What's your favorite tier and why?

[G.Cube]

What's your favorite tier of classes, and what appeals to you about that tier?

I enjoy Tier 4 classes. They -might- be good at only one thing, some of them have options to do other things, but not very well. This forces me to really think about a problem a DM might throw at me, and get creative with the tools I have at hand. It's just fun trying to over come the weaknesses of an almost proper balanced-class.

[The Trickster]

I suppose T3, although I have played many games where classes of multiple tiers were together and everything went alright (although it is fair to note that my group is full of experienced players who know what's powerful and what isn't).

I like characters that fill a niche role, but can mechanically do something else when I can't do that niche role, without overshadowing anyone else in their role. Sounds like T3 to me.

[NotScaryBats]

I like all the tiers, and don't really have a favorite. If I had to pick, I think Tier 1 is cool, because I enjoy customizing spell lists, wizards and clerics are super cool, and if you do happen to have the right spell for the job, it is very rewarding to be all "I cast Dark Way, and now let's just walk over the castle's moat and walls"

Of course, maneuvers and other mechanics are similar to this, even at lower tiers.

[Rejusu]

Tier three or four. They're the most fun to optimise and have cool abilities that are more than just spell casting.

[Yorrin]

T3-T4 for me as well. Some of my favorite classes include Dread Necro, Bard, Binder, Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Totemist, and ToB classes. And Cleric, if I'm reaching up into the higher tiers.

I mostly play with people who play T4, though they'll occasionally roll a poorly played full caster. Fortunately they've been open to suggestions on how to lightly optimize their favorite classes, so I can play most of my character concepts without overshadowing them.

[eggynack]

I like tier one. Prepared casters just appeal to me. I especially like druids, but wizards are cool also.

[Silva Stormrage]

Probably tier 3/2, tier one requires me to think too much about not overshadowing people while tier 2 and 3 give me nice options. But still it depends on the class/build more than the tier.

[Gwendol]

I don't consider tiers at all when building characters, but looking at my current crop it spans T5-T1 (knight, daring outlaw, ranger/ bard, bardsader, warmage, cleric). They're all fun, but different.

[Dread_Head]

Tier 3 mostly due to it having most of my favourite classes in it. Bard, Factotum, Binder, Incarnate, Totemist, Beguiler and Wildshape Ranger are all awesome.

[shadow_archmagi]

I like 2. I like having a bit more oomph than Tier 3 offers, while not having enough flexibility that there's an obvious, 100% solution like at Tier 1. Playing a Sorcerer means picking a few multipurpose powers and then trying to figure out how to apply them to any given situation.

[prufock]

It depends on the style of game/setting, really. I like playing strong T1 and T2 casters in a high-magic setting, where we'll be dealing with similarly-styled foes. In a more gritty, low-magic style game, I can enjoy playing a T4 or even T5 "everyman" type.

I'd say in general, though, I aim for T3 (or from high T4 to low T2); that's the power level I shoot for when designing/redesigning my own classes. Everyone feels useful in most situations, but no one overshadows the others. There are still plenty of options in practical play, character design, even optimization, but usually no one character does everything better than the classes that are supposed to focus on that thing.

[zephyrkinetic]

I have heard reference to this concept, but have yet to fully understand it. Can someone explain what is meant by Tiers?

[Lord_Gareth]

T3 - easy to balance on both sides of the screen.

[Zanos]

T1, because if there's something I want to get done, I can accomplish it in some fashion.

[Komatik]

Tier 1. Mostly because it has Druids, and I love Druids, flavour and versatility both. Spontaneous variants are interesting, too.

After that, I'd guess T3, because it contains Warblade, Binder, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer and other such awesomeness.

[Lord_Gareth]

I have heard reference to this concept, but have yet to fully understand it. Can someone explain what is meant by Tiers?

Tiers are a measure of a class's versatility and theoretical power level, assuming that everyone at the table has equal levels of optimization. They do not tell you what class to play, only what to expect when playing or DMing for a class. They roughly break down as follows:

T1 - Multiple methods of completely redefining the campaign setting that they can change on the fly. T1 classes have a striking and effective solution to any problem, sometimes including such absurd stuff as, "So how do I turn myself into a sapient planet?"

T2 - One or two ways of doing the above, which are difficult or impossible to change.

T3 - A clear and strongly executed specialty, with the ability to participate outside of that specialty.

T4 - Either sorta-kinda does everything, or does ONLY ONE THING really well.

T5 - Does only one thing, and is really bad at it.

T6 - Monks and commoners.

[G.Cube]

I have heard reference to this concept, but have yet to fully understand it. Can someone explain what is meant by Tiers?

JaronK's tier (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=658.0) system for classes

and

Why each class is in it's tier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269440)

[Komatik]

I have heard reference to this concept, but have yet to fully understand it. Can someone explain what is meant by Tiers?

Basically, it's a system for rating classes on power and the versatility the class allows for any individual character.

T1&T2 are classes that are capable of breaking the game, world, campaign or all three. T1 is hyperversatile and can often change what it does day to day, T2 is usually stuck to certain options in the character building phase. Wizard and Sorcerer are the easy go-to examples of T1 and T2, respectively. Druid doesn't really break the game the way a full caster with the Wiz/Sorc list can, it just plays D&D, every aspect of it, with supreme power and flexibility.

T3 classes tend to be generally competent. Good at doing one thing, ok at contributing in other ways. A definite power gap from T1/T2. Classic examples include ToB classes, Factotum, two of the themed sorcerer classes (Beguiler/DreadNecro), and so on.

T4 classes lack in versatility, but can be competent at a single task - sometimes even overwhelmingly, near brokenly so, but that focus is kind of narrow and they tend to mostly twiddle their thumbs. Barbarian is a good example, as is Rogue, and Fighter with some ACFs.

T5 and on are just general incompetents. Classic example being the Monk: Tons of features, none really strong, and many key ones contradict each other - movement speed boost, except you'd really want to full attack, and so on. Full Feather Fall near a wall at level 20? Uh, sure...

[Zirconia]

I liked T1 (Wizards and Clerics) before I heard about the tier system and started reading the forums. Now I realize I'm going to have to (1) start discussing some house rules with the DM to make sure the campaign doesn't get out of hand, and (2) not implement some things I had been contemplating, because they would force him to scale up encounters so that the rest of the group would start really struggling. . . :/

[Hiro Protagonest]

Nobillis. :smallamused:

[zephyrkinetic]

Basically, it's a system for rating classes on power and the versatility the class allows for any individual character.

T1&T2 are classes that are capable of breaking the game, world, campaign or all three. T1 is hyperversatile and can often change what it does day to day, T2 is usually stuck to certain options in the character building phase. Wizard and Sorcerer are the easy go-to examples of T1 and T2, respectively. Druid doesn't really break the game the way a full caster with the Wiz/Sorc list can, it just plays D&D, every aspect of it, with supreme power and flexibility.

T3 classes tend to be generally competent. Good at doing one thing, ok at contributing in other ways. A definite power gap from T1/T2. Classic examples include ToB classes, Factotum, two of the themed sorcerer classes (Beguiler/DreadNecro), and so on.

T4 classes lack in versatility, but can be competent at a single task - sometimes even overwhelmingly, near brokenly so, but that focus is kind of narrow and they tend to mostly twiddle their thumbs. Barbarian is a good example, as is Rogue, and Fighter with some ACFs.

T5 and on are just general incompetents. Classic example being the Monk: Tons of features, none really strong, and many key ones contradict each other - movement speed boost, except you'd really want to full attack, and so on. Full Feather Fall near a wall at level 20? Uh, sure...

Ah! Thanks.

In that case, Tiers 4 and 5 are the most fun.

[Bigbeefie]

My favorite is a T1 cleric.

But if I dont roll a cleric I usually drop down to play around tier 3. Anything lower i tend to get bored because i can typically only do 1 thing well. Other situations become just a bad time. I tend to not like feeling useless.

[Zanos]

I liked T1 (Wizards and Clerics) before I heard about the tier system and started reading the forums. Now I realize I'm going to have to (1) start discussing some house rules with the DM to make sure the campaign doesn't get out of hand, and (2) not implement some things I had been contemplating, because they would force him to scale up encounters so that the rest of the group would start really struggling. . . :/
You have to remember that classes have optimization floors and ceilings. The floor for many of the T1 classes is incredibly low, simply because there are a lot of bad spells. A barbarian usually will be T4 since "hit with sword" is pretty straightforward, but it's not hard to make a wizard who contributes less to the party than a barbarian. WoTC has been doing it for years.

[Mithril Leaf]

For world building and theorycrafting, tier 1.
For general building, high 3, low 2.
For play as a DM, mid to high 3.

[Forrestfire]

I enjoy playing tier 2s and 3s generally. I enjoy spellcasters, and when I don't play a spellcaster I like to be able to do lots of stuff.

I sorta enjoy wizards... Except that every time I've played one in the recent past, I've ended up using Focused Specialist and pretending to be a sorcerer with more spells known.

[Ansem]

Despite how awful tierlists are, from their indexation I have to say either tier 2 or 3.
I've never had a Wizard outperform my Sorcerer and my all favourite class is a Dread Necromancer.

[Komatik]

Despite how awful tierlists are, from their indexation I have to say either tier 2 or 3.
I've never had a Wizard outperform my Sorcerer and my all favourite class is a Dread Necromancer.

Why are they awful?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Why are they awful?

Because anecdotes trump calculations and various hypothetical scenarios. Apparently.

If you want an explanation for exactly how each class is its tier (and some of them are disputed, but wizard is not one of them), there are people who have better system mastery than me. Basically, all the full casters (or the majority; Healer is just weak until you get Gate) have skill floors as low as the fighter but skill ceilings far higher. And certain people are better with certain classes, there are excellent sorcerer players who won't know how to make a wizard as good or better as the sorcerer.

[G.Cube]

Despite how awful tierlists are, from their indexation I have to say either tier 2 or 3.
I've never had a Wizard outperform my Sorcerer and my all favourite class is a Dread Necromancer.

There's a Storm(wind) (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2861636) brewing on the horizon....

[Hiro Protagonest]

There's a Storm(wind) (http://community.wizards.com/content/forum-topic/2861636) brewing on the horizon....

How well the classes are played doesn't have to do with the Stormwind fallacy.

If he had said that it stifles roleplaying, that would be the fallacy.

[Coidzor]

T3, even if it's not my forte, I can help out in some way, rather than being left twiddling my thumbs up my ass.

T4 comes in second, since there, if it's handled right, using every character's specialties and secondaries to full effect can be a pleasing puzzle once a plot comes together. Aside from half-baked schemes to simultaneously steal the Pact Primeval from all three locations where it's stored, I feel it's the minimum tier to really have a credible Ocean's Eleven-esque heist/plot/caper/thing. (edit: Definitely prefer the higher end of T4 though.)

After that, probably T1 or T5 for sheer exploration for the former and for minions/assistants for the latter.

[CIDE]

Tier's 2 and 3 depending on the game style. Tier 2's I reserve mostly for high OP games. Even if I can't keep up with the 1's most of the games I've been in don't have T1's anyway. T3's are just easy to adjust to party levels. I've succesfully played a t3 class in a t5 party without any disparity if I play it right and in low-mid OP I've played T3's with T1 and T2 classes.

[Shining Wrath]

Probably gestalt of two Tier 3, 4, 5 classes. Although my next character is going to be a sorceress, in part because my current one is a ...

gestalt.

[Know(Nothing)]

Part of what makes the game fun for me is the teamwork and synergy you get with a well-played party.

1's and 2's just make combat, and every other kind of challenge, a trivial ball-hog situation where anyone who isn't 1 or 2 is utterly superfluous. 4's and 5's, unless optimized particularly well, often need help from others just to not be an actual liability to the party, and in doing so end up draining resources for little to no return.

We've been running a T3 campaign, and we have the best team cohesion I've ever seen, because everyone needs each other. You never feel useless, you never feel like you're doing all the work-- it's perfect. It's even a deliberately evil campaign, and we have better teamwork than the goody-two-shoesiest parties I've played in the past. So much fun.

[cosmicAstrogazr]

T1, for a number of reasons:


I like BFC.
I like options.
I like futzing with spell lists.
Decades of banging my head agains low-level, low-power, low-op walls have left me frustated and power-hungry. :smalltongue:


...also, you know, most of my favourite fictional characters are spellcasters or gishes, most of my character concepts are somehow magicky...

That said, I do my best to not overshadow the rest of the party; I have no problem 'playing to' a lower tier, but I find it comforting to have that 'the party's ****ed, time to get everyone the hell out of here' button, even if I never use it.

[Feilith]

In Lower Op play I like T2, Making a melee brute Favored soul who can do a little buffing for himself, making a blasty sorcerer who just wants to see it all burn.

But if I'm going to try to make a DM throw books I personally like starting with T3 and T4 classes. Warblades and Spellthieves are my favorite to build with

[Shining Wrath]

I have heard reference to this concept, but have yet to fully understand it. Can someone explain what is meant by Tiers?

JaronK's diary on tiers (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=266559)

Effectively, a Tier 1 class has a variety of powerful tools for problem solving.
A Tier 2 class has fewer tools than Tier 1, but they are still powerful.
A Tier 3 class has less powerful tools; in general, they lack a "win" button, but are still flexible.
A Tier 4 class has good but not great tools in one or two areas.
A Tier 5 class doesn't have any really good tools for anything, sometimes they have many poor tools
A Tier 6 class is pretty much impossible to play effectively. If you are mixed with higher Tiers, you'll feel lame most of the time. An entire party of Tier 6 requires the DM to use lower CR encounters.

This diary (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269440) justifies the ranking of each class.

This diary by PersonMan (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314701) evaluates every base class for its suitability for filling various niches.

[OldTrees1]

Tier 3:

I can play as the specialist while still contributing at other things or I can play the 1-man party without outshining any of the specialists. Furthermore I don't have to deal with the temptation of the preexisting "I win" buttons of Tiers 1-2.

[Eldonauran]

I don't have a favorite 'tier'. The classes I like to play run the gauntlet of all the tiers and I play them well enough to hold their own in any category.

If we limit the choice to which tier I usually end up playing, then my answer would be tier 1. Generally, I play a support oriented spellcaster and I excel at it, by necessity. That means druid, cleric, wizard, etc. I usually do something completely against optimization when I do so, such as play a mystic theurge without early entry shenanigans, or trade away wildshaping/animal companion as a druid for something else. This effectively drops me to a Tier 2 and lowers my available power level, though leaves me a good bit more versatility.

I like playing a swiss-army knife. I'd even play a bard in Core only (PHB, DMG, MM1). I don't seek the spotlight. I'd rather not be in the lime-light. I am the guy pointing the spotlight on the other players.

[Talionis]

I like Tier 3, its fun to play and DM. But I play other Tiers and enjoy them and they can be good breaks and side universes. But if we are going to play for long haul higher level characters we tend to try to stay in the Tier 3 range. Often letting newer players play Tier 1's and 2's because they won't break the game and when they do, they tend to feel proud of themselves.

But E6 makes for really fun "Low Magic" feels where you really don't have to be as careful to have a good fun game.

[Dienekes]

3 to high 4 for me. Conceptually, it seems a perfect point to get everyone working and doing something fun without taking over a campaign. I don't want players to have a perfect solution to every task, that's ridiculous. But being able to contribute, and being effective are good goals.

In terms of what I actually play, tier 3 to 5. I like martial characters best, and have played Warblades to Knights.


Why are they awful?

Well, why I enjoy the tier system I can generally see why people dislike them. There are a lot of people who have never run into any problems with the various tiers. I have been in games where the Fighter contributed just as much as the Wizard and all was happy. In those games the tier system is actually pretty useless. As the creator of the tier system once said (I'm paraphrasing) A wizard can suck worse than a fighter ever could. A fighter can lose a fight, but a wizard can teleport themselves to hell to be tortured for infinity. To those people, the tier system seems needlessly restrictive, wrong, and potentially mocking one of their games.

In Ansem's case, sorcerer and wizards play on the same level. That's fine, so long as everyone is having fun. However, there may come a time, and that time may never come, where the players sort of realize that the guy with the robe and a belt full of bat **** is actually way more effective at dealing with problems than anyone else in the party, and when that happens the tier list is an invaluable resource as to why that is.

For my case, it happened pretty early. It was a joke after a few encounters that the fighter was actually at fighting than the druid's animal companion. So they fought, and as luck would have it, the fighter lost. At which point the fighter exclaimed that wasn't fair that the druid has something that does his job better than him, while also having all those neat spells. He then promptly got his fighter killed and rolled up a sorcerer. It was an eye opening experience for me as a GM, and through the tier lists I was able to see what the problems with the game in terms of balance are, and steer my players into a fun path for everyone.

[Hiro Protagonest]

This diary by PersonMan (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314701) evaluates every base class for its suitability for filling various niches.

You know, we actually have a user named PersonMan, and he is not Person_Man.

[Karnith]

I enjoy playing tier 1 and tier 2 classes, because they can be built and played to fit in with groups of basically any op-level. That, and I'm much more familiar with traditional spellcasting (and, to a lesser degree, psionics) than I am with the various subsystems that a lot of the lower-tier classes use.

[Der_DWSage]

Hmmm...I'd say Tier 1, with a specific exemption for Sorcerers. I like playing magic classes, and yes, I like having answers for everything. The rest of my group tends not to optimize, so being the one guy with an answer for otherwise unsolvable questions is nice. I actively try not to break the game, so that might have something to do with it.

[Drachasor]

I think Tier 3, for the right T3s. I have a hard time with ToB T3 since while they can handle a lot of challenges, they don't allow a lot of creativity within the class features. In D&D it seems T1 and T2 are the most common sources for that flexibility due to spells -- even if you don't play those classes at the T1/2 level.

As such, I have a hard time not playing a Wizard or Druid, though I do like to play a Gish (sadly I never get the chance to get one off the ground). But like I said, what I like most about the classes is having tools you can use creatively -- it isn't WIN buttons that attract me to them the most (and in fact I dislike the WIN buttons generally). But Polymorph, Wildshape, talking to animals, reading anything, illusions, gathering intel, and the like are the really fun things.

A lot of T3s don't have that kind of flexibility, not because it isn't T3 but because D&D tends to make the sources of flexibility go to T1 or T2. Never had a chance to play a Beguiler or Dread Necromancer though.

[Firechanter]

Tier 3.



I like characters that fill a niche role, but can mechanically do something else when I can't do that niche role, without overshadowing anyone else in their role. Sounds like T3 to me.

This.
T4 feels just too limited in the long run, even if you don't get your spotlight stolen by a T1. You just end up doing the same thing over and over.

Ideally, everyone has options inside and outside combat. In the latter department, T4 classes only get skills, which are made completely obsolete by low- to mid-level spells.

[Jeff the Green]

Tier 2/3, though I usually play tier-2 as though it were tier 3. For example, I'm playing a gestalt in which one side is a homebrew spellweaver (MMII) monster class that casts as a slightly more versatile but slightly less powerful sorcerer. Since we have a wizard//psion, beatsticks, and a warmage, I don't have to worry about BFC or damage and am strictly debuff and mostly status effects within that (with my artificer/factotum side taking care of buffing). Other times I've played a Wu Jen specializing in the same, a spirit shaman summoner, etc. As others have said, the space between "I have the exact spell that will solve the problem in six seconds" and "I can't solve that problem" is my comfort zone.

I also have a few favorites in tiers 1 and 4, mostly because they do things the intervening ones can't (cast cleric and druid spells, use breath weapons, etc.).

[Katana1515]

Tier 2 and 1. I have a giant weakspot for casters no matter what exact RPG I am playing and this comes to the fore in DND. I enjoy playing the Buffing/Debuffing/BFC wizard or sorcerer, and find that if you stick to that role these classes dont have to overshadow party members.

[Socratov]

Well, judging by my favorite classes (Bard and Warlock), mine must be T3-4. The reason is simple: DnD is a team game, most notably about having fun, together. This prompts you to do 2 things: be useful to your team, allow everyone to be useful to your team. For T3-4 enough opportunities exist to optimise for a certain niche (or more) but without being a walking/talking "I win" button (T1 and 2). T5-6 will have problems to be useful around T1-2 characters (lots of problems), however, can do fine (and even better) in a T3-4 environment. IN a T1-2 environment T3-4 characters can still be very useful (traps+social encounters come to mind), while in a T5-6 environment they can work without overshadowing, thus always contributing to the team, both in not sucking and in not spotlight hogging.

[Squirrel_Dude]

High tier 4 or tier 3 is probably about right for me, but that's probably more because they're what I haven't played in a while, so I'm pining to roll up a Ranger or Bard.

[Gnaeus]

Personally? 1-3. I like playing full casters, because I just love casters.

Group wise? Tier 3. Strong enough that everyone can do their job, not so strong that the standard game threats are irrelevant.

As a result, I like playing Tier 1s and 2s in a deliberately suboptimized fashion (like arcane hierophants, sorcadins, or otherwise just dipping a level or 2), or other builds that play like weaker versions of T1s (like chameleons) so I can play in a T3 group without feeling like a bully.