Tier System - Optimization Impact - Level Impact

[MukkTB]

The tier system claims that it scales with optimization skill. A good optimizer playing a wizard and a good optimizer playing a fighter have the same relationship as a noobie playing a wizard and a noobie playing a fighter.

This is not true 100% of the time. The Tome of Battle classes make a good example. They have a high floor and a fairly restricting ceiling. Its been said that a blaster wizard, healbot cleric, sword and board fighter, and a sneaky rogue are relatively balanced. The God Wizard, Codzilla, Uber Charger, and stabby rogue are not. This isn't meant to be a criticism of the tier system. Its just some classes scale more with optimization than others. A noobie with a druid is still a bear riding a bear summoning bears. A noobie with a wizard is the go to guy for fancy sparks.


The tier system as presented by JaronK has little to say about level. We've had long threadnoughts over exactly what level a wizard becomes more powerful than a fighter. Abjurant jaunt figures highly for the level 1 wizard. But nobody would disagree with linear warriors quadratic wizards except the people claiming that wizards are really polynomial. Either way the difference is smaller at lower level.


The tier system was developed by skilled optimizers who like to play mid level a good deal of the time. However noobies are poor optimizers that generally like to start at level 1. Because of this divide the tier system can fail to adequately capture their experience and they reject it. This leads to regular threads where people argue over the validity of the system. Its unfortunate because noobies are the people who benefit most from coming to understand the system.

I propose that it may be time to come up with a small addendum to the tier system introduction that covers two points:
#1 Some Classes have variable response to optimization.
#2 Higher tier classes tend to benefit much more from leveling up. At level 1 the tier system distinctions are very weak compared to later levels.

[Jerthanis]

I'm not sure this is a substantive change to the Tier system as written. Essentially this is just adding a tags "Tier System Not applicable before a class has any of its notable class features" and "If your experience does not reflect this, you have insufficient experience at playing these classes, noob". The first is an obvious statement almost to the point of being a tautology and the second seems to be sort of preemptively poisoning the well against anyone who might be trying to argue against it. Telling people they're wrong before they open their mouths isn't going to make people more open to reconsidering their position, generally.

[TuggyNE]

I don't think it would be a bad idea to formalize the concept of optimization floor/ceiling that the tier system only half mentions. I'm not quite sure how you'd express it accurately, concisely, and with certainty, though.

[MukkTB]

I'd be more interested in expanding the tier theory to accurately describe noobies play experience.

Just telling them they're doing it wrong is more the current mode of operation.

[Jerthanis]

I'd be more interested in expanding the tier theory to accurately describe noobies play experience.

Just telling them they're doing it wrong is more the current mode of operation.

Fair enough.

Would you propose, say, trajectories then? Like, you might propose that a given noob group would put Wizards in Tier 4 and Barbarians in Tier 1, and that after X amount of experience, Wizard would move up a Tier and Barbarian would move down a Tier?

[eggynack]

I agree with the sentiment, and the theory, but it's an incredibly complicated thing to put together. You're adding two new scales that the tier system needs to work upon, and they might interact in ways that I don't even know about. Like, take the wizard for instance. At low optimization ranges, their abilities are still likely greater than that of a fighter at high level. At high optimization ranges, they're also likely more powerful at low level. You end up with a system full of tiny caveats and exceptions, and it's a bit unfeasible. This is before considering how divided the player base is on everything having to do with the system. You'd have one guy saying that the monk has a relatively low marginal value of optimization, and another guy saying that it's relatively high, and I actually don't know which is right. If all you want is a little addendum on the tier list that says that results may vary based on the marginal benefit of optimization, and the level of play, that sounds perfectly reasonable. However, any effort at measuring the degree to which those things are true may be doomed to failure. We could give it a shot, class by class, but it could be impossible.

[zlefin]

I would say in general this is useful information to have.
I think the tier system posts already cover this information to some degree, and your initial statement is not what the tier system says, the tier system would refer to on average, not in every case.
The problem is more that most people don't understand the tier system well when they first read it (a common occurrence with many things), and many people don't explain it properly.

[Spuddles]

I think certain classes have really great synergy with splat material which results in a build that is much more powerful than JaronK's tier rank would suggest.

Monk, for instance, on psywar, gets you some pretty atrocious king of smack builds. Monk also pairs really well with some high defense builds, either arcane or divine.

Warmage is generally agreed to be T4, but warsnakes or versatile spellcaster+magical training (or both), hit T1. From level 1 if your DM gives you magical writing access.

Warlock can perform approaching T2 with gear optimization, which is arguably part of their schtick. Denying a warlock gear optimization would require moving Artificer down to T3 or T4.

[MukkTB]

If I had a clear solution I would have just posted it instead of an op that invited discussion. That said, I think the best way to handle the situation would be to do two things. First add a note to the main page expressing both these points in a paragraph. Then in the why each class is in its tier section, include a bit where the floor and ceiling are roughly sketched out.

[warmachine]

I'd like to see a table of tier membership with columns for core only, core+completes+PHB2, and everything. Players and DMs have differing levels of investment in the game. Similarly, the Pathfinder version should have core, core+ultimates+advanced, and everything.

[Amphetryon]

I'd be more interested in expanding the tier theory to accurately describe noobies play experience.

Just telling them they're doing it wrong is more the current mode of operation.

The "noobies play experience" varies quite widely, particularly in an age where MMOs and browser-based RPG simulations may well be a given Player's first experience with something approaching the D&D hobby. What qualifies as a "noobie" within the parameters you're attempting to describe?

[huttj509]

I'd be more interested in expanding the tier theory to accurately describe noobies play experience.

Just telling them they're doing it wrong is more the current mode of operation.

It's not really for players, more as a DM tool to help quantify the classes, so they can be better accounted for in planning encounters/campaigns.

[Gnaeus]

A noobie with a druid is still a bear riding a bear summoning bears. A noobie with a wizard is the go to guy for fancy sparks.

I propose that it may be time to come up with a small addendum to the tier system introduction that covers two points:
#1 Some Classes have variable response to optimization.
#2 Higher tier classes tend to benefit much more from leveling up. At level 1 the tier system distinctions are very weak compared to later levels.

As i see it the problem is what exactly does low optimization MEAN? Are we talking about low optimization like wizards with an 8 int and fighters who dump strength? Once the aggressive anti-optimization is weeded out, Mr. Wizard is just as likely to pick Enlarge Person, Sleep and Color Spray as Burning Hands and Magic Missile. Worse, assuming a decently intelligent player, he could switch from sparks guy to guy who ends encounters literally overnight, or the switch from level 1-level 2 could be Worlds Worst XBowman>party MVP.

[Amphetryon]

As i see it the problem is what exactly does low optimization MEAN? Are we talking about low optimization like wizards with an 8 int and fighters who dump strength? Once the aggressive anti-optimization is weeded out, Mr. Wizard is just as likely to pick Enlarge Person, Sleep and Color Spray as Burning Hands and Magic Missile. Worse, assuming a decently intelligent player, he could switch from sparks guy to guy who ends encounters literally overnight, or the switch from level 1-level 2 could be Worlds Worst XBowman>party MVP.

Not only that, but certain "low-op concepts" have a built-in level of synergy to them. In many a dungeon-crawl, the Great Cleave Fighter pairs very reasonably with the AoE Blaster Wizard to clear out several threats within the same round. Neither is the most optimal choice, but paired together, they have a synergy if the DM has them in an environment that plays to that synergy.

[JaronK]

The Tier System doesn't apply to people who actively anti-optimize (such as Wizards with 8 Int) because that doesn't really matter. It also doesn't apply to people who optimize with things other than class, since it's a class thing... a Commoner with a Candle of Invocation doing wish loops is really strong, but the fact that he's a Commoner is pretty irrelevant.

Now, some classes do optimize more easily than others, but few actually change their potential all that much without actually doing things outside the class. For example, yes you can make a Rainbow Warsnake... but that's really the PrC doing the heavy lifting. Same applies to Beguiler/Shadowcraft Mages. I sort of assumed that once you knew how to do stuff like that, you'd also have a decent handle on what classes provide anyhow.

JaronK