involved.

So why were you insulting people who disagree with you about the Tier system (first quote above)?

Togo

2013-01-24, 12:52 PM

The fighter wins this one. Of course, without Shock Trooper or Lion-Tribe Warrior, that changes a lot. And the druid can have good feats/items too, the fighter could have better/worse feats/items, whatever. It's not conclusive, just an example.

I find the biggest problem with being a wildshape druid is what while you can get a form that does a lot of damage, and you can get a form that's very tough, it's harder to get both, Dire lions have a very poor AC, and rely upon either doing enough damage in a pounce charge to escape counter attack. What the OP is likely worried about is kill-stealing - killing monsters before the fighters do. But unless the party expends spells or wealth in making the druid a well armoured killing machine, he simply won't be as durable as the fighters.

Despite apologising for the terminology, I think there's a distinction being missed between different meanings of tank. In WoW a tank is someone who takes hits, a careful process of managing aggro and damage output. In D&D 3.5, a tank is a combination of damage output and durability. Someone who specialises in output, but is fragile, is a 'light infantry' build. Someone who specialises in durability, but not damage output, is a meat sheild. A wildshape druid as a dire lion is a light infantry build, and can do a lot of damage but will often get badly hurt if they don't kill their opponents, or get immediately supported by the rest of the party.

shadow_archmagi

2013-01-24, 12:57 PM

I'm curious as to what problems crop up when you 'use' the Tier system. (I put use in quotation marks since it's just a measurement system for power and shouldn't actually have an impact on your game except insofar as that you have a vague idea of everyone's classes's capabilities.)

navar100

2013-01-24, 01:01 PM

Karnith

2013-01-24, 01:40 PM

I have had a realization while re-reading this thread. Based on your statements in this very thread, Togo, you consider the tier system valid.

I agree with most of what JaronK says about it.

I say it's a well-designed general model that I don't find useful for any particular game, where the ideosyncratic characteristics are far more important. This is also a point JaronK made in his original posts about the Tiers, which is why he went to the effort to explain his reasoning.

Yes, some characters are more effective than others, and yes flexibility is more important than power in most considerations
Moreover, you have also admitted that the problems in your gaming group are not the fault of the tier system, but rather the fault of the people you game with and their poor practices and reading comprehension.

Yes, these poor practices are not the fault of JaronK or his writing

If people actually read the damn thing instead of just looking at the rankings, they wouldn't...Sure, I agree.

I keep on getting told that x problem or y problem is the fault of people rather than Tiers, but I don't see why I should care either way.
You should care because if the problems with your games are because of bad gaming practices, focusing on eliminating the bad gaming practices will stop a lot more problems than trying to stop people from looking at the tier system thread. You should not blame the tier system for their bad gaming practices, nor should you be surprised that reading the tier system doesn't suddenly make their bad practices disappear. In the guns analogy (which I don't like, but I'll run with it here anyway), taking away guns doesn't stop people from murdering each other, it only stops them from murdering each other with guns. Your gaming group's problems run deeper than the tier system, whether you want to admit it or not. You can choose to not want your players to look at the tier system, if you like, but it won't stop your players from having bad gaming habits. You would be better served focusing less on the impact of the tier system on your group and better served focusing on how you can eliminate your players' bad habits.

(Also, if you wanted, you could even try to explain the tier system to your players properly to expand their understanding of the game)

EDIT: On second though, Gwendol's right; more analogies won't help.

Gwendol

2013-01-24, 02:06 PM

What's with the analogies anyway? This isb't exactly rocket science, or the meaning of life being discussed here. Stay on topic and quit dragging in examples that are only likely to further muddle the discussion.

On topic: I'm of the opinion that while there is nothing "wrong" ranking the classes into tiers, it's of nearly no use outside discussions of the tier system. As a tool for DM's or players it has limited value, mostly because people tend to want to play a character and not a tier.

Trasilor

2013-01-24, 02:11 PM

I think the Tier system really helps both the DM and players during both character creation and game play. Unfortunately, it sometimes falls on deaf ears.

Recently I started a new campaign, and I tried to get my players to read about the tiers to hopefully get players more balanced (it stemmed from a prior campaign where the party imbalance was painful).

Unfortunately, my players were thought I was ranking the classes. :smallannoyed: They argued how only 'min/maxers' (read: munchkins) care about these things. :smallmad:

I wanted them to try and play classes near each other's power level. Instead, they told me that there was no problem and to let them play what they wanted.

Fortunately, I was able to convince the player who wanted to play a monk to play an unarmed swordsage, and the fighter to play a warblade. :smallamused: The other players were a wizard, cleric and crusader. The wizard, a good friend of mine, agreed to tone down the wizard awesomeness while the cleric is played sub-optimal.

In the end, everyone ended up around Tier 3. That means my encounters are easier to generate and everyone can contribute. The challenges do not need to be tailor made for the group, just appropriately powered. In the end, I have less work, all players can participate, and we have a great time.

JaronK

2013-01-24, 02:24 PM

In the end, everyone ended up around Tier 3. That means my encounters are easier to generate and everyone can contribute. The challenges do not need to be tailor made for the group, just appropriately powered. In the end, I have less work, all players can participate, and we have a great time.

Now that right there is the point.

JaronK

Gwendol

2013-01-24, 02:46 PM

No, it isn't. That's an example of the tiers used as straight jackets.

Aegis013

2013-01-24, 03:06 PM

No, it isn't. That's an example of the tiers used as straight jackets.

If the straight jacket results in a fun game, and the absence of said straight jacket results in an unfun game, do you prefer to play with or without the straight jacket?

The point is to use the system in an effort to maximize enjoyment. After all, that's why most people play the game, isn't it? To have fun?

JaronK

2013-01-24, 03:09 PM

It's the tiers being used by a DM to make his life easier, thus making it more fun for him, while also being more fun for the players.

Note he didn't actually force anyone to do anything, he just convinced them to contribute to the game in a way that really helped out.

JaronK

Trasilor

2013-01-24, 03:14 PM

No, it isn't. That's an example of the tiers used as straight jackets.

If this is in regards to my post, I hope you understand at no point did I ban or restrict any players into playing a specific tier.

One player wanted to play an unarmed combatant. Strictly speaking, D&D allows that to be done several ways (monk, fighter with specific feats, unarmed swordsage, etc). Seeing what everyone else was playing helped us find a character that hit the same potential level. At no point was it " Don't play a monk, play an unarmed swordsage ". It was a discussion prompted by JoronK's tier discussion.

The other player, wanted to play a "I-hit-things-really-hard-with-a-greatsword character". Because he had not played in a long time, he only knew core and immediately thought of Fighter. This character concept can be done lots of ways - fighter, barbarian, self buffing cleric, paladin, psychic warrior...the list goes on. I suggested the warblade given the composition of the other classes not because I wanted him to play x versus y but because his character would have the same level of ability.

Furthermore, both of these players were not heavy optimizers and playing the ToB classes made it easier to do what they wanted to do well.

Your statement implies that I am a control freak who forces his players to play what I want them to play. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I stated above, the players didn't want to play a specific class, they wanted to play an archetype. The tiers helped me find classes of similar 'power level' that fit the player's archetype.

By the way JaronK, I didn't fully grasp the tiers until I read the example of 3 problems and how each tier could solve them. That really opened my eyes.

Karnith

2013-01-24, 03:16 PM

No, it isn't. That's an example of the tiers used as straight jackets.
So, the DM had run campaigns previously in which party balance was, in his own words, painful, and tried to get the players to play classes that were less horribly imbalanced, with the effect that every player was able to contribute while still playing the kind of character they wanted and the DM's prep work became easier. He was able to do this thanks to understanding of the game reached through this thread (or, more likely, one of the earlier versions posted somewhere else).

What exactly is the problem here, again?

Also, just saw this:

people tend to want to play a character and not a tier.
The tier system helps players to select a class that allows them play the character that they want to play while also being mechanically capable of contributing at the same level that the rest of the party is operating at.

Elderand

2013-01-24, 03:23 PM

So, the DM had run campaigns previously in which party balance was, in his own words, painful, and tried to get the players to play classes that were less horribly imbalanced, with the effect that every player was able to contribute while still playing the kind of character they wanted and the DM's prep work became easier. He was able to do this thanks to understanding of the game reached through this thread (or, more likely, one of the earlier versions posted somewhere else).

What exactly is the problem here, again?

It proved his assertion wrong

Trasilor

2013-01-24, 03:28 PM

Trasilor

2013-01-24, 03:32 PM

It proved his assertion wrong

Which assertion was that?

Gwendol

2013-01-24, 03:33 PM

True, and I can sympathize with that. But it's so easy to dismiss someones ideas or creations using tiers as the reason, and quite frankly, that makes it a net negative in my eyes.

Hirax

2013-01-24, 03:41 PM

It causes class bigotry, gm to player friction, gm stress, and player stress.

Hm.. problems involving misusing tiers? Just off the top of my head..
1) Not being allowed to play games because your character is 'the wrong tier', without any consideration of the character actually being submitted.
2) Interpretations of the rules based on the Tier system. 'That class ability can't possibly save you from the wizard's spell, because the wizard is a Tier 1 character and this is only a Tier 4 class.
3) Games where attempts at balance have been abanonded because Clerics are Tier 1 and fighters are tier 5 and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
4) People who actively taunt or tease other players about the uselessness of their 'low tier' characters irrespective of whether the character is useful or not.
5) People who play characters or run games where the tier system is a fact of life that colours everything they do. From "I'm sorry, I can't let you in to see the king, you're a tier 1 character and we can't protect him from you." to monsters who attack party members in strict tier order, based on their mode of dress.
6) Games where vast penalties have been levelled at high tier characters, and vast bonuses heaped upon low tier characters, distorting the game beyond all recognition.
7) Poorly balanced homebrew, justified through appeals to the Tier system. "Yes I know he has full psion ability progression and full BAB and more feats than a fighter and more special abilities than a monk and extra abilities on top and rogue skills, but that's because I wanted a melee character who was Tier 3!"

But it's so easy to dismiss someones ideas or creations using tiers as the reason, and quite frankly, that makes it a net negative in my eyes.

I can't bring myself to believe that people do things like these in real life often. It's just so farfetched to me. If these sorts of tables do in fact exist, I doubt they exist for very long.

Karnith

2013-01-24, 03:41 PM

This is pretty much exactly what happened.

I would say that this is eerie but then it is probably more common than most people realize:smallamused:
It is, in fact, almost exactly what happened with me (and, by extension, my group) after I read JaronK's tier system thread however many years ago. The main difference was that my party was smaller, and I didn't have access to the ToB, so I could only recommend that my fighter play a warblade (God bless Wizards for making that freely available), and I helped my monk friend build a Punch-barian.

It's almost like some people have actually found the tier system useful, or something.

True, and I can sympathize with that. But it's so easy to dismiss someones ideas or creations using tiers as the reason, and quite frankly, that makes it a net negative in my eyes.
This is the same argument that Gotterdammerung and Togo have been using in this thread, albeit stated much more succinctly, and my response is still the same: That is a problem with players, not the tier system.

Elderand

2013-01-24, 03:42 PM

Which assertion was that?

That the tier system is only good to discuss the tier system.

Trasilor

2013-01-24, 03:51 PM

True, and I can sympathize with that. But it's so easy to dismiss someones ideas or creations using tiers as the reason, and quite frankly, that makes it a net negative in my eyes.

But I didn't dismiss their character because based upon their class. I had a discussion with them. Knowing about the different tiers gave me a starting point when talking to players about their character concepts.

The point is, before I read JaronK's thread, I didn't understand why a party consisting of a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric was so frustrating as a DM. I would spend hours trying to find appropriate encounters in which all the players had an opportunity to shine. In fact, IIRC the DMG states that this is the inherent challenge of a good DM. I read article after article about DMing and how to make it easier for me.

It wasn't until I read JaronK's article did I realize that the problem wasn't my lack of skills at creating challenging but fun encounters, but rather the inherent flaw of the system. With characters of similar ability level, the game flows much smoother. I never have to think whether a player can contribute as they all have lots of options before them.

By the way, they still think tiers among classes is BS, despite evidence to the contrary.

Doug Lampert

2013-01-24, 03:53 PM

My onlyquestion is howmany GMs require the XP expenditures stated for spells and other magic? I know the GM I did play with that did that caused our WIZZZZAARRRD player to become apoplectic when the dm knocked him down a lvl due to XP expenditure. Frankly the dm had been planning it and the guy danced on the munchkin line regularly.

Eh? XP costs are a joke, of course I always imposed them, and they never slowed anyone down seriously even in 3.0 when you didn't automatically catch up. Post IIRC Savage Species and in 3.5 of course the lower level character gets XP faster and XP is a river.

IIRC in 3.5 a single caster can take EVERY SINGLE GP worth of loot an entire party of 4 collects, use it all to craft, and he STILL never falls behind more than 1 level and regularly catches up all the way from level 1 to 20.

And material components and focuses are ALWAYS required, in every game I've played in or run of 3.x. Good thing component pouches exist.

Trasilor

2013-01-24, 03:59 PM

That the tier system is only good to discuss the tier system.

When did I say that? Because I want to be clear, the tier system helped me run a better game. That is my assertion.

Or are you saying someone else said that?

I am thoroughly confused.:smallconfused:

EDIT: Ok I see what you are saying...sorry got a little lost in the posts.

Karnith

2013-01-24, 04:16 PM

The point is, before I read JaronK's thread, I didn't understand why a party consisting of a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric was so frustrating as a DM. I would spend hours trying to find appropriate encounters in which all the players had an opportunity to shine. In fact, IIRC the DMG states that this is the inherent challenge of a good DM. I read article after article about DMing and how to make it easier for me.

It wasn't until I read JaronK's article did I realize that the problem wasn't my lack of skills at creating challenging but fun encounters, but rather the inherent flaw of the system. With characters of similar ability level, the game flows much smoother. I never have to think whether a player can contribute as they all have lots of options before them.
This is getting spooky, because I used to beat myself up in the exact same way over my difficulties making encounters for my players. I (and, to be fair, my group) used to insist that we have a party with an arcane caster (usually a wizard or sorcerer), a divine caster (usually a cleric), a beat-stick (usually a fighter), and a skill-monkey (usually a rogue), and it was really such a relief to realize that the game could actually be more balanced using a different setup than the classic D&D party (i.e. through tier groupings).

And material components and focuses are ALWAYS required, in every game I've played in or run of 3.x. Good thing component pouches exist.
Frankly, even if the DM makes you keep track of spell components without just using the standard "spell component pouches are fully stocked" rule, it's not like the wizard is suddenly less powerful. It just becomes a lot more annoying to play the game. I suppose it might make the party more balanced by encouraging the wizard to play a different class, but wizards would still have all of the silly options that they normally do. They'd just also require more book-keeping.

JaronK

2013-01-24, 04:17 PM

True, and I can sympathize with that. But it's so easy to dismiss someones ideas or creations using tiers as the reason, and quite frankly, that makes it a net negative in my eyes.

What they're doing is dismissing people's ideas or creations because of balance reasons. The tiers just show what the status of balance is of the classes before house rules... that's it. And you know what? Dismissing a player's idea because it won't fit in your game is perfectly acceptable.

If I want to run a gritty, realistic game, it's reasonable for me to say "no spellcasters in this game." If a player then says "I want to be a Wizard" it's okay for me to say that won't work. If I want to run a game that's all about arcane casters dealing with the persecution of arcane casters, and a player says "I want to be a ninja" it's okay for me to say either that they can't be a ninja, or that they have to make a ninja character concept using the Beguiler or similar. If I want to make a game where the players are of similar strength, it's perfectly reasonable for me to notice that my players are currently a Druid, Cleric, and Wizard, along with a guy who wants to be a Fighter using Oversized Two Weapon Fighting to wield a pair of bastard swords, it's okay for me to say "no, that won't fit."

And that's going to happen whether they've read the tier system or not. But without the tiers, they might not realize the problem until they're a few sessions in and they suddenly realize that the Monk is completely unable to contribute or that the Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer is completely overpowered compared to everyone else. And then the player really gets screwed, because he put all that work into his creation and he's now told it's bad and he's a munchkin/bad player for having made it.

Knowing how the balance starts out lets you head off such problems at the pass.

JaronK

Togo

2013-01-24, 04:55 PM

I have had a realization while re-reading this thread. Based on your statements in this very thread, Togo, you consider the tier system valid.

Karnith, I appreciate you feel strongly about this, but you're kinda crossing the line here from 'interested in the topic' to 'obssessively cateloguing Togo's posts'. I don't need a stalker. :smalleek:

I have endevoured to be fair, and emphasised what I like about it as far as I could. I also have a great deal of respect for JaronK and his work. That you have interpreted this to mean I'm somehow conflicted in my opinion I can only describe as unfortunate. I happy to discuss the Tier system further, but I'd rather not have an arguement about what my views actually are.

I don't like the Tier system. I don't find it useful, or of net benefit. I appreciate you do. I appreciate you feel that everyone should like it. I don't. Can we please just accept this and move on?

I keep on getting told that x problem or y problem is the fault of people rather than Tiers, but I don't see why I should care either way.

You should care because if the problems with your games are because of bad gaming practices, focusing on eliminating the bad gaming practices will stop a lot more problems than trying to stop people from looking at the tier system thread.

I don't ban anyone from looking at anything. I choose not to use the Tier system in my own games, and I recommend against using it other people's, because it does more harm that good. That's as far as it goes. While I try and encourage good practice, the idea that I can simply decide that my players or DM will conform to my ideas of good gaming is not just impractical, but also creepy and inappropriate.

In the guns analogy (which I don't like, but I'll run with it here anyway), taking away guns doesn't stop people from murdering each other, it only stops them from murdering each other with guns.

Thereby dropping the homicide rate from anywhere between 5 times and 3000 times, depending on which data sources you use and which countries you compare. Sure, if everyone was both nice and careful, noone would get shot. So what?

Your gaming group's problems run deeper than the tier system, whether you want to admit it or not.

And now we've moved from contradicting me about my own opinions to making statements about people you've never met. :smallannoyed:

Ah, before you decide that I DM in some twisted version of Gamer Hell, I should point out that I DM a lot at conventions and events, and I travel a fair bit. My examples are drawn from a number of distinct and non-overlapping groups that feature a few hundred people.

(Also, if you wanted, you could even try to explain the tier system to your players properly to expand their understanding of the game).

Lots of people I game understand the Tier system perfectly well. Of those some are happy to use it, and some are not.

I can't bring myself to believe that people do things like these in real life often. It's just so farfetched to me. If these sorts of tables do in fact exist, I doubt they exist for very long.

I quoted some of the comments from these boards to some people I know, and they refused to believe the person who wrote them really exists. This hobby is far wider and more varied than it is given credit for.

Shining Wrath

2013-01-24, 05:00 PM

The Tier system is useful as a rough guide, but a skilled DM can try to modify encounters / treasure found to help the lower tier people become more useful.

The spontaneous caster / prepared caster debate depends heavily upon the amount of foreknowledge the prepared caster has. If you know you're going up against a black dragon at the bottom of a dungeon ... but don't know the dragon has been enchanted to have SR level 50 against mind altering spells... well, it can really ruin a Wizard's day to get to the BBEG and find out the spell he thought was going to win the battle just fizzled with no effect.

Answerer

2013-01-24, 05:03 PM

I have endevoured to be fair, and emphasised what I like about it as far as I could. I also have a great deal of respect for JaronK and his work. That you have interpreted this to mean I'm somehow conflicted in my opinion I can only describe as unfortunate. I happy to discuss the Tier system further, but I'd rather not have an arguement about what my views actually are.
Don't like it, don't use it, don't comment on it. It doesn't have to affect you in the slightest.

But that's not what you're doing. You're objecting to its existence, objecting to other people using it. It helps some groups. That's their business, and not yours. The fact that it does not help you is due entirely to your own preferences and the people that you personally happen to play with. Your experience is not applicable to all other, or even a majority of other, tables

Amphetryon

2013-01-24, 05:11 PM

A thought occurs to me.

For those who say you dislike the Tier System, I have a question: Generally, do you think it's true that you could use more than one Class to represent a particular concept? To borrow the Miko example, if a player came to you with an idea to play a Samurai, would you have the Player choose from the OA or CW Samurai, or would you instead suggest methods that could fulfill that role without having the word "Samurai" in the title - for example, a Warblade?

I ask because it appears from here as if some folks are conflating the idea of concept with the idea of Class, then taking umbrage at the notion that certain concepts as expressed by their 3.5 Class don't fit well in certain parties, from a Tiers perspective. Note that I don't say they cannot be played in certain parties, but that they are a poor fit. Continuing the Miko example, a Player who wants to bring a "Samurai" into a group with a Spirit Shaman, a Wu Jen, and a Beguiler could well feel like the odd man out if actually playing a CW Samurai*, but would fit in pretty well if he instead built a Diamond Mind-focused Warblade and called himself a Samurai.

*Yes, I know about Shneekey's ToS Lockdown Samurai. That's a specific build, not a representative sample of the Class as a whole, and by his own admission, the build's best trick is entirely binary.

Trasilor

2013-01-24, 05:17 PM

This is getting spooky, because I used to beat myself up in the exact same way over my difficulties making encounters for my players. I (and, to be fair, my group) used to insist that we have a party with an arcane caster (usually a wizard or sorcerer), a divine caster (usually a cleric), a beat-stick (usually a fighter), and a skill-monkey (usually a rogue), and it was really such a relief to realize that the game could actually be more balanced using a different setup than the classic D&D party (i.e. through tier groupings).

Karnith, I am almost scared to compare notes.. :smalleek:

It is nice to see other people had similar frustrations though.

Con_Brio1993

2013-01-24, 05:24 PM

Karnith

2013-01-24, 05:29 PM

Karnith, I appreciate you feel strongly about this, but you're kinda crossing the line here from 'interested in the topic' to 'obssessively cateloguing Togo's posts'. I don't need a stalker. :smalleek:
(Since you've asked me to stop arguing about your take on the tier system, I am only going to address this part of your post.)
Sorry for sounding creepy; I only made that part of the post to say "I just realized that we actually agree on this in a lot of ways, even if I didn't see it at first."

The Tier system is useful as a rough guide, but a skilled DM can try to modify encounters / treasure found to help the lower tier people become more useful.
It is, however, a lot harder to balance encounters in that way when the people in your party have wildly different capabilities than when they are roughly capable of contributing the same amount. I know that I, personally, lacked (and probably still lack, though I've been lucky enough not to have to need to in recent memory) the skill to create well-balanced encounters for imbalanced parties.

The spontaneous caster / prepared caster debate depends heavily upon the amount of foreknowledge the prepared caster has. If you know you're going up against a black dragon at the bottom of a dungeon ... but don't know the dragon has been enchanted to have SR level 50 against mind altering spells... well, it can really ruin a Wizard's day to get to the BBEG and find out the spell he thought was going to win the battle just fizzled with no effect.
It is an unfortunate(?) feature of the system that the classes most able to exploit foreknowledge are also the classes with the greatest ability to gain said knowledge (through divinations, Knowledge checks, and so on).

Answerer

2013-01-24, 05:33 PM

Karnith

2013-01-24, 05:37 PM

Amphetryon, I noticed that in newer groups people treat classes as a job title. There are no doctors, chemists, repairmen, or mercenaries. Everyone is a wizard, fighter, bard, druid, etc... and NPCs identify characters on site as whatever class they are.

I find that new players are often the most reluctant to divorce a character concept from its title. A monk NEEDS to be the monk class for them. It cannot be an unarmed swordsage or any variant.
I think that how the players are introduced to the system is also important; the players I know who don't own the books and play off of the SRD had a much easier time thinking of the classes as metagame constructs compared to those who actually bought the books and read all of the fluff.

WhatBigTeeth

2013-01-24, 05:47 PM

Generally, do you think it's true that you could use more than one Class to represent a particular concept? To borrow the Miko example, if a player came to you with an idea to play a Samurai, would you have the Player choose from the OA or CW Samurai, or would you instead suggest methods that could fulfill that role without having the word "Samurai" in the title - for example, a Warblade?
Yes.

But I still get pissed off if somebody tries to get me not to play a paladin because my buddies are playing a Cleric and a Wizard.

And no, that doesn't specifically relate to the descriptive aspect of the tier system, but it ignores the other 50% of the OP, which encourages DMs to pressure their groups to normalize the power of their groups' classes, instead of just saying "hey guys, don't play like *****."

Plus the rhetoric of the OP portrays tiers 1, 2, 5 and 6 as problems with terms like "breaking the campaign," "campaign smasher" and "worthless". Whether or not Jaron later said the tier system isn't a love song to the cluster of classes he calls T3, his language says differently. And the rhetorical encouragement of T3-only games really grates me the wrong way, because whether or not a Binder, Beguiler, Crusader or Factotum fill the roles of a Cleric, Sorcerer, Paladin or Rogue at a more controlled optimization level, the T3s are excruciatingly boring to build in comparison.

Amphetryon

2013-01-24, 05:52 PM

Yes.

But I still get pissed off if somebody tries to get me not to play a paladin because my buddies are playing a Cleric and a Wizard.

And no, that doesn't specifically relate to the descriptive aspect of the tier system, but it ignores the other 50% of the OP, which encourages DMs to pressure their groups to normalize the power of their groups' classes, instead of just saying "hey guys, don't play like *****."

Plus the rhetoric of the OP portrays tiers 1, 2, 5 and 6 as problems with terms like "breaking the campaign," "campaign smasher" and "worthless". Whether or not Jaron later said the tier system isn't a love song to the cluster of classes he calls T3, his language says differently. And the rhetorical encouragement of T3-only games really grates me the wrong way, because whether or not a Binder, Beguiler, Crusader or Factotum fill the roles of a Cleric, Sorcerer, Paladin or Rogue at a more controlled optimization level, the T3s are excruciatingly boring to build in comparison.

Could you clarify your "yes" please? There's an either-or question in the example, so "yes" could be read as ambiguous.

The fact that in JaronK's experience and opinion Tier 3 has the fewest possibilities of problems arising =/= best Tier. It means that, for most campaigns in his experience, that may be the case. He also goes to lengths to specify times when that is not the case in his experience.

JaronK

2013-01-24, 05:55 PM

I actually said I like to play Tier 3 and DM for Tier 4, but that the game my players liked the most was Tier 6. And I mentioned that many folks like other play styles. Evidently that makes it a love song to Tier 3. Not sure why.

The game I'm currently in, by the way, has two Tier 1s, an optimized Tier 3, and a heavily optimized Tier 4. It's a lot of fun.

JaronK

Karnith

2013-01-24, 05:58 PM

And no, that doesn't specifically relate to the descriptive aspect of the tier system, but it ignores the other 50% of the OP, which encourages DMs to pressure their groups to normalize the power of their groups' classes, instead of just saying "hey guys, don't play like *****."
You don't need to consciously work at being powerful to overshadow other party members. I ought to know, because my players have done so accidentally before. All it takes is for the guy playing the rogue to realize that his main shtick is done about as well by the wizard who knows Knock, Invisibility, and a Summon Monster spell, or for the fighter to be built less effectively than the animal companions a druid gets (and when traps like Toughness or Weapon Focus exist, that isn't very hard!), or for the monk to try to do anything (I kid, I kid). Telling people to not play like jerks doesn't solve a lot of the problems that D&D 3.5 has (though it certainly can solve some), and many of those party-balance problems can in fact be solved by playing characters of a similar tier.

Elderand

2013-01-24, 06:02 PM

elvengunner69

2013-01-24, 06:16 PM

You aroused my curiosity, so I tested this.
Dire Lion with Greater Magic Fang (+1 to all attacks for +5 net bonus as opposed to +2 to 1 attack) and Claws of the Bear (raising claw attacks from 1d6 to 2d6)
Charging Pounce:
2 Claws +16 melee (2d6+8) and bite +9 melee (1d8+4) and 2 Rakes +15 melee (1d6+4)
vs AC20 (average for CR8): 2*0.85*15 + 0.5*8.5 + 2*0.8*7.5 = 25.5 + 4.25 + 12 = 41.75

L8 Fighter:
Str 22 (18 + 2 levels + 2 item) = +6
BAB +8/+3
Feats (8):Weapon Focus/Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Lion-Tribe Warrior, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack
Heedless Charging Leap Attack: +1 Greatsword +19/+14 (2d6+28)
vs AC20 (average for CR8): 0.95*35 + 0.75*35 = 33.25 + 26.25 = 59.5

Edit: Tattoo of Psionic Lion's Charge = cheap, +1 Greatsword = 2,350gp, Gauntlets of Ogre Power = 4,000gp (WBL 27,000)
Going by the 10% WBL rule, the Gauntlets of Ogre Power are a bit high, but I think we all agree that a Level 8 fighter should have them.

The fighter wins this one. Of course, without Shock Trooper or Lion-Tribe Warrior, that changes a lot. And the druid can have good feats/items too, the fighter could have better/worse feats/items, whatever. It's not conclusive, just an example.

I was mentioning 2 very easy buffs...Produce Flame adds another 1d6 + 5 per touch attack (I would think only claw attacks -- but could in theory also include rake) so there is another at least 2d6+10.

Wizards also cast Bull's Strength on me -- more damage...

as for other effects -- Barkskin potion +5 we got from a high lvl Druid help bring the AC to acceptable levels and Resist Energy for app energy resistance and Boom - Druid kicks some tail :)

The fighter is a new player so his fighter is not optimized and to be honest I've not played with lots of people that try to optimize (only one guy in my current group is a regular optimizer). That said I am kind of new too (new old as I used to play back in the 1st edition days only started back up a couple of years ago).

So my point still remains (I understand you were also making an example of how someone can optimize a fighter).

123456789blaaa

2013-01-24, 06:58 PM

<snip>
the T3s are excruciatingly boring to build in comparison.

I disagree with this. I think T3's are just as much fun to build as the other tiers.

In the future I would ask you avoid stating such things as absolutes.

Togo

2013-01-24, 07:34 PM

(Since you've asked me to stop arguing about your take on the tier system, I am only going to address this part of your post.)
Sorry for sounding creepy; I only made that part of the post to say "I just realized that we actually agree on this in a lot of ways, even if I didn't see it at first."

Yeah, I jumped to conclusions there, sorry about that. I recently had a run with a weird poster on another board, who kept on trying to argue with me about what my own opinions were, the mods got involved and it got messy. So I'm a little jumpy, and gave you a lot more verbals than you or your post deserved. Sincere apologies, and thanks for handling it so well.

I think we do agree in many ways. I don't object to the the Tier system itself so much as the effects I see it having on people. Everyone has their own experiences, and if all of ours were the same, I'd honestly be quite surprised.

Don't like it, don't use it, don't comment on it. It doesn't have to affect you in the slightest.

What, I can't comment unless I'm a fan? :smallamused:

But that's not what you're doing. You're objecting to its existence, objecting to other people using it.

No, I'm really not. I just don't use it myself or recommend to others.

I note however, that you appear to be levelling similar accusations against other people who also disagree with you. I think I understand what you're getting at, that people who enjoy the system should enjoy it, and those who don't, don't need to use it. I'd certainly agree with that approach, and although that's not exactly what you said I hope it's an acceptable summary of what you mean.

Threadnaught

2013-01-24, 07:40 PM

um.. Wouldn't you class using opinions about the Tier system as a criterion for judgement whether someone is an idiot, a misuse of the tier system? In which case, what does that say about your own analysis skills...?

So why were you insulting people who disagree with you about the Tier system (first quote above)?

I read a basic summary of some very detailed guide which cites quotations from several experts. Since I only read the summary I miss out on a lot of detail. Now at a later point I attempt to quote one of the experts based on the limited amount I glanced over.
Does this make me an idiot when I turn out to be wrong?
Or should I have just read more of the source material, instead of arguing over a limited understanding of the concepts involved?

I'm willing to guess that more of us aren't Brain Surgeons/Rocket Scientists/Theoretical Physicists, than are. And that as a result, our understanding of anything involved in those fields are limited. Non of this makes any of us stupid, so I will not be apologizing for calling you an "idiot" or otherwise insulting you, because I haven't done either of those.
You obviously did feel insulted though, otherwise you wouldn't have pointed out my statements as such, so I am sorry for giving you that impression and causing whatever offense caused that feeling. Thanks for not jumping on me for my misuse of "analysis" where I should've been using "analytical" though. It's embarrassing how I've only just realised that's the word I should've been using all along.

This was supposed to be a short post in response to yours. :smalleek:

eggynack

2013-01-24, 07:46 PM

The point wasn't "Fighters rule Druids drool". The question asked was how not to make the warrior players feel bad while playing a druid. That point still stands - don't go looking through the monster manuals for the bestest mostest creatures to wild shape into that do everything. That the druid will still do a lot of damage as a dire lion is irrelevant. The warrior classes will do their own thing. Hopefully they have wisely chosen their feats.
And your point is basically incorrect. A druid being played at a "bears are pretty cool. Maybe I should become one of those" optimization level will have similar punching ability to a fighter with a similar optimization level. You don't have to seek out obscure munchkiny monsters in books lost in the ruins of dead civilizations. You just have to pick normal stuff that's freely available through the srd. Standard animal companion choices make fighter feel similarly bad. The point, is that it's really hard sometimes not to make warrior players feel bad while playing a druid. Obviously this isn't even taking into account the spell list, which while not as versatile without splat books, is perfectly insanely powerful in core.

Togo

2013-01-24, 07:56 PM

A thought occurs to me.

For those who say you dislike the Tier System, I have a question: Generally, do you think it's true that you could use more than one Class to represent a particular concept?

Yes, absolutely. I generally go for the concept first, and then look for features to support the concept from spells, feats and prestige classes. Once I've got an idea of what suit from there, I look at class and race, and see what fits. In the last character I created I got as far as equipping the character before finally deciding on a base class. I often use a broad mix of classes and prestige classes to represent an idea. I don't often play a single classed character unless I'm a primarily a spellcaster.

I do see a lot of players with the class as role mindset. It's much easier to work out how to play a single class as a role if you're new to the system. I'm not sure how much it relates to Tiers though.

I enjoy playing T3-4 characters, but I usually get there by taking a T4-T5 chassis and optimising upwards. I also downwards optimise higher Tier characters - I had a fun wizard with an absurdly low wisdom who many of his feats class levels and spells on boosting his familiar.

How about the opposite of your idea? Is there a common thread amongst those who don't find the Tiers useful that they tend to make sufficient changes to a character to move it up or down a Tier, thus making the Tier system a realatively poor predictor of how their characters turn out in practice?

Togo

2013-01-24, 08:01 PM

You obviously did feel insulted though, otherwise you wouldn't have pointed out my statements as such, so I am sorry for giving you that impression and causing whatever offense caused that feeling.

I did, but I'm happy to hear it wasn't intentional. I make the same mistakes myself... :smallredface:

Answerer

2013-01-24, 08:16 PM

No, I'm really not. I just don't use it myself or recommend to others.
Then what are you posting in this thread for?

Your every post has been asserting the negative qualities of the tier system. You seem determined to convince everyone that it is bad, wrong, and ruins the game. Else why are you even here? Why did you even click on the link?

There are many threads here I don't care for in the slightest. That I think are a bad idea to even attempt to do. I don't go into them and tell the people who are attempting them that they're wrong for even trying.

And yet that is what you have done. You have gone into the thread for a project you are already familiar with and already know you do not like. You have entered this thread, and posted assertion after assertion of the negative effects of the project.

What purpose did you have?

Amphetryon

2013-01-24, 08:34 PM

How about the opposite of your idea? Is there a common thread amongst those who don't find the Tiers useful that they tend to make sufficient changes to a character to move it up or down a Tier, thus making the Tier system a realatively poor predictor of how their characters turn out in practice?As I read the posts with negative opinions of the Tier System, the objections appear to be with the root idea behind it - for whatever reason - rather than the quibbles that have cropped up in past Tier discussions over whether, for example, Beguiler is T2 or T3 and if Warblade should be T3 or T4. Objections that are systemic in nature don't seem to be rooted in "you misplaced X Classes," instead reading as "no ranking system of this nature has value."

Threadnaught

2013-01-24, 08:45 PM

Then what are you posting in this thread for?

Your every post has been asserting the negative qualities of the tier system. You seem determined to convince everyone that it is bad, wrong, and ruins the game. Else why are you even here? Why did you even click on the link?

There are many threads here I don't care for in the slightest. That I think are a bad idea to even attempt to do. I don't go into them and tell the people who are attempting them that they're wrong for even trying.

And yet that is what you have done. You have gone into the thread for a project you are already familiar with and already know you do not like. You have entered this thread, and posted assertion after assertion of the negative effects of the project.

What purpose did you have?

Well he has been highlighting the biggest problem with the Tiers with every single post. The people who use it without fully understanding it.
It's quite possible that if JaronK put a notice at the top of the post, less people would come here and just, make assumptions. That would be beneficial and could earn the Tiers a better reputation.
Although it is just as likely that the people in question will continue to ignore any supplemental information.

JaronK

2013-01-24, 08:52 PM

Answerer

2013-01-24, 09:12 PM

Well he has been highlighting the biggest problem with the Tiers with every single post. The people who use it without fully understanding it.
It's quite possible that if JaronK put a notice at the top of the post, less people would come here and just, make assumptions. That would be beneficial and could earn the Tiers a better reputation.
Although it is just as likely that the people in question will continue to ignore any supplemental information.
That is not, and cannot be called, a flaw of the tier system.

That is a flaw of the readers, or more accurately, those-who-talk-about-it-without-reading-and-understanding-it.

And there are notices all over the thing. It is the responsibility of the reader, not the author, for everything to actually get read.

Basically, his entire argument is that it's somehow JaronK's fault that people are stupid. That's not just absurd, were I JaronK I'd find it quite insulting, the claim that I somehow have guilt for this fact.

123456789blaaa

2013-01-24, 09:20 PM

I interpreted his point to be that while the tier system itself is fine, it causes lots of trouble when people who don't understand it try to "use" it.This makes the tier system more trouble than it's worth.

Am I interpreting your point correctly Togo?

Karnith

2013-01-24, 09:25 PM

I keep trying, but that never seems to work. I've even got a summary of the ideas and the point at the top. Do you have any suggestions for what such a thing might say?

JaronK
I honestly don't think that you could get much more obvious and direct in your explanation of what the tier system is. The problem, as I gather, isn't really with the material presented, the problem is that people don't read the posts fully, don't understand what they're reading, and then misapply what they've "learned." No amount of formatting, editing, or warnings will stop people from doing those things, so I'm not really sure what more you can do. Maybe you need to put the warnings in size 72, bold font at the top?

You could, and I'm not sure it would help at all, strictly separate the purely descriptive parts (looking at the version in this thread, this would include most of the content from "Psionic classes are merely absent..." to the end of the first post, excluding sections like "it's a bad idea to have parties with more than two tiers of difference," and also including a few of the FAQ questions that explain why the tier system doesn't accurately reflect all games and what its assumptions are) from the parts that recommend how the tier system should be used (the first part of the first post and most of the FAQ). This would address some of the complaints that people (like WhatBigTeeth in this thread) have about the perceived bias in the post, especially since the descriptive portions of the tier system are pretty hard to argue against, but it wouldn't stop people from misusing the information, and in fact might contribute to more misunderstandings if recommendations on how the tier system should be used are divorced from the explanation itself.

shadow_archmagi

2013-01-24, 09:27 PM

You also might want to remove the comment about psionic classes being absent, since last I checked, they're totally on the list.

Larkas

2013-01-24, 09:32 PM

Basically, his entire argument is that it's somehow JaronK's fault that people are stupid. That's not just absurd, were I JaronK I'd find it quite insulting, the claim that I somehow have guilt for this fact.

Peace, man, he never blamed the system itself, he just said that he dislikes how people misuse the system, and hence prefer not using nor pointing anyone to it. I won't say I agree with him, the tier system has done more good than harm in my groups, but it's certainly a reasonable and respectful stance.

MeiLeTeng

2013-01-24, 09:42 PM

You also might want to remove the comment about psionic classes being absent, since last I checked, they're totally on the list.

He might be referring to the lack of Ardent, Divine Mind, Lurk, Psychic Rogue, and Wilder

Also, I think my last question got missed in the swarm of "blah I hate tiers", but I appreciate the fact that Jaron doesn't want to assign a tier to classes he's not familiar with, but I'm also unfamiliar with the Incarnum classes, is there a community accepted tier placement for them?

*Edit* that is to say, I'd assume there's probably been a few threads about their placement in the past, and am curious to if there was placement for them that wasn't too disputed.

Answerer

2013-01-24, 09:46 PM

Peace, man, he never blamed the system itself, he just said that he dislikes how people misuse the system, and hence prefer not using nor pointing anyone to it. I won't say I agree with him, the tier system has done more good than harm in my groups, but it's certainly a reasonable and respectful stance.
I disagree; I think it is neither.

shadow_archmagi

2013-01-24, 09:47 PM

He might be referring to the lack of Ardent, Divine Mind, Lurk, Psychic Rogue, and Wilder

Also, I think my last question got missed in the swarm of "blah I hate tiers", but I appreciate the fact that Jaron doesn't want to assign a tier to classes he's not familiar with, but I'm also unfamiliar with the Incarnum classes, is there a community accepted tier placement for them?

*Edit* that is to say, I'd assume there's probably been a few threads about their placement in the past, and am curious to if there was placement for them that wasn't too disputed.

I seem to recall that they were spread from 3 to 5 or so, with Totemist being the best and Soulborn being the worst.