Tier Lists are Harmful to the 5e Community [Archive]

EvilAnagram

2016-03-16, 05:01 PM

It seems that every few months someone feels the need to post a thread called, "5e Tiers," or, "Let's Make a Tier List," or, "The Definitive Tier List." This is natural. After all, people enjoy ranking things. Just look at random Buzzfeed clickbait, and you'll find plenty of top five lists related to every topic that could possibly be considered interesting enough to dull the pain of living. To go further, gamers - and especially optimizers as a subset of gamers - are even more likely to gain a sense of satisfaction from rating and ranking the aspects of their hobby. Moreover, the 3.P refugees in the 5e community are already used to the Tier paradigm from their optimization boards, so it feels perfectly natural to apply that paradigm to the newest edition of D&D.

That said, it is a terrible idea. It's a useless, reductive paradigm that poisons the meta discourse and harms the community, and since I have an hour to kill, I've decided to dedicate an inordinate amount of time to rant about it. Why? Because I usually air out my frustrations on a stage, but there just isn't much call for D&D rants in the local comedy scene.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/57/51/dd/5751ddc862788367eb56efedf21d8f15.jpg

But I digress. Point the first!

It Serves No Purpose
The original 3.x tier list existed to group the many, many classes into easily digestible categories that had specific defining traits. Tier 1, for example, is described thusly:

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Notice how absolutely no classes in 5e fit that description? That's because the 5e designers aimed for balance in their approach. And while it isn't quite as balanced as 4e, which was too balanced for some players, they managed to make a game in which no player can put little thought into his character and still outshine everyone else in all areas. In fact, even players who put a ton of thought into their characters won't outshine everyone else unless either everyone else is kind of bad at the game, or the DM plays favorites. Since this isn't /tg/, we'll assume that those cases are outliers and the hobby isn't terrible.

The tier system in 3.P exists because the design is terrible players realized that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids would eventually outshine nearly everyone else with a minimal amount of optimizing. This led to raw feelings and angry players. The tier system helps organize the myriad classes into sets that can play with adjacent sets without outshining each other constantly. A Tier 3 will be broadly useful, but it won't completely outshine the Tier 4 specialist in its preferred role. The system is essentially character lubricant designed to ensure party configuration meets less friction, making for a more enjoyable time for all.

Contrast this with the 5e classes, which all fit into the Tier 3 definition:

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with.

Even the Berserker Barbarian and Champion Fighter - the two classes most often accused of being one-trick ponies - have features that can provide decent battlefield control or boost skill utility. Tiers don't add anything to the discourse, because the reason behind tiers is gone. We actually have to dissect a single 3.P tier in order to create tiers for 5e, when the tier system was designed so that tiers can play well with the tiers directly above and below them! It's madness! It's useless! It brings me to tiers (http://cdn.twentytwowords.com/wp-content/uploads/Tearable-Puns-e1335438183335-634x692.jpg)!

While the 3.P tiers were well-defined groupings, all attempts at 5e tiers are essentially Buzzfeed-level drivel. They're popularity rankings without any objective purpose.

https://wtit.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/00056.jpg?w=320&h=240

But you knew all this, and you still want to make tiers anyways. Do you bite your thumb at me, sir? Well, I'm not done with my long-winded rant yet because...

Calling Buzzfeed Rankings "Tiers" is Dishonest

Plenty of meta discussions about plenty of games refer to different tiers of play. Whether the discourse is about player ability or layer options, discussion around tiers is consistently an important part of the meta when it can meaningfully impact the game. People who pay attention to the meta pay attention to discourse around tiers because it can have a real effect on play. In competitive play, running Sisters of Battle against Eldar is a sure way to lose. In cooperative play, you don't want to pick a LoL character that will hurt your team.

In these meta discussions, tiers of play become extremely important, and so people listen to discussion on tiers. But 5e is balanced, and when you create 5e "tiers" knowing that any two classes can play side by side without completely eclipsing each other, they are simply using the term "tier" to slap on a lacquer of meaningful objectivity to their Buzzfeed fave five. They're assuming a pretense of meaningful discourse while they subjectively rank classes according to what they personally look for in play. That's dishonest.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/16/article-0-0BAAE2EC000005DC-332_468x304.jpg

Okay, so it's dishonest. Big deal. White lies are fine. It's not like it's really harmful, and wasn't I saying that it's harmful to begin with? Get to the point, Evil!

Well I'm getting there. Because it's not just dishonest...

It's Reductive

By which I mean it reduces the scope of the discourse, and in doing so limits the discussion. How often do discussions devolve into people attacking or defending someone's decision to play a Ranger or Berserker? Even leaving out tier discussions, those posts crop up constantly. A recent thread about someone wanting to multiclass Ranger/Rogue involved at least a dozen posts attacking and defending the basic Ranger chassis because everyone knows that Rangers are bottom tier. How do we know that? Well, we know it because people keep saying it. It's the most common meme in optimization circles.

And by meme, I don't mean this (http://www.quickmeme.com/img/09/0972fb22e1756351abcaa34f3fb79cc48b09eec2e9ceafad33 1817e6bc8eeeca.jpg). I mean the original definition: an idea that through repetition becomes part of a culture. Think of a meme as a cultural gene. Memes pass from person to person, changing as each person replicates the memetic process. More importantly, the more a meme is replicated through repetition, the more widespread the idea becomes.

What's more troubling is that the more ideas get repeated, the more likely people are to believe them. Humans are, at their core, gullible and prone to accepting false statements that "feel right." Philosophy essentially developed as a rigorous field of study because people recognized the need to logically divest themselves of false beliefs.

http://askastudent.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/socrates.jpg

Rangers in particular have become victimized by this process. The initial impression of Beast Masters was unpalatable to many, so the meme that they are a terrible class spread quickly. Since 5e first arrived, we've seen many builds that provide a massive amount of damage and utility potential for Beast Masters, but the meme that they are terrible has stuck, and with each tier system that people come up with that meme spreads a little more.

Because we are so prone to fail to recognize our own false beliefs, the repetition of these memes make them very likely to be believed without experimenting. The fact that my Beast Master was consistently effective in AL play with a party consisting of a Moon Druid, Wizard, and Paladin doesn't matter. The meme is that Rangers are terrible (even though they'd be Tier 3 with every other class by 3.P ratings), so everyone believes that Rangers are terrible. That leaves a class that is consistently passed over because the meme that it's weak is so prolific.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/7b/be/44/7bbe44ccc57d91613784e2223386cb3e.jpg

This means that when people who understand the game want to talk about fun builds for Berserkers or Rangers or Elemonks, they find themselves forced to defend their decision to build that character instead of discussing fun ways to do it. The quality of the discussion has dropped because the memes surrounding these classes are so prolific.

And we're finally arriving at the harm. By spreading false memes about power levels through a useless tier system with only a veneer of legitimacy, these systems are poisoning the discussion. They're worse than that, though, because...

Tier Systems Leave New Players with False Impressions

New players often come to this board and others to learn what to expect from D&D. As a community, we should be proud of this and take the opportunity to help ease them into play. We should take the opportunity to help players find the classes that they would have the most fun with and encourage creative play because doing so grows and enriches the community. GitP is particularly good at this, and so many people have come up with so many tools to aid newbies and veterans alike.

http://thegledaproject.com/wp-content/uploads/Help.jpg

But tiers don't help newer players. They are pointless lists that promulgate false memes and subjective ratings of power levels. Worst of all, they carry a false pretense of objectivity or meaningful contribution. And because they carry an unearned sense of importance, newbies may not realize that these tiers are meaningless popularity rankings.

And since they may take these lists seriously, they may avoid classes that would have been extremely fun for them. I have seen poor, ignorant newbies thanking the community for talking them out of perfectly valid class options that were someone's "bottom-tier." Those newbies might have had more fun with a Ranger. Or a Berserker. Or a Four Elements Monk. Instead, someone's tier system pushes them towards certain styles of play - styles of play that might not mesh with their innate disposition. Not everyone enjoys the bookkeeping that comes with playing a full caster, and people can get pushed towards being a full caster when they really should have been a Fighter. After they play a bit, they can get pushed away from the game when they don't have fun playing the top tier character that was pushed on them.

And that harms the community.

Tiers accomplish nothing that helps the community. In fact, they can only limit the choices that players feel are available. They are reductive, they are pointless, and they poison the meta.

So please stop making tier lists.

fin

RickAllison

2016-03-16, 05:05 PM

And the plot thickens!

pwykersotz

2016-03-16, 05:09 PM

I enjoyed that rant. Nicely put.

mgshamster

2016-03-16, 05:13 PM

Good job, Evil Anagram.

One of the first things I did coming from pathfinder to 5e was make a tier list. I concluded that all the classes are Teir 3. It really is a fairly balanced system as far as character choices and ability to impact the narrative go.

Giant2005

2016-03-16, 05:14 PM

That was the greatest post I have ever seen.
Now you just need to petition the mods to go back and rename all of these tier lists so that they include a buzzfeed tag.

KorvinStarmast

2016-03-16, 05:19 PM

That said, it is a terrible idea. It's a useless, reductive paradigm that poisons the meta discourse and harms the community,
Agreed. Nice to hear that voice crying out in the wilderness.

Newsflash: you can't stop narrow minded people from
a) being narrow minded
b) posting on the internet

I guess your appeal to better nature is about the limit of what one can do, so thanks for taking the effort.

(Oh, and thanks for your guides because they helped me avoid all of those trap builds ... wait, no they didn't. I just enjoyed them and got a few ideas).

AvatarVecna

2016-03-16, 05:30 PM

I'd argue that the Champion Fighter class features, on their own, fit Tier 4 more than Tier 3 (same for the Berserker), but beyond that, races and backgrounds give skills and abilities, making the class itself a smaller overall part of the character; characters as a whole are pretty solidly in Tier 3 across the board. Beastmaster Ranger may not make using a beast to attack an optimal decision, but it doesn't make you worse at fighting, it just changes how you fight.

In my IRL group, we have a pretty classic Fiendish Blastlock, a well-built Dwarven War Cleric, a Halfling Beastmaster riding a dinosaur (it's Eberron, so it's canon), a Moon Druid that spends most of their time in animal form, and three separate wizards (illusionist, transmuter, and artificer) who have spent the end of a few sessions basically copying down each other's spellbooks. I manage to steal the show most of the time with my freaking Batman character: Warforged Scout (custom race the DM put together; small size, construct traits, if unobserved when I begin standing still, I have a passive Stealth score) Battlemaster 5/Rogue 1, expertise in Perception and Stealth, with 5 magic items (Hand Crossbow of Warning, Cloak of Elvenkind, Slippers of Spiderclimbing, Goggles of Night, and a recently-acquired Bag of Devouring).

I am the only non-caster in a huge party that has access to 3rd level spells, and I still manage to steal the show half the time, because I can do two things extremely well. That could never happen in a 3.P game without some serious char-op, especially at the levels my group usually plays. That's why we switched to 5e: the balance means we can just build the characters we want to play without having to worry about being rendered useless or pointless. Don't get me wrong, I personally still love 3.X games for the ability to build to ridiculous heights, but that's a downside when I'm wanting to get more into the story. 5e makes the mechanics secondary to the story and the characterization by making everybody roughly equal in power (barring a couple of incredibly debatable optimization tricks involving Wish and Simulacrum I've seen touted around on these boards).

EDIT: To be clear, I agree with you: the Tier system is pointless for 5e, because 5e was designed in such a way that every character is somewhere in T3, with some closer to the top than the bottom. I just think that, on its own, the class features of the Champion and Berserker aren't really as versatile as some other classes...but that doesn't matter as much, because they get some of that utility from their race and background.

Pex

2016-03-16, 05:33 PM

The Tier List was harmful to the 3E community. It's just harmful, period, due to people believing it is telling them how to play the game, that if they don't follow it they're doing it wrong.

ZX6Rob

2016-03-16, 05:41 PM

Hear hear. An entertaining read, and I agree.

I think the surest sign that tiers are a less-than-useful concept for 5e gameplay is that I've yet to see two people come up with tier lists that really agree with each other. With 3.P, it was fairly obvious that the full-casters had so many more options and means at their disposal over purely-martial characters (that said, I played more Fighters than Wizards in my 3.P days). The tier system had some merit, because a party of four full-caster classes were going to have many more means of circumventing encounters or, with proper preparation, even whole encounter types. A DM should be aware of those capabilities and be ready to plan for them or discuss a civil agreement with their players to prevent an arms race.

But that doesn't really seem to be an issue with 5e. We haven't seen many truly unbreakable exploits in the magical arts so far, save for the Wish/Simulacrum loop (which isn't really an issue for most tables). Each class can contribute in its own way, and the "bad" classes are still close enough to the "great" classes that you probably won't ever really feel useless playing as one.

So, I say good on you, sayin' what needs to be said.

Belac93

2016-03-16, 05:52 PM

Thumbs up to you. I agree with this.

Theodoxus

2016-03-16, 05:54 PM

The Tier List was harmful to the 3E community. It's just harmful, period, due to people believing it is telling them how to play the game, that if they don't follow it they're doing it wrong.

Bingo.

To the OP, for every Tier thread, there's either a counterthread like this, or the Tier thread itself devolves into the same. Not that I'm discounting your rant, it's quite excellent and as far as I'm concerned, biblical truth. I guess it needs to be said every few months...

I do take umbrage at the idea that champion and berserker are lesser in some fashion. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you... I've played a berserker. I made the mistake of building it like a standard barbarian with feat support for a massive weapon... which made frenzy far less useful. Without feats, berserker fills in nicely for the lack of GWM and/or PAM. I still contend that exhaustion is a bit harsh, but nothing a few pots of vitality can't handle.

The go-to fighter in my gaming group always takes champion. Again, using feat support, he's been the top performer in combat - maybe it's because he's lucky and rolls a lot of 19s, but he crits probably once or twice every few rounds. Sure, he doesn't have the utility of an EK or the combat tricks of a battlemaster, but he holds his own.

I've mentioned this in previous Tier threads - but I don't like the way they treat the game like an MMO, where you're cracking the code to get the most out of your cookie cutter mold. Yes, on paper, and in a lot of games, Moon Druid is considered the First among Equals. But in my experience, they've been moderately effective, at best. In a LMoP game, the druid tried being the tank, going bear against goblins and failing (dropping out of form twice in one battle) miserably. in a recent OotA game, the druid, purposefully built to excel in the underdark, was the worst combatant in the party - even as a giant spider, and didn't contribute much to the social or exploration game (despite having all the 'right' spells to do so.)

Telling people that 'such and such class is the most bestest evar, if you're not playing it, you're not playing D&D' has been the worst thing to happen to the game, in my estimation. Far too much rides on DM disposition, party makeup and game style to ever make a blanket statement that's going to be 100% true.

Heck, even in 3.P, at my table, the trifecta of Wiz-CoDzilla wasn't Tier 1 in actual play. Whether I was DM or player, those classes never had the Schrodinger omniscience necessary to just wtfpwn an encounter. Obviously, YMMV.

GraakosGraakos

2016-03-16, 05:59 PM

I agree! I think tier lists don't actually work very well in 5e. However, I do like to group classes/subclasses between "really good" and "baseline to game balance".

Like I'd tell a new player that Ancients Paladin is a strong option (if they were the kind of player that enjoys optimization in a character) and Beastmaster is a baseline option.

I am a player that enjoys having the most optimized version of what I want though. So if I wanna make a gish, I would want to rank the best gishes and figure out the "best" one for what I want. Some people don't really care about that, and kudos. It's a game, play it your way.

I think a tierlist will end up so subjective in 5e though that it is better to do it by case-by-case.

For instance; a player says "I wanna deal lots of melee damage and I don't care about non combat". So you say "Great! Berzerker Barbarian, Champion Fighter, and Assassin Rogues are good options!" They are high "tier" damage dealers. A berzerker can't do a lot out of combat, but that's fine in this case, because of what is asked. An out of combat or utility or support character would have their own "tier lists".

So ultimately I guess I'd say use your judgement, put fun first, and don't take the game so seriously and personally, but this is the internet, so I guess just call me an idiot instead.

Cazero

2016-03-16, 06:04 PM

busterswd

2016-03-16, 06:08 PM

I LIKE dissecting the games I play and figuring out relative power levels. It's part of the fun for me. I'm the sort of person that's going to perpetuate tier lists, mainly because I like over-analyzing things.

That being said, I'm surprisingly in complete agreement with the OP. A tier list generally does more harm than good. An experienced player generally won't need one, and a new player will tend to parrot the list as gospel without understanding why.

I run into this mindset a lot on the 5e Reddit community: people tend to repeat and upvote what they hear, and whoever is vocal enough at the moment can generally switch whatever opinion the masses are repeating, without them ever understanding the reasoning behind what they're saying.

Belac93

2016-03-16, 06:11 PM

Now don't be so hasty. Tier lists have their use. They allow you to spot uberoptimizers before the game actualy starts and react accordingly.
I mean, who else is gonna complain that you rolled a fighter in a party who has a wizard?

But that's the thing. In 5e, no one is going to complain. Fighters are not actually worse than wizards. (well, maybe they are. But so what? Its not by much.)

CantigThimble

2016-03-16, 06:19 PM

I am a player that enjoys having the most optimized version of what I want though. So if I wanna make a gish, I would want to rank the best gishes and figure out the "best" one for what I want. Some people don't really care about that, and kudos. It's a game, play it your way.

Even in the case of the 'better' gish there are just so many different pros and cons to each option. Once you know what specific aspect you're looking for then you can rank them by that but the idea that you can have a definitive list that takes all those pros and cons into account and gives you an accurate measurement of overall power just doesn't work in 5e.

Valor Bards, Eldritch Knights, Bladesingers, Bladelocks, Favored Souls and Multiclass builds all have so many unique facets that saying one is objectively better than the other will be false. Once you choose something specific to rank them by, like defensive abilities, mobility or support capabilities then you can make a meaningful list but a tier list based on overall power is going to be subjective, misleading and toxic.

GraakosGraakos

2016-03-16, 06:24 PM

Even in the case of the 'better' gish there are just so many different pros and cons to each option. Once you know what specific aspect you're looking for then you can rank them by that but the idea that you can have a definitive list that takes all those pros and cons into account and gives you an accurate measurement of overall power just doesn't work in 5e.

Valor Bards, Eldritch Knights, Bladesingers, Bladelocks, Favored Souls and Multiclass builds all have so many unique facets that saying one is objectively better than the other will be false. Once you choose something specific to rank them by, like defensive abilities, mobility or support capabilities then you can make a meaningful list but a tier list based on overall power is going to be subjective, misleading and toxic.

I think I misrepresented what I mean. I mean if I sit down to make a gish, I take that all into account and list by Concept.

I'll say "I want my gish to be a graceful fencer that's an elf" okay, Bladesinger fits that, High Elf EK fits that, Half Elf Bladelock fits that. Do I wanna cast or fight more? Fight? EK is probably the way to go. Cast? Bladesinger or Bladelock.

And I narrow it down. I am not in the business of definitive, objective "best of" in a game unless it's so stark it's obvious. I play much more by Rule of Cool and execution of character concept than My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad with my characters.

CantigThimble

2016-03-16, 06:28 PM

I think I misrepresented what I mean. I mean if I sit down to make a gish, I take that all into account and list by Concept.

I'll say "I want my gish to be a graceful fencer that's an elf" okay, Bladesinger fits that, High Elf EK fits that, Half Elf Bladelock fits that. Do I wanna cast or fight more? Fight? EK is probably the way to go. Cast? Bladesinger or Bladelock.

And I narrow it down. I am not in the business of definitive, objective "best of" in a game unless it's so stark it's obvious. I play much more by Rule of Cool and execution of character concept than My Dad Can Beat Up Your Dad with my characters.

Well it seems we are in complete agreement. Good man, carry on.

AvatarVecna

2016-03-16, 06:34 PM

Yes, on paper, and in a lot of games, Moon Druid is considered the First among Equals. But in my experience, they've been moderately effective, at best.

I can definitely second that; while the Moon Druid in my group was pretty awesome early on (like, level 3, when we started), their basic forms have been getting less and less impressive as we've gone up in levels. The only times Moon Druids are relatively overpowered, even on paper, is at level 2 (when most classes don't have their sub-class yet) and level 20 (when they can abuse at-will changing form, and even then only if they actually abuse them). Now, the druid in my game, due to the character they're playing, almost never casts spells except to heal in animal form, and they're reaching the point where animal forms just aren't cutting it for combat outside of very niche uses. Despite all that, they're still managing to reasonably contribute when they use spells, so even though Wild Shape isn't as useful at lvl 6 as it was at lvl 2, they're still pretty average as far as party balance is concerned.

Heck, even in 3.P, at my table, the trifecta of Wiz-CoDzilla wasn't Tier 1 in actual play. Whether I was DM or player, those classes never had the Schrodinger omniscience necessary to just wtfpwn an encounter. Obviously, YMMV.

A large part of playing a 3.X T1 caster to full ability is knowing which spells are good for which encounters, planning ahead properly, preparing spells that are viable in a larger number of situations rather than the more niche spells, and being willing to spend a few hours repreparing spells if what you have is wrong for what you're facing. At particularly high-op levels (which my IRL groups have approached when we played 3.X), it gets especially bad, but the level most people play at doesn't really reach the level where the casters get to the "curbstomp every encounter" level they can get to in higher-op play. And 5e casters (while powerful) don't really have quite the moment-to-moment versatility that 3.X casters have...and that's good, it means they don't automatically dominate the game at high levels.

I think there's still adifference in power between a non-caster and a full caster at the high levels, but it's small-scale, and not really significant to come up unless somebody starts specifically abusing the tricks that make it obvious.

Gastronomie

2016-03-16, 06:43 PM

This thread is wonderful and I 100% agree. That other thread arguing about tiers? Looked over there and TBH I found it disgusting 'cause of how the TC said it wasn't allowed to argue about how tiers are a stupid idea. Because they are a stupid idea.

I actually doubt that those people who create Tier Lists have actually even played Berserker or Beast Master for even once.

AvatarVecna

2016-03-16, 06:46 PM

I actually doubt that those people who create Tier Lists have actually even played Berserker or Beast Master for even once.

Why would they even want to play those unoptimized crap classes? Beastmasters suck so much butt, they let an animal fight for them. As for Berserkers, they suck so hard they can kill themselves by accident, even without crit fail tables! UGH SO MUCH SUCKAGE.

Ralanr

2016-03-16, 06:55 PM

If I could upvote, I wish I could upvote this thread a 100 times.

mephnick

2016-03-16, 06:58 PM

Auto-lock all tier threads!

MaxWilson

2016-03-16, 07:07 PM

SharkForce

2016-03-16, 07:09 PM

i think the main problem comes from how people define tiers.

5e tier discussions are fine, *if* you start with the understanding that right now, 5e is in a state where any class can be played with any other class and both can expect to contribute effectively some of the time and not contribute quite as effectively some of the time.

there absolutely are differences in power in 5e. some things are just stronger than others... they just aren't so much stronger that it causes the game to break down.

and any tier system for 5e needs to recognize this. everything is at least "pretty good", and nothing is "so good it makes everything else look bad". there are no indispensible classes, and there are no classes so bad that nobody should play them.

from there, you can go on to discussions of: "if i want to do X, then Y class or build is good at that at level Z". which i think is quite useful. if your party consistently runs into problems with, say, skill checks, and you have a tier list that tells you rogues and lore bards are amazing for skill checks while valor bards and knowledge clerics can be pretty good, barbarians can be very good at strength checks, lists off some other "middle of the pack" classes, and most other classes are generally about equal to each other in terms of ability to be good at skill checks, and you want to fill in that gap to the best of your ability, you now can look at the tier list to see which options will be best at accomplishing what you want to do. you can look at that list and think "well, i don't really like lore bards, and i sorta like rogues, i'd really like to be a fighter... oh hey, here's a fighter/rogue multiclass build that most people agree can handle skill checks really well, i think i'll try this as my next character".

i disagree that tier lists for 5e are inherently flawed and must be useless by their very nature. but i would certainly agree that i've yet to see a tier list thread that has been helpful. certainly, i don't think anything like 7 or 8 tiers are needed to differentiate capability even in specific areas, let alone overall capability, as the latest thread seems to have. there just isn't enough variation in capability to need that kind of granularity.

krugaan

2016-03-16, 07:27 PM

Shrug, I disagree. Anything that generates active discussion is good in my book, particularly when there is counterpoint available.

In addition, reductive is not necessarily bad; 5e still has an extremely broad scope, and new players might be overwhelmed with the frequent "play whatever you feel like," particularly when they have no idea what's out there. Any developed tier list will generally have a decent rough summary of the classes.

Plus ... I dunno, it seems a little disingenuous strange to want to stifle honest conversation, no matter how flawed it is. No tier ranking has been stickied for a reason (im guessing), so it's unlikely that any one interpretation would leave any truly lasting false impression.

Hrugner

2016-03-16, 07:40 PM

I guess I disagree. Reducing the comparison to some specific goal and comparing based on that is fine. It helps a player make their character rather than giving their character a class and going from there. It would make more sense to have a four point axis chart with dpr, combat control, combat bypassing and player freedom as your axis points though. A linear comparison just isn't that helpful. By moving away from the linear format, you remove the urge to cluster at the top and help players find characters that suit their gaming style.

For instance, I have a player who wants to be a regular sort of guy thrown into desperate situations who some how pulls through. He chooses warrior because that's pretty basic and he thinks of the character as basic. He then proceeds to roleplay the character as a sort of noble high charisma rogue or bard type even though none of his abilities really support that. With no mechanical guiding, he's just in the wrong class. With a linear tier system, he can cap his tier at a level he thinks suits the character. With the four point method he can hone in on a class choice that best represents how he wants to play.

So sure, it can create arguments and promote power gaming, but it serves a purpose.

MrStabby

2016-03-16, 07:47 PM

krugaan

2016-03-16, 07:54 PM

I can't see a good reason to deny them that pleasure?

People are evil and don't deserve to have fun!

Giant2005

2016-03-16, 07:54 PM

If people start saying that champion fighters and berserker barbarians don't have too much to offer out of combat is it really worth getting worked up over? If people voice an opinion that that is less satisfying for them is it really that upsetting?

I think the point is that tier lists don't deal with quantitative statements like the bolded part of the quote. Tier lists just declare that something is bad or good without mentioning what their relative strengths are.
Berserker Barbarians have the top DPR of any class, so clearly they have a very definite use, but putting them in a list that declares then "bad" falsely implies that they are useless. It stops people from considering them, even if those people are interested in a class that has high DPR.

Captbrannigan

2016-03-16, 07:54 PM

I love the separate threads so the people that agree with each other can just pat each other's backs and avoid being confronted with ugly, stupid sound argumentation.

I like that backgrounds and race play a large part of building your character, but to pretend that an AT is half as good as being a magical trapmonkey as any Bard is, is disingenuous. The spell list is trash and the progression too slow to even be a secondary aspect of your character. Mage Hand Ledgerdomain let's you disarm traps from range when you already have evasion and dex prof., and everything else can be accomplished with Thief's Fast Hands ability. You have will suffer from serious MAD if you want your spells to land, most of which require saves. Expertise in Open Lock and Cunning Action are the best things a Rogue gets that a Bard doesn't, and a 2 level dip is enough for that.

Why do I know all this? Because I was told 5e was well balanced and I could just pick something and it would have pros and cons and I could make it work. However, once I hit 3rd level and really looked closely at what I was getting, I realized a Lore Bard with a criminal background would hit all the same build objectives with less MAD, greater utility in and out of combat, for only a slight drop in damage.

Is 5e better balanced than 3e? So far, but a lot of 3e's issues stemmed from the abundance of poorly edited splatbooks. Is every subclass an equally valid option? No. While few, there are a handful of poorly designed options that without house rules are simply too limited to provide much benefit to the character.

CantigThimble

2016-03-16, 07:58 PM

I love the separate threads so the people that agree with each other can just pat each other's backs and avoid being confronted with ugly, stupid sound argumentation.

Did you miss the massive disclaimer at the top of the other thread that basically amounted to: "Don't post about not liking tier lists here"?

mgshamster

2016-03-16, 08:02 PM

I am not sure that "Tier" is a useful term but certainly a discussion of the relative pros and cons of each class and a comparison between them CAN help people chose what to play. I don't think anyone is telling anyone else to not paly a class, just that some are better than others at certain things.

If people start saying that champion fighters and berserker barbarians don't have too much to offer out of combat is it really worth getting worked up over? If people voice an opinion that that is less satisfying for them is it really that upsetting?

It isn't like anyone is trying to make an official pronouncement on what is good or bad, so it is just people airing opinions for their own pleasure. I can't see a good reason to deny them that pleasure?

You make a fair point.

However, when one devises a tier list, it's under the assumption that they're providing an analysis. An analysis should be more than just opinion it should have some playtesting or mathematical evaluation or something behind it other than just personal opinion.

That's the point of a tier list. It's not just advertising opinion, and if it is, then we should be *very* clear about it.

Granted, we're always going to be at least a little bit biased, and our analysis will have some of our subjective opinions influencing our work, but the point of proper analysis is to minimize those biases as best we can. If we don't, then we're just disguising our opinions as if they were analysis, which is at best erroneous and at worst is outright lying.

Opinion disguised as analysis is poor form.

krugaan

2016-03-16, 08:03 PM

I think the point is that tier lists don't deal with quantitative statements like the bolded part of the quote. Tier lists just declare that something is bad or good without mentioning what their relative strengths are.
Berserker Barbarians have the top DPR of any class, so clearly they have a very definite use, but putting them in a list that declares then "bad" falsely implies that they are useless. It stops people from considering them, even if those people are interested in a class that has high DPR.

Don't most tier lists take things like functionality into account? That's specifically the reason why casters are so much stronger (allegedly) than non casters. Bad != imply useless, also.

krugaan

2016-03-16, 08:05 PM

Did you miss the massive disclaimer at the top of the other thread that basically amounted to: "Don't post about not liking tier lists here"?

TLDR, lol.

mgshamster

2016-03-16, 08:08 PM

Don't most tier lists take things like functionality into account? That's specifically the reason why casters are so much stronger (allegedly) than non casters. Bad != imply useless.

The idea of tier lists was supposed to be about narrative power - aka the ability to affect the narrative of game play. Background features all have good narrative power, which helps bring up the tier listing of the supposedly weaker classes.

Beyond that, skills are more useful for two primary reasons: 1) fewer skills means you don't have to spread out as thin as you did in 3.X, so individual skills have comparatively more usefulness in 5e than they did in 3.X, which increases narrative power, and 2) not having specific things a skill can do means that the skill is more open to imaginative uses.

And beyond all of that, every class has decent narrative power by itself (some have more than others).

So far, all the 5e tier lists I've seen only look at the individual class' powers and judge them that way, rather then judging them by their narrative power (which is what the tier system was originally designed for).

lebefrei

2016-03-16, 08:10 PM

I'll throw my hat in for agreement. When I DM I really enjoy players coming to my games with a good character concept. I want to know who they are. Instead, I find that they are a melee with GWM or Polearm Master, a fighter 2/something, a moon druid, Warlock 3/something, paladorc, or lore bard. Why? Because everything online tells them that they have to be to stay competitive. A lot of the players worried so much about the mechanics that they didn't even think about who the character is.

This removes all the fun of player concepts from the game. I do like when all skills and combat types are covered. It allows me to really be open with my choices. Yet, no party must have a lore bard. A bear totem barbarian isn't a mandatory "tank". If people would just sit down and play a more diverse party they'd see that. So many options work!

Removing the obsessions with ranking these classes that are fairly balanced will make more fun and interesting games. Yes, I had one group with three monks and everyone dumped charisma. That was a mess. But it was still fun!!

krugaan

2016-03-16, 08:15 PM

The idea of tier lists was supposed to be about narrative power.

This is the first I've heard of it, but then again, I don't really browse any other DnD sites.

Plus ... narrative power isn't really ... quantifiable.

Ruslan

2016-03-16, 08:17 PM

5e tier discussions are fine, *if* you start with the understanding that right now, 5e is in a state where any class can be played with any other class and both can expect to contribute effectively some of the time and not contribute quite as effectively some of the time.
But that's exactly what class tiers mean. If two classes are in different tiers, this is a warning for the DM (and players) that there could be a problem having both in the game. Especially more than one tier apart. If the game is in a state that a class can be played with any other class, there are no tier differences.

there absolutely are differences in power in 5e. some things are just stronger than others... they just aren't so much stronger that it causes the game to break down.
Therefore, all classes in 5e are in the same tier.

and any tier system for 5e needs to recognize this. everything is at least "pretty good", and nothing is "so good it makes everything else look bad". there are no indispensable classes, and there are no classes so bad that nobody should play them.
But there will be - if the tier discussion persists - and invariably, some classes will be placed at a lower tier! Then, as a self-fulfilling prophecy, those classes indeed won't be played.

AvatarVecna

2016-03-16, 08:24 PM

This is the first I've heard of it, but then again, I don't really browse any other DnD sites.

Plus ... narrative power isn't really ... quantifiable.

It's usually phrased more as "ability to affect the story in a meaningful way". Some characters have it, some don't, and the difference is particularly obvious when magic gets involved.

A lot of classic stories, even in the swords and sorcery setting, have a lot of dramatic events or impossible to circumvent obstacles that create story-telling opportunities. Some classes, when they find a narrative Snorlax blocking their path, just have to sit their and twiddle their thumbs, or go through a series of convoluted steps; some classes, meanwhile, can climb around the Snorlax, or walk around it, or teleport around it. Some classes thought there might possibly be a narrative Snorlax in their path at some point, so they just skipped the whole journey by teleporting at the start, or (in extreme cases) traveled back in time and murdered every ancestor of the modern day narrative Snorlax, in order to ensure that no narrative Snorlax could ever possibly be in their way ever.

Some of these responses to narrative Snorlaxes give a way to make the story interesting despite the class avoiding the obvious obstacle; some do not. The reasons that make telling an interesting story impossible (because there's no obstacle that can't be overcome with liberal application of Mind Rape and Time Travel) are what make munckining so reviled.

Me personally? I don't mind the existence of narrative Snorlaxes, but I like having some methods of getting around them sometime; if the story that requires a narrative Snorlax to block my path is an interesting story, I will abide the Snorlax...but if the story is bad, or boring, I will try and find a way around it, because I play this game to have fun.

krugaan

2016-03-16, 08:25 PM

Then, as a self-fulfilling prophecy, those classes indeed won't be played.

Pretty sure you're overestimating the amount of people who actually consult forums before playing the game. Particularly new / casual players, which 5e is geared towards.

SharkForce

2016-03-16, 08:48 PM

But that's exactly what class tiers mean. If two classes are in different tiers, this is a warning for the DM (and players) that there could be a problem having both in the game. Especially more than one tier apart. If the game is in a state that a class can be played with any other class, there are no tier differences.

Therefore, all classes in 5e are in the same tier.

But there will be - if the tier discussion persists - and invariably, some classes will be placed at a lower tier! Then, as a self-fulfilling prophecy, those classes indeed won't be played.

no.

3.x tier lists are based on that premise.

that does not mean that all tier lists ever must be based on that premise.

some classes or builds are just stronger. some are weaker. all are playable. certainly, a 4 elements monk or a berserker barbarian are not unplayable. the basic class chassis has enough good things to offer to keep them from being useless. but they are also not generally as strong as an open hand monk or a totem barbarian with the right feats. if that sort of thing is important to you, then a tier list is helpful (and since basically anything is playable with almost anything else that doesn't deliberately anti-synergize, it doesn't break things if the "munchkin" shows up with the "best" class and everyone else doesn't).

there is no reason that "tier list" must absolutely mean 3.x tier lists. certainly, a 3.x tier list is not useful in a 5e context, but we should not take that to mean a 5e tier list cannot be useful, so long as it is actually done in a context that is useful for 5e D&D rather than 3.x D&D. if i had a scale and weight set that measured the weight of something in talents (a unit of measurement used thousands of years ago), it would not be very useful today. that doesn't mean a scale is a useless tool... it just means you need a scale that measures things the way we would measure things today.

Vogonjeltz

2016-03-16, 08:48 PM

Foxhound438

2016-03-16, 08:54 PM

Just look at random Buzzfeed clickbait, and you'll find plenty of top five lists related to every topic that could possibly be considered interesting enough to dull the pain of living.

and on that note, here's something that would shock no one to see:

CLICK SOMEWHERE TO SEE 5 REASONS TABLETOP GAMERS ARE INHERENTLY BAD

and for a more serious comment, i find that upon deeper analysis from any individual, those memetic opinions come up without ever having heard them from someone else. Anyone can look at ranger for a while and see that fighter is marginally better, even when there's hunter's mark and colossus slayer at the ranger end of things. It's always "ranger is good for 3 or 4 levels, then it's not". it's always "ranger 1 is a waste of a level". it's always "monks can do more for their time and ki with flurry". "champ fighter is good if you're only taking 3 levels to crit smite more often". "frenzy barb features can be done better with one feat and a different subclass".

"this wizard can be a dragon, and then he's better in melee than the barbarian".

you know what they say about stereotypes: they're based on reality.

That being said, those things are only marginally worse than other things, yes, and don't deserve to be ignored outright. Ranger is fine, elemonk is fine, frenzy is fine, it's just from a pure math+application standpoint, there are marginally better ways of doing things.

mgshamster

2016-03-16, 08:57 PM

no.

3.x tier lists are based on that premise.

that does not mean that all tier lists ever must be based on that premise.

some classes or builds are just stronger. some are weaker. all are playable. certainly, a 4 elements monk or a berserker barbarian are not unplayable. the basic class chassis has enough good things to offer to keep them from being useless. but they are also not generally as strong as an open hand monk or a totem barbarian with the right feats. if that sort of thing is important to you, then a tier list is helpful (and since basically anything is playable with almost anything else that doesn't deliberately anti-synergize, it doesn't break things if the "munchkin" shows up with the "best" class and everyone else doesn't).

there is no reason that "tier list" must absolutely mean 3.x tier lists. certainly, a 3.x tier list is not useful in a 5e context, but we should not take that to mean a 5e tier list cannot be useful, so long as it is actually done in a context that is useful for 5e D&D rather than 3.x D&D. if i had a scale and weight set that measured the weight of something in talents (a unit of measurement used thousands of years ago), it would not be very useful today. that doesn't mean a scale is a useless tool... it just means you need a scale that measures things the way we would measure things today.

If you're going to change the common understanding of what a tier list is, then you better damned well make a large and bolded notice that you're changing the common understanding in the opening post to the thread.

To do anything less is to invite confusion and misunderstanding. Naivety at best, active lying at worst.

mgshamster

2016-03-16, 09:02 PM

you know what they say about stereotypes: they're based on reality.

They're actually not. That's just the most common excuse someone has to justify their prejudice. They heard that phrase before and use it as justification without wver understanding why they're wrong.

It's a really common phrase - as inaccurate as whatever the person saying the phrase is using it for.

Captbrannigan

2016-03-16, 09:05 PM

Did you miss the massive disclaimer at the top of the other thread that basically amounted to: "Don't post about not liking tier lists here"?

Nope. Did I blame EvilAnagram for choosing to make a different thread or Talamere for putting a disclaimer in his? Not overtly, but I do think they're both being childish. My jest really had more to do with the responses, which looked like a lot of glad handing to me.

Maybe "tier" is too loaded of a word, since 5e doesn't have as many straight up broken (good or bad) classes. Then again, I haven't looked in depth into the UA releases but they seem pretty weak while, as expected, the Faerun splat (SCAG) is chock full of OP goodies. Or is everyone recommending Booming/GF Blade for gishes because it's a weak but flavorful option? Ya, thought not.

krugaan

2016-03-16, 09:05 PM

mephnick

2016-03-16, 09:08 PM

The "tiers" also change from level to level, pretty dramatically in some cases, so one that doesn't break it down in terms of levels is also useless.

CantigThimble

2016-03-16, 09:13 PM

Nope. Did I blame EvilAnagram for choosing to make a different thread or Talamere for putting a disclaimer in his? Not overtly, but I do think they're both being childish about things and the responses they each get show a bias.

It just seems very strange to post about people not wanting open honest discussion in the thread that practically begs someone to argue with it rather than the one that includes a disclaimer saying they're not interested in arguing. If you think the bias in responses is caused by anything other than that disclaimer I am curious as to what that would be.

krugaan

2016-03-16, 09:13 PM

The "tiers" also change from level to level, pretty dramatically in some cases, so one that doesn't break it down in terms of levels is also useless.

Yeah, i always thought it would be useful to have like line graphs showing damage, control, and OOC utility as levels go up for each class.

MaxWilson

2016-03-16, 09:19 PM

Maybe "tier" is too loaded of a word, since 5e doesn't have as many straight up broken (good or bad) classes. Then again, I haven't looked in depth into the UA releases but they seem pretty weak while, as expected, the Faerun splat (SCAG) is chock full of OP goodies. Or is everyone recommending Booming/GF Blade for gishes because it's a weak but flavorful option? Ya, thought not.

GF/Booming Blade isn't OP; it's just not UP like Poison Spray is. Arguably it's about on par with Shocking Grasp, especially for a wizard who has Longstrider pre-cast. That is, a wizard can beat about the same opponents with Longstrider + Shocking Grasp that he can with GF/Booming Blade, which are similar to the opponents that he can beat with Fire Bolt/Ray of Frost.

GF/Booming Blade, however, happens to fit the prejudices of the GITP community better (they love DPR comparisons and straightforward bash play). So yeah, it's a medium-power option whose flavor happens to be popular.

GF/Booming Blade does have some additional utility for Rogues (esp. Arcane Tricksters) and Eldritch Knights, but even there it's not actually OP relative to other good options--it just further marginalizes some crummy options like War Magic + Fire Bolt, which no one was using already because it's usually worse for an EK than just attacking with your weapon.

Gtdead

2016-03-16, 09:20 PM

I disagree. The main argument against tier lists is the supposed "balance" of 5e. But this is far from truth. Just because a previous edition was completely unbalanced doesn't make this one better than it actually is.

DnD isn't a competitive game, so in the end, balance really doesn't matter. Players can be sloppy, do stuff that goes completely against the grain and literally doesn't work, for fun. And it's all good. Not everything needs to be competitive, but then again dnd tier lists don't exist for the sake of competition. They are a thought experiment. Even the 3.5 one. A player with mastery of the system can outperform tier 1 classes with a lower tier class. There is no real objective, so there are no criteria to measure power. The tier list measures versatility. Cleric is better than Fighter because he can stack persisted buffs and become as strong as the fighter, while still being a full spellcaster.

If this was a competitive game that focused on pvp duels, then the tier list would look completely different. Fighter can be built as an ubercharger and kill the Cleric if he wins initiative. So then the lists becomes about the rules of combat, highest nova and initiative.

Lets talk about World of Warcraft for a while, which has more competition. No matter what class you play in wow, you can potentially perform well. But some classes and builds just have an easier time. Druid has been a strong class in every expansion because the design of the class allows him to do a lot of things. Paladin was never that consistent. He had expansions where he was just plain bad. He had resource managment problems, he was always dependant on gimmicks that stopped working after people learned how to counter. Druid has consistently been a higher tier class than Paladin. Yet there are extremely competent paladins that reach the top 10 arena rankings consistently. The had to put more effort into it. They had to play to their strengths and cover their shortcomings. Druids could work with anyone, without much thought about setup, just general knowledge of the game. A patch may come out that helps a bit, but the flaw lies with the class, not necessarily the numbers.

Why is that important? Because you need to grind for 2-3 weeks in WoW to reach a point where you can compete. Make a wrong decision about what class to play and you can have a horrible experience. New players ask "what class should i make?" all the time because they want to be safe than sorry. WoW is unforgiving. When all are said and done, there isn't any alternative way to play. It's just a matter of how well your class functions in a certain environment. If your class abilities are not good enough there is nothing you can do.

The same logic can be applied to DnD. While it is not as important as the WoW's case, a new player that doesn't have time or patience to sit and read through 300 pages to create a character that fits his concept, both in fluff and mechanically, needs some basic guidelines.

Not only a tier list will help new players create an effective character, but they can understand what makes the character that good. Do you know a lot of players that create their first DnD character, make a rogue and say "yay, I'm going to be the best skillmonkey in the whole world"? No, they say "I'm going to be a stealthy assassin". And then they create their character and he doesn't even do what they had in mind. They just sit there watching the fighter do 3 times their damage without even bothering to play tactically. He just charges and hits stuff.

In fact the 5e discussions about rankings need to move away from the 3.5e tier logic. 5e differences are subtle. They can't be summarized as ABC tier. They need a rank that explains how well they perform in specific things. People just try to force classes into a ranking, without taking into account the progression/scaling, multiclass options, synergies, party dependancy. This is important. For example Fighters are Good in combat because of their progression/scaling, Bad in social becase of low mental stats, Bad in Exploration because they don't have anything that assists them in this at all, Great as a multiclass option because they are frontloaded with easy requirements etc.

If I wanted to make a ranger because I think he is good at exploration, but find out that rogue or chain warlock are equal or better, then ranger doesn't seem a good idea anymore. This will help the newbie make a better decision, it will help another understand what to expect from each class, it will help a dm homebrew fixes or plan encounters. There are just too many good reasons to rank the classes. Arguing that it's a trap that affects players negatively is.. misguided in my opinion.

Foxhound438

2016-03-16, 09:24 PM

It's usually phrased more as "ability to affect the story in a meaningful way".

seems to me like more of an rp issue there, but then again i mostly play level 7 tops, so ridiculous things like wish aren't ever an issue.

SharkForce

2016-03-16, 09:26 PM

If you're going to change the common understanding of what a tier list is, then you better damned well make a large and bolded notice that you're changing the common understanding in the opening post to the thread.

To do anything less is to invite confusion and misunderstanding. Naivety at best, active lying at worst.

why? there is nothing about "tier list" that should automatically assume different tiers *inherently* must be referring to whether or not two options can be used in the same game without running into difficulty.

the assumptions should be stated somewhere in the introduction of the tier list, absolutely. just like a scale should be on a map. but i shouldn't have to put a giant disclaimer in 6 inch high red letters on a map that it uses 1 cm = 10 km as the scale just because someone else is accustomed to 1 inch = 5 miles. it is the reader's responsibility to figure out what the map's scale is if they want to know what the distances on the map represent.

information should be presented clearly, but it should not be written for people that are not going to read it. that's just silly.

for example, if you were to look up the 3.x tier lists you would find about a page of explanation detailing what exactly a tier list is, how it is to be used, caveats, etc, and then when we finally get to the tiers, before listing so much as a single class that fits into the tier, there is an entire paragraph that defines what it means to be in that tier. and only then, after that, does it list some examples of classes which fit into that tier.

but nowhere do you find any disclaimers that it doesn't use the same tier system as league of legends, or smash brothers, or various other games. because a tier system is, by nature, only useful in the system for which it is designed.

if anyone is looking for a tier system, it is their responsibility to understand it before they try to apply it.

mgshamster

2016-03-16, 09:29 PM

seems to me like more of an rp issue there, but then again i mostly play level 7 tops, so ridiculous things like wish aren't ever an issue.

Even low level spells can have strong narrative power.

For example, if you're trying to set up a desert adventure where food and water are scarce and are a primary part of the challenge, Goodberry has strong narrative power. Teleport is even stronger as they can bypass the travel portion of the adventure altogether.

This was a major issue with previous editions. Now that background features can do the exact same thing (outlander is one example), it becomes more prominent for other classes to have decent narrative power.

Captbrannigan

2016-03-16, 09:32 PM

It just seems very strange to post about people not wanting open honest discussion in the thread that practically begs someone to argue with it rather than the one that includes a disclaimer saying they're not interested in arguing. If you think the bias in responses is caused by anything other than that disclaimer I am curious as to what that would be.

Actually I think that disclaimer is completely the reason that that thread has analysis and discussion while most of this thread is "hear, hear!" posts. In addition to that, those in favor of ranking are contributing to that thread while those that poo-poo it are all in here. They go on an internet forum and post in the topics they already agree with. Come on, man, that's funny.

Besides, Talamere wanted help ranking classes and subclasses not to be told that they can't be ranked. It's like if someone asked for help building a champion and dismissed posts of "play something else."

Foxhound438

2016-03-16, 09:34 PM

They're actually not. That's just the most common excuse someone has to justify their prejudice. They heard that phrase before and use it as justification without wver understanding why they're wrong.

It's a really common phrase - as inaccurate as whatever the person saying the phrase is using it for.

the point is that some things are weaker, when fully analyzed. In this context it holds true, since all beastmaster rangers are beastmaster rangers, and thus do fit the same mold mechanically. You're right in a societal context, and kudos to you for that, but this isn't "asians elves are good at math", it's looking at game mechanics.

CantigThimble

2016-03-16, 09:36 PM

Actually I think that disclaimer is completely the reason that that thread has analysis and discussion while most of this thread is "hear, hear!" posts. In addition to that, those in favor of ranking are contributing to that thread while those that poo-poo it are all in here. They go on an internet forum and post in the topics they already agree with. Come on, man, that's funny.

Besides, Talamere wanted help ranking classes and subclasses not to be told that they can't be ranked. It's like if someone asked for help building a champion and dismissed posts of "play something else."

It has analysis and discussion of a completely different topic than the one you called out as being undiscussed. And it's really quite difficult to top an OP like the one here though I'd be happy to see someone try.

Edit: This is kinda like looking at the "I'm going to play Champion, How?" thread, then going to the "Should I play Champion or Battlemaster" thread and complaining that people are agreeing way more here. Apples and Oranges man.

Kane0

2016-03-16, 09:40 PM

Now I feel bad about 'fixing' the ranger. I mean I'm still proud of it, but now it doesn't seem like it really needed the work done.

mgshamster

2016-03-16, 09:42 PM

the point is that some things are weaker, when fully analyzed. In this context it holds true, since all beastmaster rangers are beastmaster rangers, and thus do fit the same mold mechanically. You're right in a societal context, and kudos to you for that, but this isn't "asians elves are good at math", it's looking at game mechanics.

Fair. Perhaps I'm just inclined to be adverse to the word. Stereotyped against it, one might say. ;)

Ruslan

2016-03-16, 09:44 PM

Pretty sure you're overestimating the amount of people who actually consult forums before playing the game. Particularly new / casual players, which 5e is geared towards.So basically you're going with "no one reads this stuff anyway" defense. Nice.

krugaan

2016-03-16, 09:52 PM

So basically you're going with "no one reads this stuff anyway" defense. Nice.

Hyperbole: when using it, there's always enough to go around.

druid91

2016-03-16, 09:57 PM

Gonna have to call you on that. Quite bluntly, when played at the highest levels, Yes. A Wizard/Warlock/possibly sorcerer Can and WILL outdo fighters, rogues, and barbarians at their own job, Just off the top of my head True Polymorph is the biggest issue with the idea that they can't. Though that's probably because I'm lazy and don't particularly want to go through the books right now.

But to put it bluntly. A 17th level warlock can MAKE assassins out of pebbles. If they're great old one warlocks, they can then proceed to thrall them. They can also make fighter analogs as well. Oh, and cleric analogs. And even wizard analogs if they wanted to. And the best part is that they can then MINDMELD THEM. Make them permanent. And they can do this as much as they feel like. Only limit being the one-a-day on TP.

When one class can literally manufacture the others wholesale... Well it's kind of silly to say they're even.

mgshamster

2016-03-16, 10:08 PM

AvatarVecna

2016-03-16, 10:11 PM

seems to me like more of an rp issue there, but then again i mostly play level 7 tops, so ridiculous things like wish aren't ever an issue.

When you reach the higher levels, and those kinds of higher level spells become available, you start noticing that some of them can solve encounters...and some can solve story arcs. It doesn't necessarily require Wish exactly, but Wish is the most blatantly obvious spell of this kind. Again, this was much more obvious in 3.5, where the non-casters didn't have a lot of goodies and spells were much more abusable...but that doesn't mean some of the problems haven't made it to 5e. Let's go with a classic example: the Lord of the Rings plot. Having to cross vast distances that contain a wide variety of dangers can make for a very interesting story, as LotR proves...but the only reason they had to "simply walk into Mordor" was because there wasn't really any other way to go about it: Gandalf's magic (at least, the magic he was able/willing to use) wasn't capable of making the journey any quicker than hobbit speed; indeed, if he had such magic, he could solve the problem himself in quite a short time...but then there would be no story.

Flight comes online at lvl 5, and makes difficult parts of the journey much easier. Wind Walk comes online at 11th lvl and trivializes the task, making it a quick afternoon jaunt. Teleport makes it a matter of a quick trip over (although getting back quickly is harder in 5e than it was in 3.5). And that's just abilities that makes journeys pointless; there's spells that make the dramatically-tense nature of death scenes completely meaningless.

Characters who have these kinds of powers in books often have them limited in some way, or they won't use them for fear of (insert Deus Ex Machina here). The point is that certain powers take away all the narrative weight of certain story types by virtue of existing; books, video games, and movies get away with it when the hero has such powers because whoever's making the story gets to write the story their way...but player's aren't necessarily playing to tell the best story; some of them are playing to stop the bad guy as well as they possibly can...and because of abilities like this, the way to beat the bad guy might be to cheat your way out of telling a story at all. With high-level magic, a party can Teleport to their destination, bypass murder mysteries by just using Speak With Dead, reverse death by spending a bit of the money they find basically everywhere, mind rape the NPC that stands between them and their goal, lay waste to armies at a time...

...and I think that's a good thing. Powerful characters should have powerful abilities. But the problem is that giving goodies like that to casters and none to non-casters makes for a power discrepancy. And that's not even getting into how magic can have irresistible effects where mundanes can't.

druid91

2016-03-16, 10:20 PM

So.. Making one CR 9 creature for one hour per day trumps a 17th level martial class?

You permanently make a single CR 9 creature a day. This is cumulative.

Day 1: 1 CR 9 Humanoid creature made and mind-kiboshed.

Day 2: 2 CR 9 Humanoid creatures made and mind-kiboshed.

Etc. And yes. Quantity does beat quality in 5e.

And even if you didn't want to go that route, there is still the 'turn into something big and physically nasty.' route.

Sure, full casters have been toned down. But a lot of what made them dangerous is still present.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-16, 10:30 PM

Thanks for all the kind words and quality discussion!

I do take umbrage at the idea that champion and berserker are lesser in some fashion. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you... I've played a berserker. I made the mistake of building it like a standard barbarian with feat support for a massive weapon... which made frenzy far less useful. Without feats, berserker fills in nicely for the lack of GWM and/or PAM. I still contend that exhaustion is a bit harsh, but nothing a few pots of vitality can't handle.

I was only mentioning them because they are frequently accused of being one-trick ponies when they're actually capable of several tricks and are quite fun.

5e tier discussions are fine, *if* you start with the understanding that right now, 5e is in a state where any class can be played with any other class and both can expect to contribute effectively some of the time and not contribute quite as effectively some of the time.

But once you reach that point, tiers become unnecessary. In fact, when it comes to discussing the relative strengths and weaknesses of the different classes, they serve no function other than to exclude certain classes from consideration because they're too low tiered.

If you want to discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of a character concept, a productive path would be to start with a concept and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of potential classes. E.g.: Someone wants a stealthy character who can hold his own in combat but feels a little magical. Rangers and Arcane Tricksters both fit that mold, but don't forget the Shadow Monk, or even an Elemonk or Valor Bard with Invisibility.

You can freely discuss the strengths and weaknesses of those classes without starting from a tier position. When you start with tiers in mind, several options are immediately denigrated despite being perfectly viable and possibly a lot of fun.

Shrug, I disagree. Anything that generates active discussion is good in my book, particularly when there is counterpoint available.

In addition, reductive is not necessarily bad; 5e still has an extremely broad scope, and new players might be overwhelmed with the frequent "play whatever you feel like," particularly when they have no idea what's out there. Any developed tier list will generally have a decent rough summary of the classes.

Plus ... I dunno, it seems a little disingenuous strange to want to stifle honest conversation, no matter how flawed it is. No tier ranking has been stickied for a reason (im guessing), so it's unlikely that any one interpretation would leave any truly lasting false impression.

I fundamentally disagree with you on multiple points. First, active discussion is not necessarily good. It's simply way too easy to take to an ad absurdum approach to debunking that assertion. An active discussion, for example, about how every class but the Wizard is terrible that involves attacking anyone who says he likes another class is not good. It would be an embarrassment.

Second, reductive is necessarily bad. When I say it's reductive, I mean that it ends up limiting the scope of conversation across the forum, reducing the quality of discussion. There's a difference between narrowing things down for a newbie and creating a reductive conversation. Narrowing down involves assessing preferences and pointing out which options work well with what someone wants to play. Reductive removes options before any preferences are even considered.

Besides, as you may have noticed in my post, I asserted that tier discussions are dishonest. That was a main point. It was in giant bold font. Maybe reread my post?

I am not sure that "Tier" is a useful term but certainly a discussion of the relative pros and cons of each class and a comparison between them CAN help people chose what to play. I don't think anyone is telling anyone else to not paly a class, just that some are better than others at certain things.
I agree that discussing relative pros and cons is perfectly fine, but I made this post because I have seen people on this board telling people not to play certain classes and citing tiers when they do it.

It isn't like anyone is trying to make an official pronouncement on what is good or bad, so it is just people airing opinions for their own pleasure. I can't see a good reason to deny them that pleasure?
I consistently respect your opinion, Sr. Stabby, but I think when people make a post to come up with a definitive tier system, they are attempting to create a semi-official consensus on what is good or bad, and I have gone to considerable lengths to address why this is problematic.

Maybe "tier" is too loaded of a word, since 5e doesn't have as many straight up broken (good or bad) classes. Then again, I haven't looked in depth into the UA releases but they seem pretty weak while, as expected, the Faerun splat (SCAG) is chock full of OP goodies. Or is everyone recommending Booming/GF Blade for gishes because it's a weak but flavorful option? Ya, thought not.

Actually, while BB and GFB are getting recommended across the board for gishes, most of the SCAG classes are pretty average. In fact, the Purple Dragon Knight is arguably a little weaker than other Fighters, but it's obviously a support Fighter so its offensive capacity should be a bit more basic. BB and GFB just filled a major gap in the original spell list in that there were no other arcane spells that involved melee weapon attacks, and fighting with a weapon while casting is kind of the gish's thing.

As for your jest, meh. I just generally get annoyed with tiers, and rather than crap up someone else's thread I made my own to rant. People can enjoy my rant or argue against it all they want, and if you actually read the thread you'll notice plenty of discussion going on.

the point is that some things are weaker, when fully analyzed. In this context it holds true, since all beastmaster rangers are beastmaster rangers, and thus do fit the same mold mechanically. You're right in a societal context, and kudos to you for that, but this isn't "asians elves are good at math", it's looking at game mechanics.

But Beast Master Rangers, depending on the animal they pick, can vary wildly in damage output and utility. Their damage in particular can vary from slightly below average to nearing the top of the pile.

Gonna have to call you on that. Quite bluntly, when played at the highest levels, Yes. A Wizard/Warlock/possibly sorcerer Can and WILL outdo fighters, rogues, and barbarians at their own job, Just off the top of my head True Polymorph is the biggest issue with the idea that they can't. Though that's probably because I'm lazy and don't particularly want to go through the books right now.

But to put it bluntly. A 17th level warlock can MAKE assassins out of pebbles. If they're great old one warlocks, they can then proceed to thrall them. They can also make fighter analogs as well. Oh, and cleric analogs. And even wizard analogs if they wanted to. And the best part is that they can then MINDMELD THEM. Make them permanent. And they can do this as much as they feel like. Only limit being the one-a-day on TP.

When one class can literally manufacture the others wholesale... Well it's kind of silly to say they're even.

The True Polymorph is a big issue when you consider PVP. When you're thinking about how D&D is actually played, it doesn't really matter. Dragons don't match player damage output at high levels, so damage focused classes still get to outperform the polymorphed wizard in that department. And at best the Warlock deal is a complicated work around for hiring people. Everyone else can just hire people.

That isn't to say they're not cool. They just don't make other characters useless.

SharkForce

2016-03-16, 11:04 PM

Now I feel bad about 'fixing' the ranger. I mean I'm still proud of it, but now it doesn't seem like it really needed the work done.

depends what you did.

i think the ranger needs to be fixed. i just don't think it needs to necessarily be fixed because it is underpowered. from what i've seen (and from what WotC has surveyed), a large portion of the community does not like the ranger in its current form. it is, in a way, broken and needs fixing, because "i don't like it" is at least as much of a problem as "i like the idea but it is underpowered".

i haven't looked at your fix, but if you actually changed how the ranger (and especially the beastmaster) works, you probably still did a good thing. not because it needed to deal more damage, but simply because the class didn't feel quite right to a lot of people.

Vogonjeltz

2016-03-16, 11:13 PM

When you reach the higher levels, and those kinds of higher level spells become available, you start noticing that some of them can solve encounters...and some can solve story arcs. It doesn't necessarily require Wish exactly, but Wish is the most blatantly obvious spell of this kind. Again, this was much more obvious in 3.5, where the non-casters didn't have a lot of goodies and spells were much more abusable...but that doesn't mean some of the problems haven't made it to 5e. Let's go with a classic example: the Lord of the Rings plot. Having to cross vast distances that contain a wide variety of dangers can make for a very interesting story, as LotR proves...but the only reason they had to "simply walk into Mordor" was because there wasn't really any other way to go about it: Gandalf's magic (at least, the magic he was able/willing to use) wasn't capable of making the journey any quicker than hobbit speed; indeed, if he had such magic, he could solve the problem himself in quite a short time...but then there would be no story.

Flight comes online at lvl 5, and makes difficult parts of the journey much easier. Wind Walk comes online at 11th lvl and trivializes the task, making it a quick afternoon jaunt. Teleport makes it a matter of a quick trip over (although getting back quickly is harder in 5e than it was in 3.5). And that's just abilities that makes journeys pointless; there's spells that make the dramatically-tense nature of death scenes completely meaningless.

Characters who have these kinds of powers in books often have them limited in some way, or they won't use them for fear of (insert Deus Ex Machina here). The point is that certain powers take away all the narrative weight of certain story types by virtue of existing; books, video games, and movies get away with it when the hero has such powers because whoever's making the story gets to write the story their way...but player's aren't necessarily playing to tell the best story; some of them are playing to stop the bad guy as well as they possibly can...and because of abilities like this, the way to beat the bad guy might be to cheat your way out of telling a story at all. With high-level magic, a party can Teleport to their destination, bypass murder mysteries by just using Speak With Dead, reverse death by spending a bit of the money they find basically everywhere, mind rape the NPC that stands between them and their goal, lay waste to armies at a time...

...and I think that's a good thing. Powerful characters should have powerful abilities. But the problem is that giving goodies like that to casters and none to non-casters makes for a power discrepancy. And that's not even getting into how magic can have irresistible effects where mundanes can't.

If the players have an ability or power that shortcuts the adventure entirely, it's because of DMing. The DM should know the player abilities and mold their challenges to fit the party (assuming they aren't running a module).

Quintessence

2016-03-16, 11:17 PM

S tier: Everything else

F tier: Beast Master Ranger, Berserker Barbarian, Four Elements Monk

This is the only tier list there should be, and it is only to help players to not play awful things.

Talakeal

2016-03-16, 11:20 PM

Characters who have these kinds of powers in books often have them limited in some way, or they won't use them for fear of (insert Deus Ex Machina here). The point is that certain powers take away all the narrative weight of certain story types by virtue of existing; books, video games, and movies get away with it when the hero has such powers because whoever's making the story gets to write the story their way...but player's aren't necessarily playing to tell the best story; some of them are playing to stop the bad guy as well as they possibly can...and because of abilities like this, the way to beat the bad guy might be to cheat your way out of telling a story at all. With high-level magic, a party can Teleport to their destination, bypass murder mysteries by just using Speak With Dead, reverse death by spending a bit of the money they find basically everywhere, mind rape the NPC that stands between them and their goal, lay waste to armies at a time...'

Forgive me for being pedantic, but I am pretty sure that is the exact opposite of a deus ex machina.

georgie_leech

2016-03-16, 11:20 PM

druid91

2016-03-16, 11:22 PM

The True Polymorph is a big issue when you consider PVP. When you're thinking about how D&D is actually played, it doesn't really matter. Dragons don't match player damage output at high levels, so damage focused classes still get to outperform the polymorphed wizard in that department. And at best the Warlock deal is a complicated work around for hiring people. Everyone else can just hire people.

That isn't to say they're not cool. They just don't make other characters useless.

Except a caster can ALSO hire people. In fact they're vastly better at that. Because they can turn chickens into huge blocks of solid gold. They have limitless funds. I mean seriously. You buy a chicken. You put it in a demiplane. Cast true polymorph to turn it into a 10x10 block of gold. Then cast fabricate to turn that 10x10 block into neat metal bars.

That's a single casting to make 601,868 GP worth of gold. And honestly I just chose a 10x10 arbitrarily. There is no limit for how much or what all you can turn a creature into. Heck. Make it platinum and the value goes up immensely.

Sure it takes time to get started, but we're talking about strategic versatility here not 1,2,3 go dueling power. And the highest damage output is done by handing a mob of decent shots a ranged weapon and massing fire.

I really am sorry for relying so much on True Polymorph shenanigans to make this point. But it's simply the most ready example and I'm tired.

The point is a caster.

A.) Never has to fight a non-caster on their own terms due to a variety of transportation and defensive spells.
B.) Can generally get, even if in a roundabout manner, what non-casters bring to the table.

Quintessence

2016-03-16, 11:41 PM

That's... That's literally the very thing this thread is decrying.

Yes it is however, I still believe that tier lists help new players. I have NEVER had a player enjoy any of those :/

EvilAnagram

2016-03-16, 11:52 PM

Yes it is however, I still believe that tier lists help new players. I have NEVER had a player enjoy any of those :/

NEVER is less than two years. How many campaigns have you run? How many players were turned off by the meta?

Personally, I had twelve levels of Beast Master that were an absolute blast, and I've seen people readily enjoy the Berserker. I'd like to really chomp on an Elements monk eventually, since it seems like a basic monk who can occasionally use a spell would be a perfectly fun character.

The point is a caster.

A.) Never has to fight a non-caster on their own terms due to a variety of transportation and defensive spells.
B.) Can generally get, even if in a roundabout manner, what non-casters bring to the table.

A.) A surprised caster can easily turn into a dead caster very quickly.
B.) You still haven't addressed the fact that even True Polymorph can't match the damage output of martials.

Foxhound438

2016-03-16, 11:59 PM

But Beast Master Rangers, depending on the animal they pick, can vary wildly in damage output and utility. Their damage in particular can vary from slightly below average to nearing the top of the pile.

i'd like to see the BM ranger that bests PAM+GWM fighter. You get decent damage at best, and it goes down significantly if the beast dies (and with as little hp as it has, it's not going to last very long.)

Foxhound438

2016-03-17, 12:07 AM

B.) You still haven't addressed the fact that even True Polymorph can't match the damage output of martials.

as a pit fiend? appropriate damage, better attack bonus, massive dot on the bite, fireball as a cantrip, and more HP than a fighter can possibly get? martials are great, yes, but not unbeatable. you might end up a decent amount behind on dpr, but it's an option to full casters to be near as good as martials in close, and better than an un-optimized one, while still having all the other choices available to casters.

Gastronomie

2016-03-17, 12:09 AM

S tier: Everything else

F tier: Beast Master Ranger, Berserker Barbarian, Four Elements Monk

This is the only tier list there should be, and it is only to help players to not play awful things.
Yes it is however, I still believe that tier lists help new players. I have NEVER had a player enjoy any of those :/Guy does have a point in saying those three classes may be not the most competitive choices. Personally I believe it would be better worded to say "those classes need fixing" instead of "don't use those classes", though.

D&D is a friggin' TRPG. TRPGs are fun because the DM can ignore all rules and printed abilities and just go with whatever the players like best.

If a new player who likes Avatar wants to play Four Elements Monk, and the DM says it's a bad choice and that thus he shouldn't play it, chances are that DM is a ****** (as far as I am concerned, at least in my personal philosophy of table-talk games).
A good DM would instead pull out a balanced homebrew that makes sense and allow the player to use that in place of the original, underpowered class. Because it's the friggin' fluff that matters. Of course, since the game has combat, it's a good idea to save the weak - but it should be done by the DM as means to "balance stuff out". Not done by the players to aim for stronger characters.

And for that matter, telling newbies that the above three classes need "fixing" could be a idea, especially if it's a newbie DM.

Likewise, if a newbie says he wants to build a tough, burly badass man who can withstand all attacks, suggesting Bear-Totem Barbarian is certainly good advice, regardless of whether Bear Barbarian is strong or not. It just fits his concept best, and that's what matters.

And IMO, if a newbie says he wants to build the strongest character in combat ever, suggesting Moon Druid or whatever seems to be best is NOT the best advice.
The better advice is to just suggest he play a different game that isn't table-talk, because honestly, IMO TRPGs are not supposed to be about creating the strongest builds (no, I'm not saying trying to be better at a particular job is a bad thing, I'm just saying that it's not the main thing about the game). Mediocre characters with good role-playing will make games more fun, but an overpowered character will terrible role-playing will make it just more boring.

Lines

2016-03-17, 12:29 AM

The Tier List was harmful to the 3E community. It's just harmful, period, due to people believing it is telling them how to play the game, that if they don't follow it they're doing it wrong.

No, it was a very useful way of explaining the problem a lot of DMs had and didn't quite have the words for, it was a way of categorizing certain classes to ensure that everyone could contribute in a system that had such whacked out balance that it was often impossible to feel useful as a fighter if a druid was in the group. It was misapplied a lot, certainly, and it has basically no application in 5e (everything's low 4 to low 2 at most), but that doesn't mean it didn't fulfill its base purpose very well - it was a great way of explaining the difference in class ability to those unfamiliar and I found that when I requested everyone stay within a couple of tiers of each other games ran far more smoothly, everyone was on a more even level with each other and challenges stopped being either too easy for the high tier classes or too hard for the low ones.

It never tells you how to play the game, it just groups classes by how they contribute. What you do with that tool is up to you, but the tool itself is very helpful.

Lines

2016-03-17, 12:41 AM

druid91

2016-03-17, 12:49 AM

A.) A surprised caster can easily turn into a dead caster very quickly.
B.) You still haven't addressed the fact that even True Polymorph can't match the damage output of martials.

Same with a martial.

Planar binding. Sic a Rakshasa on the martial. Cover it in an antimagic field. Damage output is now nil. As someone else said. Pit Fiends. Balors. There are plenty of things that can and will do as much if not more damage than a martial.

Lines

2016-03-17, 01:02 AM

A.) A surprised caster can easily turn into a dead caster very quickly.
B.) You still haven't addressed the fact that even True Polymorph can't match the damage output of martials.

A) A surprised anything can, and at least casters have useful tools to prevent being surprised, especially at high levels. You try surprise killing a wizard who has foresight on and contingent otiluke's resilient sphere.
B) It easily can? There are plenty of forms that equal or exceed a martials damage output. Other ways to outdamage martials include AOE (just in general, in a crowd of foes a caster is doing five times the damage), skeleton armies, clone armies, dominating a monster into doing the work for you, catapulting pots full of acid vials at people and animating a bunch of knives (sustained damage) or acid vials (burst).

Kane0

2016-03-17, 01:08 AM

depends what you did.

i think the ranger needs to be fixed. i just don't think it needs to necessarily be fixed because it is underpowered. from what i've seen (and from what WotC has surveyed), a large portion of the community does not like the ranger in its current form. it is, in a way, broken and needs fixing, because "i don't like it" is at least as much of a problem as "i like the idea but it is underpowered".

i haven't looked at your fix, but if you actually changed how the ranger (and especially the beastmaster) works, you probably still did a good thing. not because it needed to deal more damage, but simply because the class didn't feel quite right to a lot of people.

Oh then thats a relief, its definitely not based on a damage buff. Its meant to alleviate those feeling concerns with the mechanics, as well as simplify and carve out its own niche a bit.

Huh, could've sworn you posted in it. Its in my sig anyways.

/digression

Foxhound438

2016-03-17, 01:11 AM

Vogonjeltz

2016-03-17, 01:22 AM

A) A surprised anything can, and at least casters have useful tools to prevent being surprised, especially at high levels. You try surprise killing a wizard who has foresight on and contingent otiluke's resilient sphere.
B) It easily can? There are plenty of forms that equal or exceed a martials damage output. Other ways to outdamage martials include AOE (just in general, in a crowd of foes a caster is doing five times the damage), skeleton armies, clone armies, dominating a monster into doing the work for you, catapulting pots full of acid vials at people and animating a bunch of knives (sustained damage) or acid vials (burst).

Is this another one of those schroedingers caster arguments? I.e. Someone points out a weakness of wizards so you reach into the grab bag and talk about how warlocks can potentially deal with that problem if and only if they happened to train the specific spell that just might (maybe) work.

Yeah no. Instead, pick a specific class if you want to claim that it's somehow more powerful at higher levels. And we can theorycraft that.

Lines

2016-03-17, 01:23 AM

i mean, how many cr 9's does it take to fight a cr 20+? how many will you need to make every time you come to a hard fight? will they stick around? even with thrall, the effect ends on the first when you use it on a second.

How would thrall be effective in the first place? All thrall does is give you advantage on charisma checks.

Wouldn't it be much simpler to true polymorph people who are already allies?

Lines

2016-03-17, 01:37 AM

Is this another one of those schroedingers caster arguments? I.e. Someone points out a weakness of wizards so you reach into the grab bag and talk about how warlocks can potentially deal with that problem if and only if they happened to train the specific spell that just might (maybe) work.
No, it isn't. And nothing in what I said suggests it is, so the next time you say something I'm going to ask if you're invoking Occam's razor regardless of the content of your actual message. I was responding to someone saying true polymorph can't outdamage a martial by explaining that it could and mentioning other ways of outdamaging them - though I don't see why you would bother, direct damage output is pretty much the only thing a martial is good at, when you can do so many other things that they can't why would you waste time trying to beat them at their only strength?

Yeah no. Instead, pick a specific class if you want to claim that it's somehow more powerful at higher levels. And we can theorycraft that.
Yeah no what? What does any of that have to do with what I said?

But, since you asked, fine. Wizard's capstone is at 18, so we'll have two levels of fighter because fighter's an amazing dip/early class (pity about the non casting fighters gradually sliding into mediocrity), happy to drop that if it's not fitting whatever you're actually asking me(?) or for us to be talking about a level 15 bard or whatever. Variant human fighter 2/wizard (abjurer) 18, lucky feat, strength 9 dexterity 12 constitution 20 intelligence 20 wisdom 12 charisma 8, AC 21, HP 188, you can drop some stats a bit to get strength 15 if you want but the 10 foot movement penalty is really not a big deal, just cast longstrider if you dislike it. Said wizard is basically flat out more useful than a martial would be.

Tanarii

2016-03-17, 01:47 AM

Good rant. Two thumbs up, would read again.

I've never seen a game of D&D that didn't break down at high levels, to one degree or another, in terms of inter-class-balance. The only one that didn't break down narratively due to the highest levels of spells was 4e.

That's because the spells all came from an original design of level 6+ Spells being epic-tier game breaking spells. You had to roll a 17 or 18 wis as a cleric to cast them, a 16 or 18 as a magic-user to cast level 8/9, and make it to 11 or 12th level to even start getting them. Anything after name level, 9-10, was effectively end-game play. It took forever to get to that level of play.

Since 2e, D&D has set 'up to 20' as the standard, and as editions passed it became progressively faster to gain those levels, and way easier to survive, especially at low levels. But the editions have struggled to balance those highest level of spells. It's hard because they were supposed to break the game, supposed to turn the most powerful casters into near gods. Plus the designers undoubtably assume that the majority of game play occurs in the low to mid levels anyway.

As such, end game breakdowns in the mechanics in terms of narrative disruption or inter-class balance don't bother me. Any tier system based on those is effectively worthless for a narrative-sourced based campaign (which rarely fit in that type of power level), or for new players (who won't get that far anyway). They only matter if there is a massive power discrepancy at low or mid-levels. So far I've found that this still holds true for 5e, and that the power levels of classes are on par. Even the ones routinely bashed on these forums.

Edit: if you're going to play the game the old way, late game tiers might or might not matter. Either letting your characters break your sandbox for the sheer fun of it as a group. Or casting them into an epic & probably one-way adventure (the pits of the nine hells, the abyss, etc).

Giant2005

2016-03-17, 01:57 AM

i'd like to see the BM ranger that bests PAM+GWM fighter. You get decent damage at best, and it goes down significantly if the beast dies (and with as little hp as it has, it's not going to last very long.)

A level 20 Beast Master with a Flying Snake, Longbow, Swift Quiver, and 20 Dexterity inflicts 55.675 DPR against AC 18. A Giant Poisonous Snake would do more, but a Flying Snake is easier to quantify due to not having a save against its damage, and it is easier to qualify due to Flyby rendering it quite safe from harm.

A level 20 Champion with a Halberd, PAM, GWM, GWF, and 20 Strength inflicts 50.67 DPR against AC 18. Twice per short rest he can increase that to 92.79 DPR for a single round.

So whichever you consider to be better really depends on whether you want to consider burst damage or damage per round, but aside from that, each does have room to grow.

The Ranger can be improved by the following means:
Having a Giant Poisonous Snake
Multiclassing: The Ranger gets very little to increase its DPR past level 11, Ranger 11/Rogue 9 would have significantly higher DPR.
Feats: Sharpshooter would increase the Ranger's DPR by 6.25 points.

The Fighter can be improved by the following means:
Magic weapons: Due to the Fighter's sheer volume of attacks, he benefits from the use of magic items far more than any other class.

They seem relatively equal to me - an average BM Ranger with a good companion will average higher damage than the optimized Fighter but burst for much less. They both have their strengths and neither overshadows the other.

Talamare

2016-03-17, 02:00 AM

Since this is definitely in reply to my thread, Its only appropriate I reply.

Notice how absolutely no classes in 5e fit that description? That's because the 5e designers aimed for balance in their approach. And while it isn't quite as balanced as 4e, which was too balanced for some players, they managed to make a game in which no player can put little thought into his character and still outshine everyone else in all areas. In fact, even players who put a ton of thought into their characters won't outshine everyone else unless either everyone else is kind of bad at the game, or the DM plays favorites. Since this isn't /tg/, we'll assume that those cases are outliers and the hobby isn't terrible.

The tier system in 3.P exists because the design is terrible players realized that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids would eventually outshine nearly everyone else with a minimal amount of optimizing. This led to raw feelings and angry players. The tier system helps organize the myriad classes into sets that can play with adjacent sets without outshining each other constantly. A Tier 3 will be broadly useful, but it won't completely outshine the Tier 4 specialist in its preferred role. The system is essentially character lubricant designed to ensure party configuration meets less friction, making for a more enjoyable time for all.

Contrast this with the 5e classes, which all fit into the Tier 3 definition:

You are supposed to use different systems of measurement to measure different systems. You can't impose a 3rd edition tier list onto anything else, no one will say "Let's make a 40k Tier list using 3rd Edition DnD metrics" The 2 systems have evolved into completely different games

While the 3.P tiers were well-defined groupings
That's due to a lack of study into how classes should be grouped, categorized, and rated. Dismissing first attempts and conversation initiators as "Buzz Feed Drivel" is inherently disingenuous. On the level of "That's not a complete building, it's just a brick, and bricks break windows. You're just breaking windows." Starting a conversation and attempting to get a proper objective tier list requires the dialogue to be open, not dismissed.

In these meta discussions, tiers of play become extremely important, and so people listen to discussion on tiers. But 5e is balanced, and when you create 5e "tiers" knowing that any two classes can play side by side without completely eclipsing each other, they are simply using the term "tier" to slap on a lacquer of meaningful objectivity to their Buzzfeed fave five. They're assuming a pretense of meaningful discourse while they subjectively rank classes according to what they personally look for in play. That's dishonest.
What I find to be dishonest, is believing that 5e (or basically any game system) is completely 100% balanced. Despite the RP elements of DnD, in the end of the day its a system using numbers. If character A has 5 in a skill, and Character B has 4 in the same skill... Your DM says you get 1 chance. Well, Character B has just been eclipsed. Now, it's completely fair to say that the difference between tiers is not as radical as it was in previous edition. But completely dishonest to claim that it's not there at all.

By which I mean it reduces the scope of the discourse, and in doing so limits the discussion. How often do discussions devolve into people attacking or defending someone's decision to play a Ranger or Berserker? Even leaving out tier discussions, those posts crop up constantly. A recent thread about someone wanting to multiclass Ranger/Rogue involved at least a dozen posts attacking and defending the basic Ranger chassis because everyone knows that Rangers are bottom tier. How do we know that? Well, we know it because people keep saying it. It's the most common meme in optimization circles.

This means that when people who understand the game want to talk about fun builds for Berserkers or Rangers or Elemonks, they find themselves forced to defend their decision to build that character instead of discussing fun ways to do it. The quality of the discussion has dropped because the memes surrounding these classes are so prolific.
A tool is not inherently evil, it's how you use the tool. If people want to use a tool for evil, then it was that person's choice. A Tier list is a tool, nothing more.

Rangers in particular have become victimized by this process. The initial impression of Beast Masters was unpalatable to many, so the meme that they are a terrible class spread quickly. Since 5e first arrived, we've seen many builds that provide a massive amount of damage and utility potential for Beast Masters
Beastmaster is a class with several faults, those faults don't go away even if a few minor very specific and often slightly exploitative builds exist.

Worst of all, they carry a false pretense of objectivity or meaningful contribution. And because they carry an unearned sense of importance, newbies may not realize that these tiers are meaningless popularity rankings.
Proper Tier lists are objective. The problem is that most people are incapable of removing bias from their Tier list, but if you never open the door to open dialogue about how things should be measured and tiered because of fear then we well end up with the monthly "drivel" you hate so much. However, what's basically happening here becomes a rejection of science. Closing the door to objective dialogue only leads to more subjectivity, and unfounded class hatred spreads like wildfire.

And that harms the community.

Tiers accomplish nothing that helps the community. In fact, they can only limit the choices that players feel are available. They are reductive, they are pointless, and they poison the meta.

I believe the complete opposite, it strengthens the community when done properly. It gives players awareness of choices that might be below average, so they can avoid it. It's not fun going to a weekly meeting with a class you hate, while everyone feels like a hero, and you feel like a spectator.

Best part?
The DnD community ALREADY loves and heavily uses Tier list in literally EVERY class guide, we even have a consistent color coded system in place.

Edit
---

Did you miss the massive disclaimer at the top of the other thread that basically amounted to: "Don't post about not liking tier lists here"?

Considering this thread spawned a lot of "I HATE TIER LIST" while the other has several paragraphs on active discussion, I 100% support my decision. The other thread is quite lively with proper discussion on how things should be rated. I was only able to glance thru some of it, but there are several posts on how to better breakdown the tiers or more objectively do it.

It just seems very strange to post about people not wanting open honest discussion in the thread that practically begs someone to argue with it rather than the one that includes a disclaimer saying they're not interested in arguing. If you think the bias in responses is caused by anything other than that disclaimer I am curious as to what that would be.
Very interested in arguing and discussing the subject presented. I would love to join and see the discussion on HOW things should be ranked. Not interested on the philosophical "Should things be ranked?". If you are interested in that discussion, I empower you to create a new thread. Altho, this one seems quite suitable for that discussion.

If you're going to change the common understanding of what a tier list is, then you better damned well make a large and bolded notice that you're changing the common understanding in the opening post to the thread.
He has the common understanding of a tier list correct. The thing you seem fixated on is that every game system should use 3rd edition rules of measuring tiers.

Foxhound438

2016-03-17, 04:09 AM

A level 20 Beast Master with [...] Swift Quiver, [...]

you're expending one of your 2 5th level slots, so you get that dpr two combats out of a day, and if you get smacked around by something you'll likely lose concentration. fighter deals, by your math, 5ish less damage per round at will using no superiority dice, no EK tricks, no other feats (of which you get many more than ranger), and no magic items (fair on that, but where will you find a flying snake?)

and to top that all off, anything specifically targets your companion and it's dead in 2 rounds tops by that level.

Foxhound438

2016-03-17, 04:25 AM

A level 20 Champion with

Comparison gets a bit more complex, but precision attack on GWM is way better than champion.

Sir_Leorik

2016-03-17, 04:32 AM

Add me to the list of people opposed to creating tier lists. Right now in the game I'm DMing, I have a Champion Fighter, Assassin Rogue, Four Elements Monk, Lore Bard and a Fighter/Bladesinger Wizard (the player dipped first level into Fighter to get more hp). Both the player of the Champion and the Monk are new to D&D, while the player of the Assassin is returning to the game after not playing for several years. The only character that could be considered "Optimized" is the Fighter/Bladesinger, mostly because the AC on that thing is a beast. The player of the Monk is still getting used to the game, and this is his first character ever. Am I supposed to tell him that the consensus is that Four Elements sucks? Am I supposed to tell the player of the Champion that Champions are boring? The players are having fun with their characters, are unstoppable in melee, and recently the Assassin won initiative and scored a crit against an enemy caster, killing her with one arrow. My players are having fun. Tier lists are not helpful to new players, and they only are of use to theoretical PvP contests.

Lines

2016-03-17, 04:53 AM

MrStabby

2016-03-17, 05:25 AM

So I think a Tier system is usually an oversimplification and too often sticks together things that are not usefully grouped together. Whilst that is the reason some people are posting here, it is also the reason I posted in the other thread.

My perspective is as a DM and what I need to adjust to to make a fun and exciting campaign for everyone. To me the "Tier" system is about the restrictions it puts on me making encounters and developing the game world.

A plot hook around someone important being killed is less effective when the party can just bring them back to life. A plot about getting somewhere and overcoming obstacles on the way is obviated by teleport and so on. The tier system for me is about what I have to cater to as DM.

This also goes for combat encounters. Monks to me are high tier as they stop encounters with low numbers of enemies being a challenge and they are very solid vs casters as well.

I personally think that there is a role for a tier system of classes and it does relate to novice DMs, and it is about where to prioritise their attention when designing campaigns and encounters. If a Wizard is a higher tier than a barbarian then a DM can focus on the wizard abilities to ensure the campaign/plot/encounters will not be wrecked by what they can do. It doesn't mean that the barbarian is a bad character or any less important to the story, just that the barbarian is safer and less likely to destroy the fun in the game for other people if not accounted for.

Gtdead

2016-03-17, 05:45 AM

Am I supposed to tell the player of the Champion that Champions are boring? The players are having fun with their characters, are unstoppable in melee, and recently the Assassin won initiative and scored a crit against an enemy caster, killing her with one arrow. My players are having fun. Tier lists are not helpful to new players, and they only are of use to theoretical PvP contests.

You are not supposed to say anything. But you are a DM. If a new player in your group decides to play a Champion with GWM, you need to have in mind that this player is going to need a lot of advantage generation, otherwise he won't be able to contribute with -5 attack roll and no other way to compensate. If he was a Battlemaster you could just urge him to use precision strike. Now you need to work with him, or teach him how to generate advantage in your game.

It's a tool for you to prepare better. Not to be used as an appeal to authority argument. It just doesn't work that way. A ranking system explains what an optimized and well played class can and can't do. Nothing more, nothing less. Fighter can't be a good buffer but he can be a melee powerhouse. Wizard can't be a melee powerhouse but he can buff. This is a simple example but it's not always that clear cut (see CoDzilla in 3.5).

Lines

2016-03-17, 05:56 AM

You are not supposed to say anything. But you are a DM. If a new player in your group decides to play a Champion with GWM, you need to have in mind that this player is going to need a lot of advantage generation, otherwise he won't be able to contribute with -5 attack roll and no other way to compensate. If he was a Battlemaster you could just urge him to use precision strike. Now you need to work with him, or teach him how to generate advantage in your game.

It's a tool for you to prepare better. Not to be used as an appeal to authority argument. It just doesn't work that way. A ranking system explains what an optimized and well played class can and can't do. Nothing more, nothing less. Fighter can't be a good buffer but he can be a melee powerhouse. Wizard can't be a melee powerhouse but he can buff. This is a simple example but it's not always that clear cut (see CoDzilla in 3.5).

But the wizard can be a melee powerhouse =P

In all seriousness, what you're describing isn't a tier list, it's describing class roles. A tier list is a measure of how classes can contribute to wide variety of situations - the reason the fighter is lower on it than a wizard is a fighter's contribution is entirely taking and dealing damage, while a wizard can also absorb and deal damage but can also contribute in a variety of ways the fighter cannot.

lebefrei

2016-03-17, 06:28 AM

A tier list is a measure of how classes can contribute to wide variety of situations

If this were truly the way it was used, consistently, I would have so much less issue with tier rankings.

Yet that isn't what we get. The active tier thread right now literally ranks two combat feats as "who cares about your class, these are the best!" This is toxic to cooperative tabletop gaming. It brings in the mindset of "I can't wait to be the best"

That is what we often get with tiers. That is what new players see, and then they sit at my table with literally no other concept than they build a level 1 variant human fighter with sailor background and greater weapon master. I never want to see this character again.

If the 5e community at large could move away from elite theorycrafting and switch over to "what is fun and effective in various situations at the table, not just at a damaging dice roll" then tier lists would be a lot healthier.

That, then, to naysayers of both of these threads currently existing does give a good reason to justify them. We need healthy debate to find the right solution.

Lines

2016-03-17, 06:41 AM

If this were truly the way it was used, consistently, I would have so much less issue with tier rankings.
But that's what it is. There's only one tier list of any note in D&D and that's the 3.5 one, which is a measure of how often and to what extent a class can contribute, not a measure of pure power. If people want to take it as a measure of direct combat power even though that is clearly not what it is, that's their own fault.

Yet that isn't what we get. The active tier thread right now literally ranks two combat feats as "who cares about your class, these are the best!" This is toxic to cooperative tabletop gaming. It brings in the mindset of "I can't wait to be the best"

That is what we often get with tiers. That is what new players see, and then they sit at my table with literally no other concept than they build a level 1 variant human fighter with sailor background and greater weapon master. I never want to see this character again.

If the 5e community at large could move away from elite theorycrafting and switch over to "what is fun and effective in various situations at the table, not just at a damaging dice roll" then tier lists would be a lot healthier.

That, then, to naysayers of both of these threads currently existing does give a good reason to justify them. We need healthy debate to find the right solution.
Hm. The first sentence I quoted bugs me, but I agree with everything you've just said. The tier system has a useful definition (though one less important to 5e than it was to 3.5), people need to stop changing it and then claiming that it's pointless or even worse changing it to damage taken/dealt and claiming that makes a barbarian better than a rogue.

mgshamster

2016-03-17, 07:20 AM

But that's what it is. There's only one tier list of any note in D&D and that's the 3.5 one, which is a measure of how often and to what extent a class can contribute, not a measure of pure power. If people want to take it as a measure of direct combat power even though that is clearly not what it is, that's their own fault.

Hm. The first sentence I quoted bugs me, but I agree with everything you've just said. The tier system has a useful definition (though one less important to 5e than it was to 3.5), people need to stop changing it and then claiming that it's pointless or even worse changing it to damage taken/dealt and claiming that makes a barbarian better than a rogue.

That's what the current tier list is doing (the other thread): basically making a power ranking instead of a contribution ranking. These are two entirely different metrics.

Heck, the OP of that thread even quoted me here saying that I'm wrong that the 3.X tier list is the standard and that it has changed to mean something else for 5e (with absolutely no explanation in that other thread that there's a difference).

I just looked at that thread's opening post, and it even says that it's a direct power measurement (buried in the text, not out in the open) - so that OP is changing the tier list metric from one of contribution to one of power.

As I said earlier, we have people who are literally trying to change the metric of the tier system into something much less useful than the original tier system (from a narrative power/contribution metric to a power metric) - with no warning that it has changed, and then claiming that this is the new way and everyone should intuitively know it. But this new way of measuring direct power isn't helpful, because the power differences claimed aren't backed by analysis - they're only backed by opinion and repetition. Even some of the mathematical analysis done here shows that some of the power opinions there are wrong.

(I believe you and I are on the same page here, Lines; so really I'm just expanding on your post).

Gtdead

2016-03-17, 07:32 AM

But the wizard can be a melee powerhouse =P

In all seriousness, what you're describing isn't a tier list, it's describing class roles. A tier list is a measure of how classes can contribute to wide variety of situations - the reason the fighter is lower on it than a wizard is a fighter's contribution is entirely taking and dealing damage, while a wizard can also absorb and deal damage but can also contribute in a variety of ways the fighter cannot.

Agreed, but you need to consider first what a tier list is, not just take the 3.5 tier list as an example. Because if you think about it, even 3.5 follows the same basic principles. Gauging the relative power of a class compared to the most neutral one.

In 3.5, traditionally, that's the fighter. If a class can perform better, it goes a tier up, if it performs worse, then a tier down. But first we need to rank the individual qualities of a class compared to a neutral class that has only the most basic of features, and if there isn't one (which 5e has gone to extreme lengths to do), then create one (like basic proficiency scaling, normal ASI, standard point buy, simple weapons, no armor, 1d8 hd, etc).

And after we rank the individual qualities, add them all together and list them in a decending order. If there is a point where the number drops significantly, then we can name all the classes that come next as a lower tier.

Example of a tier list thought process with clear criteria: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=544761

Lines

2016-03-17, 07:39 AM

That's what the current tier list is doing (the other thread): basically making a power ranking instead of a contribution ranking. These are two entirely different metrics.

Heck, the OP of that thread even quoted me here saying that I'm wrong that the 3.X tier list is the standard and that it has changed to mean something else for 5e (with absolutely no explanation in that other thread that there's a difference).

I just looked at that thread's opening post, and it even says that it's a direct power measurement (buried in the text, not out in the open) - so that OP is changing the tier list metric from one of contribution to one of power.

As I said earlier, we have people who are literally trying to change the metric of the tier system into something much less useful than the original tier system (from a narrative power/contribution metric to a power metric) - with no warning that it has changed, and then claiming that this is the new way and everyone should intuitively know it. But this new way of measuring direct power isn't helpful, because the power differences claimed aren't backed by analysis - they're only backed by opinion and repetition. Even some of the mathematical analysis done here shows that some of the power opinions there are wrong.

(I believe you and I are on the same page here, Lines; so really I'm just expanding on your post).

Yeah, I'm actually pretty annoyed about that thread. Paraphrasing here (but you can read it to see that I'm just shortening the truth, not adding anything):

OP: Here's a tier list measuring how powerful classes and subclasses are, kind of, I mean I'm not actually sure what I'm measuring.
Me: Ok, first question - are you measuring A, B or C?
OP: Now that... is a damn good question! Here are a lot of words, none of which actually answer it.
Me: That's nice, but you haven't actually directly answered my question, what are we measuring exactly?
OP: *infinite silence*

Lines

2016-03-17, 07:41 AM

Agreed, but you need to consider first what a tier list is, not just take the 3.5 tier list as an example. Because if you think about it, even 3.5 follows the same basic principles. Gauging the relative power of a class compared to the most neutral one.

In 3.5, traditionally, that's the fighter. If a class can perform better, it goes a tier up, if it performs worse, then a tier down. But first we need to rank the individual qualities of a class compared to a neutral class that has only the most basic of features, and if there isn't one (which 5e has gone to extreme lengths to do), then create one (like basic proficiency scaling, normal ASI, standard point buy, simple weapons, no armor, 1d8 hd, etc).

And after we rank the individual qualities, add them all together and list them in a decending order. If there is a point where the number drops significantly, then we can name all the classes that come next as a lower tier.

Example of a tier list thought process with clear criteria: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=544761

Fighter was never the most neutral class, man. It was always near the bottom. It wasn't measuring power relative to what a basic class could do, it was measuring how many situations a class could contribute to and to what extent.

mgshamster

2016-03-17, 07:51 AM

A level 20 Beast Master with a Flying Snake, Longbow, Swift Quiver, and 20 Dexterity inflicts 55.675 DPR against AC 18. A Giant Poisonous Snake would do more, but a Flying Snake is easier to quantify due to not having a save against its damage, and it is easier to qualify due to Flyby rendering it quite safe from harm.

A level 20 Champion with a Halberd, PAM, GWM, GWF, and 20 Strength inflicts 50.67 DPR against AC 18. Twice per short rest he can increase that to 92.79 DPR for a single round.

So whichever you consider to be better really depends on whether you want to consider burst damage or damage per round, but aside from that, each does have room to grow.

The Ranger can be improved by the following means:
Having a Giant Poisonous Snake
Multiclassing: The Ranger gets very little to increase its DPR past level 11, Ranger 11/Rogue 9 would have significantly higher DPR.
Feats: Sharpshooter would increase the Ranger's DPR by 6.25 points.

The Fighter can be improved by the following means:
Magic weapons: Due to the Fighter's sheer volume of attacks, he benefits from the use of magic items far more than any other class.

They seem relatively equal to me - an average BM Ranger with a good companion will average higher damage than the optimized Fighter but burst for much less. They both have their strengths and neither overshadows the other.

I guess - based on the new tier list definitions - we should be ranking beastmaster higher than fighter now, because it requires an optimized fighter to beat an average beastmaster. What happens if we pick a different weapon? Like a mace or a dagger? Fighter drops in damage potential - and all of a sudden it's even worse!

That's one of the issues I have with all these BM comparisons - people always look at the weaker animals for the BM and the stronger weapons for the fighter and declare the fighter to be the clear winner. Here you are looking at a modetate animal and a strong weapon and all of a sudden they're about the same.

Shaofoo

2016-03-17, 07:56 AM

Quite frankly I am in the "tires don exits" kind of group.

But mostly it stems from beyond tires and into the actual discussion fallacies that people seem to get into tires or no tires.

I mean the Barbarian is the perfect example. People don't say Path of the Beserker or Path of the Totem, it is Frenzy Barbarian and Bearbarian. People only see the exhaustion from Frenzy or the all damage resistances from Bear and that is their metric, everything else is thrown out of the window. I remember a tier list that omitted Beserker Barbarians and when I said he did he put them at the bottom tier and only quoted Frenzy as his reason and even the most recent tier list was bit better but basically said "Everything below level 14 is trash, don't bother" and didn't count that they also are immune to fear and charm which I think is huge and while I also said that Intimidating presence is garbage I had to actually specify that tidbit.

A big problem with tier lists is that from where I stand they are a bit of a list of the list maker's favorite classes and part forum memes that have been repeated till all meaning is lost (Frenzy amiright, I mean what is the deal with Frenzy?). And that goes out the window the moment feats have their own tier lists and then we also have to discuss the power of multiclassing on its own.

If you wish to discuss classes I think a better way to do so is to just discuss each one individually, you can say that beserker Barbarians suck but at least give a reason instead of just parroting lolfrenzy.

Gtdead

2016-03-17, 07:57 AM

Fighter was never the most neutral class, man. It was always near the bottom. It wasn't measuring power relative to what a basic class could do, it was measuring how many situations a class could contribute to and to what extent.

Yes it did, but how the author reached his conclusions? But creating 3 scenarios and playtesting them in his mind? Or by using his experience to compare the relevant abilities of a class compared to what any player can do no matter the class?

I'm not saying that I know what the author thought at the time, but what seems more plausible? What would be the easier way to do this?

KorvinStarmast

2016-03-17, 08:12 AM

B.) You still haven't addressed the fact that even True Polymorph can't match the damage output of martials. TP into a dragon.
Dragon Breath. Against a group of creatures, that's a lot of damage.
Let's take a peak at an adult blue dragon
CR 16 which a level 17 caster can create.
12d10 damage (66 avg) in one breath, done to more than one creature.
save for half on a DC 19.
CR 17 Adult Red Dragon
Breath
18d6(63 avg)

Just one example where DPR can vary wildly depending upon the situation

In one hour, how many turns can the dragon fight, and how many attacks can it make?

With a recharge only coming one third of the time, le's for the sake of numbers ask: how many attacks can the TP caster make in 20 minutes. (Granted, caster will need to make a few Constitution saves to stay in dragon form, while the martial stays in martial form ...)

If the opponents are a horde of hobgoblins, bounded accuracy will catch up with the fighter, while the AoE nature of the dragon handles a hord nicely. Against a single creature ... it's a different story.

Lines

2016-03-17, 08:19 AM

Yes it did, but how the author reached his conclusions? But creating 3 scenarios and playtesting them in his mind? Or by using his experience to compare the relevant abilities of a class compared to what any player can do no matter the class?

I'm not saying that I know what the author thought at the time, but what seems more plausible? What would be the easier way to do this?

Only bit I'm objecting to is fighter as a baseline. 5 scenarios each was, as far as I'm aware, the test - what could each class do if preparing a city for the invasion of an army, acquire a dragon's treasure, etc.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-17, 08:39 AM

i'd like to see the BM ranger that bests PAM+GWM fighter. You get decent damage at best, and it goes down significantly if the beast dies (and with as little hp as it has, it's not going to last very long.)

A Giant Poisonous Snake with Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter is superior to that Fighter at several levels, while the Fighter is superior at others.

Since this is definitely in reply to my thread, Its only appropriate I reply.
Your thread is just a symptom of the disease. It was the most recent one to annoy me, but I'm really not targeting your thread in particular.

You are supposed to use different systems of measurement to measure different systems. You can't impose a 3rd edition tier list onto anything else, no one will say "Let's make a 40k Tier list using 3rd Edition DnD metrics" The 2 systems have evolved into completely different games
The point was that 3.P served a purpose. Some may quibble on that point, and they're free to do so, but at the end of the day the point was to group classes according to their ability to drastically alter the narrative in comparison to other classes.

The fact that 5e classes are so close to each other that the dubiously helpful 3.P chart cannot differentiate between them says quite a lot about 5e's balance. More importantly, it calls into question why there should be a tier to begin with.

I repeat: I'm not applying 3.P standards to 5e. I'm saying that the fact that the 3.P tiers don't recognize the inter-class differences in 5e classes calls into question the need for tiers. If every class is balanced enough to enjoyable for those inclined to play that class, then why should we break them into tiers when it's reductive and harmful to the community.

That's due to a lack of study into how classes should be grouped, categorized, and rated. Dismissing first attempts and conversation initiators as "Buzz Feed Drivel" is inherently disingenuous. On the level of "That's not a complete building, it's just a brick, and bricks break windows. You're just breaking windows." Starting a conversation and attempting to get a proper objective tier list requires the dialogue to be open, not dismissed.
It's not disingenuous, and at this point we're well past first attempts. I am absolutely genuine when I say that every single tier list so far supplied (and there have been many) has been Buzzfeed drivel, and they had plenty of time to move past Buzfeed level. They have not. Personally, I'd say it's disingenuous to claim that yours is a first attempt when there's a mountain of abandoned attempts looming over you, but I'd prefer to ask you to address my arguments instead of guessing at my motives.

I'm saying that not only does this Buzzfeed drivel accomplish nothing, it's harmful. What point would a tier list serve? If you're trying to get an "objective" tier list, why did you start with a Buzzfeed list instead of a thread asking how to define tiers in a meaningful way?

And my argument is more, "That's not a petting zoo, that's an empty lot with broken glass and a rabid coyote. Why would you send your children there?"

What I find to be dishonest, is believing that 5e (or basically any game system) is completely 100% balanced.
And no one made that claim.

What I said that the differences were small enough to render tier lists pointless and unhelpful. Worse, they're reductive and damaging to the greater meta conversation.

I would prefer that if you continue posting that you address the arguments that are actually being made.

A tool is not inherently evil, it's how you use the tool. If people want to use a tool for evil, then it was that person's choice. A Tier list is a tool, nothing more.
Nerve gas is just a tool. Sure, some make for fine insecticide, but I don't think you should drop them in the middle of communities.

Similarly, lists of which classes you personally prefer belong in a notebook with hearts penned in around the Moon Druid, not in a public discussion with airs of objectivity.

Beastmaster is a class with several faults, those faults don't go away even if a few minor very specific and often slightly exploitative builds exist.
It does have faults, but the number of "exploitative" builds that have been found useful include "Get a Boar, Wolf, Giant Badger, or Panther, and use its abilities," or, "If I have a poisonous snake I can milk it for poison," or, "I can fly on a dinosaur!" It's fun, it's far from broken, and it can be played perfectly well alongside other classes.

Now, there are plenty of reasons to talk about how Beast Masters can be fixed. That's perfectly fine. Plenty of people are still unhappy with the class, and they can homebrew all they want. This is D&D, after all. However, let's ask ourselves how tier lists contribute to that conversation...

They don't. They don't contribute at all.

Proper Tier lists are objective.
Proper tier lists start out with a clear and beneficial use, then move on to define the tiers in accordance with this use. So far, I have failed to see any problem within actual play that a tier list addresses, and you have not supplied one.

I believe the complete opposite, it strengthens the community when done properly. It gives players awareness of choices that might be below average, so they can avoid it. It's not fun going to a weekly meeting with a class you hate, while everyone feels like a hero, and you feel like a spectator.
But tiers don't help with fun. With such a relatively small difference in class power, especially before epic levels, they simply cause players to dismiss valid options. At various points, Rangers are well above the average damage curve and have fun features that many players find appealing. But it's ranked as a low-tier class because theroycrafters have decided it sucks, and that meme took off. And tier lists perpetuate this meme.

There simply aren't any classes that, in play, are totally eclipsed by others. It doesn't happen. At every table I've played 5e, what defined the character's narrative contribution to the plot was the player. Every class supplied enough options for players to affect the game. My Ranger outperformed an Evoker Wizard because I used my basic options well, and he didn't. My friend's Berserker was far from useless in actual play. Tier lists

Best part?
The DnD community ALREADY loves and heavily uses Tier list in literally EVERY class guide, we even have a consistent color coded system in place.
Class guides use rankings, but they are fundamentally designed to be aides. They are detailed accounts of what options are available and how they can be useful in order to introduce newbies to ways that they might build a solid character.

I personally make sure to recommend that people try out anything that sounds fun, regardless of how I rate it, and I have a separate rank for situationally useful abilities that don't directly affect your primary capabilities, but can still be very useful.

Do you see the difference? The guides explain all the options that you have available, explain why some are a bad idea, and help people to build solid characters. They often offer ideas for many different builds that others might not have considered in order to help newbies to see the potential of the game. Tier lists simply denigrate some classes, elevate certain play styles, and push them on newbies.

One is complex and builds up the community. The other is reductive and poisons it.

A plot hook around someone important being killed is less effective when the party can just bring them back to life. A plot about getting somewhere and overcoming obstacles on the way is obviated by teleport and so on. The tier system for me is about what I have to cater to as DM.
That's more about the DM's understanding the capabilities of the players. In your example, knowing that three classes can accomplish this at high levels is helpful. However, tier lists don't aid with that. Moon Druids are consistently ranked above Lore Druids because of their combat potential, not their resurrection capabilities.

Similarly, knowing how different classes can contribute to different encounters or play types is important. I had to adjust my intrigue story when my players all showed up with heavy melee classes with soldier or mercenary backgrounds. I have to adjust encounters to bump up the HP of the primary enemy while limiting the number of enemies. I also have to pay attention to the Valor Bard's spells and the availability of certain components. Tiers don't help with this.

Perhaps a small analysis of each class' exploration, single-target damage, multi-target damage, and casting capacity would be useful for DMs. However, once the conversation turns to which class is better overall, it starts to degrade the overall meta.

Gwendol

2016-03-17, 09:39 AM

MrStabby

2016-03-17, 09:47 AM

If find it interesting to note that there is still no real answer to what a 5e tier list is supposed to accomplish, or the metrics used for tiering, or how a specific tier is defined. Instead we do indeed get "buzzfeed drivel" and popularity charts and unspecific bias.

Well I did suggest that a good tier list would be a tool that new DMs could use to understand where to focus their energies when ensuring their encounters/campaigns don't come apart at the seams.

I don't think it was a well received suggestion though so you may want to look elsewhere.

CantigThimble

2016-03-17, 09:52 AM

KorvinStarmast

2016-03-17, 09:54 AM

Well I did suggest that a good tier list would be a tool that new DMs could use to understand where to focus their energies when ensuring their encounters/campaigns don't come apart at the seams.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. With 12 classes, which mix of four or five (or 6) put together make a party able to take on a broad variety of encounters? That IMO is that a DM needs to look out for. The DM then can look into how to build encounters that showcase/allow to shine a given class or specialty.

Shaofoo

2016-03-17, 10:03 AM

Well I did suggest that a good tier list would be a tool that new DMs could use to understand where to focus their energies when ensuring their encounters/campaigns don't come apart at the seams.

I don't think it was a well received suggestion though so you may want to look elsewhere.

To me the biggest thing that DMs can do is to enforce time limits, not necessarily "Do this in X time or you fail" but rather "Do this in X time or reinforcements will arrive or the situation will have changed too much"

Also basically to not have the entire campaign hinge on a singular roll or event.

Magic users might be able to do a lot but they have a literal amount that they can do before they can literally do them no more. They will either have to balance casting a spell for combat or saving it for a future encounter.

Even at the highest levels where wizards can sneak into a safespace to rest up the world should still change even as they rest especially if the alarm is sound.

I think part of this is that in discussion we basically give wizards infinite spell slots because when we theory craft we always start with them at 100% and everytime a new situation arrives the Wizard will be at 100% for every single theory-crafting event, effectively doing the 5MWD.

Lines

2016-03-17, 10:13 AM

I think part of this is that in discussion we basically give wizards infinite spell slots because when we theory craft we always start with them at 100% and everytime a new situation arrives the Wizard will be at 100% for every single theory-crafting event, effectively doing the 5MWD.

Nobody does this. If it was a thing you'd see people pointing to disintegrate as a source of damage, but people are well aware that would be stupid since you're getting a moderate amount of damage for one round and trading a high level spell for it.

Gwendol

2016-03-17, 10:24 AM

EvilAnagram

2016-03-17, 10:32 AM

Shaofoo

2016-03-17, 10:36 AM

Nobody does this. If it was a thing you'd see people pointing to disintegrate as a source of damage, but people are well aware that would be stupid since you're getting a moderate amount of damage for one round and trading a high level spell for it.

You missed my point completely dude.

I mean if you read the rest of my sentence you would see that I was talking about theorycrafting and not actual combat (which theorycrafting is adverse to).

I am saying that whenever we talk about wizards in a sterile environment they are always at 100%, all spells ready and willing to go. Very few will take that same wizard to the next environment and remember the expended stuff, rather they'll trash the used wizard and have a new wizard ready to go.

Of course no one will say that they are giving infinite slots or purposefully doing the 5MWD but that is why it is a fallacy that people get themselves into.

Sure in real play constantly casting Disintegrate is bad for just damage but for purposes of DPR calculations all that matters is how far can I stretch the Disintegrates and then after that it doesn't matter, no one is going to go to a new thread and go "Well my wizard WOULD be able to cast Teleport but since I used Disintegrate one thread before I guess I can't do that anymore" but rather we take a fresh wizard into a fresh topic as if we didn't spend the previous topic blasting rays of death.

Lines

2016-03-17, 10:45 AM

Kalmageddon

2016-03-17, 10:51 AM

Lines

2016-03-17, 11:08 AM

Yup, this.

How? It never told anyone how to play the game, it was a tool to differentiate how capable each class was of solving problems. The closest it came was suggesting people play within a couple of tiers of each other, which I wholeheartedly support - a game with a dread necromancer, binder, warblade and warlock will have the party feel much more challenged and give everyone a chance to shine, unlike a game with a druid, wizard, fighter and ranger in which the first two will quickly outclass the second two and eventually reach a point where the fighter and rangers job is to carry their stuff and sometimes execute the enemies the first two have incapacitated.

Shaofoo

2016-03-17, 11:09 AM

No, you missed my point completely. You said that whenever we talk about wizards in a sterile environment they are always at 100%, all spells ready and willing to go and I said that if that were true, people would point to disintegrate as a good source of damage, which they do not do because in the context of a day longer than 5 minutes, it's a waste of a spell.

You seem to be arguing from the point that infinite spell slots are intentionally given.

in a sterile environment they are usually talking about a singular event: get to somewhere, fix something, deal damage to X and so on.

A sterile environment does not include an actual day unless the discussion actually says that it takes into consideration the full day (which it never does). A sterile environment might just be saying "Wizards can cast meteors, summon storms and even stop time" without saying the context as to how or when you can do them or even if it is appropriate (You aren't going to do any of these all at once in a day).

You are basically arguing as if people are intentionally giving people infinite slots to wizards while I was talking about spiritual infinite spell slors, in the same sense that people have memed that 20th level Moon Druids are unkillable even though they really don't have infinite HP. The spell slots are still limited but the limitation is reset as soon as the event ends.

So sure people might not say Disintegrate is the best DPR but I have seen people tailor craft Wizards to the specific situations (Would a Wizard use his infinite 1st level spell slot on Knock? Someone did that just to prove that they can unlock a door better than a Rogue) and after said situation blew over that Wizard was never heard from again, Knock Wizard fell off the face of the earth.

That is my point, but lets get back on topic.

Lines

2016-03-17, 11:33 AM

You seem to be arguing from the point that infinite spell slots are intentionally given.
Nothing I've said has indicated that even slightly.

in a sterile environment they are usually talking about a singular event: get to somewhere, fix something, deal damage to X and so on.

A sterile environment does not include an actual day unless the discussion actually says that it takes into consideration the full day (which it never does). A sterile environment might just be saying "Wizards can cast meteors, summon storms and even stop time" without saying the context as to how or when you can do them or even if it is appropriate (You aren't going to do any of these all at once in a day).

You are basically arguing as if people are intentionally giving people infinite slots to wizards while I was talking about spiritual infinite spell slors, in the same sense that people have memed that 20th level Moon Druids are unkillable even though they really don't have infinite HP. The spell slots are still limited but the limitation is reset as soon as the event ends.

So sure people might not say Disintegrate is the best DPR but I have seen people tailor craft Wizards to the specific situations (Would a Wizard use his infinite 1st level spell slot on Knock? Someone did that just to prove that they can unlock a door better than a Rogue) and after said situation blew over that Wizard was never heard from again, Knock Wizard fell off the face of the earth.
I'm saying intentionally and spiritually are pretty much the same thing in this kind of context. Acting like disintegrate means wizards have high damage doesn't need an explicit assumption that they have infinite spell slots, it's directly implying it.

And in play moon druids at 20 do tend to be unkillable, in practise very few things in the monster manual have a reasonable chance of killing one. You're right knock wise, pretty much every single wizard puts his infinite level 1 spell as shield.

Regitnui

2016-03-17, 11:34 AM

CantigThimble

2016-03-17, 11:44 AM

Honestly, this is one of my major arguments against the whole optimizer mindset. If you're playing something "because it's the best" not because you have a character concept you enjoy. It's a roleplaying game. You're playing a role, not a collection of optimized stats.

To be fair, it is entirely possible to pick a build because it is mechanically strong and then roleplay the character really well. And lots of people do enjoy powerful character concepts. The issue is not 'Too much time spent optimizing' it's 'Too little time spent developing roleplay'. Those two things may be correlated in some cases but the first does not cause the second.

Lines

2016-03-17, 11:44 AM

Honestly, this is one of my major arguments against the whole optimizer mindset. If you're playing something "because it's the best" not because you have a character concept you enjoy. It's a roleplaying game. You're playing a role, not a collection of optimized stats.

The two are in no way mutually exclusive.

On a personal I'd much prefer to work out a mechanical concept and use that as a skeleton to build a character around than come up with a character and have to twist and alter it to fit whichever mechanical build comes closest.

CantigThimble

2016-03-17, 11:48 AM

The two are in no way mutually exclusive.

On a personal I'd much prefer to work out a mechanical concept and use that as a skeleton to build a character around than come up with a character and have to twist and alter it to fit whichever mechanical build comes closest.

This too. Mechanics can inspire roleplay. If you play a lawful good knowledge cleric then you need to figure out how their personality squares with the ability to frequently and undetectably read and write people's minds.

MrStabby

2016-03-17, 11:56 AM

This too. Mechanics can inspire roleplay. If you play a lawful good knowledge cleric then you need to figure out how their personality squares with the ability to frequently and undetectably read and write people's minds.

Police are lawful

Secret police are secret lawful?

Regitnui

2016-03-17, 12:07 PM

To be fair, it is entirely possible to pick a build because it is mechanically strong and then roleplay the character really well. And lots of people do enjoy powerful character concepts. The issue is not 'Too much time spent optimizing' it's 'Too little time spent developing roleplay'. Those two things may be correlated in some cases but the first does not cause the second.

No, I can see where you're coming from. I'd much rather have someone playing the four elements monk with dreams of being Korra or Aang than someone playing the wizard off an online tier list and other people's opinions. Perhaps it comes from my MtG hobby, where netdecking is considered less favourably than creating your own deck from scratch.

CantigThimble

2016-03-17, 12:17 PM

Police are lawful

Secret police are secret lawful?

I actually have a Lawful Good Noble Cleric of Savras I've been working this out for. Based on the lore of Savras (seek the hidden motive before you act, It is not wrong to use the knowledge Savras gives you to help yourself and your church, speak only the truth, for lies and misdirection, even for benign motives, are the root of all sorrow) and his rank as a nobleman I've decided that he really believes that all knowledge is his by right. To keep secrets from him is both immoral and an offense to his stature. He knows he's the best motivated and informed to make decisions so he should make them for common people when it's important. That's his job after all. He's very compassionate and selfless... but in a way most people would probably find disturbing if they fully understood it.

None of this was a part of his original character concept (Which, as it was my first time with the system and I didn't own the books, basically consisted of "I'll play cleric." "Which domain?" "Ummm, that one.") but it kinda had to be once I realized just how crazy that ability is.

Regitnui

2016-03-17, 12:26 PM

I actually have a Lawful Good Noble Cleric of Savras I've been working this out for. Based on the lore of Savras (seek the hidden motive before you act, It is not wrong to use the knowledge Savras gives you to help yourself and your church, speak only the truth, for lies and misdirection, even for benign motives, are the root of all sorrow) and his rank as a nobleman I've decided that he really believes that all knowledge is his by right. To keep secrets from him is both immoral and an offense to his stature. He knows he's the best motivated and informed to make decisions so he should make them for common people when it's important. That's his job after all. He's very compassionate and selfless... but in a way most people would probably find disturbing if they fully understood it.

None of this was a part of his original character concept (Which, as it was my first time with the system and I didn't own the books, basically consisted of "I'll play cleric." "Which domain?" "Ummm, that one.") but it kinda had to be once I realized just how crazy that ability is.

Great concept. I like the idea because it offers plenty of potential for inter-party dynamics, and opportunities for the DM to start hooking you in. One example would be a dragon scouting the city for a potential lair, or an average joe entertaining the thought of stabbing a priest who's been proselytizing for too long. How would your character react, and what would the rest of the party think when you accuse what looks like a harmless older gentleman of wanting to tyrannize the city for his hoard, or warn off a good man for entertaining an idle thought?

CantigThimble

2016-03-17, 12:36 PM

Great concept. I like the idea because it offers plenty of potential for inter-party dynamics, and opportunities for the DM to start hooking you in. One example would be a dragon scouting the city for a potential lair, or an average joe entertaining the thought of stabbing a priest who's been proselytizing for too long. How would your character react, and what would the rest of the party think when you accuse what looks like a harmless older gentleman of wanting to tyrannize the city for his hoard, or warn off a good man for entertaining an idle thought?

Exactly! And he wouldn't have been nearly as interesting of a character without the mechanical aspects of the game. If I had started out building a story or personality and then looked for ways to interpret it mechanically then I can practically guarantee he wouldn't have been as good, or at least he would have been something much closer to my comfort zone. There are certainly some people who can produce good stories and good characters on their own but lots of others (like me) really need something to work off of or we just end up with pretty uninspired and repetitive roleplay.

Pex

2016-03-17, 12:48 PM

How? It never told anyone how to play the game, it was a tool to differentiate how capable each class was of solving problems. The closest it came was suggesting people play within a couple of tiers of each other, which I wholeheartedly support - a game with a dread necromancer, binder, warblade and warlock will have the party feel much more challenged and give everyone a chance to shine, unlike a game with a druid, wizard, fighter and ranger in which the first two will quickly outclass the second two and eventually reach a point where the fighter and rangers job is to carry their stuff and sometimes execute the enemies the first two have incapacitated.

That right there, the Tier System telling you how to play.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a fighter and monk in the same party as a wizard and druid.

Here I go again. There are four groups who use the Tier System as gospel telling you how to play the game.

Group 1: Tier 1 is an abomination. How dare players have such power. Ban! Ban! Ban! Spellcasters, every time all time the time, always have the exact spell needed when they need it as well as any applicable feat to autowin everything. Even Tier 2 is suspect. Monsters always fail their saving throws, and there are absolutely no consequences whatsoever for animating dead or binding outer plane beings.

Group 2: Tier 4 and below are terrible. They can't do anything. Feats never work. They always fail their will saving throws. They're a waste of space and need a spellcaster to buff them to be able to do anything, wasting the spellcasters' time and resources when they could be doing more important and effective things. Better buy a spellcaster a pearl of power if you want a buff, bucky.

Group 3: Tier 3 is the One True Way. If you are not playing in Tier 3 you are playing the game wrong. This is how it was meant to be. It is absolutely perfect in every way. I feel sorry for those who play in other tiers. Everything should be Tier 3.

Group 4: The Tier System is exactly why 3E is terrible. It is a horrible game and no one should play it. I play (insert game) instead, and it is absolutely better in every way. You should play (insert game) or perhaps (insert suggested game). Everything works so well.

Hyperbole, perhaps, but this is the message presented by Tier System Advocates.

KorvinStarmast

2016-03-17, 12:57 PM

Quite frankly I am in the "tires don exits" kind of group.

But mostly it stems from beyond tires and into the actual discussion fallacies that people seem to get into tires or no tires.
With no tires your car will roll roughly, at best.

If tires don exits then how will our cars roll? Those tires are putting on doors. Doors aren't usually round, unless you live in a hobbit hole, so the wheels won't roll, so your car won't go. (Not to mention problems with the wheel well clearances).

Puzzling.

Maybe this is a slang expression? "tires don exits" to grow weary and then to depart?

This post was brought to you by the Fun With Typos Foundation.

druid91

2016-03-17, 01:03 PM

You missed my point completely dude.

I mean if you read the rest of my sentence you would see that I was talking about theorycrafting and not actual combat (which theorycrafting is adverse to).

I am saying that whenever we talk about wizards in a sterile environment they are always at 100%, all spells ready and willing to go. Very few will take that same wizard to the next environment and remember the expended stuff, rather they'll trash the used wizard and have a new wizard ready to go.

Of course no one will say that they are giving infinite slots or purposefully doing the 5MWD but that is why it is a fallacy that people get themselves into.

Sure in real play constantly casting Disintegrate is bad for just damage but for purposes of DPR calculations all that matters is how far can I stretch the Disintegrates and then after that it doesn't matter, no one is going to go to a new thread and go "Well my wizard WOULD be able to cast Teleport but since I used Disintegrate one thread before I guess I can't do that anymore" but rather we take a fresh wizard into a fresh topic as if we didn't spend the previous topic blasting rays of death.

Simulacrum spam means you actually CAN swap out your wizard for a fresh one. If you want to be really mean you could cast the initial Simulacrum out of a spell gem to conserve that spell slot for the chain.

Then Wish Etc. Sure it's not completely advantageous. But it works and is 'good enough'.

This entirely disregards the tendency to give fighters the absolute best circumstances in their favor. They don't have to track the wizard halfway across the continent, find a secret lair, fight their way through traps and conjured/animated minions before finally getting to the wizards sanctum.

No, they start ten feet away from each other! Roll initiative!

Why isn't the reverse true for wizards? Teleportation! Bam. Wizard appears in the fighters inn while he's sleeping. Or rather a simulacrum appears in the inn. Casts power word: kill. And suddenly there's no more fighter.

Don't get me wrong. Martial classes got a much needed power boost. And Casters got pushed off their high shelf. But they've still got enough tricks in their bag to make them head and shoulders more versatile, and in many ways more powerful. They just slowed down how long it takes.

obryn

2016-03-17, 01:10 PM

Kalmageddon

2016-03-17, 01:12 PM

That right there, the Tier System telling you how to play.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a fighter and monk in the same party as a wizard and druid.

Here I go again. There are four groups who use the Tier System as gospel telling you how to play the game.

Group 1: Tier 1 is an abomination. How dare players have such power. Ban! Ban! Ban! Spellcasters, every time all time the time, always have the exact spell needed when they need it as well as any applicable feat to autowin everything. Even Tier 2 is suspect. Monsters always fail their saving throws, and there are absolutely no consequences whatsoever for animating dead or binding outer plane beings.

Group 2: Tier 4 and below are terrible. They can't do anything. Feats never work. They always fail their will saving throws. They're a waste of space and need a spellcaster to buff them to be able to do anything, wasting the spellcasters' time and resources when they could be doing more important and effective things. Better buy a spellcaster a pearl of power if you want a buff, bucky.

Group 3: Tier 3 is the One True Way. If you are not playing in Tier 3 you are playing the game wrong. This is how it was meant to be. It is absolutely perfect in every way. I feel sorry for those who play in other tiers. Everything should be Tier 3.

Group 4: The Tier System is exactly why 3E is terrible. It is a horrible game and no one should play it. I play (insert game) instead, and it is absolutely better in every way. You should play (insert game) or perhaps (insert suggested game). Everything works so well.

Hyperbole, perhaps, but this is the message presented by Tier System Advocates.

Again, well said.
This is also the reason why I dislike tiers in general, be it in videogames, ttrpgs or others. It curbs creativity in favour of being told what is good and what isn't by essentially one person with all his bias, mistakes and theorycrafting. Tiers make the metagame stagnant.
In the context of D&D, a heavy amount of theorycrafting was involved in their creation. Its premise is completely devoid of context or any realistic assumption on how people play or how the typical GM handles things. The result is a "guide" for playing the game in the exact opposite way it was meant to be played.
Can we NOT have that for 5th edition?

Regitnui

2016-03-17, 01:20 PM

Exactly! And he wouldn't have been nearly as interesting of a character without the mechanical aspects of the game. If I had started out building a story or personality and then looked for ways to interpret it mechanically then I can practically guarantee he wouldn't have been as good, or at least he would have been something much closer to my comfort zone. There are certainly some people who can produce good stories and good characters on their own but lots of others (like me) really need something to work off of or we just end up with pretty uninspired and repetitive roleplay.

I'm not saying either approach is better or worse, just that I like having the concept from the beginning to hook players in from the start.

Shaofoo

2016-03-17, 01:26 PM

I'm saying intentionally and spiritually are pretty much the same thing in this kind of context. Acting like disintegrate means wizards have high damage doesn't need an explicit assumption that they have infinite spell slots, it's directly implying it.

Intentionally means I write an infinity symbol in every available slot in the sheet.

Spiritually means acting like there is no limit even though the slots are limited I just disregard it. The slots are for all intents and purposes limited but they don't act like it. Throw 10 Disintegrates at once and you'll be slapped down but say you cast a Meteor Storm and later on act like you can cast Time Stop is the point I am raising. People don't act like slots are limited even though they do know about it. If I pace my spells then I can act like I have infinite spells.

And in play moon druids at 20 do tend to be unkillable, in practise very few things in the monster manual have a reasonable chance of killing one. You're right knock wise, pretty much every single wizard puts his infinite level 1 spell as shield.

This perfectly explains my point.

The point is that people act like they are unkillable and as if they have infinite HP even though there are ways to circumvent this (you will take damage if the HP goes over and you can still be afflicted with status effects that extend through transformations). See you are talking unkillable as if you can take a one on one battle with anyone in the MM in a neutral enviroment with no other factors in mind when I can create a monster to deal with the moon Druid quite easy (Slap a wizard with power Word Kill, dead Druid by the book and a bunch of other spells to boot, what is the highest HP form that a Druid can assume by the book?).

Theory craft is theory, you can't use that in actual play since you take out so many variables that it becomes pointless to actually assess play.

Druids do not have an infinity symbol over their HP even though people act like they do because that is the meme. Just like pacing my spells means I can easily sneak out the fact that spells are a finite resource.

Simulacrum spam means you actually CAN swap out your wizard for a fresh one. If you want to be really mean you could cast the initial Simulacrum out of a spell gem to conserve that spell slot for the chain.

Then Wish Etc. Sure it's not completely advantageous. But it works and is 'good enough'.

This entirely disregards the tendency to give fighters the absolute best circumstances in their favor. They don't have to track the wizard halfway across the continent, find a secret lair, fight their way through traps and conjured/animated minions before finally getting to the wizards sanctum.

No, they start ten feet away from each other! Roll initiative!

Why isn't the reverse true for wizards? Teleportation! Bam. Wizard appears in the fighters inn while he's sleeping. Or rather a simulacrum appears in the inn. Casts power word: kill. And suddenly there's no more fighter.

Don't get me wrong. Martial classes got a much needed power boost. And Casters got pushed off their high shelf. But they've still got enough tricks in their bag to make them head and shoulders more versatile, and in many ways more powerful. They just slowed down how long it takes.

The point isn't that you can actually have a fresh wizard with Simulacrum (a horrible spell that should never have seen the light of day) but the fact that people act like spells are not a finite resource if you pace yourself long enough, which it isn't true in play. If you want me to assume that all theorycrafted wizards are actually simulacrums then please say so.

But again you can just drop tons of spells on a single guy (while also assuming that you got ruby dust as well, a common misconception that all expensive material components are always available) and then teleport and rest up and do it again, right? That kind of attitude is what I mean. I don't tend to count PVP for game balance reasons.

Wizards are the kings of the 5MWD still, but apparently when it comes to theorycrafting 5MWD is the standard even when they didn't mean to.

Shaofoo

2016-03-17, 01:29 PM

With no tires your car will roll roughly, at best.

If tires don exits then how will our cars roll? Those tires are putting on doors. Doors aren't usually round, unless you live in a hobbit hole, so the wheels won't roll, so your car won't go. (Not to mention problems with the wheel well clearances).

Puzzling.

Maybe this is a slang expression? "tires don exits" to grow weary and then to depart?

This post was brought to you by the Fun With Typos Foundation.

It isn't a typo if I meant it.

Now if you'll excuse me I have to remove items from foxes before I reach my final destination.

druid91

2016-03-17, 01:35 PM

Again, well said.
This is also the reason why I dislike tiers in general, be it in videogames, ttrpgs or others. It curbs creativity in favour of being told what is good and what isn't by essentially one person with all his bias, mistakes and theorycrafting. Tiers make the metagame stagnant.
In the context of D&D, a heavy amount of theorycrafting was involved in their creation. Its premise is completely devoid of context or any realistic assumption on how people play or how the typical GM handles things. The result is a "guide" for playing the game in the exact opposite way it was meant to be played.
Can we NOT have that for 5th edition?

While generally, I'm going to say that I'm not for or against tiers really. If they happen to be a useful tool, so be it.

The point was not 'how DO people play' but 'how CAN people play'

If your GM bans wizards. That's him literally breaking the rules and remaking them. This is part of the hobby, because sometimes people just don't enjoy playing with certain features. Sometimes a spell isn't well thought out or just makes things work in a way they don't like. Some people prefer physical transportation to teleporters. Some people prefer all sorts of things. And while that's part of the hobby, it's not part of the game.

The tier system took what the classes could do crunchwise. and compared it. It wasn't about outright power so much as it was about strategic versatility. A wizard was tier one and a sorcerer wasn't, because a Wizard could learn every arcane spell and swap them out every day depending on what they needed to do that day. If they found something they couldn't deal with, well. Reserve an escape spell. Use it and then reprepare for the next go.

Quite bluntly, the tiers weren't just handed down from on high by one dude and then accepted as unquestionable wisdom and truth. They were a living system that even adjusted a few times to account for things. Including making the brand new tier 0 for stuff like spell to power Erudites. They were frequently referenced not for some arbitrary reason but because they were at least somewhat accurate.

There is no one way the game is meant to be played. And quite bluntly, we already have a sense of tiers. It might not be as formal as 3.5's tier system. But people already know how things balance out. And trying to shout them into silence by saying "LALALALALALALA EVERYTHING IS EVEN LALALALALA" isn't going to work.

You'd be much better off convincing people maligning your favorite option WHY it's decent. Beastmaster ranger for example, Elks rock face early on.

Talamare

2016-03-17, 01:36 PM

Class guides use rankings, but they are fundamentally designed to be aides. They are detailed accounts of what options are available and how they can be useful in order to introduce newbies to ways that they might build a solid character.

I personally make sure to recommend that people try out anything that sounds fun, regardless of how I rate it, and I have a separate rank for situationally useful abilities that don't directly affect your primary capabilities, but can still be very useful.

Do you see the difference? The guides explain all the options that you have available, explain why some are a bad idea, and help people to build solid characters. They often offer ideas for many different builds that others might not have considered in order to help newbies to see the potential of the game. Tier lists simply denigrate some classes, elevate certain play styles, and push them on newbies.

One is complex and builds up the community. The other is reductive and poisons it..

Tier list use rankings, but they are fundamentally designed to be aides. They are detailed accounts of what options are available and how they can be useful in order to introduce newbies to ways that they might build a solid character.

Forgive me that my class guide for all the classes at the same time is at its infancy, When I get home from work I planned on increasing the detail on most of it.

The point is that people act like they are unkillable and as if they have infinite HP even though there are ways to circumvent this (you will take damage if the HP goes over and you can still be afflicted with status effects that extend through transformations). See you are talking unkillable as if you can take a one on one battle with anyone in the MM in a neutral enviroment with no other factors in mind when I can create a monster to deal with the moon Druid quite easy (Slap a wizard with power Word Kill, dead Druid by the book and a bunch of other spells to boot, what is the highest HP form that a Druid can assume by the book?).

Theory craft is theory, you can't use that in actual play since you take out so many variables that it becomes pointless to actually assess play.

Druids do not have an infinity symbol over their HP even though people act like they do because that is the meme. Just like pacing my spells means I can easily sneak out the fact that spells are a finite resource.

Most monsters aren't supposed to be able to metagame the proper way to kill a Druid

Shaofoo

2016-03-17, 01:41 PM

Most monsters aren't supposed to be able to metagame the proper way to kill a Druid

Cast a single useful spell is metagaming? Really what is the highest HP that a Druid can have in animal form? Why wouldn't the big bad wish to kill the supposedly unkillable beast? Seems to me that the supposed infinite HP sponge would be the best target for the spell that kills regardless. He knows the druid gets hurt so he can probably wait a couple of rounds for the mooks to soften him up and then seal the deal.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-17, 01:42 PM

I dunno, seems to me like there's been more than enough rather definitive play experience which says that - at least at levels >10 - a tier list is appropriate. Just because it's not the same as the 3e tier list doesn't mean it's not there.

The OP seemed like it is asking players to more or less ignore real differences in class flexibility and power and just pretend like they aren't there (or at least not to talk about them). At best, that means you've decided to fool yourself. At worst, it means you're fooling players who will otherwise run into issues on accident.

The point I was making is that the differences between classes are minor. 5e may not have the same level of balance as 4e, but the scale of the differences are minor enough that they will not negatively affect party dynamics. Even if a Wizard turns into a dragon for a bit, the Fighter will still feel useful. My play has been primarily 12 and below, and at no point gave I seen meaningful differences in overall capability. My Beast Master was no less useful to the party than my Transmutation Wizard. Those characters made it to levels 15 and 13 respectively (I did multiclass the Ranger into Rogue for those last three levels) and they were both extremely successful.

Tier lists tend to exaggerate the differences between classes, leaving newbies with false impressions of relative power levels and driving people away from perfectly good classes. By all means, discuss the problems and benefits of each class, but trying to make a community tier list to pretend that subjective opinions have some sort of legitimacy is a reductive and ultimately harmful exercise.

druid91

2016-03-17, 01:48 PM

Intentionally means I write an infinity symbol in every available slot in the sheet.

Spiritually means acting like there is no limit even though the slots are limited I just disregard it. The slots are for all intents and purposes limited but they don't act like it. Throw 10 Disintegrates at once and you'll be slapped down but say you cast a Meteor Storm and later on act like you can cast Time Stop is the point I am raising. People don't act like slots are limited even though they do know about it. If I pace my spells then I can act like I have infinite spells.

This perfectly explains my point.

The point is that people act like they are unkillable and as if they have infinite HP even though there are ways to circumvent this (you will take damage if the HP goes over and you can still be afflicted with status effects that extend through transformations). See you are talking unkillable as if you can take a one on one battle with anyone in the MM in a neutral enviroment with no other factors in mind when I can create a monster to deal with the moon Druid quite easy (Slap a wizard with power Word Kill, dead Druid by the book and a bunch of other spells to boot, what is the highest HP form that a Druid can assume by the book?).

Theory craft is theory, you can't use that in actual play since you take out so many variables that it becomes pointless to actually assess play.

Druids do not have an infinity symbol over their HP even though people act like they do because that is the meme. Just like pacing my spells means I can easily sneak out the fact that spells are a finite resource.

Sure, there are ways to circumvent this. But how often are you going to run into a wizard with power word kill? This is actually a problem I've been having in my own game recently. But the issue is essentially, if you need a highly specific, rare, ability to bypass a defense... well.... it becomes quite contrived if you do that constantly. Randomly. Without ANY reason apart from the OOC need to 'kill that druid' it's kinda like the old meme about the town guards being 20th level adventuring dragons shapeshifted into town guards. Sure it could happen but it's kind of... ridiculous.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-17, 01:49 PM

Tier list use rankings, but they are fundamentally designed to be aides. They are detailed accounts of what options are available and how they can be useful in order to introduce newbies to ways that they might build a solid character.
They are not detailed, they don't explain what options are available, and they don't explain how these options can be useful. They are literally lists that usually have less than a sentence to justify each entry, and they rarely take into account anything more than popularity or first impressions. You're actually just lying now.

Edit: And even now you haven't been able to address any of my points? What purpose does a tier list serve other than to denigrate some classes and laud others? How are they helpful? How is calling your ad hoc list of favorites a tier system not dishonest? How does it not reduce the quality of discourse?

Talamare

2016-03-17, 01:49 PM

Cast a single useful spell is metagaming? Really what is the highest HP that a Druid can have in animal form? Why wouldn't the big bad wish to kill the supposedly unkillable beast? Seems to me that the supposed infinite HP sponge would be the best target for the spell that kills regardless. He knows the druid gets hurt so he can probably wait a couple of rounds for the mooks to soften him up and then seal the deal.

Most monsters aren't supposed to be able to metagame the proper way to kill a Druid

Designing a Monster with enough intelligence and the skills to do so is called metagaming, well actually probably not even. It might just be the DM being a *cough*... excuse me allergies, I was going to say nice guy for DMing all these weeks for us.

TrollCapAmerica

2016-03-17, 02:13 PM

"No kid dont worry your 5 Int grappler Wizard is just fine and dont let those mean old optimizers stop you from doing you want"

The tier lists were meant for honest rational discussion AND to bring attention to the effect of the game imbalance particularly before inexperienced DMs suddenly had solar daisy chains D2 Crusaders and all Druids crapping all over their games that expected blaster wizards healbot Clerics and useful Fighters

Its not needed in 5E because of the massively better balance BUT archtype imbalance still exists. No matter how much sugarcoating millennial babysitting goes on here [and its the main reason I rarely come here anymore] there are still bad archtypes and bad ideas that can crop up. Modres sword sucks Bladelock is sub-par and Berserker has one useful feature at lv14 while Diviner Wizards still say "I win" a few times a day Bards do everything well and Polearm Master/GWM put out more damage than anything else

EvilAnagram

2016-03-17, 02:38 PM

Snip

I'm not arguing against optimizing, and I'm not saying 5e is perfect, though it sounds like that tirade has been building for a while.

I'm saying that 5e tier lists are pointless wastes of time that can only hurt the community. Even Berserkers are perfectly playable, especially if someone keeps a Lesser Restoration handy. The strength of the core classes make even sub-par choices underwhelming at worst, so having tier lists that just push players towards a handful of choices will only harm the community.

Also, wasn't it shown that the Crossbow Expert Fighter had the best DPR?

druid91

2016-03-17, 02:44 PM

And even now you haven't been able to address any of my points? What purpose does a tier list serve other than to denigrate some classes and laud others? How are they helpful? How is calling your ad hoc list of favorites a tier system not dishonest? How does it not reduce the quality of discourse?

Ok. The issue with that is you're essentially just reducing, "This is my take on how these classes stack up and this is why." to "Well that's just your opinion. Treating it as fact is just dishonest."

I could see your point if say, someone just randomly listed the names of classes in order with no explanation whatsoever. But the 3.5 tiers this discussion is based on, didn't do that.

Also, a fighter in 3.5 was playable. It just didn't stack up well to a wizard without being a christmas tree.

They're better now, of course the issue then becomes them no longer having the christmas tree.

obryn

2016-03-17, 02:48 PM

The point I was making is that the differences between classes are minor. 5e may not have the same level of balance as 4e, but the scale of the differences are minor enough that they will not negatively affect party dynamics. Even if a Wizard turns into a dragon for a bit, the Fighter will still feel useful. My play has been primarily 12 and below, and at no point gave I seen meaningful differences in overall capability. My Beast Master was no less useful to the party than my Transmutation Wizard. Those characters made it to levels 15 and 13 respectively (I did multiclass the Ranger into Rogue for those last three levels) and they were both extremely successful.

Tier lists tend to exaggerate the differences between classes, leaving newbies with false impressions of relative power levels and driving people away from perfectly good classes. By all means, discuss the problems and benefits of each class, but trying to make a community tier list to pretend that subjective opinions have some sort of legitimacy is a reductive and ultimately harmful exercise.
So what you're arguing about is the peculiar arrangement of this data? That several threads such as "everyone hates my wizard because i rock" and "help, my beastmaster is terrible" is preferable to having a quick list you can point to that says - more or less - which classes are more vs. less versatile, and which classes lag behind the curve at higher levels?

That still seems like you're trying to sugarcoat or gloss over potential problems, and shut down discussion of 5e's class balance problems with a big picture-filled OP you can link to whenever someone says the word 'tier.'

pwykersotz

2016-03-17, 02:51 PM

That still seems like you're trying to sugarcoat or gloss over potential problems, and shut down discussion of 5e's class balance problems with a big picture-filled OP you can link to whenever someone says the word 'tier.'

The opposite. He's trying to move the discussion to nuanced and detail oriented levels instead of washing criticism away with "BM is tier 5, don't even bother.

CantigThimble

2016-03-17, 02:51 PM

Ok. The issue with that is you're essentially just reducing, "This is my take on how these classes stack up and this is why." to "Well that's just your opinion. Treating it as fact is just dishonest."

I could see your point if say, someone just randomly listed the names of classes in order with no explanation whatsoever. But the 3.5 tiers this discussion is based on, didn't do that.

Also, a fighter in 3.5 was playable. It just didn't stack up well to a wizard without being a christmas tree.

They're better now, of course the issue then becomes them no longer having the christmas tree.

But the discussion isn't based on 3.5 tier lists, it's based on people trying to shoehorn 5e into that same 3.5 tier list structure. He said repeatedly that tier lists meant something in 3.5 but no one has done a 5e tier list in a way that is helpful or objective.

Also, a general statement not specifically responding to your post: There is a difference between evaluating the mechanical strengths of character builds and making tier lists. Condemning one is not automatically the same as condemning the other.

TrollCapAmerica

2016-03-17, 02:51 PM

I'm not arguing against optimizing, and I'm not saying 5e is perfect, though it sounds like that tirade has been building for a while.

I'm saying that 5e tier lists are pointless wastes of time that can only hurt the community. Even Berserkers are perfectly playable, especially if someone keeps a Lesser Restoration handy. The strength of the core classes make even sub-par choices underwhelming at worst, so having tier lists that just push players towards a handful of choices will only harm the community.

Also, wasn't it shown that the Crossbow Expert Fighter had the best DPR?

In a vacuum a Frenzy Barb has good damage so long as you can ignore having to stuff his intestines back in every fight that he actually uses his class feature that replace what he could have had as a Totem Barb

You complain about a tier list "deluding" people into only playing one way"Id argue some good quality guidelines would be nice so somebody doesnt end up bored once they have have played a Avatar Monk or Champion Fighter and been bored right back to playing WOW and League instead. Hell the main argument of the old tier list was to watch what you do avoid breaking he game and how the mid tier choices could be really fun. Considering that 5E is mostly mid tier choices the game breakers extremely rare and the sub-par choices pretty glaring I dont think any of this hurts

Of course the sad state of this board can easily be pointed out by how many pages this thing has debating the discussion compared to the atual topic [Which I found second] where people still think Moon Druid turning into a big goat and getting killed once a round at lv20 is still good

druid91

2016-03-17, 02:58 PM

But the discussion isn't based on 3.5 tier lists, it's based on people trying to shoehorn 5e into that same 3.5 tier list structure. He said repeatedly that tier lists meant something in 3.5 but no one has done a 5e tier list in a way that is helpful or objective.

Also, a general statement not specifically responding to your post: There is a difference between evaluating the mechanical strengths of character builds and making tier lists. Condemning one is not automatically the same as condemning the other.

Then you make your point about those tier lists. Rather than decrying the concept as a whole.

Not really. That's kind of like if someone released a fighting game, but all the move combos were hidden. Then you figure those out and release a notebook with all the combos. And someone says "It's wrong to share your knowledge of the combos even though you knew them. Because people should be able to figure it out on their own."

And while perhaps that does take some of the fun out of it for some people, that mystery of never knowing just what will happen next. It also prevents people from going in uninformed.

obryn

2016-03-17, 02:59 PM

The opposite. He's trying to move the discussion to nuanced and detail oriented levels instead of washing criticism away with "BM is tier 5, don't even bother.
Why can't a tier list have nuance or detail? Because 3.5's didn't? Seems kinda silly.

And how is it preferable to have the same conversation about - say - Rangers over and over again?

CantigThimble

2016-03-17, 03:03 PM

It Serves No Purpose
The original 3.x tier list existed to group the many, many classes into easily digestible categories that had specific defining traits. Tier 1, for example, is described thusly:

Notice how absolutely no classes in 5e fit that description? That's because the 5e designers aimed for balance in their approach. And while it isn't quite as balanced as 4e, which was too balanced for some players, they managed to make a game in which no player can put little thought into his character and still outshine everyone else in all areas. In fact, even players who put a ton of thought into their characters won't outshine everyone else unless either everyone else is kind of bad at the game, or the DM plays favorites. Since this isn't /tg/, we'll assume that those cases are outliers and the hobby isn't terrible.

The tier system in 3.P exists because the design is terrible players realized that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids would eventually outshine nearly everyone else with a minimal amount of optimizing. This led to raw feelings and angry players. The tier system helps organize the myriad classes into sets that can play with adjacent sets without outshining each other constantly. A Tier 3 will be broadly useful, but it won't completely outshine the Tier 4 specialist in its preferred role. The system is essentially character lubricant designed to ensure party configuration meets less friction, making for a more enjoyable time for all.

Contrast this with the 5e classes, which all fit into the Tier 3 definition:

Even the Berserker Barbarian and Champion Fighter - the two classes most often accused of being one-trick ponies - have features that can provide decent battlefield control or boost skill utility. Tiers don't add anything to the discourse, because the reason behind tiers is gone. We actually have to dissect a single 3.P tier in order to create tiers for 5e, when the tier system was designed so that tiers can play well with the tiers directly above and below them! It's madness! It's useless! It brings me to

While the 3.P tiers were well-defined groupings, all attempts at 5e tiers are essentially Buzzfeed-level drivel. They're popularity rankings without any objective purpose.

Then you make your point about those tier lists. Rather than decrying the concept as a whole.

Whether or not he likes 3e tier lists he admits that they served a purpose which he claims is lacking in 5e.

Oramac

2016-03-17, 03:04 PM

Truncated

So please stop making tier lists.

fin

http://i.imgur.com/jLZTk9I.jpg

obryn

2016-03-17, 03:10 PM

I mean, is the problem the specifics of the categorization? That 3.x's Tier 1/5 classes don't exist? Is that all it takes?

As an example, divide the classes/subclasses up into...

* Arguably broken, generally more powerful/versatile at high levels, so here's what to watch out for...
* Broadly powerful and versatile at all levels
* Powerful, but lacking in versatility at some levels
* Somewhat less powerful and may not pull their weight, and here's how to help them...

...with some disclaimers that nothing's as wacky as 3.x

druid91

2016-03-17, 03:12 PM

Whether or not he likes 3e tier lists he admits that they served a purpose which he claims is lacking in 5e.

The issue is that claim is patently false. There are powerful mechanical differences at play. While yes, in the direct measurement of 'who would win in a fight' is pretty balanced. Fighting is but one of many problem solving options and often it's the ONLY ONE that a martial is any good at.

Are there skills? Yes, but let's be honest here. Skills are a vague guideline at best.

Spells provide tangible options. Options that make the ones who can use them more effective in many ways than those who can't.

CantigThimble

2016-03-17, 03:13 PM

I'm not saying either approach is better or worse, just that I like having the concept from the beginning to hook players in from the start.

I intended that more as an example of how mechanics can inspire roleplaying. The fact that it occurred after initial character building was completely incidental. Other systems, like shadowrun, have a lot more mechanics designed to inspire personality and story but it's still quite present in D&D. I could just as easily, when designing a character for the first time, come up with a story and personality behind an Entertainer Fey Bladelock/Fighter even if I designed the character mechanically first and added roleplaying afterward.

krugaan

2016-03-17, 03:14 PM

The point must be made that a "player having fun" is totally subjective, and most players will gravitate to the playstyle they find most fun.

The issue evilanagram has is that new players will take tier lists and it will somehow limit their choices or encourage them to play in ways that are unfun.

I doubt this happens for a variety of reasons:

1) a lot of new DnD players will never visit this forum, or any other, for that matter.

2) Optimizers will optimize, roleplayers will roleplay, concept builders will concept build, whatever. Optimizers would use tier lists to, well, optimize, in which case it would help them and make the game more "fun".

3) completely new players probably don't have a chosen playstyle, so if they *happen* to read a tier listing and make a playstyle choice based on that, it could just as easily be a good thing

4) "5e is balanced anyway", so even if they choose poorly by consulting a tier listing, it is unlikely to affect their overall playing experience. The subset of people who would be forced into the "optimizer" mindset from one that is more enjoyable by a mere tier listing is probably very, very small.

Arguing about tier rankings is, at the very least, just as pointless as tier rankings. At least tiering has a vague semblance of objectivity. Again, I innately dislike any criticism of honest argument, no matter if it happens to be "poisonous" to the community.

edit: last sentence for clarity

CantigThimble

2016-03-17, 03:16 PM

The issue is that claim is patently false. There are powerful mechanical differences at play. While yes, in the direct measurement of 'who would win in a fight' is pretty balanced. Fighting is but one of many problem solving options and often it's the ONLY ONE that a martial is any good at.

Are there skills? Yes, but let's be honest here. Skills are a vague guideline at best.

Spells provide tangible options. Options that make the ones who can use them more effective in many ways than those who can't.

Great. All I was arguing about was your claim that he said 3.5 tier lists were meaningless. I honestly just really hate misunderstandings like that.

druid91

2016-03-17, 03:24 PM

Great. All I was arguing about was your claim that he said 3.5 tier lists were meaningless. I honestly just really hate misunderstandings like that.

What? I haven't been arguing that at all. I've been arguing against the idea that a 5e tier list would be meaningless. I read his OP.

Shaofoo

2016-03-17, 03:26 PM

Most monsters aren't supposed to be able to metagame the proper way to kill a Druid

Designing a Monster with enough intelligence and the skills to do so is called metagaming, well actually probably not even. It might just be the DM being a *cough*... excuse me allergies, I was going to say nice guy for DMing all these weeks for us.

Considering that high level adventurers should probably be renowned people it wouldn't seem odd to have the big bad keep tabs on his enemies.

Sure tailoring the enemy might be a bit off but all I had to add was one simple spell and you wouldn't think that a bad guy would have a spell called Power Word Kill? This is lest metagaming and more using what is most likely to be around.

I am not going to tailor a monster to kill Moon Druids because I think the Moon Druid will have enough problems on his own as is, I suspect people who parrot the invincible moon druid meme only consider 1 vs 1 on sterile environments and fights to the death which is a very narrow way to look at things.

CantigThimble

2016-03-17, 03:27 PM

Ok. The issue with that is you're essentially just reducing, "This is my take on how these classes stack up and this is why." to "Well that's just your opinion. Treating it as fact is just dishonest."

I could see your point if say, someone just randomly listed the names of classes in order with no explanation whatsoever. But the 3.5 tiers this discussion is based on, didn't do that.

Also, a fighter in 3.5 was playable. It just didn't stack up well to a wizard without being a christmas tree.

They're better now, of course the issue then becomes them no longer having the christmas tree.

What? I haven't been arguing that at all. I've been arguing against the idea that a 5e tier list would be meaningless. I read his OP.

Then I don't understand why you brought up 3.5 tier lists at all.

druid91

2016-03-17, 03:30 PM

Then I don't understand why you brought up 3.5 tier lists at all.

Because A.) The 3.5 tier lists were the basis for this discussion.

And B.) Because the discussion then veered away from the 3.5 tier lists and into hypothetical tier lists that were lists of class names in order and nothing more.

CantigThimble

2016-03-17, 03:32 PM

Because A.) The 3.5 tier lists were the basis for this discussion.

And B.) Because the discussion then veered away from the 3.5 tier lists and into hypothetical tier lists that were lists of class names in order and nothing more.

I definitely disagree on your interpretation of the context of the discussion here.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-17, 03:59 PM

Ok. The issue with that is you're essentially just reducing, "This is my take on how these classes stack up and this is why." to "Well that's just your opinion. Treating it as fact is just dishonest."

I could see your point if say, someone just randomly listed the names of classes in order with no explanation whatsoever. But the 3.5 tiers this discussion is based on, didn't do that.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I explicitly used 3.5 tiers as an example of a tier system that at least had a clear objective and clearly defined tiers in mind. I contrasted that with the attempts at 5e tiers, which uniformly have had no utilitarian purpose and poorly defined tiers. People are routinely listing classes in whichever order they like them, then calling it a tier system (or now a "class guide") without any explanation.

druid91

2016-03-17, 04:11 PM

Ok, so we go from a description of the source of the tier arguments...

It Serves No Purpose
The original 3.x tier list existed to group the many, many classes into easily digestible categories that had specific defining traits. Tier 1, for example, is described thusly:

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Notice how absolutely no classes in 5e fit that description? That's because the 5e designers aimed for balance in their approach. And while it isn't quite as balanced as 4e, which was too balanced for some players, they managed to make a game in which no player can put little thought into his character and still outshine everyone else in all areas. In fact, even players who put a ton of thought into their characters won't outshine everyone else unless either everyone else is kind of bad at the game, or the DM plays favorites. Since this isn't /tg/, we'll assume that those cases are outliers and the hobby isn't terrible.

The tier system in 3.P exists because the design is terrible players realized that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids would eventually outshine nearly everyone else with a minimal amount of optimizing. This led to raw feelings and angry players. The tier system helps organize the myriad classes into sets that can play with adjacent sets without outshining each other constantly. A Tier 3 will be broadly useful, but it won't completely outshine the Tier 4 specialist in its preferred role. The system is essentially character lubricant designed to ensure party configuration meets less friction, making for a more enjoyable time for all.

Contrast this with the 5e classes, which all fit into the Tier 3 definition: Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Until later on we get to this.

They are not detailed, they don't explain what options are available, and they don't explain how these options can be useful. They are literally lists that usually have less than a sentence to justify each entry, and they rarely take into account anything more than popularity or first impressions. You're actually just lying now.

Edit: And even now you haven't been able to address any of my points? What purpose does a tier list serve other than to denigrate some classes and laud others? How are they helpful? How is calling your ad hoc list of favorites a tier system not dishonest? How does it not reduce the quality of discourse?

The point is that yes, there are mechanical differences between the classes that favor some over others. While I wouldn't go so far as to label a 5e wizard tier 1 out of hand, they're definitely at least tier 2. And closing your ears and saying "nanananan not listening!" isn't going to change that yes some classes are better than others.

Overall, while 5e did a lot to bring the martial classes UP. And brought things overall much closer... things are still different enough to notice that, for example. Power word: Kill is going to wreck your day. And it's something your average martial can't do. It's enough to notice that while a martial can spend their hard earned money hiring an army. A mage can conjure up money from effectively nothing and hire a bigger one.

And it's worth noting that without DM fiat, a martial that's not a halfcaster, at the least, can't even hurt a Rakshasa at all. There is literally nothing amongst your usual combat routine that will beat a Rakshasa without a magical weapon.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-17, 04:22 PM

Why can't a tier list have nuance or detail? Because 3.5's didn't? Seems kinda silly.
I have yet to see a tier list with nuance or detail. In fact, I think the tiers themselves would inherently obfuscate any added detail. People would look at the ratings, decide that some classes are terrible, and pick a higher rated class. As I said in the OP, that harms the community.

And how is it preferable to have the same conversation about - say - Rangers over and over again?
The conversation is more often, "How do we fix the Ranger?" which is a fun homebrew topic that I think benefits the community. It's rarely, "Help, my ranger is terrible!"

Are you just arguing that some classes have a few problems and should therefore be abandoned?

KorvinStarmast

2016-03-17, 04:24 PM

come up with a story and personality behind an Entertainer Fey Bladelock/Fighter even if I designed the character mechanically first and added roleplaying afterward. My Entertainer Fey Chainlock (no mc) was as much background as it was mechanic ... I sort of went round and round a few times before I settled on all of it, since it started as a straight Bladelock in concept.

druid91

2016-03-17, 04:25 PM

I have yet to see a tier list with nuance or detail. In fact, I think the tiers themselves would inherently obfuscate any added detail. People would look at the ratings, decide that some classes are terrible, and pick a higher rated class. As I said in the OP, that harm's the community.

The conversation is more often, "How do we fix the Ranger?" which is a fun homebrew topic that I think benefits the community. It's rarely, "Help, my ranger is terrible!"

Are you just arguing that some classes have a few problems and should therefore be abandoned?

And this is where you go wrong. You assume what people are going to think.

No, but you should go in knowing what those problems are. This is innately more likely in 5e than 3.5 where it required arcane system mastery to even be nominally useful as a fighter.

Here at least most of the classes are good at something. It's just some are good at more things.

Fwiffo86

2016-03-17, 04:33 PM

Power word: Kill is going to wreck your day. And it's something your average martial can't do.

Power word kill requires the target to be at present HP of 100 or less. At the time this spell becomes available, the fighter can kill the same target in one round as well. With no resource cost. Just saying. Both scenarios require exactly one action.

It's enough to notice that while a martial can spend their hard earned money hiring an army. A mage can conjure up money from effectively nothing and hire a bigger one.

I love this example. You are "technically" correct. Wizards of sufficient power can just "create" money. But again, this is a vacuum argument. DM's accustomed to running games of this power scale are also accustomed to things like... say, there is this wizard out there just creating money in my kingdom. Which is devastating my economy. (send ambassador to resolve). Problems exist when magic is used that are just "not" accounted for with maths. This is the underlying problem of vacuum theory crafting and is misrepresentative of actual play and power scale.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-17, 04:37 PM

Ok, so we go from a description of the source of the tier arguments...
No, that's background information that illustrates the difference between 3.P tiers and 5e tiers. That's why I transitioned to 5e tiers, and then only talked about 5e tiers unless I was contrasting them with 3.P tiers.

That seemed to be clear to everyone else posting. That's why there are comments disagreeing with my positive assessment of 3.P tiers.

[Casters are better]
I'm honestly not interested in that discussion. "Let's apply PVP concepts to a cooperative game," just isn't a meaningful course of argument. A Wizard has Power Word Kill, and that's a terrible spell to prepare because the Fighter will spend just as many actions getting rid of an enemy with under 100 HP and now you're out of a 9th level slot. They don't fight each other. They fight NPCs. Wizard spell slots are used to further the same purpose as Fighter Action Surges, and it turns out that a party is better served by having both a solid single-target damage machine and a controller/blaster. Since two Wizards can fail where a Wizard and Fighter can more readily succeed (Rakshasa is a purrfect example), arguing that one is inherently better is ridiculous. You like casters. Great. That doesn't make them better.

Edit:

And this is where you go wrong. You assume what people are going to think.

I dedicated three full paragraphs in my OP to justifying the claim that people unfamiliar with the system are likely to take apparently informed opinions at face value without personally investigating the claims. I think maybe you should reread the post.

I mean, is the problem the specifics of the categorization? That 3.x's Tier 1/5 classes don't exist? Is that all it takes?

As an example, divide the classes/subclasses up into...

* Arguably broken, generally more powerful/versatile at high levels, so here's what to watch out for...
* Broadly powerful and versatile at all levels
* Powerful, but lacking in versatility at some levels
* Somewhat less powerful and may not pull their weight, and here's how to help them...

...with some disclaimers that nothing's as wacky as 3.x

Honestly, I think a list of all the archetypes that simply mentions their strengths, weaknesses, and things to watch out for would be a great idea. I don't see why people would want to merge thay idea with a tier list, though. At that point, you're pushing your own preferences rather than informing.

mgshamster

2016-03-17, 04:57 PM

obryn

2016-03-17, 05:07 PM

I have yet to see a tier list with nuance or detail. In fact, I think the tiers themselves would inherently obfuscate any added detail. People would look at the ratings, decide that some classes are terrible, and pick a higher rated class. As I said in the OP, that harms the community.
You have a rather broad idea of what might harm the community. I'll go out on a limb and propose that shutting down discussion of tier listings harms the community, more.

There's benefits to a thorough understanding of your chosen game's mechanics and sometimes that includes noting relative mechanical strengths and weaknesses.

Are you just arguing that some classes have a few problems and should therefore be abandoned?
Erm. No, and I don't know how you get here from what I said.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-17, 05:12 PM

When one person can't understand your message, it's just a person who can't understand your writing.

When many people can't understand you, there's a problem with your writing.

In this case, pretty much everyone but Druid understands you.

I'm glad it was clear to most people.

You complain about a tier list "deluding" people into only playing one way"Id argue some good quality guidelines would be nice so somebody doesnt end up bored once they have have played a Avatar Monk or Champion Fighter and been bored right back to playing WOW and League instead.
Guidelines are great. I've yet to see a tier list with quality guidelines in mind. And whole some people might get bored with those classes, plenty of people have had fun with them. More importantly, plenty of people can get bored with Wizard bookkeeping. Or Hate Druid fluff. Or think Paladins are lame. Guidelines thay sideline perfectly good classes because the author doesn't like them are crappy guidelines.

Hell the main argument of the old tier list was to watch what you do avoid breaking he game and how the mid tier choices could be really fun. Considering that 5E is mostly mid tier choices the game breakers extremely rare and the sub-par choices pretty glaring I dont think any of this hurts
It hurts by removing meaningful choices in the minds of newcomers when every single class this edition is perfectly playable.

Of course the sad state of this board can easily be pointed out by how many pages this thing has debating the discussion compared to the atual topic [Which I found second] where people still think Moon Druid turning into a big goat and getting killed once a round at lv20 is still good
I think it's indicative of quite the opposite, my surly comrade.

obryn

2016-03-17, 05:15 PM

Honestly, I think a list of all the archetypes that simply mentions their strengths, weaknesses, and things to watch out for would be a great idea. I don't see why people would want to merge thay idea with a tier list, though. At that point, you're pushing your own preferences rather than informing.
That bypasses, though, two factors. (1) That some classes have more mechanical variety built in, and (2) there is a consensus regarding the relative weakness and strength of a few subclasses, which by now everyone knows.

While there's some disagreement on particulars, these are important to know for both DMs and players. Consensus doesn't render opinion factual, but it does lend it weight.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-17, 05:21 PM

You have a rather broad idea of what might harm the community. I'll go out on a limb and propose that shutting down discussion of tier listings harms the community, more.
I have a specific idea of what harm's the community. When newbies come here looking for help and leave with a false impression of how the game is in real play, that hurts the community. When we push players towards more limited class choices instead of simply providing unbiased insight, that hurts the community. When a meme impedes open discussion of character builds, thay hurts the community. Tiers perpetuate this, and I explained that in my post.

There's benefits to a thorough understanding of your chosen game's mechanics and sometimes that includes noting relative mechanical strengths and weaknesses.
But no class is stronger across the board or even stronger in the majority of levels, so framing the discussion through tiers fails to meaningfully address the mechanical differences.

Erm. No, and I don't know how you get here from what I said.
I'm sorry, you simply seemed to be suggesting that the fact that tiers steer players away from unpopular classes was a good thing. I may have been mistaken.

busterswd

2016-03-17, 05:26 PM

So what you're arguing about is the peculiar arrangement of this data? That several threads such as "everyone hates my wizard because i rock" and "help, my beastmaster is terrible" is preferable to having a quick list you can point to that says - more or less - which classes are more vs. less versatile, and which classes lag behind the curve at higher levels?

That still seems like you're trying to sugarcoat or gloss over potential problems, and shut down discussion of 5e's class balance problems with a big picture-filled OP you can link to whenever someone says the word 'tier.'

To play devil's advocate, it is the summarization of information that acts as double edged sword. A tier list is going to be useful primarily to someone looking for a quick reference, not for someone who's going to take the time testing out or reading about a class in depth. In other words, most people who use the tier list as a source of guidance are not going to be the sort of people who will bother to understand WHY things are ranked the way they are. And regardless of how balanced a system is, there is ALWAYS a stigma against being "bottom tier".

A player or DM who wants to understand more about the relative power or potential problems with a class is going to be looking for more in depth discussion, which a truncated list isn't going to facilitate. There's a reason Jaron's 3.5 list has entire writeups justifying each classes' position, written by multiple people; a tier list on its own, even with a medium length explanation, is not going to be that useful.

Tier lists are sort of a necessary evil in particular gaming systems (namely, ones with a variety of complex choices and the option to really get left behind (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw)), and generally fun for people like me to read. In a system like 5e, where even the "crappy" class archetypes have good options, a Tier list is at best going to be a source of bias, and more likely to be simply unnecessary. Nothing underperforms so absolutely poorly that it will break a player's experience with the game just for picking that archetype, especially if they learn their class.

mgshamster

2016-03-17, 05:28 PM

Consensus doesn't render opinion factual, but it does lend it weight.

I can think of quite a few topics that have good solid consensus on absolutely wrong information.

D&D communities tend to be more intellectual than many other communities. We should embrace that and actually produce quality information based on solid analysis, rather than rely on consensus which may or may not be true or false (because analysis has not been performed or has been ignored).

You want to make a tier list? Ok; let's do it. But let's actually put some thought and analysis into it rather than just parroting what others have said or just giving personal opinion.

Every time I see BM ranger put on the bottom of a tier list, I know that the author didn't put any thought or analysis into their list - because actual analysis actually shows them to be on par with other classes damage-wise (see the comparison in this very thread to a GWM champion), have better versatility (can be in two places at the same time), and have spells. The issue with the BM isn't their performance (which is what these tier lists claim to be analyzing) - it's their awkward pet mechanic that doesn't mesh well with reality. And a single awkward mechanic isn't enough to trump the rest of the class - especially since it's actually on par with other classes from both a perspective of damage power and narrative power.

Its *this* that Evil Anagram is decrying - the lack of thought in these lists that don't actually help people, but rather just parrot popular misinformation disguised as actual analysis.

KorvinStarmast

2016-03-17, 05:30 PM

Its *this* that Evil Anagram is decrying - the lack of thought in these lists that don't actually help people, but rather just parrot popular misinformation disguised as actual analysis.
Nicely said. How crowds and mobs behave seems to inform how the memes spread.

krugaan

2016-03-17, 05:31 PM

I have a specific idea of what harm's the community. When newbies come here looking for help and leave with a false impression of how the game is in real play, that hurts the community. When we push players towards more limited class choices instead of simply providing unbiased insight, that hurts the community. When a meme impedes open discussion of character builds, thay hurts the community. Tiers perpetuate this, and I explained that in my post.

But no class is stronger across the board or even stronger in the majority of levels, so framing the discussion through tiers fails to meaningfully address the mechanical differences.

I'm sorry, you simply seemed to be suggesting that the fact that tiers steer players away from unpopular classes was a good thing. I may have been mistaken.

The thing that's rankling some is that there is no objective evidence whatsoever you provide that would justify ending open discussion. I think even your subjective evidence is pretty flimsy, although I understand perfectly your rationale.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-17, 05:33 PM

That bypasses, though, two factors. (1) That some classes have more mechanical variety built in

(2) there is a consensus regarding the relative weakness and strength of a few subclasses, which by now everyone knows.

The problem is that those goals conflict. If you want to reflect mechanical variety, the Way of the Elements Monk is either top tier or second tier, but it's also one of the classes most often identified as flawed. Ki costs prevent you from regularly using some abilities unless you regularly rest.

More importantly, it's simply going to divide people along the lines of the martial/caster debate. Is AoE damage more important than higher single-target damage? Is casting terribly important when so many of the most common spells simply replicate solid skill selections? Should Rogues be higher than Warlocks because they're fantastic skill monkeys with high damage, or are Warlocks better because they have access to AoEs and single-target damage alike?

As for consensus on weaknesses, I refer you to my bit about memes.

druid91

2016-03-17, 05:38 PM

No, that's background information that illustrates the difference between 3.P tiers and 5e tiers. That's why I transitioned to 5e tiers, and then only talked about 5e tiers unless I was contrasting them with 3.P tiers.

That seemed to be clear to everyone else posting. That's why there are comments disagreeing with my positive assessment of 3.P tiers.

I'm honestly not interested in that discussion. "Let's apply PVP concepts to a cooperative game," just isn't a meaningful course of argument. A Wizard has Power Word Kill, and that's a terrible spell to prepare because the Fighter will spend just as many actions getting rid of an enemy with under 100 HP and now you're out of a 9th level slot. They don't fight each other. They fight NPCs. Wizard spell slots are used to further the same purpose as Fighter Action Surges, and it turns out that a party is better served by having both a solid single-target damage machine and a controller/blaster. Since two Wizards can fail where a Wizard and Fighter can more readily succeed (Rakshasa is a purrfect example), arguing that one is inherently better is ridiculous. You like casters. Great. That doesn't make them better.

Edit:

I dedicated three full paragraphs to justifying the claim that people unfamiliar with the system are likely to take apparently informed opinions at face value without personally investigating the claims.

See, you aren't arguing that at all. You're arguing about tier lists in general. Your statement is that the uninformed will make undue assumptions based on the vague authority of some guy on the internet. Which, while somewhat accurate fails to notice that we're an argumentative bunch who like to bicker about the rules incessantly.

How is a fighter at all useful in a fight against a Rakshasa? Wizard 1 casts finger of death to damage the Rakshasa below 100. Wizard 2 casts Power Word: Kill and the Rakshasa dies. The end.

Compared to Wizard/Fighter. Where the Wizard casts finger of death to weaken the Rakshasa, the fighter flails at it ineffectually for one turn OR possibly hits it with a flask of alchemists fire doing minimal damage. Then the Rakshasa kills the wizard and everyone is going to die. I actually agree that it's a coop game, and considering you're relying on your teammates to accomplish tasks, isn't it for the best for everyone to be able to do as much as possible? I mean, having non-casters CAN be useful. But honestly, why play a fighter when you can play a paladin? Or a bladelock?

The obvious answer is because you want to. The people who WANT to, still can. While those who just want to do other stuff can know what they're getting into.

And just because you made an assertion doesn't make that assertion true.

Power word kill requires the target to be at present HP of 100 or less. At the time this spell becomes available, the fighter can kill the same target in one round as well. With no resource cost. Just saying. Both scenarios require exactly one action.

I love this example. You are "technically" correct. Wizards of sufficient power can just "create" money. But again, this is a vacuum argument. DM's accustomed to running games of this power scale are also accustomed to things like... say, there is this wizard out there just creating money in my kingdom. Which is devastating my economy. (send ambassador to resolve). Problems exist when magic is used that are just "not" accounted for with maths. This is the underlying problem of vacuum theory crafting and is misrepresentative of actual play and power scale.

Except for the fact that power word: kill will kill a Rakshasa, presuming you weaken it first with something like Finger of Death. While a fighter swinging an utterly nonmagical sword, will not. And since you are not promised a magical sword or any magical equipment at all...

Sure, for a lot of things, just swinging a sword at it is useful. That does not mean there aren't exceptions to that. Nor that alternative ways of getting the job done are only as good as swording things to death. For example. You can sword that burglar to death. Or you can cast finger of death and get a zombie minion out of it.

It's not a vacuum argument any more than "A fighter can sword things to death" is a vacuum argument. Stating that people will react to the fact that you are using a strategic move. Doesn't change the fact that you can break the tactical game by moving up one level to strategy. And then from there to logistics.

While a martial quite simply can't without extreme handholding on the part of the DM.

pwykersotz

2016-03-17, 05:49 PM

See, you aren't arguing that at all. You're arguing about tier lists in general. Your statement is that the uninformed will make undue assumptions based on the vague authority of some guy on the internet. Which, while somewhat accurate fails to notice that we're an argumentative bunch who like to bicker about the rules incessantly.

How is a fighter at all useful in a fight against a Rakshasa? Wizard 1 casts finger of death to damage the Rakshasa below 100. Wizard 2 casts Power Word: Kill and the Rakshasa dies. The end.

Compared to Wizard/Fighter. Where the Wizard casts finger of death to weaken the Rakshasa, the fighter flails at it ineffectually for one turn OR possibly hits it with a flask of alchemists fire doing minimal damage. Then the Rakshasa kills the wizard and everyone is going to die. I actually agree that it's a coop game, and considering you're relying on your teammates to accomplish tasks, isn't it for the best for everyone to be able to do as much as possible? I mean, having non-casters CAN be useful. But honestly, why play a fighter when you can play a paladin? Or a bladelock?

The obvious answer is because you want to. The people who WANT to, still can. While those who just want to do other stuff can know what they're getting into.

And just because you made an assertion doesn't make that assertion true.

Except for the fact that power word: kill will kill a Rakshasa, presuming you weaken it first with something like Finger of Death. While a fighter swinging an utterly nonmagical sword, will not. And since you are not promised a magical sword or any magical equipment at all...

Sure, for a lot of things, just swinging a sword at it is useful. That does not mean there aren't exceptions to that. Nor that alternative ways of getting the job done are only as good as swording things to death. For example. You can sword that burglar to death. Or you can cast finger of death and get a zombie minion out of it.

It's not a vacuum argument any more than "A fighter can sword things to death" is a vacuum argument. Stating that people will react to the fact that you are using a strategic move. Doesn't change the fact that you can break the tactical game by moving up one level to strategy. And then from there to logistics.

While a martial quite simply can't without extreme handholding on the part of the DM.

Alternately, this is a team game, and rather than blowing a level 7 and a level 9 spell on one CR 13 creature, the Wizard casts magic weapon on the Fighter and they both win. Or the Fighter is an Eldritch Knight and does the same thing. :smallannoyed:

EvilAnagram

2016-03-17, 05:49 PM

How is a fighter at all useful in a fight against a Rakshasa? Wizard 1 casts finger of death to damage the Rakshasa below 100. Wizard 2 casts Power Word: Kill and the Rakshasa dies. The end.

I'm going to go ahead and ignore your take on my general argument because you seem to be the only person reading it thay way, despite my specifically refuting your claims about my objectives.

Instead, I'll address the Rakshasa, and I'll use the clearest language I can.

Most wizards cannot harm a Rakshasa because Rakshasas ignore any spells they wish below a certain level. In fact, until you get to epic levels, a wizard can get one, maybe two spells off that hit a Rakshasa. At the level suggested by the Rakshasa's CR 8, a wizard can't harm him at all. However, a wizard can cast magic weapon on the fighter's weapon, then spend the fight aiding the fighter. That's a better tactic than two wizards dying at the hands of a Rakshasa they can't harm.

The thing that's rankling some is that there is no objective evidence whatsoever you provide that would justify ending open discussion. I think even your subjective evidence is pretty flimsy, although I understand perfectly your rationale.

As opposed to the objectivity of all those tier lists? Do you want examples of discussions about Ranger multiclass builds being sidetracked by people claiming any Ranger levels are wasted? That's not hard to find. That humans tend to be illogical and take things to heart based off of perceived authority, imagined or not? Take a class in philosophy. At least read Plato's Apology. That newbies take what's said on these boards seriously? Dig up older tier threads. I can remember specific instances, myself. Hell, just read through the comments of my guides. Plenty of newbies thank me for my paltry contributions because I seem knowledgeable, so I take what I say in guides seriously rather than parroting popular opinions without thought. New people frequently come here looking for help, and they tend to take advice to heart.

druid91

2016-03-17, 06:07 PM

I'm going to go ahead and ignore your take on my general argument because you seem to be the only person reading it thay way, despite my specifically refuting your claims about my objectives.

Instead, I'll address the Rakshasa, and I'll use the clearest language I can.

Most wizards cannot harm a Rakshasa because Rakshasas ignore any spells they wish below a certain level. In fact, until you get to epic levels, a wizard can get one, maybe two spells off that hit a Rakshasa. At the level suggested by the Rakshasa's CR 8, a wizard can't harm him at all. However, a wizard can cast magic weapon on the fighter's weapon, then spend the fight aiding the fighter. That's a better tactic than two wizards dying at the hands of a Rakshasa they can't harm.

By Refute, you mean "saying I didn't actually mean that."

Edit: And even now you haven't been able to address any of my points? What purpose does a tier list serve other than to denigrate some classes and laud others? How are they helpful? How is calling your ad hoc list of favorites a tier system not dishonest? How does it not reduce the quality of discourse?

You have REPEATEDLY asserted that not only are Tier systems useless in 5e because 'everything is balanced,' which it's not, but that a tier system is in and of itself a toxic fabrication.

So you're saying the fact that a level 20 character can, and is, utterly defenseless against a CR 8 creature is meaningless because it's appropriately challenging to a wizard of CR appropriate level?

Also Magic Weapon is a 2nd level spell. Meaning the Rakshasa is immune to it's effects. And if that WASN'T true, there's plenty of effects one could use.

An 8th level necromancer crafts magic crossbows for their skeleton army before going to the Rakshasa's lair.

The point is that casters have more options. The fact that non-casters are on occasion useful, doesn't mean that they're AS useful.

Am I presenting needlessly combative options? Yes. It's entirely possible for a wizard to craft the fighter a +1 sword and bypass this whole argument. But the point is that a fighter, who's not an eldritch knight, can't do that on their own.

CantigThimble

2016-03-17, 06:23 PM

mgshamster

2016-03-17, 06:33 PM

By Refute, you mean "saying I didn't actually mean that."

I... what? You said that he meant X, he told you he did not in fact mean X. Are you implying that he secretly did mean X and you noticed while he didn't? It's pretty easy to refute claims about your own intentions.

Druid has misread what the OP wrote and insists that his misreading of it is actually correct, despite the OP explaining what he actually said later on. And despite others doing the same. Everyone else gets it, but everyone else is obviously wrong - including the OP - about what the OP said.

busterswd

2016-03-17, 06:48 PM

druid91

2016-03-17, 06:50 PM

I... what? You said that he meant X, he told you he did not in fact mean X. Are you implying that he secretly did mean X and you noticed while he didn't? It's pretty easy to refute claims about your own intentions.

Not really? We have this thing where you can look back and see what they said previously.

Let's look at the OP. Break it down.

It Serves No Purpose
The original 3.x tier list existed to group the many, many classes into easily digestible categories that had specific defining traits. Tier 1, for example, is described thusly:

Notice how absolutely no classes in 5e fit that description? That's because the 5e designers aimed for balance in their approach. And while it isn't quite as balanced as 4e, which was too balanced for some players, they managed to make a game in which no player can put little thought into his character and still outshine everyone else in all areas. In fact, even players who put a ton of thought into their characters won't outshine everyone else unless either everyone else is kind of bad at the game, or the DM plays favorites. Since this isn't /tg/, we'll assume that those cases are outliers and the hobby isn't terrible.

The tier system in 3.P exists because the design is terrible players realized that Wizards, Clerics, and Druids would eventually outshine nearly everyone else with a minimal amount of optimizing. This led to raw feelings and angry players. The tier system helps organize the myriad classes into sets that can play with adjacent sets without outshining each other constantly. A Tier 3 will be broadly useful, but it won't completely outshine the Tier 4 specialist in its preferred role. The system is essentially character lubricant designed to ensure party configuration meets less friction, making for a more enjoyable time for all.

Contrast this with the 5e classes, which all fit into the Tier 3 definition:

Even the Berserker Barbarian and Champion Fighter - the two classes most often accused of being one-trick ponies - have features that can provide decent battlefield control or boost skill utility. Tiers don't add anything to the discourse, because the reason behind tiers is gone. We actually have to dissect a single 3.P tier in order to create tiers for 5e, when the tier system was designed so that tiers can play well with the tiers directly above and below them! It's madness! It's useless! It brings me to tiers (http://cdn.twentytwowords.com/wp-content/uploads/Tearable-Puns-e1335438183335-634x692.jpg)!

While the 3.P tiers were well-defined groupings, all attempts at 5e tiers are essentially Buzzfeed-level drivel. They're popularity rankings without any objective purpose.

This, the assertion that there is no mechanical variability. That all the classes are so balanced that you can't say one is definitively better. Or that one could potentially eclipse the others, is complete nonsense. When a 20th level fighter is just really good at hitting things within melee or bow-reach. And a 20th level wizard can decide the fate of entire nations, you have a clear power dichotomy. It really doesn't matter how good the fighter is at hitting things if the wizard can throw thousands of soldiers at something. This is just using the class granted abilities. No benefits of adventuring.

Calling Buzzfeed Rankings "Tiers" is Dishonest

Plenty of meta discussions about plenty of games refer to different tiers of play. Whether the discourse is about player ability or layer options, discussion around tiers is consistently an important part of the meta when it can meaningfully impact the game. People who pay attention to the meta pay attention to discourse around tiers because it can have a real effect on play. In competitive play, running Sisters of Battle against Eldar is a sure way to lose. In cooperative play, you don't want to pick a LoL character that will hurt your team.

In these meta discussions, tiers of play become extremely important, and so people listen to discussion on tiers. But 5e is balanced, and when you create 5e "tiers" knowing that any two classes can play side by side without completely eclipsing each other, they are simply using the term "tier" to slap on a lacquer of meaningful objectivity to their Buzzfeed fave five. They're assuming a pretense of meaningful discourse while they subjectively rank classes according to what they personally look for in play. That's dishonest.

While it is true, that for the most part Non-casters are useful this does not make them as useful as alternatives. Right now their most obvious use is to serve as low level toughs to guard the casters past the threshold of the lower levels when they haven't grown into their cosmic power yet. This is, as far as I can tell, their ultimate role in the grand meta of the game. The problem comes from the fact that you're saying a class that does one thing that happens to be an important thing, but still one thing really well is just as good as a class that does many things really well. And even then, a pure non-caster isn't generally as good as a paladin. Or something else that's a blend of the two styles.

And then of course, you get into the bit where eventually, a caster can start providing options to take a non-casters role. Is it harder than just having a non-caster? Of course! But a caster can do it. And a non-caster can't do the reverse to the caster.

So in short, once again, your entire argument is predicated on the idea that the classes are fundamentally balanced and that no one class can overshadow the others. Not will. Not is probable to. But can. At all. Which again, is ridiculous.

It's Reductive

By which I mean it reduces the scope of the discourse, and in doing so limits the discussion. How often do discussions devolve into people attacking or defending someone's decision to play a Ranger or Berserker? Even leaving out tier discussions, those posts crop up constantly. A recent thread about someone wanting to multiclass Ranger/Rogue involved at least a dozen posts attacking and defending the basic Ranger chassis because everyone knows that Rangers are bottom tier. How do we know that? Well, we know it because people keep saying it. It's the most common meme in optimization circles.

And by meme, I don't mean this (http://www.quickmeme.com/img/09/0972fb22e1756351abcaa34f3fb79cc48b09eec2e9ceafad33 1817e6bc8eeeca.jpg). I mean the original definition: an idea that through repetition becomes part of a culture. Think of a meme as a cultural gene. Memes pass from person to person, changing as each person replicates the memetic process. More importantly, the more a meme is replicated through repetition, the more widespread the idea becomes.

What's more troubling is that the more ideas get repeated, the more likely people are to believe them. Humans are, at their core, gullible and prone to accepting false statements that "feel right." Philosophy essentially developed as a rigorous field of study because people recognized the need to logically divest themselves of false beliefs.

http://askastudent.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/socrates.jpg

Rangers in particular have become victimized by this process. The initial impression of Beast Masters was unpalatable to many, so the meme that they are a terrible class spread quickly. Since 5e first arrived, we've seen many builds that provide a massive amount of damage and utility potential for Beast Masters, but the meme that they are terrible has stuck, and with each tier system that people come up with that meme spreads a little more.

Because we are so prone to fail to recognize our own false beliefs, the repetition of these memes make them very likely to be believed without experimenting. The fact that my Beast Master was consistently effective in AL play with a party consisting of a Moon Druid, Wizard, and Paladin doesn't matter. The meme is that Rangers are terrible (even though they'd be Tier 3 with every other class by 3.P ratings), so everyone believes that Rangers are terrible. That leaves a class that is consistently passed over because the meme that it's weak is so prolific.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/7b/be/44/7bbe44ccc57d91613784e2223386cb3e.jpg

This means that when people who understand the game want to talk about fun builds for Berserkers or Rangers or Elemonks, they find themselves forced to defend their decision to build that character instead of discussing fun ways to do it. The quality of the discussion has dropped because the memes surrounding these classes are so prolific.

And we're finally arriving at the harm. By spreading false memes about power levels through a useless tier system with only a veneer of legitimacy, these systems are poisoning the discussion. They're worse than that, though, because...

First of ALl,:smallwink: Adventurers league is 5e neutered. It's built from the ground up to hamper and restrict the players onto a railroaded adventure path for the sake of 'competitive' play.

And while you're right. Rangers are useful. You would be much better off trying to combat that meme directly rather than railing against the flood and trying to convince people not to rank classes.

You seem to be falling victim to your own bias's here.

Giving a fighter one magical weapon is nowhere near "extreme handholding.

No it's not. But giving a fighter one magic weapon, enough gold to buy an army, sources of resources to equip that army... Kind of is.

Whereas a wizard of appropriate level can simply make that stuff out of next to nothing.

The quote in question was about a wizard playing on the strategic level. Rather than a tactical level. Which they can do, regardless of DM handholding if they set their mind to it. And the DM in question isn't obstructive.

Druid has misread what the OP wrote and insists that his misreading of it is actually correct, despite the OP explaining what he actually said later on. And despite others doing the same. Everyone else gets it, but everyone else is obviously wrong - including the OP - about what the OP said.

I haven't misread anything. You misrepresent my argument because that's more convenient than addressing the fact that the OP is based on flawed premises, and comes to a conclusion that is effectively meaningless because it's impossible to enforce.

EDIT: OR, now that I've calmed down a bit. It's possible that I'm just not making my point clearly in past posts.

CantigThimble

2016-03-17, 07:04 PM

druid91

2016-03-17, 07:18 PM

You said that he was arguing about the concept of tiering things in general. He told you that he was actually arguing about tiers specifically in the context of 5e and other reference to tiers was background material.

Now you seem to have shifted to the idea that he claimed all classes are mechanically equal, which he did not.

P.S. How does a wizard get 'thousands of soldiers' with 'No benefits of adventuring.' You're assuming that the wizard has all the time in the world to cast his spells high levels spells repeatedly and do his negotiations or political maneuverings while the fighter sits on his butt and doesn't even look for a magic sword, let alone use his superhuman killing abilities to conquer a kingdom of his own. The sheer amount of murder contained in the single medium sized creature that is the fighter has a lot of tactical power for things like that.

I've literally quoted both claims. Sweet Omnissiah above.

P.S. I'm not gonna continue this tack after this. I'm not assuming anything. You drop a 20th level wizard, and a 20th level fighter on an earth sized planet containing no living things apart from non-ambulatory plant life, sheep, and unintelligent monsters. And the wizard is entirely capable of rebuilding civilization from scratch. A fighter can just kill things. Maybe make a log cabin. Is killing things a handy skill? YES. COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY.

Fighters are handy. But not as handy as say, being able to cause an extinction event by turning a potted plant into a mountain and dropping it on the capital of an empire.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-17, 07:47 PM

krugaan

2016-03-17, 07:58 PM

Yes, this thread needs to die a natural death already.

Shaofoo

2016-03-17, 08:01 PM

I've literally quoted both claims. Sweet Omnissiah above.

P.S. I'm not gonna continue this tack after this. I'm not assuming anything. You drop a 20th level wizard, and a 20th level fighter on an earth sized planet containing no living things apart from non-ambulatory plant life, sheep, and unintelligent monsters. And the wizard is entirely capable of rebuilding civilization from scratch. A fighter can just kill things. Maybe make a log cabin. Is killing things a handy skill? YES. COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY.

Fighters are handy. But not as handy as say, being able to cause an extinction event by turning a potted plant into a mountain and dropping it on the capital of an empire.

This proves my point at using a single illogical and unreal metric to somehow extrapolate that Wizards > Fighters, in a game that does not support Fighters Vs Wizards and instead supports Fighters and Wizards vs the World. The game would rather have the Fighter and Wizard rebuild society together than have both sides compete in creating a new world. Especially if time is infinite which is an alternate variation of the 5MWD, you are just saying given enough time to create everything Wizards can do anything, which is basically the D&D version of the Batman meme.

Quite frankly if dropping mountains was ever a threat I would hope that the city would have a recourse to prevent such a thing from happening (if you can even do such a thing, how can you make a mountain again? Polymorph covers creature to object and object to creature but not object to object and I don't think a mountain counts as an object regardless. Again such exaggerated claims also hurt your stance because it makes you seem like you are out of touch with D&D rules and reality (of the game)).

druid91

2016-03-17, 08:02 PM

Just ignore him. he's obviously decided that the writer and every other reader in this thread does not understand the words I wrote, and only he does. Arguing with someone who takes such a position is going to be fruitless.

Then please. Explain to me what you mean in your OP.

Are you saying the classes are not balanced? Then how do you justify a tier list being useless for 5e?

This proves my point at using a single illogical and unreal metric to somehow extrapolate that Wizards > Fighters, in a game that does not support Fighters Vs Wizards and instead supports Fighters and Wizards vs the World. The game would rather have the Fighter and Wizard rebuild society together than have both sides compete in creating a new world. Especially if time is infinite which is an alternate variation of the 5MWD, you are just saying given enough time to create everything Wizards can do anything, which is basically the D&D version of the Batman meme.

Quite frankly if dropping mountains was ever a threat I would hope that the city would have a recourse to prevent such a thing from happening (if you can even do such a thing, how can you make a mountain again? Polymorph covers creature to object and object to creature but not object to object and I don't think a mountain counts as an object regardless. Again such exaggerated claims also hurt your stance because it makes you seem like you are out of touch with D&D rules and reality (of the game)).

A metal cube is an object yes? A 10x10 metal cube is also an object yes? There is no point at which a metal cube becomes not an object. No matter how big it gets. The same is also true for a large single mass of stone. a large cone made of solid granite, is a strangely shaped artificial mountain, and also an object. Creature to Object has no limits on how large of an object you can create. And it only seems that way, because you're using the kneejerk 'stop the powergamer' reflex we all have. Yes, it's silly to allow a wizard to level a city in your game by transmuting a massive adamantine sphere and dropping it on it from a great height. This doesn't mean that, by the book, they can't.

Same as it's silly to let a fighter stab the king in his throne room and say "I'm king now." and expecting that to work out well just because the king is an aging nobleman who can't fight back.

And the point is because while the game is cooperative. This concept is not. This concept is essentially saying that each class puts in the same amount of value. A 20th level fighter is equal to a 20th level wizard in value on your team. A concept that's silly and false. This concept of false equivalence between classes is arguably more harmful than any tier list.

busterswd

2016-03-17, 09:29 PM

Then please. Explain to me what you mean in your OP.

Are you saying the classes are not balanced? Then how do you justify a tier list being useless for 5e?

A metal cube is an object yes? A 10x10 metal cube is also an object yes? There is no point at which a metal cube becomes not an object. No matter how big it gets. The same is also true for a large single mass of stone. a large cone made of solid granite, is a strangely shaped artificial mountain, and also an object. Creature to Object has no limits on how large of an object you can create. And it only seems that way, because you're using the kneejerk 'stop the powergamer' reflex we all have. Yes, it's silly to allow a wizard to level a city in your game by transmuting a massive adamantine sphere and dropping it on it from a great height. This doesn't mean that, by the book, they can't.

Same as it's silly to let a fighter stab the king in his throne room and say "I'm king now." and expecting that to work out well just because the king is an aging nobleman who can't fight back.

And the point is because while the game is cooperative. This concept is not. This concept is essentially saying that each class puts in the same amount of value. A 20th level fighter is equal to a 20th level wizard in value on your team. A concept that's silly and false. This concept of false equivalence between classes is arguably more harmful than any tier list.

You're also answering hypothetical arguments that no player would make, and creating hypothetical situations that no game would encounter. A player is not going to roll a fighter and expect to able to use Mountains of Mass Destruction to solve problems. But a player who wants to hit things with his sword, really well? A fighter does just fine at that. Both rogues and bards make excellent skillmonkeys, a monk will be great at punching things, etc.

The point that people are trying to make is that the system is reasonably well designed to the point where a class will do what it says on the label. In a co-op system where every class fulfills its purpose, you don't need a tier list. Any reasonable party composition (and some unreasonable ones) is capable of solving most problems in 5E, even if some classes have the resources to do it more easily. In 3.5, that wasn't the case, and one or two classes would exponentially overshadow everyone else, to the point where any encounter remotely challenging to one player would be literally impossible for the others to contribute to.

Ironically, your posts are a perfect example of the negative influence of tier lists. All of your arguments are based around "counting coup". It's not about who smashes the most problems the best, it's about how your party fights adversity by working together, telling a story in the process. Sometimes your party can't usurp the kingdom, even if you would have been able to Mindrape the king with a Wizard. And that's OK.

druid91

2016-03-17, 10:05 PM

You're also answering hypothetical arguments that no player would make, and creating hypothetical situations that no game would encounter. A player is not going to roll a fighter and expect to able to use Mountains of Mass Destruction to solve problems. But a player who wants to hit things with his sword, really well? A fighter does just fine at that. Both rogues and bards make excellent skillmonkeys, a monk will be great at punching things, etc.

The point that people are trying to make is that the system is reasonably well designed to the point where a class will do what it says on the label. In a co-op system where every class fulfills its purpose, you don't need a tier list. Any reasonable party composition (and some unreasonable ones) is capable of solving most problems in 5E, even if some classes have the resources to do it more easily. In 3.5, that wasn't the case, and one or two classes would exponentially overshadow everyone else, to the point where any encounter remotely challenging to one player would be literally impossible for the others to contribute to.

Ironically, your posts are a perfect example of the negative influence of tier lists. All of your arguments are based around "counting coup". It's not about who smashes the most problems the best, it's about how your party fights adversity by working together, telling a story in the process. Sometimes your party can't usurp the kingdom, even if you would have been able to Mindrape the king with a Wizard. And that's OK.

My posts are all about counting coup, because when someone makes an immediately falsifiable claim I want to falsify it. Sure, a fighter will fight well. That's good. I've never claimed different. Cool. We're on board here.

Now here's where we diverge. A wizard can also hold their own in combat. Surprisingly enough. But they can also do things that aren't combat.

If we need to do this in a story based medium....

Suppose the party, Bob the Wizard, Rob the Fighter, and Gob the Rogue, Has just fought, and defeated the court wizard of count Nasty-face. It was a tough fight, everyone's pretty tired, and they were just told that Count Nasty-face is only two days away with his army. They immediately set about debating how to protect the townsfolk of oppressed-burg. Rob offers the plan of 'we could go meet them in battle' but Gob chimes in with, 'But we've used up all our potions and he's got a thousand men at his back!'

Then Bob nods, "We will retreat to King burgermeisters citadel, in the southern mountains." And casts teleportation circle. The villagers pack their things, and go through.

And thus ends the tale of how the wizard just solved the problem without ever needing a sword swung. In a manner that the remainder of the party couldn't have equally managed.

the point, is not to put down fighter players. It's a cool class, and sometimes you don't WANT to be a caster for whatever reason. I'm not trying to make it competitive, but the very nature of the assertion is such that it requires competitive examples to demonstrate.

And the point is that while yes. There aren't as many trap options as there were in 3.5, there are differences, sizable differences in many cases, And those differences are worth noting in an organized manner.

georgie_leech

2016-03-17, 10:15 PM

mgshamster

2016-03-17, 10:20 PM

And the Fighter has the Noble background and so has the connections and experience needed to expedite the process and convince king burgermeister to accept the sudden influx of refugees without undue stress and the Rogue uses his talents of deception to impersonate a ranking member of Count Nasty-face's army and get close enough to assassinate him to prevent him from employing his resources to hunt down the party for killing his court Wizard.

In 3.x, the differences were great enough that it was possible to accidentally find situations where entire party members were made obsolete by any of a number of actions. In 5e, the gap is narrow enough that no one's contribution is made redundant, even if some can contribute 'more.'

Another point (which you hint at): classes are no longer the sole source of character development. Background features provide some solid narrative power that helps round out characters much more. In addition, many options have been opened up compared to 3.X - where they used to require feat chains, now you can just do them.

druid91

2016-03-17, 10:35 PM

And the Fighter has the Noble background and so has the connections and experience needed to expedite the process and convince king burgermeister to accept the sudden influx of refugees without undue stress and the Rogue uses his talents of deception to impersonate a ranking member of Count Nasty-face's army and get close enough to assassinate him to prevent him from employing his resources to hunt down the party for killing his court Wizard.

In 3.x, the differences were great enough that it was possible to accidentally find situations where entire party members were made obsolete by any of a number of actions. In 5e, the gap is narrow enough that no one's contribution is made redundant, even if some can contribute 'more.'

This is theoretically possible. But what if the fighter was instead a sailor?

There are honestly a number of scenarios in which my table has stumbled across accidental overshadowing.

The point I'm saying is that's wrong. While it's HARDER to make someones contribution redundant accidentally. It's entirely possible, and as I've been DMing it's kind of been the hardest aspect for me because I'm new to it. Right now even, I'm having trouble with a paladin with remarkably good rolls, warforged race making them nigh unkillable.

Shaofoo

2016-03-17, 10:41 PM

A metal cube is an object yes? A 10x10 metal cube is also an object yes? There is no point at which a metal cube becomes not an object. No matter how big it gets. The same is also true for a large single mass of stone. a large cone made of solid granite, is a strangely shaped artificial mountain, and also an object. Creature to Object has no limits on how large of an object you can create. And it only seems that way, because you're using the kneejerk 'stop the powergamer' reflex we all have. Yes, it's silly to allow a wizard to level a city in your game by transmuting a massive adamantine sphere and dropping it on it from a great height. This doesn't mean that, by the book, they can't.

Okay, lets assume that we allow you to create a mile wide ball of adamantine to crush everyone.

Including yourself

Because the spell range is 30 feet.

So sure, go ahead and turn your friend into a wrecking ball, you'll be paste like everyone else.

In fact you could even have it grow and as soon as the wizard is crushed to paste the spell stops because it is a Concentration spell.

Same as it's silly to let a fighter stab the king in his throne room and say "I'm king now." and expecting that to work out well just because the king is an aging nobleman who can't fight back.

I am not sure where is that in the rules. I can't even say where did your train of logic lead you to say this.

And the point is because while the game is cooperative. This concept is not. This concept is essentially saying that each class puts in the same amount of value. A 20th level fighter is equal to a 20th level wizard in value on your team. A concept that's silly and false. This concept of false equivalence between classes is arguably more harmful than any tier list.

Again Wizards are always fresh and at 100%. For all theorycrafting they never spent a spell slot at any time (including summoning a giant cone of earth that should kill them because of basic geometry).

If you can prove to me that a wizard with no spell slots can equal a fighter then you have a point, basically one 1st level and one 2nd level spell and cantrips vs what the fighter can put out. If at its worst the Wizard can still outdo the fighter then you can say what you are saying, otherwise you are just giving spiritually infinite spell slots to the wizard.

But no one assumes that the classes are equal, neither do I. In fact the classes are equal was something that 4e brought to the table and people hated it (I like it if only to prove to others how does true equality looks and if they really want it). But classes do put in some value, that it is equal it is debatable but you can't deny that fighters can still give to the team.

mgshamster

2016-03-17, 10:43 PM

This is theoretically possible. But what if the fighter was instead a sailor?

Wait. So when they use specific examples, it's a rare occasion that it will be useful and picking something else changes the scenario. But when you use specific examples, it's to highlight the problems inherent in the system and changing the specific example doesn't mean anything.

I feel like there should be a word to describe this type of double standard.

georgie_leech

2016-03-17, 10:56 PM

This is theoretically possible. But what if the fighter was instead a sailor?

There are honestly a number of scenarios in which my table has stumbled across accidental overshadowing.

The point I'm saying is that's wrong. While it's HARDER to make someones contribution redundant accidentally. It's entirely possible, and as I've been DMing it's kind of been the hardest aspect for me because I'm new to it. Right now even, I'm having trouble with a paladin with remarkably good rolls, warforged race making them nigh unkillable.

Then the Fighter uses his tactical knowledge to help King Burgermeister find good areas to ambush the potential invasion threat, helps train the refugees in the basics of proper Sling use to defend their homes, or stages a distraction to help the Rogue slip into their camp by 'attacking' a section of their wall and drawing sentries to open a hole in their patrol. At no point does the contribution of these characters have to be negligible.

Could you give an example of such accidental overshadowing in 5e? I've yet to encounter that.

druid91

2016-03-17, 10:59 PM

Okay, lets assume that we allow you to create a mile wide ball of adamantine to crush everyone.

Including yourself

Because the spell range is 30 feet.

So sure, go ahead and turn your friend into a wrecking ball, you'll be paste like everyone else.

In fact you could even have it grow and as soon as the wizard is crushed to paste the spell stops because it is a Concentration spell.

I am not sure where is that in the rules. I can't even say where did your train of logic lead you to say this.

Again Wizards are always fresh and at 100%. For all theorycrafting they never spent a spell slot at any time (including summoning a giant cone of earth that should kill them because of basic geometry).

If you can prove to me that a wizard with no spell slots can equal a fighter then you have a point, basically one 1st level and one 2nd level spell and cantrips vs what the fighter can put out. If at its worst the Wizard can still outdo the fighter then you can say what you are saying, otherwise you are just giving spiritually infinite spell slots to the wizard.

But no one assumes that the classes are equal, neither do I. In fact the classes are equal was something that 4e brought to the table and people hated it (I like it if only to prove to others how does true equality looks and if they really want it). But classes do put in some value, that it is equal it is debatable but you can't deny that fighters can still give to the team.

This is why you create it beneath yourself. You get pushed into the air, sure. Big deal. Hence the 'drop it then cast' dynamic presented. Or alternatively, you create a weird shape. It's an extreme scenario meant to prove a point. I don't actually want you to try it.

Ok, but the fighter can't have weapons or armor. Because assuming a fighter has weapons or armor is assuming a fighter is at his best.

I never said they couldn't. What I said was that what they can give isn't by a longshot as valuable.

Wait. So when they use specific examples, it's a rare occasion that it will be useful and picking something else changes the scenario. But when you use specific examples, it's to highlight the problems inherent in the system and changing the specific example doesn't mean anything.

I feel like there should be a word to describe this type of double standard.

I gave specific examples within the dynamic of class. They used examples OUTSIDE the class dynamic to say 'but look at this!' It's no different from saying 'but what if the wizard didn't have his spell book and the fighter had the sword of Kas.' You're using outside mechanics to skew the results.

While an entirely plausible, perhaps even common occurrence, it contributes nothing to a discussion of class based power. If the statement 'all classes are equal' or even, 'all classes are close to equal' are true. Then different classes should perform relatively similarly given all other variables being the same. By skewing the other variables, you obscure the results.

It's basic science.

Pex

2016-03-17, 11:00 PM

That bypasses, though, two factors. (1) That some classes have more mechanical variety built in, and (2) there is a consensus regarding the relative weakness and strength of a few subclasses, which by now everyone knows.

While there's some disagreement on particulars, these are important to know for both DMs and players. Consensus doesn't render opinion factual, but it does lend it weight.

Yet the much maligned Champion is a fine archetype as is. Some players want simplicity and don't want to analyze every turn of combat of what their character should do. They're perfectly happy just to know they can crit on a 19 and not concern themselves whether they should cast a spell or use a maneuver die now or save it for later. A 5E Tier System would say it's The Suck, pretty much telling people never play the class.

druid91

2016-03-17, 11:06 PM

Yet the much maligned Champion is a fine archetype as is. Some players want simplicity and don't want to analyze every turn of combat of what their character should do. They're perfectly happy just to know they can crit on a 19 and not concern themselves whether they should cast a spell or use a maneuver die now or save it for later. A 5E Tier System would say it's The Suck, pretty much telling people never play the class.

Y'do realize that since there isn't a tier system yet the fact that it's maligned, means that's happening without a tier system? And is in no way stuck TO a tier system?

mgshamster

2016-03-17, 11:16 PM

Y'do realize that since there isn't a tier system yet the fact that it's maligned, means that's happening without a tier system? And is in no way stuck TO a tier system?

Did you really just say that? I mean, I can see the words right there, but I'm having hard time believing someone actually said that with complete sincerity. It's just baffling.

Mrglee

2016-03-17, 11:49 PM

Could you give an example of such accidental overshadowing in 5e? I've yet to encounter that.

I had some overshadowing in one of my games(I have since toned down what I play in response, since it was my first 5e character, and the group is fairly weak at the game aspect of dnd). I built a tank focus Totem Barbarian since I figured it would be easy to make. Between the Moon Druid and I, we could wreck encounters. And I was a level behind most people too.
I mean, it wasn't a huge deal at the end of the day, but some sessions it felt like some people were there to soak XP, while me and the druid absorbed literal hundreds of damage between us and we dealt decent damage. Between skills and spells we were relevant elsewhere too.

georgie_leech

2016-03-17, 11:53 PM

I had some overshadowing in one of my games(I have since toned down what I play in response, since it was my first 5e character, and the group is fairly weak at the game aspect of dnd). I built a tank focus Totem Barbarian since I figured it would be easy to make. Between the Moon Druid and I, we could wreck encounters. And I was a level behind most people too.
I mean, it wasn't a huge deal at the end of the day, but some sessions it felt like some people were there to soak XP, while me and the druid absorbed literal hundreds of damage between us and we dealt decent damage. Between skills and spells we were relevant elsewhere too.

Is this a case of the other players being unable to contribute in combat, or that between the two of you you just end up with the lion's share of the combat duties?

busterswd

2016-03-18, 12:49 AM

I'm not trying to make it competitive, but the very nature of the assertion is such that it requires competitive examples to demonstrate.

No, it doesn't. The premise of the original post is literally that you don't need to know relative power in 5E, because it's a cooperative game where everyone has a excellent chance at contributing. You using examples of classes competing with each other to demonstrate relative power doesn't disprove that.

The biggest argument one can make for needing to know relative power is maintaining the integrity of the actual game. It's not just a matter of a 5e Wizard having a hundred utility spells a Champion will never get. In 3.5, a druid's pet would be a better tank than an actual melee class, and a Wizard could just throw half a dozen buffs on himself to do make them completely obsolete at mid to higher levels. Entire classes were invalidated by happenstance class features. In that system, knowing about that sort of pitfall ahead of time could prevent a broken campaign and frustrated players. There was a very good reason for a 3.5 tier list to exist.

There are some oversights in this edition (Moon Druid 2-4) but for the most part, you're not going to accidentally outmelee a martial as a caster without consciously trying to do it and focusing your build on it. And even then, you're a little less competitive with them, not completely outmatched. Picking Beastmaster isn't going to invalidate your character, even if you're doing 10% less DPR than, say, a Warlock spamming Eldritch Blast.

Sidenote: If you're stepping on the DM train, you're going to quickly learn how boring having a magical solution to everything can get. In your evacuation example, even if you had a Wizard, what if the Wizard didn't have Teleportation Circle, or even worse, if he went full blaster? Is the entire village and party just screwed? Chances are pretty good there's some solution the party hasn't thought of, or that not being able to defend 2000 villagers will drive the story forward, or that there's some reason the party's in that situation (ie: consequences for earlier actions). Having an instant, easy solution is fine once in a while, but Schrodinger's Wizard doesn't encourage a good narrative, and you're hopefully not going to write campaigns that require one.

In other words, you're generally going to throw situations at your players they can realistically handle. There's almost never going to be a binary solution to a problem that the party never had a chance of attaining, unless you're trying to deliberately kill your party for whatever reason. And thankfully, the background system has a lot of options that help round out a party's pool of solutions, as has been pointed out by other posters.

Mrglee

2016-03-18, 02:00 AM

Is this a case of the other players being unable to contribute in combat, or that between the two of you you just end up with the lion's share of the combat duties?

I mean, they hit things so I guess the latter, but damage/survivability of us two were far above the rest. Granted, some of the builds were weird, and the DM did occasionally get me out of combat by way of 200+ feet drops, but if we were left alone, the Druid and I could handle most things combatwise with no assistance.
And I recognize this is just personal experience from one campaign, where some builds were weird and I went for a more standard one. Those I have seen and played in the "problem" isn't really as pronounce. And I put "problem" in quotes because it is only a problem if you let it be a problem. No one at the table complained and still game with me, so I assume they were fine with it, I just didn't notice a huge out of combat difference and a huge in combat one. YMMV.

djreynolds

2016-03-18, 04:52 AM

Yes.

1.) I cannot stress enough that some DMs love Undermountain type play, the champion is the man/woman in those. My half-orc champion was a beast. And fought with a rapier and shield, strength based but with defensive duelist and survivor, took defensive style and archery as well. He could fight anywhere. He could stealth when needed and not hurt the party. And survivor is awesome when the spells run out and everyone is backing off, the champion is right there still at half hit points. 7 feats means maxed con and strength, resilient wis, and few more feats to round out.

2.) The rogue's sneak attack is always on, every round he can land up to 60 in extra damage, every round no matter the archetype.

3.) A beast master with a dead beast still has sharpshooter and good spells and a maxed dex by level 12. Still has 2 attacks. And archery style.

I know its fun to have opinions, I certainly do, but I also know that I blow through spells very quickly and the game is vastly different with who is the DM and how rests are used.

I found out after trying to defeat a 20th level barbarian, it was about attrition. When all the goodies run out, and that guy has taken HALF of what you could muster...

Shaofoo

2016-03-18, 05:41 AM

This is why you create it beneath yourself. You get pushed into the air, sure. Big deal. Hence the 'drop it then cast' dynamic presented. Or alternatively, you create a weird shape. It's an extreme scenario meant to prove a point. I don't actually want you to try it.

Quite frankly, the way you are just trying to twist this is just munchkiny. I mean cast it below you, so now it must push you away except not you aren't crushing anything at all and instead are displacing things... which could end up crushing you if you are pinned between objects anyway also now it isn't a sphere or a cone but an indeterminate shape that will work, the shape is vague enough but there has to be a shape that can work.. I know I won't try it because it is certain death, I'll have a dead character and a bunch of annoyed/mad players and a dissapointed DM.

Ok, but the fighter can't have weapons or armor. Because assuming a fighter has weapons or armor is assuming a fighter is at his best.

I know you are kidding but you do know you are going against the rules. Fighters always start out with weapons and armor, he never enters the game naked, by the rules he will always start out with gear. Your joke kinda fell flat dude, by that logic the Wizard never starts with a spell component pouch or spellbook, no spellbook means no spells except for cantrips.

If there was a rule for weapon and armor erosion and destruction then you'd have a point (and outside of certain monsters there isn't any weapon or armor destruction) but it is feasable to end up at level 20 with starting gear

I never said they couldn't. What I said was that what they can give isn't by a longshot as valuable.

The thing is that you can't tell what the wizard can give at any point in time in an actual game. If spell slots are consumed then his options become more limited. You can't always say Wizards can outdo Fighters in everything because then you are just assuming that Wizards will always have spells available since your metric of Wizards > Fighters is a limited resource.

Regitnui

2016-03-18, 06:37 AM

The thing is that you can't tell what the wizard can give at any point in time in an actual game. If spell slots are consumed then his options become more limited. You can't always say Wizards can outdo Fighters in everything because then you are just assuming that Wizards will always have spells available since your metric of Wizards > Fighters is a limited resource.

He sounds a bit like Red Mage from 8-bit theatre, specifically where he refused to heal himself because that would mean surrendering a spell slot and "compromising my versatility!" If your wizard is ready for the bandits attacking them as the party leaves the dungeon with time stop, my question is what in the Nine Hells was he doing inside the dungeon that he still has a spell slot of that level left?

Gwendol

2016-03-18, 07:15 AM

Wait. So when they use specific examples, it's a rare occasion that it will be useful and picking something else changes the scenario. But when you use specific examples, it's to highlight the problems inherent in the system and changing the specific example doesn't mean anything.

I feel like there should be a word to describe this type of double standard.

Well, Schrödinger's Wizard is always undefeatable. And always has just the right spell known and prepared, and always a spell slot left of the right level.

KorvinStarmast

2016-03-18, 07:23 AM

mgshamster

2016-03-18, 07:24 AM

Let's look at the OP. Break it down.... [snip]

Hate to break it to you, but your re-analysis is still wrong. There were several points where the text you quoted flat out refuted what you claimed it said. Try it again, maybe after a good night's rest you'll get a better understanding.

I mean, everyone else gets it. Some agree, some disagree, but everyone else is reading him correctly. You seem to be the only one who isn't, and you're insistent that everyone else - including the OP - are all wrong.

Here's one example of a mistake you're making:

You said this:

This, the assertion that there is no mechanical variability. That all the classes are so balanced that you can't say one is definitively better.

About this quote:

That's because the 5e designers aimed for balance in their approach. And while it isn't quite as balanced as 4e, which was too balanced for some players, they managed to make a game in which no player can put little thought into his character and still outshine everyone else in all areas.

Do you see how your analysis is incorrect? Evil Anagram did not say that 5e had no mechanical variability with perfect balance that you couldn't claim one was better than another. He said that 4e was better balanced than 5e, but 5e was still balanced enough that you could not accidentally outshine another player (which was common in 3.X).

This is an important part of his argument to understand - that it's difficult to outshine other classes, especially at their own specialty. It requires skill to make a build that outshines other classes at their own specialty in 5e. In 3.X, you could do it accidentally.

The purpose of the 3.X Teir lists was to recognize and showcase those accidental oversteps so that GMs and players could minimize frustration in gameplay.

No such list is required for 5e. If you're going to have one PC completely outshine and overstep another PC in your game, then what you have is two skillful players - one who made a build to excel and another who made a build to fail. It's somewhat difficult to do and very likely that it won't happen by accident.

So tier lists don't help in that regard. Instead, what they do for 5e, is show a list of relative power levels based on opinion (not analysis), and give a false impression that there are "good" classes and "bad" classes - when in reality all that classes are good and capable of performing what they set out to perform without being overshadowed by any other class. Bring in background features and it rounds a character out rather nicely in terms of narrative power.

KorvinStarmast

2016-03-18, 07:31 AM

7 feats means maxed con and strength, resilient wis, and few more feats to round out.
No, that is 7 feats/ASIs. If you max the stats, you don't get 7 feats.

I'd like to repeat two points made further up by others:

Fighters, in a game that does not support Fighters Vs Wizards and instead supports Fighters and Wizards vs the World. The game would rather have the Fighter and Wizard rebuild society together than have both sides compete in creating a new world.

The point that people are trying to make is that the system is reasonably well designed to the point where a class will do what it says on the label. In a co-op system where every class fulfills its purpose, you don't need a tier list.
When people get internally competitive in what is a team game (like the point guard kvetching about how often the center touches the ball) you start to screw up the success of the party. As a player, when that gets to a certain level (I've seen it happen more than once) I walk away and do something else. Few things are more pathetic than to watch a couple of geeks get into chest thumping over D&D. There are far better uses of my time.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-18, 08:07 AM

woodlandkammao

2016-03-18, 08:42 AM

I would really love this getting added to the pinned list. Someone make this happen

Regards
Multiclassed Beastmaster who has put up with some sh*t.

Fwiffo86

2016-03-18, 08:44 AM

Except for the fact that power word: kill will kill a Rakshasa, presuming you weaken it first with something like Finger of Death. While a fighter swinging an utterly nonmagical sword, will not. And since you are not promised a magical sword or any magical equipment at all...

Nor are you promised POW. Despite the hardened belief that "I can pick my spells as I level up" regardless of in game spell dispensing, there is no more reliability that POW will be a spell in game than there will be a magic sword, or a Raksasha for that matter. Again, this is nothing more than a vacuum argument, one requiring very specific parameters.

Sure, for a lot of things, just swinging a sword at it is useful. That does not mean there aren't exceptions to that.

Not saying this is false at all.

It's not a vacuum argument any more than "A fighter can sword things to death" is a vacuum argument. Stating that people will react to the fact that you are using a strategic move. Doesn't change the fact that you can break the tactical game by moving up one level to strategy. And then from there to logistics.

While a martial quite simply can't without extreme handholding on the part of the DM.

How is creating money out of thin air moving up one level of strategy? I was attempting to make the point that "magically" solving every problem causes problems that cannot be mechanically and mathematically solved while theory crafting. A fighter who hires mercs with the money he has looted is dumping money back into the economy. While a wizard is devaluing money across an entire kingdom (thus causing inflated prices, which cause simple folk to starve, businesses to close, and the kingdom no longer having the money to afford their own army as examples) which is in no way I know of, a calculable variable in theory crafting math.

Shaofoo

2016-03-18, 09:06 AM

Nor are you promised POW. Despite the hardened belief that "I can pick my spells as I level up" regardless of in game spell dispensing, there is no more reliability that POW will be a spell in game than there will be a magic sword, or a Raksasha for that matter. Again, this is nothing more than a vacuum argument, one requiring very specific parameters.

By RAW all spells are available for wizards upon level up, it isn't constructive to discussion if we are to discuss outside the actual rules of the game. We must assume as little house rules as possible. You could argue that Feats and Multiclassing are not guaranteed but those come with a caveat in the rules that warns players, no such caveat is included for spells.

Of course another part of the coin is the availability of expensive material components, Simulacrum requires Ruby Dust so if you truly hate Simulacrum and have someone whine about you banning the spell then just allow the spell but make sure you don't have rubies exist in your game and spiritually the Simulacrum spell is banned. A player should never assume expensive material components are always available at will (of course in the previous example I will just ban the spell instead of making the material components not exist but it is basically a tool for DMs to control those kinds of spells).

Of course there is Wish but that involves both suffering harsh penalties plus the risk of not being able to cast Wish again.

KorvinStarmast

2016-03-18, 09:32 AM

A player should never assume expensive material components are always available at will (of course in the previous example I will just ban the spell instead of making the material components not exist but it is basically a tool for DMs to control those kinds of spells).

There is a thread about the Conjuration school of wizards who can conjure up a 10 pound ruby from which to make dust. Just a thought.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-18, 09:36 AM

There is a thread about the Conjuration school of wizards who can conjure up a 10 pound ruby from which to make dust. Just a thought.
If rubies are ridiculously common in a setting, that might not be worth much. :wink:

druid91

2016-03-18, 09:56 AM

Wow. There's a lot that happened since my wife and I had potatoes and went to bed.

I'm not interested in theorycrafted caster/martial discussion here. It's boring, it's fruitless, and the game has been out long enough that if caster supremacy were real, people could simply point to examples of it in real play.

However, the fact that the game is reasonably well balanced is a key part of my argument, which makes challenging that assertion a valid avenue of attack. So, here's a challenge: if you want to argue that caster supremacy is a major balance issue in 5e, prove it. Comb forums and find examples of people discussing real play that demonstrates martial characters consistently feeling overshadowed by casters. Examples that don't rely on poor DMing, but RAWful supremacy at commonly played levels.

Edit:

mgshamster: that was well put.

And your assertions are valid despite playing in the pared down version of 5e that is AL? AL is not standard 5e D&D. I find it somewhat ridiculous that you expect me to go find OTHER things to prove they're better when it's literally right there in front of you.

Hate to break it to you, but your re-analysis is still wrong. There were several points where the text you quoted flat out refuted what you claimed it said. Try it again, maybe after a good night's rest you'll get a better understanding.

I mean, everyone else gets it. Some agree, some disagree, but everyone else is reading him correctly. You seem to be the only one who isn't, and you're insistent that everyone else - including the OP - are all wrong.

Here's one example of a mistake you're making:

You said this:

About this quote:

Do you see how your analysis is incorrect? Evil Anagram did not say that 5e had no mechanical variability with perfect balance that you couldn't claim one was better than another. He said that 4e was better balanced than 5e, but 5e was still balanced enough that you could not accidentally outshine another player (which was common in 3.X).

This is an important part of his argument to understand - that it's difficult to outshine other classes, especially at their own specialty. It requires skill to make a build that outshines other classes at their own specialty in 5e. In 3.X, you could do it accidentally.

The purpose of the 3.X Teir lists was to recognize and showcase those accidental oversteps so that GMs and players could minimize frustration in gameplay.

No such list is required for 5e. If you're going to have one PC completely outshine and overstep another PC in your game, then what you have is two skillful players - one who made a build to excel and another who made a build to fail. It's somewhat difficult to do and very likely that it won't happen by accident.

So tier lists don't help in that regard. Instead, what they do for 5e, is show a list of relative power levels based on opinion (not analysis), and give a false impression that there are "good" classes and "bad" classes - when in reality all that classes are good and capable of performing what they set out to perform without being overshadowed by any other class. Bring in background features and it rounds a character out rather nicely in terms of narrative power.

No, he said that every class fit into tier 3. Which is still wrong. As previously evidenced.

And again we fall into this pit of assuming anyone who writes up a tier list is some sort of Lawful Evil tyrant. Ready to burst into your house and smack you with a ruler for disputing their holy canon which is just a list.

Rather than trying to stop people from making a list, which you can't really do. Why not try to correct innacuracies in that list? Or offer up a list of your own that emphasizes rather than a numerical up-down list, a circular list that emphasizes what they can do.

They need to get to level 20 first. (FWIW, the wizard will need some rare spell components for some of those spells).

Once you've hit 20, you've topped out. It's the journey, not the destination.

Not at all? 20 is the zenith of class power. Not the end of the character. What sort of person would play with one character all the way up to 20, finally getting their capstone and then go 'welp. I'm done. Never gonna use HIM again.'

Quite frankly, the way you are just trying to twist this is just munchkiny. I mean cast it below you, so now it must push you away except not you aren't crushing anything at all and instead are displacing things... which could end up crushing you if you are pinned between objects anyway also now it isn't a sphere or a cone but an indeterminate shape that will work, the shape is vague enough but there has to be a shape that can work.. I know I won't try it because it is certain death, I'll have a dead character and a bunch of annoyed/mad players and a dissapointed DM.

I know you are kidding but you do know you are going against the rules. Fighters always start out with weapons and armor, he never enters the game naked, by the rules he will always start out with gear. Your joke kinda fell flat dude, by that logic the Wizard never starts with a spell component pouch or spellbook, no spellbook means no spells except for cantrips.

If there was a rule for weapon and armor erosion and destruction then you'd have a point (and outside of certain monsters there isn't any weapon or armor destruction) but it is feasable to end up at level 20 with starting gear

The thing is that you can't tell what the wizard can give at any point in time in an actual game. If spell slots are consumed then his options become more limited. You can't always say Wizards can outdo Fighters in everything because then you are just assuming that Wizards will always have spells available since your metric of Wizards > Fighters is a limited resource.

As I said, it's an extreme example not to be used in actual play, just like stabbing the king during his speech is probably not a good idea in actual play even if the fighter CAN do it. Though if you really insist on doing it from below, make a divot in the ball where you're standing. It doesn't matter. That doesn't change that it can be done by RAW. Your nitpicking is kinda pointless.

And Wizards start with spell slots. And can even regain spell slots. And casts spells for free.

The issue with that logic is while yes, Wizards have limited resources. You're essentially insisting we assume they not have any spell slots. Because obviously they blew all of them earlier. That's reasonable mid-mission. When you're JUST starting out the mission though? Just starting out the challenge?

EvilAnagram

2016-03-18, 10:03 AM

And your assertions are valid despite playing in the pared down version of 5e that is AL? AL is not standard 5e D&D. I find it somewhat ridiculous that you expect me to go find OTHER things to prove they're better when it's literally right there in front of you.

First, AL is the only version that has to stick to RAW. The only rules it cuts out are flight races in EE and SCAG. For all the problems of AL, it is not "pared down."

Second, I have played on 5 tables, only one of which has been AL.

And yes, at this point you should be able to prove caster supremacy. It's been two years of real play. Your nonsense wizard examples don't carry any weight.

KorvinStarmast

2016-03-18, 10:07 AM

Not at all? 20 is the zenith of class power. Not the end of the character. What sort of person would play with one character all the way up to 20, finally getting their capstone and then go 'welp. I'm done. Never gonna use HIM again.'
OK, you take on a few ancient dragons and the Tarasque. Depends on table, but whenever people make class comparisons based upon level 20 ... given how uncommon playing at that level is ... I take a grain of salt.

With the right DM and challenges, I agree with you: lvl 20 characters will have some really cool adventures. Only takes a few hundred preceding adventures/encounters to get there.

Now, if your table and your team of PC's have stayed together that long, how in the hell is any kind of tier discussion even relevant?

druid91

2016-03-18, 10:16 AM

OK, you take on a few ancient dragons and the Tarasque. Depends on table, but whenever people make class comparisons based upon level 20 ... given how uncommon playing at that level is ... I take a grain of salt.

With the right DM and challenges, I agree with you: lvl 20 characters will have some really cool adventures. Only takes a few hundred preceding adventures/encounters to get there.

Now, if your table and your team of PC's have stayed together that long, how in the hell is any kind of tier discussion even relevant?

Or alternatively, you start facing similarly leveled enemies? Y'do know monsters can have class levels right?

And because it's interesting

First, AL is the only version that has to stick to RAW. The only rules it cuts out are flight races in EE and SCAG. For all the problems of AL, it is not "pared down."

Second, I have played on 5 tables, only one of which has been AL.

And yes, at this point you should be able to prove caster supremacy. It's been two years of real play. Your nonsense wizard examples don't carry any weight.

Which is why it comes with it's own seperate players guide right?

AL cuts down on what you can summon, cuts down on what you can polymorph/wildshape into, goes well out of it's way to enforce an artificial in the box railroad.... Etc.

So, essentially, I have to prove caster supremacy, but if I use any spells then it's just munchkinry. Right.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-18, 10:32 AM

AL cuts down on what you can summon, cuts down on what you can polymorph/wildshape into, goes well out of it's way to enforce an artificial in the box railroad.... Etc.
By enforcing the rule that you have to have seen it? AL is no more restrictive than many other tables, and less so than some I've played on. It's far from my favorite place to play, but frankly that's because I run a fun table.

So, essentially, I have to prove caster supremacy, but if I use any spells then it's just munchkinry. Right.
No, you prove caster supremacy by demonstrating that it regularly occurs through normal play instead of constantly changing what your hypothetical caster can do and shifting goalposts. Do actual research instead of vomiting whatever you come up with in the moment with your infinite hypothetical spell slots and complete knowledge of all spells.

mgshamster

2016-03-18, 10:45 AM

No, he said that every class fit into tier 3. Which is still wrong. As previously evidenced.

Every class does fit in to teir 3. Some on the high end, some on the low end. But no class is so bad that it delves into tier 4 and no class is so good that is raises into tier 2. Well, maybe tier 2 - maybe. It's be low tier 2 or high tier 3. Maybe.

Either way, it's irrelevant. In the 3.X tier lists, the recommendation was that you could play any span of three tiers and they'd be ok together. So even if we do have tiers 2-4 here, they would work well together. What we absolutely do not have is any tier 1 classes nor any tier 5 and 6 classes. You *might* be able to argue that tier 4 and 2 exist in this edition, but it'd be a difficult argument and you'd have a lot of pushback.

And again we fall into this pit of assuming anyone who writes up a tier list is some sort of Lawful Evil tyrant. Ready to burst into your house and smack you with a ruler for disputing their holy canon which is just a list.

Adding hyperbole to your erroneous arguments will not help you. No one has even suggested anything close to this. Perhaps it's your lack of reading comprehension that's causing you to misunderstand?

Try this: due to the minimized power disparity in this edition compared to 3.X, tier lists do not help players and GMs determine which classes best work together to avoid frustration in game play and GMing styles. That was the point of 3.X tier lists.

So if 5e tier lists do not do that, what's the point of a tier list?

Rather than trying to stop people from making a list, which you can't really do. Why not try to correct innacuracies in that list? Or offer up a list of your own that emphasizes rather than a numerical up-down list, a circular list that emphasizes what they can do.

It's absolutey true that you can't stop people from doing something. What we can try to do is educate people, which is exactly what this thread is about.

Shaofoo

2016-03-18, 10:52 AM

As I said, it's an extreme example not to be used in actual play, just like stabbing the king during his speech is probably not a good idea in actual play even if the fighter CAN do it. Though if you really insist on doing it from below, make a divot in the ball where you're standing. It doesn't matter. That doesn't change that it can be done by RAW. Your nitpicking is kinda pointless.

You said that you can slam mountains into kingdoms by RAW, I proven that you can't. The fact that you could still create a mountain was meaningless with the intent to basically autokill everyone. It makes you realize that maybe things aren't as they seem and that you seem to be backtracking an awful lot instead of just admitting that you made a mistake. Just because it can be done by RAW doesn't mean that it is a good idea. You could even wish for all people to die in the game as well, you'll probably be catapulted to the end of time where nothing remains but you can do it.

And Wizards start with spell slots. And can even regain spell slots. And casts spells for free.

And without spellbooks these spell slots become useless, Wizards do not start with spells known, they start with a spellbook where they can learn spells. A Wizard without a starting spellbook knows no spells outside of cantrips.

The issue with that logic is while yes, Wizards have limited resources. You're essentially insisting we assume they not have any spell slots. Because obviously they blew all of them earlier. That's reasonable mid-mission. When you're JUST starting out the mission though? Just starting out the challenge?

Pointless because then you are saying that you will ALWAYS start the mission, every single encounter will start out fresh and ready after a long rest.

Also I never said that we should assume that there are no spell slots, just that if you wish your assertions that Wizards > Fighters then the Wizards must outdo the fighter without any spell slots, otherwise the fact that Wizards < Fighters at some points invalidates your assessment. But this is pointless because we both know that Wizards are not kings of everything anyway.

Elderand

2016-03-18, 10:53 AM

druid91

2016-03-18, 10:58 AM

By enforcing the rule that you have to have seen it? AL is no more restrictive than many other tables, and less so than some I've played on. It's far from my favorite place to play, but frankly that's because I run a fun table.

No, you prove caster supremacy by demonstrating that it regularly occurs through normal play instead of constantly changing what your hypothetical caster can do and shifting goalposts. Do actual research instead of vomiting whatever you come up with in the moment with your infinite hypothetical spell slots and complete knowledge of all spells.

Err no.

"The player whose character casts the spell may select an appropriate creature from the sources allowed by the Adventurer's League Player's Guide. If, and only if, no appropriate creature is available in those sources, the player may select an appropriate creature from the Dungeon Masters Basic Rules. In the rare instance in which there is no appropriate creature in those rules, either, the Dungeon Master may select an appropriate creature from the Monster Manual."

As you have demonstrated it? "I totally had a fun time with my party. And there was no overshadowing!"

That happened in 3.5 as well.

You said that you can slam mountains into kingdoms by RAW, I proven that you can't. The fact that you could still create a mountain was meaningless with the intent to basically autokill everyone. It makes you realize that maybe things aren't as they seem and that you seem to be backtracking an awful lot instead of just admitting that you made a mistake. Just because it can be done by RAW doesn't mean that it is a good idea. You could even wish for all people to die in the game as well, you'll probably be catapulted to the end of time where nothing remains but you can do it.

And without spellbooks these spell slots become useless, Wizards do not start with spells known, they start with a spellbook where they can learn spells. A Wizard without a starting spellbook knows no spells outside of cantrips.

Pointless because then you are saying that you will ALWAYS start the mission, every single encounter will start out fresh and ready after a long rest.

Also I never said that we should assume that there are no spell slots, just that if you wish your assertions that Wizards > Fighters then the Wizards must outdo the fighter without any spell slots, otherwise the fact that Wizards < Fighters at some points invalidates your assessment. But this is pointless because we both know that Wizards are not kings of everything anyway.

Ok, if we're really going to do this. Aaracrokra, or however you spell the birdman's name, wizard plucks a worm from the ground and flies up above the hated capital of the dwarves, cackling as he drops the worm, transforming it into a large mass of stone. "Let their beloved stone be their end!" And then he laughs a birdy laugh as the transfigured mountain smashes into the city.

A dwarven wizard cackles maniacally as he meets the goblin hordes on an open field and shouts, "May the hammer O' Moradin strike yeh down!" And polymorphs a sacrificial animal into a massive adamantine hammer, tilted so that the large head comes crashing down amongst their ranks slaying the goblin king and his fearsome bodyguards.

It's totally doable, I'd advise not doing it.

And what's the point of this? Why can a fighter start with everything they need but a wizard cannot.

And the issue with that logic is it's not hard to A.) Reserve spell slots for escape options. and B.) To use those escape options, rest, replan, come back another day.

Fwiffo86

2016-03-18, 11:00 AM

By RAW all spells are available for wizards upon level up, it isn't constructive to discussion if we are to discuss outside the actual rules of the game. We must assume as little house rules as possible. You could argue that Feats and Multiclassing are not guaranteed but those come with a caveat in the rules that warns players, no such caveat is included for spells.

Of course another part of the coin is the availability of expensive material components, Simulacrum requires Ruby Dust so if you truly hate Simulacrum and have someone whine about you banning the spell then just allow the spell but make sure you don't have rubies exist in your game and spiritually the Simulacrum spell is banned. A player should never assume expensive material components are always available at will (of course in the previous example I will just ban the spell instead of making the material components not exist but it is basically a tool for DMs to control those kinds of spells).

Of course there is Wish but that involves both suffering harsh penalties plus the risk of not being able to cast Wish again.

I think you may have missed my meaning. This is easily done with the way I worded it.

POW, Magic weapons, feats, multiclassing, etc. are "all things that may or may not exist in game". This is very different that saying "magic is not in game". A wizard uses magic. Taking that away invalidates the class as a whole. However, removing a specific spells is nor more troublesome to the class as a whole than is removing a magic sword is to a melee class.

Specific spells, particular troublesome magic items, difficulty or wonky feats may all be dismissed and not available to the player in the first place. More to the point, I was saying that just because a wiz gets to add two spells to their book every level, does not in any way guarantee they have a particular spell for the aforementioned reasons. It is entirely possible that spell does not exist. Period.

It is my belief that making arguments based in part on schrodinger's wizard are faulty at best. Not entirely wrong, as when such situations arise, yes, the wizard may or may not be the best choice to solve it. That in no way precludes the assumption that the wizard IS always the best choice. In play experience, this is actually seldom the case in my experience.

Shaofoo

2016-03-18, 11:01 AM

There is a thread about the Conjuration school of wizards who can conjure up a 10 pound ruby from which to make dust. Just a thought.

If you mean Minor Conjuration it can't be done. Simulacrum is a 12 hour cast time and the ruby will last one hour, you'll lose your component way before the spell is done, no creation spells can give a 12 hour ruby that isn't wish.

Quite frankly I would think most DMs will not allow magic created components, probably they can say that the ruby dust is actually worthless since it is magic and thus has no cost.

KorvinStarmast

2016-03-18, 11:04 AM

If you mean Minor Conjuration it can't be done. Simulacrum is a 12 hour cast time
Ah, I forgot that minor detail. Thanks. :smallcool:

Shaofoo

2016-03-18, 11:13 AM

I think you may have missed my meaning. This is easily done with the way I worded it.

POW, Magic weapons, feats, multiclassing, etc. are "all things that may or may not exist in game". This is very different that saying "magic is not in game". A wizard uses magic. Taking that away invalidates the class as a whole. However, removing a specific spells is nor more troublesome to the class as a whole than is removing a magic sword is to a melee class.

Specific spells, particular troublesome magic items, difficulty or wonky feats may all be dismissed and not available to the player in the first place. More to the point, I was saying that just because a wiz gets to add two spells to their book every level, does not in any way guarantee they have a particular spell for the aforementioned reasons. It is entirely possible that spell does not exist. Period.

It is my belief that making arguments based in part on schrodinger's wizard are faulty at best. Not entirely wrong, as when such situations arise, yes, the wizard may or may not be the best choice to solve it. That in no way precludes the assumption that the wizard IS always the best choice. In play experience, this is actually seldom the case in my experience.

Yes it is possible to have certain classes, races, spells and what have you be eliminated by the DM due to personal preference, balance reasons or even just how his world is (Dragonborn and Tieflings have no place in a LotR style world). But unless the book says that the players should not expect all spells to be available like it says about Feats and Multiclassing then I think the intent is to have all spells on, but feel free to change the spells available in your game (and I am sure the makers of the game will gladly give you their blessing to do so in your own game as well as whatever you want).

Schrodinger's Wizard is a fallacy not because the perfect spell might not exist in a particular game but rather that the power to cast said specific spell might not be available for the wizard at that particular time and there is no way to know if that potential could've been better used down the line to better effect. You can Knock a door instead of letting the Rogue unlock it but now you have no spell slots (lets assume you only have one spell slot and Arcane Recovery is exhausted for the naysayers) and now if you had that spell slot then you could've survived a surprise attack by using Shield only now you don't have that slot so you are dead; this should not be taken as a serious example, just a convoluted and strained example that simplifies my point.

EvilAnagram

2016-03-18, 11:14 AM

As you have demonstrated it? "I totally had a fun time with my party. And there was no overshadowing!"

I've played through 3 full campaigns as well as some shorter games, and I'm currently playing through two more, both as player and DM. I've seen enough tables to recognize when people are getting overshadowed, and I haven't seen any caster supremacy. The only person I've ever seen sidelined was playing a Cleric and just couldn't get his head around the mechanics of the class.

If you want to make the argument that 5e is totally unbalanced in favor of casters, please do so, but do it in a meaningful way, not just by crapping up threads with nonsense about how it's totally more reasonable for a level 8 Wizard to craft magical weapons for his army of skeletons, but a +1 sword is DM fiat.

druid91

2016-03-18, 11:16 AM

Yes it is possible to have certain classes, races, spells and what have you be eliminated by the DM due to personal preference, balance reasons or even just how his world is (Dragonborn and Tieflings have no place in a LotR style world). But unless the book says that the players should not expect all spells to be available like it says about Feats and Multiclassing then I think the intent is to have all spells on, but feel free to change the spells available in your game (and I am sure the makers of the game will gladly give you their blessing to do so in your own game as well as whatever you want).

Schrodinger's Wizard is a fallacy not because the perfect spell might not exist in a particular game but rather that the power to cast said specific spell might not be available for the wizard at that particular time and there is no way to know if that potential could've been better used down the line to better effect. You can Knock a door instead of letting the Rogue unlock it but now you have no spell slots (lets assume you only have one spell slot and Arcane Recovery is exhausted for the naysayers) and now if you had that spell slot then you could've survived a surprise attack by using Shield only now you don't have that slot so you are dead; this should not be taken as a serious example, just a convoluted and strained example that simplifies my point.

First of all, there's no Fallacy called Schrodingers Wizard. And there are consequences to letting the rogue unlock it. Perhaps they roll a nat 1 and a gas trap goes off killing everyone.

The point is you're essentially trying to shut down discussion of what wizards actually do, by insisting that they never use spells. Which is just as ridiculous as insisting that wizards will always have exactly the right spell at hand.

I've played through 3 full campaigns as well as some shorter games, and I'm currently playing through two more, both as player and DM. I've seen enough tables to recognize when people are getting overshadowed, and I haven't seen any caster supremacy. The only person I've ever seen sidelined was playing a Cleric and just couldn't get his head around the mechanics of the class.

If you want to make the argument that 5e is totally unbalanced in favor of casters, please do so, but do it in a meaningful way, not just by crapping up threads with nonsense about how it's totally more reasonable for a level 8 Wizard to craft magical weapons for his army of skeletons, but a +1 sword is DM fiat.

And? I've played in three campaigns as well. DMing one now, played another, and then played AL for a bit before I decided against continuing it.

A.) I specifically said that was kind of a jerk move on the wizards part. But it is certainly something they are capable of. In a game that uses the crafting rules, which has been every game but AL that I have played in 5e, a wizard is capable of crafting. But a fighter is not. Meaning that barring DM intervention a fighter cannot obtain a +1 sword. Just as barring DM intervention, a first level wizard can't have a spellbook containing every wizard spell in the game.

I've been trying to make this point because you lot have had a tendency to, when challenged on this, grasp at outside sources of power or capability to prove that non-casters totally can do all this stuff.

And to be fair, the EARLY levels are remarkably well balanced, because there's not much in the way of broken things. It isn't until later that casters start to overtake non-casters completely.

KorvinStarmast

2016-03-18, 11:20 AM

First of all, there's no Fallacy called Schrodingers Wizard. And there are consequences to letting the rogue unlock it. Perhaps they roll a nat 1 and a gas trap goes off killing everyone.
Critical fail is NOT a rule in 5e, it's a DMG option ... whoa, DM fiat trumps most things, eh?

The point is you're essentially trying to shut down discussion of what wizards actually do, by insisting that they never use spells.

No. I don't see the argument as you mischaracterized it. I think we all agree that spells are a limited resource.

The DM's problem to address is how to keep that 6-8 encounters per adventure day and two short rests alive and well at very high levels. As I've not tried to run level 18 character parties, I am not sure how I'd do that.

mgshamster

2016-03-18, 11:23 AM

The insistance that we should rely on actual play is, in my sense, misguided. It doesn't take actual play to realize that casters get more and more options as they level up while non catser don't or do at an exponentialy reduced rate.

Or looking at it another way, it is entirely possible to conceive of situations where caster are vital. fairly easily in fact. Anything immune to non magical damage will do the trick. You either need caster or an optional rule a fairly common one granted but optional non the less. Or a monk.

I agree that a tier list similar to the 3.5 one is not necessery. The gulf between classes isn't that vast.
But as a dm too, a short analysis of classes based on relatively common situations could be useful.

In such an analysis, non ek fighters and barbarians are at the bottom of the pile. They just don't have the tools granted to them by their classes to contributes to as many situations as other classes.
Casters, especialy wizards, are at the top. They can potentialy, and potentialy is a key word here, contribute to any and every situations. However they may not always have the best answer (unlike what happened in 3.5)

It can be useful to look at your party composition and go "hmm, better not throw challenge type X at them. they aren't able to handle it."

Sure it's something you can learn to do on your own. but just because you can learn it on your own doesn't mean you should have to. Some of us could be able to derive the entire field of mathematics back from first principle. Doesn't mean it's not vastly easier and faster to have someone teach you.

Perhaps not a tier list but at least a short "this what class and subclass X is good at, this is what it's bad at and this is what it can't do at all." would be invaluable.

You make some good points.

A few things to consider:

1) When we do analysis, we have to combine hypothesis with testing. "Theorycrafting" and looking at the rules is part of the hypothesis generation. Play is part of the testing. Make a hypothesis, test it out in play, then revise the hypothesis as necessary. Both are useful, both are valuable, but one without the ther doesn't help with analysis. This is why there's an insistence on play - those hypotheses being put forth need to be tested to see if the conclusions are valid.

2) The type of analysis you've suggested here are not what the current 5e tier list creators are doing. What they have been doing is making a list of good and bad, over powered and underpowered - without a real metric of what's useful for game play. How much damage one can do isn't really an issue, as damage only solves one type of problem.

We know damage is the metric being used, because GWM is always at the top of the list for being way too overpowered. But then, they also ignore that metric for other random metrics - such as ignoring the damage potential of a beast master and instead using its awkward pet mechanic to place it at the bottom of the tier list. This means that the metric being used for tier lists have been "how much do I like or dislike the class?" Which is a purely subjective measurement and does not provide any useful analysis whatsoever.

This type of useless analysis with a subjective metric pretends to be actual analysis with objective metrics based on power. Then it wraps itself up in a Tier label, giving it the impression of disparity within the edition that's so broad that it warns players and GMs not to play certain classes or allow certain feats or not to play certain things, which can falsely reduce the fun of a game.

That is the problem with 5e tier lists.

And that will always be the problem with them until someone makes a list like what you've suggested.