Tiers of Play

[Vhaidara]

In my experience, people posting for build advice don't necessarily want hi op advice. So I feel we need to define the levels of op.

EDIT: Use of tiers is general. For example, High Power assumes that the tier 1-2s are optimized, thus making any lower tier character pretty much useless.

High op Power: everyone is at least a T2. If you lack 9 levels of casting, you aren't pulling your weight.

Mid op Power: T3. ToB, fixed list casters, bards. Higher tier classes are not actively trying to break the universe.

Low op Power: T4 and under. These groups may not even have a full caster, even a fixed list, and if they do, it's probably a blaster. These posts want characters who are functional, not necessarily powerful. Recommendations should also focus on flavor, since a lot of low op groups are themes or experiments


Does anyone else have thoughts on this? I kind of want to put some spells/combos onto a tier list of how broken they are.

[eggynack]

I don't think that this is what the terms mean. High op, at least from my perspective, is more a function of build than of class, or even of what the character is capable of. A standard wizard using only core materials may be stronger than just about any melee build, and still be mid op, and some melee build using hulking hurler, warhulk, and a ton of other cheese may be weaker than that wizard, but it still strikes me as high op. To some extent, I suppose it's a question of power relative to what the class does when optimized only modestly. So, a fighter build's optimization is judged relative to some normal chain tripping fighter or something, depending on how you define "normal optimization".

[Sir Chuckles]

Agreeing with the above.

Op=Optimization, which is extremely subjective.

My Barbarian 2/Wizard 5/Rage Mage 5 (Born of Three Thunders, Energy Admixture, Cloudy Conjuration) is absolutely destroying a campaign right now. If the party was not it's current Archer Fighter, Daring Outlaw, do-nothing Bard, but rather a mailman Sorcerer, an Archivist, and a Crusader, I'd be much less (comparatively) powerful.

[Yorrin]

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? I kind of want to put some spells/combos onto a tier list of how broken they are.

This would be very difficult to do.

That being said, I agree with the general tenor of your comments. I can think of a thread within the last 24hrs where a guy wanted advice on a swordsage build, and I advised him at the level of game he was implying to me. The posted after me showed how to turn that same swordsage into basically a T2 terror.

I think the problem is twofold, and each side of it speaks to a different type of person on this forum. On one hand there are people who seem to get some sort of perverse pleasure out of blowing some noob's mind with the absolute highest potential of whatever subject they're talking about. They usually give over-optimized answers not because they misunderstand what the poster is looking for, but because they don't care. It's just an ego stroke for them to show how strong they can build a character. Thankfully we don't normally get more than one or two a thread.

The other side of things is by far the most common. These are the people who have optimized so much that they literally can't think in low-op terms. They see a melee build and automatically assume that it needs Pounce and Shock Trooper. And if they discover that the build lacks these things they try and correct people, because surely the game isn't fun without them, right? Well, that depends on a lot of things.

There are various ways this is justified around here. The best argument I've heard is that since we don't know the optimization of the player's party/DM we've got to make sure he can stand up to at least mid-op building standards. That may be true, but this forum especially has a higher concept of mid-op than has been my personal experience in about seven years of playing with a variety of groups. The worst reasoning I've heard get thrown around with any degree of frequency is "you have to make this character high-op (especially if its not a T1 caster) because there are wizards running around that could kill you in half a turn!!!" This is pure trash. If the DM is casually throwing threats at the party that are far beyond their capability to handle then he/she is probably a lousy DM.

That being said, things are not without hope if people are willing to try and change somethings. For example, if you're in a thread made by a forum regular (Tippy, Personman, etc. etc.) or if the poster is asking you to "break my character" or something similar, then sure- go all out. But if the poster has a forum status of "pixie" as is asking for help with an actual character that will be played in an actual game (as opposed to TO) then offer much lower-op advise.

A good example I've seen here recently is a slew of Swashbuckler threads. The posters have been asking for help with what is frankly a low-tier class. Helpful advise has been "look at three levels of Factotum" or "consider a Daring Outlaw build." Bad advise has been "Switch over to Warblade asap!" not because a Swashbuckler/Warblade is bad advise, but because adding ToB is above the optimization level that most tables are ready for.

Which makes me think of another good rule of thumb: even if the player is saying "help me be effective!" try not to raise their character more than one tier up. After all- there's a reason that guy is playing a Swashbuckler rather than a Warblade. That's the type of play he's comfortable with, and moving him up the tiers too quickly will lead to confusion and disillusionment with high-op advise. Instead move newer players up slowly so they can learn basic principles before they try to swallow a whole new sub-system.

I know there are probably plenty of flaws in what I've said, but I genuinely want to see this place turn more noob-friendly.

[SowZ]

High and low op doesn't really mean tiers, though. You can have high op Tier 4 games and low op Tier 1 games.

[Vhaidara]

Yorrin, you put it far more elegantly than I.

I intend to edit the opening post tomorrow (on my laptop, vs my phone), changing op to simply Game Tier.

[Yorrin]

eggy, chuckles, sowz

While I think he put it poorly, he's getting at the idea that's floating around on the board that if you're not playing a caster you're "doing it wrong." And that low tiers of play are somehow "unfun." We know tiers =/= optimization, but since higher tiers have a higher optimization ceiling, they often correlate.

[Vhaidara]

eggy, chuckles, sowz

While I think he put it poorly, he's getting at the idea that's floating around on the board that if you're not playing a caster you're "doing it wrong." And that low tiers of play are somehow "unfun." We know tiers =/= optimization, but since higher tiers have a higher optimization ceiling, they often correlate.

Pretty much this. I sometimes forget that here, OP means optimization and not overpowered (like it does in most places)

[eggynack]

While I think he put it poorly, he's getting at the idea that's floating around on the board that if you're not playing a caster you're "doing it wrong." And that low tiers of play are somehow "unfun." We know tiers =/= optimization, but since higher tiers have a higher optimization ceiling, they often correlate.
I suppose that's fair, though I feel like that categorization is already a thing, and it's called tier. You can just limit a game to certain tiers or tier groups without needing a new designation for it.

[Drachasor]

Tiers are a bit complicated.

A Barbarian is T4, but he can be optimized to essentially break the game by dealing tons and tons and tons of damage. The low tier means that's pretty much the only trick this guy has, so it is easy to shut down. This actually makes a bit of a problem.

You can stop that super-high damage, and then the character can't contribute much of anything. Or you can allow it and it wrecks most encounters. Or you can specifically design most encounters to mitigate it, which severely limits encounter variety.

T1 is somewhat similar, but high-op means the DM can't shut them down very well at all, and they can still turn all encounters into jokes.

The Tier system doesn't really go into this though.

The only other thing I'd add is that there's a lot of power variability in some Tiers. T3 is especially problematic here. Beguilers and Dread Necromancers are typically said to be T3, but they are very close to T2 if not low T2 (9th level spells and selectively choosing some spells makes a huge difference). Warblades, on the other hand, are low T3, and maybe just very high T4 (though I favor low T3). So a Warblade and Beguiler might both be T3, but that doesn't mean they are equal.

Anyhow, there are a lot of things the Tier System doesn't capture.

[Yorrin]

Since I believe I'm on the same page as Keledrath I'm going to just go ahead and say that is isn't at all a discussion about tiers. This is a discussion about the forum's attitude toward optimization and what's considered appropriate around here in terms of how it affects the way we give advice to people looking for it.

[Vhaidara]

I hereby authorize Yorrin to explain my idea. In the meantime, I shall sleep :smalltongue:

[Spore]

The other side of things is by far the most common. These are the people who have optimized so much that they literally can't think in low-op terms. They see a melee build and automatically assume that it needs Pounce and Shock Trooper. And if they discover that the build lacks these things they try and correct people, because surely the game isn't fun without them, right? Well, that depends on a lot of things.

I know exactly what are you talking about. And I am sadly the perfect candidate for that. Some people are not as creative as others and I am certainly the former half.

If I have seen an optimized version of SOMEthing it's my go-to build for that from this point on. There is a logical ingame reason for that as well as an illogical ooc reason.

The logical ingame reason is: You have probably tried to fight in different styles in different combats and if one version of combat is far superior you would take that. There's no compromise to be made between surviving and "style" for anyone who wants to survive in a world of wizards, dragons and demigods wanting your head. (An counter argument being that 99% of the population isn't born with enough attributes, feats or physical prerequisites like natural attacks or size to qualify for the "perfect feats" but I get that).

The illogical outgame reason is being human. Humans are the only species known that can think about "what could've been". "If I had shock trooper the combat would have ended by now." "If I were more optimized Bill's character would not have been killed." "If my diplomacy skill would have been optimized my character would have gotten sweet imaginary booty tonight."

[Endarire]

I recall something on the WotC boards (339?) back in the day that dealt with this. I don't recall the terminology, but there were about 5 tiers of play, ranging from the dreadfully unoptimized to the nearly impossible to challenge.

[Yorrin]

I know exactly what are you talking about. And I am sadly the perfect candidate for that. Some people are not as creative as others and I am certainly the former half.

If I have seen an optimized version of SOMEthing it's my go-to build for that from this point on. There is a logical ingame reason for that as well as an illogical ooc reason.

Kudos to you for recognizing it and admitting it! I myself was at this point too, which is why I left these forums for over a year, just to get myself out of the high-op culture here.


I hereby authorize Yorrin to explain my idea. In the meantime, I shall sleep :smalltongue:

Thanks! But alas it's the wee hours of the morning here too, so I am also going to sleep.

[Draz74]

Heh, it kind of sounds like this is asking for a "Cheese Quotient" to be assigned to different spells/items/tricks/exploits/builds.

Which would be a very interesting undertaking, if anyone had the spare time to do it in spite of how nearly every point would probably become a flamewar.

[Sir Chuckles]

Heh, it kind of sounds like this is asking for a "Cheese Quotient" to be assigned to different spells/items/tricks/exploits/builds.

Which would be a very interesting undertaking, if anyone had the spare time to do it in spite of how nearly every point would probably become a flamewar.

My bet?
Unarmed Strike RAW will be the ultimately death of such a thing. Or at least RAW arguments of some nature.

[hemming]

I think it would be useful if you had up-front knowledge of tier for the purpose of giving advice - I'm playing in a tier 4 game now.

I'm by no means a high-op player, but the rest of the group are a little more on the low-op extreme (all class decisions based on RP and setting availability, not mechanics). The fighter in the group will never take a caster level - that is just not who he sees his character as. I can easily see him coming on the internet for one piece of advice and getting bowled over by op advice that is really not relevant in this context.

[Alleran]

I recall something on the WotC boards (339?) back in the day that dealt with this. I don't recall the terminology, but there were about 5 tiers of play, ranging from the dreadfully unoptimized to the nearly impossible to challenge.
And beyond that there is the Tippy-op tier, exceeded only by the Pun-Pun-op tier.

[Vhaidara]

Alright, I edited my post to account for remembering that OP means Optimization and not overpowered. Although I do think that the forum should acknowledge that that is a common mistake from new people and should consider that if they see a Pixie who just joined state an OP level.

To use my groups as an example

Group 1: My buffed warlock (sneak attack progression for EB, can full attack with EB if not using an AoE shape, 1 invocation/level), a half emerald dragon unarmed swordsage, a homebrew beatstick race using an unarmed crusader variant we made, a Master of Many Forms changeling druid who swapped aberration for magical beast, and a earth genasi warblade/wizard/runesmith/JPM. Honestly, we're all around T3, and we're still giving the DM a massive headache trying to deal with us.
This is what I would consider Mid-High Power: mostly T3+ classes, with supporting homebrew buffs to the weaker ones.

Group 2: My gnome bard focusing on Inspire Courage, an illumian hexblade with bonus hex feats and slightly better casting, a swift hunter build modified satyr (no racial HD and only LA +1, which was bought off) with a homebrew that gave him Shot on the Run at Scout 2, a dwarven fighter using the 3.0 dwarven waraxe (19-20 crit range, x3 crit, not automatically martial for dwarves) who's going for Weapon Master (Sword and Fist, aiming for a critfish), and a Lesser Aisimar Sorcerer metamagic stacking on Explosive Runes (starts with Sculpt Spell) and otherwise buffing.
Prior to the Sorcerer joining, this was a Low-Mid Power campaign. Sorcerer put us strongly in Mid Power.

Group 3: My warforged gladiatior (Fighter with expanded skill list, skirmish, and scout fast movement) and a fair amount of other homebrew goodies (I dual wield a slashing rapier and a hand crossbow), a shifter barbarian going for Frenzied Berserker (focusing an shifter feats, so he won't have Shock Trooper or Leap Attack), a Mechantatrix Factotum (traded casting for warblade non-maneuver class features, only really does dmaage with Iiajutsu Focus), and a fearcasting Sorcerer (went into Dread witch at level 5, meaning he's a full spell level behind wizards, also planning on going Nightmare Spinner).
This is my lowest Power group. The sorcerer has a very specific thing he's doing: debuffing. We make a lot of our mechanical (especially the factotum and I) choices based on flavor instead of power.

Group 4: My Draconic Lesser Air Genasi Frost Mage who has the mentality of a 5-year old (literally, he's a calculating BFC character, until something makes him mad, then he starts throwing around level 4/5 blasting spells), A Half-Minotaur Mineral Warrior bard/fighter/war chanter who likes hitting things hard while singing, a ninja/monk/ninja of the crescent moon who legitimately rolls as many 20s as other numbers (DM ruled that ninja, monk, and NotCM all add Wis to AC), a thri-kreen clawlock with a level of Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian (he jumps on someone and literally tears their face off, and a halfling warmage with these tweaks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275054) (makes him legit terrifying).
This is by far my highest power campaign. We started at level 10 with 2 points of bought of LA (not everyone took it)

[TuggyNE]

Pretty much this. I sometimes forget that here, OP means optimization and not overpowered (like it does in most places)

OP is one of those deeply unfortunate terms that means one of three entirely different things based on context and capitalization. "The OP" is, of course, either the original poster or the original post. "OP" is usually overpowered, even here. However, "op" is optimization, as indicated.

:smallsigh:

[prufock]

It's subjective, but it might be better if we think about the player's intent.

Tippy Op: I want to take over/save/be the most powerful being in the multiverse. These guys don't really need help to make powerful characters. I would generalize that they are moreso looking to expand their repertoire of tricks. They want to be untouchable, and as such will play T1 classes only, with PrCs that improve that. God wizards, CoDzillas, etc.

(As a side note, I wonder how Tippy feels about his name being synonymous with ridiculous levels of optimization. Flattered? Proud? Annoyed?)

High Op: I want to take over/save/be the most powerful being in the world. These guys usually have a fair bit of system mastery already, and are looking for ways to improve already-good builds. They don't mind complete redesigns of characters if it gives them more power (cue Tim the Tool Man Taylor grunting). They want to steamroll anything approaching appropriate CR and have the ability to basically do what they please with little repercussions in game. Pretty much will play tier 3 or higher classes only, usually T1 or T2.

Mid Op: I want to take over/save/be the most powerful being in the kingdom. These people request build help up to and including class and race redesign, and are looking for combos that make them useful in most situations or powerful in one given way (ie, I would consider an ubercharger mid-op). They aren't looking for intricate tricks or anything overly complex, they just want a build that can compete with appropriate-level challenges without too much trouble. They might play a class of any tier.

Low Op: I want to take over/save/be the most powerful being in the town. These people might request minor build help like feat or spell suggestions, but aren't looking for complete builds, tricks, or to change their class/race combo, or any other thing that changes their concept. They don't mind being challenged by appropriate CR'd encounters, but don't want to be useless and don't want to die all the time.

No Op: I want to take over/save/be the most powerful being in my own house. These people don't request build help at all, because that would tip them up to the Low Op group. Probably new players or those who don't have the time to put into forums and stuff like we do. They like the idea of "awesome characters" but don't have the system mastery to make that happen. They might complain about their character dying all the time, but may not be motivated to learn more to avoid that issue. They often play monks.

Is this a good starting point?

EDIT:

Pun-Pun Op: I want to take over/save/be the most powerful being in the game itself, possibly extending beyond the rules into real life. You can almost guarantee that no DM would ever allow this sort of thing in actual games. It uses dirty tricks, possibly intentional misreadings of rules, certainly intentional abuse of any poorly-written sections. These guys aren't just going for "all-powerful," they're going for "arbitrarily-highly powerful" or even "infinitely-powerful." They may be cheating, but it's difficult to tell because their tricks are convoluted and intricate.

[Vhaidara]

Please switch "Op" to "power". Just because, as Tuggy points out, OP/Op/op/oP is an incredibly overused term.

Also, remove the blue text from the Pun-Pun level. We all know that isn't actually sarcasm.

[Draz74]

My bet?
Unarmed Strike RAW will be the ultimately death of such a thing. Or at least RAW arguments of some nature.

How so? Unarmed Strike RAW-lawyering leads to a decrease of PC power, not an increase.


And beyond that there is the Tippy-op tier, exceeded only by the Pun-Pun-op tier.

Oh, I dunno. I think there's room in between these two categories for "Doc Roctopus Op." Stuff involving Sanctum Spell + Acorn of Far Travel abuse, etc. ...

[Yorrin]

How so? Unarmed Strike RAW-lawyering leads to a decrease of PC power, not an increase.

Unless you take CaptQ's interpretation of Monk's unarmed strike meaning that they get like 9 or so different "striking surfaces" or however he puts it, which in turn leads to some pretty dumb shenanigans.

@Prufock: While I agree with the general outline, I think it simultaneously shows the flaw in the playground's thinking. That being the idea of "I want to be the most powerful in..." statements. Most people coming here for advise aren't necessarily looking to be THE MOST powerful anything. They're looking for baseline ability to perform well against CR appropriate encounters.

[OldTrees1]

I have found that people posting for build advice judge the value of advice on 3 dimensions.

Dimension 1: Versatility (Tiers)
Dimension 2: Power (Numbers)
Dimension 3: Complexity (# of Sources, ACFs used, amount of multiclassing)

Straying too low on a dimension will make them disregard your advice (unless you mention something they forgot).
Straying too high on a dimension will make them angry at your advice

There is also a 4th component (Style). Sometimes advice suggests switching from one subsystem to another subsystem. Some of the time this advice is welcomed but some of the time it runs counter to this 4th component. Primary examples are: "Be a caster instead" or "Use maneuvers instead of repeatable attacks".

[Vhaidara]

I like your way of thinking OT. And the Style component also covers when someone says "I want to do x" and people respond by saying "you should do y instead".

[eggynack]

There is also a 4th component (Style). Sometimes advice suggests switching from one subsystem to another subsystem. Some of the time this advice is welcomed but some of the time it runs counter to this 4th component. Primary examples are: "Be a caster instead" or "Use maneuvers instead of repeatable attacks".
I like to think that this component follows the rules of the other three, such that people will get angry if your design is too immensely stylish.

[OldTrees1]

I like your way of thinking OT. And the Style component also covers when someone says "I want to do x" and people respond by saying "you should do y instead".

Thanks. Yes that is exactly what this 4th component is.


I like to think that this component follows the rules of the other three, such that people will get angry if your design is too immensely stylish.

Not what I meant by style. Keledrath has a good paraphrasing ^above^

[Lans]

Hmm

Low-Monsters out of the monster manuals as written, no great use of there abilities

mid-monsters out of the monster manuals as written, effective use of there abilities

high-Monsters either get optimized via feats changing or equipment and very effective use of abilities, and numbers. 4 level 4 archers using rapid shot and knowledge devotion instead of 1 level 8 not using rapid shot.

Monsters that can see in the dark being like, whats with that light that is geting 5 feet closer every 2 minutes. Maybe we should ready actions when it gets close enough to autocrit the heck out of it

[eggynack]

Not what I meant by style. Keledrath has a good paraphrasing ^above^
Sure, but it still amuses me in that context. "Your suggestions were far too on point and accurate relative to what I requested. My rage burns hot."