Tiers and Newbies

[roko10]

I never liked Tier Systems.

Now, before you throw phrases like "The tier system is subscriptive, not prescriptive", "STORMWIND!1!!" and so on, let me explain

Most of my dislike for tiers is that people(especially newbies) can jump to the conclusion that "everything below tier 4 is weak and you shall feel bad for playing it" or "tier 1 and 2 is played only by minmaxers".

For example, lets take a new player in D&D 3.5, Bob. Bob wants to play a very low tier class(the monk), but he does not know of the tier system in D&D. He does know abour other tiers, however.

So, when browsing the GiantITP fora, he eventually stumbles upon the tier system. He found the monk in Tier 5 and the druid in tier 1, and jumps to the conclusion that monks suck and he is better off(and have more fun too!) with the druid.

The reality is is that fun is not dependent on tier. However, thanks to the similarity between D&D tiers and video game tiers, you'll end up having players that think "go tier 1 or go home". That is bad.

So we actually need to have classes graded non-numerically and avoid any sort of tiers. Some people might still think "wizard goood, fighter baaaaaad", but there would be far less of people usingt the Monk ability to jump any distance they want(only for them, it applies to conclusions.).

Thoughts?

[eggynack]

I feel like the tier system we have now explains that a low tier doesn't mean a bad character adequately. Thus, if the player actually reads the tier list, then they'll understand that monks aren't bad because they're tier 5 (they're just bad for other reasons). Therefore, changing the way the tier list is written is pretty irrelevant, because the people who would make such a mistake aren't actually reading the list anyway. Meanwhile, removing the tiers from the tier system removes one of the major advantages of the thing, which is providing a nifty shorthand that we can use in various optimization discussions. If things aren't really labeled at all, then the tier system loses that entire purpose.

[Vanitas]

Nitpick: it's actually descriptive instead of subscriptive.
In fact, this sums up the whole problem. All you are mentioning are people taking it as prescriptive and/or not getting what's the point of it after all. The idea is to help people play whatever they want without screwing it for everyone else.
That said, I kind of agree with you, since most people that subscribe to the tier system don't follow that idea at all.

[Red Rubber Band]

My thoughts:

Stormwind Fallacy has nothing to do with tiers.
If the newb in question actually read the tiers' post, then s/he would understand exactly what it is and would not let it deter them from the character they want to create.
Numerical or not, grading a class still means putting it up against some sort of marking rubric resulting in tiers of some descriptor.


That being said, don't let me discourage you from petitioning/creating a new way of looking at the classes.

[Sir Chuckles]

Yop.

When someone takes it the wrong way, well, it's wrong.

Now, I firmly believe that you should not introduce them to the Tier list AND 3.5 at the same time. That could mess with their character choices.

[roko10]

My thoughts:

Stormwind Fallacy has nothing to do with tiers.
If the newb in question actually read the tiers' post, then s/he would understand exactly what it is and would not let it deter them from the character they want to create.
Numerical or not, grading a class still means putting it up against some sort of marking rubric resulting in tiers of some descriptor.


That being said, don't let me discourage you from petitioning/creating a new way of looking at the classes.

1. Well, if Bob from the example says that the only players who play Tier 1 are horrible munchkins, that IS channeling Stormwind, isn't it? :smallamused:
2. Originally, I only read the main post itself and came to a conclusion that if you play a mundane, you will be horrible for eternity. I assume that Bob thought so, too.
3. You have a point there.

That being said, my idea to improve the tiers is to add optimization tiers who function just like prestige classes(such as a +1 tier for a optimzed fighter, -2 tiers for a wizard barring conjuration, -1 for anybody taking the VoP, etc.)

[PersonMan]

If people want to read half the system and ignore the parts where exactly this kind of issue are addressed, then that's their thing. If I write 'Contents not designed for use on humans' on my motor oil and someone proceeds to use it to try and gel their hair, it's their own fault for not reading the packaging.

[eggynack]

That being said, my idea to improve the tiers is to add optimization tiers who function just like prestige classes(such as a +1 tier for a optimzed fighter, -2 tiers for a wizard barring conjuration, -1 for anybody taking the VoP, etc.)
That sounds like the exact opposite of what you were talking about earlier, telling players that certain options suck in addition to certain classes. In any case, it isn't the tier system's job to teach people how to optimize a character. That's what handbooks are for.

[Zweisteine]

Most of what you said is correct. However, your argumets have an inherent flaw.

You assume we aim for fun.

These forums, much like the aptly-named Wizards Character Optimization boards, focus mainly on character optimization. We do not care about how "fun" a character is to play. What is fun to us is the challenge of finding a combination of rules that add up to something powerful or interesting. There's a reason why there is no thread titled "Simple D&D Questions by Fluff." We don't focus on fluff, we're all about the crunch. Sure, the best of us are masters of both, but most of our purpose lies in dissecting the rules. That is our fun.

Fun is subjective: only you know what is fun for you. We can help a little, but out strength is in taking the rules and bending them like putty to suit our purposes. If you want a fun build, say so, and well give you something, but whatever we give will be as powerful as we can make it within the restrictions imposed.

The tiers do not exist to optimize how much fun you can have. They exist to categorize the classes by how powerful they can be when optimized. They serve that one purpose very, very well. If you want to have fun, the tier system is less useful.

Fun is the basic argument against the idea that the tiers are restrictive. You'll see this whenever someone makes a thread asking why anyone ever plays a fighter. The first response will be "because it's fun." A monk is a fun character to play, even if they suck, and in a good party, he won't be overshadowed by anyone else.


•• Zweisteine ••

[eggynack]

2. Originally, I only read the main post itself and came to a conclusion that if you play a mundane, you will be horrible for eternity. I assume that Bob thought so, too.
Missed this thing. If you've read only the main post, then you'd still know that, "This post is NOT intended to state which class is "best" or "sucks." It is only a measure of the power and versitliity of classes for balance purposes." Maybe it needs to be bolded or something. That'd possibly solve some problems.

[roko10]

If people want to read half the system and ignore the parts where exactly this kind of issue are addressed, then that's their thing. If I write 'Contents not designed for use on humans' on my motor oil and someone proceeds to use it to try and gel their hair, it's their own fault for not reading the packaging.

No, the tier system is like throwing a unlabled bottle of motor oil with "it meant fo huma us" crudely scribbled on it and then chastise him for using the motoroil as gel and that he need to read the packaging, even if he doesn't even know that it was motoroil. Sure, he learns a lesson, but he does not trust you anymore.

[Zweisteine]

1. Well, if Bob from the example says that the only players who play Tier 1 are horrible munchkins, that IS channeling Stormwind, isn't it? :smallamused:
No, it is not.

The stormwind fallacy would be saying that the horrible munchkins playing tier one classes can't Roleplay, and all the people playing low-tier classes can.

Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

[Red Rubber Band]

1. Well, if Bob from the example says that the only players who play Tier 1 are horrible munchkins, that IS channeling Stormwind, isn't it? :smallamused:
No.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
Munchkins are not mentioned above and are a totally different breed.


2. Originally, I only read the main post itself and came to a conclusion that if you play a mundane, you will be horrible for eternity. I assume that Bob thought so, too.
See PersonMan's response:

If people want to read half the system and ignore the parts where exactly this kind of issue are addressed, then that's their thing. If I write 'Contents not designed for use on humans' on my motor oil and someone proceeds to use it to try and gel their hair, it's their own fault for not reading the packaging.
Additionally, there is a link explaining why each class is in its tier (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=269440) in the opening post of the tier system.


That being said, my idea to improve the tiers is to add optimization tiers who function just like prestige classes(such as a +1 tier for a optimzed fighter, -2 tiers for a wizard barring conjuration, -1 for anybody taking the VoP, etc.)
That... is a very ambitious undertaking.
Consider that VoP could very well be a +1 in a low magic campaign that will end in the lower levels.

[Vanitas]

Most of what you said is correct. However, your argumets have an inherent flaw.

You assume we aim for fun.

These forums, much like the aptly-named Wizards Character Optimization boards, focus mainly on character optimization. We do not care about how "fun" a character is to play. What is fun to us is the challenge of finding a combination of rules that add up to something powerful or interesting. There's a reason why there is no thread titled "Simple D&D Questions by Fluff." We don't focus on fluff, we're all about the crunch. Sure, the best of us are masters of both, but most of our purpose lies in dissecting the rules. That is our fun.

Fun is subjective: only you know what is fun for you. We can help a little, but out strength is in taking the rules and bending them like putty to suit our purposes. If you want a fun build, say so, and well give you something, but whatever we give will be as powerful as we can make it within the restrictions imposed.

The tiers do not exist to optimize how much fun you can have. They exist to categorize the classes by how powerful they can be when optimized. They serve that one purpose very, very well. If you want to have fun, the tier system is less useful.

Fun is the basic argument against the idea that the tiers are restrictive. You'll see this whenever someone makes a thread asking why anyone ever plays a fighter. The first response will be "because it's fun." A monk is a fun character to play, even if they suck, and in a good party, he won't be overshadowed by anyone else.


•• Zweisteine ••

I disagree completely with what you said and so did everyone back in 339. Character optimization is practical. It's not about getting the most plusses, it's about getting the most out of the class/concept you want.
Also, the tiers are not about how much a class can be optimized. Many of the best optimization tricks work regardless of class anyway.
Also, more importantly. This is not an optimization forum. People really should stop acting as if they were. Every kind of D&D player should feel at home here, instead of receiving elitist browbeatings when they ask "is X cool" or something like that.

[EugeneVoid]

It is incredibly difficult to quantify the power and versatility of a class. In fact, it is impossible to do it perfectly.
Sure, a Wizard can do their things dozens of times/day, but what if you are in (bear with me here) a campaign where the enemies are falling out of the sky angry at you for no good reason.
And they only attack the Wizard.

[I would put this in blue, but its not entirely sarcastic. Read it in a sarcastic voice]

[Red Rubber Band]

The tiers do not exist to optimize how much fun you can have. They exist to categorize the classes by how powerful they can be when optimized. They serve that one purpose very, very well. If you want to have fun, the tier system is less useful.

This is actually not why it exists. See this post. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14474940&postcount=1)
This post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14474947&postcount=2) also helps to highlight that the classes are not categorised by how powerful they can be when optimised.

[mabriss lethe]

No, the tier system is like throwing a unlabled bottle of motor oil with "it meant fo huma us" crudely scribbled on it and then chastise him for using the motoroil as gel and that he need to read the packaging, even if he doesn't even know that it was motoroil. Sure, he learns a lesson, but he does not trust you anymore.

I don't want this to sound rude or sarcastic, so please don't take it that way. Are we reading the same thing as you? This is the document we're referencing (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293) It is quite clear in its intended use from the start. The only way it could in any way be unclear is if the person involved isn't reading it through.

Let's look at the opening statements from JaronK's work:
My general philosophy is that the only balance that really matters in D&D is the interclass balance between the various PCs in a group. If the group as a whole is very powerful and flexible, the DM can simply up the challenge level and complexity of the encounters. If it's weak and inflexible, the DM can lower the challenge level and complexity. Serious issues arise when the party is composed of some members which are extremely powerful and others which are extremely weak, leading to a situation where the DM has two choices: either make the game too easy for the strong members, or too hard for the weak members. Neither is desireable. Thus, this system is created for the following purposes:

1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the PCs in their group

2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.

3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).

4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a Fighter, and a Rogue, maybe you shouldn't let that fly.

5) To help homebrewers judge the power and balance of their new classes. Pick a Tier you think your class should be in, and when you've made your class compare it to the rest of the Tier. Generally, I like Tier 3 as a balance point, but I know many people prefer Tier 4. If it's stronger than Tier 1, you definitely blew it.

This post is NOT intended to state which class is "best" or "sucks." It is only a measure of the power and versitliity of classes for balance purposes.

It would be difficult to be much more concise and clear as to the purpose of the Tier System. If the above statements are in anyway unclear to you, I don't think this discussion can ever get very far.

[EugeneVoid]

The whole point of it is, excuse me if I am mistaken, to quantify classes at medium practical optimization while keeping in mind their floors and ceilings, so as to ensure that, in a single party, no character shall fall behind or overshadow their characters. To accomplish this goal, their are plenty of classes with similar fluff to preserve the "flavor" of the original idea/character/etc.

Edit_
By the way:

Tier 3 is a balance point in the sense that the character can usually meaningfully contribute in many ways and/or is very useful in at least one application.

Tier 2 almost always requires casting. These classes have the potential to break the game (Shivering Touch, etc). The reason why these are tier 2 is because a DM can easily see if they have it as a known spell.

Tier 1 is just Tier 2, but usually prepared casting, so the spells known are more diverse. Boom! Now, you can cast Genesis, Shivering Touch, Resilient Sphere.
Captain Q! (This a reference to another Playgrounder) Alibi!

Tier 4 - Tier 6 is just a gradual degradation of power and versatility where Tier 6 is completely useless (Commoner). Commoners have no class features. This is not something argue.

It assumes medium optimization.
Warlocks are ~low-medium Tier 3 with optimization, potentially stretching into Tier 2.
Tippy makes an argument for Factotum into Tier 2
Paladin and Ranger are both great with ACFs.

If this doesn't make sense, an Iconic Wizard with Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Teleport, Dimension Door, and Polymorph will eventually learn that turning the rest of his party into melee monstrosities is more efficient than blasting.

[roko10]

It would be difficult to be much more concise and clear as to the purpose of the Tier System. If the above statements are in anyway unclear to you, I don't think this discussion can ever get very far.

Sorry, my post was kind of assy.

It is clear to me.

(Also, it seems that any discussion on tiers will end in a Internet Backdraft.

[eggynack]

It is clear to me.
In that case, who wouldn't it be clear to? I assert that the only person who it wouldn't be clear to is someone who didn't read the thing, and honestly, I don't think that we should be targeting the things we write specifically at people who don't read them. If a person actually wants to be informed, then they can read. If they don't, then they can wallow in the ignorance that you've stated will occur. That seems like a perfectly fair and equitable outcome to me, and moreover, I don't think there is any other possible outcome. Hell, you're talking about making the tier system longer and more detailed. For whose benefit would that be, given that our theoretical person is only vaguely skimming the first post?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

If people want to read half the system and ignore the parts where exactly this kind of issue are addressed, then that's their thing. If I write 'Contents not designed for use on humans' on my motor oil and someone proceeds to use it to try and gel their hair, it's their own fault for not reading the packaging.
No, the tier system is like throwing a unlabled bottle of motor oil with "it meant fo huma us" crudely scribbled on it and then chastise him for using the motoroil as gel and that he need to read the packaging, even if he doesn't even know that it was motoroil. Sure, he learns a lesson, but he does not trust you anymore.
I don't want this to sound rude or sarcastic, so please don't take it that way. Are we reading the same thing as you? This is the document we're referencing (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293) It is quite clear in its intended use from the start. The only way it could in any way be unclear is if the person involved isn't reading it through.

Let's look at the opening statements from JaronK's work:

It would be difficult to be much more concise and clear as to the purpose of the Tier System. If the above statements are in anyway unclear to you, I don't think this discussion can ever get very far.


Sorry, my post was kind of assy.

It is clear to me.

(Also, it seems that any discussion on tiers will end in a Internet Backdraft.So, you've changed your mind on this whole thing then?

[Theomniadept]

In response to the OP: Bob will not have fun.

If a game goes through multiple levels, multiple quests, etc., then introducing the player to the game via a 'simple' class is not a good idea in the long run.

Don't get me wrong, one-shot campaigns are fine and whatnot for a Monk or Fighter, but it also depends on the other players.

If Bob is introduced to the game playing a monk and his allies are a Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard, he's going to hate the game. Monks just can't do anything unless heavily optimized, and even then they fall short and have less to do outside of combat other than very simple situational acrobatics. He will not be as good in melee as the Cleric or any summoned monsters, he won't be able to take any damage without needing a band-aid every other round, he won't be able to get around issues like using armor with enchantments or bypassing DR (let alone doing enough damage to make DR a moot point), and if magic is involved in some issue his character gets to practice sitting on his hands.

Introducing Bob through something like a Tier 2 or 3 character will allow him to get a good feel while still keeping his power relevant. If Bob were introduced through Duskblade he would have the ability to try a little of everything. A little melee, a little magic, a little skill use, and with very little need for optimization to be able to do something in most situations.

It's a good thing when a player can see the tier system objectively. To be entirely honest though, most newbies reject it. I've had nothing but failures of DMs who simply believe you can roleplay anything well enough to be equally as powerful, which is an easy-to-run-to argument given its vagueness. When pressed, said DMs have a hard time thinking of actual scenarios where that can even be called remotely close to the truth.

A good character is one that can be played against most anything. If you grab a random Monster Manual and open it to a random page, a good character should have something they can do in battle against said enemy. Monk, as our example, is nothing but a do-it-yourself mushy corpse for an Iron Golem to play with, at any level.

Now, that's not to say every class cannot be used. If players want a low-tier, low-optimization game then they should have it. If one player is strongly suggesting another to change the class they want to play, it's probably because it's the best thing to do. Said player will adamantly act childish and assert their right to play something like Samurai, then in a few levels they will be the same player complaining that they don't get to do anything. Note that said player also has a high chance of asking for DM fiat abilities, usually untested, non-fleshed out abilities that will gunk up the game when rulings need to be made on them.

The tier system even prefaces itself with the facts that it is based off utility and that characters tier 4 and up can all be broken in some way. Nobody ever said someone shouldn't play a Rogue or Barbarian. The only ones who ever seem to complain about the tier system are adamant defenders of classes like Monk, Paladin, Ranger, and Fighter.

[Just to Browse]

In response to the OP: Bob will not have fun.

Aaaaand that's the answer. If you pick a class that can't do anything well, the player will not be able to do anything well. Players don't have fun when they can't do anything well, so fun is totally dependent on tier.

[Theomniadept]

Aaaaand that's the answer. If you pick a class that can't do anything well, the player will not be able to do anything well. Players don't have fun when they can't do anything well, so fun is totally dependent on tier.

Not exactly 100% dependent, but basically in order to have fun in an average game you pretty much have to play tier 4 at a minimum. A party of a Tier 4 Barbarian Ubercharger, Tier 1 Focused Conjurer Wizard, a Tier 3 Factotum, and a Tier 1 Support-based Cleric will all have very definable party roles and be able to contribute meaningfully and uniquely to the game.

Otherwise, everyone pretty much has to agree to Tier 4 through 6 (meaning no spellcasting outside of extremely limited casters like Paladin and Ranger, and Healer) from the get-go, which will still make the party able to roleplay within their niche builds, but they won't exactly have every tool for everything. Also still works for low-magic campaigns.

[Knaight]

The reality is is that fun is not dependent on tier. However, thanks to the similarity between D&D tiers and video game tiers, you'll end up having players that think "go tier 1 or go home". That is bad.

Video game tiers don't generally suggest only playing high tier characters/factions/whatever, at least outside of serious competition environments. At most, they suggest that people should be playing at approximately the same level. For instance Super Smash Bros Brawl has one character that basically has the top tier to himself (it varies by lists), Meta Knight. Way down in the F tier you have a larger roster. The tier list does implicitly suggest not pairing Meta Knight up against anyone in the F tier, outside of deliberate handicapping. It very much doesn't suggest not playing those characters - for instance, Link and Samus are both F tier characters, and playing the two of them against each other should be fine.

The same applies to D&D. The Wizard and CW Samurai probably shouldn't be in the same party, barring deliberate balancing changes (such as having someone relatively new play the wizard and a veteran try to optimize the samurai). Both are still valid classes, though the low tier classes in D&D tend to get stale quickly.

[SiuiS]

I feel like the tier system we have now explains that a low tier doesn't mean a bad character adequately. Thus, if the player actually reads the tier list, then they'll understand that monks aren't bad because they're tier 5 (they're just bad for other reasons). Therefore, changing the way the tier list is written is pretty irrelevant, because the people who would make such a mistake aren't actually reading the list anyway. Meanwhile, removing the tiers from the tier system removes one of the major advantages of the thing, which is providing a nifty shorthand that we can use in various optimization discussions. If things aren't really labeled at all, then the tier system loses that entire purpose.


Yop.

When someone takes it the wrong way, well, it's wrong.

Now, I firmly believe that you should not introduce them to the Tier list AND 3.5 at the same time. That could mess with their character choices.

You both do realize that half or more of the 'tier system problem' comes from people using the system to tell newbies what to do, right?

It's like, science. Science does not make judgements. But you will find people who insist that the existence of a statement by a scientist means there is one true way and all other ways are stupid and you're stupid for following them.

OP is saying "don't use numbers, because most tier system information is trasmitted colloquially and people make leaps when numbers are involved." And really, is it so wrong to say that in a system designed to be scientifically accurate, we should remove ambiguity as much as possible? Not only in explanation, but also in execution and presentation? The existence of numbers is why people think eventually enough fighters doing enough damage wi reach tier 1: numbers scale, but the tiers are all strictly qualitative not quantitative.


Tier alpha, tier beta, then gamma and delta and epsilon. Saying tier epsilon is qualitative five magnitudes below tier alpha is guaranteed not to confuse anyone on being able to add up.

Though it might confuse them in other ways, like what magnitude is, qualitative means, and which tier has the sword mans.

[Drachasor]

Fun depends on many factors. As far as classes are concerned I see at least 4 major elements in fun.

1. Power - strength in one particular aspect
2. Versatility - number of areas the class has Power in (of course, how much Power you have in different areas can vary).
3. Thematics - the flavor of the class
4. Mechanics - How all the above are realized in terms of game mechanics

Different people focus on different elements. Even a "power gamer" might not like a class that has a lot of Power and Versatility because of the thematics or the mechanics. Similarly, someone who wants to play a Sword and Board Warrior might not like the Warblade because of the mechanics or thematics. And they might not like the Fighter either because the Power and Versatility aren't there. Or they might not really care about Power or Versatility and be happy with a Fighter.

Actually, there's probably a 5th element
5. Comparison - how good your character is compared to other people in the party

The above guy that's happy with a Sword and Board Fighter in one party might be very unhappy in another if he finds out just how awful it is.

This is one reason why I think class balance is very important. The better it is, the more that factors 1, 2, and 5 can be mitigated (ideally). It also has the nice benefit of letting people "go crazy" without worrying about them breaking the game easily. Of course, D&D does not satisfy here.

[eggynack]

You both do realize that half or more of the 'tier system problem' comes from people using the system to tell newbies what to do, right.
That doesn't sound like it'd be solved by this new system all that much either, especially as it presumably won't have the convenient tier shorthand that makes using it for balance explanations easy, if not always accurate. I don't really think that just using new names for all the tiers would do anything, because I'm pretty sure that the way you're implying is how folks tend to read the tier system already. I don't think that people see tier one and tier five and assume that tier one is five times better or something. I don't even exactly know how that would work.

As for removing ambiguity and increasing accuracy, I don't think it's all that possible, at least in a way which is easy to communicate. The thing that may come closest to what you're saying is the niche system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=314701), and sitting a new player down in front of that massive table would likely baffle them far more than anything involving the tier system. The fact of the matter is, varying levels of optimization make it pretty hard to define balance in a way that's significantly more accurate than the tier system does. It might be nice to have some sort of tier 1.5 for the spirit shaman, but I'm pretty sure that that's not anyone's big problem with the tier system.

[Sir Chuckles]

You both do realize that half or more of the 'tier system problem' comes from people using the system to tell newbies what to do, right?

It's like, science. Science does not make judgements. But you will find people who insist that the existence of a statement by a scientist means there is one true way and all other ways are stupid and you're stupid for following them.

A new system for them to abuse and misuse would not reduce misuse and abuse.

Though I will agree that it is like science and, like science, there will always be someone who throws the "Yeah, science!" meme at anything that sound remotely scientific and cool.

You simply restated my point of "When someone uses something incorrectly, they're doing it wrong." In this case, the tier system is being used incorrectly. Like science.

[SiuiS]

That doesn't sound like it'd be solved by this new system all that much either, especially as it presumably won't have the convenient tier shorthand that makes using it for balance explanations easy, if not always accurate. I don't really think that just using new names for all the tiers would do anything, because I'm pretty sure that the way you're implying is how folks tend to read the tier system already. I don't think that people see tier one and tier five and assume that tier one is five times better or something. I don't even exactly know how that would work.

The problem with the tier system is not the tier system, it's the language involved. Consider; the dry fact that there needs to be fine print saying no, these aren't numbered for numerical reasons, this does not mean fighters are always bad and you should feel bad for playing them, you don't need to defend fighters, etc., all imply that this footnote is needed because the tiers themselves don't give that impression.

The language that has built up around T1-T5 inherently resembles language one would use to judge and condemn. Change the base words so Ta-Te do not fall into that trap; they aren't sequential, just different; and you've made miscomunication much harder.


A new system for them to abuse and misuse would not reduce misuse and abuse.

Making the system harder to misuse and abuse would. Making the tier system require different language conventions prevents people from assuming they know where this is going, cutting off the explanation and filling in the blanks themselves.

[Gwendol]

I never liked Tier Systems.

For example, lets take a new player in D&D 3.5, Bob. Bob wants to play a very low tier class(the monk), but he does not know of the tier system in D&D. He does know abour other tiers, however.

So, when browsing the GiantITP fora, he eventually stumbles upon the tier system. He found the monk in Tier 5 and the druid in tier 1, and jumps to the conclusion that monks suck and he is better off(and have more fun too!) with the druid.

Thoughts?

I think Bob probably makes the right choice above. Especially since with 3.5 he can dip two levels in Monk and go straight druid afterwards and be totally awesome. The problem with the Tier system is that many players don't stay in one class which means that in practical play you still need to look closely at the actual builds, thus diluting the usefulness of the system. Also, optimization floors and ceilings are not the same for all classes, and the Tier system does not take this into account (at least not in a coherent or visible fashion), which again means the DM needs to judge builds on their own merit, thus diluting the usefulness of tiers.

[Kesnit]

Aaaaand that's the answer. If you pick a class that can't do anything well, the player will not be able to do anything well. Players don't have fun when they can't do anything well, so fun is totally dependent on tier.

Not necessarily. A lot can depend on the game.

Several months ago, I played a Monk 2/Psy Warrior X with Tashalatora. Granted, Monk is Tier 5, but Psy Warrior (which was the focus of this build) is Tier 3 - which is widely believed to be a good balance point. I almost never got to do anything. My skills were low (not that that mattered much. The only useful skills were Know (nature) and Survival.) There was no combat. The puzzles were non-Euclidean monstrosities with only 1 viable solution.

So I ditched that character and rolled up a Rogue (Tier 3)/Druid (Tier 1)/ Daggerspell Shaper (Up 1 Tier). This was an improvement only in the respect that I had skills this time. Combat (when there was any) was an unbalanced nightmare. The DM had no concept of how to calculate CR.

Based on your argument, both of those characters should have been fun. Neither was, because the game itself was horrible.

[Amphetryon]

Aaaaand that's the answer. If you pick a class that can't do anything well, the player will not be able to do anything well. Players don't have fun when they can't do anything well, so fun is totally dependent on tier.

Nope. The writeup of the Tier System, and JaronK's own subsequent comments on it, disagree. It's entirely possible to 'rock out with a Commoner' and have a blast, provided you know what you''re getting into. Knowing what you're getting into could mean that everyone in the group is playing a low Tier Character, or it could be that you're intentionally playing on 'hard mode,' or that you're exploring the group dynamics that happen when you've got (for example) three Specialist Wizards and a Samurai, or something else entirely. Knowing what you're getting into does not mean that Pat blindly picks Druid, Sam blindly picks Cleric, Robin blindly picks Archivist, and Chris blindly picks Hexblade. . . and then Chris wonders why the heck all Character options appear comparatively limited and/or redundant.

[Brookshw]

Aaaaand that's the answer. If you pick a class that can't do anything well, the player will not be able to do anything well. Players don't have fun when they can't do anything well, so fun is totally dependent on tier.

Now that's just silly. I've seen people have more fun playing a T4 than a T1. Bob might have a blast. Different play styles and expectations are a heavy factor in what's fun, other variables like party composition, player disposition, DM & campaign also weigh in.

Too lazy to quote things from my phone
Varitas: well put in your page one response to Zweisteine.
Zweisteine: we do have a number of people who come here to discuss world building, fluff, how to run a game, and a whole slew of non-crunch questions. Afro has 4 threads dedicated to fluff. Sure there are plenty of crunch discussions but there are others going on. (also sorry if I misspelled your name).

[eggynack]

The language that has built up around T1-T5 inherently resembles language one would use to judge and condemn. Change the base words so Ta-Te do not fall into that trap; they aren't sequential, just different; and you've made miscomunication much harder.
I'm really pretty doubtful that people would look at tiers a through e and think something different than they would looking through tiers 1 through 5. Either way, we're still talking about ordering the classes on some power level/versatility basis, and doing so with our judging eyes. The bias that people come into this with is the idea of the tier system as applies to a competitive game, and people understand that those tier systems, as this one, aren't perfect linear orderings.

[Red Rubber Band]

The problem with the tier system is not the tier system, it's the language involved. Consider; the dry fact that there needs to be fine print saying no, these aren't numbered for numerical reasons, this does not mean fighters are always bad and you should feel bad for playing them, you don't need to defend fighters, etc., all imply that this footnote is needed because the tiers themselves don't give that impression.

The language that has built up around T1-T5 inherently resembles language one would use to judge and condemn. Change the base words so Ta-Te do not fall into that trap; they aren't sequential, just different; and you've made miscomunication much harder.

~~~

Making the system harder to misuse and abuse would. Making the tier system require different language conventions prevents people from assuming they know where this is going, cutting off the explanation and filling in the blanks themselves.

A through E is exactly the same as 1 through 5.
You use S, F, N, M, K and there would still be a need to explain why you've assigned these particular letters to these particular classes. Why they're grouped together. And I'll bet you that the same problems will arise because people will not read the fine print properly. The only added problem is trying to get the letters in the right order and assigned to the right classes.

[Knaight]

Based on your argument, both of those characters should have been fun. Neither was, because the game itself was horrible.

The argument doesn't say that. It says that if the characters suck, you won't have fun. That doesn't mean that if they don't you will. Not P therefore not Q doesn't imply P therefore Q.

[Captnq]

Thoughts?

Many. They are awesome thoughts. I shall share some with you.



I never liked Tier Systems.

I'm sure they feel the same way about you. I just over heard them the other day, "roko10? Met him? Always talks down to us tiers. Thinks he knows everything!" Let me assure you, the Tier Anti-Defamation League is gonna be sending you a summons and complaint.



Now, before you throw phrases like "The tier system is subscriptive, not prescriptive", "STORMWIND!1!!" and so on, let me explain

The TADL Awaits your explanation.



Most of my dislike for tiers is that people(especially newbies) can jump to the conclusion that "everything below tier 4 is weak and you shall feel bad for playing it" or "tier 1 and 2 is played only by minmaxers".


Provide Linky or you Stinky.
I've never encountered this problem before.



For example, lets take a new player in D&D 3.5, Bob. Bob wants to play a very low tier class(the monk), but he does not know of the tier system in D&D. He does know abour other tiers, however.

My name is Bob.

I am very offended by your statements here. Are you applying that I have no idea how to read a handbook? That my google skills are not up to the task of finding out information about monks? Am I such an idiot that I will briefly read a tier, make NO attempt to read the documents before it or after it and just do what I'm told like a mouth-breathing American Idol Fan?



So, when browsing the GiantITP fora, he eventually stumbles upon the tier system. He found the monk in Tier 5 and the druid in tier 1, and jumps to the conclusion that monks suck and he is better off(and have more fun too!) with the druid.

And where is this Tier System? What's the link to this offending Tier system that you dislike? I would like to see it and read it to determine if the information in it is so horrible and misleading.

And... actually, he will have more fun with the druid. Most Noobs enjoy playing in a way that has positive feedback. In a low level game when you don't know what you are doing, Monks suck. Monks can be awesome, in expert hands. In noob hands, they are usually a train wreck. So, yeah. A druid WILL be more fun because he'll be able to DO something instead of watch the druid do everything.



The reality is is that fun is not dependent on tier. However, thanks to the similarity between D&D tiers and video game tiers, you'll end up having players that think "go tier 1 or go home". That is bad.


This is why your post annoys me. Up until this point, I've been sarcastic and comedic, but this is annoying.

Thanks for telling me what's NOT fun. So, what IS fun? Oh, Min/maxing ISN'T FUN? Because, you know, all I do is min/max. I write handbooks/metahandbooks. Like, dozens of them. You see, I never play, I only DM. So all I have to DO is Min/Max. Yet, what I do isn't FUN, according to you. After all, Bob is an idiot who can't read an entire post from start to finish because he's got an attension span of your average fruit-fly, and my name happens to be Bob.

Now then, I've been monitoring like 6 different 3.5 discussion boards using my talent of sifting through massive amounts of data fairly quickly for... years. It's been years now. SO. I don't seem to recall a single thread called "tier 1 or go home" Please. Provide links to these threads where noobs rant about tier 1 or nothing else will do.

I REALLY want to read them. I've written the NOOB HANDBOOK (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=9479.msg153181#msg153181) over here and data like that would me VERY helpful.



So we actually need to have classes graded non-numerically and avoid any sort of tiers. Some people might still think "wizard goood, fighter baaaaaad", but there would be far less of people using the Monk ability to jump any distance they want(only for them, it applies to conclusions.).


No. We don't.

It's a suggestion. Pick any handbook of mine. Anything with a v. You will see them color coordinated. orange sucks, green is average, blue is above average, purple is awesome.

And yet, in the editor sections of many of those entries I comment, "The rating depends on various factors. If you are a X, this will be more useful. But for most, it's pointless."

You see, I seem to think highly of noobs. I seem to think that most of them can actually read. They are capable of coming up with their own ideas, and maybe, when they are starting out, they should stick to the basics instead of trying out things that aren't easy to play.

Personally, I recommend the barbarian for any starting noob. Simple. Direct. Easy to learn, easy to use.

Putting things on a scale, any scale, serves a point. Any system will break down at some point. Just because some people won't read the whole document and fail to get the point doesn't mean the document is wrong.

I suspect the problem is YOU. You have some ideas in your head about how "the game is supposed to be played". Guess what? If I wanna make a wizard with a Mirror Mephit Familiar and create a clone army of myself, I just might have FUN doing that. If I want to play a monk who chopped off his arms, got tentacles grafted to his face, and can eat your brain, then that might be my idea of fun as well.

It seems you are guilty of the very thing you are accusing the tier of, telling people how to play the game.

[roko10]

^....you're right.

No, that wasn't supposed to be blue. I just admit defeat.

[The Insanity]

People are stupid and flamey. What can you do. Doesn't matter how long you'll gonna explain, or even that most of their complains are addressed in the very article they complain about, there will always be jealous people who will hate something on principle.