The tier system is stupid

[classy one]

.....because it assumes all players min/max and have access (and knowledge) to all books. Which in most cases is false.

I just don't see the whole idea behind the rankings in actual play. Most players don't min/max either because they building around a concept or archetype or they haven't memorized every feat, spell, power, ACF, item etc in every book (much less see how it all combines).

When I make a campaign I pay little heed to the tiers because my player don't min/max, they assume I am fair and build the PCs they envision. If anything, trying to force a DM to consider this just makes an already tough job even more so.

The tier system was supposed to be a guideline for dealing with players and PCs but in the end it hardly does what it was meant to do.

[Juntao112]

.....because it assumes all players min/max and have access (and knowledge) to all books. Which in most cases is false.
I believe it assumes equal level of optimization; ie, everyone min/maxes, or builds casually.

[Karnith]

The tier system was supposed to be a guideline for dealing with players and PCs but in the end it hardly does what it was meant to do.
Actually, it wasn't! The main purpose (simply put) of the tier system is to rank the player character base classes according to their potential power and flexibility in solving encounters. Hence wizards, clerics, druids, and so on, who have access to an enormous variety of spells that let them do all kinds of things at all levels of power (even in core), are ranked above classes like the fighter, whose class features will only ever let them hit things. The tier system was not intended to address actual characters or builds, only the capabilities of the classes themselves. It is entirely possible to have a group of characters whose classes' tiers vary widely and still have the game run fine.

Or, in JaronK's own words:

[T]his 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.[...]

4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. [...]

5) To help homebrewers judge the power and balance of their new classes.

[Soranar]

system actually assumes you min/max at the same level as the other players in your group

with that in mind, a low OP tier 1 class will always outshine a low OP class of a lower tier

it's quite consistent honestly, you can argue some tiers a little (meaning some classes might be 1 tier higher or lower in your opinion) but , overall, the evaluation is solid

[classy one]

I believe it assumes equal level of optimization; ie, everyone min/maxes, or builds casually.

And yet my level 15 palidin is still useful despite bein in a party with a wizard, cleric and psywar of the same level. This is mainly because those higher tier PCs don't know all the broken combos that could make them godly. Well, the psywar does but he prefers to play his PC "watered down".

Yes, everyone min/max's a bit but in general most just do so causally. Most assume that they can be weak in one area because their teammates will cover them, rather than the "be great at everything" approach of min/maxers. That approach isn't needed in a team.

[Gnorman]

.....because it assumes all players min/max and have access (and knowledge) to all books. Which in most cases is false.

The tier system is a tool to help the DM and players gauge the power/flexibility potential of a particular class. And it holds up fairly well in Core-only games; it doesn't require an open universe.


I just don't see the whole idea behind the rankings in actual play. Most players don't min/max either because they building around a concept or archetype or they haven't memorized every feat, spell, power, ACF, item etc in every book (much less see how it all combines).

The idea is very simple: tier rankings allow you to see the disparate power potential between the classes, and plan accordingly. A DM who has a group with a wizard and a fighter isn't necessarily going to have issues, but he should be careful, when planning his encounters, not to make the fighter obsolete or allow the wizard to step over the rest of the party.


When I make a campaign I pay little heed to the tiers because my player don't min/max, they assume I am fair and build the PCs they envision. If anything, trying to force a DM to consider this just makes an already tough job even more so.

First, optimization is not mutually exclusive with fairness, and you can envision PCs that are competent at their job without sacrificing anything. You're also not taking into account how easily a player can accidentally dominate with a higher-tier class. And nobody's "forcing" anyone to do anything - the tier system is a metric, not a ruleset.


The tier system was supposed to be a guideline for dealing with players and PCs but in the end it hardly does what it was meant to do.

Is it Sat-tier-day already?

[Juntao112]

And yet my level 15 palidin is still useful despite bein in a party with a wizard, cleric and psywar of the same level.
Why would he not be useful? Even a janitor is considered a useful member of a grocery store.

[The Boz]

And yet my level 15 palidin is still useful despite bein in a party with a wizard, cleric and psywar of the same level. This is mainly because those higher tier PCs don't know all the broken combos that could make them godly. Well, the psywar does but he prefers to play his PC "watered down".

Yes, everyone min/max's a bit but in general most just do so causally. Most assume that they can be weak in one area because their teammates will cover them, rather than the "be great at everything" approach of min/maxers. That approach isn't needed in a team.

Different levels of optimization will produce different results. What a shock.

[Gnorman]

Yes, everyone min/max's a bit but in general most just do so causally. Most assume that they can be weak in one area because their teammates will cover them, rather than the "be great at everything" approach of min/maxers. That approach isn't needed in a team.

Uh... you do know what min/max means, right? They're rarely "great at everything."

[Flickerdart]

In addition to what others have said, the tier system holds true for core-only as well as for splats. Wizards, Druids, and Clerics are still top dog (though Druid gets a lot better comparatively), Sorcerers are still second in line, Bards are still average, Barbarians and Rogues are still underpowered, and the rest is still poor. You don't need any combos, either - Druids are powerful because they can turn into a bear, have a second bear, and still be able to cast their spells, not because of a particular synergy between specific components. Wizards are T1 because they have a massive and varied arsenal of answers, not because you can combine 50 spells from 100 splats to become invincible.

It's great that your group doesn't play an unbalanced game, that means you might not need the tier system. But it's a great tool for when someone is having a problem and wants to know why. Not every game is like your game. I have no use for a CAT scanner because I am not sick, but it doesn't mean I condemn CAT scanners as "stupid".

[Gnorman]

It's great that your group doesn't play an unbalanced game, that means you might not need the tier system. But it's a great tool for when someone is having a problem and wants to know why. Not every game is like your game.

Seconded. Just because something isn't useful to you doesn't mean that it's not useful to somebody. It certainly doesn't mean that it's stupid - calling a poster's hard work that is very bad form.

[nedz]

.....because it assumes all players min/max and have access (and knowledge) to all books. Which in most cases is false.

I just don't see the whole idea behind the rankings in actual play. Most players don't min/max either because they building around a concept or archetype or they haven't memorized every feat, spell, power, ACF, item etc in every book (much less see how it all combines).

When I make a campaign I pay little heed to the tiers because my player don't min/max, they assume I am fair and build the PCs they envision. If anything, trying to force a DM to consider this just makes an already tough job even more so.

The tier system was supposed to be a guideline for dealing with players and PCs but in the end it hardly does what it was meant to do.

The tier system is not really a system: it is a categorisation of the system known as 3.5

No one is forcing you, or anyone else, to use it; whatever that means. If you are running 3.5 — it is relevant.

What level do you play at ? At low level it's not so important.

It's not a question of min/maxing — though someone will mention the Stormwind fallacy soon I'm sure. Maybe all of your players play similar tier builds anyway ?

Do you try and design tough challenging encounters for you party ? If you do then you should see that the casters carry the others. If you don't then your players who play casters will be coasting.

[Karnith]

Something else to keep in mind, from the man himself:
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.


Is it Sat-tier-day already?Is this part of our lexicon that I have somehow missed? Because I have not seen it before.

[Gnorman]

Is this part of our lexicon that I have somehow missed? Because I have not seen it before.

I was kind of hoping to coin the phrase. Tiers-day would also be acceptable.

[Flickerdart]

Monkday, ToB Tuesday, Wizard Wednesday, Fighter Friday, Sattierday...we need two more to complete our week, guys. Truenamer Thursday?

[classy one]

I am not debating the teir system's accuracy, I am debating it's practicality. When I play, I create a character based on what I think my team needs, not to be a one man army. If we have a skill monkey already, I won't take any spells or feats that will overlap with him. If we have a healer, I will buy a better weapon than getting healing potions.

Another thing that makes the tier system pointless would be permenant psionic tattoos of psychic reformation. This item let's you respec your PC as a swift action to suit whatever situation, for just a couple power points. Higher teir classes just don't have to use as often (or at all).

[RFLS]

And yet my level 15 palidin is still useful despite bein in a party with a wizard, cleric and psywar of the same level. This is mainly because those higher tier PCs don't know all the broken combos that could make them godly.

So...the tier system is borked because you min/maxed, they didn't, and you're viable within the group? I feel as though, maybe, you didn't read or comprehend the OP. -.-

[The Boz]

But it actually is sat-tier-day...

[Namfuak]

Might I also mention that "Tier 1" classes may not do as much damage as some "Tier 4" classes. By combining dungeoncrasher with a few other feats, a fighter can do more damage per round than a wizard who doesn't focus on it could hope to do. That doesn't mean that particular wizard can't still end encounters easily or otherwise have many more options per round than the fighter.


I am not debating the teir system's accuracy, I am debating it's practicality. When I play, I create a character based on what I think my team needs, not to be a one man army. If we have a skill monkey already, I won't take any spells or feats that will overlap with him. If we have a healer, I will buy a better weapon than getting healing potions.

Another thing that makes the tier system pointless would be permenant psionic tattoos of psychic reformation. This item let's you respec your PC as a swift action to suit whatever situation, for just a couple power points. Higher teir classes just don't have to use as often (or at all).

You seem really bitter about something. In any case, the system doesn't assume the classes are using "broken combos," it assumes they are playing their class at an equal level across the group. If the party fighter is using a sword and shield, the wizard may have combat casting or spell focus (evocation), but he can still look for some of the nicer PHB spells (such as polymorph, one of the most obvious ones) and outfighter the fighter, with zero optimization or even prior system knowledge, and still be able to choose other spells in order to solve many different situations. The fighter can swing a sword.

Maybe there's a misunderstanding about what the tiers mean. Wizard doesn't mean "breaks the game always," it means "has the potential to solve anything," while tier 3 classes are "good at one thing, and can contribute in a meaningful way in others." Your average fighter can hit things and that's about it, due to the lack of skill points or meaningful class abilities. Depending on how hard they can hit, they are either tier 4 (Good at one thing, mostly useless elsewhere) or tier 5 (Tries to be good at one thing, but outperformed even at that). To compare a more similar class, warblades (which are tier 3) can do a lot of useful things in combat with manuevers, have 4+int skill points and use int for class features so they probably can invest in a few skills, and depending on maneuver selection may put points into diplomacy so they can help the party face (or even be the party face).

[Flickerdart]

I am not debating the teir system's accuracy, I am debating it's practicality. When I play, I create a character based on what I think my team needs, not to be a one man army. If we have a skill monkey already, I won't take any spells or feats that will overlap with him. If we have a healer, I will buy a better weapon than getting healing potions.
The tier system is not about being a one-man army. Contribution to the party is one aspect of versatility. Wizards contribute tons (buffs, debuffs, utility, damage, travel, meatshields), Fighters contribute little (basically just damage). If nobody is injured, the Healer can't help the party. If there's nothing to hit, the Fighter can't help the party. That's what makes them low-tier - because in all but one situation, you might as well not have that character in the party for all the good they can do.

Another thing that makes the tier system pointless would be permenant psionic tattoos of psychic reformation. This item let's you respec your PC as a swift action to suit whatever situation, for just a couple power points. Higher teir classes just don't have to use as often (or at all).
Activating a psionic tattoo is a standard action, and the creator of the tattoo makes all decisions about the power's use. On top of that, the XP cost translates into a massive GP cost that is not affordable as a go-to tactic.

[Gnorman]

I am not debating the teir system's accuracy, I am debating it's practicality. When I play, I create a character based on what I think my team needs, not to be a one man army. If we have a skill monkey already, I won't take any spells or feats that will overlap with him. If we have a healer, I will buy a better weapon than getting healing potions.

Another thing that makes the tier system pointless would be permenant psionic tattoos of psychic reformation. This item let's you respec your PC as a swift action to suit whatever situation, for just a couple power points. Higher teir classes just don't have to use as often (or at all).

You're debating the practicality of a toolbox when you yourself have no carpentry to do.

[classy one]

The tier system is not about being a one-man army. Contribution to the party is one aspect of versatility. Wizards contribute tons (buffs, debuffs, utility, damage, travel, meatshields), Fighters contribute little (basically just damage). If nobody is injured, the Healer can't help the party. If there's nothing to hit, the Fighter can't help the party. That's what makes them low-tier - because in all but one situation, you might as well not have that character in the party for all the good they can do.
My point is that when a PC is in a balanced team they don't need to be versatile. Why would my wizard need infiltration spells when the rogue can just pick the lock? Sure a wizard CAN do the rogue's job (and faster) but just having a rogue makes it unneeded. A balanced team encourages specialization rather than versatility, the trait that the teir system values most.


Activating a psionic tattoo is a standard action, and the creator of the tattoo makes all decisions about the power's use. On top of that, the XP cost translates into a massive GP cost that is not affordable as a go-to tactic.
Tattoo mastery is a feat listed in the mind's eye web supplement. It allows for tattoos to be permenant, used as a swift action and of higher level. All costs are paid for upfront so no XP or PP is expended from its use. The creator does make all decisions prior to creation but the PC could just specify what they want beforehand. My psion had a tattoo for crafting and another for combat (each integrated tattoo takes 10 slots and you only have 20 tattoo slots).

[Squirrel_Dude]

The goal of the tier system is not simply to tell you that a class is good or bad. It's to let you know that if you have a party with a wizard, a cleric, and a fighter and a rogue, the wizard and the cleric will most likely outshine the the fighter and the rogue.

This is not what you want in a co-op game. The ideal should be that all players at least have the tools provided to them by the game to equally contribute. Tier ranking is not determined just by the ability to deal damage or the ability to destroy a world, it's determined to do something much more simple: solve problems.


The classic, if overused example: Others have said it, and the below post answers the question about why wizards and rogues and versatility.

[Karnith]

Sure a wizard CAN do the rogue's job (and faster)That's all the tier system is supposed to tell you. It makes no normative judgments (though JaronK makes some recommendations about how to balance the game that are separate from the system itself), it just tells you about the capabilities of the classes.

[Gnorman]

My point is that when a PC is in a balanced team they don't need to be versatile. Why would my wizard need infiltration spells when the rogue can just pick the lock? Sure a wizard CAN do the rogue's job (and faster) but just having a rogue makes it unneeded. A balanced team encourages specialization rather than versatility, the trait that the teir system values most.

If the wizard can do the rogue's job, why do you need a rogue?

The tier system is supposed to point out that particular discrepancy, and put the DM on notice that, in some cases, the wizard will be able to make the rogue obsolete, and that maybe he needs to do something about that.

[Lonely Tylenol]

You do know that Tiersday was two days ago, right?

Some people just can't stick to the schedule...


.....because it assumes all players min/max and have access (and knowledge) to all books. Which in most cases is false.

This premise is false, and thus all arguments that follow from it are also false. The tier system assumes roughly equal optimization across the board; thus, in a game where the Wizard and the Paladin are built with an equal degree of aptitude or system mastery, the Wizard will generally outperform the Paladin. This is equally true of the Wizard prepares Fireball and Fly with all his third-level spell slots vs. the Paladin who takes Extra Smite as a feat and prepares Cure spells as it is the Wizard who Astral Projects from his time-altered Genesis-created demiplane with Contingencied Celerity and three sources of miss chances, vs. the Übercharging Paladin on a Drakkensteed who prepares Rhino's Rush and some meaningful form of DR.

Put simply: if, at 5th level, you compared my Scout 4/Rogue 1 Swift Ambusher with Improved Skirmish, Dragonfire Strike, and Exotic Weapon Proficiency (crescent blade) against my kid brother's Evocation-specialist Wizard 5 with Fireball and Combust taking up the specialist slots, and measured ther ability to contribute based on, say, damage output, I'd probably win. Just like if you measured the accuracy of my pitching wedge against Phil Mickelson.

If you measured that same Swift Ambusher against a Focused Specialist Conjurer with Abrupt Jaunt and a tendency toward Fog spells and summons (with SLAs, like the Kaorti), and measured their usefulness against a number of different metrics, you'd probably argue the Wizard comes out ahead. (P.S. this is my brother's actual Wizard.)

That's not to say that my Swift Ambusher can't contribute meaningfully in such an environment. There's a relevant quote for this, from Albert Einstein: "everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will spend its whole life thinking it's an idiot." Or something to that extent. In order to be able to contribute meaningfully, my Swift Ambusher would simply have to be given the opportunity to shine in an environment that plays to my strengths from time to time; a duel at ten paces, for example.

Knowing that this is so is precisely what the tier system is about. And yes, it absolutely delivers on this premise.

[Jack_Simth]

Uh... you do know what min/max means, right? They're rarely "great at everything."
Generally it means "minimize your weaknesses, maximize your strengths", or so I thought.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

My point is that when a PC is in a balanced team they don't need to be versatile. Why would my wizard need infiltration spells when the rogue can just pick the lock? Sure a wizard CAN do the rogue's job (and faster) but just having a rogue makes it unneeded.

Correct. The Tier system doesn't say you have to use that versatility though. It just says you have the capability to do that. You may not want infiltration spells, but if you decided to you could easily make the rogue obsolete while still preserving your other abilities.


Monkday, ToB Tuesday, Wizard Wednesday, Fighter Friday, Sattierday...we need two more to complete our week, guys. Truenamer Thursday?

We need something for Alignment, definitely. And maybe something specific for the Paladin's Code. But that's hard to fit in to Thursday and Sunday.

[classy one]

If the wizard can do the rogue's job, why do you need a rogue?

The tier system is supposed to point out that particular discrepancy, and put the DM on notice that, in some cases, the wizard will be able to make the rogue obsolete, and that maybe he needs to do something about that.

The bolder part WASN'T the whole point of my post. A wizard in a balanced doesn't need to be the skill monkey because the skill monkey is the skill monkey. He could focus on control, and support.

If all you are going to do is take things out of context then I have to wonder if debate is your strong point.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

The bolder part WASN'T the whole point of my post. A wizard in a balanced doesn't need to be the skill monkey because the skill monkey is the skill monkey. He could focus on control, and support.

Again, that's the point of the Tier system. A Wizard CAN be a controller, a supporter, and, yes, a skill monkey all at the same time. A Rogue cannot. He doesn't have the potential to do anything.

Tiers aren't really about raw power, or about what choices you choose to make. It's about a class's potential, and what choices you could choose. You might not take those options, but they're still always on the table.

[Karnith]

The bolder part WASN'T the whole point of my post. A wizard in a balanced doesn't need to be the skill monkey because the skill monkey is the skill monkey. He could focus on control, and support.
But the wizard could also focus on being a skillmonkey, and do it as well as (if not better than) a rogue. He could also focus on being anything else, for that matter, and be amazing at it. He can also switch his focus from day to day and remain amazing at whatever he wants to do. Rogues don't have that luxury; they are pigeonholed into being skillmonkeys. Which is precisely what the tier system is meant to inform you of.

Again, the tier system is not meant to tell you how to play. All it does is describe the mechanical strengths and weaknesses of the classes.

[Flickerdart]

My point is that when a PC is in a balanced team they don't need to be versatile. Why would my wizard need infiltration spells when the rogue can just pick the lock? Sure a wizard CAN do the rogue's job (and faster) but just having a rogue makes it unneeded. A balanced team encourages specialization rather than versatility, the trait that the teir system values most.
There are more areas of specialization than members in a party. High-tier classes hit more specializations per guy for much less effort than low-tier classes. That is the point.



Tattoo mastery is a feat listed in the mind's eye web supplement. It allows for tattoos to be permenant, used as a swift action and of higher level.
3.0 psionics content, can't be used with 3.5 psionics which is a different system altogether.



All costs are paid for upfront so no XP or PP is expended from its use.

My point exactly. A tattoo of psychic reformation costs 1600gp per pop, and then the creator must pay 50XP per level you rebuild.



The creator does make all decisions prior to creation but the PC could just specify what they want beforehand. My psion had a tattoo for crafting and another for combat (each integrated tattoo takes 10 slots and you only have 20 tattoo slots).
So you need a tattoo for every situation. 20 tattoos times 1600gp and 50XP per level rebuilt. That is not cost-effective, especially when your crafter is now several levels behind everyone else. Want to buy the tattoos from someone else? 5GP per XP is the market price, you're now paying 250gp per level you go back.

[eggynack]

The classic, if overused example:
Fighters can deal damage, absorb damage, maybe intimidate people, and that's about it.
Rogues can deal damage, talk to other npcs, open doors and traps, and scout the area.

A level 7 wizard can deal damage (other classes are far better at this) with [insert direct damage spell here], move the party where it needs to go with dimension door, scout with arcane eye, talk to other npcs with charm person, absorb damage and disable traps with summon monster #, open doors with knock.
Basically this. With fighters, it's sometimes a struggle to come up with problems they can solve. If an enemy is flying, or invisible, or if it's not a combat situation at all, then they can't do anything. Sure, they can expend some gold to get past some of these shortcomings, but that's not coming from the class and it sets the problems you can overcome in stone.

By contrast, with wizards, it's sometimes a struggle to come up with problems they can't solve. By mid level, there are spells to solve just about any problem. More problematic is that the spells to solve one problem are often spells that can be used to solve a completely different problem. There are very few ways to challenge a wizard, and most of those ways involve other casters of some kind. When the encounter starts involving wizards, this problem is created in reverse. There aren't many problems a wizard can't solve, and a fighter certainly isn't on that list. If the wizard is flying, or invisible, or has some other way to negate the fighter, then the fighter can't do much of anything and the player's wizard can solve the problem with everything they were doing before. The fighter and the wizard are just playing on two completely different levels, at any halfway decent level of optimization.

[Chaosvii7]

Monkday, ToB Tuesday, Wizard Wednesday, Fighter Friday, Sat-tier-day...we need two more to complete our week, guys. Truenamer Thursday?

Theurgeday. All the limitless potential of a theurge with the soul crushing reality that it is not Friday yet.

Realistically, though, the tier system exists to tell you how many classes can solve all encounters. Tier 4-5 classes can't really deal with level-appropriate CR challenges after level 12 or something like that, there's a dropping off point that gets more and more steep the more powerful you get, and the only ones who are almost always safe from such harm are the tier 1s, because they have infinite possibilities.

[Gnorman]

The bolder part WASN'T the whole point of my post. A wizard in a balanced doesn't need to be the skill monkey because the skill monkey is the skill monkey. He could focus on control, and support.

I believe the posters above me (Karnith and Djinn_in_Tonic) have addressed this point.


If all you are going to do is take things out of context then I have to wonder if debate is your strong point.

Kindly keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself, thank you.

[enderlord99]

Kindly keep your ad hominem attacks to yourself, thank you.

Ooh! Buuuuurrrnn!

[Lonely Tylenol]

A wizard in a balanced doesn't need to be the skill monkey because the skill monkey is the skill monkey.

But what if the skill monkey is a Wizard?

I mean, between Knock, Invisibility, some form of flight, Alter Self into something with huge skill bonuses to Hide and Move Silently (such as a Skulk), and Disguise Self back into its original form, not to mention the Insightful spells, the Wizard is doing all the infiltration and deception of a Rogue, but better, with Charm and analogues for social needs, and even exfiltration in the form of flight and, later, teleportation.

Or what if the skill monkey is, instead, a Cleric? It could be a Cloistered Cleric with the Trickery domain, which has a considerably expanded skill list and 6+INT skill points per level, but it doesn't need to be: the spells Divine Insight and Guidance of the Avatar cover most times when an actual skill roll can't be avoided, and spells that replace skills handle most everything else.

I guess what we're saying is: no, the party's token spellcaster doesn't have to do the skill monkey role on top of everything else they are doing if there is already a skill monkey, but who's to say that skill monkey isn't also a Wizard? After all, if the Wizard can do it better, why even bother with a Rogue?

[classy one]

This premise is false, and thus all arguments that follow from it are also false. The tier system assumes roughly equal optimization across the board
It is funny that you would dismiss my claims on one concept you disagree with and yet accept the teir system on something purely theoretic.
Equal optimization is a completely theoretic construct. How exactly do you operational it? Is there a metric of how much of a min/max'er one is? Is it based on books owned or post count in forums? The fact is that "level of optimization" is purely subjective.

Think about what exactly goes into min/max'ing. You need to know the weaknesses and strengths of the class, the relavant feats, spells, powers, ACF, items in all books and misc supplements. Then how to combine them for the desired effect. And even the desired effect is purely subjective. When all these things are factored in "equal optimization" is purely a construct.

[The Boz]

Think about what exactly goes into min/max'ing. You need to know the weaknesses and strengths of the class, the relavant feats, spells, powers, ACF, items in all books and misc supplements. Then how to combine them for the desired effect. And even the desired effect is purely subjective. When all these things are factored in "equal optimization" is purely a construct.

In that case, your paladin being a credit to team is also a construct, a completely subjective feeling enjoyed most likely by you and you alone at that gaming table.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Think about what exactly goes into min/max'ing. You need to know the weaknesses and strengths of the class, the relavant feats, spells, powers, ACF, items in all books and misc supplements. Then how to combine them for the desired effect. And even the desired effect is purely subjective. When all these things are factored in "equal optimization" is purely a construct.

Equal optimization is roughly abstract, yes. Are you suggesting, however, that the Tier 1 classes cannot be optimized to have more capabilities and more encounter-ending abilities than their lower-Tier counterparts?

Again, that is what the Tier system measures: the ability to contribute and resolve (sometimes single-handedly) problems that arise. Tier 1 classes can outright negate almost any encounter that comes their way. Even the most heavily optimized Fighter is typically unable to handle more than a few methods of conflict resolution.

We don't need perfectly equal optimization for the Tier system to hold true. We just need an approximate level of optimization (i.e. "an attempt to get as much power as possible," for example) for us to be able to show that the Tier system is a good metric.

[classy one]

But what if the skill monkey is a Wizard?

I mean, between Knock, Invisibility, some form of flight, Alter Self into something with huge skill bonuses to Hide and Move Silently (such as a Skulk), and Disguise Self back into its original form, not to mention the Insightful spells, the Wizard is doing all the infiltration and deception of a Rogue, but better, with Charm and analogues for social needs, and even exfiltration in the form of flight and, later, teleportation.

Or what if the skill monkey is, instead, a Cleric? It could be a Cloistered Cleric with the Trickery domain, which has a considerably expanded skill list and 6+INT skill points per level, but it doesn't need to be: the spells Divine Insight and Guidance of the Avatar cover most times when an actual skill roll can't be avoided, and spells that replace skills handle most everything else.

I guess what we're saying is: no, the party's token spellcaster doesn't have to do the skill monkey role on top of everything else they are doing if there is already a skill monkey, but who's to say that skill monkey isn't also a Wizard? After all, if the Wizard can do it better, why even bother with a Rogue?
I never denied that a wizard could be a skill monkey, indeed I even said they might be better, hence the higher tier. My point is a wizard would not need to do so if one existed in the first place. He could use his slots for something else that doesn't overlap with a rogue's skillset. Indeed that has been my experience when I came to building parties On both sides of the table (although I'm usually DM).
If none is there then yes, a wizard could easily do it. That wasn't something I disagreed with. Hope that clarifies things.

[eggynack]

It is funny that you would dismiss my claims on one concept you disagree with and yet accept the teir system on something purely theoretic.
Equal optimization is a completely theoretic construct. How exactly do you operational it? Is there a metric of how much of a min/max'er one is? Is it based on books owned or post count in forums? The fact is that "level of optimization" is purely subjective.

Think about what exactly goes into min/max'ing. You need to know the weaknesses and strengths of the class, the relavant feats, spells, powers, ACF, items in all books and misc supplements. Then how to combine them for the desired effect. And even the desired effect is purely subjective. When all these things are factored in "equal optimization" is purely a construct.
Actually, I consider fighters to require higher levels of combinations and optimization to reach playability compared to a wizard. To build a good fighter, you need to know which feat chains are viable, how best to use them, know what weapons are the best, know what items to use to make up for shortcomings, and possibly most importantly, what the best combination of dips and PrC's to use. The last thing is the closest to what I would consider high-op play, and is pretty critical for a good melee build.

By contrast, for a wizard, you basically just have to know what spells to pick. Feats, prestige classes, multiclassing and items are all nice to have, but they don't effect power significantly. I don't consider, "cast grease," or, "cast polymorph," to have high optimization requirements. You don't need tons of rulebooks, excessive amounts of foresight or explosive combinations to make a good wizard. You just need a few highly potent spells, most of which exist in core.

[Lonely Tylenol]

It is funny that you would dismiss my claims on one concept you disagree with and yet accept the teir system on something purely theoretic.

A quirk of logic: an "x because y" argument is only true in the case of "because y" being false if "x" is also false, and your "because y" is most decidedly false. This isn't even a matter of some subjective measure of just how optimized something is or isn't; it's based on what's written in the tin: the tier system assumes equal optimization between classes, whatever that level of optimization may be, as it explicitly states. Your "because it assumes min/maxing" is thus explicitly false because that is not what is on the tin.


Equal optimization is a completely theoretic construct. How exactly do you operational it? Is there a metric of how much of a min/max'er one is? Is it based on books owned or post count in forums? The fact is that "level of optimization" is purely subjective.

Well, you could measure the power ceiling of a class measured by the class taken to its highest level of power and optimization, along with the power floor of a class measured by the class progressing with all the "wrong" options taken, along with a number of middle-of-the-road builds, and then compare these classes in a vacuum against each other... Hmm, I wonder if there is a thing that does just that (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=hco38qvha4cpjkq7nonfhgngf4&topic=5293)...


Think about what exactly goes into min/max'ing. You need to know the weaknesses and strengths of the class, the relavant feats, spells, powers, ACF, items in all books and misc supplements. Then how to combine them for the desired effect. And even the desired effect is purely subjective. When all these things are factored in "equal optimization" is purely a construct.

...You can admit you didn't read my post if you want. Just put a TL;DR in there somewhere. I'd be less offended than if you simply made broad, wildly incorrect assumptions about my arguments based on the first paragraph or two.

Equal optimization does not mean equal high optimization. Compare the efficiency of a Wizard who blasts to a Fighter who sword-and-boards, or a Vow of Poverty Monk. The "typical" options a new player might take. This is as equal optimization as a specialist Transmuter working the Polymorph line for all it's worth, vs. a Monk that focuses on size increases and natural attack boosters to pump out 64d6 per hit or whatever.

[The Boz]

I never denied that a wizard could be a skill monkey, indeed I even said they might be better, hence the higher tier.

I lost you completely. What is it you are claiming?

My point is a wizard would not need to do so if one existed in the first place. He could use his slots for something else that doesn't overlap with a rogue's skillset. Indeed that has been my experience when I came to building parties On both sides of the table (although I'm usually DM).
If none is there then yes, a wizard could easily do it. That wasn't something I disagreed with. Hope that clarifies things.
There is only so many things to use his slots on. Let's take a classic party of Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, Fighter.
Rogue monkeys skills. Fighter deals damage. What are the Cleric and Wizard supposed to do in order to not infrige upon either each other's or the Rogues and Fighter's territories?

[classy one]

In that case, your paladin being a credit to team is also a construct, a completely subjective feeling enjoyed most likely by you and you alone at that gaming table.

Enjoying the game is a subjective goal I try to acheive every time I DM or play. My palidin feels fulfilled, why should I debate him? Are you the type of DM that feels the need to crush your players with feelings of inadequacy? You playing Ravenloft?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

I never denied that a wizard could be a skill monkey, indeed I even said they might be better, hence the higher tier.

Yep. That's the Tier list working. How the class functions at a specific game table isn't what the Tier list is made to measure. It's not a measure of actual play. It's a measure of a class's potential. That is all. And yes, it does measure that well.

I'm also curious...you've ignored my posts in all your replies thus far, and I feel I've been fairly directly explaining how the Tier system works, and why it works. Would you disagree with any of my statements thus far?

[Divide by Zero]

I never denied that a wizard could be a skill monkey, indeed I even said they might be better, hence the higher tier. My point is a wizard would not need to do so if one existed in the first place. He could use his slots for something else that doesn't overlap with a rogue's skillset. Indeed that has been my experience when I came to building parties On both sides of the table (although I'm usually DM).
If none is there then yes, a wizard could easily do it. That wasn't something I disagreed with. Hope that clarifies things.

So then the DM needs to make sure that the wizard isn't overshadowing the skillmonkey (whether intentionally or unintentionally), and needs to provide lots of challenges based on the skillmonkey's chosen skills because they can't do other things very effectively (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisLooksLikeAJobForAquaman), wheras the wizard will be effective in almost any situation so the DM doesn't need to worry about them as much. This is one of the things the tier system is specifically designed to do.

[classy one]

I lost you completely. What is it you are claiming?
My claim is that in a balanced party there is much less need for versatility. And versatility is one of the keystones for the teir rankings.


There is only so many things to use his slots on. Let's take a classic party of Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, Fighter.
Rogue monkeys skills. Fighter deals damage. What are the Cleric and Wizard supposed to do in order to not infrige upon either each other's or the Rogues and Fighter's territories?
Last is checked a wizard and cleric have BF control, heal, buff, debuff and do burst damage. So they can do a lot of things.

[Bakeru]

Think about what exactly goes into min/max'ing. You need to know the weaknesses and strengths of the class, the relavant feats, spells, powers, ACF, items in all books and misc supplements. Then how to combine them for the desired effect. And even the desired effect is purely subjective. When all these things are factored in "equal optimization" is purely a construct.Problem is? A wizard needs none of that. A wizard doesn't min/max, a wizard simply maxes.

The contribution of your paladin to the group? Your wizard is one spell, maybe two spells away from making it insignificant, without having to sacrifice anything for it.
The tasks of skillmonkeying and damage dealing are trivial side jobs for a wizard, which he can easily do in addition to whatever else he does. And that's before you actually start maxing stuff. And, as said, as a wizard, you never have to min anything.

Well, maybe not in the case of damage dealing, that could be a problem. He might have to settle for save-or-die and save-or-lose effects instead.

[Xerxus]

So you took a look at the tier system, saw that your paladin was down in tier 5 and took offense. I reckon you thought that you could beat your wizard buddy no matter what with your high optimization level. Which is based on misinterpretations of the rules, I'm afraid. But the simple truth behind 3.5 is that the tier system is always in effect. The equation is simple, tier times optimization equals power.

If I tried to make a wizard, a fighter and a warblade to the best of my ability, you can be damn sure that it wouldn't be a fair arena game. That doesn't mean that a wizard is invincible, or that a warblade is always better than a fighter no matter what. I might still prefer to play a fighter because I have a martial character that I want to play. It just tells you, your DM and your party what the playing field actually looks like and allows you to adapt to it. Hopefully the fifth edition will sort it out somehow.

[Karnith]

My claim is that in a balanced party there is much less need for versatility.
That's a nice claim, but it has nothing to do with the tier system. As we have repeatedly told you, all the tier system does is rank the classes based on their power and versatility (i.e. their ability to solve encounters). It is purely descriptive. It does not tell you how to play the game, nor does it change how the game is played.

[ShriekingDrake]

FWIW, I'll add that I think the tier system can be quite useful but it needn't hamper fun, character selection, or play. I play/dm in several games with varying levels of optimization and often varying levels of experience.

Myself, when I'm a DM, I work hard to make the adventure exciting for ALL the players and the characters they've brought forward. I reward good play and punish mistakes. Being low-tier is not a mistake. If the druid or wizard is able to dominate an encounter, I adjust things so that the less overwhelming characters have interesting things to do and that the more overwhelming characters have things that challenge them as well. It is actually not that hard to do. And, of course, knowing something about the tiers--i.e., the potential of the characters--gives me a chance to anticipate how I might make an encounter interesting, fun, and the stuff of legend for each character.

Typically, DnD is not a competition; it's an experience and it's up to the DM to make it a good one (yes, the players have a role too). Is it true that in a typical encounter a cleric will better than a monk (better meaning more likely to survive, more likely to defeat the obstacles, more likely to use fewer resources, more likely to adjust to changing circumstances, and more likely to support other players): yes? But it is NOT hard to make encounters busy and multi-faceted enough to be exciting for all the characters. When you're the DM, anything is possible.

So, I wouldn't get too hung up on the tier system UNLESS your group really values the tier system and wants that balance. I've found that the groups that care about this the most tend to view DnD more like MtG. The fun part for them is maximizing resources, knowing the rules, increasing the odds, and performing better than others. There's nothing wrong with this approach--but that's the exception in the role-playing world--at least in my experience. For most people, its playing with your buddies, having a few laughs, and making good memories.

[classy one]

So then the DM needs to make sure that the wizard isn't overshadowing the skillmonkey (whether intentionally or unintentionally), and needs to provide lots of challenges based on the skillmonkey's chosen skills because they can't do other things very effectively (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThisLooksLikeAJobForAquaman), wheras the wizard will be effective in almost any situation so the DM doesn't need to worry about them as much. This is one of the things the tier system is specifically designed to do.
Well you do raise a good point. Maybe I have been spoiled by a bunch of cooperative players. My group make PCs based on the needs of the party, but I suppose there are people that just want to show others up. In which case the teir system would be good to forewarn me. Maybe I'm spoiled by my awesome group?

[Gnorman]

Or, maybe, just maybe, people want to play characters that are competent at their chosen role?

It's not an issue of cooperative vs. competitive. Optimizers don't necessarily want to show up everyone else at the table.

[Lonely Tylenol]

OK, after this, I'm going to roll our responses into one post:



I never denied that a wizard could be a skill monkey, indeed I even said they might be better, hence the higher tier. My point is a wizard would not need to do so if one existed in the first place. He could use his slots for something else that doesn't overlap with a rogue's skillset. Indeed that has been my experience when I came to building parties On both sides of the table (although I'm usually DM).
If none is there then yes, a wizard could easily do it. That wasn't something I disagreed with. Hope that clarifies things.

I think we're arguing different things, here.

You're asking, "if the Wizard can do the Rogue's shtick, but better, but doing so overlaps with the Rogue's shtick, then why does the Wizard need to waste his spells on it?"

I'm asking, "if the Wizard can do the Rogue's shtick, but better, but doing so overlaps with the Rogue's shtick, then why need the Rogue even exist in the first place?"

You're superimposing a Rogue into this group dynamic because the group needs a skill monkey, and if the Rogue can be that skill monkey, then the Wizard need not be...

...And I'm asking why the party needs a Rogue in order to even have a dedicated skill monkey. The dedicated skill monkey can be a Wizard, and if it is, then there's no overlap with the Rogue. You can do most skills better than a Rogue could at most levels, anyway, with Disguise Self and Jump being just flat-out better than the Disguise and Jump skills at low levels. In other cases, you can do the functions of these classes without even making a skill roll. Need to make someone your friend? Charm Person replaces Diplomacy. Need to swim or climb somewhere? Use Spider Climb, or better yet, Alter Self into something with a swim or climb (or better yet, a fly) speed. Need to open a lock? Knock on the door. Need to preserve spell slots? Use spell completion and trigger items of the same.

That the party needs a skill monkey, and that skill monkey be a Rogue, is a fundamental assumption the game designers obviously made--but it isn't a necessary assumption. If you replace the Rogue with a skill-focused Wizard or Cleric, you're not overlapping with the Rogue--you're replacing it.

[georgie_leech]

So you took a look at the tier system, saw that your paladin was down in tier 5 and took offense. I reckon you thought that you could beat your wizard buddy no matter what with your high optimization level. Which is based on misinterpretations of the rules, I'm afraid. But the simple truth behind 3.5 is that the tier system is always in effect. The equation is simple, tier times optimization equals power.



*coughs* you might want to rephrase that equation. It implies that Commonner and Samurai are the most powerful of classes while the casters are the worst.

[Gnorman]

*coughs* you might want to rephrase that equation. It implies that Commonner and Samurai are the most powerful of classes while the casters are the worst.

Tier 1 doesn't necessarily mean a multiplicative value of 1, or that the equation was meant to be a mathematical expression at all.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Tier 1 doesn't necessarily mean a multiplicative value of 1, or that the equation was meant to be a mathematical expression at all.

Yeah... Somebody tried the mathematical route once, and thus argued that Monk is the strongest class at all levels of play. ...That ended hilariously.

[eggynack]

tier times optimization equals power.


I tend to agree with this in general, but I think there's something to be said for tier floors and ceilings. The difference between the two represents the marginal benefit that optimization will have on power. For core melee characters, as I indicated in my last post, the floor and the ceiling are rather far apart. The difference between a sword and board fighter, a chain tripping fighter, and a dungon crasher zhentarim soldier is substantial. Thus, the marginal benefit from any amount of optimization is rather high. Now, compare this to a druid or a warblade. After a certain point, the benefit you get from optimization is rather limited. Warblades work pretty well with poor maneuver selection, and somewhat better with good maneuver selection. For druids, as long as you have natural spell, build optimization is basically done. Dips and PrC's tend to be actively harmful, so despite the work needed to play them, a good build isn't going to make much difference unless you're going planar shepard.

Thus, I would say that your equation needs the marginal benefit of optimization relative to power as one of its factors. It's a factor that's likely at the source of the belief that ToB is overpowered, for example.

[Karnith]

Yeah... Somebody tried the mathematical route once, and thus argued that Monk is the strongest class at all levels of play. ...That ended hilariously.
But those saves! And the free AC bonus! And all those attacks! The numbers are just amazing!

[classy one]

So you took a look at the tier system, saw that your paladin was down in tier 5 and took offense. I reckon you thought that you could beat your wizard buddy no matter what with your high optimization level. Which is based on misinterpretations of the rules, I'm afraid. But the simple truth.
I have never played a pally..... I DM a group with a pally. My personal favorite classes are the psywar and wilder when I play. Both classes that rank tier 3, which is often considered the most balanced.
You assume a bit too much and assumed wrong. I guess I was a bit misleading when I call my players' PC "mine".

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

My claim is that in a balanced party there is much less need for versatility. And versatility is one of the keystones for the teir rankings.

Versatility is always nice, and always useful. But in a traditional party where everyone is content with filling a specific role you might find your players don't desire that level of versatility. This doesn't make the Tier system obsolete, less useful, or stupid. It just means that you're not worried about the inherent issues of versatility and power that the Tier system measures. That's all.

Again, it's not really a tool meant for the gaming table, unless you want a certain level of optimization potential from your party. It's not even your "awesome" group (although they may be awesome players): some players are content filling roles, some want to play versatile characters who can always contribute. That's a player-preference issue. The Tier system exists to let players and DMs know that, for example, a player who wants to play a versatile character and optimize that character may get out of control if he or she is playing a Wizard, because the Wizard has a greater potential for power and versatility.

I'm really not sure what your problem with the Tier system actually is. Can you rephrase it?

[Xerxus]

I have never played a pally..... I DM a group with a pally. My personal favorite classes are the psywar and wilder when I play. Both classes that rank tier 3, which is often considered the most balanced.
You assume a bit too much and assumed wrong. I guess I was a bit misleading when I call my players' PC "mine".

I only assumed what you said, the only clue as to who you were was when you said that "My palidin feels fulfilled, why should I debate him?" which I misinterpreted.

[The Boz]

I have never played a pally..... I DM a group with a pally. My personal favorite classes are the psywar and wilder when I play. Both classes that rank tier 3, which is often considered the most balanced.
You assume a bit too much and assumed wrong. I guess I was a bit misleading when I call my players' PC "mine".

So wait a minute... it's not the player playing the paladin who claims he is credit to team, it's YOU, the DM, who thinks the player playing the paladin is having a grand time?

[Hyooz]

Consider the tier system this way: how many more party members do you need to fill the roles in a party consisting solely of X. No items, nothing beyond their own class abilities.

Start with a party of one Wizard. Now, what other classes do we need to fill in the "gaps" of functionality. Party face? No, spells handle that well enough. Skill monkey? As has been repeated to death, the wizard doesn't need help in this department. Healing? Covered. Brute strength? Covered. Magical capability? Obviously. Unbreakable wall? Done. Combat? Oh, he's got combat down pat.

Now turn the same treatment on the Rogue. Obviously he's a competent skill monkey, so no need for anyone else there. Combat? Well, he's... ok on his own, but his main combat ability calls for at least one other party member for flanking. Brute strength? Can't really do that. Party face? Sure, if he's built that way. Magical ability? None at all, that's another party member. Healing? Very slowly through the Heal skill - better add another party member. Brute strength/high defenses? That's another member.

THIS is all the tier system looks at. Their potential contributions to the game. Not what the player eventually decides to do in game, but what he COULD choose to do and how effectively he could achieve that. Limiting their power is easy - they can simply choose to focus on being a blasty Wizard or only cast Dimension Door. But taking a Rogue and making him capable of casting Dimension Door or reviving the dead is not easy.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: I'm confident that there is at least one other active thread where this is being discussed. Hopefully it starts with a less baiting title and OP. Thread locked for review.