What tier is this character?

[gooddragon1]

xxxxxxxxxxxx

[Greenish]

Tiers tend to work better for classes than for individual characters, but that looks pretty t5 to me.

[gooddragon1]

Tiers tend to work better for classes than for individual characters, but that looks pretty t5 to me.

How well could it fare if I ran afoul of some high-er (not high but maybe mid or low-mid) op stuff? Say partially optimized monsters and the DM playing with some tactics?

[gorfnab]

How well could it fare if I ran afoul of some high-er (not high but maybe mid or low-mid) op stuff? Say partially optimized monsters and the DM playing with some tactics?
It will not fair that well. All it is designed to do is hit something (not that well) and then add on some extra damage.

What books do you have access to?
Are those stats set in stone?
Is the build set in stone?

[Greenish]

How well could it fare if I ran afoul of some high-er (not high but maybe mid or low-mid) op stuff? Say partially optimized monsters and the DM playing with some tactics?Your options in combat are limited at trying to get next to a monster, then hitting it hard, and hoping it dies before you do. Your damage is pretty good (relatively speaking), but that's basically it. A big brute of a monster will be tough, and most of the ones that have options and use actual tactics will be tougher.

But, alas, everything is relative.

[SciChronic]

I think you misunderstand the tier system. It simply gauges a class' flexibility.

and as for how flexible that character is... its probably low tier 4 at best, but probably tier 5.

you take some of a skillmonkey's job, but not all of it, thus putting the onus on another member of the team. Also your feat progression... is pretty bad. that whole chain of weapon focus>weapons sec>melee weapon mastery is pretty subpar.

I don't get what you mean by "assume the DM allows this." Max ranks for a cross-class skill is still Character level +3, it just takes double the skill points.

as for your character itself, there are better ways to go about what it looks like you're going for, and as a melee, you should get at least 14 in Constitution.

[Gavinfoxx]

In a low optimization setting, it will be better than a Warrior. It will likely be better than badly designed town guards.

It won't be on par with monsters, though.

[eggynack]

Well, you took a base that's basically tier five, and you gave it a pile of do nothing feats. You're not really getting the full benefit out of the rogue's tier four nature, so it all adds up to a tier five that's poorly optimized. I don't think this is going to be capable of handling much of anything. What're you trying to accomplish with this character?

[Morphie]

Just counting the seconds for a suggestion from Tome of Battle, but in the meantime, I would say that your character is a Glass Cannon, but not really flexible to different types of enemies. If you find any spellcaster that targets your Will you're going to be in trouble.
As for the weapon, the greatsword is good, but I would bet on two-weapon fighting to double the amount of damage output with your Sneak Attack. Also, being a Fighter and a Rogue you'll need to wear a light armor to get the most benefit of your abilities, so the AC will also suffer a bit.

More than thinking about optimizing your Char, it will also depend on the composition of your party and how optimized your opponents will be. If you're playing a WoC module you'll probably survive ;)
But have fun, if you like your Char, you'll be ok :smallsmile:

[Gavinfoxx]

So, Greatsword and Armor Spikes with Two Weapon Fighting, perhaps?

Get str16/dex14/con14/ dump the rest, is what I would do. Rogue 3/Fighter4 would be MUCH better.

[Greenish]

Keeping the theme and low-ish optimization, I'd suggest:

*Rogue 5/(normal) Fighter 2: Get proficiencies and some feats from Fighter, keep up SA and skills with rogue. Feats - Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Cleave, Endurance, Steadfast Determination. Skills - Search, Open Lock, Disable Device, Jump, Tumble, Spot, Listen. Swap 14 to Con and 12 to Dex. Continue as rogue.

*Rogue 3/(normal) Fighter 4: Similar to above, but with more of a combat focus. Feats: Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization (going for Melee Weapon Mastery), Combat Reflexes, Hold the Line, Vexing Flanker. Skills - keep the trap-finding up, spend remaining points on Jump, Tumble, Spot. Swap 14 to Con and 12 to Dex. Continue as rogue.


Both do pretty much the same stuff, but with somewhat more options and defenses. Jump and Tumble are good for mobility, spot is spot, Weapon Focus line isn't great (though going up to Melee Weapon Mastery isn't that bad), Con is good, etc. If the ability scores come from point-buy, well, I rarely bother getting a 18 when you can spread them to get more bang for your buck, but that's a personal preference.

[eggynack]

Just counting the seconds for a suggestion from Tome of Battle.
Well, the swordsage solution is a classic and obvious one, but I prefer factotum for this character. The power of being an amazing skill monkey is a nifty one to have, and factotums can generally handle themselves in combat to boot. A factotum probably isn't going to significantly overpower a campaign, and it's a cool class in general. In the meantime, I'd advise getting rid of every feat on that list that has the word "weapon" in its name, because they're generally just bad. There's stuff that can be done with those feats, and they're waffling about in this sad state of affairs.

[Greenish]

Daring Outlaw might also work. Something like this:

32 point buy
STR == 14
DEX == 16
CON == 14
INT == 14
WIS == 10
CHA == 10

Rogue 4/Swashbuckler 3. Feats - Power Attack, Weapon Finesse, Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Elven Courtblade), Daring Outlaw. Adds Int to damage (in addition to Str), BAB 6, full SA progression, decent skills. Can continue as Swashbuckler (for full BAB), Rogue (for skills), or PrC.

[MilesTiden]

Buckswashler gets Weapon Finesse for free. That is also a fantastic idea. :P

[DMVerdandi]

Haven't seen anyone suggest this yet, but you should pick up able learner at LV.1
At least this way you don't have to REALLY shop cheap with those fighter skill points. An item familiar will increase your skill points even more.

even then it is tier 5.

[Mezmote]

You could also go full on rogue (maybe even the feat variant) and grab the charger package (Power Attack, Leap Attack and Shocktrooper) whilst still getting a decent amount of skill points for out of combat stuff. It will lock up most of your feats until level 9, but it'll make you able to hit people quite hard in combat. Pump that strength and go to town. :smallsmile:

Just make sure to have an out in social situations (you've already covered exploration and combat). Bluff or intimidate are not bad choices, can be very good for RP, while it doesn't cost you much. Grab the Never Outnumbered skill trick from C-Scoundrel.

Now you can smack people in combat, confuse them or make them run in fear in social situations, and disable those traps and locks whenever that's needed. You AC will be abysmal though... :smalltongue:

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Here's my critique of this character, take it how you will:

First off, this character attempts to do a few things, but does none of them well. With all the Sneak Attack, and attempting to rack up more attacks, it is pretty clear you are trying to build him up for some decent damage output.

Unfortunately, you really haven't. A basic charge build with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack will easily out-damage this build at this level going pure Barbarian (with Spirit Lion Totem variant). Furthermore, most of your damage seems to be coming from Sneak Attack, which is surprisingly difficult to pull off effectively without resorting to tactics you are incapable of employing. Which means any time you run into anything with either Uncanny Dodge or Immunity to Precision-Based Damage, you become completely worthless as anything other than a damage sponge. And there's a surprising number of such opponents. Even if you don't, you STILL are completely reliant on being able to deny dex bonus or flank, without a way to guarantee either.

Second, you attempt to bring in some skillmonkey business, but then you promptly head to the class with the LEAST number of skill-points per level. His Int score isn't going to be enough to compensate for this. So he will have skills, but they will all suck, meaning you won't be able to rely on them.

I would ask you: What are you attempting to accomplish with this character? It is quite likely we would be able to come up with a suitable build which is less likely to end up worthless in eight fights out of ten and nine out-of-combat encounters out of ten.

[Gwendol]

I'd suggest Greenish's daring outlaw build, possibly adding on the Dark template for HiPS. It will put your INT to good use through insightful strike. Other feats to consider are Craven, Able learner, Jack of All Trades.

Also, for the rogue you should trade in trapsense for penetrating strike ACF to make more creatures vulnerable to SA damage.

[Vaz]

How do you have Greater Weapon Specialization? You need to have Fighter 12 to qualify?

[Gwendol]

It says "feat progression", so not sure he has all of them yet.

[strider24seven]

Rogue 2/Fighter 5 (Sneak attack variant)
Killoren

32 point buy
STR == 18
DEX == 10
CON == 12
INT == 14
WIS == 10
CHA == 10

Max ranks in Disable Device, Open Lock, Search (Assume the DM allows this)

Weapon == Greatsword
Feats Progression (Getting these as I can): Power Attack, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Melee Weapon Mastery, Greater Weapon Focus, Greater Weapon Specialization

----
So, what tier is this and is it useful enough outside of combat? Note that I don't like doing diplomacy or other talking stuff so I opted for helping with traps and stuff. Also, is it useful enough in combat in a low optimization setting?

I would say Tier 5... you don't really excel at anything, and you've spread yourself rather than. Your damage is lacking, you have reduced BAB from rogue (matters with PA), reduced HP, you have ranks in a few skills that don't use abilities that otherwise matter to you.

That being said, you would not fairly poorly in a party of blaster wizard, healer cleric, and twf rogue.

If you wanted to optimize a little more, I would offer the following suggestions:
1. Drop the weapon focus line. Pick up Shock Trooper from CW.
2. Play a Warblade or Factotum. Or Factotum 1/Warblade X.
3. Play a Conjurer or Transmuter

[Greenish]

Haven't seen anyone suggest this yet, but you should pick up able learner at LV.1
At least this way you don't have to REALLY shop cheap with those fighter skill points. An item familiar will increase your skill points even more.Able Learner (RoD) is human-only, sadly, and I doubt a fey like killoren could even sneak in with the "human-related races" suggestion. If you can get a DM exception, though, it's worth considering.

There aren't any feats I can think of that'd add Search, Open Lock, or Disable Device to your list. Guerilla Warrior and Guerilla Scout (HoB) halve the skill point cost of Hide/Move Silently and Spot/Listen, respectively, if one is interested in them.



I would say Tier 5... you don't really excel at anything, and you've spread yourself rather than. Your damage is lacking, you have reduced BAB from rogue (matters with PA), reduced HP, you have ranks in a few skills that don't use abilities that otherwise matter to you.I wouldn't say the damage is lacking. For the level of optimization I assume he's aiming, good Str, greatsword, PA, and WF chain are more than sufficient. The fragility and lack of skills are valid concerns even then, though.


Which reminds me, if the goal is a beatstick that can handle traps, a straight barbarian with Trapkiller ACF from Dungeonscape is also an option.

[strider24seven]

Which reminds me, if the goal is a beatstick that can handle traps, a straight barbarian with Trapkiller ACF from Dungeonscape is also an option.

This is an excellent option, and is really fun to roleplay.

[JaronK]

Tiers judge classes, not individual characters. This is a combination of a Tier 4 and a Tier 5 class, so those are the tiers involved, but that's it.

It's also a relatively low optimization character.

JaronK

[Menzath]

You are missing UMD. one of the best skills... Evar.
Face skills are useful for people who DON'T RP. "Uh, I try and convince him this" (roll : succeed!).
And a killoren not being a nature related class? I mean even a cityish ranger would be alright, but rogue/fighter? RP oddness.
Not to say that it couldn't happen, just the races fluff doesn't mesh well with that class combo to me.

Oh def. a T5, low T5. you loose those precious skill points with fighter and gain... BaB? sneak attack is something you can stand to loose as long as you have a skill/magic set to make up for it. Which almost every other class has. So fighter(thug) is a huge decrease.

Magic>feats>skills>BaB>SA (This isn't a solid rule for me but most of the time is about correct)(also note if you have no magic, skills CAN take up first in priority).

[Talderas]

I don't get what you mean by "assume the DM allows this." Max ranks for a cross-class skill is still Character level +3, it just takes double the skill points.

The maximum ranks for a cross skill is one half the maximum for a class skill. Please don't spread misinformation.

[Greenish]

The maximum ranks for a cross skill is one half the maximum for a class skill. Please don't spread misinformation.The maximum ranks in a skill that is a class skill for one of your classes, however, is HD+3, regardless of whether it's a cross-class skill or not when you put points into it.

If it's not a class skill when you invest points, though, you need two points per rank.

[JaronK]

Face skills are useful for people who DON'T RP. "Uh, I try and convince him this" (roll : succeed!).

Face skills are for people who DO RP. Playing a character with 0 Diplomacy and then having him be a primary talker for the party isn't RPing, because you're not playing your character. Unless you're RPing as a dumb brute who can't talk to people, you probably shouldn't be throwing no ranks into face skills when you plan to do the talking.

JaronK

[Studoku]

The maximum ranks in a skill that is a class skill for one of your classes, however, is HD+3, regardless of whether it's a cross-class skill or not when you put points into it.

If it's not a class skill when you invest points, though, you need two points per rank.
Which may be an issue as your fighter levels are only giving you 4 points to play with.

[SciChronic]

The maximum ranks for a cross skill is one half the maximum for a class skill. Please don't spread misinformation.

class skills: max rank = HD +3, rank cost = 1 skillpoint/rank
cross-class skills: max rank = HD+3, rank cost = 2 skillpoints/rank
untrained: max rank = (HD+3)/2, rank cost = 2 skillpoints/rank

those are the rules

[SowZ]

You could have twice the skill points you mentioned having and be able to dish out five hundred damage a round and it wouldn't do more than bring you up to tier 4.

[A_S]

Tiers judge classes, not individual characters. This is a combination of a Tier 4 and a Tier 5 class, so those are the tiers involved, but that's it.

It's also a relatively low optimization character.

JaronK
I get that measuring classes is what the tier system is designed for, and therefore what it's going to perform most robustly at doing. That said, I think there's often some useful information to be imparted by saying something like "that combination of classes looks like it's going to play about like a single-classed tier X character," which I think is what the OP and the responses are really saying.

For example, although Scout and Ranger are both tier 4 classes, I'd argue that Swift Hunters can be meaningfully described as "tier 3 characters," because efficiently combining the abilities of the Scout and Ranger classes (which the Swift Hunter feat allows you to do) generates a character who is "Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate" (i.e., tier 3), rather than a character who is "Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise" (i.e., tier 4).

Conversely, even though the character describe in the OP includes both a tier 4 class and a tier 5 class, it's pretty clear that not enough has been invested into the rogue abilities to give it the versatility that bumps the rogue class into tier 4, so I think we can pretty comfortably tell the OP that he'll be playing a "tier 5 character" (as several people in the thread have done).

tl;dr: Although it's not what the system is designed for, I think multiclass characters can usually be meaningfully described within the confines of the tier system, essentially as shorthand for "that character is going to play about like a single classed character of a tier X class." Do you disagree?

[A_S]

class skills: max rank = HD +3, rank cost = 1 skillpoint/rank
cross-class skills: max rank = HD+3, rank cost = 2 skillpoints/rank
untrained: max rank = (HD+3)/2, rank cost = 2 skillpoints/rank

those are the rules
This is incorrect. "Untrained" is the term for a skill check made using a skill in which you have 0 ranks, which defaults to an ability check and can't be done at all for "trained only" skills (like Spellcraft). It has nothing to do at all with maximum ranks.

The distinction you are thinking of is that if you have a skill which used to be a class skill (say, because you dipped Rogue at level 1 but then multiclassed out into Fighter, but you want to keep your Tumble skill maxed), your maximum ranks stay at the max for a class skill (HD + 3), but you must purchase them at cross-class price on Fighter levels (2 skill points per rank).

Skills which have always been cross-class for your character (like, say, Spellcraft for a Rogue/Fighter) have a maximum rank of (HD + 3) / 2. This has nothing to do with whether they are "untrained."

[SowZ]

Also, drop your Cha to 8 and boost your Dex to 12 so that you can get the full AC bonus from Full Plate and are slightly better at shooting a bow/nearly a third of the skill list. If you don't want any social skills and have no spellcasting, Charisma does literally nothing for you.

[gooddragon1]

It's just that the rest of the group usually isn't highly optimized so I'm keeping it fairly low but filling a potential job vacancy (disarming traps and opening doors). Also trying to stay fairly close to core.

I did think of getting shadow blade technique and island of blades from 2 feats in place of Greater Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus.

[SowZ]

It's just that the rest of the group usually isn't highly optimized so I'm keeping it fairly low but filling a potential job vacancy (disarming traps and opening doors). Also trying to stay fairly close to core.

I did think of getting shadow blade technique and island of blades from 2 feats in place of Greater Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus.

I think you'll do just fine in combat. You can also be the roguey lock picker/track disabler, so you will have Out of Combat stuff to do in a dungeon type scenario. Whether or not you will have enough options to have a good time entirely depends on the type of campaign. If it is super dungeon crawley, it should be just fine.

[Soupz]

I did something like this a few years ago. I was a fill in character, think we had 5 others or so already rolled. I got a good roll, I think 18, 16, 15, and the others were 14, 13, 11 or so. Greatsword and bolas, armored Rogue/Fighter.

It was in 3.5 and we had all the sourcebooks to take crap from. I grabbed a bonus to disguise and bluff, a feat that let me play dead if I got hit and get up the next round with a sneak attack. We didn't have the same limits on Acrobatics that there are in Pathfinder. I think I was something like 4R/2F or so. I told everyone I was a Bounty Hunter and didn't let them see my sheet.

"F*** classes. I have a JOB. You guys need to get jobs. That's why you kill people."

I wasn't quite a frontline Fighter. I should have delayed more often and probably, if it was Pathfinder, picked up Toughness.

It looks badly optimized, you can get more out of Rogue than Fighter. The plus +1 swords feats or whatever doesn't matter because you're going to try to spend most of your time flanking anyway. The more skills (read as options) you have the more fun it'll be to play. Tier doesn't matter, it's just you and your friends playing D&D.

To anyone who thinks Tier and power matters, all that happens when PCs are powerful is you get more powerful monsters with more immunities tossed at you. Remember, PCs don't die because they didn't have enough spells or hit points; PCs die because they're stupid.

I need to put that in a tag.

[SowZ]

I did something like this a few years ago. I was a fill in character, think we had 5 others or so already rolled. I got a good roll, I think 18, 16, 15, and the others were 14, 13, 11 or so. Greatsword and bolas, armored Rogue/Fighter.

It was in 3.5 and we had all the sourcebooks to take crap from. I grabbed a bonus to disguise and bluff, a feat that let me play dead if I got hit and get up the next round with a sneak attack. We didn't have the same limits on Acrobatics that there are in Pathfinder. I think I was something like 4R/2F or so. I told everyone I was a Bounty Hunter and didn't let them see my sheet.

"F*** classes. I have a JOB. You guys need to get jobs. That's why you kill people."

I wasn't quite a frontline Fighter. I should have delayed more often and probably, if it was Pathfinder, picked up Toughness.

It looks badly optimized, you can get more out of Rogue than Fighter. The plus +1 swords feats or whatever doesn't matter because you're going to try to spend most of your time flanking anyway. The more skills (read as options) you have the more fun it'll be to play. Tier doesn't matter, it's just you and your friends playing D&D.

To anyone who thinks Tier and power matters, all that happens when PCs are powerful is you get more powerful monsters with more immunities tossed at you. Remember, PCs don't die because they didn't have enough spells or hit points; PCs die because they're stupid.

I need to put that in a tag.

Not necessarily. No matter how smart you play a rogue or fighter, a high level wizard who thinks smartly will usually win. Also, power level doesn't matter as much as some people think. Whether the party plays as rogues, fighters, and bards or psions, wizards, and druids doesn't matter. What does matter is a party of Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Psion, Samurai. That really sucks for the Samurai.

[eggynack]

To anyone who thinks Tier and power matters, all that happens when PCs are powerful is you get more powerful monsters with more immunities tossed at you. Remember, PCs don't die because they didn't have enough spells or hit points; PCs die because they're stupid.

You're correct that a PC being powerful leads to more powerful monsters with more immunities, however that's not all that happens. In addition to the wizard now being just as challenged by the new encounters as he would have been as a samurai against the old ones, the party samurai is now going up against enemies of a wizard's power level. Power, balance, challenging encounters, they're all relative. A wizard isn't powerful. A wizard is powerful relative to a fighter. Similarly, he's weak compared to pun-pun. PC's might die because they're stupid, but they might also die because they're playing the samurai in the group of wizards. In other words, that samurai is dying because he didn't have enough spells.

[Soupz]

To anyone who thinks Tier and power matters, all that happens when PCs are powerful is you get more powerful monsters with more immunities tossed at you. Remember, PCs don't die because they didn't have enough spells or hit points; PCs die because they're stupid.


Not necessarily. No matter how smart you play a rogue or fighter, a high level wizard who thinks smartly will usually win.

I'm a DM. Trust me, I think I've killed more players than your Wizard.


Also, power level doesn't matter as much as some people think. Whether the party plays as rogues, fighters, and bards or psions, wizards, and druids doesn't matter. What does matter is a party of Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Psion, Samurai. That really sucks for the Samurai.

The idea of having classes with specific functions is so that players will have "heroic moments" when they truly shine. Wilderness, undead, finding magic items, finding traps, using mounts outdoors, talking to NPCs and getting something really good out of it. This is what classes are balanced around and they need to be weak and strong in various areas for the game to be fun. Specific loot and situations made for people falling behind can usually fix this. And why the F*** would I let you roll a Psion.

[SowZ]

I'm a DM. Trust me, I think I've killed more players than your Wizard.



The idea of having classes with specific functions is so that players will have "heroic moments" when they truly shine. Wilderness, undead, finding magic items, finding traps, using mounts outdoors, talking to NPCs and getting something really good out of it. This is what classes are balanced around and they need to be weak and strong in various areas for the game to be fun. Specific loot and situations made for people falling behind can usually fix this. And why the F*** would I let you roll a Psion.

I'm a DM, too. I have lost count of how many players I've killed. But if your high level fighters have even odds of beating your high level wizards, you are playing the wizards like morons or you are in a setting where the available spells are incredibly limited/nerfed. The thing is, a druid is better than a samurai at every single conceivable party role. There is not a single function a Samurai can shine over a Druid.

Except at high op levels, most wizards or cleric can do significantly more damage with a melee attack than a fighter of the same level.

That is why the tier system is useful. It is no fun to be a rogue and have skill ranks in tons of skills but the wizard says, "Ooh, I have a level one spell for that!" every time a skill roll is required, meaning their level one spell slot is more useful than a dozen levels worth of skill point investment.

[eggynack]

The idea of having classes with specific functions is so that players will have "heroic moments" when they truly shine. Wilderness, undead, finding magic items, finding traps, using mounts outdoors, talking to NPCs and getting something really good out of it. This is what classes are balanced around and they need to be weak and strong in various areas for the game to be fun. Specific loot and situations made for people falling behind can usually fix this. And why the F*** would I let you roll a Psion.
I think you're missing the point. By a lot. Tier one characters can fill all of those roles you listed, often better than the characters that specialize in that role, and often simultaneously. The classes aren't balanced around that idea, because these classes aren't weak and strong in various areas. Druids, for example, are basically just strong. There're very few situations in existence where they're not incredibly strong. By the by, the reason you'd let me roll a psion is because they're tier two, and if you're alright with me playing a tier one, there's no real reason to bar them for power level reasons.

[Soupz]

PC's might die because they're stupid, but they might also die because they're playing the samurai in the group of wizards. In other words, that samurai is dying because he didn't have enough spells.

I've seen more PCs die of "moving to Ohio" than death by lack of spells. You Tier guys need to figure out what's going on.

[eggynack]

I've seen more PCs die of "moving to Ohio" than death by lack of spells. You Tier guys need to figure out what's going on.
Are we even having the same conversation right now? What are you talking about?

[Soupz]

I've seen more PCs die of "moving to Ohio" than death by lack of spells. You Tier guys need to figure out what's going on.


Are we even having the same conversation right now? What are you talking about?

The numbers in the game are an abstraction. Utility is more important than damage. Yeah, I think you get that. I've seen more players die of "couldn't get along with everyone else" than death by lack of utility.

I'm saying there are more important things than Tier and being high Tier.

As for the other conversation about the Psion... really? In D&D? A Psion? Really? If you want a character with a set of random powers we should just play some M&M or something.

[A_S]

The numbers in the game are an abstraction. Utility is more important than damage. Yeah, I think you get that. I've seen more players die of "couldn't get along with everyone else" than death by lack of utility.
Right. Which is why versatility is a big part of the tier system.


I'm saying there are more important things than Tier and being high Tier.
Yes, being in the same state as your gaming group (if you play in person) is more important than class tier. I don't think anybody's arguing against that.


As for the other conversation about the Psion... really? In D&D? A Psion? Really? If you want a character with a set of random powers we should just play some M&M or something.
...you know that there's, like, multiple D&D sourcebooks on psionics, right? I mean, if they don't fit in with your campaign setting's fluff, fine, but lots of people like them.

-----

Look, we're not saying "Everybody should play the highest tier possible, and if you don't you're bad." We're not saying "The most important thing about D&D is maximizing your character's tier." Those things would be stupid.

We're saying:

1. Some character classes in D&D can solve a lot more problems a lot more easily than others.

2. Some guy named JaronK wrote up a system dividing the base classes in the game into tiers based on how many problems they can solve, and how easily they can solve them.

3. When you have a party that includes high-tier characters (who can solve lots of problems easily) and low-tier characters (who are specialized toward solving only a few kinds of problems, or who aren't as good at anything as their high-tier counterparts), it can put the DM in an uncomfortable spot where it's hard to make an encounter difficult enough that the high-tier characters will find it challenging without making it so difficult that the low-tier characters will be unable to meaningfully contribute to the fight.

4. This is un-fun, especially for the low-tier characters who have to keep feeling useless a lot of the time.

[Soupz]

Look, we're not saying "Everybody should play the highest tier possible, and if you don't you're bad." We're not saying "The most important thing about D&D is maximizing your character's tier." Those things would be stupid.

The problem is whenever anyone asks if they should play a character the first thing that's brought up is Tier. This guy who started the thread obviously doesn't know what he's doing optimization-wise but he already wants to know his Tier because that's what he reads about here.

Tier is absolutely important in PVP games. Straight Damage numbers, Utility, Counterplay. I love PVP and competition, but D&D is not competition.

Tiers for D&D feels like Tier-ing fruit by which one is best. Citrus can fight off scurvy. Avacados have high protein. No one wants limes because lemons are better and do the same thing.

Your number 3, PC power level unbalance, is not a unsolvable problem for me when I run games. I bring new people in and I play with people who've been playing for 20 years. Class Tier is not the most important roadblock with a player who is learning the game and feels useless. And it's not the number 1 killer of PCs.

[SowZ]

The problem is whenever anyone asks if they should play a character the first thing that's brought up is Tier. This guy who started the thread obviously doesn't know what he's doing optimization-wise but he already wants to know his Tier because that's what he reads about here.

Tier is absolutely important in PVP games. Straight Damage numbers, Utility, Counterplay. I love PVP and competition, but D&D is not competition.

Tiers for D&D feels like Tier-ing fruit by which one is best. Citrus can fight off scurvy. Avacados have high protein. No one wants limes because lemons are better and do the same thing.

Your number 3, PC power level unbalance, is not a unsolvable problem for me when I run games. I bring new people in and I play with people who've been playing for 20 years. Class Tier is not the most important roadblock with a player who is learning the game and feels useless. And it's not the number 1 killer of PCs.

In my experience, number 1 killer of PCs is other PCs.

[A_S]

The problem is whenever anyone asks if they should play a character the first thing that's brought up is Tier. This guy who started the thread obviously doesn't know what he's doing optimization-wise but he already wants to know his Tier because that's what he reads about here.
Dude asked a question and people did their best to answer it. If people see us talking about class tiers and mistake it for a wang-measuring contest, that does not strike me as evidence of class power being irrelevant to the game.


Tier is absolutely important in PVP games. Straight Damage numbers, Utility, Counterplay. I love PVP and competition, but D&D is not competition.
But what I'm saying is that it's important in non-PVP, too. Not because the Wizard is going to "win" and the Rogue is going to "lose" (as you correctly point out, it's not a competition), but because when the Rogue invests all his build resources into being able to:

open locks
handle traps
stab things

...and the wizard is like, "Oh, didn't anybody tell you? I memorized Knock this morning, I can fly over tripwires, my blasting spells do more damage with fewer restrictions than your Sneak Attack, and I can also summon better beatsticks than the Fighter and learn everything about the dungeon before we go into it with my divination spells, so don't bother with that Gather Information check, oh and P.S. I have spells that make me immune to everything you have to spend money on items to protect yourself from," it makes the game less fun for the Rogue, even when they are not in direct competition.


Tiers for D&D feels like Tier-ing fruit by which one is best. Citrus can fight off scurvy. Avacados have high protein. No one wants limes because lemons are better and do the same thing.
So, if classes in D&D were like a kitchen knife vs. a hammer vs. a corkscrew, this would be a good analogy. But they're not. Fighters in D&D are like a hammer, and Wizards in D&D are like a machine shop. The set of problems some classes can solve is a strict subset of the problems other classes can solve. You can make the game work like you're describing. You do it by restricting your players to low-tier classes, or by imposing various house rules that keep high-tier classes from being so dominant. If your group is particularly mature and they get that having some spellcaster muscle in on your specialty isn't fun, you can even get away with just trusting your players to voluntarily play below their classes' potential to make the game more fun for others.

The tier system isn't designed to tell you what you should play. It's designed to warn you about some imbalance problems the base D&D ruleset has, so that you and your players can do something about it to keep anybody from having their toes stepped on and feeling left out.


Your number 3, PC power level unbalance, is not a unsolvable problem for me when I run games. I bring new people in and I play with people who've been playing for 20 years. Class Tier is not the most important roadblock with a player who is learning the game and feels useless. And it's not the number 1 killer of PCs.
It's not an unsolvable problem, you're right. There have been a million suggestions on how to solve it. Some I can think of:

Caster nerfs
Ability score modifications based on tier
Buffs to mundane classes
Encouraging your beatsticks to use content from the Tome of Battle, or helping them out with optimization more than the casters
Encouraging your casters to use styles of spells (buffs that help the rest of the party, battlefield control) that make the game feel more like everybody's contributing, rather than like the Wizard always solves the problems before anybody else gets to play
The more experienced optimizers in the group restricting themselves to classes with lower optimization ceilings, expecting the relative class power levels to balance out against the relative optimization experience

If class imbalance has never been a problem for you, then I imagine you and/or your players have used one or more of these methods, or maybe you've found another solution that I don't know about. The point isn't that the problem is unsolvable. The point is that there is a problem in the first place, and finding a solution to it is a good thing.

And no, class imbalance is not the most important problem facing a group that plays D&D. Having your players move away is a worse problem. Having players who really don't get along out of game is a worse problem. Having players who don't understand the rules and aren't willing to learn (or a DM who can't effectively teach) is a worse problem. There's lots of worse problems that a gaming group can face than the Wizard solving all the problems and the Fighter feeling left out.

The tier system has nothing to do with that. It does not include a claim that it is the only thing that can go wrong with a game of D&D. It's just a tool for DMs and players to use, to help make them aware of one problem that can arise in D&D and help them find a solution to it so it doesn't make their game less fun.

[eggynack]

The problem is whenever anyone asks if they should play a character the first thing that's brought up is Tier. This guy who started the thread obviously doesn't know what he's doing optimization-wise but he already wants to know his Tier because that's what he reads about here.
Understanding the tier of a given class is crucial, because it allows you to design a character for a particular campaign. This guy is apparently playing a low power campaign, so I'm probably not going to toss out many druid based solution, even though I may have a desire to do so. We can't measure how well someone plays a game through the internet. We can only make judgement based on relative power level, and other mechanical things.



Tier is absolutely important in PVP games. Straight Damage numbers, Utility, Counterplay. I love PVP and competition, but D&D is not competition.
I think you're missing the point of the D&D tier system. It's not about competition; it's about cooperation. All other things being equal, you don't want to bring a wizard to a monk campaign, and you don't want to bring a monk to a wizard campaign. Doing either leads to encounters that are either too hard for some amount of the party, or too easy. The tier system doesn't even attempt to measure how well people do in PvP, even though it gives some rough approximation of how those go sometimes.



Tiers for D&D feels like Tier-ing fruit by which one is best. Citrus can fight off scurvy. Avacados have high protein. No one wants limes because lemons are better and do the same thing.
See, this is just wrong. You see, monks aren't like citrus that can fight scurvy, with druids being avocados who have high protein. The monk is a crappy piece of citrus who can occasionally fight scurvy, and the druid is an amazing super fruit that has all the powers of citrus, avocados, and several other fruits you haven't named. The game makes you want to think there are all of these equal roles, where one guy is the face, and another is the beat stick, and another is the healer, and the last is the caster. The game is lying to you.

The druid can basically be the face, and the beat stick, and the healer, and the caster, and he can do all of those things simultaneously. Seriously, they can. The same is true for the other tier one characters to various extents. That's what the tier system is. It tells you whether a given class is a crappy piece of citrus, or a great piece of citrus, or a super fruit that just so happens to have the qualities of citrus. It tells you how many roles a given class can fill, and how many problems that character can solve.



Your number 3, PC power level unbalance, is not a unsolvable problem for me when I run games. I bring new people in and I play with people who've been playing for 20 years. Class Tier is not the most important roadblock with a player who is learning the game and feels useless. And it's not the number 1 killer of PCs.
Of course it can be solved. That's the point. We learn about these problems so that we can figure out better and more efficient solutions. Your way can possibly work, and my way can possibly work, but every way works better, no matter what, if you have a better understanding of the situation.

[Soupz]

So, what tier is this and is it useful enough outside of combat? Note that I don't like doing diplomacy or other talking stuff so I opted for helping with traps and stuff. Also, is it useful enough in combat in a low optimization setting?


Dude asked a question and people did their best to answer it. If people see us talking about class tiers and mistake it for a wang-measuring contest, that does not strike me as evidence of class power being irrelevant to the game.

It's low optimization and he's a PC. I told him Tier doesn't matter and I've played something similar and it'd be fun to play, but could be optimized better. Then we argue for a page about why Tier matters and that it's low tier and it's going to be hard on his DM and less fun.

I think he'll be fine. Agree?

[SowZ]

It's low optimization and he's a PC. I told him Tier doesn't matter and I've played something similar and it'd be fun to play, but could be optimized better. Then we argue for a page about why Tier matters and that it's low tier and it's going to be hard on his DM and less fun.

I think he'll be fine. Agree?

But if his party has a druid who can Wild Shape into a dire bear and beat him at his own game all the while being a full spellcaster and having an animal companion nearly as strong as he is? It might not be so much fun.

Most likely, though, he should be fine. On a sneak attack with a full power attack he will likely be able to dish out more damage per round than anyone else in the group.

[A_S]

It's low optimization and he's a PC. I told him Tier doesn't matter and I've played something similar and it'd be fun to play, but could be optimized better. Then we argue for a page about why Tier matters and that it's low tier and it's going to be hard on his DM and less fun.

I think he'll be fine. Agree?
I mean, I didn't really have a problem with your first post in this thread; I started replying to you when you started saying stuff I disagreed with.

But, like SowZ points out, tiers do matter at low optimization levels too. I mean, the system isn't very robust with respect to optimization floors/ceilings, because it tries to condense power, versatility, optimization floor, optimization ceiling, and performance across all levels into a single number (which inevitably leads to some compromises when it comes to precision). But it doesn't take much optimization to realize that Druids are better at everything than Fighters.

So, in that sense, yeah it matters. The OP might end up having a frustrating time if his buddies play a Druid and a non-healbot Cleric. So knowing that his character is going to be tier 5-ish is potentially valuable information.

[Soupz]

So, in that sense, yeah it matters.

We should probably just make another thread and argue there sometime. I've come across Eggynack and butted heads with him before. I think the bulk of us who're arguing all are DMs and all have our fixes for it.

I've seriously been where OPs at as a player. Right there, in a low optimization group with a "low Tier character", the Rogue/Fighter, and one guy who had an evil Cleric/Prestige with at least a level up on me and an undead follower that was buffed out and killing most of the encounters.

I had my skills and he wasn't stepping on my toes there. I could do that huge flank/sneak attack damage, but that's just on the living.

The Cleric agreed with the DM to ditch the undead to balance the group and everything was fine.

I usually don't do that, prefer to buff the other players. The player with the optimized Cleric was another DM and he was okay with the loss, knew why.

The DM moved or something and the campaign ended.

This is my experience with Tiers and OP's situation.

All of you DMs who are preaching Tiers say you've got your own fixes for Tier problems.

I'll argue it til dawn. Tiers don't matter.

[Terazul]

...Except the Tiers did matter because a player of a higher tier explicitly had to nerf himself for the sake of the DM. Yeah, he wasn't stepping on your toes, but the gap between what you/rest of the party was capable of and what he was capable of was explicit.

Like, I don't know what that story was intended to show other than... yeah that actually happens.

[eggynack]

...Except the Tiers did matter because a player of a higher tier explicitly had to nerf himself for the sake of the DM. Yeah, he wasn't stepping on your toes, but the gap between what you/rest of the party was capable of and what he was capable of was explicit.

Like, I don't know what that story was intended to show other than... yeah that actually happens.
Damn. I was totally about to say all of those things, except in a somewhat different way that's reflective of my writing style. Yeah, these things are true, by bunches, and by stacks.

[Soupz]

...Except the Tiers did matter because a player of a higher tier explicitly had to nerf himself for the sake of the DM. Yeah, he wasn't stepping on your toes, but the gap between what you/rest of the party was capable of and what he was capable of was explicit.

Like, I don't know what that story was intended to show other than... yeah that actually happens.

And we all lived happily ever after until we didn't for completely different reasons. There's my story about Tiers and inbalance. Tell me some stories about how you're a bad DM and can't handle players who've made random characters that aren't balanced with each other. Or how you're a bad player and can't handle losing some of your power. Or how you're a bad player and make bad characters.

[Terazul]

Those are some pretty mighty assumptions, which I am going to ignore for the sake of civility. Nothing in the tiers says anything about "fun", or "people getting upset" or "stepping on toes". It says "some classes have more options than others". You demonstrated that with your story. There was straight up imbalance in it that was handled in a well-mannered way, but the fact of the matter was it needed to be handled in the first place. It's not that big a deal. The whole point of the Tier system is to show it exists so people can reasonably try to avoid it in the first place just by having everyone play on an equal playing field to begin with. Nobody is persecuting anybody for their choices except in a case where somebody might have less fun because they are playing above or below where the rest of the party is at. Personally, I hate playing higher tiers than the rest of my group because I prefer having my friends being able to do things instead of standing by and waiting on me to fix things. Some people are fine with that (like yourself, apparently). Not everyone plays a Rogue in a party with a DMM Cleric with the same level of grace, or lack thereof.

Get over it.

[SowZ]

And we all lived happily ever after until we didn't for completely different reasons. There's my story about Tiers and inbalance. Tell me some stories about how you're a bad DM and can't handle players who've made random characters that aren't balanced with each other. Or how you're a bad player and can't handle losing some of your power. Or how you're a bad player and make bad characters.

See, I have little issue with the Tier thing because I have no problem houseruling til the sun comes up and will work with players one on one to make unique abilities for them and such.

But then I'm not talking about D&D anymore. I'm talking about the game I run based on D&D. I couldn't do that until I had played 5+ years, understood the game well enough to change it and not make things worse, and some players don't like excessive houseruling. Personally, I make house rules based on each individual groups expectations, (though house rules are almost always inclusive as opposed to exclusive.) But a lot of players dislike that.

Tiers may not be an issue in Soupz version of 3.5. But they are an issue in WOTC D&D 3.5.

[olentu]

And we all lived happily ever after until we didn't for completely different reasons. There's my story about Tiers and inbalance. Tell me some stories about how you're a bad DM and can't handle players who've made random characters that aren't balanced with each other. Or how you're a bad player and can't handle losing some of your power. Or how you're a bad player and make bad characters.


Hmm, are you trying to say that while the tier system is one way of conveying information about class balance it is not the only way of conveying information about class balance. That is, the difference between the facts and the method of their presentation. If that is what you mean then perhaps it would help to be a bit more explicit.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It's just that the rest of the group usually isn't highly optimized so I'm keeping it fairly low but filling a potential job vacancy (disarming traps and opening doors). Also trying to stay fairly close to core.

I did think of getting shadow blade technique and island of blades from 2 feats in place of Greater Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus.

As a suggestion:

Your problem is that you don't get enough skills as a Sneak Attack Fighter to be able to do all the skills you will need. You'll want Open Locks, Disable Device, and Search to do the listed job. Since you are the party sneak you'll also probably be expected to have to have Hide, Move Silently, and with those, they will probably expect you to scout, meaning you also need Spot and Listen.

With all these skills, you're going to need something with more skills per level than Sneak Attack Fighter.

Straight Rogue won't be a bad thing, actually, if you do it properly. To be effective in combat, you'll probably one one other skill: Use Magic Device. Why? Wands. Specifically, a Wand of Grease.

Look up the Balance skill. If you don't have five ranks, and you are forced to make a Balance check, you are Flat-Footed, and thus denied dex bonus to AC (unless you have Uncanny Dodge). Most opponents won't have those ranks in Balance, meaning it is an excellent way of ensuring that you will always be able to get in sneak attacks. It doesn't matter if they make the balance check or not, in fact it is to your advantage to have him make it, that way you don't have to have the same problem while killing him.

A Wand of Gravestrike and Golemstrike will also help you apply precision-based damage to undead and constructs, respectfully, which are the two biggest categories of opponents who are immune to precision-based damage.

If you are willing to stray a bit from Core, you might also do very well with Scout and Ranger, going into Swift Hunter. The TWF version might do very well at what you want to do: hit people with a lot of attacks that have a lot of precision-based damage. You might also want a one-level dip in Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian for Pounce.

Scouts have all the fun skills that Rogues do, and Rangers get 6+Int Mod, so you'll be able to keep up the important ones while maintaining a full BAB advancement.

[Soupz]

Hmm, are you trying to say that while the tier system is one way of conveying information about class balance it is not the only way of conveying information about class balance. That is, the difference between the facts and the method of their presentation. If that is what you mean then perhaps it would help to be a bit more explicit.

It was a suggestion at a falsehood (that whoever reads it and believes in Tiers sucks and can't handle Tiers) with the expectation that someone would champion the reverse, which would agree with the proposition that I put forth earlier in the thread. The proposition is that Tier inbalance in D&D can be handled quite readily and is often not a problem, or at the very least not the most serious problem threatening a game.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It was a suggestion at a falsehood (that whoever reads it and believes in Tiers sucks and can't handle Tiers) with the expectation that someone would champion the reverse, which would agree with the proposition that I put forth earlier in the thread. The proposition is that Tier inbalance in D&D can be handled quite readily and is often not a problem, or at the very least not the most serious problem threatening a game.

And I would strongly disagree. Party balance is probably the single biggest contribution to over-the-table conflict between -players-.

Here's the problem: How do you challenge the Batman Wizard without steamrolling the Rogue by accident? Present a challenge to Batman Wizard, and you end up with an encounter that literally no one else but maybe a Clericzilla or Druidzilla might be able to contribute to.

No one likes being a side-kick which can't really contribute. When you've got a player which is significantly lower-optimization, he can easily get sore feelings by being upstaged every session. Likewise, someone who is significantly more powerful than the rest of the party can easily cause sore feelings with the rest of the gaming group.

[eggynack]

The proposition is that Tier inbalance in D&D can be handled quite readily and is often not a problem.
See, the issue with your argument is that these two things are in many ways the inverse of each other. The tier imbalance can definitely be handled, but just because something can be handled, that doesn't make it not a problem. In fact, I usually find that if you have to handle something at all, that thing was usually a problem to start with.

You seem to have found a happy place in your game state. Good for you. However, you attained that game state by nerfing a high tier character, and you apparently often buff low tier characters instead. Maybe you used the tier system as your guide for who to buff and who to nerf, and maybe you didn't, but the point is that someone who is not you could do so. The tier system is an amazing thing because it represents knowledge. Knowing more about a system is a good thing, and in this case, that knowledge can be used to benefit the people who use that system. This knowledge has essentially been used to benefit you. I don't understand the issue.

[Terazul]

See, the issue with your argument is that these two things are in many ways the inverse of each other. The tier imbalance can definitely be handled, but just because something can be handled, that doesn't make it not a problem. In fact, I usually find that if you have to handle something at all, that thing was usually a problem to start with.

You seem to have found a happy place in your game state. Good for you. However, you attained that game state by nerfing a high tier character, and you apparently often buff low tier characters instead. Maybe you used the tier system as your guide for who to buff and who to nerf, and maybe you didn't, but the point is that someone who is not you could do so. The tier system is an amazing thing because it represents knowledge. Knowing more about a system is a good thing, and in this case, that system can be used to benefit people. The system has essentially been used to benefit you. I don't understand the issue.
Basically this. Nobody is saying problems can't be handled. Like at all. But it comes up, (again, as evidenced by your story). All the Tier system is a guideline as to when it might show up in the first place.

[Soupz]

Basically this. Nobody is saying problems can't be handled. Like at all. But it comes up, (again, as evidenced by your story). All the Tier system is a guideline as to when it might show up in the first place.

Well... people are disagreeing.


And I would strongly disagree. Party balance is probably the single biggest contribution to over-the-table conflict between -players-.

Here's the problem: How do you challenge the Batman Wizard without steamrolling the Rogue by accident? Present a challenge to Batman Wizard, and you end up with an encounter that literally no one else but maybe a Clericzilla or Druidzilla might be able to contribute to.

Feels like there's too much that's off topic, so the answer is spoiler.


I lie to my players. Constantly. Make up arbitrary rules because I can. RAW was good in junior high, but RAW will get people upset fast in 2013.

Like Psionics. I don't want to deal with learning their power curve so they're off the table. I say it's fluff, really it mostly is fluff reasons, but I don't have a Psionic book and I don't want to deal with it. So.. No Psionics is Soupzfinder Roleplaying Game.

Another lie, I tell them that we'll play a game with all the rules and books if we get a party that's comprised of players who understand all the rulebooks. Well.. that's never going to happen because not all these kids can't math or read so well. Not everyone's a munchkin. And hey, the guys who have learned are DMs and know why characters in a party need to be balanced.

As for the high level rogue vs high level wizard dilemma that ShneekeyTheLost gave me. I don't deal with it. Your character gets retired around mid-level and we switch over to Mutants and Masterminds or someone else's D&D or that one with the vampires and stuff and then reroll D&D a year later at level one (two with a backstory) with half the players moving away or married or gone for some other reason.

I balance power by making sure that the players know that things in the world are beyond their control from the start of the game. First encounter in most level 1 games is a troll that's chasing a goblin that's just slightly faster than it. Anyone who doesn't know to let it go and that's it's more powerful than you, dies. That's a persistent thing throughout the campaign. There's usually some impossible task that deals with forces beyond your ken and with luck and determination overcoming obstacles might lead to a scroll beyond your level or an artifact that's vastly outside how much you "should" have. Encounters and rewards are built for the party. That's how I keep the casters in line with the fighters.

At 20th level I would run the same game, same almost impossibly powerful force above you, but with more dice. I don't want to go there because it's harder to balance, so I don't. If you want to play in a high magic game where players are demigods, find another system that's built for it and uses less dice to pull that off.

Where Tiers would help, it's mostly DM digression at work. I look at character sheets before the game starts and try to balance characters using their backstories and giving them stuff like NPC friends and weapons and extra money or maybe even something magical. The goal is a diverse party where everyone can have a moment to be a hero.

[SowZ]

Well... people are disagreeing.



Feels like there's too much that's off topic, so the answer is spoiler.


I lie to my players. Constantly. Make up arbitrary rules because I can. RAW was good in junior high, but RAW will get people upset fast in 2013.

Like Psionics. I don't want to deal with learning their power curve so they're off the table. I say it's fluff, really it mostly is fluff reasons, but I don't have a Psionic book and I don't want to deal with it. So.. No Psionics is Soupzfinder Roleplaying Game.

Another lie, I tell them that we'll play a game with all the rules and books if we get a party that's comprised of players who understand all the rulebooks. Well.. that's never going to happen because not all these kids can't math or read so well. Not everyone's a munchkin. And hey, the guys who have learned are DMs and know why characters in a party need to be balanced.

As for the high level rogue vs high level wizard dilemma that ShneekeyTheLost gave me. I don't deal with it. Your character gets retired around mid-level and we switch over to Mutants and Masterminds or someone else's D&D or that one with the vampires and stuff and then reroll D&D a year later at level one (two with a backstory) with half the players moving away or married or gone for some other reason.

I balance power by making sure that the players know that things in the world are beyond their control from the start of the game. First encounter in most level 1 games is a troll that's chasing a goblin that's just slightly faster than it. Anyone who doesn't know to let it go and that's it's more powerful than you, dies. That's a persistent thing throughout the campaign. There's usually some impossible task that deals with forces beyond your ken and with luck and determination overcoming obstacles might lead to a scroll beyond your level or an artifact that's vastly outside how much you "should" have. Encounters and rewards are built for the party. That's how I keep the casters in line with the fighters.

At 20th level I would run the same game, same almost impossibly powerful force above you, but with more dice. I don't want to go there because it's harder to balance, so I don't. If you want to play in a high magic game where players are demigods, find another system that's built for it and uses less dice to pull that off.

Where Tiers would help, it's mostly DM digression at work. I look at character sheets before the game starts and try to balance characters using their backstories and giving them stuff like NPC friends and weapons and extra money or maybe even something magical. The goal is a diverse party where everyone can have a moment to be a hero.


It's true that if you don't play high level, tiers a smaller deal. Tiers aren't nearly as prominent for the first few levels. But the amount of balancing and fiating required to balance Fighters and Wizards at levels 16-20 isn't just some gentleman's agreements and a few houserules. It is writing an entirely new game loosely based on D&D 3.5.

[lsfreak]

I lie to my players. Constantly. Make up arbitrary rules because I can. RAW was good in junior high, but RAW will get people upset fast in 2013.
It's the exact opposite for me, and I suspect many of us here. The DM making up arbitrary rules is Huge Red Flag #1 for someone I absolutely don't want as a DM. If I trust that they have a good background so that their rules are both well-reasoned and consistent, I might be okay with it.


Like Psionics. I don't want to deal with learning their power curve so they're off the table.
That would explain why you jumped entire editions earlier in the thread while deriding psion characters :smallconfused:


As for the high level rogue vs high level wizard dilemma that ShneekeyTheLost gave me. I don't deal with it.
That's not a high-level scenario. It can start being a problem by level six just by accident of the wizard picking the right stuff - happened a few level later in a game I played, where a wizard in a low-power party watched the party get hit by a monster's statblock-listed stinking cloud and went, holy hell, I can do that! It can be a problem as low as level three if the wizard player really knows their stuff and isn't playing nice.

The thing about tiers, is that if everyone knows them, the DM doesn't have to balance the characters - the players do it on their own. And the players can tailor their characters to have enough options they won't be bored, or feel completely left out of a situation, or feel like the DM has to coddle them in order to contribute. Or if only a few know them, those that know them can ensure their own characters aren't so flexible they accidentally supersede the roles of other characters.

[Soupz]

It's the exact opposite for me, and I suspect many of us here. The DM making up arbitrary rules is Huge Red Flag #1 for someone I absolutely don't want as a DM. If I trust that they have a good background so that their rules are both well-reasoned and consistent, I might be okay with it.

LIE. Every DM you've played with has had different rules for XP bonuses for things like giving players rides, bringing food, role playing.


That would explain why you jumped entire editions earlier in the thread while deriding psion characters :smallconfused:

I've been playing since Advanced. Currently in Pathfinder. I don't like paying $20 to unbalance my games.


That's not a high-level scenario. It can start being a problem by level six just by accident of the wizard picking the right stuff - happened a few level later in a game I played, where a wizard in a low-power party watched the party get hit by a monster's statblock-listed stinking cloud and went, holy hell, I can do that! It can be a problem as low as level three if the wizard player really knows their stuff and isn't playing nice.

As explained in the spoiler, I run games that are balanced to where the most powerful characters can be one shot by complications beyond their abilities to overcome. I've had experienced players say "That's not fair, we shouldn't be facing a monster that high CR." Then don't face it. Run. Occasionally they kill it, overcome it, talk their way out of it and that's the best thing that happens, when talented players do creative work. Mostly they run. This keeps players who're behind from thinking that their optimized companions are all powerful, because trust me, they're not. It's scaled up because adding things is much nicer than taking things away.


The thing about tiers, is that if everyone knows them, the DM doesn't have to balance the characters - the players do it on their own. And the players can tailor their characters to have enough options they won't be bored, or feel completely left out of a situation, or feel like the DM has to coddle them in order to contribute. Or if only a few know them, those that know them can ensure their own characters aren't so flexible they accidentally supersede the roles of other characters.

Every game I start has at least one or two new players. They're learning how to RP, what they can do, how combat works. There's a fifty page thread on Tiers and most of it is nifty tricks for PCs that would be fun for them to use, if only they could read it. Too bad they'll have to reference a dozen sourcebooks to get the information they'll need to decipher it.

Think you can keep up with an amount of data like that even if you're new? Try me in a PVP game you've never played before. You have Saturday to figure it out. I'll robust you so fast you won't know what tossed you in the gibber and made space burgers out of you.

Don't be stupid. New players need help.

[Greenish]

The thing about tiers, is that if everyone knows them, the DM doesn't have to balance the characters - the players do it on their own. And the players can tailor their characters to have enough options they won't be bored, or feel completely left out of a situation, or feel like the DM has to coddle them in order to contribute. Or if only a few know them, those that know them can ensure their own characters aren't so flexible they accidentally supersede the roles of other characters.If only I could recall what the thread was about, I could tell why the bolded parts somehow seem so relevant…


LIE. Every DM you've played with has had different rules for XP bonuses for things like giving players rides, bringing food, role playing.:smallconfused:

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I lie to my players. Constantly. Make up arbitrary rules because I can. RAW was good in junior high, but RAW will get people upset fast in 2013.That's nice. I've been playing, and GMing, since the boxed set that good ol' Gygax gave us back in the 70's. There were ways to break the game then, there are still many ways now. Power balance has never been a strong point in D&D. Other systems had even worse ideas of balance... don't get me started on how badly the balance can go in a GURPS game.


Like Psionics. I don't want to deal with learning their power curve so they're off the table. I say it's fluff, really it mostly is fluff reasons, but I don't have a Psionic book and I don't want to deal with it. So.. No Psionics is Soupzfinder Roleplaying Game.That's nice... but it is also not relevant. I'm talking Core 3.5 here. Also, lying to your players? Good way to not have any players.


Another lie, I tell them that we'll play a game with all the rules and books if we get a party that's comprised of players who understand all the rulebooks. Well.. that's never going to happen because not all these kids can't math or read so well. Not everyone's a munchkin. And hey, the guys who have learned are DMs and know why characters in a party need to be balanced.I'm not talking about munchkins who do it on purpose. I'm just saying that two people can randomly build characters with FAR different levels of power. For example, a Fighter picks up TWF, Weapon Specialization, and Weapon Finesse. A Druid picks natural Spell. The Druid's Animal Companion is more powerful than the Fighter, much less the actual Druid itself. That's going to present a problem.


As for the high level rogue vs high level wizard dilemma that ShneekeyTheLost gave me. I don't deal with it. Your character gets retired around mid-level and we switch over to Mutants and Masterminds or someone else's D&D or that one with the vampires and stuff and then reroll D&D a year later at level one (two with a backstory) with half the players moving away or married or gone for some other reason.Well, I'd say that's nice, but it really isn't. However, I'm talking level 9, the Wizard can, by the rules, make himself invincible. As in 'unable to be killed short of GM Fiat'. That's not high level, that's mid-level.


I balance power by making sure that the players know that things in the world are beyond their control from the start of the game. First encounter in most level 1 games is a troll that's chasing a goblin that's just slightly faster than it. Anyone who doesn't know to let it go and that's it's more powerful than you, dies. That's a persistent thing throughout the campaign. There's usually some impossible task that deals with forces beyond your ken and with luck and determination overcoming obstacles might lead to a scroll beyond your level or an artifact that's vastly outside how much you "should" have. Encounters and rewards are built for the party. That's how I keep the casters in line with the fighters.It's a shame that a level 1 Wizard can easily disable a troll, and can proceed to beat-down and burn the corpse.

The problem with 'impossible tasks' is that they're generally not actually impossible. Trying to kill your PC's off in the first scene is generally a really good way to make sure you don't have any players at your table. People play D&D, at least in part, to escape the mundane world that we live in and be someone who can actually make a difference. Take that away, and you take away why most people play the game in the first place.


At 20th level I would run the same game, same almost impossibly powerful force above you, but with more dice. I don't want to go there because it's harder to balance, so I don't. If you want to play in a high magic game where players are demigods, find another system that's built for it and uses less dice to pull that off.Who was talking about level 20? The example I used was at level 9.


Where Tiers would help, it's mostly DM digression at work. I look at character sheets before the game starts and try to balance characters using their backstories and giving them stuff like NPC friends and weapons and extra money or maybe even something magical. The goal is a diverse party where everyone can have a moment to be a hero.


You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.

Your score of number of PC's you have killed is not a badge of honor, in my opinion. A GM's job is to present an entertaining game. That's why we play, right? To have fun? Being ROFLSTOMPED by something which is impossible to face isn't fun. Which is where your entire premise falls apart:

What is impossible to something like a Rogue, or a Fighter... is almost never impossible to a Wizard or Cleric. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that your style of GMing encourages powergaming, just to survive, and in fact requires it. Meaning you not only aren't limiting the players power level, you're actively pushing them to break your game.

You are in a 'me vs them' mentality which is very dangerous for a GM. If you have to 'beat' them, you've already lost sight of what a GM is.

[Studoku]

I've been playing since Advanced. Currently in Pathfinder. I don't like paying $20 to unbalance my games.
You realise everything in Pathfinder's available on the SRD, right?:smallconfused:

What's so unbalanced about psionics anyway? Since you've claimed to be able to balance everything else in D&D through fiat and houseruling, why is that impossible with psionics?

[Gavinfoxx]

You know that D&D and PF core are where the most imbalanced stuff is, right?

[Qwertystop]

Yeah, I'd have to agree: If you're changing half the rules to fix the problems, that doesn't mean the original rules don't have problems.

[JaronK]

The problem is whenever anyone asks if they should play a character the first thing that's brought up is Tier. This guy who started the thread obviously doesn't know what he's doing optimization-wise but he already wants to know his Tier because that's what he reads about here.

Actually, this is the first time I've seen someone ask what tier their character was. Note my response was essentially that this is a category error... Tiers do not apply to individual characters, but rather to classes. I was not the only one who said this.

So no, not "whenever anyone asks". One time.


Tier is absolutely important in PVP games. Straight Damage numbers, Utility, Counterplay. I love PVP and competition, but D&D is not competition.

Absolutely false. For PvP, Tiers don't work quite right. Characters who are specialists in fighting in PvP might have very low versatility, and this be lower tier than generalists who would be good real play characters but not strong enough duelists. Consider a solid all around Warblade vs a charger Barbarian who's pumped his ability to charge and his initiative. The latter could probably win in PvP, but the former is in a stronger Tier. This is because your tier is determined by how many areas your character can be useful/strong/dominating in that show up in play. PvP is just one area.


Tiers for D&D feels like Tier-ing fruit by which one is best. Citrus can fight off scurvy. Avacados have high protein. No one wants limes because lemons are better and do the same thing.

It's more like Tiering cars. Different cars have different uses, but some cars are just better at doing their job than others, and some cars can do the jobs of many.


Your number 3, PC power level unbalance, is not a unsolvable problem for me when I run games. I bring new people in and I play with people who've been playing for 20 years. Class Tier is not the most important roadblock with a player who is learning the game and feels useless. And it's not the number 1 killer of PCs.

No one ever said it was. Let's be clear, to avoid straw men: I created the system. I am telling you that tiers are not the most important roadblock with a player feeling useless. I am telling you it's not the number one killer of PCs.

Okay?

Now you don't have to argue about that anymore.

Tiers are a tool for determining relative power level and versatility of classes in real play, to avoid problems of players feeling useless or builds being too strong for a particular story or similar (for example, playing a CW Samurai when the Druid's Animal Companion is a better warrior than you sucks. Having your awesome plotline ruined because instead of running away from the big scary CR 20 dragon your Wizard cast Shivering Touch and one shotted him also sucks). But are classes the only thing that can do this? No. Can a low tier class be made up for with DM fudging, magic items, optimization, player skill, and so on? Yes, and this is actively suggested by the post I wrote right under the initial Tier System post. Can a higher tier class be made up for by players reining themselves in, DM house rules, gentlemen's agreements, spending resources on buffing the party, and similar? Yes, and the Tier System post also suggests that. Got that?

JaronK

[lsfreak]

LIE. Every DM you've played with has had different rules for XP bonuses for things like giving players rides, bringing food, role playing.
Thank you for calling me a liar. That's an excellent way of getting me to see your point of view.

Out-of-game concerns are just that, out-of-game. It has nothing to do with what goes on inside the game. If the rules are arbitrary inside the game, I will NOT be playing it.


I've been playing since Advanced. Currently in Pathfinder. I don't like paying $20 to unbalance my games.
Psionics is more balanced than Vancian. Both Pathfinder and 3.5 psionics are available free at their respective SRD's.


As explained in the spoiler, I run games that are balanced to where the most powerful characters can be one shot by complications beyond their abilities to overcome.
So you arbitrarily kill players for having characters that you feel are too powerful, without ever telling the players you feel they're too powerful. Uh...


Don't be stupid. New players need help.
Yes, which is what experienced players who KNOW the tiers can do. The experienced players can help the new players figure out what may or may not be good options, and they can build their own characters to make sure they don't overshadow anyone else.

EDIT: Tiers have been around for years. We've heard every argument possible against them on this board. You're not going to convince us we're wrong, and continuing to make poorly-reasoned arguments that tiers are useless is just going to continue to come across as antagonistic and/or ignorant.

[Soupz]

Actually, this is the first time I've seen someone ask what tier their character was. Note my response was essentially that this is a category error... Tiers do not apply to individual characters, but rather to classes. I was not the only one who said this.

So no, not "whenever anyone asks". One time.

I'm hoping that we're getting close to the end of this.


Absolutely false. For PvP, Tiers don't work quite right. Characters who are specialists in fighting in PvP might have very low versatility, and this be lower tier than generalists who would be good real play characters but not strong enough duelists. Consider a solid all around Warblade vs a charger Barbarian who's pumped his ability to charge and his initiative. The latter could probably win in PvP, but the former is in a stronger Tier. This is because your tier is determined by how many areas your character can be useful/strong/dominating in that show up in play. PvP is just one area.

It's more like Tiering cars. Different cars have different uses, but some cars are just better at doing their job than others, and some cars can do the jobs of many.

PVP games means PVP GAMES, not D&D, as in anything from Fighters to League to Magic the Gathering to whatever. In those games Tiers are meaningful data. When do you just fight players against each other in D&D?

We do have to balance our parties as DMs. The variable the players present is measured when that data is available. I run campaigns with players that have high and low skill. Tiers are not important because I can't balance the situation using it.

That's just where I'm coming from. The more universal point where anyone could be coming from is that campaign balance can only be checked after you have characters rolled up or while the game is in progress. The data at that point, which would be judged regardless of consideration of Tier, is more accurate than before characters have been created.

I don't see the point of putting great consideration into quantifying it. To measure Tier and meta is the difference between winning and losing in a PVP game. This is D&D. This is a game where we change the rules of the game to play the game. It's cowboys and indians, and the cowboys always win. The rest, even the numbers, is just dungeon dressing. All of the numbers and situations are purposefully scaled to the PCs to present a challenge.

I've done 40+ hours a week running numbers on other games to compete at a decent level. I know what it's like to crowdsource and have to judge obscenely minute differences and solve for variables that only mean something 0.5% of the time. I understand the effort that has gone into this.


No one ever said it was. Let's be clear, to avoid straw men: I created the system. I am telling you that tiers are not the most important roadblock with a player feeling useless. I am telling you it's not the number one killer of PCs.

Okay?

Now you don't have to argue about that anymore.

Tiers are a tool for determining relative power level and versatility of classes in real play, to avoid problems of players feeling useless or builds being too strong for a particular story or similar (for example, playing a CW Samurai when the Druid's Animal Companion is a better warrior than you sucks. Having your awesome plotline ruined because instead of running away from the big scary CR 20 dragon your Wizard cast Shivering Touch and one shotted him also sucks). But are classes the only thing that can do this? No. Can a low tier class be made up for with DM fudging, magic items, optimization, player skill, and so on? Yes, and this is actively suggested by the post I wrote right under the initial Tier System post. Can a higher tier class be made up for by players reining themselves in, DM house rules, gentlemen's agreements, spending resources on buffing the party, and similar? Yes, and the Tier System post also suggests that. Got that?

JaronK

The result I see is new players like OP using it as if it were PVP Tiers, players telling him and other players presenting builds that it won't be fun to play low Tier classes, even though that's a perfectly fine way to have a new players join the game.

I told OP Tier didn't matter, he could probably optimize better, and that I'd pretty much played a character like his and it was fun.

This has come up in threads before where people present builds and brews, ask for Tier, I tell them it doesn't matter and I get people who tell me it's proven that it does matter. I tell them it's an abstraction and fairly useless data. Eggynack and I have been back and forth before and will likely be back and forth again.

Spoiler for the rest. Because it's probably mostly just pointless tldr.

I could probably quantify that, to give players new to a situation less options will result in less failure and thus more enjoyment, and to give experienced players more options will result in more enjoyment and that if that is true, in regards to Tiers as judged by available options (read as solutions) we definitely need unbalance to solve the problem of lack of fun due to players having unevenly distributed options.

If you close the gap of available options by limiting and expanding the total available options regardless of the player you're limiting your ability to use unbalance to solve problems of unbalanced player skill.

I scale my games to the most skilled players and help the players who're behind.

I guess that would be similar to the way Extra Credits described using Foo strategies in their video, http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/balancing-for-skill, but it doesn't really concern itself with high skill as much as low skill.

I had some people in the thread tell me that 1st, 3rd, 9th level Wizards couldn't be killed except by things that were unfair and that if the game were scaled beyond that level it would be unfair. These people have a big misunderstanding of Tier as you've defined it and what being Tier 1 means and would definitely die of hubris in any game I run.

As for having my plotline ruined by high skill players in high Tier classes, it's been the opposite, their knowledge and creativity has made the games epic and I'd be doing them a disservice not to challenge them.

I blame disparity in player skill, not class power, as the reason why players feel useless. That, and the game isn't designed properly for high level.

There are tools in D&D that fix that. The more random a game is, the less player skill matters. This is by far NOT the most skill oriented game in the world. The DMs ability to change the rules as necessary. Not all games have an eraser built in.

The reason I dismiss Tier in build threads is that it doesn't matter to builds. The reason I dismiss Tier in brew threads is.. it's brew. Make whatever you want/need. Classes aren't supposed to be completely balanced. If they were, it'd be even worse than it is now, more skilled players would ALWAYS do more than less skilled players.



As for the rest of you, I'll torment you later with more replies if I get to it.

Someone commented that Psionics handbook was available online. No. Seriously, no laptops at the game. You'll just end up with people distracted online. The only plus is you usually get battle and victory music out of it.

[eggynack]

PVP games means PVP GAMES, not D&D, as in anything from Fighters to League to Magic the Gathering to whatever. In those games Tiers are meaningful data. When do you just fight players against each other in D&D?

We do have to balance our parties as DMs. The variable the players present is measured when that data is available. I run campaigns with players that have high and low skill. Tiers are not important because I can't balance the situation using it.

That's just where I'm coming from. The more universal point where anyone could be coming from is that campaign balance can only be checked after you have characters rolled up or while the game is in progress. The data at that point, which would be judged regardless of consideration of Tier, is more accurate than before characters have been created.

I don't see the point of putting great consideration into quantifying it. To measure Tier and meta is the difference between winning and losing in a PVP game. This is D&D. This is a game where we change the rules of the game to play the game. It's cowboys and indians, and the cowboys always win. The rest, even the numbers, is just dungeon dressing. All of the numbers and situations are purposefully scaled to the PCs to present a challenge.

I've done 40+ hours a week running numbers on other games to compete at a decent level. I know what it's like to crowdsource and have to judge obscenely minute differences and solve for variables that only mean something 0.5% of the time. I understand the effort that has gone into this.
I don't understand. Why would tiers be a useful tool in PvP games, and not a useful tool in D&D? If understanding tier is the difference between winning and losing in PvP, it's also the difference between being high power and low power in D&D. Are you saying that play skill isn't important in PvP games, or that the imbalance in D&D is less than in those games? Neither thing seems true to me. If you're saying that how powerful a given character is isn't important, I don't even think you believe that. You obviously do think it's important, because you feel the need to buff or nerf characters at any point. Other factors might be important, but ignoring the factor of class doesn't make much sense, given how big of a factor it is.

[SowZ]

I'm hoping that we're getting close to the end of this.



PVP games means PVP GAMES, not D&D, as in anything from Fighters to League to Magic the Gathering to whatever. In those games Tiers are meaningful data. When do you just fight players against each other in D&D?

We do have to balance our parties as DMs. The variable the players present is measured when that data is available. I run campaigns with players that have high and low skill. Tiers are not important because I can't balance the situation using it.

That's just where I'm coming from. The more universal point where anyone could be coming from is that campaign balance can only be checked after you have characters rolled up or while the game is in progress. The data at that point, which would be judged regardless of consideration of Tier, is more accurate than before characters have been created.

I don't see the point of putting great consideration into quantifying it. To measure Tier and meta is the difference between winning and losing in a PVP game. This is D&D. This is a game where we change the rules of the game to play the game. It's cowboys and indians, and the cowboys always win. The rest, even the numbers, is just dungeon dressing. All of the numbers and situations are purposefully scaled to the PCs to present a challenge.

I've done 40+ hours a week running numbers on other games to compete at a decent level. I know what it's like to crowdsource and have to judge obscenely minute differences and solve for variables that only mean something 0.5% of the time. I understand the effort that has gone into this.



The result I see is new players like OP using it as if it were PVP Tiers, players telling him and other players presenting builds that it won't be fun to play low Tier classes, even though that's a perfectly fine way to have a new players join the game.

I told OP Tier didn't matter, he could probably optimize better, and that I'd pretty much played a character like his and it was fun.

This has come up in threads before where people present builds and brews, ask for Tier, I tell them it doesn't matter and I get people who tell me it's proven that it does matter. I tell them it's an abstraction and fairly useless data. Eggynack and I have been back and forth before and will likely be back and forth again.

Spoiler for the rest. Because it's probably mostly just pointless tldr.

I could probably quantify that, to give players new to a situation less options will result in less failure and thus more enjoyment, and to give experienced players more options will result in more enjoyment and that if that is true, in regards to Tiers as judged by available options (read as solutions) we definitely need unbalance to solve the problem of lack of fun due to players having unevenly distributed options.

If you close the gap of available options by limiting and expanding the total available options regardless of the player you're limiting your ability to use unbalance to solve problems of unbalanced player skill.

I scale my games to the most skilled players and help the players who're behind.

I guess that would be similar to the way Extra Credits described using Foo strategies in their video, http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/balancing-for-skill, but it doesn't really concern itself with high skill as much as low skill.

I had some people in the thread tell me that 1st, 3rd, 9th level Wizards couldn't be killed except by things that were unfair and that if the game were scaled beyond that level it would be unfair. These people have a big misunderstanding of Tier as you've defined it and what being Tier 1 means and would definitely die of hubris in any game I run.

As for having my plotline ruined by high skill players in high Tier classes, it's been the opposite, their knowledge and creativity has made the games epic and I'd be doing them a disservice not to challenge them.

I blame disparity in player skill, not class power, as the reason why players feel useless. That, and the game isn't designed properly for high level.

There are tools in D&D that fix that. The more random a game is, the less player skill matters. This is by far NOT the most skill oriented game in the world. The DMs ability to change the rules as necessary. Not all games have an eraser built in.

The reason I dismiss Tier in build threads is that it doesn't matter to builds. The reason I dismiss Tier in brew threads is.. it's brew. Make whatever you want/need. Classes aren't supposed to be completely balanced. If they were, it'd be even worse than it is now, more skilled players would ALWAYS do more than less skilled players.



As for the rest of you, I'll torment you later with more replies if I get to it.

Someone commented that Psionics handbook was available online. No. Seriously, no laptops at the game. You'll just end up with people distracted online. The only plus is you usually get battle and victory music out of it.

I don't know why you are saying that in D&D constant PvP isn't very common and thus not very good for comparison. I mean, the post you responded to, (JaronK's,) was already saying that. That his tiers aren't meant for PvP at all.

[lsfreak]

Soupz, all you've proven with your latest post is that you have absolutely no idea what the term "tiers" means in the context of 3.X D&D. It's literally just a list of classes, with the classes that are the least flexible and least able to successfully fulfill their roll at the bottom marked "T6", and the most flexible, most game-breaking ones as "T1". You seem awfully hung up on the term "tiers" when it could just as easily be named something like "Categories of Flexibility By Class," from "Unlimited Flexibility" to "Extreme Focus."

On top of that, saying "tiers are PvP, therefore not for D&D" is really nonsensical considering there's these things called NPCs, and they *gasp* have classes!

[Soupz]

I don't know why you are saying that in D&D constant PvP isn't very common and thus not very good for comparison. I mean, the post you responded to, (JaronK's,) was already saying that. That his tiers aren't meant for PvP at all.

I was worried that leaving out the part JaronK was responding to would cause confusion. I left out the part I originally said and it's a bit confusing without it. In order, in spoiler.


Tier is absolutely important in PVP games. Straight Damage numbers, Utility, Counterplay. I love PVP and competition, but D&D is not competition.


Absolutely false. For PvP, Tiers don't work quite right. Characters who are specialists in fighting in PvP might have very low versatility, and this be lower tier than generalists who would be good real play characters but not strong enough duelists. Consider a solid all around Warblade vs a charger Barbarian who's pumped his ability to charge and his initiative. The latter could probably win in PvP, but the former is in a stronger Tier. This is because your tier is determined by how many areas your character can be useful/strong/dominating in that show up in play. PvP is just one area.


PVP games means PVP GAMES, not D&D, as in anything from Fighters to League to Magic the Gathering to whatever. In those games Tiers are meaningful data. When do you just fight players against each other in D&D?



I don't understand. Why would tiers be a useful tool in PvP games, and not a useful tool in D&D? If understanding tier is the difference between winning and losing in PvP, it's also the difference between being high power and low power in D&D. Are you saying that play skill isn't important in PvP games, or that the imbalance in D&D is less than in those games? Neither thing seems true to me. If you're saying that how powerful a given character is isn't important, I don't even think you believe that. You obviously do think it's important, because you feel the need to buff or nerf characters at any point. Other factors might be important, but ignoring the factor of class doesn't make much sense, given how big of a factor it is.

In any given PVP game 95%+ people don't know how to play. They do not stand a chance against someone who knows how to play and are basically not playing the game. If 400 people show up to a tournament, less than twenty have a chance of winning unless they were screened beforehand. Of those twenty, Tiers will tell you the meta by showing what is strongest and will most likely be played if you're able to calculate an edge of one pick over another pick. In a game where options can be Tiered you can play Top Tier, or a Counterpick, or Counter-counterpick if that kind of option is available, or Rogue if you've developed something outside normal expectations. Pick can mean meaningfully distinct strategy, option, character select, deck selection, army selected etc.

To anyone who disagrees with the 95% statement: remember, most people don't know how to play Monopoly. They don't trade, they give player loans or ignore debts, and give out money at Free Parking and then wonder why the game goes on for hours.

D&D is not a game of the top five percent players of not just roughly but, in a way that has been tested, almost exactly equally high skill playing with each other.

If you can guarantee equal player skill, yeah, Tier matters. It's objective and can be proven. I never have a D&D party of equal skill. Ever. People keep getting married and having kids and moving to Ohio.

I balance around the most skilled players and boost the rest and don't play high level. I gave a story about a game where the DM nerfed a player and the player took it well, but that was the one I played in with the character similar to OP. It's harder to take things away and I'd rather not risk it.

Consideration of player skill and results in game are more important to me than straight Tier because even you do use Tier in the planning stage, you still have to account for those later.

There's simply more important things to my campaigns. I'd outline the rules in a spoiler but I'm not sure it's that important to the subject. I wouldn't use Tier as a teaching tool for new DMs because I don't think new DMs should be reinventing the game before learning the game as is, even though we know there are problems.

If we were playing a straight miniatures wargame or something decidedly PVP something that wasn't a flexible roleplaying game I'd use Tiers. I mean, the fate of the campaign I'm running is going to be decided by decisions, conversations, and the ability to think of the campaign world as a dynamic and reactive. No saving throw. Then, everyone gets turned to stone for a hundred years if I can manage it and they see the results of their decisions. If I miss one I'm hoping it's an elf or someone who we can story into the future. If not, I'll wing it.

[SowZ]

I was worried that leaving out the part JaronK was responding to would cause confusion. I left out the part I originally said and it's a bit confusing without it. In order, in spoiler.




In any given PVP game 95%+ people don't know how to play. They do not stand a chance against someone who knows how to play and are basically not playing the game. If 400 people show up to a tournament, less than twenty have a chance of winning unless they were screened beforehand. Of those twenty, Tiers will tell you the meta by showing what is strongest and will most likely be played if you're able to calculate an edge of one pick over another pick. In a game where options can be Tiered you can play Top Tier, or a Counterpick, or Counter-counterpick if that kind of option is available, or Rogue if you've developed something outside normal expectations. Pick can mean meaningfully distinct strategy, option, character select, deck selection, army selected etc.

To anyone who disagrees with the 95% statement: remember, most people don't know how to play Monopoly. They don't trade, they give player loans or ignore debts, and give out money at Free Parking and then wonder why the game goes on for hours.

D&D is not a game of the top five percent players of not just roughly but, in a way that has been tested, almost exactly equally high skill playing with each other.

If you can guarantee equal player skill, yeah, Tier matters. It's objective and can be proven. I never have a D&D party of equal skill. Ever. People keep getting married and having kids and moving to Ohio.

I balance around the most skilled players and boost the rest and don't play high level. I gave a story about a game where the DM nerfed a player and the player took it well, but that was the one I played in with the character similar to OP. It's harder to take things away and I'd rather not risk it.

Consideration of player skill and results in game are more important to me than straight Tier because even you do use Tier in the planning stage, you still have to account for those later.

There's simply more important things to my campaigns. I'd outline the rules in a spoiler but I'm not sure it's that important to the subject. I wouldn't use Tier as a teaching tool for new DMs because I don't think new DMs should be reinventing the game before learning the game as is, even though we know there are problems.

If we were playing a straight miniatures wargame or something decidedly PVP something that wasn't a flexible roleplaying game I'd use Tiers. I mean, the fate of the campaign I'm running is going to be decided by decisions, conversations, and the ability to think of the campaign world as a dynamic and reactive. No saving throw. Then, everyone gets turned to stone for a hundred years if I can manage it and they see the results of their decisions. If I miss one I'm hoping it's an elf or someone who we can story into the future. If not, I'll wing it.

That's not really an argument against what the tier system claims, though. Jaron admits in his old post that the tier system breaks down the greater the optimization gap is between players.

[Soupz]

That's not really an argument against what the tier system claims, though. Jaron admits in his old post that the tier system breaks down the greater the optimization gap is between players.

It's not. Someone wanted to know why I didn't consider D&D Tiers as important as Tiers in PVP games.

It's an explanation of the differences between PVP Tiers and D&D Tiers, how PVP Tiers are necessary in that if it's ignored you're statistically unable to play. Even a 5% drop in win efficiency means you're out. It's not just about picking High Tier or playable options, you have to study ALL playable options because you won't beat any of the picks/strats/options unless you've played against them or better, as them, and know how and why to play.

It'd be like if because you didn't use Tiers you had to rebuy your books and lost your travel expenses to another state and weren't able to participate til the next game which you would always be statistically excluded from.

[SowZ]

It's not. Someone wanted to know why I didn't consider D&D Tiers as important as Tiers in PVP games.

It's an explanation of the differences between PVP Tiers and D&D Tiers, how PVP Tiers are necessary in that if it's ignored you're statistically unable to play. Even a 5% drop in win efficiency means you're out. It's not just about picking High Tier or playable options, you have to study ALL playable options because you won't beat any of the picks/strats/options unless you've played against them or better, as them, and know how and why to play.

It'd be like if because you didn't use Tiers you had to rebuy your books and lost your travel expenses to another state and weren't able to participate til the next game which you would always be statistically excluded from.

Alrighty. I don't think a 5% drop means you are out, though. In tournaments, people can and do win with A tier characters even if it isn't just a counterpick. Back in the old days of Melee, good players could go the distance with Marth and Falcon despite not being S tier. I'm not saying Samus or Mewtwo could have won, but still, even in fighting games tier isn't everything.

[eggynack]

Alrighty. I don't think a 5% drop means you are out, though. In tournaments, people can and do win with A tier characters even if it isn't just a counterpick. Back in the old days of Melee, good players could go the distance with Marth and Falcon despite not being S tier. I'm not saying Samus or Mewtwo could have won, but still, even in fighting games tier isn't everything.
The inverse is also true. In D&D 3.5, the difference between a druid and a fighter is just utterly ridiculous. There's no comparison there. Tiers in fighting games might actually tell you even less than they do in 3.5. In fighting games, they usually only tell you how games work at ultimate extremes of potential. In 3.5, there are wide bands in which tiers remain accurate. A reasonably well played druid will outperform a fighter who's played by an amazing D&D player, just due to simple access to options and versatility. Fighting tiers measure gameplay at the extremes, which make them good for tournament play. D&D tiers measure gameplay in most practical situations, which makes it good for ordinary D&D play. Using one to understand the other makes no sense, because they're basically completely unrelated.

[SowZ]

The inverse is also true. In D&D 3.5, the difference between a druid and a fighter is just utterly ridiculous. There's no comparison there. Tiers in fighting games might actually tell you even less than they do in 3.5. In fighting games, they usually only tell you how games work at ultimate extremes of potential. In 3.5, there are wide bands in which tiers remain accurate. A reasonably well played druid will outperform a fighter who's played by an amazing D&D player, just due to simple access to options and versatility. Fighting tiers measure gameplay at the extremes, which make them good for tournament play. D&D tiers measure gameplay in most practical situations, which makes it good for ordinary D&D play. Using one to understand the other makes no sense, because they're basically completely unrelated.

That's true a solid, (not tournament, but good,) SSB player should be able to defeat a casual player even if the good player is three of four tiers behind. Whereas a well optimized, (not crazy optimized, though,) CW Samurai shouldn't be able defeat the average T1 character even though the tier system isn't designed for PvP.

Those massive disparities do come up in fighting games, though. An average player with metaknight should still beat a good player stuck with Ganondorf.

[eggynack]

That's true a solid, (not tournament, but good,) SSB player should be able to defeat a casual player even if the good player is three of four tiers behind. Whereas a well optimized, (not crazy optimized, though,) CW Samurai shouldn't be able defeat the average T1 character even though the tier system isn't designed for PvP.

Those massive disparities do come up in fighting games, though. An average player with metaknight should still beat a good player stuck with Ganondorf.
That's possibly true. Still, I feel like a lot of that information is a bit extraneous to the actual purpose of the relevant systems. The tier system of fighting games is meant to measure tournament level play, and it often roughly describes lower level play incidentally. I'm sure that there are some situations where the tier system of a fighting game twists and turns at different levels of play, just like the one for D&D does at the ceiling and floor.

SoupZ's criticism of the tier system is that tier systems traditionally measure game play at the highest levels, while D&D, being a non-competitive game, doesn't need to measure that high level of play. However, such an argument ignores what the tier system actually does. What's important is knowing how the game works under ordinary conditions, and that's what the tier system helps with. It's a system designed to help with the situations which are most relevant to the game we play. Sure, there is some tier shifting at extreme levels of optimization, or non-optimization, but it tells us exactly what we want it to tell us.

[Komatik]

The druid can basically be the face, and the beat stick, and the healer, and the caster, and he can do all of those things simultaneously. Seriously, they can.

:smallconfused:
The rest is obvious, but face-druid doth confuse me.

[eggynack]

:smallconfused:
The rest is obvious, but face-druid doth confuse me.
There are a few things behind that, actually. They only have two required stats, so if a druid wants to, they can easily put points into charisma instead of the more traditional intelligence. They have diplomacy as a class skill, which is the major face skill, and wild empathy makes for a decent excuse to invest in it. They can't easily pick up the other synergy skills, but skilled city dweller from the Cityscape web enhancement gives them sense motive for survival, which is a pretty good trade.

Alternatively, they can pick up voice of the city in exchange for wild empathy (also from the cityscape web enhancement), get speak language as a class skill, as well as the ability to talk to some beings who you don't share a language with, and thus broaden your face powers. They also get access to a thousand faces, which seems to have decent potential for diplomatic situations, and they can even pick up intimidate through the rather amazing half-orc substitution levels. I don't know how much spell support there is for taking on a face role, but all of this stuff I've listed is rather low cost and incidental. You're never going to hit bard levels of facedom, or likely even rogue levels, but druids can fill the role if no one else is doing so, and they even have some ways to incentivize that route.

[Qwertystop]

:smallconfused:
The rest is obvious, but face-druid doth confuse me.

My best guess would be Eagle's Splendor plus having even less need for physical stats than other casters, freeing up your second and third best scores for Cha and Int (or points, if it's point-buy).

[Soupz]

Alrighty. I don't think a 5% drop means you are out, though. In tournaments, people can and do win with A tier characters even if it isn't just a counterpick. Back in the old days of Melee, good players could go the distance with Marth and Falcon despite not being S tier. I'm not saying Samus or Mewtwo could have won, but still, even in fighting games tier isn't everything.

I miss the old days of 3 lives, No Items, Final Destination, Fox v Fox.

Marth and Falcon have 70/30 matchups against some of the S Tier and if you played them you would have to spent the majority of your time practicing those matches. If you didn't study the likely matchups based on Tier you won't stand a chance. When using Samus or Mewtwo or any rogue fighter (I'm not sure if those are really considered rogue, I really wasn't the most serious SSBM player) you have to practice that fighter at the exclusion of all others.

Losing games happens. I'm not sure how it would be expressed in SSBM terms, but in Street Fighter if you were in a bad matchup you would try to set up a cross ups following a knockdown instead of doing normal damage combos that don't have knockdowns if you're behind in a match. It's more random. The opponent has to choose from a 50/50 on whether to block left or right. Like in Poker, if you're behind you play earlier bets before the flop is revealed. If you're ahead you play safer bets.

Tier lists are tools. Everyone is working on skill. You can overcome a common 70/30 matchup and bring it to maybe a 50/50 with practice (or you can take the loss). That's usually not my first choice, I'd rather do a counterpick vs common choices if it's possible unless I'm in a situation where I know little about the matchups and would do better with a Tier 1 pick.

A 5% winrate drop is only one in twenty games. Yeah, I agree with you; I think that was a bit harsh. It's probably more like a 10% drop moves you definitively out of contention. I'm not sure how much of an edge you would lose by ignoring Tiers and meta. I don't know anyone who stays competitive in a scene without studying.

D&D Tier lists are optional. I agree Tiers here are objective and definitive, and have said so in other threads, but I don't think they're the difference between being able to play or not in this social game with a randomized combat system used give structure to playing pretend with your buddies.

My situation that gives me such a venomous reaction to the concept of use of Tier in D&D is that I'm a muchkiny-Magic The Gathering-number crunching-completely math oriented jerk and I'm overwhelmed with the consideration of Tier as the first thing people bring up when they design a new character instead of backstory.


SoupZ's criticism of the tier system is that tier systems traditionally measure game play at the highest levels, while D&D, being a non-competitive game, doesn't need to measure that high level of play. However, such an argument ignores what the tier system actually does. What's important is knowing how the game works under ordinary conditions, and that's what the tier system helps with. It's a system designed to help with the situations which are most relevant to the game we play. Sure, there is some tier shifting at extreme levels of optimization, or non-optimization, but it tells us exactly what we want it to tell us.

Thanks for explaining my position concisely. I wouldn't say at the highest level of play necessarily, but at a level of play where all players have equal skill. It's something I haven't brought up, but anything with ladders or ratings matches players with 50/50 matchups after they've reached their correct level of play. Tier matters at that point because it's data will be accurate. If you can't guarantee skill equality of players then it's not necessarily useful.

If there was a traditional or mathematical way of explaining organized imbalance of a subjective situation as being an ideal response, I would explain it that way.

I mean, the problem we're trying to solve here is the "fun" level of the game.

[SowZ]

I miss the old days of 3 lives, No Items, Final Destination, Fox v Fox.

Marth and Falcon have 70/30 matchups against some of the S Tier and if you played them you would have to spent the majority of your time practicing those matches. If you didn't study the likely matchups based on Tier you won't stand a chance. When using Samus or Mewtwo or any rogue fighter (I'm not sure if those are really considered rogue, I really wasn't the most serious SSBM player) you have to practice that fighter at the exclusion of all others.

Losing games happens. I'm not sure how it would be expressed in SSBM terms, but in Street Fighter if you were in a bad matchup you would try to set up a cross ups following a knockdown instead of doing normal damage combos that don't have knockdowns if you're behind in a match. It's more random. The opponent has to choose from a 50/50 on whether to block left or right. Like in Poker, if you're behind you play earlier bets before the flop is revealed. If you're ahead you play safer bets.

Tier lists are tools. Everyone is working on skill. You can overcome a common 70/30 matchup and bring it to maybe a 50/50 with practice (or you can take the loss). That's usually not my first choice, I'd rather do a counterpick vs common choices if it's possible unless I'm in a situation where I know little about the matchups and would do better with a Tier 1 pick.

A 5% winrate drop is only one in twenty games. Yeah, I agree with you; I think that was a bit harsh. It's probably more like a 10% drop moves you definitively out of contention. I'm not sure how much of an edge you would lose by ignoring Tiers and meta. I don't know anyone who stays competitive in a scene without studying.

D&D Tier lists are optional. I agree Tiers here are objective and definitive, and have said so in other threads, but I don't think they're the difference between being able to play or not in this social game with a randomized combat system used give structure to playing pretend with your buddies.

My situation that gives me such a venomous reaction to the concept of use of Tier in D&D is that I'm a muchkiny-Magic The Gathering-number crunching-completely math oriented jerk and I'm overwhelmed with the consideration of Tier as the first thing people bring up when they design a new character instead of backstory.



Thanks for explaining my position concisely. I wouldn't say at the highest level of play necessarily, but at a level of play where all players have equal skill. It's something I haven't brought up, but anything with ladders or ratings matches players with 50/50 matchups after they've reached their correct level of play. Tier matters at that point because it's data will be accurate. If you can't guarantee skill equality of players then it's not necessarily useful.

If there was a traditional or mathematical way of explaining organized imbalance of a subjective situation as being an ideal response, I would explain it that way.

I mean, the problem we're trying to solve here is the "fun" level of the game.

Hmm, fair points. Oh, and I picked Mewtwo and Samus because they are such poorly designed characters, not because they are rogues. Samus can't do anything in one on one, (though she can actually be better in team matches because her ranged game can synergize with some folks,) whereas Mewtwo is so ludicrously slow that literally nothing else matters about his character.

Where tier is relevant in D&D is it gives you a general idea of options beyond just raw power. A Monk or Fighter can generally do one thing only, (and not that well,) and being able to say, "I charge the enemy and stab him!" is not really that interesting. Especially when that is the most engaging part of the game since you are useless outside of combat.

That's why I like to point people to more tactical combat classes or else homebrew the skill system to where everyone will have some skills they master. Options are more interesting, IMO. Not an overload of options, though. Just enough where in any given scenario there isn't one no brainer decision and where out of combat everyone can contribute.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Soupz, you seem to be functioning under a misunderstanding that relative power level of characters is only relevant in PvP. I would suggest googling 'Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit'. It is a perfect description of what my problem is, which you entirely ignored.

[Greenish]

A Monk or Fighter can generally do one thing only, (and not that well,)Monk can technically do many things:


Face: Diplomacy and sense motive as class skills.
Tank: Wis to AC, AC Bonus, decent HD.
Damage: Unarmed damage boosts, Flurry.
Scout: Fast Movement, Evasion, all good saves, Hide, Move Silently, Listen, and Spot as class skills.
Control: Stunning Fist/Imp. Grapple, Combat Reflexes, Imp. Disarm/Trip as bonus feats.
Cast: Cross-class UMD and partially charged wands.


They just suck at all of them. By contrast, Fighters can only fight (probably only with one specific style), and aren't that great at it.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Monk can technically do many things:


Face: Diplomacy and sense motive as class skills.
Tank: Wis to AC, AC Bonus, decent HD.
Damage: Unarmed damage boosts, Flurry.
Scout: Fast Movement, Evasion, all good saves, Hide, Move Silently, Listen, and Spot as class skills.
Control: Stunning Fist/Imp. Grapple, Combat Reflexes, Imp. Disarm/Trip as bonus feats.
Cast: Cross-class UMD and partially charged wands.


They just suck at all of them. By contrast, Fighters can only fight (probably only with one specific style), and aren't that great at it.

Fighters do better than monk at everything listed but Face and Scouting.

* Tank: Higher HD, gear AC scales higher than monk unarmed AC bonus.

* Damage: Unarmed Damage boosts and Flurry are nothing compared to Power Attack + Shock Trooper + Leap Attack. And hey, all three of those are bonus fighter feats.

* Control: Oh wait, so is EWP: Spiked Chain and Improved Trip. And a higher BAB, likely higher STR due to lower MAD to actually make it work.

* Cast: Fighters are just as good at cross-class UMD as monks, and are less MAD so they might actually have points to put in Cha.

[SowZ]

Monk can technically do many things:


Face: Diplomacy and sense motive as class skills.
Tank: Wis to AC, AC Bonus, decent HD.
Damage: Unarmed damage boosts, Flurry.
Scout: Fast Movement, Evasion, all good saves, Hide, Move Silently, Listen, and Spot as class skills.
Control: Stunning Fist/Imp. Grapple, Combat Reflexes, Imp. Disarm/Trip as bonus feats.
Cast: Cross-class UMD and partially charged wands.


They just suck at all of them. By contrast, Fighters can only fight (probably only with one specific style), and aren't that great at it.

Since the Monk should totally dump Charisma, has AC lower than a rogue, has d8 HD, has unarmed strikes that do no damage by virtue of flurries sucking and having no real way to boost damage, those control abilities are lackluster in the first case and can be done far better by a fighter, I don't think that counts.

Decent scouting abilities, sure.

Cross class UMD is irrelevant because literally anyone can do that. Plus, with few skill points, (Monks should have low int so 4 doesn't go far,) and crappy charisma, the monk will be worse at cross classing UMD than lots of other classes.