Discussion of JAronK's Tier System is terrible and why does anyone use it? [Archive]

Cosi

2015-12-17, 09:16 AM

Let's pick one example. The Dread Necromancer. That class is in T3 because it can't use planar binding effectively, since it doesn't get magic circle. Setting aside the ability of the Dread Necromancer to take Arcane Disciple for an alignment domain, become a Rainbow Servant, or buy a(n Eternal) wand of magic circle, he can just buy casts of magic circle for money. Given that planar binding gives you infinite money, it seems implausible that he would not have the ability to acquire enough magic circles for his planar binding needs.

But that's just a specific example. And while there are a lot of those (Beguiler, Favored Soul, Rogue, CW Samurai), there are also fundamental problems. Such as:

1. JaronK overvalues versatility and undervalues competence. That's why the Bard and Factotum (which are below par at a variety of things) are T3, but the Rogue (which is competent at a few things) is T4.
2. There aren't any objective standards. Compare to the Same Game Test, which has a series of encounters that can be actively used to test class balance.
3. JaronK makes substantial assumptions about what DMs will and won't allow. For example, the Factotum will apparently be allowed to use 3.0 material from a campaign setting which contains no Factotums, web enhancement material from another campaign setting, and will have its abilities interpreted to work at all. Most apparent if you look at some of the old threads where people argued with him about it.
4. Doesn't assume a level of optimization. It's supposed to apply at "all levels of optimization", but that's clearly not the case. Compare Healbot Cleric (essentially a Healer) and DMM Cleric versus PA Fighter and ... PA Fighter.
5. Also fails to account for power shifts over levels. A 1st level Wizard is still better than a 1st level Fighter, but the Fighter still plays the same game. Compare that to a 1st level Artificer, who is frankly around Expert levels of useful.

Florian

2015-12-17, 10:04 AM

Well, outside of builds and TO discussions, nothing exists in a vacuum. The thing about the Tier-System is, that is evaluates the classes in said vacuum that does not exist at most gaming tables. Stuff like unlimited prep time, always be able to fully rest, always be able to shop for whatever is needed, fluff-issues never overruling RAW, and so on.
Add the fact that most people are annoyed by having to do the book-keeping for caster classes, especially the material components and foci and you end up with the Tier system. (Try it, ask where your wizard gets his medusas nose hair shaving from...)
It has just been written that it values versality over competence and it shows, because the expected behavior is always based on foreknowledge, either be having enough prep time or simply knowing how your gm ticks.

Why use it? Sheer power is actually not that interesting. It still is a measure how easily a class could derail the whole game and how much spotlight a player might be hogging with it.

I think it is accurate to say that your basic Rogue is competent at what he does, as well as saying that everyone is annoyed/bored when said Rogue starts doing his solo-scouting or thieving actions in town. The same annoyance will be amplified by an unchecked full caster, so much so that not even his effectiveness will save him from being booted from the group when overdoing it.

GilesTheCleric

2015-12-17, 10:07 AM

2. There aren't any objective standards. Compare to the Same Game Test, which has a series of encounters that can be actively used to test class balance.
Person_Man created the Niche Ranking System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System), which fills this hole fairly well, I think. If one were to compare the scores of classes from the NRS to the Tier system, I have a hunch that similarly-pointed classes would be of similar tiers. Someone would have to do the work on that, though.

4. Doesn't assume a level of optimization. It's supposed to apply at "all levels of optimization", but that's clearly not the case. Compare Healbot Cleric (essentially a Healer) and DMM Cleric versus PA Fighter and ... PA Fighter.

Bekeleven created The Tier System Expanded (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?459141-Optimization-and-Tiers-The-Tier-System-Expanded) that takes into account optimization, and as you can see from both the system and the comments, it's quite difficult to do.

Edit: Also, don't forget to distinguish between optimization and player ability. A cleric is going to be T1 regardless of how it is built, because there's no way to give up its spell list (other than not having the wis to cast the spells, which can still be fixed with items). You can hand a healbot cleric off to a "better" player, and they can proceed to break the game over their knee with it.

Chronos

2015-12-17, 10:15 AM

The lack of that one spell is not why Dread Necromancer is T3 rather than some higher tier. It's the lack of pretty much any spells other than undead minionmancy. It's really good at what it does, but has very little flexibility to do anything else.

And yes, tiers can be changed by prestige classes and other optimization techniques. A rainbow servant dread necromancer (if such a thing were possible) would, in fact, be a very different tier than a dread necromancer (either higher or lower, depending on level and on how one interprets the text vs. table for rainbow servant). That doesn't change the tier of dread necromancer by itself, though.

Florian

2015-12-17, 10:21 AM

GilesTheCleric

2015-12-17, 10:22 AM

And yes, tiers can be changed by prestige classes and other optimization techniques.

That's a good point, Chronos. We even have a Tier System for PrCs (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1573.0) to get a rough idea of how those work.

It seems to me that the Tier system, while perhaps not 100% amazing by itself, has allowed for a better analysis of the game and further theory work. One might call it seminal.

Edit:
Problem is, and always will be, that this kind of rankings work with a lot of assumptions and still stay inside a vacuum.
For example (to use MMO terms), there is no measure how "tanky" a tank is, how much "aggro" he can generate and how good his tanking endurance is.
In addition, not knowing how many encounters of what type there will be or how often a rest is available, the only thing that can be measured is how hard a class can infringe on the niche of another class.

This is a message board, which exists in a vacuum. It's unrealistic to try and make a system that accounts for every single table's playstyle. It's also why we focus on RAW, while understanding that most games probably run with a lot of RAI. It's about having a common language so that we can easily discuss our ideas without the medium we're doing it with getting in the way.

Double edit: P_M's niche system actually does address a lot of your listed concerns, Florian. It's built so that you can alter it to better fit your table by removing categories that don't appear at your table. It would be simple to add a weighting system to it if you know the % likelihood of different situations at your table.

Florian

2015-12-17, 11:06 AM

@GilestheCleric:

Don´t get me wrong there. The Problem I see there is not based on the individual play style at each table or how competent a player is, but rather that no real reference points are given to which the ranking can be compared to. For example, JaronK uses the "all sources" and "all time in the world" combined with "no specific target/action named" approach that leads to the known results.

Please note that I don´t say I have a better solution at hand, only that there is a massive clash between certain environments (Organized Play, Adventure Paths) that are very common and the Tier system as it is used.

Cosi

2015-12-17, 11:23 AM

Person_Man created the Niche Ranking System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System), which fills this hole fairly well, I think. If one were to compare the scores of classes from the NRS to the Tier system, I have a hunch that similarly-pointed classes would be of similar tiers. Someone would have to do the work on that, though.

No, there's still not any objectiveness there. How well does a Druid fit the Summoner niche? Apparently the answer is "very well". What does that mean? Does it mean he can be level appropriate by playing as a Summoner? Does it mean he gets the best summoning of any class? Note that those are very different things.

Bekeleven created The Tier System Expanded (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?459141-Optimization-and-Tiers-The-Tier-System-Expanded) that takes into account optimization, and as you can see from both the system and the comments, it's quite difficult to do.

It's difficult to do so if you try to map things to the Tier System, but that's because the Tier System is badly designed. If you have an objective measure of power (for example, the Same Game Test), it suddenly becomes very easy to see how optimization effects power.

Edit: Also, don't forget to distinguish between optimization and player ability. A cleric is going to be T1 regardless of how it is built, because there's no way to give up its spell list (other than not having the wis to cast the spells, which can still be fixed with items). You can hand a healbot cleric off to a "better" player, and they can proceed to break the game over their knee with it.

Sounds like classes should be ranked on more than one axis. I suggest something like this (I remember reading something like it on an archive binge somewhere, forget where):

Spoiler'd for hugeness.

Make a build that can be played with level appropriate power:

S (Beguiler Tier)
Barring active anti-optimization (taking Extend Spell on a Fighter, putting 8 Int on a Wizard) simply taking levels of this class and selecting everything else randomly will create a playable character.
Examples: Beguiler, possibly Druid

A (Druid Tier)
Class requires thought, but not extensive system mastery to build effectively. Fairly small number of choices, which have minimal impact on power.
Examples: Possibly Druid (depends how much you think it needs Natural Spell), Rogue (if you figure out how to make a bunch of sneak attacks, you're good)

B (Wizard Tier)
Requires some system mastery to build, or has a substantial number of choices that effect character power. This is the first point where you can expect an non-optimized character to be substantially below par.
Examples: Wizard (pick spells, pick PrC, decide to specialize, etc), Ranger (quite serviceable with Mystic, Wild Shape, or Swift Hunter, otherwise weak)

C (Sorcerer Tier)
Unforgiving of bad choices, but can be salvaged with the same level of system mastery as B.
Examples: Sorcerer (you pick half a dozen spells, picking wrong has a strong potential to screw you over)

F (Truenamer Tier)
Requires substantial system mastery to function. Optimization also opens doors for game breaking tricks.
Examples: Truenamer (you need a +50 skill check by level 10, if the Bard took that in diplomacy he'd destroy the game)

How easy is it to play a level appropriate member of this class:

S (Fighter Tier)
One or two tactical options, which are very likely to be level appropriate.
Examples: Fighter (an optimized Fighter has one action - tripping/charging/etc - he is good at, and he just does that every round)

A (Sorcerer Tier)
Several reasonable options (three to five, generally). Few situational options (i.e. ray of stupidity is an option against humanoids, but only really good against animals).
Examples: Sorcerer, ToB Classes

B (Beguiler Tier)
Up to a dozen reasonable options (including some situational ones), but minimal downtime options.
Examples: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer

C (Wizard Tier)
As many options as B, but with downtime switching.
Examples: Wizard, Druid, Cleric

F (Artificer Tier)
Huge numbers of options, both during combat and downtime.
Examples: Artificer

How easy is it to produce a character which breaks the game with this class:
(Note: This includes being too powerful to function in a party of otherwise level appropriate characters, but also being too weak)

S (Monk Tier)
Character will break the game barring significant efforts not to.
Examples: Monk

A (Druid Tier)
Character has access to broken options just for taking the class. However, those options have to be actively used.
Examples: Druid, Beguiler

B (Wizard Tier)
Character's class includes broken options, but active selections must be made for those options to be available.
Examples: Wizard (yes, it gets planar binding and magic circle, but it can just not take them)

C (Dread Necromancer Tier)
Has access to part of a broken loop from its class, but needs to spend other character resources (feats, PrC levels, gold) to be broken.
Examples: Dread Necromancer (arguably should be B if you think "threaten to kill them" is enough to get an Efreet to give you a wish)

F (Rogue Tier)
Has no intrinsic ability to break the game, possibly outside of class skills.
Examples: Rogue

The lack of that one spell is not why Dread Necromancer is T3 rather than some higher tier.

The following represents the full text of the "Why Tier 3s are in Tier 3" explanation for the Dread Necromancer:

Cons: I'm playing a Dread Necromancer right now, and I can assure you Planar Binding is FAR weaker on them than a Sorcerer or Wizard. Without magic circle, a Dread Necromancer has to kill and reanimate anyone they bind... they can't just use services or anything. And that can be a little hard to do. Once that's complete, they can only reanimate them as a Skeleton or Zombie if they want gaurenteed control, which is hardly impressive. If they want to control the creature, they could use Create Undead to make a Bone Creature... but it's DM fiat as to which version of Create Undead they need to use to get such a critter. And now they have to rebuke the creature... which is difficult if they don't have the items they need to make that work (Lyre of the Restful Soul, Rod of Defiance). And by the time they can actually make all this work, we're already in very high levels where the Sorcerer is about to start Shapechanging, usually.

On paper it's great, but the DN version of Planar Binding isn't anywhere near the Wizard/Sorcerer version. I know... I'm using it in a game right now! -JaronK

A section has been emphasized for readers in this thread. Said readers should note the lack of attention paid to issues like "limited spell list" or "delayed progression", which might be suggestive of other issues the Dread Necromancer has.

It's the lack of pretty much any spells other than undead minionmancy. It's really good at what it does, but has very little flexibility to do anything else.

First, it also gets save-or-dies and planar minionmancy.

Second, minionmancy is probably the the most powerful form of casting. It's up there with "turning spells with non-slot costs into SLAs" and "shape changing magic". There is very little you can't do with minionmancy (though it is true that animate dead is one of the more limited varieties).

That doesn't change the tier of dread necromancer by itself, though.

Then why is the tier system useful? If I'm playing a Dread Necromancer in a high OP game, you can bet I'm looking at Rainbow Servant. If the tier system falls apart once people start taking PrCs or feats, it's not a whole lot of use.

That's a good point, Chronos. We even have a Tier System for PrCs (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1573.0) to get a rough idea of how those work.

I've looked at that.

It's bad.

Right off the bat, it's doing the same thing JaronK did with his "Class X Fallacy" rants and ignoring special synergies. For example (because it's topical), consider the Rainbow Servant.

For a Wizard or Sorcerer, it's nothing special. They still have to learn the spells and most of the good Cleric spells are also on the Sorcerer/Wizard list, while the ones that aren't are either downtime spells they can get from planar binding (healing spells) or not very good.

For a Dread Necromancer or Beguiler, it's totally insane. They get good domains during level-up, and they get to cast spontaneously off a super deep list.

One might call it seminal.

You might call the idea of tiering classes seminal. If JaronK had thought of it you might call the Tier List seminal. But he didn't, and as an example of class tiers, it's less than useful.

GilesTheCleric

2015-12-17, 11:39 AM

No, there's still not any objectiveness there. How well does a Druid fit the Summoner niche? Apparently the answer is "very well". What does that mean? Does it mean he can be level appropriate by playing as a Summoner? Does it mean he gets the best summoning of any class? Note that those are very different things.

It's difficult to do so if you try to map things to the Tier System, but that's because the Tier System is badly designed. If you have an objective measure of power (for example, the Same Game Test), it suddenly becomes very easy to see how optimization effects power. Objectiveness is difficult to achieve when you're looking at a scale. There's no binary for "how good is this class at doing this thing" -- there's a gradation. All of the classes are compared against each other, and the best are given the best grade, the worst the worst, and everything else is put in between those two established extremes. Since the only way to do things in D&D is within the rules, the only way to compare things is also within the rules.

Things like "level-appropriate" and "best summoning" don't have a lot to do with each other. "Level-appropriate" can be determined in any number of ways, and is subjective. "Best summoning" is a more-objective measure that can be discerned by comparing one class to the others.

Sounds like classes should be ranked on more than one axis. I suggest something like this (I remember reading something like it on an archive binge somewhere, forget where):
Bekeleven's method, perhaps.

You might call the idea of tiering classes seminal. If JaronK had thought of it you might call the Tier List seminal. But he didn't, and as an example of class tiers, it's less than useful.

"Less than useful" seems to be your opinion of it based on how you use it. I can state that in games where the tier system is part of the game rules (for example an E8 T3-4 game I intend to play in), I find it useful based on how I'm using it -- to help me balance my character against the rest of the party. I think it's fine if the tier system doesn't work for you, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work for other folks.

Edit: I missed your post there Florian, sorry!

@GilestheCleric:

Don´t get me wrong there. The Problem I see there is not based on the individual play style at each table or how competent a player is, but rather that no real reference points are given to which the ranking can be compared to. For example, JaronK uses the "all sources" and "all time in the world" combined with "no specific target/action named" approach that leads to the known results.

Please note that I don´t say I have a better solution at hand, only that there is a massive clash between certain environments (Organized Play, Adventure Paths) that are very common and the Tier system as it is used.

That makes sense, and I think that's a valid criticism of the tier system.

Taelas

2015-12-17, 11:43 AM

4. Doesn't assume a level of optimization. It's supposed to apply at "all levels of optimization", but that's clearly not the case. Compare Healbot Cleric (essentially a Healer) and DMM Cleric versus PA Fighter and ... PA Fighter.
The level of optimization is irrelevant, because it is assumed to be equal across all tiers and all classes. A character with a tier 1 class is optimized to the same level as a character with a tier 5 class. That doesn't mean they are equivalent, it means they have the same "tune-up" from optimization, so it is not a relevant factor.

atemu1234

2015-12-17, 11:49 AM

We usually use it for theory work. A tier isn't necessarily equal to itself, because they categorize. It provides a grouping based on traits, which correlate to power but are not necessarily the same.

Florian

2015-12-17, 11:53 AM

The level of optimization is irrelevant, because it is assumed to be equal across all tiers and all classes. A character with a tier 1 class is optimized to the same level as a character with a tier 5 class. That doesn't mean they are equivalent, it means they have the same "tune-up" from optimization, so it is not a relevant factor.

Doesn´t really make sense because the core assumptions used are moving the goal posts.
For example, nearly every character can learn and max out UMD and use some scrolls of Time Stop and Gate for full effect.
So we rate something high because it has the innate ability to do something, and rate it even higher because it can outsource that ability to scrolls and stuff, all the while citing the lack of the same versality against other classes. What then is a rogue with a scroll of Time Stop and three candles of invocation?

nedz

2015-12-17, 11:56 AM

The following is much quoted: Player > Build > Class

The Tier system focusses on the least important of these whilst all of your complaints focus on the other two.

Sure I can build a Beguiler to be T0, but only if I use a well known PrC which does this job by means of fixed list caster synergy and it only comes online at level 15+ — which, incidentally, is almost outside of the bounds of the tier system (levels 5 - 15).

I've found the tier system to be invaluable. In a game which has just started up I knew we would have a mid-OP Druid in the party, so I took a T3 class and optimised it up a tier. I also persuaded the Gish player to up his build somewhat. This means we will have a party operating at about T2 which means it will be more balanced.

Cosi

2015-12-17, 12:14 PM

There's no binary for "how good is this class at doing this thing" -- there's a gradation.

Yes there is. A class either is or is not good enough at some thing. Imagine you had two summoners. One gets summon nature's ally as a Druid at-will. The other gets summon monster I once per level. Which is more useful, that the second one can't solve encounters (at least can't solve them with summoning), or that it's the 2nd best summoner?

I eagerly await your explanation for why it's the second one.

All of the classes are compared against each other, and the best are given the best grade, the worst the worst, and everything else is put in between those two established extremes.

Except that's not how classes are used. You don't contribute to the game by being "slightly worse that a Wizard, but slightly better than a Sorcerer." You contribute by being able to defeat challenges that are level appropriate.

Things like "level-appropriate" and "best summoning" don't have a lot to do with each other. "Level-appropriate" can be determined in any number of ways, and is subjective.

That's true. One of them is a useful measure of class power, the other one is "best summoning".

And there absolutely is an objective measure of level appropriate. A level appropriate character can expect to take on an encounter of CR = Level and win half the time. That what the books define being a Xth level character as meaning.

It's "best summoning" you can't define objectively.

"Best summoning" is a more-objective measure that can be discerned by comparing one class to the others.

I suppose you can easily determine (for a certain value of easily) that a class has the best summoning. How exactly is that supposed to help you rank or balance classes? If no one else could cast summoning spells, would the hypothetical one summon monster I per level guy become the best summoner? If the answer to that is yes, best summoner means nothing from any useful perspective.

Bekeleven's method, perhaps.

No, because you'll note that this method:

a) Doesn't use JaronK's Tiers at all.
b) Is about ranking classes to a fixed balance point.

"Less than useful" seems to be your opinion of it based on how you use it. I can state that in games where the tier system is part of the game rules (for example an E8 T3-4 game I intend to play in), I find it useful based on how I'm using it -- to help me balance my character against the rest of the party.

So you consider the Beguiler you uses charm and diplomacy to recruit any enemy that fails a Will save to be of comparable power to the Barbarian who ... does literally anything a Barbarian could possibly do?

The level of optimization is irrelevant, because it is assumed to be equal across all tiers and all classes. A character with a tier 1 class is optimized to the same level as a character with a tier 5 class. That doesn't mean they are equivalent, it means they have the same "tune-up" from optimization, so it is not a relevant factor.

So you just read the post with an explanation of why that idea is wrong, then restated that idea without response to the post?

Here's another example. Beguiler v Wizard. JaronK tells us that for any level of optimization, Beguiler should be worse than Wizard. Consider two characters who assign stats equally, then make random choices for everything else. Which do you think is better in that scenario, the Wizard or the Beguiler?

We usually use it for theory work. A tier isn't necessarily equal to itself, because they categorize. It provides a grouping based on traits, which correlate to power but are not necessarily the same.

I'm interested to hear what theory work benefits from the use of the Tiers inside of simply assessing the power of classes individually.

Sure I can build a Beguiler to be T0, but only if I use a well known PrC which does this job by means of fixed list caster synergy and it only comes online at level 15+ — which, incidentally, is almost outside of the bounds of the tier system (levels 5 - 15).

Uh, no.

First, mental minionmancy (charm + diplomacy, dominate) is plenty to hit whatever balance point you care to name.

Second, that is far from the only way to build a Wizard-level Beguiler. UMD Runestaves, Arcane Disciple, even Shadowcraft Mage.

Third, that comes online at level 11 if you care.

I've found the tier system to be invaluable. In a game which has just started up I knew we would have a mid-OP Druid in the party, so I took a T3 class and optimised it up a tier. I also persuaded the Gish player to up his build somewhat. This means we will have a party operating at about T2 which means it will be more balanced.

How is that different from just optimizing the characters to be on the save level? Is it the thing where you're using JaronK's crazy claims like "giving up all the good parts of Cleric makes you just as powerful as a Cleric" or "getting one of the worse Conjuration spells at will is better than getting the best one"? What material benefit is there to using the tiers in that context?

ExLibrisMortis

2015-12-17, 12:18 PM

The tier system does not rate classes in a vacuum. It rates classes in a dummy setting, understood to be based in RAW, but with stand-in DM interpretations when the RAW becomes unclear. D&D is not a game that functions without these rulings. JaredK did not want to be too specific about this dummy setting, but in the accompanying text, he explains why certain classes are in the tier they are in. If his reasoning does not apply at your table, you can change the tier. The same applies to specific builds: they can be placed in a tier. You can't expect the tier system to apply to every table out of the box. However, the general division into five to seven tiers works at most tables. The tiers are, roughly:

Tier 0: Game-breaking in every way at once. Fusion + astral seed to get every monster ability.
Tier 1: Game-breaking in many ways. Wizards.
Tier 2: Game-breaking in at least one way. Sorcerers.
Tier 3: Good at many things, can do most things. Bards.
Tier 4: Good at at least one thing, can do most things. Rogues.
Tier 5: Can't do some things. Warriors.
Tier 6: Can't do many things. Commoners.

Tier 3 and 4 are the vaguest and most interesting parts, there could be some useful refinement there. Tier 0 and tier 6 are usually taken as jokes (effectively TO), as they are rarely played. Tier -1 is reserved for the most broken thing, Pun-Pun. Sometimes, a class is powerful enough - in a non-broken way - that they can force their power to apply in unusual situations. For example, a Dread Necromancer can fill a moat with undead, then walk over. It's not move earth, but it will do. That's versatility born of power.

nedz

2015-12-17, 12:28 PM

Sure I can build a Beguiler to be T0, but only if I use a well known PrC which does this job by means of fixed list caster synergy and it only comes online at level 15+ — which, incidentally, is almost outside of the bounds of the tier system (levels 5 - 15).
Uh, no.

First, mental minionmancy (charm + diplomacy, dominate) is plenty to hit whatever balance point you care to name.
Anyone can build a Diplomancer - this has little to do with class.

Second, that is far from the only way to build a Wizard-level Beguiler. UMD Runestaves, Arcane Disciple, even Shadowcraft Mage.

Third, that comes online at level 11 if you care.
Not Tier 0 and Wizard can get there with PrCs much earlier. Also your points are about the build, not the class.

I've found the tier system to be invaluable. In a game which has just started up I knew we would have a mid-OP Druid in the party, so I took a T3 class and optimised it up a tier. I also persuaded the Gish player to up his build somewhat. This means we will have a party operating at about T2 which means it will be more balanced.How is that different from just optimizing the characters to be on the same level?
Exactly my point - thank you.

Also I see you ignored my main argument. I take it you capitulate on that one ?

The following is much quoted: Player > Build > Class

The Tier system focusses on the least important of these whilst all of your complaints focus on the other two.

Please focus your arguments on the Classes and not the Builds, because otherwise you are not talking about the Tier system.

johnbragg

2015-12-17, 12:37 PM

4. Doesn't assume a level of optimization. It's supposed to apply at "all levels of optimization", but that's clearly not the case. Compare Healbot Cleric (essentially a Healer) and DMM Cleric versus PA Fighter and ... PA Fighter.

The utility of the Tier list changes with levels of optimization, but it comes out of brute experience with the 3X chassis at those low, early 2000's levels of optimization.

Consider the off-the-shelf Durkon Healbot Cleric, created by a new player at mid levels.

He's outclassed in combat by the Power Attack Fighter. True enough. But with d8 HD, 3/4 BAB, all armors and a decent weapon, he or she's not a liability in a fight. Often enough, they're the second-best warrior in an old-school low-optimization no-munchkin party.

He's got a full load of healing spells until someone at the table notices that spontaneous cure spells are a thing, at which point he has a full load of protection from evil, bless, 2nd level stat boosts and dispel magic's. The PA Fighter, obviously, doesn't.

Knowledge: Religion is a fairly obvious skill to max out, which is a pretty common DM plot hook introducer. PA Fighter's skills will, at best, not cause catastrophic failure if he buys perception and stealth skills cross-class.

And back all that up with access to the full Cleric spell list when the player figures out what to do with half of it. The Fighter....can pick up a level of Wizard and cast shield or true strike or enlarge person on himself.

Even the off-the-shelf Healbot Cleric is useful in more situations, and has more options, than the Fighter is. And he's not terrible at what the Fighter's good (or at least halfway good) at.

Florian

2015-12-17, 12:38 PM

Cosi

2015-12-17, 12:42 PM

*snip - Tiers measure breaking the game*

That makes the Tiers useless. No one plays a broken game. Options are either banned for diverging too much from the desired power level, or considered not to be broken.

A list of potentially broken elements might be useful, but that is not what the Tiers are. Here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=1156) is such a list, for reference.

Frankly, if you're going to rank how broken classes are, you have exactly two tiers:

Tier 1: Can cast planar binding.
Tier 2: Has to buy a Candle of Invocation.

Anyone can build a Diplomancer - this has little to do with class.

Beguiler does it at level 2, while still having three of the top four 1st level attack spells (missing grease).

Exactly my point - thank you.

Wait so your point was that the tier system is useless?

Also I see you ignored my main argument. I take it you capitulate on that one?

No, I ignored it because it doesn't mean anything. If ranking classes isn't useful (and you seem to believe it isn't), then a system that ranks classes is by definition not useful. So if your strongest argument for the Tiers is "it ranks something meaningless", you have already lost.

ComaVision

2015-12-17, 12:44 PM

Florian

2015-12-17, 12:49 PM

GilesTheCleric

2015-12-17, 12:50 PM

Yes there is. A class either is or is not good enough at some thing. Imagine you had two summoners. One gets summon nature's ally as a Druid at-will. The other gets summon monster I once per level. Which is more useful, that the second one can't solve encounters (at least can't solve them with summoning), or that it's the 2nd best summoner?
The problem is that you're using the phrase "good enough". If you set a single standard against which all things are tested, yes, they will be either above, at, or below that standard. However, that's not possible. In order for set standards to be a useful metric, you have have to set an incalculable number of them, one for each facet and possibility of D&D as you have done above. Maybe a great coder could build a model that could do that; I couldn't.

The example you give is still a scale. A commoner with Summon Monster 1 can solve a whole lot of problems. It scales poorly, but SM1 can be just as effective at beating traps as eg Etherealness. Can it defeat any >CR creatures in honorable single combat? Unlikely. But, it can succeed on on defeating an encounter with a creature perhaps by giving the commoner enough time to run away while the tasty cow he summoned is torn to bits. I'd give XP for that. If the foe the commoner finds himself facing is an automaton with no desire to chomp on cow flesh, then the commoner is going to have to do his best with the SM1's trip attacks or something. Perhaps the commoner is in an incredibly unusual place like a dungeon, and the large-sized cow is enough to block the corridor between him and the creature and he again escapes. Maybe he's on an open field against a dire lion, and there's no way he's going to make it more than 120' alive.

The (I assume scaling, since you didn't say?) SNA commoner will be able to defeat more encounters than the SM1 commoner, but in some situations, one is equally as good as the other. SNA commoner is "better", but that value for "how much better" varies based on what you're looking at. SNA could kill an creature that SM1 only helped to avoid. One solved the situation in what might have been a better way.

There could even be an outlandish, hypothetical situation where SM1 is better than SNA, purely because a SM1 creature has some ability that the SNA list does not, and that's the only way to defeat the encounter. I don't care to figure out what that situation would be, but in D&D it's a possibility.

D&D is not chess, it is not poker. A set number doesn't always beat another set number. Are you happy that I tilted at your strawman now?

(Edit: An attempt to use a binary "better, yes or no" could be possible, but it results in a big mess. Either you have one class that's bad and all the rest are better (not a useful metric), or you have a ginormous string of class > class > class > class. The Tier system condenses that second outcome into more manageable chunks, and provides additional information about whether one "better" is substantially different to another "better". 2/day SM1 commoner is better than 1/day, but that binary is effectively nonexistent when you compare it to at-will scaled SNA.)

Except that's not how classes are used. You don't contribute to the game by being "slightly worse that a Wizard, but slightly better than a Sorcerer." You contribute by being able to defeat challenges that are level appropriate.This is a group game, remember. 2 people who are slightly worse than a wizard can combine their ability to defeat a challenge as easily as 1 wizard could.

And there absolutely is an objective measure of level appropriate. A level appropriate character can expect to take on an encounter of CR = Level and win half the time. That what the books define being a Xth level character as meaning. I agree with you there. The problem is that CR is borked, and that's a fault of the system.

It's "best summoning" you can't define objectively. You're right, it's not 100% objective. But given the problems with the CR system, it's more objective than level-appropriate is. With "best summoning" you can compare classes on a level-to-level basis, ignoring most of their other class features, and see what creatures they can summon, how often they can do it, and how many they can summon.

I suppose you can easily determine (for a certain value of easily) that a class has the best summoning. How exactly is that supposed to help you rank or balance classes? If no one else could cast summoning spells, would the hypothetical one summon monster I per level guy become the best summoner? If the answer to that is yes, best summoner means nothing from any useful perspective.That's the problem, isn't it? D&D is the combination of a whole lot of factors, and it's difficult to set up an equation that can fairly balance them all. We do our best with approximation, and that's what the niche system and tier system are. Different methods of approximation will deal better with the game in different situations and use cases.

johnbragg

2015-12-17, 12:55 PM

@johnbragg:

You know, that is exactly the thing with the moving goal posts. Your humble fighter can buy some scrolls or a candle of invocation and play along with the best, because WBL and free shopping is the great equalizer here. Beat some true names out of a bone devil and start using those scrolls of lesser planar binding, and so on.

But: Most people chosing the humble fighter actually don`t want to do that and they don´t want to be involved with a more complex resource management than hit points.

Well, I include that because, back in the days before 3.5, that's exactly what I *did* with my Fighter, who wanted to be the bestest melee Fighter around, and was (IC) smart enough to realize that adding 1st level arcane spells (pre-combat round, cast Shield ! +4AC, then start wailing on dudes with my double-axe, either using TWF, or Power Attack two-handed if I wasn't hitting with TWF) was going to help in combat a lot more than another +1 BAB. In retrospect, it was a clear demonstration that thanks to caster supremacy, the best way in 3X to be a Fighter is to, er, not be a Fighter.

nedz

2015-12-17, 01:07 PM

@nedz:

Actually asking that out of sheer curiosity: In both, 3,5 and PF, there are a rough hand full of stable builds that people gravitate to and are used over and over again. Mostly, that is because they either do break limits or manage to transform MAD to SAD. That´s stuff like the Glaivelock, Oradin, Sorcerdin, Ultimate Magus builds, the usual suspects.In your opinion, should these types of stable builds no be rated separately from their parent classes, as they have advanced far beyond their capabilities?

You could and it might be an interesting project though it could run into the same difficulties as the PrC tier system — too many options to weed out. There are lots of versions of those builds out there.

Obviously I'm not nedz but: You certainly could fit specific builds into the tier system but it's not really necessary. As JaronK said, the tier of a multiclass character is usually equal to the higher tier class being used (unless you're doing something really silly).

Well synergy is a thing to take into account — which is what most of the classic builds aim for — but you could factor that in.

ILM

2015-12-17, 01:18 PM

How is that different from just optimizing the characters to be on the same level?
I think the point of the Tier system is just to help you figure out what that "same level" is. Consider that before it was expressed, there was no quick and easy way to explain to a player that playing a fighter in a party full of druids and wizards at level 15 meant he was going to struggle to contribute. The Tier system isn't a tool for experienced optimizers anyway; they know what each class can do, what the landmark feats are, and which PrC is going to make them stronger, more versatile, or pinpoint-focused. The Tier system is for those people who haven't yet digested the fact that a bard has more options than a barbarian, and that not all situations you face in a game boil down to breaking down doors (and, in fact, that bards can do that too, just differently). The Tier system is convention, it's just a universally-accepted shorthand to say "maybe you want to rething your class choice". It's not science, it's not law, it's not RAW, and you don't need to use it if you don't like it. But after a few years of explaining to people why making a rogue when everyone's a swordsage is a recipe for disappointment ("but sneak attack is so powerful!", you'll wish you had a quick and easy reference to point them towards.

Seward

2015-12-17, 01:22 PM

My main beef with the tier system is that it underrates raw damage, especially raw damage when unprepared. The tier 4 classes can generally achieve levels of damage that consistently end encounters quickly, even if unprepared, and that may be the only thing a fighter/archer does, for example, but without it you let the other guys do a lot more harm to you.

Raw damage ends more encounters in most games faster than any other factor. Dead is usually the best enemy condition (enslaved is perhaps better, but in a lot of games you have a similar problem with minions as summoners do - your turns take so long that people tell you to do something else).

I've made casters that can compete on the raw damage front with the tier 4 optimized damage dealers, but they generally can only keep it up at the same level for a few rounds each day (using highest tier slots and/or limited use/day items).

But this is related to the idea that the tier system allows infinite time to prepare. In my experience, that's actually pretty rare in D&D. Certainly in organized play it isn't the case, although Pathfinder's "we are archaeologists exploring ancient sites" tends to have more of it than Living Greyhawks "we are the adventurers the locals can find to solve their problem this week" style. Adventure paths and especially old-school modules patterned after 1st edition Temple of Elemental Evil or Tomb of Horrors tend to fit the tier system better - the PCs are normally the only active party, with enemies mostly defending/reacting.

All that said, raw damage potential is fairly easy for a GM to evaluate, as are "tanking" attributes such as armor class and saving throw/magical defenses where things like enslaving all of your enemies or binding creatures more powerful than yourself to do your bidding, or scry/die tactics are more likely to cause long term campaign issues.

The tier system is to me more a means of "how likely is it that somebody can decide to break the game with a tactic without spending all of their wealth by level on UMD items". Of course the other players and GM can just say "please don't do that, it isn't fun." Which is how most imbalances in a party tend to sort themselves out.

Beheld

2015-12-17, 01:30 PM

The example you give is still a scale. A commoner with Summon Monster 1 can solve a whole lot of problems. It scales poorly, but SM1 can be just as effective at beating traps as eg Etherealness. Can it defeat any >CR creatures in honorable single combat? Unlikely. But, it can succeed on on defeating an encounter with a creature perhaps by giving the commoner enough time to run away while the tasty cow he summoned is torn to bits. I'd give XP for that. If the foe the commoner finds himself facing is an automaton with no desire to chomp on cow flesh, then the commoner is going to have to do his best with the SM1's trip attacks or something. Perhaps the commoner is in an incredibly unusual place like a dungeon, and the large-sized cow is enough to block the corridor between him and the creature and he again escapes. Maybe he's on an open field against a dire lion, and there's no way he's going to make it more than 120' alive.

Yes, the Commoner with SNA once per level can beat encounters that are a single trap, and not multiple traps, as long as they are the first encounter he faces that level. So he scores a 0% on the SGT level 5, just like a regular Commoner. And we have an objective measure of his power, which is to say, basically nothing as a level 5 character, so don't play them unless you want to be powerless and worthless. On the other hand, the Beguiler may beat somewhere between 40-80% of the SGT, I don't know, because I've never run it on a Beguiler, but you will then know that he scores 40-80%. Repeat for all other characters. That will tell you how much each character will actually contribute to the encounters they will actually face.

It isn't a perfect measure for EG, Bards, but it works for the vast majority of classes and gives an actual meaningful description of power, unlike the Tiers which tell you literally nothing useful at all.

For example, apparently to you, "Casting Dominate Person" counts as a "build" decision so therefore has no effect on Tiers. Which makes me wonder, if casting spells is a build decision, then what could possibly be a class decision?

This is a group game, remember. 2 people who are slightly worse than a wizard can combine their ability to defeat a challenge as easily as 1 wizard could.

Except of course, under the CR guidelines, two people will face encounters 2CR higher than one person, and will therefore, if they aren't good enough to pass the SGT on their own, proceed to fail a SGT for a higher level together.

I agree with you there. The problem is that CR is borked, and that's a fault of the system.

You're right, it's not 100% objective. But given the problems with the CR system, it's more objective than level-appropriate is. With "best summoning" you can compare classes on a level-to-level basis, ignoring most of their other class features, and see what creatures they can summon, how often they can do it, and how many they can summon.

Uggg, not this again. CR is not borked. CR is usually very accurate. The vast majority of monsters of a given CR provide similar levels of challenge to a party of the level expected to face them. Different types of monsters have different tactics, and use different abilities, and are therefore different levels of threat to different PCs, but they are in fact very well balanced, which is why extreme exceptions such as the Elemental Weirds, the CR 9 Disjunction Bot, and That Damn Crab are so egregious. If most competently built parties couldn't handle almost all monsters of CR 2-4. That Damn Crab being basically unmanageable by such parties wouldn't be seen as the betrayal it is.

CR is a very well balanced, certainly much better than PC class balance, and more to the point, it is literally the only possible system of figuring out what opposition you are likely to face, and therefore what types of encounters you need to beat. So as a PC, it is objectively the standard you need to measure yourself against to know if you are competent or not. So if you have the ability to say, Summon a single summon monster at will every 5 rounds, then you know, that monster will probably do jack and **** against level appropriate enemies while they eat you alive. But if, on the other hand, you have access to like 14 minions made out of most of the things you just fought at the same time, and in addition to that you spend your actions using save or die/loses every round, and you also have level appropriate utility to address situations outside combat, then you know that you are going to be just fine when you walk into almost any encounter you need to deal with, and you might be the MVP of every single encounter.

GilesTheCleric

2015-12-17, 01:38 PM

Yes, the Commoner with SNA once per level can beat encounters that are a single trap, and not multiple traps, as long as they are the first encounter he faces that level. So he scores a 0% on the SGT level 5, just like a regular Commoner. And we have an objective measure of his power, which is to say, basically nothing as a level 5 character, so don't play them unless you want to be powerless and worthless. On the other hand, the Beguiler may beat somewhere between 40-80% of the SGT, I don't know, because I've never run it on a Beguiler, but you will then know that he scores 40-80%. Repeat for all other characters. That will tell you how much each character will actually contribute to the encounters they will actually face.

It isn't a perfect measure for EG, Bards, but it works for the vast majority of classes and gives an actual meaningful description of power, unlike the Tiers which tell you literally nothing useful at all.Yes.

For example, apparently to you, "Casting Dominate Person" counts as a "build" decision so therefore has no effect on Tiers. Which makes me wonder, if casting spells is a build decision, then what could possibly be a class decision?What?

Except of course, under the CR guidelines, two people will face encounters 2CR higher than one person, and will therefore, if they aren't good enough to pass the SGT on their own, proceed to fail a SGT for a higher level together.

Uggg, not this again. CR is not borked. CR is usually very accurate. The vast majority of monsters of a given CR provide similar levels of challenge to a party of the level expected to face them. Different types of monsters have different tactics, and use different abilities, and are therefore different levels of threat to different PCs, but they are in fact very well balanced, which is why extreme exceptions such as the Elemental Weirds, the CR 9 Disjunction Bot, and That Damn Crab are so egregious. If most competently built parties couldn't handle almost all monsters of CR 2-4. That Damn Crab being basically unmanageable by such parties wouldn't be seen as the betrayal it is.

CR is a very well balanced, certainly much better than PC class balance, and more to the point, it is literally the only possible system of figuring out what opposition you are likely to face, and therefore what types of encounters you need to beat. So as a PC, it is objectively the standard you need to measure yourself against to know if you are competent or not. So if you have the ability to say, Summon a single summon monster at will every 5 rounds, then you know, that monster will probably do jack and **** against level appropriate enemies while they eat you alive. But if, on the other hand, you have access to like 14 minions made out of most of the things you just fought at the same time, and in addition to that you spend your actions using save or die/loses every round, and you also have level appropriate utility to address situations outside combat, then you know that you are going to be just fine when you walk into almost any encounter you need to deal with, and you might be the MVP of every single encounter.

CR is more balanced against a party, I agree. The problem with this argument is the Tiers look at an individual, not a party.

Beheld

2015-12-17, 01:49 PM

Yes.

Wait what? So you are arguing that the Tier system is useless and that the SGT is a useful measure of character power? That... was not evident from your previous posts.

What?

Nevermind, that was nedz claiming that a Beguiler's ability to cast Dominate Person shouldn't count towards it's Tier placement. My bad.

CR is more balanced against a party, I agree. The problem with this argument is the Tiers look at an individual, not a party.

Except that the Tier system tells you literally nothing about individuals, but CR, which is the measure of what enemies you will actually face, combined with the SGT to evaluate an individuals abilities against enemies of it's CR, tells you how much any individual is likely to contribute to a party. IE, a measure of actual power, unlike the Tier system which steadfastly refuses to provide any useful information to anyone.

ExLibrisMortis

2015-12-17, 01:51 PM

That makes the Tiers useless. No one plays a broken game. Options are either banned for diverging too much from the desired power level, or considered not to be broken.
You're not trying to read the intention behind the tiers or my post, just finding points to disagree with. The common opinion is that tiers 1 and 2 are 'broken'. That's because they can do things like time travel, infinite loops, and becoming truly invulnerable*. Those things make it very hard to tell an interesting story/play a challenging game, at least, in a Greyhawk setting, like the one 'vanilla' D&D assumes you're using. That's why I use the word 'broken' in those tiers.

In the right context, 'broken' abilities are accounted for, and - as you say - not 'broken'. That doesn't mean that there isn't a qualitative difference between 'power' in a tier 1-2 class, and 'power' in a tier 3-5 class. A 'broken' ability can only be countered by another 'broken' ability. An infinite loop will always beat a finite loop, essentially. The designers seem to have built the game around tier 4-5, given the usual levels of monster optimization, official sample builds, and so on. Therefore, tier 1 and 2 are marked 'broken' (strong). If the game was designed around tiers 1 and 2, tiers 3-5 would be marked 'broken' (weak). The exact word you use isn't relevant to the point - I still prefer 'broken', but you can use 'god-like' or 'DM-level' instead, if you want.

Edit: We're trying to measure the difference between classes. Any class can buy a candle of invocation, therefore candle-based wish loops are irrelevant to our discussion. Pun-pun already has his own tier.

*You could perhaps make a tier listing of abilities rather than classes, and assign each class, template and prestige class to a tier, based on the highest tier of ability they grant. I'm not sure it would be a doable job, but you would be able to assign a tier to the aleax template, for example, or the ice assassin spell.

KoboldCleric

2015-12-17, 02:15 PM

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 [...] This post is NOT intended to state which class is "best" or "sucks."

The purpose of the tier system, as JaronK very clearly states, is not to measure which classes are "better" than others by comparing them against each other or some objective medium. Neither is it to determine the relative "power" of a class against other PCs, NPCs or the environment. If that's how you are attempting to use the tier system, then it probably doesn't work for you. But it's not because of some flaw with the system. It's because you're using it in a manner other than intended to measure something it was never intended to measure.

The purpose of the tier system is to give DMs a baseline level of expectation with regard to how classes interact with one another in a party setting so that the DM can more efficiently and more effectively make the game fun for each and every player.

The rogue, for example, is a lower tier class because it creates its own usefulness rather than being useful on its own. Most of the problems the rogue is known or relied upon to solve are created by the rogue's presence in the party: things like traps, locked doors, situations in which it would be useful to sneak. Without a rogue, a party which encounters any of those situations has myriad ways to bypass or brute force through the obstacle (e.g. You can often disable a trap by setting it off from afar with a rock or 10ft poll or summoned creature. You could go around it. You could often just set it off and then have the party cleric heal you or drink a healing potion, etc).

However, in more general circumstances, the rogue is unlikely to be the character to whom the party turns to carry the spotlight. The rogue is rarely the best fighter in combat, for instance, and, in fact, may even rely on other members of the party to be effective in combat at all (e.g. via flanking for sneak attack damage). And while most classes would be thrilled to have the rogue's skill list and 8+ skill points per level, many of the skill-based roles the rogue is set up to play are skill-intensive. Disable Device, Open Lock, and Search are largely required for the rogue to solve the problems it itself begs (down to 5+ skill points). The "party face" role generally wants most or all of Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Gather information, Intimidate, Sense Motive; the "scout" role wants Hide, Move Silently, Spot, Listen; the "thief" role wants Appraise, Balance, Climb, Forgery, Knowledge (Local), Sleight of Hand. And all this without considering combat skills like Tumble and generally useful skills like Use Magic Device. Despite the high number of skill points, the rogue often ends up filling just one of those skill-based "roles", largely the same as everyone else.

What this means is that the rogue is often a class which, when played in a party, doesn't share the spotlight well. In order to shine, it often requires the DM to tailor circumstances around the rogue's particular abilities (which can easily mean the rogue plays mini-games while the rest of the group stands around and watches). If the DM doesn't, the rogue too often doesn't have the tools to contribute in a way that feels special or meaningful its player.

On the flip side, higher tier classes like the Wizard or the Druid are well known to be able to contribute meaningfully in very nearly every situation which could arise, and often in ways that are "fresh" and "new" to the party and the player. They are capable combatants, have useful skills or the spells to duplicate them. They have many and versatile abilities that can be applied across a range of problems in an often lock & key style. It's so well documented, I don't feel the need to elaborate further.

What this means for the Wizard or the Druid is that they (by the nature of the class itself, not by the attitude of the player) hog the spotlight. Or, if they don't, it is precisely because the player has voluntarily elected to not use the full range of abilities available, in which case there is the potential for the player of that character to feel that they are playing a zero-sum game with the amount of "fun" to go around, which is in and of itself not an enjoyable experience.

Viewed in this light, the Tier system is a helpful tool for DMs in preparing their games around their players abilities, and it is useful for players in planning their characters around the abilities of the other players. I'll leave you with a final thought from JaronK and an exhortation to go read the 5 bullet points listed in the tier system post itself under the heading "this system is created for the following purposes:" before you complain that the Tier system is not helpful when you attempt to [mis]use it for some other purpose.

The Tier System is not specifically ranking Power or Versitility (though those are what ends up being the big factors). It's ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in any given situation. Highly versitile classes will be more likely to efficiently apply what power they have to the situation, while very powerful classes will be able to REALLY help in specific situations. Classes that are both versitile and powerful will very easily get what they want by being very likely to have a very powerful solution to the current problem. This is what matters most for balance.

Beheld

2015-12-17, 02:18 PM

You're not trying to read the intention behind the tiers or my post, just finding points to disagree with. The common opinion is that tiers 1 and 2 are 'broken'. That's because they can do things like time travel, infinite loops, and becoming truly invulnerable*. Those things make it very hard to tell an interesting story/play a challenging game, at least, in a Greyhawk setting, like the one 'vanilla' D&D assumes you're using. That's why I use the word 'broken' in those tiers.

In the right context, 'broken' abilities are accounted for, and - as you say - not 'broken'. That doesn't mean that there isn't a qualitative difference between 'power' in a tier 1-2 class, and 'power' in a tier 3-5 class. A 'broken' ability can only be countered by another 'broken' ability. An infinite loop will always beat a finite loop, essentially. The designers seem to have built the game around tier 4-5, given the usual levels of monster optimization, official sample builds, and so on. Therefore, tier 1 and 2 are marked 'broken' (strong). If the game was designed around tiers 1 and 2, tiers 3-5 would be marked 'broken' (weak). The exact word you use isn't relevant to the point - I still prefer 'broken', but you can use 'god-like' or 'DM-level' instead, if you want.

Edit: We're trying to measure the difference between classes. Any class can buy a candle of invocation, therefore candle-based wish loops are irrelevant to our discussion.

This is all super false. 1) The game is clearly designed around Wizards and Clerics, if you don't have a Cleric or Wizard you straight up can't even deal with 90% of encounters that exist. A Glabrezu has Greater Teleport at will. If you can't interdict it's TPing in some way, the only remaining option is to kill it in a single round before it can take a standard action. Outside of huge piles of damage that the game definitely didn't plan for in CR, that is not going to happen except by a lucky rogue.

If you don't have the 50 healing effects that you almost need a Cleric to provide, then fights that you are supposed to have multiples of in a day become torturous ordeals that take months to recover from, if they don't just straight up turn you into a level 5 character instead of a level 10 character.

Lots of people say that monsters are balanced around tier 4, but lots of people also complain that almost ever monster they face is too hard for it's CR the moment it does something even remotely intelligent, like a troll ambushing them from around a corner, or a pyro-hydra using it's breath weapon and AoOs, or a Bone Devil using Major Image, See in Darknes, and Wall of Ice to harass the party without them ever seeing it and making them miserable, wasting resources, and separating the party.

A Wizard who doesn't use Wish loops or large piles of minions, but who only casts save or lose effects is not broken, it is the actual balance point for the game. If you don't have it, you aren't even going to be able to compete against monsters of your CR. Now, the Tier system is garbage, so Rogues, Dread Necros, Beguilers, and several other Tier 3-4 classes can keep up and contribute to various useful degrees, but others, like Binder, just straight up cannot at all. And that's not great design, but it is what actually turns out to be the case, and is one of the many reasons the Tier system is useless.

The monsters and game are definitely designed around those classes that can keep up with level appropriate challenges, like the Rogue, Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Dread Necro, and Beguiler, and not at all around those classes like the Binder, Factotum, Bard, Warlock, Favored Soul, ect, that can't keep up with monsters of appropriate CR. The SGT is the method we use for figuring out which classes the game is balanced around and which it is not, and it is a much better system than "JaronK's imagination" which is the system used to design the Tiers, and "which tier has my favorite class in it" which is the system most people use to pick what Tier to claim the the game is balanced around.

Florian

2015-12-17, 02:30 PM

@ExLibrisMortis:

I´ve got a bit of a problem with your statement there.
The "broken" stuff is mostly magic and especially a combination thereof and is available to all classes. Spell slots, candles or calling Pazuzu, the end result stays the same.

In a sense, this is even more pronounced in PF, as the difference between class and cross-class skills is a mere +3 bonus and even the humble fighter can learn to chain craft candles and similar stuff without any greater trouble (Master Craftsman feat...).

Taking this into account and agreeing that in a pure RAW game any class has access to all the stuff that breaks the game, the balance of power shifts drastically.

@Beheld:

Did it ever occur to you that bypassing an obstacle in the simplest way is enough? If you hit an devil hard enough so that he teleports out, goal achieved. The rest its up to the gm and personal feeling of verisimilitude to follow up on, but that doesn´t touch on the game system. That is _you_ creating the follow up problem then, so _you_ deal with it.
And no, this is simply a game, not a simulation, so don´t come with "but that devil will do..."

Beheld

2015-12-17, 02:46 PM

@Beheld:

Did it ever occur to you that bypassing an obstacle in the simplest way is enough? If you hit an devil hard enough so that he teleports out, goal achieved. The rest its up to the gm and personal feeling of verisimilitude to follow up on, but that doesn´t touch on the game system. That is _you_ creating the follow up problem then, so _you_ deal with it.
And no, this is simply a game, not a simulation, so don´t come with "but that devil will do..."

If you assume that the Int 16 CR 13 creature with at will SLAs including transportation and the ability to literally summon a demon clone of himself is less intelligent than an average 2 year old because he doesn't have object permanency, then yes, hitting him so that he TPs away instantly solves the problem. On the other hand, if he does have object permanency, he can instead remember that you exist, and use his abilities to continue to accomplish whatever goal he had that put you in conflict with him in the first place. It is plausible that there exist some situations in which a Glabrezu's retreat constitutes and actual victory, but the vast majority of them do not.

If you deliberately play all the monsters like absolute idiots with no goal or who make no attempt to accomplish their goal, then you really aren't playing monsters to their CR.

I don't doubt your ability to play monsters so stupidly that they are under CRed and can be beaten by a party of commoners. I just don't think that has any more bearing on a conversation on balance than the ability to make a level 20 Wizard who casts FeebleMind on himself, willingly fails the save, and then is just a really bad character.

Would it make you feel better if I talked about an Ice Devil with Regeneration 5 against everything not good aligned, and Persistent Image and Greater Teleport at will? I Mean, can you make 113 consecutive will saves? If not, I have some bad news for you, you don't even know where the floor is, much less the walls, much less the Ice Devil with regeneration.

Red Fel

2015-12-17, 02:59 PM

If you assume that the Int 16 CR 13 creature with at will SLAs including transportation and the ability to literally summon a demon clone of himself is less intelligent than an average 2 year old because he doesn't have object permanency, then yes, hitting him so that he TPs away instantly solves the problem. On the other hand, if he does have object permanency, he can instead remember that you exist, and use his abilities to continue to accomplish whatever goal he had that put you in conflict with him in the first place. It is plausible that there exist some situations in which a Glabrezu's retreat constitutes and actual victory, but the vast majority of them do not.

If you deliberately play all the monsters like absolute idiots with no goal or who make no attempt to accomplish their goal, then you really aren't playing monsters to their CR.

I don't doubt your ability to play monsters so stupidly that they are under CRed and can be beaten by a party of commoners. I just don't think that has any more bearing on a conversation on balance than the ability to make a level 20 Wizard who casts FeebleMind on himself, willingly fails the save, and then is just a really bad character.

Hold on, now. Having an enemy make a tactical retreat isn't making that enemy an idiot. It's doing the opposite of that.

And from the perspective of the demon-hitter, a short-term victory is still, by definition, a victory. Will that demon be back? Sure. But you'll hit him again, and more importantly, next time you can try to prepare.

Not every victory has to be won with finality. Not every win has to be a case of and this shall never again come to pass. If you kill this demon, there are still other demons; what difference does it make if, instead of a different demon, you're facing the same demon with a bit of vengeance on?

Stop throwing words like "stupid" around unless you're able to argue that they are, in fact, not smart.

Would it make you feel better if I talked about an Ice Devil with Regeneration 5 against everything not good aligned, and Persistent Image and Greater Teleport at will? I Mean, can you make 693 consecutive will saves? If not, I have some bad news for you, you don't even know where the floor is, much less the walls, much less the Ice Devil with regeneration.

Would it make you feel better if I brought out straw man arguments? We can bat specifics against each other all day, and doing so completely ignores the point of the Tier System and of this thread. Tiers are not meant to address specific scenarios. If you want something like that, go run the Same Game Test or something. Tiers look at, in a general sense, a class' ability to fill a given role effectively.

There are non-native ways to handle most obstacles. The Necessary Items List goes over many of them. That doesn't enter into the Tier calculus. Bringing up the fact that, absent access to a Magic-Mart, your typical Fighter will be poorer-suited to fight Asmodeus than a Cleric would, does not help the dialogue in any meaningful way. The game is not build around the assumption that you have a Wizard in your party1; it's built around the assumption that you can meaningfully overcome challenges through use of class features and, failing that, magic items purchased with your WBL. Let's not forget WBL, here.

The point is this. Tier 1 classes can do more, and do it effectively, yes. The game can be played without them, although against certain enemies it becomes much harder. That said, that train of thought - which basically asserts, as you say, that you can't play the game without Wizards and/or Clerics - has nothing to do with the OP's question, which is whether and why you "use" the Tier System. If everyone should just be playing Wizards and Clerics, the entire conversation becomes a moot point.

1 To be fair, the game is designed around a Wizard/Fighter/Cleric/Rogue party, but I don't think that most people in this forum give that presumption the time of day anymore. I'm open to being corrected.

Taelas

2015-12-17, 03:09 PM

So you just read the post with an explanation of why that idea is wrong, then restated that idea without response to the post?

Here's another example. Beguiler v Wizard. JaronK tells us that for any level of optimization, Beguiler should be worse than Wizard. Consider two characters who assign stats equally, then make random choices for everything else. Which do you think is better in that scenario, the Wizard or the Beguiler?
For it to be a level playing field -- i.e. for optimization to have no impact, which is what JaronK posits -- then randomness is out the window. Each character would have wildly different levels of optimization.

Instead, assume a wizard takes average choices for essentially everything. A beguiler which then also takes average choices for everything is, compared to the average wizard, tier 3 to his tier 1.

That is the assumption that the list makes; that is how it works.

Anlashok

2015-12-17, 03:28 PM

JaronK tells us that for any level of optimization
Er. What? The tier list says nothing of the sort. There's nothing at all about "Any level of optimization" at all.

Beheld

2015-12-17, 03:36 PM

Hold on, now. Having an enemy make a tactical retreat isn't making that enemy an idiot. It's doing the opposite of that.

And from the perspective of the demon-hitter, a short-term victory is still, by definition, a victory. Will that demon be back? Sure. But you'll hit him again, and more importantly, next time you can try to prepare.

Not every victory has to be won with finality. Not every win has to be a case of and this shall never again come to pass. If you kill this demon, there are still other demons; what difference does it make if, instead of a different demon, you're facing the same demon with a bit of vengeance on?

You do realize that leaving for one round is different from leaving forever or a day? If the enemy is back in 2-3 rounds ready to go with 8 images, and a copy of himself, or dispelling your flying boots so you fall to the ground, or chaos hammering you from 200ft away while you are confused, or if he just "disappears" into the 35 other hims around (or a hole in the ceiling you can't see) to ice storm you and cone of cold you again, and come back out at full health that is very different from a temporary victory.

Greater Teleport is a tactical retreat for PCs, for Demons, it can be used that way, but it can also be used comparably to casting invisibility.

We can bat specifics against each other all day, and doing so completely ignores the point of the Tier System and of this thread. Tiers are not meant to address specific scenarios. If you want something like that, go run the Same Game Test or something. Tiers look at, in a general sense, a class' ability to fill a given role effectively.

You don't get to define what other people are talking about. This marks the first time anyone in this thread has claimed that Tiers tell you how good something is at filling a given role, which is not surprising, because no part of JaronK's tier system ever claims to tell you how good any class is at a given role, and in fact, does not give a role to be given to measure classes at.

The purpose of this thread was to prevent Corsi from pointing out that the Tier system is garbage that does not adequately convey any useful information in another thread by diverting him here. To whit, the fact that the Tier system is garbage that convey's no useful information is the point of the thread, and since my specific response was to someone claiming "The common opinion is that tiers 1 and 2 are 'broken'. . . The designers seem to have built the game around tier 4-5, given the usual levels of monster optimization, official sample builds, and so on. Therefore, tier 1 and 2 are marked 'broken' (strong). If the game was designed around tiers 1 and 2, tiers 3-5 would be marked 'broken' (weak)."

Since that is what I was responding to, the fact that they are wrong, and the game is in fact balanced around level appropriate classes such as the Wizard, Beguiler, and Rogue, and not around ****ty crap classes, like Binder, Factotum, and Favored Soul. You really don't get to jump into my response and say "Why are you talking about the balance of the game! No one is talking about that!" when I was specifically responding to someone else's claims that the Tiers were useful because they helped DMs know what classes the game is balanced towards.

There are non-native ways to handle most obstacles. The Necessary Items List goes over many of them. That doesn't enter into the Tier calculus. Bringing up the fact that, absent access to a Magic-Mart, your typical Fighter will be poorer-suited to fight Asmodeus than a Cleric would, does not help the dialogue in any meaningful way. The game is not build around the assumption that you have a Wizard in your party1; it's built around the assumption that you can meaningfully overcome challenges through use of class features and, failing that, magic items purchased with your WBL. Let's not forget WBL, here.

1) This isn't Asmodeous, this is a CR 13 Devil and Demon, the two of them could make up two of the four encounters your level 13 party is supposed to be able to beat that day. I hate when people try to defend how completely incapable their characters are of matching CR by basically lying by calling CR 13 enemies the names of CR 25 monsters to downplay their failure. The rules tell you that should be able to beat either or both of these things in a day, and go on to fight other similar challenges. This isn't asmodeus, this is "Standard day 3 for a level 13 party."

2) Items can be dispelled by Devils with at will Dispel Magic at their lower caster level. Items can be sundered or stolen. And items are very very often limited in the use time, which is very ineffective when fighting a Devil who can just teleport around watching you from outside the range of the item waiting for it to wear off. WBL for a level 13 character is 110,000gp. If you want a Holy Sword and an item that emits a constant true seeing, instead of creating the effect once, and then having it dispelled, you are spending more than half your WBL, and this is one of the 13 encounters you will face and one of the 100s of encounters you could face. And you still need Flight, but not in an easily dispelled fashion, and something to stop TPing. You really just do not have the WBL to approximate a real character of your level. Level 15 WBL is probably close enough to simulate a level 13 character, so that your level 15 party of fighters can probably manage to win against an Ice Devil and keep going to the next fight, but then again, your level 15 party is supposed to be able to take on a Cornugan, not an Ice Devil, and then still beat 3 more fights that day.

The point is this. Tier 1 classes can do more, and do it effectively, yes. The game can be played without them, although against certain enemies it becomes much harder. That said, that train of thought - which basically asserts, as you say, that you can't play the game without Wizards and/or Clerics - has nothing to do with the OP's question, which is whether and why you "use" the Tier System.

Except that someone gave the specific answer of "because the game is balanced around Tier 4 classes" and so the fact this is false is relevant to the conversation.

You can certainly play the game with characters that are weaker than that. But because it is not balanced for that, you will have to drastically nerf monsters either in abilities, choice of monsters you use, or by playing them down to the level of the PCs.

Cosi

2015-12-17, 04:11 PM

Shout out to Beheld for making a lot of very good arguments on this topic.

*snip - Cleric versus Fighter*

That specific example is more about it being easy to build a playable Cleric than Clerics being better at low OP than Fighters. The Cleric got better because he optimized more, not because his class was still better at the same level of optimization.

(Edit: An attempt to use a binary "better, yes or no" could be possible, but it results in a big mess. Either you have one class that's bad and all the rest are better (not a useful metric), or you have a ginormous string of class > class > class > class.

Or you have a set of classes that are level appropriate (most full casters, Rogues, some multiclass builds) and a set that aren't. Much easier than the tiers, and much more useful.

This is a group game, remember. 2 people who are slightly worse than a wizard can combine their ability to defeat a challenge as easily as 1 wizard could.

As Beheld pointed out, no they can't. They face a CR = Level + 2 Challenge.

But it's also worth pointing out that you're arguing fallaciously. The number of characters in the party is constant. If people pick characters that aren't level appropriate, they don't add people to the party. They just make the level appropriate characters spend resources to keep them alive.

I think the point of the Tier system is just to help you figure out what that "same level" is. Consider that before it was expressed, there was no quick and easy way to explain to a player that playing a fighter in a party full of druids and wizards at level 15 meant he was going to struggle to contribute.

Sure there was. The Cleric Archer (a Cleric which casts spells to be a better Fighter than the Fighter, then has spells left over to raise the dead and summon angels) doesn't just predate the Tiers, it predates 3.5. The objective, mathematical proof that Fighter is a NPC class is old enough to be in high school.

The Tier system isn't a tool for experienced optimizers anyway; they know what each class can do, what the landmark feats are, and which PrC is going to make them stronger, more versatile, or pinpoint-focused.

That's reasonable, but if you actually read the threads, JaronK argues that Sorcerers are better than Beguilers because they can use psychic reformation to reshuffle their spells know whenever necessary.

Also, anything that has ever been said about the Archivist, Erudite, Artificer, or Factotum.

But after a few years of explaining to people why making a rogue when everyone's a swordsage is a recipe for disappointment ("but sneak attack is so powerful!", you'll wish you had a quick and easy reference to point them towards.

It's funny that you think this, because it's the exact opposite of true. The Rogue's ability to deal a huge pile of damage makes him level appropriate in a way the Swordsage's cool stunts never will.

Uggg, not this again. CR is not borked. CR is usually very accurate. The vast majority of monsters of a given CR provide similar levels of challenge to a party of the level expected to face them. Different types of monsters have different tactics, and use different abilities, and are therefore different levels of threat to different PCs, but they are in fact very well balanced, which is why extreme exceptions such as the Elemental Weirds, the CR 9 Disjunction Bot, and That Damn Crab are so egregious. If most competently built parties couldn't handle almost all monsters of CR 2-4. That Damn Crab being basically unmanageable by such parties wouldn't be seen as the betrayal it is.

+1.

Also, the idea that "CRs are whack" is actually an argument that the CR system works. To say that Allips or That Damn Crab are too good is implicitly stating that, overall, the CR system is good enough for you to have an idea of what a CR 3 monster looks like and be able to say that That Damn Crab is too weak for that idea.

The common opinion is that tiers 1 and 2 are 'broken'. That's because they can do things like time travel, infinite loops, and becoming truly invulnerable*.

So can everyone. In any actual game those abilities will or will not be allowed, and characters will or will not use them. Do you really think the DM is going to okay The Shadow Over The Sun but get hung up on people UMDing items? If you allow people to break the game, there are two tiers - "has planar binding" and "has UMD".

An infinite loop will always beat a finite loop, essentially. The designers seem to have built the game around tier 4-5, given the usual levels of monster optimization, official sample builds, and so on. Therefore, tier 1 and 2 are marked 'broken' (strong). If the game was designed around tiers 1 and 2, tiers 3-5 would be marked 'broken' (weak).

No. The designers built the game around "fair" Wizards. People who cast spells in combat to kill enemies in that combat. You can tell, because all the high level enemies work like that. Dragons, Demons, Angels. FFS, the Trumpet Archon is a 14th level Cleric.

The designers didn't balance around abilities like planar binding (IMHO mostly because they tended not to consider the idea you might cast a downtime spell more than once, or sometimes at all), but they did balance around raise dead, web, and entangle.

Edit: We're trying to measure the difference between classes. Any class can buy a candle of invocation, therefore candle-based wish loops are irrelevant to our discussion. Pun-pun already has his own tier.

No. The DM either will or will not allow infinite loops. If he will, Candles are game. If he won't, none of the Wizard's unique loops are game. The middle ground is just the ivory tower navel gazing that makes the tiers useless. It's supposed to be a tool for balancing your game. If it doesn't apply to actual games, what good is it?

For it to be a level playing field -- i.e. for optimization to have no impact, which is what JaronK posits -- then randomness is out the window. Each character would have wildly different levels of optimization.

Fine. Run several random tests. How long do you think it'll take for the Wizard to randomly pick color spray out of his almost 300 1st level spells? The Beguiler has it every time.

And yes, random is a totally reasonable level of optimization - noob optimization.

Instead, assume a wizard takes average choices for essentially everything. A beguiler which then also takes average choices for everything is, compared to the average wizard, tier 3 to his tier 1.

So what are the Wizard's "average choices"? burning hands? Worse than the Beguiler. sleep? Worse than the Beguiler (remember, the Beguiler casts spontaneously with more spells per day, making the same spell selection a huge advantage for him).

Elderand

2015-12-17, 04:29 PM

Stuff

To paraphrase

Stop complaining the tool suck at cutting down trees or milking cow when the tool is a freaking hammer.

illyahr

2015-12-17, 04:29 PM

Except that the game is not "balanced around Tier 4 classes." It is balanced around a fighter, rogue, healbot cleric, and blaster wizard. That was the test group. These 4 are, supposedly, equivalent in power. A fighter carries roughly the same weight as a rogue, as a healbot cleric, as a blaster wizard, in theory. In practice, the fighter doesn't do much except swing his sword, whereas the healbot cleric and blaster wizard are some of the most inefficient ways to play those classes.

The Tier system takes only 2 things into consideration. Only 2.
*does the class have the tools to accomplish a given task
*does the class have the power to use those tools effectively

These are the only things that it reflects. A wizard is Tier 1 because it has multiple ways to handle any given task and the power to accomplish the task with little effort. A monk is Tier 5 because it has very few actual tools to use other than punching and is so MAD that it doesn't have the power to make much of a difference. A bard is Tier 3 because it has many tools to perform many tasks but must choose between doing one exceptionally well or doing all of them moderately well.

This is only a guideline for the DM, though. A high-op player with a fighter can hold his own against a low-op player with a wizard. It is only used in theoretical exercises to help the DM understand what the class itself is capable of.

Stop complaining the tool suck at cutting down trees or milking cow when the tool is a freaking hammer.

Can I sig this? This is both insightful and hilareous. :smallbiggrin:

Elderand

2015-12-17, 05:34 PM

Sure go ahead.

Florian

2015-12-17, 06:41 PM

@Red Fel:

Thank you for elaborating on my point.

@Topic:

I think it is fair to say that this discussion so far shows the very deep divide between "combat as sports" and "combat as war".
The "Tier" ratings we talk about are deeply rooted in a "combat as war" mentality and are based on turning combat into a binary win/lose quick situation where the best magic combos reign supreme.

On the other hand, stuff like the CR system and WBL are deeply rooted in a "combat as sports" mentality and that produces vastly different results.

Beheld

2015-12-17, 07:12 PM

I think it is fair to say that this discussion so far shows the very deep divide between "combat as sports" and "combat as war".
The "Tier" ratings we talk about are deeply rooted in a "combat as war" mentality and are based on turning combat into a binary win/lose quick situation where the best magic combos reign supreme.

On the other hand, stuff like the CR system and WBL are deeply rooted in a "combat as sports" mentality and that produces vastly different results.

I think that is so deeply not clear that is basically completely unrelated to the conversation at hand. The people talking about how WBL solves problems are people advocating for the tiers. To the extent that is even remotely a part of the conversation.

The point is that the CR system exists, and defines opposition, the people saying that CR is geared for tier 4 because the tiers are useful are saying that it's unfair for monsters to make complex illusions and TP to harass, the people advocating that the tiers are garbage pointed out that monsters are going to mercilessly destroy you if you don't have good characters like Dread Necros and Rogues.

It looks like this post shows that you have a preexisting thing that you like to project onto conversations which makes you feel superior, and without any evidence at all you will just project it onto conversations.

Seward

2015-12-17, 07:42 PM

This is all super false. 1) The game is clearly designed around Wizards and Clerics, if you don't have a Cleric or Wizard you straight up can't even deal with 90% of encounters that exist. A Glabrezu has Greater Teleport at will. If you can't interdict it's TPing in some way, the only remaining option is to kill it in a single round before it can take a standard action

A party of four people who have a focus on doing very large amounts of damage will generally solve the teleporting enemy problem. Have it take an action, then pile the damage on. Sometimes you sandbag a bit, spending a round setting it up. The encounter looks easy to the bad guy, right up until it is dead.

I've played and GM'd 3.x D&D variants for 15 years, and I've seen dimensional anchor and its equivalents used successfully less than 5 times. The ray attack misses, or the critter's SR causes it to fizzle, or the person who can cast the spell has an option to simply finish killing it or banish it instead that is at least as reliable. (eg, drop the TWF ranger with favored enemy evil outsider +6 or the monk with holy evil outsider bane nunchucks next to the critter with a dimension door) . On the other hand I've seen literally hundreds of parties defeat outsiders of all description, usually with careful timing of actions, sometimes with brute force (like having a well designed sacred exorcist in the party to trivialize the encounter by banishing most of it, or dismissing the boss). Not all of these fights went well, there were sometimes deaths and there were certainly encounters where the critter teleported away badly wounded and everybody was happy to see it go. But mostly - the critters went from full to dead before they could react or were otherwise locked down with stun, daze, confusion or similar effects that prevented teleport but were more generally useful than dimensional anchor and allowed time to whittle them down.

I have been in MANY parties with no primary caster, that did just fine against party level +3-4 encounters. I've also been in parties that were entirely primary casters (eg we had some all-arcane parties in the level 14-16 range in the late stages of Living Greyhawk) that also did fine.

You look at your party. If you don't have burst healing or good battlefield control or some kind of mobility advantage, you plan from the outset to try to win damage per round races and make sure your party members know how to coordinate to support each other in that goal. If you have hugely effective burst healing but your damage is mediocre, you make sure your healers also have some significant buffs lined up, and some way of finishing off a badly injured enemy. If you have great battlefield control but only one good hitter, you have to make sure you present your hitter a good target every round, and also ensure that no significant counterattack is possible.

This is the random organized play type of party. If you have a long-term team as in a traditional campaign, their teamwork should be very highly evolved by the time you encounter anything like a Glabrezu, and they'll have a strategy.

Seward

2015-12-17, 07:48 PM

Beheld

2015-12-17, 07:56 PM

A party of four people who have a focus on doing very large amounts of damage will generally solve the teleporting enemy problem. Have it take an action, then pile the damage on. Sometimes you sandbag a bit, spending a round setting it up. The encounter looks easy to the bad guy, right up until it is dead.

You can certainly make uberchargers or Cleric Archers or Rogues, and they can kill things in one round, but they are also not evidence that the game is balanced around the tier 4 classes, they are an argument that the game is balanced around good classes, like Rogues and Wizards and Druids, and that additionally, if you pile on so much damage that you do as much or more than a rogue by abusing odd things, then you can also sort of compete. (Though, as a Fighter, still not really, see Ice Devil).

I've played and GM'd 3.x D&D variants for 15 years, and I've seen dimensional anchor and its equivalents used successfully less than 5 times. The ray attack misses, or the critter's SR causes it to fizzle, or the person who can cast the spell has an option to simply finish killing it or banish it instead that is at least as reliable.

It's not about Dimensional Anchor, it's one thing, but if it does retreat, your ability to respond by warding the area against returns, or take the actions to dispel the illusions, or just having Greater Anticipate Teleport up so that when it returns it suffers a complete beatdown, all amount to things that you can do against it, and they are mostly things that almost all good characters can contribute to, and that almost no bad characters can contribute to (at levels they are needed, usually getting them many levels later when you need new tricks).

Not all of these fights went well, there were sometimes deaths and there were certainly encounters where the critter teleported away badly wounded and everybody was happy to see it go. But mostly - the critters went from full to dead before they could react or were otherwise locked down with stun, daze, confusion or similar effects that prevented teleport but were more generally useful than dimensional anchor and allowed time to whittle them down.

And most if not all of those daze, stun, confusion and similar effects are all not attached to tier 4 classes. And usually all the giant piles of damage are attached to classes that consistently outperform their alleged tier in ability to deal with level appropriate challenges, thus making the tiers even more of a joke. There are lots of ways you can deal with a demon if you good classes, and very few to none if you are bad ones. Some good classes, like rogues doing huge piles of damage, have very few options for dealing with an Ice Devil, but that's fine, because they can win lots of other encounters.

Nothing you have said has even remotely indicated that the game is balanced around Tier 4 classes, as compared to the opposing point put forward in this thread, that the game is balanced at a certain point by CR, and that some classes, like Rogue giant damages, Druids, Wizards, Clerics, Dread Necros, Beguilers, ect. are at that level, and a lot of others aren't.

More importantly, doing a bunch of damage is not the only thing, you have to also be able to get to the point to do that damage, and very few of the characters that are generally pretty crap, IE Fighters, Monks, Rangers, Paladins, tend to have much in the way of ability to do that. You can certainly have an ubercharger character, or some Ranger with theoretically all the right Favored enemy, but you usually can't get to the position to do all that damage without the monster spending 20 rounds knowing in advance you are coming, and choosing the best position from which to harass you with long range spells.

Troacctid

2015-12-17, 08:12 PM

The tier system puts a lot of emphasis on access to game-changing abilities. Not necessarily game-breaking—so not just "Can you cast Planar Binding?"—but game-changing, i.e. the ability to bypass traditional obstacles, attack a problem on a completely different axis, and otherwise expand the scope and scale of the campaign beyond clearing out rooms in a dungeon one at a time.

You may not agree with that as a basis of categorization, but it's hard to deny that, for example, conjuring a tornado to wipe out an entire town and most of its population is an inherently more powerful effect than one-shotting a single enemy with an ubercharge.

Personally, I disagree with a lot of JaronK's classifications. In particular, I think he overvalues T2 classes and undervalues UMD. Furthermore, it bothers me that the boundaries of T3 are very fuzzy, and T4 is really two totally different classifications ("good at one thing, bad at others" and "a little of everything but not good at anything") disguised as one. There are also inherent shortcomings in the system that detract from its usefulness. The main one for me is that it's supposed to work off the class's average power over a wide range of levels—but that means the lategame hyper-scaling power of casters inflates their rank, while the frontloadedness of beefy brawlers deflates theirs, even though they're actually well-balanced against each other for a significant portion of the game.

You can pretty much sum up the tier ratings as "Spells are overpowered." Which, of course, is totally accurate, so credit where credit is due. However, it's a coarse system without much nuance to it, and the most-referenced version is out of date. It has some limited usefulness as a cheat-sheet and as a comparative standard for evaluating builds, but I find that, in practice, the abstract guidelines of the tier system are a little too vague, and it's a lot easier to have a few good representative builds and use those as benchmarks instead. (I've found Warmage, Cleric, and NPC Warrior to be very useful for this purpose.)

Seward

2015-12-17, 08:13 PM

It isn't the cleric archer that kills a Balor in 1 round without preparation. It's a tier 4 archer built on a fighter or ranger chasse that has the right feats and the right bow.

You don't need an ubercharger to kill an EL+2 outsider in one round. Nearly any decent melee with appropriate WBL can do it if you can just get him or her next to the outsider somehow. Two tier four melees can work together to accomplish this.

And seriously, when did Rogue become anything but a tier 4 class? Just because of UMD? Anyone can have UMD in the mid-high tier. Rogues in combat are pretty much good at only one thing - very high damage to a subset of enemies when supported, and crap damage against the other subset. Rangers have a similar problem, but need less party support - they aren't shut down by a 20gp smokestick. Their "floor" of damage is higher than the rogue, all the rogue has going for it is that their "best circumstances" damage is higher than anybody else. And is usually wasted in overkill because the nature of their attacks make it unlikely there are multiple enemies in reach if they kill the first early.

Even in pathfinder (which has ways for rogues to ignore concealment and allows the rogue to sneak attack to nearly everything baked into the class), rogues are seen as one of the harder classes to be effective with, you need a lot more system mastery to get the most out of them.

If your party is primarily tier 4 damage dealers, they won't need a daze, confusion, dimensional anchor or anything else. They'll just kill it. Routinely. If there is more than one enemy, they'll drop one with each action. People usually only see this effect in the lowest levels, when a single charge attack or arrow can drop an enemy, but a tier four character properly built and equipped can keep that damage up - the hitpoint totals of the enemies just aren't high enough. The problem with the tier 4 is that if they aren't an archer, or some kind of charge build with a clear charge lane they need some support to do most of their damage. But the burst they can dish out is enough to just outright kill the opposition, if given the chance.

The problem with "but your items/potions can be dispelled" argument is that a bad guy only has one standard, swift and move action per round. Bad guys are usually outnumbered by the party (when they aren't, they are weak). That means it is usually a terrible action to dispel a single effect, when there are 3 other people ready to rip out your liver before you get to act again. If the party has four reliable damage dealers, the bad guys need to permanently deal with all of them, or they need actions that disable several in one go (like Blasphemy). The limited use magic items get the job done because the monster usually is usually dealing with something else while, say, the knight feeds his steed a potion of fly and gets his lance ready. The knight isn't even on the radar compared to the archer chewing away at his hitpoints or the dude who tried (and failed) to Dismiss him last round.

So he does something other than dispelling the fly spell on the horse, and dies to the lance charge. Or maybe he dispells the fly spell on the horse, and then the other 3 party members kill him. 6 of one, half dozen of the other. I quite often count it a win if a character of mine simply wastes a non-mook enemy action with a reaction. It is a very similar net effect to sticking a daze spell on the opposition.

Cosi

2015-12-17, 08:21 PM

It isn't the cleric archer that kills a Balor in 1 round without preparation. It's a tier 4 archer built on a fighter or ranger chasse that has the right feats and the right bow.

You mean the build that is strictly worse than the Cleric Archer?

You don't need an ubercharger to kill an EL+2 outsider in one round. Nearly any decent melee with appropriate WBL can do it if you can just get him or her next to the outsider somehow. Two tier four melees can work together to accomplish this.

Can you put up some calcs?

And seriously, when did Rogue become anything but a tier 4 class? Just because of UMD? Anyone can have UMD in the mid-high tier. Rogues in combat are pretty much good at only one thing - very high damage to a subset of enemies when supported, and crap damage against the other subset.

A Rogue should be making half a dozen plus attacks (ranged TWF + ranged feats, melee TWF + pounce), with sneak attack every round (ring of blink, grease), and no immunities (between gravestrike et al, those Gauntlets from MIC, and crippling strike nothing is immune: you). That's (at level ten) an average of 90 + weapons damage per round. That takes down most caster types in one round and brutes in two. And remember, those are touch attacks (flasks, wraithstrike) against flat footed AC - the Rogue will almost never miss.

That's the consistent DPS to compete with a Wizard or Beguiler's lockdown spells. It's a hell of a lot more than a Bard or Factotum is doing, that's for sure.

He's missing a little in terms of utility, but trapfinding, UMD, and other skills are a lot more than most classes get. Also note that the Flasks version of that build is 100% core (not counting the ways around SA immunity).

Seward

2015-12-17, 08:30 PM

More importantly, doing a bunch of damage is not the only thing, you have to also be able to get to the point to do that damage, and very few of the characters that are generally pretty crap, IE Fighters, Monks, Rangers, Paladins, tend to have much in the way of ability to do that. You can certainly have an ubercharger character, or some Ranger with theoretically all the right Favored enemy, but you usually can't get to the position to do all that damage without the monster spending 20 rounds knowing in advance you are coming, and choosing the best position from which to harass you with long range spells.

It really isn't all that difficult. When what you have is a party of focused, tier 4, "good at one thing" characters, the party evolves strategies around that and works with it.

As an example, my experience also does not support the assertion that parties without tier 1-2 characters are routinely detected and harassed by long range attacks. Lots and lots of encounters take place in confined areas. When that isn't true, there are a large number of effects that block vision and even a very small amount of concealment puts the -1 per 10' penalty on perception into play. Again, any group that doesn't have the usual "the wizard dim-doors us over to the enemy archers harassing us" solution will have evolved their own strategies. I've seen parties just heal through the damage because they have much-maligned "healbots". I've seen them simply get out their ranged weapons and kill the enemy at the long range. I've seen them just do run actions and suck it up, and still be badass enough to whup ass once they arrive. I've even seen them run the enemy out of long range spells and SLAs, when that was the threat.

This doesn't always work. There's a CR7 devil with a bow and the ability to spam unholy blights forever. The best strategy there is to find hard cover, like a building and force them to come to you. But nearly always a party can figure something out.

As an odd side note....

One of the best stealth+spot the enemy oriented parties I've ever seen was a party with characters that were basically using a ranger, a monk, a rogue and a barbarian as the primary chasse. That was a weird game, but they did very well. They would have spotted the long range ambush from about 200' away, and never have been noticed until they were among the enemy. On the flipside, I remember the time we trusted a quite sneaky rogue (who had been successful with this tactic on several occasions) try to sneak up on a pack of Vrocks and triggered a running battle with us scattered all over the place because, well, with 5 of them and their native high listen checks, one was bound to roll well...and did.

Beheld

2015-12-17, 08:41 PM

It really isn't all that difficult. When what you have is a party of focused, tier 4, "good at one thing" characters, the party evolves strategies around that and works with it.

Uh... do you not get that you are talking to people who believe the Tier system is garbage that conveys no useful information? Talking in this way is basically just rejecting the idea of having a conversation with me.

Seward

2015-12-17, 08:41 PM

A Rogue should be making half a dozen plus attacks (ranged TWF + ranged feats, melee TWF + pounce), with sneak attack every round (ring of blink, grease), and no immunities (between gravestrike et al, those Gauntlets from MIC, and crippling strike nothing is immune: you). That's (at level ten) an average of 90 + weapons damage per round. That takes down most caster types in one round and brutes in two. And remember, those are touch attacks (flasks, wraithstrike) against flat footed AC - the Rogue will almost never miss.

Well leaving aside that most of that stuff didn't exist for most of the lifetime of 3.5, and doesn't exist in Pathfinder and you are relying on a ring of blink (27k gp, so not an option until level 12 or so, and causes you to miss 20% of the time...what did you do for levels 1-11?). Also where is the rogue getting all those spell slots for gravestrike and wraithstrike (which by the way, can't be mixed, they both require a swift action)

Given that my own Arcane archer (fighter4/ranger2/wizard1/arcane archer X) was dishing out triple digit damage routinely (including the occasional miss) by level 11, I don't find those numbers all that impressive. And he could do it at ranges greater than 30', could ignore cover and concealment (even total concealment if he hit once, the rest would automatically hit) I don't find the rogue damage you cited all that impressive. I find it routine.

At level 10, I had an encounter where it became important to see if our melee could cut down a tree in one round (there was transport via plants situation). A typical tree was 150hp. All he had to do was not roll 1s. His usual full attack was more like 100, 40ish on a charge. Again, not really restricted by target type like a rogue is. The main challenge was getting him there. The party worked together to make that happen.

The same damage at that level with a wizard requires a maximized scorching ray and a quickened scorching ray, burning two of his highest level spell slots. Or he could use a level 4 slot and dim-door the fighter into position, and if the enemy has 200hp, bring a friend.

My point is that I see a lot more archers and melee out there that can routinely deal out killing damage with only moderate optimization than I see rogues doing the same. Granted my experience is in the level 1-16 range, with about 2/3 in the 1-12 range. I've done the math on the builds for 17-20 and nothing really changes there either - by level 15 you're already fighting foes which can drop level 9 spells. But if we're talking about class here, I'd say the ease of getting to that point counts, and say what you will about the tier 4s, they're hard to screw up - except for monk. I've seen good monks but they're like rogues, you need to know what you're doing both in build and during play.

Vaz

2015-12-17, 08:54 PM

@OP (ish, you know what I mean)

In short, because it has been round for so long, and capable enough at conveying the intent if you do enough reading. A player can take a Fighter, and pick up the Leadership feat, to get themselves a Wizard or Artificer who bumps them up on the basis of basically making them a wizard using magic items crafted especially for them. Who cares if the Fighter isn't very good as a class, if they're running around with items normally outside their means because they've been able to buy lots of ladders or sell the proceeds. While a Wizard who takes Magic Missile as every spell available to him and doesn't metamagic it into useability is no better than a fighter (well, it does have knowledge ranks and UMD hopefully).

There are specific occurences, or optimizing tricks that can turn a Fighter "optimizing" their ability to use an Orc Double Axe by picking up the Weapon Focus/Specialization/Improved Critical/Weapon Mastery Chain, and another who uses Fighter levels to piggy back into a Shadowlord to get a full BAB Shadowpounce with TWF with Craven to get around 7 attacks with +20 damage on each attack.

Seward

2015-12-17, 08:56 PM

Uh... do you not get that you are talking to people who believe the Tier system is garbage that conveys no useful information? Talking in this way is basically just rejecting the idea of having a conversation with me.

Sorry. Here is my on-topic point.

The tier system doesn't say tier 4 is garbage. They say they are only good at one thing. Usually that one thing is "kill stuff". Which is pretty useful in most games and most encounters.

When somebody says that the game can't be played without tier 1-2, they're being silly. Because it is played every day with parties that lack druids, clerics, wizards and sorcerers and level appropriate challenges are overcome most of the time, as the CR system expects.

I think there is some value to the Tier system if you don't take it as a gospel truth for all situations.

Tier 1 can reshuffle their abilities daily to gain immense flexibility, including some quite problematic abilities in higher levels. These are full prep casters.

Tier 2 can choose the problematic abilities, plus can cover a lot of roles with spell and whatever they choose, they'll be able to do it almost as reliably as classes that don't have limited use/day abilities. These are usually full spont casters.

Tier 3 are generalists who can do many things well but often lack the problematic abilities of tier 1-2 (no access to 9th level spells, or various minion-creation options powerful enough to matter). These are usually deliberate hybrid classes like Paladin or Ranger, or slow progression primary casters like Bard with limited spell lists.

Tier 4 are specialists and generally do the thing they do better than tier 3, any tier 2 who isn't specifically built to do the same niche or tier 1 who has not configured their spells AND had time to buff to match their niche. Tier 4 can usually do what they do all day, although they are reliant on limited use items and consumables or help from other party members for some problems. I've got some experience with simulating tier 4 performance with tier 1 characters (I've done a druid charge-build and a wizard who tries to keep up with archer-level single target damage) and being in the same ballpark drops you to about tier 3 in general performance as your ability to do anything else is severely compromised by the spell and feat selection required for success at simulating a tier 4's routine performance at their specialty.

Tier 5 is any class you don't know how to play :) Most are actually tier 4 in the right hands.

Edit - by my own interpretation I'd rate rogue as tier 3. The choice of skills matters, but most rogues can do solid damage as a primary thing, and do decently at a couple other things, like scouting, trapfinding or party face, with UMD filling in a lot of gaps. I have trouble with the class because your ability to do damage relies more on what the encounter's monsters are than what you choose to do, but most of the time they do ok if the party does anything to support the sneak attack, and that puts them in the same range as your paladin or ranger, both of whom are also stronger against some opponents than others.

Pex

2015-12-17, 09:02 PM

I can appreciate the Tier System for its honest attempt to address how a game can go wrong. It does fine to alert new DMs that the higher up the Tier you go, those classes can wreck the game with abundance of power all rulebook legal. Be mindful of what power level you are comfortable with. Likewise, the lower the Tier you go the more likely a player will feel frustrated he can't do anything. His character lacks the versatility to contribute in a meaningful way in any situation the DM provides. The DM despite being Honest True creating what he thinks is a fun encounter or even adventure arc could unknowingly obsolete a player's character into uselessness. (Been there as a rogue with no magic weapon in a 3.0 game where several sessions was about one dungeon filled with undead (no sneak attack) that had DR/magic.) The DM should take special care this does not happen.

What I object to is people using the Tier System as justification for The One True Way to play the game. They come in Four Groups.

Group 1: Tier 1 is an abomination. Gate? Teleport? Animate Dead? How dare players have such power. They make the game horribly broken. I always have to work against them coming up with adventures. Ban! Ban! Ban! Never play Tier 1, and even Tier 2 is suspect. Spellcasters always have the most perfect spell needed for the moment with the required feat, if any, and the monsters always fail their saving throws.

Group 2: Tier 4 and below is The Suck. They can't do anything. They contribute nothing. They aren't even worth a buff spell. Why should my spellcaster carry you along? I could have cast the I Win The Combat spell instead of wasting a round casting a buff spell on you just so you could contribute. I don't want to play with anyone who likes those classes. The Tier 3 classes are ok. They can do something meaningful and don't need my help, but it's cool to help them a little to conserve my spells.

Group 3: Tier 3 is nirvana. This is how the game is supposed to be played. It is the perfect balance in everything. No one is too powerful or too weak. You are playing the game wrong if you're not only using Tier 3 classes. It's your own fault your game collapses because you allowed classes that were not Tier 3 to be played. I would never play a class of any other Tier and might not join a game if other players did.

Group 4: See? This whole Tier System is why 3E sucks. It's a horrible game. Utterly broken. Unplayable. No one should play it. That's why I play (insert game, including other version of D&D). It's practically perfect in every way. How can anyone possibly have fun with 3E? I just don't get it. (Insert game) is just so much better.

I got so sick of this I stopped bothering to read any thread that has Tier or Tier System in the title. (This thread's title peaked my interest despite that. :smallsmile:) I personally don't care what class is in what Tier. I don't need to know what to give a class to raise its Tier or take away to lower it. I don't need the Tier System's permission to play a class. I don't resent what other players can do with their characters. It is the DM's responsibility to give all players their spotlight time, though the player should make some effort of his own. Character class is irrelevant. That's about just playing the game.

Cosi

2015-12-17, 09:16 PM

Well leaving aside that most of that stuff didn't exist for most of the lifetime of 3.5,

3.5 PHB released: 2003
4e PHB released: 2008
Earliest release date to be unavailable for "most of the lifetime of 3.5": 2006

TWF is core (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#twoWeaponFighting).
The various ranged feats are core (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#pointBlankShot).
Pounce is not core. Unsure on earliest source, definitively availible as of Complete Champion release (2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_Champion))
blink is core (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/blink.htm).
Ring of blink(ing) is core (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/rings.htm#blinking).
grease is core (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/grease.htm).
gravestrike was first released (to my knowledge) in Complete Adventurer (2005 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_Adventurer))
MIC Gauntlets were first relased (to my knowledge) in the Magic Item Compendium (2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Item_Compendium))
Crippling Strike is core (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/rogue.htm#specialAbilities)
Flasks are core (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/goodsAndServices.htm#acid).
wraithstrike is also from Complete Adventurer.

I rate your claim Mostly False.

and doesn't exist in Pathfinder

On the list of "stupid stuff from 3e" Pathfinder ranks slightly below the Tier list. This is not an argument I would recommend pursuing.

you are relying on a ring of blink (27k gp, so not an option until level 12 or so,

Wealth by level exceeds 27k by 9th level. Rogues have minimal other expenses (note that strict RAW of WBL is that you are refunded for consumables such as wands and flasks).

and causes you to miss 20% of the time

Personal spells end when objects leave your person.

...what did you do for levels 1-11?).

Stealth, surprise rounds, perhaps a Wizard with grease.

Also where is the rogue getting all those spell slots for gravestrike and wraithstrike

UMD all the way!

(which by the way, can't be mixed, they both require a swift action)

That is correct. Solutions include Extended wands, using a ranged build, or accepting a hit against certain enemies.

Given that my own Arcane archer (fighter4/ranger2/wizard1/arcane archer X) was dishing out triple digit damage routinely (including the occasional miss) by level 11, I don't find those numbers all that impressive.

Then let's make those numbers more explicit, shall we?

Feats:
1st - Point Blank Shot
3rd - Rapid Shot
6th - Precise Shot [mixing TWF here or at 3 is viable]
9th - Whatever
10th [Rogue Bonus] - Perfect TWF

That gives five attacks, each for 6d6. Average damage is 105. That's triple digits. And it's all core, with nothing but feats and class features. If you wanted, you could UMD polymorph to be an Arrow Demon, stack some melee bonuses with pounce, or use Craven, Martial Study [Assassin's Stance], and/or Halfling Rogue for more SA.

Beheld

2015-12-17, 09:29 PM

Sorry. Here is my on-topic point.

The tier system doesn't say tier 4 is garbage. They say they are only good at one thing. Usually that one thing is "kill stuff". Which is pretty useful in most games and most encounters.

Once again, you still don't get who you are talking to. I didn't say that Tier 4 is garbage, I said that the tier system is garbage. The Rogue is tier "4" and is better than most Tier 3s and several Tier 2s. The Dread Necro an Beguiler are as good as Wizards. This is the position of the person you are talking to. Telling me that Tier 4 characters that do buttloads of damage are not garbage is not news to me, I've known that rogue damage is so absurd as to one round level appropriate encounters, and that with a party built around getting SA, it happens almost all the time, since before the Tier system was written.

When somebody says that the game can't be played without tier 1-2, they're being silly. Because it is played every day with parties that lack druids, clerics, wizards and sorcerers and level appropriate challenges are overcome most of the time, as the CR system expects.

Once again, literally no one said that. Because the entire point of the people who said that CR system is balanced around powerful characters is that the Tier system is garbage that does not adequately tier the power of classes, and it is only one person who is pro tiers who believes that it is balanced around lower tiers. That means that Telling me you can have a party without Tier 1 casters who can play the game is not news to me, because I've named several classes that play that game.

It isn't the cleric archer that kills a Balor in 1 round without preparation. It's a tier 4 archer built on a fighter or ranger chasse that has the right feats and the right bow.

It is the Cleric Archer that does more damage per attack and has more attacks than any possible Tier 4 Archer built on the Fighter or Ranger chasis. You may or may not be able to use "the right bow" (that you probably don't have enough of since you need a different one for each different enemy) to one round a creature (such as the Ice Devil, or his 113 illusions and woops, I guess you didn't really one round him). But since you don't usually have the knowledges to know what bow to use, the detection abilities to find the monster, and you do less damage than the Cleric Archer, I just don't think picking a fight with the Cleric Archer is the place to go here.

You don't need an ubercharger to kill an EL+2 outsider in one round. Nearly any decent melee with appropriate WBL can do it if you can just get him or her next to the outsider somehow. Two tier four melees can work together to accomplish this.

I suspect that is probably not the case. You pretty much have to be a mounted lance charger or a Leap Attack ubercharger who is allowed to use Leap attack while flying to do enough damage to one round such a creature.

I also would love to know how you expect two melee characters to work together to somehow get adjacent to the Glabrezu on the start of their own turn, when the Glabrezu flys faster than you and uses standard action spells that take away your actions

And seriously, when did Rogue become anything but a tier 4 class? Just because of UMD? Anyone can have UMD in the mid-high tier. Rogues in combat are pretty much good at only one thing - very high damage to a subset of enemies when supported, and crap damage against the other subset. Rangers have a similar problem, but need less party support - they aren't shut down by a 20gp smokestick. Their "floor" of damage is higher than the rogue, all the rogue has going for it is that their "best circumstances" damage is higher than anybody else. And is usually wasted in overkill because the nature of their attacks make it unlikely there are multiple enemies in reach if they kill the first early.

I feel like a broken record. Cosi and I are the people who think that the tiers are garbage, we also think the CR system limits players to either using good classes which include many not tier 1 classes, or play the monsters down to accommodate the party. Saying "But this class is Tier 4" means literally nothing to us. Because we do not believe the Tier system conveys any useful information at all, so it probably doesn't convey useful information about which classes are the good ones and which the bad.

Honestly, getting Rogue hyper damage is pretty easy and simple once you have any serious experience playing Rogues and a party that appreciates you. You do need some dumb wands to hit some things, for dumb reasons, but you do what you have to.

If your party is primarily tier 4 damage dealers, they won't need a daze, confusion, dimensional anchor or anything else. They'll just kill it. Routinely. If there is more than one enemy, they'll drop one with each action. People usually only see this effect in the lowest levels, when a single charge attack or arrow can drop an enemy, but a tier four character properly built and equipped can keep that damage up - the hitpoint totals of the enemies just aren't high enough. The problem with the tier 4 is that if they aren't an archer, or some kind of charge build with a clear charge lane they need some support to do most of their damage. But the burst they can dish out is enough to just outright kill the opposition, if given the chance.

Once again, while some classes, such as Rogues, do tons of damage and can totally one round opponents, it is usually getting the ability to do that damage that is the problem, for example, Ice Devils with 113 illusions layered all around their home.

Red Fel

2015-12-17, 09:54 PM

I feel like a broken record. Cosi and I are the people who think that the tiers are garbage, we also think the CR system limits players to either using good classes which include many not tier 1 classes, or play the monsters down to accommodate the party. Saying "But this class is Tier 4" means literally nothing to us. Because we do not believe the Tier system conveys any useful information at all, so it probably doesn't convey useful information about which classes are the good ones and which the bad.

... What? I think you're describing two different things.

1. "Cosi and I are the people who think that the tiers are garbage[.]" Okay. What does that actually mean? I mean, I can think that the imperial measurement system is garbage, but it still exists, irrespective of my desire for more people to use metric. What does it mean when you say "the tiers are garbage"?

2. "[W]e also think the CR system limits players to either using good classes which include many not tier 1 classes, or play the monsters down to accommodate the party." What does the CR system have to do with a debate about the Tier System? When did CR get into this? And is anybody actually suggesting that the CR system is anything but broken?

As an aside, don't tell me I don't get to define what other people are talking about. What I try to do is clarify what they're talking about when I don't understand it. If you don't want me to "define" what you're talking about, be more clear in what you're trying to express.

Troacctid

2015-12-17, 10:08 PM

And is anybody actually suggesting that the CR system is anything but broken?

I could, if you like.

Beheld

2015-12-17, 10:09 PM

1. "Cosi and I are the people who think that the tiers are garbage[.]" Okay. What does that actually mean? I mean, I can think that the imperial measurement system is garbage, but it still exists, irrespective of my desire for more people to use metric. What does it mean when you say "the tiers are garbage"?

Probably all the things we have said many times in this thread in our many posts. Such as: The Tier system conveys no useful information about the classes tiered in the tier system.

2. "[W]e also think the CR system limits players to either using good classes which include many not tier 1 classes, or play the monsters down to accommodate the party." What does the CR system have to do with a debate about the Tier System? When did CR get into this? And is anybody actually suggesting that the CR system is anything but broken?

Well, yes, I strongly suspect that the people who specifically argued that the CR system is not broken when they were making arguments specifically for that proposition were also, to some degree, suggesting that to be the case. I'm genuinely curious how you could wonder at the answer to that question, given that people posted explicit arguments about that subject.

As for when the CR system got involved, again, I specifically answered that question already in response to your previous post. A person said that the Tier system helps DMs figure out balance and what classes the game is balanced for. That means that talking about what the CR system, the thing that determines game balance, becomes extremely relevant.

As an aside, don't tell me I don't get to define what other people are talking about. What I try to do is clarify what they're talking about when I don't understand it. If you don't want me to "define" what you're talking about, be more clear in what you're trying to express.

Dude, you made an entire post complaining that I'm not allowed to tell people that Tier system does a bad job of indicating what classes the game is balanced towards by claiming no one was talking about that when I was specifically responding and quoting someone who did in fact say that. If you want clarification one what the conversation is about:

1) (Re)Read the conversation.
2) Ask for clarification.

A valid method of pursing clarification is not telling people they aren't allowed to talk about something because it's not the conversation. That is not a method of clarification.

AMFV

2015-12-17, 10:35 PM

I join this thread only briefly to state that discussion of JaronK's tier system IS terrible.

Sacrieur

2015-12-17, 11:15 PM

The purpose of the tier system is to give DMs a baseline level of expectation with regard to how classes interact with one another in a party setting so that the DM can more efficiently and more effectively make the game fun for each and every player.

And it is helpful. Especially with all the custom stuff I create.

If you're using it as something like rating your character's effectiveness or similar foolery, then it doesn't make the ratings terrible, it just makes your application terrible. JaronK already stated the scope of the tiers in his post, what they do, and what they don't do.

Talya

2015-12-17, 11:30 PM

Beheld

2015-12-17, 11:50 PM

Cosi lost me when he dissed bards. Bards are not only the most versatile Tier 3, but the most powerful tier 3 (with splatbook support.) A single-classed Bard 20 can be made better than any other build that would still be considerd "tier 3."

Given that Dread Necromancer 20 exists, and is a Lich who casts 9th level spells and Planar Binds things, I'm going to say, no.

Troacctid

2015-12-17, 11:51 PM

Bards are not only the most versatile Tier 3, but the most powerful tier 3 (with splatbook support.)

Beguilers are easily more powerful than Bards. I don't think it's even close. They just have more spells at every level, and none of the Bard's class features are more powerful than "More spells."

Dread Necromancers are also supposedly T3 and are way more powerful as well.

AMFV

2015-12-17, 11:53 PM

Given that Dread Necromancer 20 exists, and is a Lich who casts 9th level spells and Planar Binds things, I'm going to say, no.

Turning... Poof!

Being Undead gives you some pretty horrific weaknesses, vulnerability to turning is one of them, and NPCs tend to be higher level, and may be tuned for you. Since you don't become undead till level 20, you don't have any ability to get some of the feats commonly used to mitigate this ability.

Beguilers are easily more powerful than Bards. I don't think it's even close. They just have more spells at every level, and none of the Bard's class features are more powerful than "More spells."

Dread Necromancers are also supposedly T3 and are way more powerful as well.

Immunity to mind-affecting. Or even a good will save.

Both Dread Necromancers and Beguilers can be fairly easily COMPLETELY shut down. Bards you have a harder time with. I mean those two are powerful, but they aren't the most powerful of the Tier 3s (which is actually an abused factotum, most likely)

Cosi

2015-12-18, 12:02 AM

Cosi lost me when he dissed bards.

<barely controlled laughter>

Bards are not only the most versatile Tier 3, but the most powerful tier 3 (with splatbook support.)

https://slm-assets0.secondlife.com/assets/11392465/view_large/61004993.jpg?1428411381

On a more serious note, are you kidding? The Bard is the example of JaronK's "versatility > power" shtick. The Bard gets buffs which aren't as good as a Cleric, skills which aren't as good as a Rogue, and casting which isn't as good as a Beguiler. That would be totally sweet if he got anything at all which was good, but he doesn't.

A single-classed Bard 20 can be made better than any other build that would still be considerd "tier 3."

Oh, this should be fun.

Dread Necromancer 20. Takes Tomb-tainted Soul and Arcane Disciple (Any Alignment). What exactly do you have that stacks up to a massive horde of uber-undead, The Shadow Over The Sun, and planar binding? Is it DFI? I hope it's DFI.

Beguiler 20. Doesn't even bother with feats. Instead, he'll revel in having a better version of your list at every single break point, while making a better skill monkey. Because he has the Int to invest in social skills, he's even better at that.

Or are we just straight admitting those classes should be T2 now?

Maybe we could look at the monsters you'll be fighting. How'd you like to face a Balor (blasphemy is a no save daze-lock, it can summon another Balor 100% of the time, and it can gank you with teleport and dominate monster spies)? Perhaps a Wyrm Black Dragon (better casting than you, and it's a freaking dragon)? Did you know that Dread Wraiths are a horde monster at level 20? Beholders aren't quite there yet, but do you really think you'll enjoy 24 eye rays a round?

Turning... Poof!

I'll be sure to keep an eye out for the level 40 Clerics that can destroy a 20th level Dread Necromancer. Of course, those level 40 Clerics could probably just gate him to the Positive Energy Plane, but you know, whatever floats your boat.

Immunity to mind-affecting. Or even a good will save.

You remember how there are any enemies in the world who aren't immune to mind effecting spells? Because I imagine the 30+ Int Beguiler probably did. Those are his now. And it's not like he can't drop illusions or something. Or spend a feat to wreck people with CL +1 holy word. Or drop a couple grand on a Runestaff or some Knowstones for UMD.

AMFV

2015-12-18, 12:09 AM

I'll be sure to keep an eye out for the level 40 Clerics that can destroy a 20th level Dread Necromancer. Of course, those level 40 Clerics could probably just gate him to the Positive Energy Plane, but you know, whatever floats your boat.

You remember how there are any enemies in the world who aren't immune to mind effecting spells? Because I imagine the 30+ Int Beguiler probably did. Those are his now. And it's not like he can't drop illusions or something. Or spend a feat to wreck people with CL +1 holy word. Or drop a couple grand on a Runestaff or some Knowstones for UMD.

You're at level 20 sparky. EVERYTHING should be well-optimized to deal with you, or else it's not a challenge. You realize that a level 40 Effective Turning is pretty attainable at Level 24, which is what you should be fighting at level 20. Gate is less effective for a variety of reasons (although you might do better with Holy Word, at that point, but that effects a lot of things), you have to actually push something into a gate, you don't have that problem with turning, also there are ways to evade a gate (plane shift), or what not that don't work against turning.

Yes, a Beguiler IS useful SOME OF THE TIME but there are going to be encounters they suck in. Bards are pretty much useful ALL of the time. Now I wouldn't say more powerful, but that's an absurd metric anyways, how do you define "powerful"

Troacctid

2015-12-18, 12:10 AM

Or are we just straight admitting those classes should be T2 now?
Works for me. They're basically Sorcerers.

Immunity to mind-affecting. Or even a good will save.

Both Dread Necromancers and Beguilers can be fairly easily COMPLETELY shut down. Bards you have a harder time with. I mean those two are powerful, but they aren't the most powerful of the Tier 3s (which is actually an abused factotum, most likely)
Immunity to mind-affecting and a good Will save shuts down a Bard just as easily as it shuts down a Beguiler, so I don't see why that's relevant to the comparison.

AMFV

2015-12-18, 12:20 AM

Works for me. They're basically Sorcerers.

Immunity to mind-affecting and a good Will save shuts down a Bard just as easily as it shuts down a Beguiler, so I don't see why that's relevant to the comparison.

Hardly. Bards are significantly less dependent on spells as compared to a Beguilar (and even Arcane Disciple isn't a perfect solution, now we're MAD, and we can only cast each once per day). Now that will hurt a bard, but it won't "shut them down" in the same way that it would for a Beguiler, and a Bard with significant splat support will have a host of other options. A bard can engage in combat (using Snowflake wardance and their buffs) a Bard can BUFF his allies, which you know, doesn't care about mind affecting, DFI don't mind that one bit.

I wouldn't argue that a Bard is more powerful per se than a Beguiler or a DN (after all it's wholly situational) but there are MANY situations where those two are going to be easily outclassed by the Bard, and the reverse is likely as true as well.

Beheld

2015-12-18, 12:22 AM

Yes, a Beguiler IS useful SOME OF THE TIME but there are going to be encounters they suck in. Bards are pretty much useful ALL of the time. Now I wouldn't say more powerful, but that's an absurd metric anyways, how do you define "powerful"

Even ignoring the fact a Beguiler could totally have take PrCs or feats that give him lots of other spells, like one that gives him an Control Undead, Trap the Soul, and Wail of the Banshee, he could also just walk around with his Greater Wyrm Black Dragon, Balor, Pit Fiend, and Titan minions who break people over their knees wherever he goes. I mean, this idea that high level Beguilers will have no spent any resources at all on getting other spells, will be defeated by Mind Affecting immune enemies is a joke. They can just order a CR 22 enemy to beat people to death for them.

Talya

2015-12-18, 12:24 AM

On a more serious note, are you kidding? The Bard is the example of JaronK's "versatility > power" shtick. The Bard gets buffs which aren't as good as a Cleric, skills which aren't as good as a Rogue, and casting which isn't as good as a Beguiler. That would be totally sweet if he got anything at all which was good, but he doesn't.

No, I'm not. The bard is bard is granting +15 to hit/damage and +15d6 bonus damage (for both herself and everyone in her party) - with an additional +cha to hit and +cha+10 to damage for their own attacks, AND casting from an incredibly versatile spell list (that includes most of what a sorcerer can cast up to level 6 - in addition to several things they can't cast, all while still doing the melee buffs), debuffing your enemies for -10 to EVERYTHING (to hit, saving throws, skill rolls, caster level checks, etc.) at will, in addition to having 6+int skills maxed out, AND 10 ranks in every single other skill that has ever existed, then yeah. Best at versatility AND power in the entire tier.

Anyway, as I said, this is with splatbook support. You end up replacing a few bard class features to do this, and taking all sorts of nice feats and gear outside of core to pull it off. Fortunately, the feat-starved bard can trade away songs they don't use for feats with ACFs.

You can pass the bard with a fixed list caster if you can find a way to add large groups of spells into their spell list that do different things than they usually do (such as with Rainbow Servant) - but then you've boosted them up a tier or 2.

LokeyITP

2015-12-18, 12:25 AM

AMFV

2015-12-18, 12:31 AM

Even ignoring the fact a Beguiler could totally have take PrCs or feats that give him lots of other spells, like one that gives him an Control Undead, Trap the Soul, and Wail of the Banshee, he could also just walk around with his Greater Wyrm Black Dragon, Balor, Pit Fiend, and Titan minions who break people over their knees wherever he goes. I mean, this idea that high level Beguilers will have no spent any resources at all on getting other spells, will be defeated by Mind Affecting immune enemies is a joke. They can just order a CR 22 enemy to beat people to death for them.

That's not a Beguiler. That's the PrC doing the work. And that (ONE) feat, was discussed. It gives 9 other spells (if the Beguiler has a 19 Wisdom) usable once per day, so that's a couple of encounters. I mean, a high level Beguiler isn't a joke, but they still have weaknesses, that's why they're tier 3 and not Tier 2 or Tier 1.

A Rainbow Snake Beguiler is ABSOLUTELY Tier 1, at the higher end of it (if one rules favorably on text against table), but that's a whole nother thing, we can't rate that in the Tier System, it doesn't rate PrCs or Builds, since those are too varied to rate.

Talya

2015-12-18, 12:31 AM

There's a lot more to tier position than standard encounter combat ability. Is there some kind of combat effectiveness tier system (with the stipulation that making combat irrelevant or not happen at all aren't fair game)?

I'm not even touching playing level 15+ depending on charms. I guess if you ignore the special qualities line of like everything and don't let npcs use their items...still see way too many other things that'd be way more effective.

Technically, JaronK's tier system doesn't touch anything outside of levels 6-15, where most gameplay for most groups seems to take place. (My bard example mentioned pure bard all the way to 20, but the substance of it is true from level 1 THROUGH 20, so that includes 6-15.)

Troacctid

2015-12-18, 12:33 AM

Now that will hurt a bard, but it won't "shut them down" in the same way that it would for a Beguiler, and a Bard with significant splat support will have a host of other options.
A Beguiler with no splat support has a host of other options. Look at their spell list, they have plenty of non-mind-affecting spells (likely more than a Bard), and good ones too.

a Bard can BUFF his allies, which you know, doesn't care about mind affecting, DFI don't mind that one bit.
Seeing as your buffs are mind-affecting, I'd say you do care--at high levels, your allies will probably want to be immune to mind-affecting too. Of course, you could cast haste instead, but that's hardly giving you an advantage over a Beguiler, since Beguilers also have Haste.

Beheld

2015-12-18, 12:35 AM

That's not a Beguiler. That's the PrC doing the work.

No, that's the Beguiler casting mechanic and spells per day doing the work. If you take the PrC with a Commoner you get nothing. If you take it with a Wizard, you get very little, if you take it with a Beguiler you get a domain and all the spells attached to it added to your class list, which means you can cast spontaneously from them.

And that (ONE) feat, was discussed. It gives 9 other spells (if the Beguiler has a 19 Wisdom) usable once per day, so that's a couple of encounters.

No, that's 9 (really 7 because you have two on your list already) spells added to your list that you cast based off Int, and that you can use as many times as you have spell slots, because Arcane Disciple is not the only feat that adds spells to your spell list.

Talya

2015-12-18, 12:37 AM

A Beguiler with no splat support has a host of other options. Look at their spell list, they have plenty of non-mind-affecting spells (likely more than a Bard), and good ones too.

Seeing as your buffs are mind-affecting, I'd say you do care--at high levels, your allies will probably want to be immune to mind-affecting too. Of course, you could cast haste instead, but that's hardly giving you an advantage over a Beguiler, since Beguilers also have Haste.

Mind Blank (the preferred method of getting immunity to mind-affecting attacks) does nothing to hinder beneficial mind-affecting buffs.

No, that's the Beguiler casting mechanic and spells per day doing the work. If you take the PrC with a Commoner you get nothing. If you take it with a Wizard, you get very little, if you take it with a Beguiler you get a domain and all the spells attached to it added to your class list.

PrCs potentially change the tier of the base class. A Beguiler with Rainbow Servant is Tier 1, bording on "Tier 0.5". This is not questioned. However, it doesn't challenge the bard as the most powerful and versatile of the Tier 3s. It removes competition by removing the Beguiler from the running. The bard/sublime chord is also no longer tier 3, but a very effective tier 2.

Troacctid

2015-12-18, 12:42 AM

No, that's the Beguiler casting mechanic and spells per day doing the work. If you take the PrC with a Commoner you get nothing. If you take it with a Wizard, you get very little, if you take it with a Beguiler you get a domain and all the spells attached to it added to your class list, which means you can cast spontaneously from them.
The tier rankings don't take prestige classes and multiclassing into account, or else the Bard would be T2 via Sublime Chord.

Mind Blank (the preferred method of getting immunity to mind-affecting attacks) does nothing to hinder beneficial mind-affecting buffs.
It totally does, I dunno what you're talking about.

Beheld

2015-12-18, 12:44 AM

PrCs potentially change the tier of the base class. A Beguiler with Rainbow Servant is Tier 1, bording on "Tier 0.5". This is not questioned. However, it doesn't challenge the bard as the most powerful and versatile of the Tier 3s. It removes competition by removing the Beguiler from the running.

1) That's bull****.
2) I'm not even talking about Rainbow Servant (or at least not 10 levels of it, the Air domain is pretty nice). There are lots of PrCs that give domains, you can get plant, oracle, and any domain you want, or even any two from Contemplative. And the point is that most people getting a domain is very minor, but for a Beguiler, it is insanely good.

Cosi

2015-12-18, 12:45 AM

You're at level 20 sparky. EVERYTHING should be well-optimized to deal with you, or else it's not a challenge. You realize that a level 40 Effective Turning is pretty attainable at Level 24, which is what you should be fighting at level 20.

It seems just the tiniest bit unfair to pit a 20th level character who has taken all of two feats (one of which is actually useless because I forgot he was sticking with DN for all 20 levels) against specifically optimized Level + 4 optimization.

Gate is less effective for a variety of reasons ... you have to actually push something into a gate, ... also there are ways to evade a gate (plane shift),

I was actually thinking of this clause from gate:

Second, you may then call a particular individual or kind of being through the gate. ... A controlled creature can be commanded to perform a service for you. Such services fall into two categories: immediate tasks and contractual service. Fighting for you in a single battle or taking any other actions that can be accomplished within 1 round per caster level counts as an immediate task; you need not make any agreement or pay any reward for the creature’s help.

No save to lock someone down for round/level on a hostile plane of your choice is sweet. There are defenses (dimension lock springs to mind in core), but we appear to be assuming the Dread Necromancer hasn't taken any precautions.

(although you might do better with Holy Word, at that point, but that effects a lot of things),

I mean, if you want to be the Word the Dread Necromancer is perfectly comfortable being the Wish. That seems a little high on the TO scale for me, but I did suggest it for the Beguiler, so I suppose what goes around comes around.

Hardly. Bards are significantly less dependent on spells as compared to a Beguilar (and even Arcane Disciple isn't a perfect solution, now we're MAD, and we can only cast each once per day).

Arcane Disciple (Good) gets you holy word to win an encounter a day no questions asked. That's already enough to pull your weight by the book, and you haven't dipped into your actual spells or mind controlled minions.

No, I'm not. The bard is bard is granting +15 to hit/damage and +15d6 bonus damage (for both herself and everyone in her party) - with an additional +cha to hit and +cha+10 to damage for their own attacks,

That doesn't matter. For a damage build to be good, it has to bring enough damage to the table on its own to kill enemies in one round. The fact that a Bard makes people even deader is a distraction at best. I mean seriously, do you think the Ubercharger cares that you added 60 to his 400 damage attack?

AND casting from an incredibly versatile spell list (that includes most of what a sorcerer can cast up to level 6 - in addition to several things they can't cast, all while still doing the melee buffs),

With gimped DCs, the worse spells per day in the game, and minimal spells known.

Best at versatility AND power in the entire tier.

All of that is worse than just planar binding.

You can pass the bard with a fixed list caster if you can find a way to add large groups of spells into their spell list that do different things than they usually do (such as with Rainbow Servant) - but then you've boosted them up a tier or 2.

If taking all of one feat is enough to bump you up a tier, you weren't in the lower tier to begin with.

A Beguiler with Rainbow Servant is Tier 1, bording on "Tier 0.5".

The Beguiler Beheld mentioned is not (necessarily) a Rainbow Servant. In fact, none of the spells he mentioned (control undead, trap the soul, wail of the banshee) can be acquired via Rainbow Servant.

Beheld

2015-12-18, 12:48 AM

The tier rankings don't take prestige classes and multiclassing into account, or else the Bard would be T2 via Sublime Chord.

I want you to know that I definitely think this position on PrCs is incredibly dumb and does nothing at all to tell anyone about the game at all, but I don't even care, because I described a Beguiler 20 that can control undead, fort save or die anyone (or no save die them) as a none death effect, or AoE death effect fort or die a bunch of people, rendering pretty much all the "But what if they are immune to Mind affecting!" useless. To say nothing of just dominating a monster with Gate, and having it Gate more things to Dominate until you have the never ending army of doom and gloom.

Talya

2015-12-18, 12:48 AM

The tier rankings don't take prestige classes and multiclassing into account, or else the Bard would be T2 via Sublime Chord.

It totally does, I dunno what you're talking about.

No, it doesn't.

The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts. This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects. Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to affect the subject’s mind or to gain information about it. In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected. Scrying attempts that are targeted specifically at the subject do not work at all.

You can "protect" from a beneficial effect all you want, you'll still get the beneficial effect. It doesn't make you immune to all mind affecting, it only PROTECTS you from things that can potentially harm you.

Troacctid

2015-12-18, 12:51 AM

I want you to know that I definitely think this position on PrCs is incredibly dumb and does nothing at all to tell anyone about the game at all, but I don't even care, because I described a Beguiler 20 that can control undead, fort save or die anyone (or no save die them) as a none death effect, or AoE death effect fort or die a bunch of people, rendering pretty much all the "But what if they are immune to Mind affecting!" useless. To say nothing of just dominating a monster with Gate, and having it Gate more things to Dominate until you have the never ending army of doom and gloom.

1) That's bull****.

It really isn't. The tier system is deliberately ranking only single-class characters because ranking a bunch of prestige classes for every base class would be impractical. If it did rank prestige class builds, they would presumably be listed separately from the base class (much as the wildshape Ranger is listed separately from the base Ranger, and the Zceryll Binder is listed separately from the non-Zceryll Binder).

Or would you rather raise the Monk to T3 because of Psionic Fist, the Incarnate to T1 because of Soulcaster and Sapphire Hierarch, etc.?

You can "protect" from a beneficial effect all you want, you'll still get the beneficial effect. It doesn't make you immune to all mind affecting, it only PROTECTS you from things that can potentially harm you.
Considering that it it specifically already "protects" you from things that don't cause you any harm, I don't think your interpretation holds much water.

Talya

2015-12-18, 12:54 AM

That doesn't matter. For a damage build to be good, it has to bring enough damage to the table on its own to kill enemies in one round. The fact that a Bard makes people even deader is a distraction at best. I mean seriously, do you think the Ubercharger cares that you added 60 to his 400 damage attack?

The bard makes every melee in the party into a character with enough damage to kill enemies in one round. Probably the party sorcerer, too. Even if they're not using melee buffs.

With gimped DCs, the worse spells per day in the game, and minimal spells known.

The way a bard prioritizes charisma, those DCs aren't really gimped - "saves only on a natural 20" looks the same whether the DC is unreachable by 2 or unreachable by 4. They still have more spells per day than they'll use, and enough spells known to get every spell they really want.

All of that is worse than just planar binding.

Which Beguiler and warmage don't get, and Dread necromancer gets but can't use.

Beheld

2015-12-18, 12:59 AM

The way a bard prioritizes charisma, those DCs aren't really gimped - "saves only on a natural 20" looks the same whether the DC is unreachable by 2 on unreachable by 4. They still have more spells per day than they'll use, and enough spells known to get every spell they really want.

You live in a fantasy land.

Which Beguiler and warmage don't get, and Dread necromancer gets but can't use.

Uh... yeah they totally can. An Eternal Wand of Magic Circle gets you 5 circles at any given time so you can cast five planar bindings a day. Arcane Disciple for a domain that gives you both Magic Circle and Dimensional Anchor exists, and so can straight up just do that if you want, all on your own with just your own spell slots if for some reason eternal wands don't exist.

Talya

2015-12-18, 01:02 AM

You live in a fantasy land.

Uh... yeah they totally can. An Eternal Wand of Magic Circle gets you 5 circles at any given time so you can cast five planar bindings a day. Arcane Disciple for a domain that gives you both Magic Circle and Dimensional Anchor exists, and so can straight up just do that if you want, all on your own with just your own spell slots if for some reason eternal wands don't exist.

Oh, want to bring equipment into it, the bard's got planar binding on demand, too, so what's your point?

(Eternal wand = 2 per day, btw. But that's irrelevant.)

Cosi

2015-12-18, 01:03 AM

It really isn't. The tier system is deliberately ranking only single-class characters because ranking a bunch of prestige classes for every base class would be impractical.

I don't think the current system is better. Right now classes are tiered wrong for how the preform in game because they aren't allowed to account for obvious PrCs. I think, especially given the variety of classes which grant prestige domains (Divine Oracle, Rainbow Servant dips, Comtemplative), it's fair to assume the Beguiler will pick up something.

It's sort of absurd that the Wizard is allowed to dumpster dive for spells because he gets them with levels of the Wizard class while the Beguiler isn't because he gets them with the first level of PrCs. As a general rule of thumb, if there are at least three PrCs that do the same thing it should probably be assumed the base class can achieve that.

Independently of that, the Rainbow Servant is tiered super badly in the Tiers for PrCs thread. It's not +2. It's +2 for fixed list spontaneous casters, +0 for everyone else. As I mentioned upthread, letting Wizards and Sorcerers learn Cleric spells mostly doesn't do anything. They could already learn the generally good ones, and they still have to pay full costs. Conversely, the Beguiler gets full value out of all of the spells (better than the Cleric for crazy situational ones you'll almost never prepare like part water) and pays no cost. That is a radically better deal.

The bard makes every melee in the party into a character with enough damage to kill enemies in one round. Probably the party sorcerer, too. Even if they're not using melee buffs.

So the Bard forces people to use suboptimal strategies, and this is a reason I want him on my team?

The way a bard prioritizes charisma, those DCs aren't really gimped - "saves only on a natural 20" looks the same whether the DC is unreachable by 2 on unreachable by 4. They still have more spells per day than they'll use, and enough spells known to get every spell they really want.

So you're telling me the Bard prioritizes Charisma more than a Wizard or Beguiler priorities Intelligence?

Which Beguiler and warmage don't get, and Dread necromancer gets but can't use.

I don't think I've literally ever said the word Warmage in this thread. I don't think anyone has up to this point.

Beguiler can get planar binding with Extra Spell, one of the fiend domains, or just settle for charm and dominate on everything he meets.

As I explained in my literal first post in this thread, the idea that the Dread Necromancer can't use planar binding is at best misguided. He needs magic circle. Castings of magic circle can be bought for money. planar binding gives him infinite money (for that matter, it also gives him infinite castings of magic circle straight up). See the problem with your claim? Also Arcane Disciple (Alignment), which was already a good deal for the AoE no save daze.

Beheld

2015-12-18, 01:03 AM

Oh, want to bring equipment into it, the bard's got planar binding on demand, too, so what's your point?

Do you even read what you quote?

Talya

2015-12-18, 01:12 AM

So the Bard forces people to use suboptimal strategies, and this is a reason I want him on my team?

that's nothing like anything I said at all. The bard doesn't force anyone on their team to do anything. The do, however, enable EVERYONE on their team to kill anything in melee with relative ease, should it be the easiest way to kill something.

So you're telling me the Bard prioritizes Charisma more than a Wizard or Beguiler priorities Intelligence?
Again, no. I'm saying that a +1-3 DC difference doesn't matter when the enemy has to make the same roll to save either way.

I don't think I've literally ever said the word Warmage in this thread. I don't think anyone has up to this point.
All the fixed list casters are in the same boat, regardless of their place on the tier system. If you can add HUGE numbers of spells into their spells known list, they jump up a tier or 3.

Beguiler can get planar binding with Extra Spell, one of the fiend domains, or just settle for charm and dominate on everything he meets.

While the FAQ isn't RAW, it's still relevant.

Originally Posted by FAQ:
Can the warmage (Complete Arcane) benefit from the Extra Spell feat?

No. Extra Spell lets you add one spell to your list of spells known, but the spell must be taken from your class spell list. Since the warmage already knows all the spells on his class spell list, this feat has no effect.

The description of extra spell there precludes using it the way you are suggesting. Very few beguilers will have a domain - Arcane Disciple requires them to boost wisdom to use it.

As I explained in my literal first post in this thread, the idea that the Dread Necromancer can't use planar binding is at best misguided. He needs magic circle. Castings of magic circle can be bought for money. planar binding gives him infinite money (for that matter, it also gives him infinite castings of magic circle straight up). See the problem with your claim? Also Arcane Disciple (Alignment), which was already a good deal for the AoE no save daze.

And again, by that logic, bards also have infinite castings of Planar Binding. This is kindof irrelevant.

Do you even read what you quote?

You suggested an eternal wand. The moment you bring equipment into the equation, the bard can cast EVERYTHING the beguiler/dread necromancer can cast with ease. Also, anything that the wizard/sorcerer/cleric/druid/{insert class with a spell list here.} I don't suggest a bard is equal to a wizard because they can use equipment to cast from a wizard's entire spell list (even at lower class levels than the wizard can cast them). But if you're going to suggest using a wand for magic circle twice a day means the dread necromancer can cast Planar Binding easily, then the bard rather easily gets Time Stop, Gate, and Shapechange at much, much lower levels.

Troacctid

2015-12-18, 01:22 AM

I don't think the current system is better. Right now classes are tiered wrong for how the preform in game because they aren't allowed to account for obvious PrCs. I think, especially given the variety of classes which grant prestige domains (Divine Oracle, Rainbow Servant dips, Comtemplative), it's fair to assume the Beguiler will pick up something.

It's sort of absurd that the Wizard is allowed to dumpster dive for spells because he gets them with levels of the Wizard class while the Beguiler isn't because he gets them with the first level of PrCs. As a general rule of thumb, if there are at least three PrCs that do the same thing it should probably be assumed the base class can achieve that.

Independently of that, the Rainbow Servant is tiered super badly in the Tiers for PrCs thread. It's not +2. It's +2 for fixed list spontaneous casters, +0 for everyone else. As I mentioned upthread, letting Wizards and Sorcerers learn Cleric spells mostly doesn't do anything. They could already learn the generally good ones, and they still have to pay full costs. Conversely, the Beguiler gets full value out of all of the spells (better than the Cleric for crazy situational ones you'll almost never prepare like part water) and pays no cost. That is a radically better deal.
Yeah, well, the Tiers for PrCs thread is almost entirely bull**** anyway.

Anyway, you open up the PrC can of worms and you have to start raising the tier of other classes too. Bards jump up to T2 because they're obviously all taking Sublime Chord. Monks jump up to T3 because of Fist of Zuoken, or T1 because of Ur-Priest + Sacred Fist. Binders are T1 because they're all Anima Mages now. Who knows where Barbarians land, since you're no longer rating the class past 2nd level? Then again, any dorky Fighter-type class like Barbarian is probably T3 now because they took a Tome of Battle dip--or, alternately, they're up to T2, because they're all getting 9th level spells from Divine Crusader. You see how this gets potentially problematic?

I don't think I've literally ever said the word Warmage in this thread. I don't think anyone has up to this point.
I can confirm that I mentioned it.

You can pretty much sum up the tier ratings as "Spells are overpowered." Which, of course, is totally accurate, so credit where credit is due. However, it's a coarse system without much nuance to it, and the most-referenced version is out of date. It has some limited usefulness as a cheat-sheet and as a comparative standard for evaluating builds, but I find that, in practice, the abstract guidelines of the tier system are a little too vague, and it's a lot easier to have a few good representative builds and use those as benchmarks instead. (I've found Warmage, Cleric, and NPC Warrior to be very useful for this purpose.)

Cosi

2015-12-18, 01:23 AM

EDIT: Added reply to Troacctid.

that's nothing like anything I said at all. The bard doesn't force anyone on their team to do anything. The do, however, enable EVERYONE on their team to kill anything in melee with relative ease, should it be the easiest way to kill something.

But good classes could already do that. Wizards can gish, Clerics and Druids are the best melees in the game, Beguilers and DNs have minions, and Rogues already have good DPS. Who exactly is the Bard helping?

Again, no. I'm saying that a +1-3 DC difference doesn't matter when the enemy has to make the same roll to save either way.

The Balor's worst save is +19. He "only saves on a 20" against a DC 39 spell. 6 pojnts from level leaves you 23 points of DC from your stat. Are you really claiming a Cha of 56?

All the fixed list casters are in the same boat, regardless of their place on the tier system. If you can add HUGE numbers of spells into their spells known list, they jump up a tier or 3.

Not really. The Beguiler and DN have lists that are actually good. The Warmage, not so much.

The description of extra spell there precludes using it the way you are suggesting.

The RAW of Extra Spell works exactly the way I am suggesting. Even if we accept that the DM is likely to rule that way (and, BTW, the source you want there is the Errata), the Beguiler can still buy a Runestaff or take Arcane Disciple.

Very few beguilers will have a domain - Arcane Disciple requires them to boost wisdom to use it.

14 Base Wis +5 from wishes is enough to cast any spell he wants from Arcane Disciple.

And again, by that logic, bards also have infinite castings of Planar Binding. This is kindof irrelevant.

What exactly do Bards have to put them on the gravy train? Is it "nothing" or "squat"? Perhaps you were thinking of "jack"?

But if you're going to suggest using a wand for magic circle twice a day means the dread necromancer can cast Planar Binding easily,

Yes, I am. The algorithm goes like this:

1. Create magic circle.
2. Cast planar binding for whatever.
3. Negotiate.
4. Whatever leaves circle.
5. Hey, now you have a free circle!

Anyway, you open up the PrC can of worms and you have to start raising the tier of other classes too.

If you're following the rule of thumb I suggested, none of this applies - I said you should require three classes of similar function to re-tier.

Bards jump up to T2 because they're obviously all taking Sublime Chord.

I think that's a very different boat from Rainbow Servant. Unlike Rainbow Servant, Sublime Chord has nary a care for what you were in your past life. This leads me to suspect that Bard 1/Wizard 5/Incantatrix 4/Sublime Chord 1/Ultimate Magus 9 is better than the Bard plan in a way that Wizard 10/Rainbow Servant 10 isn't better than the Beguiler plan.

Monks jump up to T3 because of Fist of Zuoken, or T1 because of Ur-Priest + Sacred Fist.

No idea what Fist of Zuoken is. Ur-Priest has the same mulligan problem Sublime Chord does, as entering with a better base class is just better. Compare that to Rainbow Servant, where different classes have sharply distinct synergies.

Binders are T1 because they're all Anima Mages now.

Anima Mage is, I think, much more a Wizard class that a Binder one. It's hardly fair to claim Fighter is the good part of Eldtrich Knight, after all. FFS, the (arguably) best entry takes no Binder levels!

You see how this gets potentially problematic?

I think the examples you gave are missing what makes Rainbow Servant unique, but I can certainly see potential issues with trying to capture the full level of granularity that exists. That said, I think you can skip a lot of that in a new system. I don't think the distinction between Fighter 2/Totemist 2/Crusader 1/Warshaper 4 and Fighter 2/Totemist 2/Warblade 1/Warshaper 4 is meaningful enough to bare mentioning.

137beth

2015-12-18, 01:25 AM

5. Also fails to account for power shifts over levels. A 1st level Wizard is still better than a 1st level Fighter, but the Fighter still plays the same game. Compare that to a 1st level Artificer, who is frankly around Expert levels of useful.

JaronK's list is restricted primarily to levels 6-15, precisely because that is about the widest range across which the tiers stay relatively consistent. If you go above level 15 or below level six, they change.

LTwerewolf

2015-12-18, 01:43 AM

It just seems here that a small minority is trying really hard to ignore certain parts of the tier system (such as it not including prestige classes, or specific builds but to be used in a more general sense), or trying to complain that this hammer isn't sawing through a steel girder, and therefore must suck as a hammer. Most of what I've seen from those individuals are logical fallacies, mostly through reductio ad absurdum and red herrings. If you don't like using it, don't use it. If you don't see how it's useful, don't use it. Just because you don't see it (and refuse to point blank regardless of what is said) doesn't mean it doesn't have merits; it just means you're being argumentative.

mabriss lethe

2015-12-18, 02:01 AM

Why do I use the Tier System?

1. Of Jaronk's 5 listed purposes for the Tier system, 3 of them apply directly to the DM, Another point applies to homebrewers (which are often DMs). More often than not, I'm the one behind the DM screen. When I first see my players' sheets, a good working knowledge of the tier system lets me know how I need to shape encounters. If I see lots of T1 and 2 classes, I feel more comfortable throwing whatever tickles my fancy at them, knowing they have the tools to overcome it. The hard work is making sure that the party can't just end every encounter by popping off a single spell. If, on the other hand, I see a lot of 4s and 5s, I'm going to really go over those character sheets with a fine-toothed comb and put together a cheat-sheet for myself that has a fairly well enumerated list of the sort of encounters they can and can't handle. As a DM, it's my job to make sure that the players have fun. It's not fun to face a level appropriate situation that, mechanically speaking, the party cannot surmount. The farther you go down on the tier list, the greater the likelihood that holes will appear in a party's list of surmountable challenges. It also gives me some very good ballpark estimates for when I brew up my own threats for my players.

2. As a moderately high-op player (shaped by the fact that I GM a great deal) I want to have fun and I want my friends to have fun. I feel like that's easier to accomplish with a good working knowledge of what everyone can bring to the table. If it's a high tier party, I know that I'm going to have to pick a higher tiered class for myself in order to contribute meaningfully. If the party is mostly low tier, I'll go one of 2 ways, (depending on the table) I'll pick a high tier class tuned to level the playing field for the other PCs at a harsher GMs table or I'll pick a low tier class and optimize the heck out of it at a more relaxed table. It gets boring when one character is in the spotlight for the entire time, even if (sometimes especially if) it's my character in the limelight.

Troacctid

2015-12-18, 02:15 AM

If you're following the rule of thumb I suggested, none of this applies - I said you should require three classes of similar function to re-tier.
Yeah, well, I don't like your rule of thumb. Who cares that Daggerspell Mage is similar to Unseen Seer and Arcane Trickster if nobody is ever going to take it while the other two options exist? Seems arbitrary to me.

I think that's a very different boat from Rainbow Servant. Unlike Rainbow Servant, Sublime Chord has nary a care for what you were in your past life. This leads me to suspect that Bard 1/Wizard 5/Incantatrix 4/Sublime Chord 1/Ultimate Magus 9 is better than the Bard plan in a way that Wizard 10/Rainbow Servant 10 isn't better than the Beguiler plan.

No idea what Fist of Zuoken is. Ur-Priest has the same mulligan problem Sublime Chord does, as entering with a better base class is just better. Compare that to Rainbow Servant, where different classes have sharply distinct synergies.

Anima Mage is, I think, much more a Wizard class that a Binder one. It's hardly fair to claim Fighter is the good part of Eldtrich Knight, after all. FFS, the (arguably) best entry takes no Binder levels!
So? Psions are way better than Sorcerers and they're both supposedly T2. Why does it matter if a better entry exists? You still qualify easily, and it's still better than other options you could be taking. You even give up a lot less than a Beguiler compared to single-classing.

You can't claim that Sublime Chord isn't a Bard prestige class. All Bards qualify for it almost automatically, and it literally requires bardic music so you can't qualify for it as a non-Bard (or at least you couldn't at the time of its printing).

I don't think you can claim that there's a more appropriate entry for Sacred Fist than Monk, either. Certainly not for Fist of Zuoken, which you literally can't enter from any other base class, IIRC, unless I'm forgetting some obscure way of doing it. And if you want a third class for your rule of thumb, Enlightened Fist, Zerth Cenobite, and War Mind should all count.

I think the examples you gave are missing what makes Rainbow Servant unique, but I can certainly see potential issues with trying to capture the full level of granularity that exists. That said, I think you can skip a lot of that in a new system. I don't think the distinction between Fighter 2/Totemist 2/Crusader 1/Warshaper 4 and Fighter 2/Totemist 2/Warblade 1/Warshaper 4 is meaningful enough to bare mentioning.
So are you claiming that Fighter 2/Totemist 2/ToB dip 1/Warshaper 4 deserves its own specific entry in the tier list, or is this something you think should be included in the Fighter's tiering?

Florian

2015-12-18, 04:21 AM

I think that is so deeply not clear that is basically completely unrelated to the conversation at hand. The people talking about how WBL solves problems are people advocating for the tiers. To the extent that is even remotely a part of the conversation.

The point is that the CR system exists, and defines opposition, the people saying that CR is geared for tier 4 because the tiers are useful are saying that it's unfair for monsters to make complex illusions and TP to harass, the people advocating that the tiers are garbage pointed out that monsters are going to mercilessly destroy you if you don't have good characters like Dread Necros and Rogues.

It looks like this post shows that you have a preexisting thing that you like to project onto conversations which makes you feel superior, and without any evidence at all you will just project it onto conversations.

Hey guy, what´s up with the aggressive tone? Come down a bit.

As for the rest, I´d rather say that you seem to be stuck with thinking you know how the game is to be played the right way and don´s seem able to accept that this is not true.
Your arguments are all based on playing at the highest competence level, engaging in an arms race and allowing full escalation. That may be fun for some players, that may kill the game for others, as they don´t want to engage the system firmly enough to reach that point. Its up to the gm to cater the level that the players want, not the other way around and escalation can´t be started without common consent, which is part of the social contract.

That´s where the aforementioned distinction comes in, especially the mentioning on what tier the CR systems conforms to.
The core game, playable with the CRB only, is "combat as sports, 4 guys in a dungeon" as showcased by modules like "Citadel of eternal night". Sure, you can always escalate from there, the ways and means are given, but that changes the game.

Lans

2015-12-18, 07:15 AM

JaronK's list is restricted primarily to levels 6-15, precisely because that is about the widest range across which the tiers stay relatively consistent. If you go above level 15 or below level six, they change.

Actually, he has stated that while his tier system focuses on those levels, the tier system applies to all levels. I think things like launch bolt, PW:Pain, Abrupt jaunt and the like were mentioned why wizards are still tier 1 at level 1.

His tier system obviously has flaws, like

#1 He states that the classes will end up in in the stated arrangement on the tier list as long as equal optimization occurs. Which means that a highly optimized bard, beguiler, factotum and warblade will still be on the same playing field as each other. As they would if poorly optimized.

#2 There is 2 standards of what makes a class tier 4. Classes that are good at what they do like barbarians and rogues, and versatile classes like the incarnum and ranger. This is what I believe a decent chunk of Cosi's and Beheld's problems with the tier system are. As for them the classes that are good at what they do are actually worth a party slot, while classes that are tier 4 due to basically being tier 5 in two areas are not.
3 # I had a three, but I had to get a kid onto a bus and don't remember what it was at this moment.

Edit 3 That he gives a hardline as to what makes a class into the tier there in, and some how doesn't at the same time.

Like one of the ways to be tier 3 is
Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, so take the Rogue that was built by Cosi, he is tier 4 on his damage, but if he uses his remaining feat slots on things like animal devotion, fey heritage, or incarnum he can become useful for when thats not appropriate , but he is still tier 4 because builds have a way of not mattering

Cosi

2015-12-18, 09:27 AM

Yeah, well, I don't like your rule of thumb. Who cares that Daggerspell Mage is similar to Unseen Seer and Arcane Trickster if nobody is ever going to take it while the other two options exist? Seems arbitrary to me.

For the Beguiler, all of the listed options function exactly the same, so it seems like a rather more reasonable claim.

So? Psions are way better than Sorcerers and they're both supposedly T2. Why does it matter if a better entry exists? You still qualify easily, and it's still better than other options you could be taking. You even give up a lot less than a Beguiler compared to single-classing.

The difference is that there isn't a difference between entries. How much is the power swing between Commoner 5/Ur-Priest 10 and Warblade 5/Ur-Priest 10? It's there, sure, but it's nothing compared to the difference between Sorcerer 6/Rainbow Servant 10 and Beguiler 6/Rainbow Servant 10, which is night and day.

Honestly, the ranking for Ur-Priest should probably (in something like the current system) have two separate rankings. One for non-theurge builds and one for theurge builds. I don't think there's a meaningful enough difference between Crusader/Ur-Priest/RKV, Monk/Ur-Priest/Sacred Fist, and Warlock/Ur-Priest/Eldritch Theurge to warrant different rankings, but there is a difference between those builds and Fighter/Ur-Priest or something similar.

You can't claim that Sublime Chord isn't a Bard prestige class. All Bards qualify for it almost automatically, and it literally requires bardic music so you can't qualify for it as a non-Bard (or at least you couldn't at the time of its printing).

It's a Bard PrC, I just think the optimal entry is about as much Bard as the optimal entry to Arcane Trickster is Rogue. Bard 1/Wizard 5/Incantatrix 4 casts just as well as Bard 10 before entering and brings substantially more to the build after entry. You can pick up enough Bardic Music to qualify on a dip, so that puts it in the same boat as Theurge classes.

So are you claiming that Fighter 2/Totemist 2/ToB dip 1/Warshaper 4 deserves its own specific entry in the tier list, or is this something you think should be included in the Fighter's tiering?

If I was doing tiering, the entry would probably be something like:

Warshaper
Build: [Base Classes that give +4 BAB]/Warshaper 4
Works Til: Level 10 (or whenever it stops carrying its weight)

So you'd have entries for anything that was particularly distinct in power level. So maybe Wild Shape Ranger/Warshaper gets its own entry, while Ranger 1/Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/Warshaper 4 doesn't.

You'd do the same thing with base classes. I'd list two breakpoints, one where the class stops being optimal and you should PrC or multiclass out (so 2 for Fighter and 5 for Wizard) and one for when the class stops being viable (so 4 maybe 6 for Fighter and never for Wizard).

Actually, he has stated that while his tier system focuses on those levels, the tier system applies to all levels. I think things like launch bolt, PW:Pain, Abrupt jaunt and the like were mentioned why wizards are still tier 1 at level 1.

Sidenote: power word pain is weak for PCs. Fights don't last long enough for DoTs to compete and you can't retreat effectively. Crazy lethal against PCs as it will kill you eventually, but not great for them.

Honestly though, that's a pretty high level of optimization. If you compare even the core Wizard with sleeps and color sprays to the core Fighter with a sword and armor, the Fighter pulls his weight at low levels in a way that he doesn't at high levels. Barring very high levels of optimization, good classes pull ahead at 5th and the difference becomes impossible to ignore at 9th.

*snip - two standards for T4*

Barring the bit about Barbarians (they suck), that's a mostly reasonable summation of how I feel. The tier system is (sort of) accurate about what it claims to do, it's just that what it claims to do isn't super useful. A character who is not level appropriate at a bunch of things is useless, while a character who is level appropriate in combat isn't.

I have two issues with the tiers:

1. There are a bunch of problems with how things are tiered even for the rules JaronK claims he used. Quickly:

Artificer/Archivist/Erudite are too dependent on the DM allowing them access to the goodies they want in the campaign world to be consistently tiered. Artificer a little less so, but Archivist at Erudite are much worse if they can't get access to very specific people/scrolls.

Favored Soul sucks. It trades away the good parts of being a Cleric (domains, turning, heavy armor, getting the whole Cleric list) for very little. It's supposed to be compared to the Sorcerer, but you can't really compare bless to color spray and come out anything like even.

Beguiler and Dread Necromancer need to move up a tier on their own lists, probably two if we consider PrC dips, Arcane Disciple, runestaves/knowstones, or any other trick to get more spells.

There needs to be a sharper distinction between the "options" crowd and the "power" crowd in T4.

Minor, but CW Samurai is in the same tier as NPC Warrior. It probably needs to move up for being strictly better. Not good, but it's only Fighter levels of bad.

2. The tier system as a whole is bogus. The methodology for ranking classes isn't objective, it collapses as soon as people start behaving like characters, it makes unsupported assumptions about scaling with optimization and level, and it ranks people on something with minimal influence on character power.

A better system would just rank whether various options were level appropriate or not, with various benchmarks for making that evaluation. 5/10/15 is good, maybe 20 if you think the game holds together there.

GilesTheCleric

2015-12-18, 10:00 AM

A better system would just rank whether various options were level appropriate or not, with various benchmarks for making that evaluation. 5/10/15 is good, maybe 20 if you think the game holds together there.

What kinds of benchmarks do you think would work best? AC, Ex/Su/Sp abilities, average damage? Would you compare to creatures, or to PC classes? Both?

Edit: I can see it being tricky trying to benchmark skills, since DCs don't exactly have a CR. Do you have any ideas for that?

Beheld

2015-12-18, 10:04 AM

What kinds of benchmarks do you think would work best? AC, Ex/Su/Sp abilities, average damage? Would you compare to creatures, or to PC classes? Both?

Edit: I can see it being tricky trying to benchmark skills, since DCs don't exactly have a CR. Do you have any ideas for that?

Any actual analysis of whether or not something is level appropriate has to be based on their contribution to the fights they are actually defined to face, IE encounters of approximately their CR.

Again, no. I'm saying that a +1-3 DC difference doesn't matter when the enemy has to make the same roll to save either way.

Again, this is hyper mega false. This is so false it literally hurts to see someone claim it. Balor's have a will save of +23, You need a Charisma mod of +16 for that to be true. Absent complete cheese that isn't even a possible for a zero LA character. Which means you are literally describing the difference between Beguilers who force saves that are more likely to fail, and Bards who force saves that are less likely to fail as identical. That is wrong.

Very few beguilers will have a domain - Arcane Disciple requires them to boost wisdom to use it.

Every Beguiler will add other spells to their spell list, because it is super obvious that you want to do that with a Beguiler. I mean listen to yourself, Bards get +4 to Inspire Courage from class levels, but you say that Bards get +15. You can get +15 by using every existing source and stacking every single effect to get that, but Beguilers can also just get additional spells. To claim that Bards always have +15 inspire Courage but Beguilers never have additional spells, even though getting additional spells is literally the one thing Beguilers do with feats and levels, and is going to be a lot more common than +15 Inspire Courage Bards.

You suggested an eternal wand. The moment you bring equipment into the equation, the bard can cast EVERYTHING the beguiler/dread necromancer can cast with ease. Also, anything that the wizard/sorcerer/cleric/druid/{insert class with a spell list here.} I don't suggest a bard is equal to a wizard because they can use equipment to cast from a wizard's entire spell list (even at lower class levels than the wizard can cast them). But if you're going to suggest using a wand for magic circle twice a day means the dread necromancer can cast Planar Binding easily, then the bard rather easily gets Time Stop, Gate, and Shapechange at much, much lower levels.

1) Spending 11,500gp for an infinite uses of Planar Binding at ten per day is different from spending 80,000gp to get 50 total uses of Planar Binding and then needing to spend another 80,000gp. Being able to spend small amounts of money to get infinite access to something is different from being able to spend large amounts of money to get limited uses.
2) Please learn the rules. And of them really. Magic Circle lasts 24 hours per CL when used as a circle. An Eternal Wand with one use makes 5, and Eternal Wand with 2 uses makes 10. That's more than two.
3) The reason I asked if you read it, is because I literally told you in the post you quoted how a Dread Necromancer can cast Magic Circle and Dimensional Anchor with his own spell slots. You are claiming that Dread Necromancers can't get Magic Circle with their own spell slots, the fact that they obviously can, and that you are completely wrong is relevant to the conversation.

As for the rest, I´d rather say that you seem to be stuck with thinking you know how the game is to be played the right way and don´s seem able to accept that this is not true.
Your arguments are all based on playing at the highest competence level, engaging in an arms race and allowing full escalation. That may be fun for some players, that may kill the game for others, as they don´t want to engage the system firmly enough to reach that point. Its up to the gm to cater the level that the players want, not the other way around and escalation can´t be started without common consent, which is part of the social contract.

That´s where the aforementioned distinction comes in, especially the mentioning on what tier the CR systems conforms to.
The core game, playable with the CRB only, is "combat as sports, 4 guys in a dungeon" as showcased by modules like "Citadel of eternal night". Sure, you can always escalate from there, the ways and means are given, but that changes the game.

No, my arguments seem to be based on what the rules actually say are your opponents, and what the rules actually say your opponents will do. I specifically have acknowledged multiple times over and over that you can play the monsters stupid, or use weaker monsters than CR, or otherwise play down to whatever level your PCs end up being. But I recognize that doing so is not what the rules say your opposition should be. Again, you seem to believe that the rules say that monsters have to be nice and not use their superior perception or mobility abilities and instead have to stand there and let the PCs beat on them, but that's not what the MM tactics entries say, and that's not what the DMG says about running monsters.

Red Fel

2015-12-18, 10:07 AM

<barely controlled laughter>

Oh, this should be fun.

1) That's bull****.

You live in a fantasy land.

Do you even read what you quote?

Okay, kids. Let's tone this right the heck down. Clearly, you dislike the Tier System. But it is entirely possible to communicate that sentiment without all the negativity and personal attacks. People have done so in this thread. You can too. Civility is a thing. Try it.

Beheld

2015-12-18, 10:10 AM

Okay, kids. Let's tone this right the heck down. Clearly, you dislike the Tier System. But it is entirely possible to communicate that sentiment without all the negativity and personal attacks. People have done so in this thread. You can too. Civility is a thing. Try it.

I'd trade civility for people responding to what I actually say and not deceptively quoting out of context while making false accusations.

Red Fel

2015-12-18, 10:39 AM

I'd trade civility for people responding to what I actually say and not deceptively quoting out of context while making false accusations.

Not how it works. Civility isn't an exchange. It is - or should be - the freely-offered cornerstone of dialogue and discourse. Not a reward for people playing the game by your rules.

Florian

2015-12-18, 10:43 AM

Beheld

2015-12-18, 11:04 AM

Not how it works. Civility isn't an exchange. It is - or should be - the freely-offered cornerstone of dialogue and discourse. Not a reward for people playing the game by your rules.

1) I meant that I would accept you not being civil to me if you (and others) would stop taking quotes out of context, making false accusations, and would address my actual points.
2) Generally speaking, not making false accusations and not deceptively quoting things out of context and addressing the actual conversation is considered the cornerstone of dialogue and discourse. I can easily imagine having a conversation with someone who was uncivil, I can't possibly imagine having a conversation with someone who refuses to quote things in context and makes false accusations about what I said like you are doing right now.

But no, I'm sure when you lie about what other people say and insult them that is super "civil."

Bucky

2015-12-18, 12:17 PM

Here's how I normally describe the tiers, although I apply them to builds rather than classes.

Tier 0: Trump Tier (Can't be challenged by anything that isn't specifically designed/prepared to defeat it. Combat between Trump Tier characters often ends in a draw.)
Tier 1: Game-breaking Generalists (Hard to challenge effectively if they have an opportunity to prepare for the challenge. Given preparation, can solo a diverse sequence of level appropriate challenges, or even somewhat harder ones, with little risk of failure.)
Tier 2: Game-breaking Specialists (Have the ability to trivialize many level-appropriate challenges, but there are also many level-appropriate challenges they need help with.)
Tier 3: Competent Generalists (Can solo many level appropriate challenges, though possibly with some risk of failure, and can contribute somewhat to party attempts to solve the rest)
Tier 4: Competent Specialists (Can solo some level appropriate challenges, though possibly with some risk of failure, but can't contribute effectively to many others.)
Tier 5: Incompetent Specialists (Struggles to solo most level-appropriate challenges, but can sometimes contribute significantly to team efforts even on harder challenges)
Tier 6: Incompetent Generalists (Struggles to contribute to any level-appropriate challenge, except possibly with skill coverage for a few skills.)

Tier 3 acts a bit funny with this set of definitions; there is a grey zone where it fades into tier 4, and some builds like Initiative+OHKO martial characters skip it entirely, moving straight from Tier 4 to Tier 2 and back as their best trick comes online and loses effectiveness.

Taelas

2015-12-18, 01:10 PM

As I explained in my literal first post in this thread, the idea that the Dread Necromancer can't use planar binding is at best misguided. He needs magic circle. Castings of magic circle can be bought for money. planar binding gives him infinite money (for that matter, it also gives him infinite castings of magic circle straight up). See the problem with your claim? Also Arcane Disciple (Alignment), which was already a good deal for the AoE no save daze.

The Dread Necromancer can't cast magic circle, which means he can't use planer binding. Period. The fact that he can buy scrolls of magic circle is utterly irrelevant, because anyone with enough money can do that, and they can abuse it for infinite money just as well as the DN can. When you bring equipment into the equation, you are no longer arguing about the virtues of the class you're talking about.

Florian

2015-12-18, 01:29 PM

Beheld

2015-12-18, 01:30 PM

The Dread Necromancer can't cast magic circle, which means he can't use planer binding. Period. The fact that he can buy scrolls of magic circle is utterly irrelevant, because anyone with enough money can do that, and they can abuse it for infinite money just as well as the DN can. When you bring equipment into the equation, you are no longer arguing about the virtues of the class you're talking about.

1) The Dread Necromancer can cast Magic Circle, which means he can use Planar Binding, Period.
2) And without infinity money tricks, would you pay 11,500gp to be followed around every day by 10 Glabrezu's who do whatever you say for the rest of eternity? Would you pay 91,500gp to be followed around by 10 Glabrezu's for 20 days, and then you no longer have any glabrezues, and all you have is an eternal wand of magic circle?

Because if the answer to those questions is different, then what you are saying is that Dread Necromancers have the ability to do something you want to do that other people (many other people) can't do.

daremetoidareyo

2015-12-18, 01:46 PM

1) I meant that I would accept you not being civil to me if you (and others) would stop taking quotes out of context, making false accusations, and would address my actual points.
2) Generally speaking, not making false accusations and not deceptively quoting things out of context and addressing the actual conversation is considered the cornerstone of dialogue and discourse. I can easily imagine having a conversation with someone who was uncivil, I can't possibly imagine having a conversation with someone who refuses to quote things in context and makes false accusations about what I said like you are doing right now.

But no, I'm sure when you lie about what other people say and insult them that is super "civil."

I just read this entire thread front to back. You're diction and tone are absolutely antagonistic and dismissive. Red Fel interpreted it exactly the same as I. He was just courteous enough to address it with you directly rather than allow you to get yourself banned or simply have your posts ignored. But, I'm sure, you are absolutely correct in whatever you feel. However, just because people aren't compliant to your will doesn't mean that they disrespected you. When the thread gets locked because of your behavior, the behavior that you chose to continue, I'm sure you'll feel injustice then too.

If you want to optimize your discussion theory, you need to prioritize people enjoying the discourse with you more, because the trend that I'm seeing is that you're accumulating ill-will. This leads to a non-optimized situation: people choosing not to further engage with you. Losing your audience to tirade against the tier system, a piece of game mechanics theory, will lead to decreased tolerance for the dismissive remarks. This will lead to you having more things reported to moderators, who will, in turn, be more watchful of you. This tone that Red Fel identified, if continued will lead to abdicating any chance of coercing people to agree with you: we'll see the rage, and ignore the message. I'm not saying we are correct in doing this, but this is how people are designed. Seeing as how you cannot acknowledge how people would be miffed by the words you chose to express voluntarily, I see little hope of you achieving success in convincing people of the lack of utility in employing the tier system to analyze the game. You're not meeting people where they are. Diplomacy is the art of getting other people to agree that you're right. Your methods only reinforce to yourself that you are right.

Lastly, what, explicitly, is your problem with people using the tier system for analysis? Would you be satisfied if one of us simply stated that the theory can be useless for certain types of analysis? Would you be satisfied if one of us admitted that people in general rely on it too much, or that the forums overpopulate their analysis with JaronKs system and that it distorts a deeper analysis? Because people have ceded that ground, and more... And you are unsatisfied. Will nothing short of grovelling make you content?

Madara

2015-12-18, 02:13 PM

There are many iconic discoveries and creations within the 3.5 community. At much of the group's roots lies optimization and the manipulation of our poorly-worded but lovely game.

My conclusion on JAronK's Tier System is that it is incomplete, not "terrible," and serves as an effective tool from which one can develop their own means of evaluating parties and characters. Vacuums and table-specific issues have been discussed already, which leads me to conclude that there should never be a search for a complete tier system, because of the flexibility of the game.

The Tier system is used

To inspire further discussion of the gaps between classes' capabilities
To provide an easy means for understanding broader collections of classes (The fighter is closer to the monk in options than to the wizard)
To provide an easy reference for DMs to instruct players on options for the game, should full review of the individual character builds and player's skill not be available.

One of the greatest tests of a work's success is the use of it years after its creation. It's been 7 years, and the thing is still one of the most cited works of the community. I can see the flaws in it, but I much prefer the threads which seek to critique (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System) and add (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?459141-Optimization-and-Tiers-The-Tier-System-Expanded) to the work rather than those which just criticize.

Beheld

2015-12-18, 02:16 PM

Lastly, what, explicitly, is your problem with people using the tier system for analysis? Would you be satisfied if one of us simply stated that the theory can be useless for certain types of analysis? Would you be satisfied if one of us admitted that people in general rely on it too much, or that the forums overpopulate their analysis with JaronKs system and that it distorts a deeper analysis? Because people have ceded that ground, and more... And you are unsatisfied. Will nothing short of grovelling make you content?

How nice of you, I can definitely tell that you are a kind loving soul because of how you sarcastically mock a strawman. But let's be clear, admitting that the Tier system doesn't do the things people claim it does is not something that has been ceded as ground. So far, I've been told that definitely zero people said the things they said in this thread about the Tiers being good help for understanding D&D balance, and as a side not, I'm a mean jerkface. The last page features a poster saying that the tiers help by sorting classes based on balance, a different poster saying that they use the tiers to benchmark homebrew classes, a poster saying that the tier system helps him balance encounters as a DM and design homebrew, a poster saying "The Tier system is great, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong for reasons that I won't go into," a side discussion about Beguilers and Dread Necros and Bards, and a bunch of tone trolling about who people should be "nice" coming from people dedicating entire posts to insulting people instead of talking about the actual discussion.

Notably absent, a single person not named Cosi or Beheld who has ever said even the tiniest thing about the Tiers not being an accurate measure of balance for D&D or are being too widely applied. In fact, what is actually happening is the longer this thread goes, the more Tiers are apparently capable of doing, as person after person claims a new thing that tiers definitely do, and people like you absolutely never contradict them on that point, but then get mad at me for not being content with the ground ceded to me. This thread is like a person getting into the backseat of taxi, pushing me over to the middle, then pushing me over to the side, then opening the door and pushing me straight the **** out of the taxi, and then as I roll down the road yelling at me for not being happy with all the seat room I was given.

EDIT: and since I started typing this post, the Tier system has can now be used for DMs to teach players too and the evidence that people overuse it and apply it to things that it is unfit for is now evidence of it's sanguine perfection, not it's vague ability to be interpreted to support whatever stupid point you want. I can feel all that rich ground ceded to me.

Red Fel

2015-12-18, 02:33 PM

Beheld, I'm going to refrain from responding to your jabs and insults, because (1) they don't deserve acknowledgment, this statement notwithstanding, and (2) doing so leaves me with pleasingly little to which I need respond.

Notably absent, a single person not named Cosi or Beheld who has ever said even the tiniest thing about the Tiers not being an accurate measure of balance for D&D or are being too widely applied. In fact, what is actually happening is the longer this thread goes, the more Tiers are apparently capable of doing, as person after person claims a new thing that tiers definitely do, and people like you absolutely never contradict them on that point, but then get mad at me for not being content with the ground ceded to me. This thread is like a person getting into the backseat of taxi, pushing me over to the middle, then pushing me over to the side, then opening the door and pushing me straight the **** out of the taxi, and then as I roll down the road yelling at me for not being happy with all the seat room I was given.

So, in other words, you're complaining that the thread is unfair because, despite the OP suggesting that the Tier System is terrible, only you and Cosi seem to agree with him. And since everyone else disagrees, we're all being mean to you, and throwing you out of a metaphorical taxi.

Your point has been made and heard. Thank you for your contribution. You are free to go.

daremetoidareyo

2015-12-18, 02:36 PM

How nice of you, I can definitely tell that you are a kind loving soul because of how you sarcastically mock a strawman. But let's be clear, admitting that the Tier system doesn't do the things people claim it does is not something that has been ceded as ground. So far, I've been told that definitely zero people said the things they said in this thread about the Tiers being good help for understanding D&D balance, and as a side not, I'm a mean jerkface. The last page features a poster saying that the tiers help by sorting classes based on balance, a different poster saying that they use the tiers to benchmark homebrew classes, a poster saying that the tier system helps him balance encounters as a DM and design homebrew, a poster saying "The Tier system is great, and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong for reasons that I won't go into," a side discussion about Beguilers and Dread Necros and Bards, and a bunch of tone trolling about who people should be "nice" coming from people dedicating entire posts to insulting people instead of talking about the actual discussion.

Notably absent, a single person not named Cosi or Beheld who has ever said even the tiniest thing about the Tiers not being an accurate measure of balance for D&D or are being too widely applied. In fact, what is actually happening is the longer this thread goes, the more Tiers are apparently capable of doing, as person after person claims a new thing that tiers definitely do, and people like you absolutely never contradict them on that point, but then get mad at me for not being content with the ground ceded to me. This thread is like a person getting into the backseat of taxi, pushing me over to the middle, then pushing me over to the side, then opening the door and pushing me straight the **** out of the taxi, and then as I roll down the road yelling at me for not being happy with all the seat room I was given.

EDIT: and since I started typing this post, the Tier system has can now be used for DMs to teach players too and the evidence that people overuse it and apply it to things that it is unfit for is now evidence of it's sanguine perfection, not it's vague ability to be interpreted to support whatever stupid point you want. I can feel all that rich ground ceded to me.

You win. You're 100% right.

We're all against you, and this whole discussion is just us wasting your time. We laugh about it back at the shop sometimes. I feel bad about that in the middle of the night here and there, but the job pays well enough. I'm glad you finally saw through the ruse. It was beginning to worry me.

You do know that people can disagree and not hate each other, right?

Beheld

2015-12-18, 02:56 PM

So, in other words, you're complaining that the thread is unfair because, despite the OP suggesting that the Tier System is terrible, only you and Cosi seem to agree with him. And since everyone else disagrees, we're all being mean to you, and throwing you out of a metaphorical taxi.

Your point has been made and heard. Thank you for your contribution. You are free to go.

You... Have not understood even a tiny bit of the conversation by anyone involved have you? The OP doesn't think the tier system is garbage, he specifically created this thread so he could keep talking about balancing classes based on the tier system in a different thread and tell Cosi to stop criticizing it there and talk about it here. If you don't know what a a single person believes about the subject, and repeatedly claim that people haven't said the things they actually said why do you even participate in conversations?

Once again, I don't care if anyone is being mean to me, Most people aren't, you kind of are, but whatever, **** happens. Most people, you excepted, are having an actual conversation about what the Tier system is good for, but you keep claiming that none of those people exist, and getting mad at me for arguing with a wall or something, or advertisements? I don't know what you see in place of all the people arguing that the Tier system is a useful method for balancing D&D. They aren't being mean to me, but what they definitely aren't doing, is ceding ground. See, sometimes people use this very odd method of speaking, called analogies, and so in response to a person who claimed that posters were ceding ground to me and therefore it was unreasonable of me to continue advocating for my position, I pointed out that what in fact happened, is that many many people have talked about the myriad ways that the tier system balances D&D, acts as a benchmark for CR and homebrew, helps teach the game, and cures cancer. That is in fact, not ceding ground at all, that is much closer to taking ground. So I made an analogy which showed both that ground was not ceded, it was taken, and also, as an aside, I was told that it was unreasonable of me to be upset about all the taken ground because so much was ceded. This was to show that the person criticizing me for unreasonably advocating for my position after everyone had already mostly agreed with me was wrong, because basically no one had said they agreed with me.

See, I tried to do it in the form of an analogy, in order to simplify the conversation. Then this happened. But sure, keep complaining that I'm a big meany and then criticizing me for calling other people mean. That is a totally coherent position with absolutely no projection.

You do know that people can disagree and not hate each other, right?

I don't recall claiming anyone hated me? Maybe you should spend less time projecting some other conversation on top of what people are actually saying?

daremetoidareyo

2015-12-18, 03:15 PM

I don't recall claiming anyone hated me? Maybe you should spend less time projecting some other conversation on top of what people are actually saying?

Wrong direction. You load every statement with reactional hurt. No one is hating you for disagreeing with them. The opposite is what is happening. You're frustrated at other peoples non-compliance and haven't the discipline nor desire to make that invisible. You can never win an argument this way, you can only push people away.

I'll graciously permit you to have the last word;

and if you hate me for saying that, just don't respond....

It's the only way to win this humility contest.

Florian

2015-12-18, 03:34 PM

As amusing this is, can we actually go back to the topic now?

Beheld

2015-12-18, 03:36 PM

As amusing this is, can we actually go back to the topic now?

No, because no one has ever posted on topic ever.

Doctor Despair

2015-12-18, 03:55 PM

I... usually try to avoid commenting in this sort of stuff, but regardless of what the Tier system is good for, and regardless of what people have said so far, we really don't need to bait people any more, Red, or be baited, Beholder. Everyone had a lot of good points to make, and it's admirable how passionate you were about some of them, Beholder, but I feel that despite all the good points on this thread, few people are doing much listening.

Perhaps it would be best to leave this discussion where it lies and start a new one fresh at a later date if people have renewed interest in it for some reason. As it is, I think this dead horse has been beaten enough by everyone for us to realize that there are a lot of conflicting ideas on the subject -- and that's fine.

OldTrees1

2015-12-18, 03:58 PM

Notably absent, a single person not named Cosi or Beheld who has ever said even the tiniest thing about the Tiers not being an accurate measure of balance for D&D or are being too widely applied.

The reason I have not made a post critiquing the Tier system in this thread is because the thread was too hostile by page 3 (due to actions on both sides) for it to fitting ground to critique the Tier system in.

Don't like everyone being against you? Then don't make it inhospitable to people that agree (at least in part) with you.

If you all (both sides) can make this thread more hospitable, then people like myself might venture contributing.

Taelas

2015-12-18, 04:19 PM

1) The Dread Necromancer can cast Magic Circle, which means he can use Planar Binding, Period.
Not as written, he can't. He is forced to take a feat to learn it, and the number of feats you can take is finite.

2) And without infinity money tricks, would you pay 11,500gp to be followed around every day by 10 Glabrezu's who do whatever you say for the rest of eternity? Would you pay 91,500gp to be followed around by 10 Glabrezu's for 20 days, and then you no longer have any glabrezues, and all you have is an eternal wand of magic circle?

Because if the answer to those questions is different, then what you are saying is that Dread Necromancers have the ability to do something you want to do that other people (many other people) can't do.
:smallamused:
"The rest of eternity", indeed.

Florian

2015-12-18, 04:43 PM

Not as written, he can't. He is forced to take a feat to learn it, and the number of feats you can take is finite.

:smallamused:
"The rest of eternity", indeed.

A very simple question: Can he or can´t he buy a 5/day use activated item with a magic circle against evil or not?

I mention it again, but I gladly repeat it for you: Did you know that the very mundane and humble PF fighter can craft his own candles of invocation and luck blades?

Taelas

2015-12-18, 04:54 PM

A very simple question: Can he or can´t he buy a 5/day use activated item with a magic circle against evil or not?
Yes, he can. That is not a measure of the DN's power.

I mention it again, but I gladly repeat it for you: Did you know that the very mundane and humble PF fighter can craft his own candles of invocation and luck blades?
Which matters... how?

Florian

2015-12-18, 05:23 PM

Yes, he can. That is not a measure of the DN's power.

Which matters... how?

We´re talking about why the Tier system is terrible and what its exact flaws are, right?

It still uses a double standard at evaluating versality higher then efficiency by blatantly disregarding that exactly this versality is open to any class that wants to have it.
The whole flaw is exaggerated by allowing some classes unhindered access to resources (A Wizard is not only T1 because of 9th level spells, but also because he can craft his own scrolls and can have any utility spell at hand), all the while disregarding the simple fact that any class can do that.

Now we could actually say "Well, then let´s disregard WBL completely, don´t outfit a class and look at it butt-naked", then the wizard class would actually belly-dive a lot, being stuck with 2 new spells per level up and such things, right?

So, keeping to the double standard will do nothing more than propagate BS like "BMX guy" on until all eternity, or amend the view by accepting that BMX guy can craft his own wishes and gates at his leisure.

Beheld

2015-12-18, 05:27 PM

Not as written, he can't. He is forced to take a feat to learn it, and the number of feats you can take is finite.

So now the Tiers only measure classes when they don't take PrCs, don't have money and don't have feats? Man, this Tier systems is looking less and less useful by the second.

Since literally 1000000000% of characters are going to have feats, if the things you have to say stop being true when a character takes a feat they stop being true immediately for all time by everyone.

Yes, he can. That is not a measure of the DN's power.

Yes it is. Spending 11,500gp for 10 Glabrezus everyday for eternity is a great use of money and only the Dread Necromancer can do it (aside from people who can already do it).

Saying that it's not a measure of the Dread Necro's Power that he has exclusive access to an ability that no other Tier 3 class (and many Tier 2 classes) has is basically just a commitment to noncognitivism.

ComaVision

2015-12-18, 05:47 PM

Since literally 1000000000% of characters are going to have feats, if the things you have to say stop being true when a character takes a feat they stop being true immediately for all time by everyone.

I think it may be difficult for more characters than exist to have feats. The figure is likely closer to 100%.

Beheld

2015-12-18, 05:50 PM

I think it may be difficult for more characters than exist to have feats. The figure is likely closer to 100%.

Depends how you count, if you include all the planned characters who are never played that also have feats, it could be pretty high.

Florian

2015-12-18, 05:59 PM

I think it may be difficult for more characters than exist to have feats. The figure is likely closer to 100%.

Fun Fact: For PF, the figure is actually dropping since you now can trade away half your feats for other features and use feat-swapping to get more class features. You can, if you want to, create a barbarian with power attack as his only feat... (actually a perfectly viable build) :P

Lans

2015-12-18, 06:09 PM

Sidenote: power word pain is weak for PCs. Fights don't last long enough for DoTs to compete and you can't retreat effectively. Crazy lethal against PCs as it will kill you eventually, but not great for them.

Honestly though, that's a pretty high level of optimization. If you compare even the core Wizard with sleeps and color sprays to the core Fighter with a sword and armor, the Fighter pulls his weight at low levels in a way that he doesn't at high levels. Barring very high levels of optimization, good classes pull ahead at 5th and the difference becomes impossible to ignore at 9th. True on all accounts, but I want to state that enemy wizards are still a thing.

Barring the bit about Barbarians (they suck), that's a mostly reasonable summation of how I feel. The tier system is (sort of) accurate about what it claims to do, it's just that what it claims to do isn't super useful. A character who is not level appropriate at a bunch of things is useless, while a character who is level appropriate in combat isn't.
On barbarians- Do you think they suck all the way through or do you feel they are basically a 1-2 level class and levels beyond that don't give anything worth losing a level for?

I have two issues with the tiers:

1. There are a bunch of problems with how things are tiered even for the rules JaronK claims he used. Quickly:

Artificer/Archivist/Erudite are too dependent on the DM allowing them access to the goodies they want in the campaign world to be consistently tiered. Artificer a little less so, but Archivist at Erudite are much worse if they can't get access to very specific people/scrolls. Would you say there is a double standard here with them getting access to people/scrolls and things like DNs not getting access to magic circle

Favored Soul sucks. It trades away the good parts of being a Cleric (domains, turning, heavy armor, getting the whole Cleric list) for very little. It's supposed to be compared to the Sorcerer, but you can't really compare bless to color spray and come out anything like even. Would you go into how they suck a little more? Would you say that they don't pull there weight in combat? Or is it that they are strictly inferior to clerics?

Beguiler and Dread Necromancer need to move up a tier on their own lists, probably two if we consider PrC dips, Arcane Disciple, runestaves/knowstones, or any other trick to get more spells.

There needs to be a sharper distinction between the "options" crowd and the "power" crowd in T4.
Would you be happier with the tier list if past tier 2 it went something like
Tier 3 Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate,
Tier 4 : Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise
Tier 5 capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area
Tier 6 capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining.
Tier 7 Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well,
Tier 8 so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything,
Tier 9 not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise.

A better system would just rank whether various options were level appropriate or not, with various benchmarks for making that evaluation. 5/10/15 is good, maybe 20 if you think the game holds together there.

So something like a list for DPR to take out equal level creature and if you make it your tier 3 in that and if you exceed it greatly your tier 1 in that?

ComaVision

2015-12-18, 06:10 PM

Fun Fact: For PF, the figure is actually dropping since you now can trade away half your feats for other features and use feat-swapping to get more class features. You can, if you want to, create a barbarian with power attack as his only feat... (actually a perfectly viable build) :P

Blasphemy!

Is that part of archetypes or what? I'm entirely unfamiliar with Pathfinder.

Florian

2015-12-18, 06:26 PM

Blasphemy!

Is that part of archetypes or what? I'm entirely unfamiliar with Pathfinder.

Nope.

Part of it is variant multi classing (VMC). You trade away 5 of your regular feats to gain access to class features of another class. The other part are the regular "extra"-type of feats, that let you switch a few for a class feature. For the Barbarian, that would be "Extra Rage Power", for the Witch that would be "Extra Hex".

Would you say there is a double standard here with them getting access to people/scrolls and things like DNs not getting access to magic circle

So something like a list for DPR to take out equal level creature and if you make it your tier 3 in that and if you exceed it greatly your tier 1 in that?

The double standard here is granting blanket access to all the necessary resources to pull it of, without reducing WBL by an equal amount but denying other classes the same kind of access.
Think about it one moment: How much would all scrolls of arcane/divine spells combined cost?

Edit to clarify this: The whole thing is supposed to be in a vacuum. So stuff like "found it, traded it with a colleague, enemy wizards spell book" and so on do not count.

DPR is a poor indicator for performance.

Lans

2015-12-18, 06:46 PM

Nope.

DPR is a poor indicator for performance.

It was just for your performance at DPR in my example. Basically it winds up being more of a second edition for the niche ranking system than a fix for the tier list

Beheld

2015-12-18, 06:46 PM

Would you go into how they suck a little more? Would you say that they don't pull there weight in combat? Or is it that they are strictly inferior to clerics?

It's mostly that they are strictly inferior to Fighters. If you look at the Cleric Archer, it is a class that: 1) Casts buffs that make it do more damage and be tougher than a Fighter. 2) Also has all sorts of utility effects, like True Seeing, or restorations spells, or Divination, or pseudo teleport effects, or whatever, 3) Also has save or lose effects, that while not as good as the Wizards (usually) still allow it to do very good stuff when monsters are the type that can avoid their damage, 4) Have pretty decent access to minions, IE, animates dead better than a Wizard, other more minor things.

Now what can a Favored Soul do? Well, it can't do 4 well, because doing 4 means spending extremely limited spells known on out of combat or even off day spells. It can't do 3 well, because it is dual attribute, so all it's saves are just much lower and it has very little chance of effecting monsters with save or dies, and god why would you pick a dual attribute save or die caster using the Cleric list when the Spirit Shaman, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Sorcerer all do that but with single attribute and better save or loses? It can'd do 2 at all, because the entire point of all the situational utility spells on the Cleric list is they are useful one out of every 10 days, and the rest of the time you don't prepare them, and so spells known just don't work. And when it comes to 1, it can sort of approximate that role, because you can just fill all your spells known with buffs, and cast them, but honestly, without turning, you lose access to lots of things that Clerics use, like Knowledge Devotion and DMM persist or quicken, to up their damage, and with the absolutely criminal way spells known and spontaneous casters work, on every odd level you are a level behind the Cleric in what buffs you can even cast, and on every even level you only get 1 buff you can cast of your highest level at all.

Favored Souls are great example of what happens when someone who doesn't understand the Cleric list at all tries to port over spontaneous casting to divine classes, and a Tier 2 ranking is exactly the kind of thing that happens when someone who also knows nothing about the Cleric list just assumes that since all three major casting lists are good, they must all be good in the same way, and Favored Souls should be able to do cool things.

I mean technically, you can go pretty far as a 6th-15th level character who casts Animate Dead on absurd template stacked super monsters that someone else kills for you, until you have a creature that individually can be better than a fighter of your level, and you have two of them, and then diversify into Dragons with Breath weapons that AoE daze with absurdly high save DCs, but since the literal best trick for a Favored Soul is to wish really hard he was a Dread Necromancer with fewer spells known I'm not impressed. Animate Dead (like all minion abilities) is broken, and Favored Souls can totally do that one thing that Dread Necro's do better, but that's basically the only way they can even be level appropriate.

So something like a list for DPR to take out equal level creature and if you make it your tier 3 in that and if you exceed it greatly your tier 1 in that?

The DPS is just not a relevant factor in a lot of cases. There are a lot of different monsters of every given CR, and they have lots of different tactics. If a monster is a Closet troll, it might not matter what your DPS is at all, because it could just jump out of the closet and murder you on the first round. If it's an incorporeal jump scare monster, you probably have to make a will save and not die from ability damage in the first round to even act, and only then does DPS come into it, and your DPS might be zero if you are natural attack user who doesn't cast spells or have them cast on you. Grapplemonsters grapple and often eat people, whatever your DPS is, you need to escape from a pin to even be able to do it. Some monsters are just really annoying kite monsters who use super long range or terrain manipulation effects, or illusions, or perception dodges to avoid taking damage. Some monsters are basically just casters who do some or all of those things to different effects.

And the main thing is that as you go up in level, the things you need to be able to deal with invent new and better tactics. So ultimately, the best method for figuring out level appropriate characters is to run them the SGT, because you need more than specific damages or specific save or X effects, you also need the ability to apply those effects, and the defenses to deal with all the monsters that are going to be hampering you with their own effects.

Beheld

2015-12-18, 06:52 PM

The double standard here is granting blanket access to all the necessary resources to pull it of, without reducing WBL by an equal amount but denying other classes the same kind of access.
Think about it one moment: How much would all scrolls of arcane/divine spells combined cost?

Well, even more than that, because we've also got people claiming that Dread Necros aren't allowed to cast some of their spells, because if they either buy an Eternal Wand, or take a feat to be able to do that, it's not part of the class. Also, even though Dread Necroes benefit more from adding spells to their class list, you can't consider this advantage when it comes to effects in the universe, because it's not part of the class (even though it's definitely part of the class). But hey, what about Archivists again? They can know all these spells because they can get scrolls of all the spells in the universe (because buying items is totally a class feature of Archivists) and the ability to add spells they otherwise can't select to their spells known is a feature of the archivist class spellcasting system (because there aren't any other classes that have spellcasting systems that benefit even more than Archivists from adding spells known...)

Lans

2015-12-18, 07:02 PM

It's mostly that they are strictly inferior to Fighters. If you look at the Cleric Archer, it is a class that: 1) Casts buffs that make it do more damage and be tougher than a Fighter. 2) Also has all sorts of utility effects, like True Seeing, or restorations spells, or Divination, or pseudo teleport effects, or whatever, 3) Also has save or lose effects, that while not as good as the Wizards (usually) still allow it to do very good stuff when monsters are the type that can avoid their damage, 4) Have pretty decent access to minions, IE, animates dead better than a Wizard, other more minor things.

Now what can a Favored Soul do? Well, it can't do 4 well, because doing 4 means spending extremely limited spells known on out of combat or even off day spells. It can't do 3 well, because it is dual attribute, so all it's saves are just much lower and it has very little chance of effecting monsters with save or dies, and god why would you pick a dual attribute save or die caster using the Cleric list when the Spirit Shaman, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Sorcerer all do that but with single attribute and better save or loses? It can'd do 2 at all, because the entire point of all the situational utility spells on the Cleric list is they are useful one out of every 10 days, and the rest of the time you don't prepare them, and so spells known just don't work. And when it comes to 1, it can sort of approximate that role, because you can just fill all your spells known with buffs, and cast them, but honestly, without turning, you lose access to lots of things that Clerics use, like Knowledge Devotion and DMM persist or quicken, to up their damage, and with the absolutely criminal way spells known and spontaneous casters work, on every odd level you are a level behind the Cleric in what buffs you can even cast, and on every even level you only get 1 buff you can cast of your highest level at all.

Favored Souls are great example of what happens when someone who doesn't understand the Cleric list at all tries to port over spontaneous casting to divine classes, and a Tier 2 ranking is exactly the kind of thing that happens when someone who also knows nothing about the Cleric list just assumes that since all three major casting lists are good, they must all be good in the same way, and Favored Souls should be able to do cool things.

I mean technically, you can go pretty far as a 6th-15th level character who casts Animate Dead on absurd template stacked super monsters that someone else kills for you, until you have a creature that individually can be better than a fighter of your level, and you have two of them, and then diversify into Dragons with Breath weapons that AoE daze with absurdly high save DCs, but since the literal best trick for a Favored Soul is to wish really hard he was a Dread Necromancer with fewer spells known I'm not impressed. Animate Dead (like all minion abilities) is broken, and Favored Souls can totally do that one thing that Dread Necro's do better, but that's basically the only way they can even be level appropriate.

I don't find the mad spell casting to be a too big of an issue, he needs a 13 in charisma and past that he can just by a cloak of charisma and be fine.

The DPS is just not a relevant factor in a lot of cases. There are a lot of different monsters of every given CR, and they have lots of different tactics. If a monster is a Closet troll, it might not matter what your DPS is at all, because it could just jump out of the closet and murder you on the first round. If it's an incorporeal jump scare monster, you probably have to make a will save and not die from ability damage in the first round to even act, and only then does DPS come into it, and your DPS might be zero if you are natural attack user who doesn't cast spells or have them cast on you. Grapplemonsters grapple and often eat people, whatever your DPS is, you need to escape from a pin to even be able to do it. Some monsters are just really annoying kite monsters who use super long range or terrain manipulation effects, or illusions, or perception dodges to avoid taking damage. Some monsters are basically just casters who do some or all of those things to different effects.

And the main thing is that as you go up in level, the things you need to be able to deal with invent new and better tactics. So ultimately, the best method for figuring out level appropriate characters is to run them the SGT, because you need more than specific damages or specific save or X effects, you also need the ability to apply those effects, and the defenses to deal with all the monsters that are going to be hampering you with their own effects.

I was just focusing on DPR as one aspect, and then having separate aspects for different things. Then having a separate aspect for things like defense and what ever else, I think this could be more useful than the tier system as is, but as you pointed out focusing on just raw damage would be folly, for the DPR and the DPR itself would be a less useful than a system like one that takes into account defenses, senses and less useful than the SGT.

Beheld

2015-12-18, 07:08 PM

I don't find the mad spell casting to be a too big of an issue, he needs a 13 in charisma and past that he can just by a cloak of charisma and be fine.

Like I said, the problem is it means he can't do save or lose effects, because his saves are just super lower. Or he was way fewer spells, pick one I guess. Or both a little bit. Either way, it's a significant loss for a character who is already just objectively unable to do the things the Cleric list is actually designed to do.

Florian

2015-12-18, 07:14 PM

GilesTheCleric

2015-12-18, 07:20 PM

We´re talking about why the Tier system is terrible and what its exact flaws are, right?

It still uses a double standard at evaluating versality higher then efficiency by blatantly disregarding that exactly this versality is open to any class that wants to have it.
The whole flaw is exaggerated by allowing some classes unhindered access to resources (A Wizard is not only T1 because of 9th level spells, but also because he can craft his own scrolls and can have any utility spell at hand), all the while disregarding the simple fact that any class can do that.

Now we could actually say "Well, then let´s disregard WBL completely, don´t outfit a class and look at it butt-naked", then the wizard class would actually belly-dive a lot, being stuck with 2 new spells per level up and such things, right?

So, keeping to the double standard will do nothing more than propagate BS like "BMX guy" on until all eternity, or amend the view by accepting that BMX guy can craft his own wishes and gates at his leisure.

This is a good point -- "have-nots" (mundanes) benefit much more from options outside of their class than do "haves" (full casters). I think that's a separate metric than the floor and ceiling of a class (which the tier system also doesn't address, as mentioned earlier: optimization at the extremes of the spectrum don't match the tier system very well), but is also very important. Do you think that some classes benefit disproportionately from this, such that simply looking at the tier and saying "I can raise this by 3 tiers with items" doesn't apply across the board?

Personally, when I work on some builds, I always compare them with an equal CR chromatic dragon to see where I´ll end up. My goal is to reach an average of 75%, meaning hitting it, resisting it, and so on.

Me, I use a three tier system to benchmark classes and I use gold values to compare how effective a class can be. (Explanation on that: I assign spell slots and x/day abilities a cost value equal to a scroll, then sum up how much gp must be spent to reach goal X. Note that I exclude the primary role from that)

The tiers I use are getting "weaker" the lower you go.
Tier one, using the 4E nomenclature, Primary Role: Defender, Striker, Leader and Controller.
Tier 2, whole scene based, Secondary Role: Face, Trapfinder, Brute, Knowledge Guy, and so on.
Tier 3, one test based, Tertiary Role: Scouting/Stealth, Craft, and so on.

Sorry for missing your post here; this thread is a bit messy. This is a neat system, but I'm not exactly sure how it works. Do you evaluate the build against each subcategory within each tier?

Troacctid

2015-12-18, 07:40 PM

@Favoured Soul:

Do compare that class to its PF counterpart, the Oracle, also being a spells-known divine caster.
Oracle has:
- Only one casting stat to focus on
- Scaling SLAs
- Bonus Spells Known
- Useful In-Combat features

I'm not going to claim that Oracle isn't a better-designed class than Favored Soul, but I am pretty sure Oracles have fewer spells known than Favored Souls, even after adding mystery spells. I mean, unless you're counting ones from the favored class bonus, which doesn't seem fair, since Favored Soul predates that mechanic.

Favored Souls actually have a surprisingly high number of spells known compared to other spontaneous casters. They can know almost as many spells as a Cleric can have prepared.

Taelas

2015-12-18, 08:04 PM

Yes it is. Spending 11,500gp for 10 Glabrezus everyday for eternity is a great use of money and only the Dread Necromancer can do it (aside from people who can already do it).

Saying that it's not a measure of the Dread Necro's Power that he has exclusive access to an ability that no other Tier 3 class (and many Tier 2 classes) has is basically just a commitment to noncognitivism.

You keep saying "for eternity". That's not how the spell bloody works.

Planar binding is ridiculous, but you are blowing it even more out of proportion than it already is.

AMFV

2015-12-18, 08:06 PM

You keep saying "for eternity". That's not how the spell bloody works.

Planar binding is ridiculous, but you are blowing it even more out of proportion than it already is.

Also it can introduce a LOT of problems. Like their demonic boss coming to find why they're playing hooky it's usefulness is really really DM dependant.

Beheld

2015-12-18, 08:09 PM

You keep saying "for eternity". That's not how the spell bloody works.

Planar binding is ridiculous, but you are blowing it even more out of proportion than it already is.

I keep saying that he can have ten Glabrezu's follow him around doing whatever he says every day for eternity, not that the same ten off the same ten castings from 600 years ago will be the ones he uses today.

Eternal wands are infinite (or his 3rd and 4th level spells that last CL days if Arcane Disciples instead of using an Eternal Wand), he can take a day or two off each week to spam out another 10-20 Planar Bindings to restock his Glabrezu account.

Florian

2015-12-18, 08:15 PM

This is a good point -- "have-nots" (mundanes) benefit much more from options outside of their class than do "haves" (full casters). I think that's a separate metric than the floor and ceiling of a class (which the tier system also doesn't address, as mentioned earlier: optimization at the extremes of the spectrum don't match the tier system very well), but is also very important. Do you think that some classes benefit disproportionately from this, such that simply looking at the tier and saying "I can raise this by 3 tiers with items" doesn't apply across the board?

I think that "unfettered access to items" combined with "You want it, you have got to pay for it" changes quite a lot.
First, the real gamebreakers are available across the board and therefore should not influence the individual rating of a class.
Second, the actual class features become more important. Taking the Wizard as an example, what is this class good at, then? Meta Magic, High DCs for direct spells, ability to overcome SR and still the spell book. (Insofar interesting, as that would, for example, cater towards blasting, something that is frowned on)
Third, it would call the viability of some builds into question. For example, anything with Ur-Priest in it becomes suddenly less appealing (disregarding DMM here) and stuff like Snowbluffs fixation on the 16/9 gish also drop quite a bit in direct appeal.

Sorry for missing your post here; this thread is a bit messy. This is a neat system, but I'm not exactly sure how it works. Do you evaluate the build against each subcategory within each tier?

Let me try to explain what I meant with "weaker" for the lower tiers:
The top tier is pretty much unique and defines the combat role of your character.

The scene tier defines stuff that can regularly come up and should be covered, but by definition can not be unique or can even be distributed between two or more characters. This tier should never be the main focus of a character. (No social scene coming up? Your Face is worthless. Three Cha-based casters in the party? More Faces...)

The skill tier is a hybrid, as it takes into account that there´re campaigns/APs with mandatory skills, else they break down (Interesting examples are Profession: Sailor or Profession: Soldier to run naval battles or mass combat in Skulls&Shackles or Kingmaker) or the simple fact that the existence of the skill will promote the use of the skill, else it will never come up (No character good at stealth? Well, no stealthing around, no loss for the game).

So yes, you can simply check what bases your character can cover without needing to expend extra resources and then check what else he could do, how intensive the cost for it would be and if it would be worth it.

I'm not going to claim that Oracle isn't a better-designed class than Favored Soul, but I am pretty sure Oracles have fewer spells known than Favored Souls, even after adding mystery spells. I mean, unless you're counting ones from the favored class bonus, which doesn't seem fair, since Favored Soul predates that mechanic.

Favored Souls actually have a surprisingly high number of spells known compared to other spontaneous casters. They can know almost as many spells as a Cleric can have prepared.

You forget the Curses (like Haunted) that also add spells known.