Why do you think we are all such a jumbled mess this edition when it comes to tiers ?

[CyberThread]

Just over all, why do you think we are all over the place dealing with tiers? It seems we have gotten to the point that we are even arguing what the tiers values.

[squashmaster]

Cause, while we can QQ all day long about Mearls and co., fact is they probably did a good job leveling out the balance of power overall.

[Chaosvii7]

I don't think anybody is in a hot mess about much, if anything. A new RAW vs RAI is the hot topic around here, but that has little to do with the tiers system.

[Sartharina]

The high of a new, untested edition tempered by the fear of the old nightmare.

[Nevereatcars]

Because there isn't a tier list anymore, and nobody wants to admit it.

[archaeo]

I think there are several different aspects to this issue that are worth discussing, so here's a wall of text.

1) The "tier system" was designed to help DMs deal with the balance problems endemic in 3rd edition. A lot of people are trying to map the 5e classes directly to the 3.5 definitions, and it's resulting in disagreements. It would be far more worthwhile to talk about tiers in a way that ignores the old definitions and tries to develop new ones, if "tiers" are really a useful concept in 5e anyway.

2) No one really has enough experience with the game to make firm pronouncements, and the PHB isn't laid out with class vs. class comparison in mind. I think the EK is the most glaring example of this; if I want to sit down and make an EK, the PHB will let me get there without too much trouble, but if I'm just flipping back and forth trying to get a handle of 5e's balance, the PHB's organization gets in my way a lot. As people see more of these classes in action, they'll have a better handle on what the balance is really like. I think this is especially true of Fighters and Rangers, who I suspect are much more capable party members than many forum-goers have given them credit for.

3) People are bad at being objective. D&D and TRPGs generally demand a lot out of a player, and our brains are really good at making ourselves feel good about all the energy we spend on something. Your favorite edition of D&D is likely to be a world in which you spent some of the best hours of your gaming life. Even people with the best intentions are going to trip over their own biases.

4) People are bad at projecting class effectiveness over the course of an entire campaign. 5e's classes grow in power at different rates, and at different times. It's entirely possible that the system works out such that, at different times over the course of the campaign, everyone in the party will have a few levels where they're more capable than the others.

5) People are generally interested in being right on the Internet. This is a problem that is especially prevalent on boards like GitP, where there are no "upvotes" or "XP" or whatever. If I agree with someone, I'm unlikely to reply just to say "you're absolutely right!" Therefore, every subject, including the discussions of the tier system, are going to be dominated by people who disagree with other people. So goes the Internet.

oh, and 6) Was the 3.5 tier system ever really a settled issue, widely agreed upon by everyone? I suspect that you'll still find people willing to argue over which tier to slot some classes in, even all these years later.

[WickerNipple]

Why do you think we're a jumbled mess?

[Fwiffo86]

oh, and 6) Was the 3.5 tier system ever really a settled issue, widely agreed upon by everyone? I suspect that you'll still find people willing to argue over which tier to slot some classes in, even all these years later.

I completely agree with 4 and 5 as well, but snipped them out for space.

Specifically, I have never put any amount of trust in the tier system. Just as I don't put any trust into online guides that rank class abilities. They all suffer from the same problem... personal opinion. You can argue math till your blue in the face, but that doesn't mean I will find your choice more valid than mine. How I use Class A's ability X will likely be different than yours. Because of this baseline concept, I cannot put stock in systems of judgment based on player perception.

[randomodo]

For my part, I don't remotely care about the artificial (and unofficial) construct of "tiers" of classes. I modify my campaign storyline and challenges based on what kind of game my players want and what sort of challenges are suitable for them.

But I don't know that most players much care about the tier construct. I could be wrong, I could be a heretic, but I don't much care. Play what you want to play; design adventures that you want to run.

[Fwiffo86]

For my part, I don't remotely care about the artificial (and unofficial) construct of "tiers" of classes. I modify my campaign storyline and challenges based on what kind of game my players want and what sort of challenges are suitable for them.

But I don't know that most players much care about the tier construct. I could be wrong, I could be a heretic, but I don't much care. Play what you want to play; design adventures that you want to run.

:smallbiggrin: <-- this is my version of "like this post"

[Z3ro]

A big part of the problem is that lots of people in these discussion keep saying "fighter", "wizard", and "rogue", as if they are one monolithic class like in previous editions. Subclasses (as has been pointed out) make a huge difference. An EK plays hugely different than a champion, and dumping them together under "fighter" is disingenuous. Any useful tier system (I don't think one needs to exist for 5e) has to start by pulling apart the subclasses.

[cobaltstarfire]

For my part, I don't remotely care about the artificial (and unofficial) construct of "tiers" of classes. I modify my campaign storyline and challenges based on what kind of game my players want and what sort of challenges are suitable for them.

But I don't know that most players much care about the tier construct. I could be wrong, I could be a heretic, but I don't much care. Play what you want to play; design adventures that you want to run.

This, and also there's another problem.

The tiers in many ways are just theorycrafting that exists in a vacuum separate from average player, the table, the groups overall and individual personality, and the particular DM.

All those things are going to largely make the tiers only a rough guideline really.

I'm mostly drawing this thought from having observed my regional and the global Adventurers League facebook pages and talking to players and DM's at my local game store. All the theorycrafting and optimizing and such talkedabout 5e, and 3.P kind of go out the window when talking to players in the wild.


I think part of the arguing of 5e, is mostly just that half the people don't understand the tier list, or simply have a very different understanding of it. So there's a lot of quibbling over whether the casters should go into T1 or T2 and such.

I think that every class looks so interesting and fun to try out right now that instead of arguing over those things, we should all just play for a while and get a good footing before trying to come up with those things. I don't know how the D&D tiers grew, but in most other games that end up devising tiers, the stuff that looks good in theory often ends up being not quite as good/threatening as the community at large thought.

[DireSickFish]

We don't have enough information to really gauge a tier system yet. Yes, we can see all the classes and what they get. The Monster Manual is only pre-released at the moment so most players haven't seen what kind of challenges or variety are necessary. The DMG hasn't been released to show what tools the DM has available to make the players life challenging, and so we don't know how useful abilities are in overcoming them.

As others have said we also need more time with the classes themselves to really work out how to make them strong. I -think- the optimization floor is a lot higher in this edition making it much easier to have a useful character in general. Tiers probably still exist, but we have yet to determine how severe they are and to what degree a DM needs to plan adventures around them.

[Anzyr]

This, and also there's another problem.

The tiers in many ways are just theorycrafting that exists in a vacuum separate from average player, the table, the groups overall and individual personality, and the particular DM.

All those things are going to largely make the tiers only a rough guideline really.

I'm mostly drawing this thought from having observed my regional and the global Adventurers League facebook pages and talking to players and DM's at my local game store. All the theorycrafting and optimizing and such talkedabout 5e, and 3.P kind of go out the window when talking to players in the wild.


I think part of the arguing of 5e, is mostly just that half the people don't understand the tier list, or simply have a very different understanding of it. So there's a lot of quibbling over whether the casters should go into T1 or T2 and such.

I think that every class looks so interesting and fun to try out right now that instead of arguing over those things, we should all just play for a while and get a good footing before trying to come up with those things. I don't know how the D&D tiers grew, but in most other games that end up devising tiers, the stuff that looks good in theory often ends up being not quite as good/threatening as the community at large thought.

Metaknight would like to disagree. Tiers are very real thing.

[SliceandDiceKid]

Yeahhh... Don't think tiers matter too much anymore. And feats (while variant rules) grant access to things which shatter futile attempts to separate classes into groups based on power and utility.

[cobaltstarfire]

Metaknight would like to disagree. Tiers are very real thing.

Metaknight is kind of a very special case.

And smash tiers don't really apply at lower levels of play in my experience. (metaknight being a notable exception).

Which is my main point, D&D tiers aren't as useful in the wild. As far as I can tell in 3.P and in 5e there are no "metaknight" classes either. A 3e Wizard isn't going to be overpowering and spotlight stealing if the player isn't playing the wizard smart.

[Giant2005]

How effective each class is depends entirely on how often your group rests and every group treats resting very differently.
My group has never had a short rest for instance but it has faced several encounters. Most of the theory-crafting on these forums assumes a single encounter between every long rest, so naturally it would seem far more powerful than it would be in practice to my group.

[Easy_Lee]

How effective each class is depends entirely on how often your group rests and every group treats resting very differently. My group has never had a short rest for instance.

If your group never gets to rest, then your DM is running a bad campaign IMHO. Every class, besides some rogues, relies heavily on short or long rests. Guess that makes rogues tier 1 in that particular case.

And casters are still better overall than martials. They're comparable in combat for the first few levels (except moon druids). But, out of combat, casters have more options. The sorcerer and warlock play party face without suffering MAD, and bards can fill that role as well. The enchanter can make basically any social encounter go exactly how he wants it to as a class mechanic. There are many more examples.

There's also the trouble of spells being super effective compared to melee options. With a 5th level spell, wizards can summon a bigby hand which can be directed on a bonus action for one minute. That hand has STR 26, higher than any player can currently get, and it can grapple. And everyone knows spells like conjure fey creatures can break the action economy.

DMs can take steps to balance things, no doubt about that. But after a certain level, it takes DM actions to keep everyone balanced; actions such as house rules, very limited rests, limitations on social encounters, outlawing of certain spells, encounters designed specifically to hurt casters, etc.

The main difference between 5e and 3.5 is that, even when grouped with a competent caster, the martials are still capable of doing something. That's a pretty big improvement. And it's basically impossible to cover every spell, every ability, every saving throw, and every skill.

Long story short: casters are still strongest, but they don't make the rest of the party feel useless anymore.

[Z3ro]

There's also the trouble of spells being super effective compared to melee options. With a 5th level spell, wizards can summon a bigby hand which can be directed on a bonus action for one minute. That hand has STR 26, higher than any player can currently get, and it can grapple.

See, this is why I question how well everyone's read the PHB, especially all the spells. Is bigby's hand a decent spell? Yes, it's got a couple of options, but it comes nowhere near to replacing melee characters. It takes up your concentration, it takes up your bonuc action, and it does pretty weak damage. At best you're grappling something (an even proposition as it has no ahtletics skill), and even then all you've done is either delayed it for a round or two, or they switch to ranged and just pelt you to death. A lockdown polearm master/sentinel/battlemaster is much more effective contol than this spell.

[cobaltstarfire]

Long story short: casters are still strongest, but they don't make the rest of the party feel useless anymore.

I think it depends on the caster, at least at lv 1 life cleric can't do very much. Yeah I am practically guaranteed to heal anyone to full HP for the most part. But I've only got two slots to use, which don't refill on a short rest.

Once I've spent those spells to buff or heal or shield some people, I'm only good as a shield for the rest of the party, and a fighter geared towards protecting the party would do a better job at it than I would.

I think the most useful spell I have right now is spare the dying, cause our poor rogue keeps running off and getting himself killed. I'm sure glad that's a cantrip.


My only experience so far is HotDQ though, which is apparently extremely brutal for lv 1's. I don't think we'd be as far as we are if the DM didn't handwave at least one long rest back at the keep for us. Cause I'd already had to blow both my spell slots at the end of two battles.

[Cambrian]

[E]veryone knows spells like conjure fey creatures can break the action economy.I'm not so certain the conjure spells are that broken. If DMed strictly they don't appear particularily broken. Combat is quick-- if they are summoned mid combat don't give them an action first round. They came in from somewhere and haven't received a command so it's unreasonable to put a single round delay. From there the caster has to be sure he doesn't get hit because the conjure spells all require concentration and one hit can make them disappear. Some CRs should be addressed too, but that is a simple fix.


The main difference between 5e and 3.5 is that, even when grouped with a competent caster, the martials are still capable of doing something. That's a pretty big improvement. And it's basically impossible to cover every spell, every ability, every saving throw, and every skill.

Long story short: casters are still strongest, but they don't make the rest of the party feel useless anymore.I very much agree with this. It's probably the main reason why people are finding it so difficult to agree on tiers-- they were designed for a different system and it doesn't appear that tiers are of much use (based on the original definitions).

[Grayson01]

:Originally Posted by randomodo View Post
For my part, I don't remotely care about the artificial (and unofficial) construct of "tiers" of classes. I modify my campaign storyline and challenges based on what kind of game my players want and what sort of challenges are suitable for them.

But I don't know that most players much care about the tier construct. I could be wrong, I could be a heretic, but I don't much care. Play what you want to play; design adventures that you want to run.
smallbiggrin: <-- this is my version of "like this post"

I will have to second this like

[Demonic Spoon]

I'm not so certain the conjure spells are that broken. If DMed strictly they don't appear particularily broken. Combat is quick-- if they are summoned mid combat don't give them an action first round. They came in from somewhere and haven't received a command so it's unreasonable to put a single round delay. From there the caster has to be sure he doesn't get hit because the conjure spells all require concentration and one hit can make them disappear. Some CRs should be addressed too, but that is a simple fix.


I think you basically agreed with him. If some creatures have too low CR, and that results in summoning spells being more powerful than they should be, then summoning is a balance problem.

[Cambrian]

I think you basically agreed with him. If some creatures have too low CR, and that results in summoning spells being more powerful than they should be, then summoning is a balance problem.Sort of. I agree that RAW the Pixie is too good with Conjure Woodland Being. I don't see it as an issue as any DM can rule "the Pixie is CR 1" and there is no problem.

If the expectation is that the system should not have any RAW potential for abuse, then no edition of D&D will be satisfactory. If a rare oversight requires a simple fix then it shouldn't be a major issue-- what good is a system that analyzes balance as seen at no table anywhere?

Regardless of what creatures are summoned: a conjure spell is still one failed concentration check away from being over (and appears to be a valid target for dispel magic as well). That makes it much less powerful as the wizard is now the weakest link and can't concentrate on any defensive abilities while they have summons.

[Demonic Spoon]

If the expectation is that the system should not have any RAW potential for abuse then no edition of D&D will be satisfactory. If a rare oversight requires a simple fix then it shouldn't be a major issue-- what good is a system to analyze balance as seen at no table anywhere?


While I don't strictly disagree with this, in the case of summoned fey this is going to be actually problematic at actual tables. It's not like it requires a ton of optimization to realize that you can summon a large number of a very powerful CR 1/4 creature.

Consider the following scenario:

DM: Player, it's your turn. What do you do?

Player: I summon 4 CR 1/4 fey (I forget the actual name of the creature, but you can get 4 of them and they all cast confusion).

DM: Okay. <Moves on, next turn comes around>

Player: My fey cast confusion on all of our enemies. They are now useless.

What does the DM do now? Does he retcon the player's summoning choices? Does he allow the encounter to be made trivial by this one spell?

I feel like what would actually happen, especially in the case of new DMs or DMs who aren't balance-aware, is that they either ban the spell outright, ban the class outright, or don't do anything at all and let it continue to be detrimental to the game.

[Cambrian]

While I don't strictly disagree with this, in the case of summoned fey this is going to be actually problematic at actual tables. It's not like it requires a ton of optimization to realize that you can summon a large number of a very powerful CR 1/4 creature.

Consider the following scenario:

DM: Player, it's your turn. What do you do?

Player: I summon 4 CR 1/4 fey (I forget the actual name of the creature, but you can get 4 of them and they all cast confusion).

DM: Okay. <Moves on, next turn comes around>

Player: My fey cast confusion on all of our enemies. They are now useless.

What does the DM do now? Does he retcon the player's summoning choices? Does he allow the encounter to be made trivial by this one spell?

In that instance-- assuming the encounter isn't at a climax-- you just allow it to happen and inform the player that you will review the Pixe and rule on a fair CR for it. If need be a temporary houserule could be implemented for the rest of the night.

I agree it's not ideal, but it's functional and what will likely happen at most tables. Also my apologies for editing my post after being quoted. Don't think the meaning of what I said changed any. :)

I feel like what would actually happen, especially in the case of new DMs or DMs who aren't balance-aware, is that they either ban the spell outright, ban the class outright, or don't do anything at all and let it continue to be detrimental to the game.That is a legitimate concern. In this day and age often players will know they can get advice online so it shouldn't be as bad as it was for prior editions, but again unfortunately the SLAs don't exactly play nice with CRs.

I wonder if a community project of common house rules would be a useful endeavor?

[Kurald Galain]

Just over all, why do you think we are all over the place dealing with tiers?
Because the game has only been out for a few weeks.


It seems we have gotten to the point that we are even arguing what the tiers values.
Because some people believe that tiers are "created" by forum users on message boards. Hint: they're not.

[rlc]

a wall of text.


http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/168/699/2r2rouf.jpg

[archaeo]

snip

:smallfrown:

I did say I was sorry for the wall of text.

If you need a tl;dr: people are really eager to be right on the Internet, and being right is way more fun when somebody else is wrong.

[Kurald Galain]

If you need a tl;dr: people are really eager to be right on the Internet, and being right is way more fun when somebody else is wrong.

You're wrong about that :smalltongue:

[Totema]

Because this edition's only been out for a month?

[Shining Wrath]

{{scrubbed}}

And you missed some good thinking.

[Snails]

How effective each class is depends entirely on how often your group rests and every group treats resting very differently.
My group has never had a short rest for instance but it has faced several encounters. Most of the theory-crafting on these forums assumes a single encounter between every long rest, so naturally it would seem far more powerful than it would be in practice to my group.

That has always been a problem with the tier theorycrafting -- the value of most of the arguments are extremely dependent on pacing questions that are highly dependent on the play style. While I see the academic value of the tier analysis, 99% of the popular arguments for the importance of tiers have zero relevance at any gaming table I have sat at.

[rlc]

:smallfrown:

I did say I was sorry for the wall of text.

If you need a tl;dr: people are really eager to be right on the Internet, and being right is way more fun when somebody else is wrong.
honestly, i went back and skimmed the post anyway. and i agree with you, especially the point about a lack of experience.

And you missed some good thinking.

it was a joke and he obviously took it as such.

[archaeo]

it was a joke and he obviously took it as such.

Yeah I wasn't offended, it honestly was a ridiculous wall of text.

[Sartharina]

DM: Okay. <Moves on, next turn comes around>
THere is a good chance that during this step, you lose most/all of your pixies. And the rest won't survive the next round.

[Fwiffo86]

Because some people believe that tiers are "created" by forum users on message boards. Hint: they're not.

Are you hinting that the tier system was created by company game designers? I was under the impression the tier system was created by a poster named JaronK on Brilliant Gameologists Formus.

Link provided:
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=gicjcdbspliss6e0ipj5cbrj30&topic=1002.0

Is this not a Forum poster?

[archaeo]

Are you hinting that the tier system was created by company game designers? I was under the impression the tier system was created by a poster named JaronK on Brilliant Gameologists Formus.

Link provided:
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=gicjcdbspliss6e0ipj5cbrj30&topic=1002.0

Is this not a Forum poster?

Not to respond for him, but the idea is that tiers should, ideally, be an objective statement about the system's underlying mechanics. In 3.5, a core Fighter is simply not able to compete with the abilities of a core Wizard when played optimally. Compare this with Fighting games, where the "tier system" is used with much more regularity; a properly played Meta Knight is simply unbeatable with any other combo, and therefore is in a tier of its own (if I understand the SSB meta, and I'm basing this on a couple forum posts and not deep familiarity with the game).

[Easy_Lee]

See, this is why I question how well everyone's read the PHB, especially all the spells. Is bigby's hand a decent spell? Yes, it's got a couple of options, but it comes nowhere near to replacing melee characters. It takes up your concentration, it takes up your bonuc action, and it does pretty weak damage. At best you're grappling something (an even proposition as it has no ahtletics skill), and even then all you've done is either delayed it for a round or two, or they switch to ranged and just pelt you to death. A lockdown polearm master/sentinel/battlemaster is much more effective contol than this spell.

It's more the case that bigby can then move the creature with half his speed, with little chance of the creature breaking the grapple due to 26str. If there's a hazard nearby, like a cliff, a spike, or another caster's stinking cloud, this becomes much more potent, since the hand arguably doesn't take damage from that stuff and is summoned anyway. Hold creature over fire, crush repeatedly.

And this is just one spell. We're not even getting into some of the more questionable things, like partially real illusions, moon druid versatility, wish copying any 8th level spell from anyone's spell list, etc.

However, martials can still do things. Casters can't completely invalidate everyone else anymore, and you want a versatile group due to the nature of skills. There won't be groups dominated by a single tier 1 or tier 2 character doing everything while the rest just stand around (I've had to stand around in groups before in 3.5).

5e condensed the tiers, so good is not godlike and bad is not worthless anymore. And that's a good thing.

[emeraldstreak]

Cause, while we can QQ all day long about Mearls and co., fact is they probably did a good job leveling out the balance of power overall.


Uh...no.


It took years before 3.5 tiers gained popularity or were even created. At the beginning the interwebs were full of people who seriously believed monks and fighters are stronger than wizards; such people still exists en masse in parties that don't read forums.

As for 5th, is it better balanced than the 3rd? Sure. Is it as balanced as the 4th? No. Will there be tiers? Yes, there will be, but as of yet we don't have so much as the Core released. Give it some time.

[Kurald Galain]

Are you hinting that the tier system was created by company game designers?

Yes, albeit not consciously. Whenever game designers create a game with different classes/characters/cards/whatever, there will be some options that are strong, some average, and some options that are weak. That is precisely what tiers are, nothing more, nothing less. And that option X is stronger than option Y is true regardless of whether there is a forum post pointing that out.

More background info here (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CharacterTiers).

[MeeposFire]

Are you hinting that the tier system was created by company game designers? I was under the impression the tier system was created by a poster named JaronK on Brilliant Gameologists Formus.

Link provided:
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?PHPSESSID=gicjcdbspliss6e0ipj5cbrj30&topic=1002.0

Is this not a Forum poster?

He is insinuating that the tiers are there whether you acknowledge them or not. This is of course true. However what confuses the issue is that while the tiers exist (whether you believe in them or not) they are not always going to come up. Player skill, game style, houserules, etc can have major effects on whether you notice the difference. Of course trying to account for that would be insane and not very helpful so the tier listing tries to take all that out of the equation by using mostly RAW and assuming that when you compare the classes you are using roughly the same levels of player skill and optimization (for instance we all know that an uber charger barbarian is much better than an 8 int wizard but we also know that those two characters are at widely different optimization levels). You also tend to drop the very extremes too just because a 3 int wizard may be less useful than a 3 str fighter but that really does not tell us much either.

Lastly remember the tiers were not a list to tell you what to do but as a way of letting you know that these classes have a lot more potential to change the game than others and that playing certain classes together can potentially make the game difficult to adjudicate. Your group may be able to avoid any problems but that does not mean that you did not have to deal with it in some fashion (whether it was intentional or not).

[Cambrian]

As for 5th, is it better balanced than the 3rd? Sure. Is it as balanced as the 4th? No. Will there be tiers? Yes, there will be, but as of yet we don't have so much as the Core released. Give it some time.Is there reason to believe that the tiers even mean anything?

We here all know what caused the discrepancy in 3rd. The same issues in 5th would be immediately obvious.

But if class balance is so close that no character's presence is enough to invalidate another's (as it appears) then what use are tiers?

Sure X is more powerful/versatile/whatever than Y. But what does that mean? In 3.5 the tiers had a purpose in making balancing parties easier, or for DMs understanding party flexibility. In 5th, with no apparent issues in power discrepancy (not to suggest a discrepancy does not exist) what purpose does a tier system serve?

[emeraldstreak]

Sure X is more powerful/versatile/whatever than Y. But what does that mean? In 3.5 the tiers had a purpose in making balancing parties easier, or for DMs understanding party flexibility. In 5th, with no apparent issues in power discrepancy (not to suggest a discrepancy does not exist) what purpose does a tier system serve?

Did it really? The primary factor for power in DnD is optimization itself. Tiers acted as a learning tool foremost; understanding why X is better than Y was a lesson in the mechanics of the system in general. But from what I can tell, very few campaigns actually had balance problems between the vast silent majority who plays severely underoptimized builds, the table contract people who find ways to balance inside the party, the perrenial low level campaigners, etc, etc.

The purpose of the tier system is not "being able to play DnD". If that were the case DnD was going to be long dead by the time the tiers were defined. The purpose of the tier system is the accumulation of knowledge of mastery, a natural human inclination. Eventually, there will be tiers for DnD 5 for this same reason.

[Sartharina]

Did it really? The primary factor for power in DnD is optimization itself. Tiers acted as a learning tool foremost; understanding why X is better than Y was a lesson in the mechanics of the system in general. But from what I can tell, very few campaigns actually had balance problems between the vast silent majority who plays severely underoptimized builds, the table contract people who find ways to balance inside the party, the perrenial low level campaigners, etc, etc.Only because the 'Vast majority' of campaigns took place at <10th level, because the game broke horribly above 10th level (And a lot of players had no idea why - merely that it did, and thus stopped doing it). This was something acknowledged as discovered by the development team during 4e's brainstorming and design step.

[Demonic Spoon]

THere is a good chance that during this step, you lose most/all of your pixies. And the rest won't survive the next round.


Without turning this into a specific balance discussion, my point was to illustrate how relatively minor, and "easily-fixable" balance issues can disrupt normal play


Only because the 'Vast majority' of campaigns took place at <10th level, because the game broke horribly above 10th level (And a lot of players had no idea why - merely that it did, and thus stopped doing it). This was something acknowledged as discovered by the development team during 4e's brainstorming and design step.


That was far from the only factor. Complexity in an already complex system jumped substantially at >=10th level. Casters have more spells, everyone else has more class features, more skills, more magic items, more everything to keep track of. Building a level 3 character in 3.x takes a tiny fraction of the amount of time that it takes to create a level 15 character. People have more options so combat slows down. Lastly, there's just the fact that people generally start from low-ish level because that's the "start", and running a single campaign for long enough to get from level 1 to 15 takes a long time in real life.

It's not like everyone ever who played D&D played their first campaign up to level 15, found out that the game was broken, and then resolved never to go beyond level 10 again.

[archaeo]

To add to my list upthread:

7) GitP is a popular forum for optimizers, who are the primary consumer of "tier" systems. What you're seeing is those optimizers doing their work, which starts from a point of "What do you think." This is virtually the only forum I've seen where people are spending much time trying to fit 5e classes into tiers, at least at any appreciable length.

(7.5 would be a point about how "tiers" are just a subset of what makes D&D fun for some people and what makes it stupid for others, and that's also a big point of contention, but whatever, man.)

I remain skeptical that 5e's classes are really unbalanced enough to deserve exhaustive tier-by-tier listing, but as more and more people gain system mastery, it will be interesting to watch in real time. I suspect that firm agreements on 5e's mechanical limitations and break points will start arriving just around the same time that WotC is sending out those surveys in 2015.

[SaintRidley]

It took five years from the advent of 3.5 for the players to develop a concrete, fixed idea of the power of the classes relative to each other and assuming an equal baseline of optimization (the tier system).

I could quibble with the word system - it's not really much of a system - but it is more or less a generally-agreed upon thing among the majority of those in the know. Whether it's exactly on point in everything that's a different question entirely.

But again, it took five years to formalize these thoughts. It was 2008, and 4e was knocking on everyone's door. And people are trying to determine a robust, thoroughly analyzed description of the power and versatility of all the classes in 5e when the game has only been out a month?

That's the major failure. The game will shake out as it does, and it's really quite difficult to judge this early. We might have an idea when 6e is standing outside, but much sooner than that is simply premature. Indeed, the construction of such a list seems almost aimed at extending the lifespan of the edition in the face of potential obsolescence in the form of a new edition by creating new things to discuss and argue about. But that's neither here nor there.

[Z3ro]

It's more the case that bigby can then move the creature with half his speed, with little chance of the creature breaking the grapple due to 26str. If there's a hazard nearby, like a cliff, a spike, or another caster's stinking cloud, this becomes much more potent, since the hand arguably doesn't take damage from that stuff and is summoned anyway. Hold creature over fire, crush repeatedly.

And this is just one spell. We're not even getting into some of the more questionable things, like partially real illusions, moon druid versatility, wish copying any 8th level spell from anyone's spell list, etc.

However, martials can still do things. Casters can't completely invalidate everyone else anymore, and you want a versatile group due to the nature of skills. There won't be groups dominated by a single tier 1 or tier 2 character doing everything while the rest just stand around (I've had to stand around in groups before in 3.5).

5e condensed the tiers, so good is not godlike and bad is not worthless anymore. And that's a good thing.

No, see, this is a problem that I think is a hold-over from 3.5, when everything melee did martial did better. Even with that 26 str, the hand will still often lose grapple checks; a fighter, if he's proficient with athletics, adds his proficiency bonus, which means if he has a 20 str and is at least level 5 his bonus is equal to the hands. At level 9, he's actually got a higher check. Sure, the hand may have advantage, but it's not insurmountable, especially as the fighter levels up.

But that's assuming you're playing the grapple game. You could just destroy the hand, it only has the wizard's hit points. Or like I said, switch to a bow and pelt the wizard from range; grappled puts no limits on the type of actions you can take, except movement.

I know this isn't the end-all-be-all spell, but so many spells have been adjusted to not be game breaking it's important to recognize this. A lot of former powerhouse spells, like contact other plane, are no longer the auto-wins they once were.

[emeraldstreak]

But that's assuming you're playing the grapple game. You could just destroy the hand, it only has the wizard's hit points. Or like I said, switch to a bow and pelt the wizard from range; grappled puts no limits on the type of actions you can take, except movement.


PvP is not an area which benefits from random forum speculations. Moreover, it's a niche area that shouldn't reflect on evaluating class balance.

[Z3ro]

PvP is not an area which benefits from random forum speculations. Moreover, it's a niche area that shouldn't reflect on evaluating class balance.

Who was talking PvP? Enemy spellcasters are a thing, as will spellcasters face capable melee opponents. Also, I was responding to the idea that one spell effectively replaces a melee class.

[Easy_Lee]

Who was talking PvP? Enemy spellcasters are a thing, as will spellcasters face capable melee opponents. Also, I was responding to the idea that one spell effectively replaces a melee class.

I wasn't saying it effectively replaces a melee class, but merely that being able to command a 26 str hand with a bonus action is very powerful. Holding a foe down for an ally's aoe, or throwing that foe off a cliff are both very strong uses of a bonus action. Consider that the wizard gets 10 such bonus actions assuming maximum duration, plus whatever spells he's casting, and you can see why I find this spell quite powerful. As a bonus action, being able to command this hand is stronger than most of the bonus actions martials can take.

PvP wasn't really a consideration. If it was, I dunno, i guess ordering the hand to interpose itself is pretty good. Forces you to take down the hand while the wizard runs away.

[TheOOB]

Trying to place the D&D 5e classes into Tiers is pointless. The 3.5 Tier list was the result of years of play an discussion on forums and dozens of books worth of content, and 5e isn't even completely out yet, and no one outside of WotC has had time to run a lengthy campaign, much less several.

The point of the tier list was the show how unbalanced 3.5 is, and how major problems in a party's relative power level can arise as early as class selection.

Thus far, I don't see any indication that some classes are so powerful that other classes are worthless in the same party, and no one outside of WotC can be considered any sort of expert on game power level, so any Tier list is going to be uninformed and unnecessary.

[squashmaster]

As for 5th, is it better balanced than the 3rd? Sure. Is it as balanced as the 4th? No. Will there be tiers? Yes, there will be, but as of yet we don't have so much as the Core released. Give it some time.

Hence why I said "good" not "zomgamazing".

And also, I do think over time 5th will prove to be much more balanced than 3.5 overall, if they retain their keep-it-simple-stupid design philosophy and don't go crazy with splatbooks.

[Kurald Galain]

Only because the 'Vast majority' of campaigns took place at <10th level, because the game broke horribly above 10th level (And a lot of players had no idea why - merely that it did, and thus stopped doing it). This was something acknowledged as discovered by the development team during 4e's brainstorming and design step.

To be fair, the vast majority of 4E campaigns also took place at <10th level (according to WOTC's own market research; this is why they decided to only pay lip service to paragon/epic tier in the last few years of 4E's life cycle).

It's not so much that players stopped playing high level because it breaks, but that campaigns tend to start at low level and simply don't last long enough to get to 15. I would expect the vast majority of 5E campaigns also to take place at <10th level.

[emeraldstreak]

Hence why I said "good" not "zomgamazing".

And also, I do think over time 5th will prove to be much more balanced than 3.5 overall, if they retain their keep-it-simple-stupid design philosophy and don't go crazy with splatbooks.

Pray they don't start destroying system cornerstones in splatbooks, ie "with this feat your spellcaster can maintain two concentration spells at the same time".

[Daishain]

Pray they don't start destroying system cornerstones in splatbooks, ie "with this feat your spellcaster can maintain two concentration spells at the same time".

I would call that less "destroying system cornerstones" and more them reintroducing an incredibly annoying factor of 3.5e, feat taxes so people can actually use their class features that were withheld due to poor design. Especially irritating given how bloody expensive feats are in this version.

Maybe they'll have a feat that will let the ranger and his animal companion actually act as two separate beings? Oh no, he might actually be useful that way!

[Person_Man]

5E classes start out fairly balanced, but then gain power and flexibility at different erratic rates.

A lot depends on how often your DM allows you to take Short and Long Rests, and different classes regain different amounts of resources from them.

Most of the game breaking magic is fairly high level, most players haven't had a chance to play a high level game, and most experienced DMs and players can discern a broken spell when they read it and choose not to use it in an abusive way.

The internet exists, and so people who are enthusiasts about the game can post on message boards and social media and share their opinions, which exposes people to alternative ideas and play styles. For example, the first time I read the Warlock, I thought it sucked. Then I read posts about its best spells and realized that some people played in games with multiple Short Rests, and now I've grown to love it.

[Fwiffo86]

While I don't like the tier system as referenced for D&D classes (ignoring the fact that tier systems exist in just about every facet of life, yes I know that), I have to agree that it is far too early to even begin this thought process.

I agree that you can't judge a class by itself anymore. It has to be done by path, not class. As the paths seem to be a function of discouraging multi-classing (which I support), and the elimination of PrCs (which I also support).

I am still mourning the loss of the Arcane Archer Feat. :smallfrown:

I am extremely hesitant of any outsourced content. While 3.x had many problems, a majority of them were exacerbated by 3rd party content. Mainly the ideology of "You can't do this? Here is a feat/PrC that lets you do just that". I feel strongly that this lead to many "god type" PCs that were never meant to exist within the spirit of the game.

I will be satisfied if WotC allows 3rd Party content with limitations. An example would be, "No elimination of pre-existing conditions (no multiple concentrations per round by any method). A comprehensive guide to be followed would work for me.

[SaintRidley]

I would call that less "destroying system cornerstones" and more them reintroducing an incredibly annoying factor of 3.5e, feat taxes so people can actually use their class features that were withheld due to poor design. Especially irritating given how bloody expensive feats are in this version.

Nah, it's destroying a system cornerstone. What you call poor design here I see as essential to rein in casters and a very good design element.




Maybe they'll have a feat that will let the ranger and his animal companion actually act as two separate beings? Oh no, he might actually be useful that way!

They don't need a feat for that - just to make it to level 5.

[Daishain]

Nah, it's destroying a system cornerstone. What you call poor design here I see as essential to rein in casters and a very good design element.It did indeed nerf one means a powergaming caster had of breaking the game. However, it also made it so that all casters, powergamers or not, are extremely limited in supportive options, which is bad for everyone's enjoyment of the game.

The best means a considerate 3.x caster had to support the team without supplanting them is via a limited number of well timed and placed buffs. Welp, that's gone now. Buffing is at this point pretty much a thing of the past, and casters are forced back into the default option of upstaging their companions at everything they do. Screw that, there are less self destructive means of achieving this goal.


They don't need a feat for that - just to make it to level 5.
Uh, no. That feature just lets you have more options for having the ranger and companion act as one being. By default, you can do something, and your companion does nothing. Or your companion can do something, and you do nothing.

Reaching fifth level just lets you add something of a middle ground to the list. You sacrifice half of your standard attack so your companion can do it on your behalf. Given that you will almost always be more effective at attacking than your companion, it doesn't work out well.

[Clawhound]

I'm mostly drawing this thought from having observed my regional and the global Adventurers League facebook pages and talking to players and DM's at my local game store. All the theorycrafting and optimizing and such talkedabout 5e, and 3.P kind of go out the window when talking to players in the wild.


I've found the same true as well. Low tier characters were usually found valuable by other players as most high tier players weren't interesting in handling the cognitive overhead. In THEORY high tier characters could do anything, but in practice, high tier players were usually not interested in that sort of game play and left room for lower tier characters to shine.

Most player optimize for having a game experience that they think is fun, which is usually not optimizing.

[Sartharina]

It did indeed nerf one means a powergaming caster had of breaking the game. However, it also made it so that all casters, powergamers or not, are extremely limited in supportive options, which is bad for everyone's enjoyment of the game.

The best means a considerate 3.x caster had to support the team without supplanting them is via well timed and placed buffs. Welp, that's gone now. Buffing is at this point pretty much a thing of the past, and casters are forced back into the default option of upstaging their companions at everything they do. Screw that, there are less self destructive means of achieving this goal.Except they don't have the spell slots or combo-ability to upstage their companions at everything they do. And now a wizard is no longer shoehorned into being a 'buffbot' for maximum efficiency, and support and offensive options are balanced against each other and the rest of the party.

[Daishain]

Except they don't have the spell slots or combo-ability to upstage their companions at everything they do. And now a wizard is no longer shoehorned into being a 'buffbot' for maximum efficiency, and support and offensive options are balanced against each other and the rest of the party.
Yes they do, and I don't think you can change that without either going 4E's route of making all classes work identically except for fluff, or nerfing spells to the point that casters are completely ineffective.

The second issue is an issue between the players. It is best handled between the players, not via a hard limit on everyone's options, including the people who have not had any problems along those lines.

[ZeshinX]

I have no particular comments to offer on the why asked in the subject, but a "Tier" system to me just reeks of "My class could beat up your class" nonsense at its core. This has been around since...well, likely since RPGs like D&D existed.

PvP in video games certainly amp'ed up the level of discussion about tiers (at least in my non-professional, casual observance of our treasured hobby).

Ultimately, I don't give a rat's rear end about tiers, when I'm DM'ing or playing. Play a character you'll have fun with, using the established rules the DM presents for his/her game, and off you go.

[Theodoxus]

To answer the OP - because tiers are subjective - they're theorycrafting that doesn't hold true in actual play. Things are stronger or weaker on paper than in practice - and one persons's anecdotal evidence is in direct conflict with another.

To reply to the idea that there are tiers inherent in any differentiated system; that's both true and a false analogy. It's true in that there will be options that are more beneficial to a given situation - but there are situations where those same options are less optimal. Between that and actual game play, the whole system falls apart under the subjective scrutiny.

For instance, the arcanists in the party I'm playing in, would be far less effective if the tank wasn't holding back the bad guys from advanced on them. They aren't at a level yet where they can summon their own meatshields. So universality of 'wizard is tier 1' is obviously wrong.

Tiers would be far more honest if they presented level ranges. A level 1 wizard is totally tier 5. They're pretty good at doing 1 thing.

I remember playing a 3rd ed game where my character had died and I decided to bring in a druid, because tier 1 - CoDzilla! RAWR!. I got crushed the first fight - mostly because I didn't read up on how to play the class correctly. It put me off on druids for a while, and the concept of tiers forever.

People place far too much stock into what tiers mean; 5th ed moved away from certain classes being less useful. All are renaissance men, well rounded, capable in and out of combat. Magic might have an edge in making certain things easier (flying up a cliff face), faster (teleporting to town) or battlefield control (Forcecage the BBEG). But they don't overshadow the other classes to the point of being obsolete.

Rather than opting for a tier system, it'd be far more beneficial to describe classes on their strengths and weaknesses - to let newer players understand that a wizard is a glass cannon. A fighter relies on his friends to get him into the air. A bard can do almost anything, but each individual thing not as well as another class.

[Sartharina]

To answer the OP - because tiers are subjective - they're theorycrafting that doesn't hold true in actual play. Things are stronger or weaker on paper than in practice - and one persons's anecdotal evidence is in direct conflict with another.This is not true.

There is a simple answer to the OP - Because we're trying to shoehorn 5 years of work on one system onto another, and it's been out less than a month anyway. We do not have enough data to judge class performance yet.

[Fwiffo86]

The only way the Tier system would be accurate/true is if its statements (not the best word here) remain true in all scenarios, at every table, using the exact rule set, all the time. Can this be said about it? I do not believe so.

I believe that on paper this is partially true, largely due to math equations. But math does not account for player decision making process, nor for DM adventure design. It is a list of statements for optimization only. Even in this narrow field, it cannot, nor will it ever account for all things at all times.

At best, the tier system is an ideology that some ascribe to, and some do not.

[Anzyr]

The only way the Tier system would be accurate/true is if its statements (not the best word here) remain true in all scenarios, at every table, using the exact rule set, all the time. Can this be said about it? I do not believe so.

I believe that on paper this is partially true, largely due to math equations. But math does not account for player decision making process, nor for DM adventure design. It is a list of statements for optimization only. Even in this narrow field, it cannot, nor will it ever account for all things at all times.

At best, the tier system is an ideology that some ascribe to, and some do not.

The tier system remains true in the scenario it is intended for. If you play D&D 3.5 by the rules assuming players of equal skill, the tier system will always hold true. Wizards will always have the most options and even if a player never bothers to add anything but the 2 spells per level to their book they will *always have that options*. Even if the Druid doesn't turn into Pouncing animal today *they can always do that tomorrow*. The tier system measures versatility and that is always going to be unchanged in the scenario the tier system is intended for. It doesn't have to account for the GM's design, the Wizard class is more versatile then the Fighter class. Period.

[cobaltstarfire]

The tier system remains true in the scenario it is intended for. If you play D&D 3.5 by the rules assuming players of equal skill, the tier system will always hold true.

The point most people are making against the tier system is that you aren't always going to have players of equal skill, or even high skill. That's where the tiers fall apart. It's only useful in a scenario that perfectly fits it, yet that's a scenario that isn't very common out in the world.

[Snails]

The tier system remains true in the scenario it is intended for. If you play D&D 3.5 by the rules assuming players of equal skill, the tier system will always hold true. Wizards will always have the most options and even if a player never bothers to add anything but the 2 spells per level to their book they will *always have that options*. Even if the Druid doesn't turn into Pouncing animal today *they can always do that tomorrow*. The tier system measures versatility and that is always going to be unchanged in the scenario the tier system is intended for. It doesn't have to account for the GM's design, the Wizard class is more versatile then the Fighter class. Period.

Careful. By "equal skill", what you really mean is "equal & high skill at optimizing all many the options available". Because the high tier classes are complicated and are easy for a newbie to get wrong. That is why some of the simpler classes seemed strong at first blush, because how to build their superstacks were more obvious.

For example, thinking a low level druid is better than a fighter because you read it somewhere is the surest way to failure, because your low AC will simply get you killed. (As an upthread poster found it.)

[Anzyr]

Careful. By "equal skill", what you really mean is "equal & high skill at optimizing all many the options available". Because the high tier classes are complicated and are easy for a newbie to get wrong. That is why some of the simpler classes seemed strong at first blush, because how to build their superstacks were more obvious.

For example, thinking a low level druid is better than a fighter because you read it somewhere is the surest way to failure, because your low AC will simply get you killed. (As an upthread poster found it.)

Druids have the highest AC of any class in Core 3.5 thanks to Wild Dragonhide Fullplate Armor and Monk's Belt. Also low level druid is significantly better then the Fighter, because in addition to your full caster, you get a pet that is about 3/4ths of a Fighter. (And once you add Barding you are probably going to beat the Fighter in AC)

Even if the high tier classes are complicated that doesn't change the fact that they are (and will remain) more versatile. If the Wizard who is playing poorly realizes this, they can simply pick new spells up at the next level. If a Fighter is playing poorly, they'd best hope they can reroll as a Warblade.

[mabriss lethe]

Another big reason creating class tiers is more difficult for 5E: Modularity.
Races, Classes, Subclasses, Backgrounds, and Feats all radically alter how an individual character can play depending on what options are chosen. The variance is high enough that I wouldn't rule out abandoning broader class tiers altogether and replacing it with a Tier-esque litmus test for rating the flexibility and utility of individual builds.

[Theodoxus]

This is not true.

Your subjective chocolate got in my subjective peanut butter! Point.

[edge2054]

3.5 really brought out my inner munchkin like no other edition. 5th ed has a bit of that but I don't think it's quite as rampant and hopefully when we see magic items we'll find that a lot of this stuff is kept in check.

In that regard I think tier lists are less important overall. The fewer ways there are to game and abuse the system, to number crunch and break things, the easier it is to keep party cohesion in tact.

I played a lot of 2nd Edition. We took a couple of campaigns to level 20. This wasn't monty haul stuff with tons of XP. I played in the same group for over fifteen years. Our 3rd and 3.5 games never lived up to our 2nd Edition games even though we did make the transition basically as soon as our last 2nd edition game wrapped up. We played a lot of 2nd ed. We played a lot of 3rd ed. We never went back to 2nd ed mostly because 3rd had a clearer rule set that relied less on DM fiat.

But the party cohesion was never the same. I played a wizard all the way through one of our 2nd Edition campaigns. The God-Tier class in just about everyone's eyes regardless of edition. But the greatest moments in that campaign were when the Paladin and I worked together. Enlarging him and casting prismatic wall behind a Titan which he promptly body checked through the wall. Casting Antimagic Field and letting him go to work on a group of helpless beholders. He didn't feel outshined by me and I didn't feel outshined by him. It was a group effort.

I think we played 3rd edition for just as long but I don't remember any epic moments like that. I remember the same guy that played the paladin in 2nd edition making a super cheesy two-handed weapon user and killing things in one hit with little party support. I remember him telling me about a warcaster that he made that could do ridiculous amounts of damage with scorching ray. I remember number crunching and powergaming my own characters. Leveraging every little rule.

What I don't remember is any epic moments where we worked together. I can barely remember the names of most of the characters. Stats on a page. Numbers. Hardly any life.

Maybe that's my fault as a player or our groups fault. Maybe it's the fault of the system. Anyway in all my years of playing 2nd edition we never gave a thought to tiers. As long as the party was working together we'd usually succeed and everyone would have a good time.

I think 5th edition has a bit of that 2nd edition charm. And I think it has a bit of that 3rd edition charm too. There's enough numbers that my inner munchkin can spend a week toying with different ideas but the difference between an optimal character and a suboptimal one doesn't seem to be as large as it was in 3rd edition. Granted I've only set down at a few tables so far so maybe I'm wrong, I don't know. But as of right now I can sit down and play what I want to play, the character I want to make, without feeling like I'm going to be behind the power curve.

Anyway thanks for reading anyone that did. The tl:dr of it for those that didn't is that I think the lighter the rules the less important tiers become. So far it seems that 5th ed has struck a good balance, at least, in my opinion :)

[emeraldstreak]

The point most people are making against the tier system is that you aren't always going to have players of equal skill, or even high skill. That's where the tiers fall apart. It's only useful in a scenario that perfectly fits it, yet that's a scenario that isn't very common out in the world.

Even that's assuming that ppl of high skill would optimize to the maximum. This is not the case at all, the only place Ive optimized to the maximum ever was arena pvp. For normal campaigns with my friends 5% of that optimuzation sufficed.

[archaeo]

litmus test

This is the operative phrase. For D&D, at least, talking about "tiers" reveals more about the person saying it than the system itself.

Which isn't to say either side is bad, of course. People in this thread who are big into understanding the game via tiers of class effectiveness have been having fun with D&D for a long, long time. But GitP has a house bias on this issue, and it's an important one to keep in mind when discussing games here.

[cobaltstarfire]

Even that's assuming that ppl of high skill would optimize to the maximum. This is not the case at all, the only place Ive optimized to the maximum ever was arena pvp. For normal campaigns with my friends 5% of that optimuzation sufficed.

Yeah you're making the same point I'm making only with different words.

[Snails]

Druids have the highest AC of any class in Core 3.5 thanks to Wild Dragonhide Fullplate Armor and Monk's Belt.

<sarcasm>Yeah, insightful thinking that totally works with low level druids run by newbie palyers.</sarcasm>

Congratulations! You just proved my point.

[Shining Wrath]

Why Tiers are valid: because at some tables high-op Wizards and Clerics and Druids really did make it very difficult for the DM to challenge them, while letting lower Tier characters contribute significantly.

Why Tiers are invalid: that didn't happen at every table.

Why Tiers were useful: because imbalance did happen often enough that DM's and players needed guidance in how to avoid it.

Why we shouldn't argue about it too much: Brace yourself. Splatbooks are coming. And experience indicates that every splatbook will pad the spell lists, and before long someone's going to figure out that if Cleric A casts X, and Sorcerer B casts Y, Z happens, where Z is instant-win for some set of encounters. And on and on and on.

The expansion of the capabilities of the martials (more maneuvers? more class features?) will not keep pace with the synergy between different spells.

[Snails]

+1 what Shining Wrath said.

[mabriss lethe]

This is the operative phrase. For D&D, at least, talking about "tiers" reveals more about the person saying it than the system itself.

Which isn't to say either side is bad, of course. People in this thread who are big into understanding the game via tiers of class effectiveness have been having fun with D&D for a long, long time. But GitP has a house bias on this issue, and it's an important one to keep in mind when discussing games here.

I should elaborate a bit.

I love the tier system. 3.5's Tier list an amazing resource, arguably one of the most useful things a DM can have when designing an encounter so as to neither over- nor underestimate the challenges their players can handle. That's ultimately what it is designed to be: A DM resource. When I'm behind the screen it's my best friend. When I'm on the player's side of the table, it's still a useful tool to gauge the types of classes that will be compatible with the rest of the party's power level and play style.

As for 5E? I think character creation in this edition has too many moving parts for a tier list to function with any great reliability. Classes and subclasses, while a large part, are still only a part of the equation. Feats (and backgrounds to a lesser extent) can drastically alter the fundamental play style of a character.

[Lokiare]

For the most part I think people are a jumbled mess because they either didn't bother to read the preface to the tier list or they didn't understand it.

The tier list is clearly a measure of the maximum potential of any given class and if said potential is reached how different tiers will interact and how they will cause problems at the table.

For instance if a tier 5 fighter is at the table and a tier 1 wizard is at the table and both are optimized well the players will find that anything the fighter can do the wizard can also do if not better then nearly as well. In addition the wizard will do things the fighter can't even dream of. The DM will have problems trying to challenge the wizard because anything they throw at the wizard will stomp the fighter.

If your players don't optimize enough to see the difference between the tiers, then have fun you don't need the tier list. For the rest of us who like to role play competent characters because they would choose the broken combinations in order to stay alive longer and prosper. We can use the tier list to determine what kind of game we want. If the tier 5 player doesn't care that the wizard is always outdoing them or the DM doesn't mind wracking their brains to make the game challenging for the wizard and the fighter at the same time, then they can. The key is they know what's going to happen and they can prepare for it. If they don't want to do that they can just restrict classes to a tier range.

The key is knowledge. Knowing is half the battle and an anti-magic zone surrounding a tarrasque is the other half...

[Sartharina]

Your subjective chocolate got in my subjective peanut butter! Point.

If the tiers didn't hold true in actual play, they would never have been developed. The tier system was developed over 5 years of extensive gameplay.


Druids have the highest AC of any class in Core 3.5 thanks to Wild Dragonhide Fullplate Armor and Monk's Belt. Also low level druid is significantly better then the Fighter, because in addition to your full caster, you get a pet that is about 3/4ths of a Fighter. (And once you add Barding you are probably going to beat the Fighter in AC)Wild Dragonhide Fullplate doesn't come online until stupidly late in the campaign (If it comes online at all - most druids won't think to grab Heavy Armor Proficiency)

Where are the animal companions getting proficiency in armor?


Even if the high tier classes are complicated that doesn't change the fact that they are (and will remain) more versatile. If the Wizard who is playing poorly realizes this, they can simply pick new spells up at the next level. If a Fighter is playing poorly, they'd best hope they can reroll as a Warblade.This part is true, though. Unless you're Tier 2.

[GungHo]

It's new. People started asking about this tier stuff when this thing was hot off the presses. Give it some time for people to figure it out and worry about what's best then. Right now the best way to figure out optimization is to play it and see what happens.

[Snails]

Where are the animal companions getting proficiency in armor?


Arguably being trained in the tricks to be a war mount brings barding proficiency, and the Druid (or Ranger or Paladin) would have opportunity to accomplish that. The rules are less than unambiguous on that point, but it is not a crazy stretch at all.

[archaeo]

If the tiers didn't hold true in actual play, they would never have been developed. The tier system was developed over 5 years of extensive gameplay.

Conversely, if tiers were such a useful component for understanding D&D, why haven't they been codified in the rules? I mean, certainly we'd agree that Mearls & Co. believe that the 5e classes are broadly balanced, right?

As I've said elsewhere, I'll be very interested to see if the DMG touches on the caster vs. martial debate at all; imo, it should receive attention from the developers, if only to rebut it or explain how to avoid the worst excesses of it at any given table. At the very least, however, the stuff we know will be in the DMG sounds like it will include plenty of things to balance the playing field, should one find the playing field unbalanced.

[Sartharina]

Conversely, if tiers were such a useful component for understanding D&D, why haven't they been codified in the rules? I mean, certainly we'd agree that Mearls & Co. believe that the 5e classes are broadly balanced, right?Because you can't dictate the metagame.

[Kurald Galain]

Conversely, if tiers were such a useful component for understanding D&D, why haven't they been codified in the rules? I mean, certainly we'd agree that Mearls & Co. believe that the 5e classes are broadly balanced, right?

Yes, they believe so, and that is why tiers aren't in the rulebooks.

However, they are also wrong about that, and that is why tiers are a fact of gameplay. It shouldn't be surprising that, once a game goes public, thousands of internet users will figure out combos or tricks within the rules that the designers hadn't thought of, and therefore things that were designed to be balanced may turn out to be unbalanced in practice. Nothing wrong with that, it happens in every sufficiently complex game.

[archaeo]

Because you can't dictate the metagame.


Yes, they believe so, and that is why tiers aren't in the rulebooks.

However, they are also wrong about that, and that is why tiers are a fact of gameplay. It shouldn't be surprising that, once a game goes public, thousands of internet users will figure out combos or tricks within the rules that the designers hadn't thought of, and therefore things that were designed to be balanced may turn out to be unbalanced in practice. Nothing wrong with that, it happens in every sufficiently complex game.

Eh. Time will tell. Certainly, over the years, 3.5 proved itself to be inherently unbalanced when played with optimization in mind. My only concern is that by leaping to a list of tiers for 5e, we're establishing a lot of thought-terminating memes that will just serve to cement impressions in players that might not be true. Certainly, as I read over Champion and Beast Master, I see many factors that indicate far more flexibility than has been granted to them in this discussion. But that's probably a thread in and of itself, and I probably shouldn't be putting together a really detailed OP until I'm done with work. :smallbiggrin: