Tiers?

[Grizzled Gryphon]

I have been reading a bunch of the posts in here, and I notice reference to Tiers. Is there a post I am missing that explains this? I think that tier 1 is good, and it gets worse the higher the number...

[Flickerdart]

Google has the answer you seek (http://www.brilliantgameologists.com/boards/?topic=1002.0).

[The Trickster]

And for advanced reading;

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269440

Why Each Class is in it's Tier.

[TroubleBrewing]

And the well-choreographed Playground Tier Dance proceeds without issue. :smalltongue:

[A_S]

And the well-choreographed Playground Tier Dance proceeds without issue. :smalltongue:
Nobody has come into the thread saying "the tier system is wrong because in my game the monk did pretty well" or "I don't like the tier system because being a wizard isn't always the right thing to do" yet. Give it a page or two.

[RustyArmor]

Anytime I see a post with the word "tier" in it a small part of my soul dies and I hide under the bed.

[hymer]

Nobody has come into the thread saying "the tier system is wrong because in my game the monk did pretty well" or "I don't like the tier system because being a wizard isn't always the right thing to do" yet. Give it a page or two.


Anytime I see a post with the word "tier" in it a small part of my soul dies and I hide under the bed.

There ya go, A_S. I'll do my bit and engage:

@ RustyArmor: What about tiers is anathema to you?

[Ceaon]

And the well-choreographed Playground Tier Dance proceeds without issue. :smalltongue:


Nobody has come into the thread saying "the tier system is wrong because in my game the monk did pretty well" or "I don't like the tier system because being a wizard isn't always the right thing to do" yet. Give it a page or two.


Anytime I see a post with the word "tier" in it a small part of my soul dies and I hide under the bed.

There's no 'certainty' that a topic will turn vernomous. I'd say the first two posts are a great example of how to answer honest questions like this.

[Pluto!]

Nobody has come into the thread saying "the tier system is wrong because in my game the monk did pretty well" or "I don't like the tier system because being a wizard isn't always the right thing to do" yet. Give it a page or two.
Do you think you're being helpful?

[JaronK]

Eh, we all know the dance well enough by now. Anyway, the links are in, and if the OP reads those links (including the FAQ after!) it should be fine. But the main thing that always needs to be said is this (despite it also being in the FAQ): the tiers measure the mechanical abilities of classes only. And they're not about who's better or worse, they're about which classes provide the ability to solve the various encounters and effect the game world the most. If you want to play a game where the DM throws challenges at the PCs that are tailored for the PCs' abilities, you probably want a T4-5 game. If you want a game where the PCs turn into gods and warp reality at high levels, play a T1-2 game. But the main idea is that intraparty balance issues are often helped by playing classes that are near each other in the tiers.

JaronK

[EugeneVoid]

Remember to not get to tied up in the tier. It is entirely variable based on the game and the players.
As JaronK said, the only thing the tiers measure is mechanical options. For example, a fighter can't polymorph himself consistently without spending gratuitous sums of money.
It's a guideline based on medium-op. For example, Warlocks and Paladins get significantly better with good op. Generally T1s and T2s are easier to mess up (except for Druid).
T6 is where things are relatively useless (as in the class itself offers no options).

I've had games where I've performed better than the warblade as a monk, but only because I'm a better optimizer than him.
For me, it has been a generally useful resource.

Edit: The goal of the list is not too create tier envy, but to make one's potentially overpowered characters (relative to the party) more suitably strong for the party.

[AlltheBooks]

The Tiers are a great tool for people to understand the relationship the classes and their features have with the game and how it manifests. That said, the group and the player are the main factors. Have fun.

[Coidzor]

And the well-choreographed Playground Tier Dance proceeds without issue. :smalltongue:

Actually the fact that both of those got linked within the first two replies is pretty impressively good, really. Feels like it usually takes more posts to get the "Why each class is in its Tier" threads linked.


Anytime I see a post with the word "tier" in it a small part of my soul dies and I hide under the bed.

Even in non-D&D contexts, such as fighting games? For how long do you hide under the bed?

[A_S]

Do you think you're being helpful?
No, I thought I was being flippant. Is joking about how certain conversations in this forum tend to repeat themselves (in an already-answered thread) not an okay thing to do?

[Grizzled Gryphon]

Thanks for the links, that was really concise and easy to understand. I have to agree with the choices of which classes are in which tier, as well.

I guess my ignorance of computer use has caused yet another thread about something I could have looked up myself, if only I knew how. I am used to a built in search function. I am sure there must be a way to search for stuff on the boards, and NOT have to restart threads. If anyone could be so kind as to give me the "searching the boards for dummies" version, I can avoid this in the future.

[Kazyan]

Enter "site:giantitp.com" into Google, followed by your search term. For example, trying to find the tier system writeup would be "site:giantitp.com tier system".

[Chronos]

The board does have a built-in search function, but I think it's turned off right now, and even when it's turned on, it doesn't work nearly as well as Google. Plus, you needn't actually restrict a Google search to this board: A search for anything D&D-related will get a number of hits from this board, but also from other useful boards like the Wizards of the Coast forums and Brilliant Gameologists.

[Flickerdart]

When the search is turned on, it breaks the forum server. We do lose out on things like "find threads started by user" when using Google but it's not a huge deal.

[Grizzled Gryphon]

The board does have a built-in search function, but I think it's turned off right now, and even when it's turned on, it doesn't work nearly as well as Google. Plus, you needn't actually restrict a Google search to this board: A search for anything D&D-related will get a number of hits from this board, but also from other useful boards like the Wizards of the Coast forums and Brilliant Gameologists.

Its really that easy? You would think I would have found that out years ago...

Off to test it!! LOL!! Thanks for helping out the idiot!!

Wow. Quoted the wrong post...

[Ansem]

Nobody has come into the thread saying "the tier system is wrong because in my game the monk did pretty well" or "I don't like the tier system because being a wizard isn't always the right thing to do" yet. Give it a page or two.I'll do that for you.

Tiers are a 'theoretical' power assumption indexation, which is used in a lot of discussions to find out which is better. I'm one of the people who hold no value in it, for the fact that it doesn't matter how good it is on paper, it matters how you play it, how it works in actual play and what else you can do with it.
A tier 5 can easily kill a tier 1 and vice versa, prestige classes are not included and no half-decent player goes straight 20 in a base class.

So tiers are an indexation how much power they have on paper, but still that lowly Fighter can chop off the Wizards head due to his ****poor AC and squishy HP.

[hymer]

no half-decent player goes straight 20 in a base class.

I never knew you could measure a player's decency simply from whether s/he plays a multiclass character! I guess I should multiclass, especially my duskblade, my beguiler, and (Good Lord!) my druid! Then people can't tell I'm not half decent, what a relief.

[eggynack]

So tiers are an indexation how much power they have on paper, but still that lowly Fighter can chop off the Wizards head due to his ****poor AC and squishy HP.
Neither of these statements is all that accurate. First, tiers aren't really based entirely on power. Mostly, they're based on how many situations a given character is capable of participating in, and how meaningful that participation is. Power is only one axis of that measurement, and versatility is another one. Second, wizards aren't necessarily all that defenseless. Defenses like (greater) mirror image, abrupt jaunt, flight, invisibility, contingency, and any number of other things are often far more useful than AC and HP. Wizards are thus significantly less squishy than they appear to be, and fighters are significantly more squishy than they appear to be, because their defenses only apply against a direct damage dealing subset of enemies.

Edit: Also, as hymer noted, going 20 levels in a single class is often a valid maneuver. Also, the system specifically talks about the effect of multi-classing. If you want a tier system for PrC's, it's right here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5198.0). Not a perfect system, but PrC's are tricky to measure.

[Ansem]

There is no reason not to take a PrC, unless you really play in a predetermined low OP campaign.

[eggynack]

There is no reason not to take a PrC, unless you really play in a predetermined low OP campaign.
There are plenty of reasons not to PrC out. Mostly, you stay where you are because the class features of the base class are good, like in the case of the druid, beguiler, warblade, or swordsage. There are prestige class options for all of those classes, but staying where you are is a perfectly viable, and maybe even optimal, option.

[Yuki Akuma]

Druid has two optimal paths.

Druid 20, and Druid 10/Planar Shepherd 10.

Nothing else is as good as just going Druid 20.

[Amphetryon]

Druid has two optimal paths.

Druid 20, and Druid 10/Planar Shepherd 10.

Nothing else is as good as just going Druid 20.

Moonspeaker does come pretty close, though it's racially specific.

[johnbragg]

I'll do that for you.
So tiers are an indexation how much power they have on paper, but still that lowly Fighter can chop off the Wizards head due to his ****poor AC and squishy HP.

What Ansem is saying pretty heavily implies that Tiers are a theoretical-optimization construct, and that's not the full story at all.

The high-tier classes have capabilities that can make other classes unnecessary, without the Tier 1 player necessarily trying to do so. The low-op player with a Wizard who has Polymorph on the spell list can solve a ton of the party's problems--I played in a campaign with where the Wizard made it to about half the sessions, and the playstyle was night and day. When the Wizard wasn't there, the bard, the healbot cleric, the trickster cleric-rogue, the gadgeteer cleric-rogue actually contributed. (My teleporting Sorcerer aways had stuff to do, like spam Enervate and a homebrewed Magic Missile for 20 hp per shot (2 hp per caster level, cap at 10th level)).

[eggynack]

Druid has two optimal paths.

Druid 20, and Druid 10/Planar Shepherd 10.

Nothing else is as good as just going Druid 20.
I rather disagree on that one. Moonspeaker and lion of talisid are about as good as straight druid, owing to powerful class features in the former case, and being really similar to straight druid in the latter case. Also, I've been recently considering the possible optimization potential of taking short dips in classes that aren't used much. Animal companion advancement isn't that important at all later on, and you can still live a happy and fulfilling life without one or two wild shape levels, especially if you pick up an amulet of wild shape at some point.

For example, look at something like hathran (PGtF, 59), which is just a ridiculously powerful prestige class. Take it for one level, for the ability to spontaneously cast anything on your list, even if you're not within rashemen if you combine it with an acorn of far travel, or go a full five or ten levels for circle magic insanity. As a less cheesy example, consider a class like holt warden (CC, 84). You lose a single level of thing advancement, and in return you get an extra spell/day of every spell level, and they're pretty good spells too. I created a thread for the analysis of the topic here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=321993), and I think I got some solid results. However, despite all of that, druid 20 is still a perfectly optimal path to take.

[Grizzled Gryphon]

A tier 5 can easily kill a tier 1 and vice versa, prestige classes are not included and no half-decent player goes straight 20 in a base class.

Oops, you made a small goof, here. It should say "no half-decent optimizer goes straight 20 in a base class".

[aleucard]

To summarize, the Tier system analyzes a class' ability to function in a campaign and ranks them based on that, with lower numbers being more capable. If a given class is the hands-down ideal for a specific situation but that situation almost never comes up, then they're going to be ranked worse than someone who is at least useful in most situations. In order for a hyper-specialized class to be higher tier (and even then, the most they'll get is maybe T2), that situation has to come up all the time. For example, Warblades get this because being a melee master IS useful in almost all situations (and the ones where it isn't aren't gamebreakers, you CAN run and pretty effectively at that if needed). On the other hand, if you're only useful at several situations but never phenomenal, then the most you'll get is T3. The only points where power is a major consideration are when jumping between T3 and T2, and rarely between T2 and T1. T2 is where a class is able to break the game in specific ways if not worked around, and T1 is where they can start doing it by sneezing in the wrong way or asking themselves 'Hey, what'll happen if I do this?' Another way of thinking about it is about what the results would be if you screw up; all the worst a Warblade will do is cut off his own head, a Wizard can shatter reality with some bad luck.

[Rubik]

Oops, you made a small goof, here. It should say "no half-decent optimizer goes straight 20 in a base class".And even then it's wrong.

Psywar 20 and psion 20 are perfectly good builds, as are druid 20, artificer 20, factotum 20, warblade 20, crusader 20, swordsage 20 (all three with fixed stance progressions, anyway), bard 20, dread necromancer 20, and beguiler 20.

And the only thing "theoretical" about the tier system is that all of the players should be on even footing, optimization-wise, which may or may not be true in any case, but it's an assumption that needs to be made for any class comparison regardless.

[CIDE]

I think my only beef with the Tier system is that in a lot of games it's turned into a "let's ban the characters in these X tiers nao!" mentality for no reason other than how broken someone might make them. Even if said DM never had any particular issues with said class prior to reading the tier list or the players that stuck to those classes.

I'm not going to argue against the idea of banning classes in general. I just have issues wiht banning them because someone else said so or because of ignorance (such as banning ToB for being "over powered" but keeping Erudite, Artificer, Archivist, Wizard, Druid*, etc). But I digress; the tier system has instilled a series of thoughts into the minds of people of "Everything above X tier is too powerful" or "everything below Y tier is too weak" and I feel it stifles the creativity and fun in a given game.


*Oddly enough as I typed that I thought of how cool thematically it'd be for a wildshaping Initiator class.

[eggynack]

I'm not going to argue against the idea of banning classes in general. I just have issues wiht banning them because someone else said so or because of ignorance (such as banning ToB for being "over powered" but keeping Erudite, Artificer, Archivist, Wizard, Druid*, etc). But I digress; the tier system has instilled a series of thoughts into the minds of people of "Everything above X tier is too powerful" or "everything below Y tier is too weak" and I feel it stifles the creativity and fun in a given game.
But the tier system makes that not happen, because those ToB classes are listed lower than those casting classes. If you're going to ban classes, you could do worse than banning with the tier system as your guide.

[Gwendol]

CIDE has a point though; banning due to tiers (low/high) doesn't make much sense. Also, the differences between the tiers ARE muddled in practice due to multiclassing, level of optimization, playstyle, etc. Thus making the value of the ranking not always obvious. I like Person Man's Niche Ranking better: it holds more practical value for building heroes.

[EugeneVoid]

I'll do that for you.

Tiers are a 'theoretical' power assumption indexation, which is used in a lot of discussions to find out which is better. I'm one of the people who hold no value in it, for the fact that it doesn't matter how good it is on paper, it matters how you play [the class], how [the class] works in actual play and what else you can't do with [the class].
A tier 5 can't possibly kill a (half-decent) tier 1, prestige classes are not included for good reason, because they are extremely difficult to quantify on the basis of different entries, and no half-decent player goes straight 20 in a base class, except for the many, many exceptions where they do.

So tiers are an indexation how much power, versatility, and options they have on paper, but still that lowly Fighter can chop off the Wizards head due to his ****poor AC and squishy HP incredibly poor gameplay and roleplay. Seriously, a character with 30+ int is never going to surprised. A fighter without going through the Tippy-treatment (Monk dips, ex-fighter shenanigans like Protean or Aleax, etc) can't even get close to killing a wizard past level 11, unless they somehow manage to locate, surprise, and kill the wizard (which can be more difficult than imagined, because of sources of revenue, resurrections, clones, something to do with jars, souls, etc).

Alright, I fixed it. Excuse my grammar.

[Flickerdart]

the tier system has instilled a series of thoughts into the minds of people of "Everything above X tier is too powerful" or "everything below Y tier is too weak" and I feel it stifles the creativity and fun in a given game.
I see this idea being tossed around a lot - that somehow balance isn't "creative" or "fun", or is even antithetical to these concepts. I am yet to be convinced this is the case.

[eggynack]

CIDE has a point though; banning due to tiers (low/high) doesn't make much sense. Also, the differences between the tiers ARE muddled in practice due to multiclassing, level of optimization, playstyle, etc. Thus making the value of the ranking not always obvious. I like Person Man's Niche Ranking better: it holds more practical value for building heroes.
It certainly makes more sense than a good number of metrics, and it would avert the situation he's presenting as an outgrowth of the tier system. Level of optimization and playstyle are things that are pretty difficult for a system to measure, and multiclassing can use the tier system as a reasonable starting point for assessment. The niche system is nifty, certainly, but it doesn't seem that useful for constructing a ban list, especially because it fails in the places you cited. Also, it's kinda difficult to read, even now that it's been edited a bit for that purpose. Maybe adding extra niche lines to the table periodically, so that you can always see it and the numbers for a class at the same time would help.

[Ivanhoe]

... But the main thing that always needs to be said is this (despite it also being in the FAQ): the tiers measure the mechanical abilities of classes only. And they're not about who's better or worse, they're about which classes provide the ability to solve the various encounters and effect the game world the most. ...

This is something I do not quite understand. So the tier system says which classes have better abilities, but in your view that does not make them better or worse?
And therefore the tier system should not be used to recommend classes when players are looking for better or worse choices?
Sounds contradicting to me.

Or do you simply mean that players should try only classes in the same tier for their groups? In that case it would still basically say who's better or worse.
Otherwise the tier system looks like a great overall class guide, thanks for the effort!

[eggynack]

This is something I do not quite understand. So the tier system says which classes have better abilities, but in your view that does not make them better or worse?
And therefore the tier system should not be used to recommend classes when players are looking for better or worse choices?
Sounds contradicting to me.

Or do you simply mean that players should try only classes in the same tier for their groups? In that case it would still basically say who's better or worse.
Otherwise the tier system looks like a great overall class guide, thanks for the effort!
I think he means that a class being worse mechanically doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't play it. Some classes with the ability to participate in fewer situations are fun too, and some games work better if all the characters aren't flying around and shooting fireballs. "This class can't kill this dragon on its own," doesn't mean, "This class is bad, and you should feel bad." It just means, "This class can't kill this dragon on its own."

[Ivanhoe]

That makes sense, eggynack, thanks!

[TuggyNE]

This is something I do not quite understand. So the tier system says which classes have better abilities, but in your view that does not make them better or worse?

Some classes (mostly T1 and T2) suffer from having too much of a good thing: they are overcomplicated for many newbies to use properly, and have way too much potential in the hands of a carelessly-optimizing expert.

[johnbragg]

I see this idea being tossed around a lot - that somehow balance isn't "creative" or "fun", or is even antithetical to these concepts. I am yet to be convinced this is the case.

It's not that balance is unfun. It's that some players want to play certain hero-types, and being told "no you can't" is less fun than being told "go ahead."

If a player wants to play a general master-of-the-arcane arts, and Tier 1-2 is banned, there really isn't a Tier 3-4-5 replacement class. (It's easier to build a Tier 3 cleric replacement for the player who wants to play a Durkon-type).

Of course, playing a game where Hawkeye and Hawkman are supposed to pull their weight alongside Green LAntern and Iron Man is unfun in a different way.

[eggynack]

If a player wants to play a general master-of-the-arcane arts, and Tier 1-2 is banned, there really isn't a Tier 3-4-5 replacement class. (It's easier to build a Tier 3 cleric replacement for the player who wants to play a Durkon-type).

Really? I've always felt like it was the exact opposite, where the arcane casting is well represented outside of tiers one and two, and clerics have very little in the way of low tier versions. You're pretty much stuck with healer or something, while an arcane guy could be a beguiler, dread necro, warmage, warlock, bard, and some of the gishy classes like duskblade. You even get some arcane power with factotum. You're a bit more out of luck when it comes to doing everything ever, but that's what happens when you leave tier one, no matter how you do it.

[Jormengand]

Really? I've always felt like it was the exact opposite, where the arcane casting is well represented outside of tiers one and two, and clerics have very little in the way of low tier versions.

You can always steal Oracle (T2) and Inquisitor (T3) from PF.

[Karnith]

Really? I've always felt like it was the exact opposite, where the arcane casting is well represented outside of tiers one and two, and clerics have very little in the way of low tier versions.
Shugenja have a non-game-breaking/"bad" enough spell list and selection mechanic to be tier 3, don't they?

Though I suppose that they aren't exactly a close fit for "like a cleric, but..."

[johnbragg]

Really? I've always felt like it was the exact opposite, where the arcane casting is well represented outside of tiers one and two, and clerics have very little in the way of low tier versions. You're pretty much stuck with healer or something,

Well, I figure there are enough ACFs and splatbook stuff to rebuild a Paladin into a Durkon-ish type. I homebrewed up a cleric-replacement pretty quickly that was generally looked at as Tier 3 or 4 (depending on the domains).



while an arcane guy could be a beguiler, dread necro, warmage, warlock, bard, and some of the gishy classes like duskblade. You even get some arcane power with factotum. You're a bit more out of luck when it comes to doing everything ever, but that's what happens when you leave tier one, no matter how you do it.

I'm still working on a Tier 3-4 "do everything eventually", with a slower spell level progression but more lower level spells, but not having much success.

[Flickerdart]

It's not that balance is unfun. It's that some players want to play certain hero-types, and being told "no you can't" is less fun than being told "go ahead."

If a player wants to play a general master-of-the-arcane arts, and Tier 1-2 is banned, there really isn't a Tier 3-4-5 replacement class. (It's easier to build a Tier 3 cleric replacement for the player who wants to play a Durkon-type).

Of course, playing a game where Hawkeye and Hawkman are supposed to pull their weight alongside Green LAntern and Iron Man is unfun in a different way.
I would hesitate to say "general master of the arcane arts" is "a certain hero type" because "I can do all the things real good" is the broadest scope possible.

[johnbragg]

I would hesitate to say "general master of the arcane arts" is "a certain hero type" because "I can do all the things real good" is the broadest scope possible.

Point taken. "Arcane generalist"--a better buffer than the Warmage, a better enchanter/illusionist than the Dread Necromancer, better blaster than the Bard, etc. I think one-spell-level behind the full progression casters should work, but I can't get the details to work without well without being more complicated than a quick-fix class should be.

[Togo]

What Ansem is saying pretty heavily implies that Tiers are a theoretical-optimization construct, and that's not the full story at all.

The high-tier classes have capabilities that can make other classes unnecessary, without the Tier 1 player necessarily trying to do so. The low-op player with a Wizard who has Polymorph on the spell list can solve a ton of the party's problems--I played in a campaign with where the Wizard made it to about half the sessions, and the playstyle was night and day.

Making other characters unecessary is a style thing, not a class issue. I've seen the same situation with a diplomancer paladin. Many Tier 3 classes can manage the same within narrow bounds, and we're so used to Tier 4 style domination of particular scenes that it barely registers any more (in a combat where he can charge, how much does an ubercharger leave for the rest to do?) The reason why high Tier characters are considered high Tier is mainly because their flexibility allows them to do it more often than most, not just because they have a few broken powers.

Then again, like Ansem, I don't find the Tier system useful, mainly because it deals with theoretical power, rather than roles within the particular game I'm playing. EugeneVoid's post makes this point fairly well. Although he's disagreeing with Ansem, he's doing so by adding assumptions about the Tier1 characters that are reasonable for the games he's used to. Use different assumptions, and you get a different result.

[Talakeal]

Point taken. "Arcane generalist"--a better buffer than the Warmage, a better enchanter/illusionist than the Dread Necromancer, better blaster than the Bard, etc. I think one-spell-level behind the full progression casters should work, but I can't get the details to work without well without being more complicated than a quick-fix class should be.

Would that really be too hard? Just take a wizard and give him bard spell progression. Maybe bard spell progression +1-4 levels if you feel that is a bit underpowered, but I think it would probably be a good fit for a T3 character as is.

[Amphetryon]

Point taken. "Arcane generalist"--a better buffer than the Warmage, a better enchanter/illusionist than the Dread Necromancer, better blaster than the Bard, etc. I think one-spell-level behind the full progression casters should work, but I can't get the details to work without well without being more complicated than a quick-fix class should be.

It's hard to get it to work because you're asking for a Class that's better than all of the middle-of-the-road caster Classes at their individual shticks. I'm not sure why it's hard to see that this is fundamentally a request to be the strongest member of the party, in a campaign where the DM is asking the group to work toward more parity in power levels.

[Talakeal]

It's hard to get it to work because you're asking for a Class that's better than all of the middle-of-the-road caster Classes at their individual shticks. I'm not sure why it's hard to see that this is fundamentally a request to be the strongest member of the party, in a campaign where the DM is asking the group to work toward more parity in power levels.

I think you are misreading him. He is asking to be worse than they are at their own individual shticks, but better than they are at other people's shticks.

So he would be a worse necromancer than the dread necromancer, but a better blaster than the dread necromancer
He would be a worse blaster than the war-mage, but a better necromancer than the war-mage.

[johnbragg]

It's hard to get it to work because you're asking for a Class that's better than all of the middle-of-the-road caster Classes at their individual shticks. I'm not sure why it's hard to see that this is fundamentally a request to be the strongest member of the party, in a campaign where the DM is asking the group to work toward more parity in power levels.

No, the "Arcane Generalist" would be worse than the Tier 3 fixed-list casters at their specialties, but would be second-best (or third-best) at everything. The Beguiler is a better illusionist and enchanter, but the Generalist is a better blaster than the Beguiler. Meanwhile the Warmage is a better blaster, but the Generalist is a better enchanter and illusionist.

EDIT: ninja'd by Talakeal.

[CIDE]

I see this idea being tossed around a lot - that somehow balance isn't "creative" or "fun", or is even antithetical to these concepts. I am yet to be convinced this is the case.

The idea of balance can be creative and fun. But if say...Tier 1, 2, and 5 are banned your list of potential builds has been reduced so drastically you may not be able to build or play the particular character you wanted to play. A tier 5 character can be balanced through optimization, PrC's, and multiclassing to a tier 3 game. Likewise play style for a tier 1 can match that class to a tier 3 game. Anyone doing the banning is stifling creativity. Sure, you can still do alot with Tier's 3 and 4. There are however still builds, character concepts, and ideas you still can't replicate. Convinced or not that's still what's happening. Especially since banning isn't always enough for balance.


But the tier system makes that not happen, because those ToB classes are listed lower than those casting classes. If you're going to ban classes, you could do worse than banning with the tier system as your guide.

My contention with things like ToB getting banned and Wizards/Druids/etc not wasn't with the tier system. Sorry if I made it sound that way.


I think he means that a class being worse mechanically doesn't mean that you can't or shouldn't play it. Some classes with the ability to participate in fewer situations are fun too, and some games work better if all the characters aren't flying around and shooting fireballs. "This class can't kill this dragon on its own," doesn't mean, "This class is bad, and you should feel bad." It just means, "This class can't kill this dragon on its own."

That doesn't mean that particular line of reasoning is used across the board. I've run into plenty of DM's that want to slap a banhammer on a weak but cool class (Monk, Truenamer), or force me to take an alternative (Unarmed swordsage), or worse a homebrew fix (I hate homebrew classes for personal use). All on the merit that X low tier classes are "useless". Not weaker, less useful, etc. Just plain useless.

Sure, if all these Dm's went with your logic? fine. But they don't.



Of course, playing a game where Hawkeye and Hawkman are supposed to pull their weight alongside Green LAntern and Iron Man is unfun in a different way.

At least Black Widow has a nice and high "charisma" score. :smallbiggrin:


I would hesitate to say "general master of the arcane arts" is "a certain hero type" because "I can do all the things real good" is the broadest scope possible.

The "general master of arcane arts" could imply the bookish and intelligent plain dude. Which in some ways thematically is more fun to play than the person that's inbred with said powers or had to make a deal to get powers. A majority of the Arcane casters follow the latter.

Likewise, simply having a broad understanding of the arcane arts doesn't constitute a powerful class immediately. A class for example that works like a wizard and can learn stuff without limit may also only be able to reach level 6 spells. He still fits that 'general master of arcane arts' without the insane brokenness potential.


I think you are misreading him. He is asking to be worse than they are at their own individual shticks, but better than they are at other people's shticks.

So he would be a worse necromancer than the dread necromancer, but a better blaster than the dread necromancer
He would be a worse blaster than the war-mage, but a better necromancer than the war-mage.

This is how I read the intent too.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'll do that for you.

Tiers are a 'theoretical' power assumption indexation, which is used in a lot of discussions to find out which is better. I'm one of the people who hold no value in it, for the fact that it doesn't matter how good it is on paper, it matters how you play it, how it works in actual play and what else you can do with it.
A tier 5 can easily kill a tier 1 and vice versa, prestige classes are not included and no half-decent player goes straight 20 in a base class.

So tiers are an indexation how much power they have on paper, but still that lowly Fighter can chop off the Wizards head due to his ****poor AC and squishy HP.
This "critique" of the tier listings (it's really not a system) is, unfortunately, the more common type.

It's completely rooted in nonsense. It shows a nearly stunning lack of understanding of what the tiers actually mean and a genuinely stunning lack of understanding of caster optimization.

You can't meaningfully critique something you don't understand.

I think my only beef with the Tier system is that in a lot of games it's turned into a "let's ban the characters in these X tiers nao!" mentality for no reason other than how broken someone might make them. Even if said DM never had any particular issues with said class prior to reading the tier list or the players that stuck to those classes.

I'm not going to argue against the idea of banning classes in general. I just have issues wiht banning them because someone else said so or because of ignorance (such as banning ToB for being "over powered" but keeping Erudite, Artificer, Archivist, Wizard, Druid*, etc). But I digress; the tier system has instilled a series of thoughts into the minds of people of "Everything above X tier is too powerful" or "everything below Y tier is too weak" and I feel it stifles the creativity and fun in a given game.


*Oddly enough as I typed that I thought of how cool thematically it'd be for a wildshaping Initiator class.

This, on the other hand, is a valid concern.

Some have, indeed, taken the tier listings as value judgements and will outright ban things unnecessarily.

The worst offender is banning T1's when the problem lies in a handful of specific spells; spells that do appear on T2 lists and even on some T3 and lower lists and that can be acquired, in effect if not in name, by certain PrC's or even feats and items.

The banning of lower tiers, generally 5&6, is also woefully short-sighted. Such bannings assume that no one will be up to, or aware of, the challenge of building and playing those classes at a competitive level next to T1&2 builds or that the players of the T1&2 classes will be unwilling or unable to avoid completely overshadowing the lower tier classes.

[Amphetryon]

No, the "Arcane Generalist" would be worse than the Tier 3 fixed-list casters at their specialties, but would be second-best (or third-best) at everything. The Beguiler is a better illusionist and enchanter, but the Generalist is a better blaster than the Beguiler. Meanwhile the Warmage is a better blaster, but the Generalist is a better enchanter and illusionist.

EDIT: ninja'd by Talakeal.

Fascinating. Apparently, by "a better buffer than a Warmage" etc, you meant "a worse blaster than a Warmage" etc. My apologies for not realizing the words you used meant what you indicate above.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Fascinating. Apparently, by "a better buffer than a Warmage" etc, you meant "a worse blaster than a Warmage" etc. My apologies for not realizing the words you used meant what you indicate above.

Reread the post, Amph. He never said that. He hasn't edited the post and it clearly says a better -buffer- than a warmage.

[Amphetryon]

Reread the post, Amph. He never said that. He hasn't edited the post and it clearly says a better -buffer- than a warmage.

He never said "Better buffer than a Warmage?" (which is what my post says) or he did? Or, do you need to re-read my post, as you quoted it?

[Kelb_Panthera]

I'd've sworn that said blaster when I clicked the quote button. :smallconfused:

My apologies. :smallredface:

[johnbragg]

Fascinating. Apparently, by "a better buffer than a Warmage" etc, you meant "a worse blaster than a Warmage" etc. My apologies for not realizing the words you used meant what you indicate above.

Well, the Generalist should be both a better buffer AND a worse blaster than the Warmage, because the Warmage doesn't have any buff spells and the Generalist does.

If someone came up with a Tier 3 fixed-list buff specialist, he'd be better at buffing than the Generalist, but the Generalist would be better at blasting.

The fixed-list casters are better at their specialties because they have a faster spell progression, so at the level where the Warmage is tossing out fireballs and the Beguiler starts combat with a haste spell, the Generalist is choosing between scorching rays and cats' grace. But the Generalist would also have the option of Resist Energy.

[The Trickster]

Nobody has come into the thread saying "the tier system is wrong because in my game the monk did pretty well" or "I don't like the tier system because being a wizard isn't always the right thing to do" yet. Give it a page or two.

They should call you Nostradamus.


I think my only beef with the Tier system is that in a lot of games it's turned into a "let's ban the characters in these X tiers nao!" mentality for no reason other than how broken someone might make them. Even if said DM never had any particular issues with said class prior to reading the tier list or the players that stuck to those classes.

I'm not going to argue against the idea of banning classes in general. I just have issues wiht banning them because someone else said so or because of ignorance (such as banning ToB for being "over powered" but keeping Erudite, Artificer, Archivist, Wizard, Druid*, etc). But I digress; the tier system has instilled a series of thoughts into the minds of people of "Everything above X tier is too powerful" or "everything below Y tier is too weak" and I feel it stifles the creativity and fun in a given game.


*Oddly enough as I typed that I thought of how cool thematically it'd be for a wildshaping Initiator class.


This "critique" of the tier listings (it's really not a system) is, unfortunately, the more common type.

It's completely rooted in nonsense. It shows a nearly stunning lack of understanding of what the tiers actually mean and a genuinely stunning lack of understanding of caster optimization.

You can't meaningfully critique something you don't understand.


This, on the other hand, is a valid concern.

Some have, indeed, taken the tier listings as value judgements and will outright ban things unnecessarily.

The worst offender is banning T1's when the problem lies in a handful of specific spells; spells that do appear on T2 lists and even on some T3 and lower lists and that can be acquired, in effect if not in name, by certain PrC's or even feats and items.

The banning of lower tiers, generally 5&6, is also woefully short-sighted. Such bannings assume that no one will be up to, or aware of, the challenge of building and playing those classes at a competitive level next to T1&2 builds or that the players of the T1&2 classes will be unwilling or unable to avoid completely overshadowing the lower tier classes.

I agree that it is silly to ban a class just because of its tier ranking, but I don't blame that on the Tier system. I blame that on the people who don't understand what the system represents, and therefor use it the wrong way.