Is there an ACTUAL tier list for 3.5? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Red Fel

2016-12-20, 08:48 PM

This is sad, because I was hoping to study a comprehensive list so I could better understand how tiers are categorized. If there isn't enough consensus to craft such a list, then there really is no short cutting the process of just learning every nut and bolt to the game's mechanic to develop the knowledge necessary to make comparisons.

There are a few areas of consensus.

You have the Tier 1 classes, such as Wizard, Cleric, Druid, and StP Erudite, capable of doing any job at any time. You have the Tier 2 classes, such as Sorcerer, which can be built to do any job, but are more limited in their options, and thus can't do every job. Where the scale gets muddy is the Tier 2 - Tier 3 gap. Above the gap, it's obvious - the class goes above if it can do anything, and in Tier 1 if it can do everything. But below, it's muddier.

In theory, Tier 3 classes can do one thing very well, and several other things reasonably well; Tier 4 classes can do one thing very well or several things somewhat well, and Tier 5 can't even do one thing well. And whether a class is a "high Tier 4" or a "low Tier 3" can be a subject of substantial dispute. For example, Tome of Battle classes are more versatile than almost any "non-caster" class in the game, but almost all of their utility is combat-oriented. Does that mean they're a high 4 - able to do one thing (combat) very well, but not much else - or a low 3 - more versatile than other non-caster classes when it comes to combat? It's an ongoing debate.

That said? Understanding "why a class is in its Tier" is valuable even if we can't agree on the Tier. The ToB classes are a perfect example. They're more versatile than, say, a Fighter, but they're still combat classes. They have a higher optimization floor, but a lower optimization ceiling, than many other classes. Whether that puts them in Tier 3 or 4 is irrelevant - it's still true, and generally agreed upon. Understanding that is the important part.

The other important part? Fun at the table. When everyone has fun, when everyone contributes and has a good time, Tiers become an academic exercise. Or even moreso than they already are.

Mato

2016-12-20, 11:23 PM

I have no doubt compiling an exhaustive list would be daunting,You should have a doubt. Ranking characters in other games is pretty simple. Brawl is a great example, everyone knew how powerful Metaknight and Roy were within a few hours and didn't have to wait on everyone decompiling the code. In Mario Kart Wii Funky is king, in Hyrule Warriors Sheik is pretty awesome, pick a Kirby game and archer/smash are the best abilities.

In actual ranking systems characters (or classes) that are close together share the same rank and characters (or classes) that are clearly better or worse are moved into a different category. And this is the first flaw of jaronK's list, several classes are argued to be better, or worse, than they actually are so there really isn't a clear distinction between the rankings. The method for determining what class belongs where can arguably set any given class an any given category. And this is the second flaw of his ranking, when something is wrong people want to argue about it. And hateful thought germs spread hateful thought germs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc
Link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rE3j_RHkqJc)

This is sad, because I was hoping to study a comprehensive list so I could better understand how tiers are categorized.Just use SorO_Lost's list. Using spellcasting as the basis for comparison is extremely accurate. Everything that a barbarian/fighter/monk/rogue can do can be replicated using a spell slot or two. Classes like the ranger and paladin do get some great spells and through their slot-access alone sword of the arcane order and domain staffs and give them almost the entire range of 1st~4th level spells so clearly they are better than a mundane but no matter how much they tinker with their spellcasting it's pretty clear their lack of 9ths won't give them any gold medals.

It's been mentioned a bit on the MMX boards and by me here and people really don't argue about it either. I think as a multi-forum community people are sick of fighter vs wizard threads and easily accept that casting just makes you better in D&D. All balance-intending house rules nerf spells, the most famous of such is E6 which simply goes the route of banning all most every spell above the 3rd level because any class that gets 4ths is too much for realistic play.

Troacctid

2016-12-20, 11:36 PM

Where the scale gets muddy is the Tier 2 - Tier 3 gap. Above the gap, it's obvious - the class goes above if it can do anything, and in Tier 1 if it can do everything. But below, it's muddier.
T1 has a pretty solid consensus. T2 doesn't. Some people put certain classes in T2 that really don't belong there *cough wilder cough* or put certain classes in T2 while putting certain other equally powerful classes in T3 *cough sorcerer and beguiler cough*.

AnachroNinja

2016-12-20, 11:43 PM

What's wrong with wilders?

lichbolado4

2016-12-20, 11:54 PM

Tier 0, optimized Sorcerer

Zanos

2016-12-21, 12:07 AM

T1 has a pretty solid consensus. T2 doesn't. Some people put certain classes in T2 that really don't belong there *cough wilder cough* or put certain classes in T2 while putting certain other equally powerful classes in T3 *cough sorcerer and beguiler cough*.
I thought it did. I consider a class Tier 2 if it has access to tricks from tier 1, but not all on the same character. Characters that cast from Tier 1 lists but with limited selection are considered Tier 2. Erudite and Psion are both there because of the Erudites XP intensive learning mechanic, and the fact that psionic powers don't have enough breadth to really make knowing the 36 best powers(aka spells) meaningfully different from knowing all of them.

Lower tiers from JaronK's original classification are more debatable as to what goes where, but I felt his assessment was pretty accurate in most cases. The ToB classes and warlock are debatable, but probably not more than +/- 1 tier.

Troacctid

2016-12-21, 12:19 AM

What's wrong with wilders?
They're not remotely in the same league as T2 casters.

Malroth

2016-12-21, 12:33 AM

Jormengand

2016-12-21, 01:22 AM

They're a pretty low powered class as Tier 2's go but they can with the right 2 power pics have any printed ability in the game so the rule "if they can completely break the game they're tier 2 minimum" still applies even if they have less versitility than most tier3s

Oh come on, that means that an expert with a copy of the book of vile darkness is T2. The problem with a wilder is that, without excessive measures to optimise, they don't have the power or versatility of a T2 class.

Frosty

2016-12-21, 02:13 AM

Jormengand

2016-12-21, 02:15 AM

Since when are Sorcerers T3? :smallconfused:

They aren't and beguilers are, which seems to be the point of contention.

Frosty

2016-12-21, 02:18 AM

Do you think Beguilers are equally as powerful as Sorcerers, without Rainbow Servant cheese?

AvatarVecna

2016-12-21, 03:03 AM

Do you think Beguilers are equally as powerful as Sorcerers, without Rainbow Servant cheese?

I think between their superior skill points, their Int SAD casting, their actual class features, and having access to their whole list (which is a really solid list) puts the Beguiler at least on par with sorcerers, and possibly better; how sorcerers in general compare is dependent on the things not on the Beguiler list that a sorcerer could theoretically take...of course, even then most Beguilers would come out favorably compared to most sorcerers, depending on how many sorcerers took those options instead of others.

They're about equal in my mind as far as tier goes, but I'd probably do Beguiler over Sorcerer any day.

Troacctid

2016-12-21, 03:10 AM

Do you think Beguilers are equally as powerful as Sorcerers, without Rainbow Servant cheese?
Pretty much, yeah. Try setting up a spell selection for a sorcerer that's significantly better than the entire beguiler spell list all at once. It's legit hard at most levels. Like, at level 9, you can have polymorph and dimension door—but are they really better than freedom of movement, greater invisibility, solid fog, greater mirror image, charm monster, confusion, locate creature, and rainbow pattern combined? Probably not, or if they are, it has to be close. And that's not even the beguiler's whole 4th level list. Not to mention various ways of expanding the spell list.

eggynack

2016-12-21, 05:56 AM

Pretty much, yeah. Try setting up a spell selection for a sorcerer that's significantly better than the entire beguiler spell list all at once. It's legit hard at most levels. Like, at level 9, you can have polymorph and dimension door—but are they really better than freedom of movement, greater invisibility, solid fog, greater mirror image, charm monster, confusion, locate creature, and rainbow pattern combined? Probably not, or if they are, it has to be close. And that's not even the beguiler's whole 4th level list. Not to mention various ways of expanding the spell list.
The 5th level beguiler list seems less exciting, however, probably worse than some one or two high power spells you could pick for a sorcerer. Lesser planar binding is almost definitely superior, but that's a trivial result. Something like teleport or wall of stone though, those are more PO and yet quite possibly stronger than the beguiler's list for that level. Could be more in favor of the sorcerer than your 4th level spell analysis takes into account, as a result.

Gnaeus

2016-12-21, 06:19 AM

That said? Understanding "why a class is in its Tier" is valuable even if we can't agree on the Tier. The ToB classes are a perfect example. They're more versatile than, say, a Fighter, but they're still combat classes. They have a higher optimization floor, but a lower optimization ceiling, than many other classes. Whether that puts them in Tier 3 or 4 is irrelevant - it's still true, and generally agreed upon. Understanding that is the important part.

This. The edges of the tiers are blurry. Partly due to disagreements among play community, but also due to different table optimization and assumptions. Tiers assume equivalent optimization and that's much easier said than done. Something as simple as access to WBL/magic marts helps some classes more than others. And there may be more daylight between a high T3 and a low T3 than the low T3 to the high T4, because the tiers are definitional and you can't always measure game power directly.

But the difference between T1, T3, and T5 is clear and often relevant.

"Lesser planar binding is almost definitely superior"
Is is really? Do we know all outsiders? Are there knowledge checks? If summoning a hound archon is OK, can we summon 50? Will bigger outsiders pay attention if we do? Is the DM cool with chain summoning imps for communes, and will he give game time to do that? And do the outsiders have access to better information via commune than you can get by bribing or charming a guard? Does the campaign take place somewhere with lots of humanoids, and is it assumed that everyone has a custom protection from evil item? I think LPB is not almost definitely superior to dominate monster, without a lot of assumptions I don't feel comfortable making at all tables. And that's a good example of why tier boundaries blur.

Pleh

2016-12-21, 09:52 AM

You should have a doubt. Ranking characters in other games is pretty simple. Brawl is a great example, everyone knew how powerful Metaknight and Roy were within a few hours and didn't have to wait on everyone decompiling the code. In Mario Kart Wii Funky is king, in Hyrule Warriors Sheik is pretty awesome, pick a Kirby game and archer/smash are the best abilities.

I remain skeptical of this assertion. Video games, by their very nature, MUST eventually come down to a simple computation and/or random roll of the digital dice. In Brawl, or LoL, or any other combat game with distinct characters/classes with specific advantages and abilities, there aren't as many variants and options to consider. There are also fewer applications of these more strictly defined character abilities. Every play of a game such as Brawl, Mario Kart, or LoL is going to be a preprogrammed encounter like a published adventure book, but unlike a preprogrammed adventurebook, there is no getting around the invisible walls and thinking outside the box of what the machine was programmed to do. A video game doesn't let you stretch RAW to fit RAI (without some rather exceptionally good or exceptionally bad programming skills).

I know they've created a few MMOs that tried to basically be D&D the video game, but they never used ALL of the published material from ALL of the splatbooks and official resources. Can you imagine trying to code that nonsense? Can you imagine the bugs and glitches in the code when people start using cheese to get Near Infinite stats?

Tabletop roleplaying is clearly designed to not be so cut and dry. It's not that you couldn't plug every class feature and option into a computer and calculate the results (I'm sure people have done that to whatever degree). The reason the edges of the tiers are fuzzy is because of the ultimate illusion that draws us all to enjoy the game: Fluff vs Mechanic. Role vs Roll. Agency vs Utility. RAW vs RAI. The exploration of Fantasy.

The reason I bring this up is to highlight the fact that Tabletop games are made to be flexible to interpretation, whereas computers need things to be absolute facts that they can compute. When ranking classes on the basis of their mechanical utility, it's naturally more difficult to compare classes that can be subject to imaginative interpretation to ANY degree than it will with any system where they are not subject to any kind of interpretation at all.

I don't mean that it isn't possible. You're not wrong. Just I disagree with your assertion that because people do it with video games means that doing the same thing here allows us to expect the same results. We may end up getting the same results, but it won't be simply due to the similarities between tabletop and digital media.

Just use SorO_Lost's list. Using spellcasting as the basis for comparison is extremely accurate. Everything that a barbarian/fighter/monk/rogue can do can be replicated using a spell slot or two. Classes like the ranger and paladin do get some great spells and through their slot-access alone sword of the arcane order and domain staffs and give them almost the entire range of 1st~4th level spells so clearly they are better than a mundane but no matter how much they tinker with their spellcasting it's pretty clear their lack of 9ths won't give them any gold medals.

It's been mentioned a bit on the MMX boards and by me here and people really don't argue about it either. I think as a multi-forum community people are sick of fighter vs wizard threads and easily accept that casting just makes you better in D&D. All balance-intending house rules nerf spells, the most famous of such is E6 which simply goes the route of banning all most every spell above the 3rd level because any class that gets 4ths is too much for realistic play.

I didn't expect this thread to touch incidentally on the subject of Disparity, but it seems inextricably linked to some extent. Very well.

Can I ask another question here? You seem dissatisfied with JaronK's ranking system on the basis that ranking by spellcasting power is a better measurement of rank than more generically arguing about utility.

I am not sure there is a real difference between those two measurements (maybe meaning that I tend to agree with you).

Let's step back from nitty gritty details and look for a moment at broad spectrum definitions and assumptions (I have a bachelor's in physics, so this middle grey area between philosophy and mathematics is my home).

We want party balance to be based on class utility. Can the class use the abilities granted to it to perform a useful and even necessary function in the game? If so, is this ability unique to its class or ubiquitous to the classes? If ubiquitous, how is it meaningful for that class to have the ability?

So rank is based on utility. Utility is based on which options you select, so ACTUAL utility will vary and we're considering the floor, ceiling, and average utility of potential builds. This includes potential utility at single tasks or great versatility with several. That's a lot more data than we can reasonably hold in our head at one time, so we need computers or a LOT of paperwork if we want to actually compute values and produce graphs.

But we might reach an answer with less headache if we go back to the fundamental assumptions of the class options. Tier 1 is generally defined as being able to do EVERYTHING. Tier 2 is generally defined as being able to do ANYTHING. Below that are varying degrees of being good (or not) at filling a particular role in a team effort because no one is quite flexible enough to get the job done all on their own anymore.

We can shortcut to the solution if we consider the reason casters are really more powerful: "Magic can do anything." We've given Magic omnipotence by its definition and therefore given it absolute utility. Since Not Magic does not have this omnipotent ability to do anything, any ranking system that measures via Utility will always put Omnipotent Magic >> Not Omnipotent Everything Else.

We have defined the system that way. The Caster/Noncaster Disparity is a natural result of Magic being fundamentally omnipotent.

There are three solutions to this problem.
1. Do nothing about the disparity and simply accept its influence in the system, compensating for its problems as they arise.
Probably the most popular solution given the lack of a superior solution people can generally agree upon.

2. Elevate Noncasters to omnipotence to negate the disparity.
I don't think anyone wants this to actually happen (maybe JUST for their favorite classes, but not all noncaster classes universally). At this level, why do we bother rolling dice? Why not just have a roleplaying conversation and say what you want to do and argue with your friends about the results and consequences? If anyone can do anything anyway....

3. We take away Magic's omnipotence.
I believe this was the intent behind E6's decision to cut out all magic above 3rd level.

I believe the reason we've let magic run crazy and get away with breaking the game this way is because we don't want to start having arguments about the rules of magic and what it can or can't do. It's simpler to say, "it's magic, I don't have to explain it." Unfortunately, not having to explain it makes it very difficult to explain why magic can't do any particular thing, and when it can do any particular thing, it can effectively do anything. If it can do anything, why can't it do everything? It's very difficult to argue against.

But many literary magic systems DO limit magic in a meaningful way that is easy enough to understand. Genie from Aladdin had a very simple system: Any Wish you want, but no generating True Love, no resurrection of the dead, and no magically producing more magic (wishing for more wishes). Once Upon A Time (yes, I watch the show from time to time and I am not ashamed of it) has a wonderful old tradition as well: all magic has a cost and any curse can be broken. I find it wonderful to consider a system where an evil typed curse spell could be broken by simple mundane acts of charity, love, and/or kindness. This is the kind of mechanic that could put noncasting back into parity with casting. Understanding that Magic truly is a real force in the universe, but it is not the only force nor is it the master key to all other forces, but that it lives in tension and balance with other forces, like True Love, Death, Kindness/Benevolence of Spirit, or the Tainted Corruption of the Soul. This kind of system allows mundane actions (like the spell-less fighter/knight bravely sacrificing himself by taking on the Evil Wizard and his army of summoned monsters despite all odds being against him) having spell like effects that do not have a magical origin, but still have an equivalent strength.

But players don't like feeling disempowered in a fantasy game (which is all about feeling empowered), so taking away magic's powers is an unpopular decision. E6's decision to nix the upper two thirds of the magic level certainly can do the job if players want a simple fix to the problem, but there could be other ways to fix the disparity if we can give the magic system a few more dire costs (like ironic twists of fate) and a few more Achilles heels that mundane heroes can exploit.

But I guess that's just a theory. A Game Theory.

Thanks for reading.

killem2

2016-12-21, 10:16 AM

Red Fel

2016-12-21, 10:26 AM

This is just my opinion

Okay.

usually a favorable one among these boards or really any 3.5 discussion

Eh... Maybe.

but I don't put a lot of weight into the tier system

That's fair.

the theory behind it assumes that you have pretty rude and inconsiderate players

And that's wrong.

it is soon as you have wizards who want to come in and do everything that every class can do it is seems that every single fighter someone rolls up only wants to do straight up damage and doesn't want to do anything else.

This is only true if you have unpleasant or single-minded players.

It assumes that all people use clerics for the most optimize reasons when in fact there are a lot of people who use clerics and just for healing as inefficient as it may be and I know it is.

And this is also wrong.

Let me explain this. The Tier system doesn't assume anything. The Tier system isn't based on the idea that every X player will be playing X at the highest-OP levels.

The Tier system is based on the idea of maximum versatility of a class - that is, how far it can be played "up." It doesn't assume that the player will, or even that the player can; it merely looks at what that upper threshold resembles.

The Monk, to use a classic example, can be played well. There are some high-OP players who can do some unbelievable things with this broken class. But based solely on the class' own merits, it has a fairly low ceiling; it's not versatile, it's not good at doing multiple things, and without a lot of player-side skill, it's barely passable at doing its own thing.

The Tier system doesn't assume that you'll play a Monk as some sort of paint-eating chowderhead, any more than it assumes that you'll play a Wizard as an ultra-paranoid DCS-using omniscient genius with twenty-seven different contingencies.

People are critical of the Tier System, that's true. For various reasons. But "it assumes that you have pretty rude and inconsiderate players" isn't one of them.

Pleh

2016-12-21, 10:53 AM

This is just my opinion usually a favorable one among these boards or really any 3.5 discussion but I don't put a lot of weight into the tier system the theory behind it assumes that you have pretty rude and inconsiderate players it is soon as you have wizards who want to come in and do everything that every class can do it is seems that every single fighter someone rolls up only wants to do straight up damage and doesn't want to do anything else.

It assumes that all people use clerics for the most optimize reasons when in fact there are a lot of people who use clerics and just for healing as inefficient as it may be and I know it is.

Even among people who aren't rude, aren't proficient with optimization, and don't actually want to break the game, just green first timers who pick the different classes and options at random based on how good the options seem at face value, you can very easily get a game set up where the players who picked T1 classes end up stumbling upon a win button that the party starts to rely on (because if it always works, why try anything else?). Then a few levels later, after the players who picked Monk and Rogue start to feel the growing gap between the party members, despite receiving equal experience points, eventually try to pick up some prestige classes to compensate or just plain retire their characters and try something else because they just weren't having fun with barely being able to keep up with the casters.

Meta-gaming is something we are stuck with. We can never actually get a pure game free from meta knowledge. We're better off developing techniques to counteract its effects than ignoring its effects. Developing countermeasures involves researching and studying meta knowledge. Even if the Tier system is a bad system, it's better that we're trying to create a system than not do anything at all about the disparity.

We're just trying to identify potential causes to problems that prevent SOME games from being fun so that we can eventually master making EVERY game fun (as much as is humanly possible).

I get where you're coming from, though. It is possible to get too concerned with the details of how to fix the problem and overlook simpler solutions. If you're not struggling with disparity at your table, then you really DON'T need the Tier system. The Tier theory itself even admits this to be true.

The Tier theory is for the tables that DO struggle with Disparity and it is unfair to these tables to assume it's always happening because someone doesn't know how to play well with others rather than admitting that the game system itself has any problems at all.

Particle_Man

2016-12-21, 11:00 AM

I have no doubt compiling an exhaustive list would be daunting, but I guess I thought the community at large had had enough time to put something together.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it? Build the complete list for every 3.5 class, along with an explanation of why each class is in each tier.

Sian

2016-12-21, 11:15 AM

Flickerdart

2016-12-21, 11:36 AM

Also, something to keep in mind when looking at tier lists is that they list how high the skill ceiling is for a XYZ 20 ... not what the skill floor is ... Sure, a Wiz20 can be played well enough to be above tier 1, but it can also be done ineptly enough to barely challenge tier4

while its not quite true in all cases, I'd still be inclined to say that the higher the tier classification, the wider the gap is between a TO character and an inept (or even a averagely competent) character

Tier is independent of optimization, or rather, it assumes equal optimization for every character in the party. The rubbish wizard is compared to an equally rubbish fighter. Maybe one who took Weapon Focus 11 times "because he wanted to be the master of all weapons." But the rubbish wizard can just prepare better spells tomorrow morning, or go to the store and buy new spells, or learn two better level-appropriate spells on level-up. The fighter gets a new feat every other level, but long feat chains with their prerequisites make it very difficult to carve out a new niche on the spot.

Troacctid

2016-12-21, 11:38 AM

The 5th level beguiler list seems less exciting, however, probably worse than some one or two high power spells you could pick for a sorcerer. Lesser planar binding is almost definitely superior, but that's a trivial result. Something like teleport or wall of stone though, those are more PO and yet quite possibly stronger than the beguiler's list for that level. Could be more in favor of the sorcerer than your 4th level spell analysis takes into account, as a result.
I don't know. Dominate effects are preeetty busted.

Grim Reader

2016-12-21, 11:39 AM

We've had a big discussion on Beguilers vs. Sorcerers. As far as I can remember, the Beguiler list is really strong at lower levels, but tapers off the further up the levels you go. 6 skill points and trapfinding helps a bit, and the Beguiler is much harder to screw up than a sorcerer.

Assuming good Sorcerer spell picks, Beguiler is flat out better than Sorcerer below level 8. Sorcerers can spam damage and hit more saves, but its not enough to make up for the Beguilers advantages.

But somewhere around character level 8+ the Beguilers list tapers off, while better and better Sorcerer options come online. They're about even with access to fourth level spells, but at some point around or just after 5th level spells come online the Sorcerer pulls away. Its suddenly the Beguiler spending resources to keep up with the Sorcerers class features rather than the other way around.

So the Beguiler is better for or even for about half the levels. Its tier 3 because it lacks native access to the gamebreakers.

Pleh

2016-12-21, 11:47 AM

Your mission, should you choose to accept it? Build the complete list for every 3.5 class, along with an explanation of why each class is in each tier.

It could certainly be a fun adventure if I had a party that was up to the task and willing to play constructively, because I would be the frodo of the adventure and I would need a Fellowship to get this magic mcguffin melted.

Essentially, if such an endeavor were taken up, I would aim to make a series of forum threads about each of the classes that haven't already achieved an acceptable amount of consensus and get some debates going with the hope of reaching some consensus.

And are we including PrC's? Because that's a horse of a completely different color. Most tier lists I've seen haven't even tried to do PrC comparisons outside of comparing them in terms of specific build types.

Telonius

2016-12-21, 11:48 AM

The floors are much lower for classes that have to pick a (more or less) set list of spells at level-up. When you have something like Beguiler, getting access to all of its spells at each level every day, it's really hard to mess it up too terribly. It can be done, sure, but it's really hard to do unless you're literally trying to kill off your own character. Same way with Cleric and Druid. If you screw up on spell selection, as long as you survive to the next day, you'll be able to make a better choice. Even Wizard is at least a bit forgiving. If you have a brain fart and take Stone Shape and Fire Trap as your level-up spells, you can always scribe Polymorph into your book later. But screw up spell selection on a Sorcerer or a Bard, the wait time to correct your mistakes is measured in levels, not in days.

And are we including PrC's? Because that's a horse of a completely different color. Most tier lists I've seen haven't even tried to do PrC comparisons outside of comparing them in terms of specific build types.

Some poor brave fools helpful people tried to do this (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1573.0) once. It's about as controversial as the original tier list, just because there are so many different ways you could build into a PrC. You also have theurge-y combo PrCs like Sacred Fist where it's hard to tell where to put it. From a Monk's perspective, it's terrific; for Cleric, it's a step down.

RedMage125

2016-12-21, 11:54 AM

To build on what Red Fel was saying, the Tier system is not meant to reflect the "power level" of any individual build of a given class, but the class as a whole.

Build choices, to include Prestige Class choices, feat and equipment choices, and ACFs can and do affect how well a given character performs. Someone could very well build a character with a chassis that is primarily Monk which meets the Tier definition of Tier 4 (Does one thing well, but flounders outside that specialty), when it is normally a Tier 5. This does not reflect a failure of the Tier system, but rather, it highlights that the Tier system is only a way of judging the overall versatility and power of the class as a whole.

Even the "3 scenarios" that JaronK uses to highlight his point are not absolute maxims. A CA Ninja, for example (a Tier 5 class) could easily handle Situation 1 (black dragon) by using Ghost Walk and a weapon with a x4 crit modifier to walk into the cave when the dragon is sleeping (blindsense can't detect incorporeal creatures), and coup de grace the thing. A heavy pick would thus do 14d6 damage (average 49) on the coup de grace. Even a Great Wyrm Black Dragon can only make that save on a natural 20. The CA Ninja could also do anything a Rogue could in Situations 2&3, and Rogue is a Tier 4 class. Does this mean CA Ninjas are Tier 4? No, they're Tier 5 for other reasons, which make them less versatile than a rogue.

Some people on these boards easily get confused and think that the Tier system is a way of saying "x class is absolutely superior to Y class". And sometimes they get defensive and angry about that. There is, for example, a re-occurring poster on the boards who somehow feels it is his mission to prove that sorcerers are better than wizards. He seems to see the Tier System as some kind of personal affront to himself, and to his preference for Sorcerer over Wizard.

This is not the case. Tier 2 classes can, as a class, do anything a Tier 1 class can. But if you look at all the Tier 2 classes, they are the spontaneous casting "versions" of the Tier 1 classes (sorcerer, favored soul, etc.). Basically, the ones which an individual build would have a limited number of spells known. This does not mean that an individual sorcerer cannot be built to be better than most wizards (they can), but the Tier System is not (as Red Fel said) meant to assume the highest levels of TO or PO.

Pathfinder classes might warrant a whole nother look, to see where they fit in, but the glut of ACFs from Archetypes (racial and class) make it difficult. I am of the opinion that the bog-standard Core Fighter from Pathfinder deserves to be in Tier 4, but that's because PF did 2 things to the Fighter: 1)They gave it actual CLASS FEATURES instead of just a glut of ambiguous "bonus feats", and 2) The default rules allowing for the retraining of feats means that a PF character is not stuck with a poor feat choice once said feat has ceased to be useful. Also, Half-Elf Sorcerers in PF are definitely Tier 1, as the spell Paragon Surge with the Extra Spell feat means that a sorcerer is JUST AS versatile as a wizard.

137beth

2016-12-21, 12:09 PM

Tier is independent of optimization, or rather, it assumes equal optimization for every character in the party. The rubbish wizard is compared to an equally rubbish fighter. Maybe one who took Weapon Focus 11 times "because he wanted to be the master of all weapons." But the rubbish wizard can just prepare better spells tomorrow morning, or go to the store and buy new spells, or learn two better level-appropriate spells on level-up. The fighter gets a new feat every other level, but long feat chains with their prerequisites make it very difficult to carve out a new niche on the spot.

Also, contrary to Sian's assertion, the main tier listing is concerned mainly with levels 6-15. I'm not aware of many (any?) detailed analysis of how the tiers change at level 20.

Telonius

2016-12-21, 12:21 PM

Also, contrary to Sian's assertion, the main tier listing is concerned mainly with levels 6-15. I'm not aware of many (any?) detailed analysis of how the tiers change at level 20.

The poster child for this is probably Healer. It's middling for most of its career, then suddenly gets Gate as a 9th-level spell (with all of the chained Solars that can imply).

Sian

2016-12-21, 12:32 PM

Tier is independent of optimization, or rather, it assumes equal optimization for every character in the party. The rubbish wizard is compared to an equally rubbish fighter. Maybe one who took Weapon Focus 11 times "because he wanted to be the master of all weapons." But the rubbish wizard can just prepare better spells tomorrow morning, or go to the store and buy new spells, or learn two better level-appropriate spells on level-up. The fighter gets a new feat every other level, but long feat chains with their prerequisites make it very difficult to carve out a new niche on the spot.

No retraining feats allowed cause Mundanes can't get nice things?

If you start stating that the wizard can just change his spells, its fair to say that the fighter can as well with his feats given that there is rules support for it.

Just for the record ... I'm in no way disputing that Wizards (to use the stereotypic Tier 1) is a lot better than a Fighter (stereotypic tier 5) ... what I'm trying to say is that the lower optimization levels are, the lower the difference (also relative) between them are

Telonius

2016-12-21, 12:41 PM

No retraining allowed cause Mundanes can't get nice things?

No retraining considered because the rules aren't contained in the class itself. Yes, retraining is possible. So is Psychic Reformation, intentional level draining to before you took the feat, Chaos Shuffle, and the like. But I think retraining is kind of past the point where you can reasonably consider it part of the class's abilities to switch choices. Changing spell selection, if it's available, is explicitly called out right in the class description for every casting class. Changing out a feat usually isn't. (Please ignore the Chameleon behind the curtain).

Troacctid

2016-12-21, 12:55 PM

So the Beguiler is better for or even for about half the levels. Its tier 3 because it lacks native access to the gamebreakers.
If top-level gamebreakers were the measure of a T2, then healer and truenamer would be T2. Anyway, since when is ice assassin not a gamebreaker?

digiman619

2016-12-21, 01:34 PM

No retraining feats allowed cause Mundanes can't get nice things?

Except a, say, 15th level fighter retraining one of his feats (assuming he isn't forced to wait until 16th to swap it out for free) takes 5 days, requires training with someone who has the feat (or 10 days without a trainer, assuming your GM isn't being too strict) and 8,250 gp (10 gp x 15 (level) x 5 (number of days)). A 15th level wizard can just prepare different spells each morning. And even if he wants a spell he's never had before, scribing a new 7th level spell into his spellbook will take 7 hours and 490 gp. It's not even remotely equitable.

EDIT: And that's assuming you're playing Pathfinder which has rules for that sort of thing. In 3.5, outside of begging a Psychic Reformation (or whatever it's called) from a psion or the like, you're totally stuck.

Telonius

2016-12-21, 01:48 PM

3.5 does have rules for retraining, but they're in PHB2. Retraining class features are supposed to be treated either as free during the level-up, or (if the DM requires a cost) it takes 1 week per every 2 levels and 500gp per week (per the table on p 192). If you're changing a regular level-up feat, it's a flat 2 week, 50gp cost.

digiman619

2016-12-21, 02:03 PM

Frosty

2016-12-21, 02:27 PM

If top-level gamebreakers were the measure of a T2, then healer and truenamer would be T2. Anyway, since when is ice assassin not a gamebreaker?

What is your definition of tier 2 then?

eggynack

2016-12-21, 02:47 PM

I don't know. Dominate effects are preeetty busted.
They're good, no question. I think they have enough limitations to keep them away from the highest levels of spell, however.

If top-level gamebreakers were the measure of a T2, then healer and truenamer would be T2. Anyway, since when is ice assassin not a gamebreaker?
Top-level gamebreakers aren't the measure of tier 2. Normal-level gamebreakers, to some extent, are. A spell like, as I noted, lesser planar binding, is far more relevant to tiering than its big brother gate.

TheTeaMustFlow

2016-12-21, 03:02 PM

What is your definition of fort 2 then?

Assuming you meant Tier 2, I would say the definition Red Fel gave is the best - A Tier 2 class, such as a Sorcerer or a Psion, possesses the ability to do anything, but not everything. That is to say, a Tier 2 is capable of performing essentially any conceivable role, and being among the best at said ROLE - if they are built for it. The Tier is comprised almost entirely of spontaneous casters with access to the best lists in the game, but they can only learn a highly limited subset of those lists, which limits their versatility in comparison to the Tier 1s - but not, for the most part, their power.

(This breaks down at the very highest and lowest levels of optimisation, but frankly so does everything - any sufficiently optimised character is indistinguishable from Pun-Pun, and any sufficiently unoptimised charater is indistinguishable from Commoner).

Incidentally, this is why I would argue that the Beguiler is Tier 3 while the Sorcerer is Tier 2 - simply, the Beguiler cannot do anything. They can do quite a bit, and do it very well, but because their list is rather specialised, there exist things which no Beguiler can do - at least, not natively.

Flickerdart

2016-12-21, 03:08 PM

No retraining feats allowed cause Mundanes can't get nice things?

If you start stating that the wizard can just change his spells, its fair to say that the fighter can as well with his feats given that there is rules support for it.
Even if your DM allows retraining (which is not a point in the fighter's favor, since anyone can do it) the wizard has these advantages:

No prerequisites. The wizard can pick nothing but Enchantment spells for 19 levels, and suddenly pick up two Necromancy spells. If the fighter wants to take, say, Weapon Supremacy, he needs to retrain six feats before he can select it.
In the same vein, the wizard gets many more spell slots than the fighter gets feats, so he can decide to pick up new stuff without compromising his character concept.
No need to reduce options. The fighter retraining his feats loses feats to get new ones. The wizard scribing a spell still has his old spells, and loses only a pittance of gold.
Speed. As mentioned before, the wizard is always mere hours away from pulling out a new ability, and can even leave slots empty (or scribe scrolls, or use Alacritous Cogitation/Spontaneous Divination/Uncanny Forethought/whatever) to adapt to situations in minutes or seconds. The fighter takes weeks to retrain.

Troacctid

2016-12-21, 03:24 PM

They're good, no question. I think they have enough limitations to keep them away from the highest levels of spell, however.

Top-level gamebreakers aren't the measure of tier 2. Normal-level gamebreakers, to some extent, are. A spell like, as I noted, lesser planar binding, is far more relevant to tiering than its big brother gate.
Let's be realistic. Sorcerers don't take Planar Binding. And even if they did, is it really that much better than Dominate Person or Simulacrum or Charm Monster or Animate Dead (all of which are also pretty darn game-breaking) to be worth a full tier jump over it? I say nay. Even if it were, are you going to argue that "Sorcerer with planar binding" and "Sorcerer without planar binding" are in different tiers? Because that puts the majority of sorcerers in T3.

enderlord99

2016-12-21, 03:29 PM

Tier 0, optimized Sorcerer

How many accounts have you made so far?

AvatarVecna

2016-12-21, 03:34 PM

How many accounts have you made so far?

That poster is clearly not the latest iteration of a previously banned user, or he would obviously have been reported enough by this point to get rebanned. Thus, the answer to your question is "1". QED.

Now back to the topic at hand: Beguilers are rad!

rrwoods

2016-12-21, 03:44 PM

I don't put a lot of weight into the tier system the theory behind it assumes that you have pretty rude and inconsiderate players
I've seen this in one form or another several times; it's simply not true. Maybe it comes from exposure to the tier system without having exposure to its explicit goals. If you read the introduction JaronK wrote, you'll see that its purpose is for considerate players to be able to more efficiently agree on a level of power or optimization so they can more quickly get to making their characters and playing the game.

It facilitates fun.

Telonius

2016-12-21, 03:44 PM

That poster is clearly not the latest iteration of a previously banned user, or he would obviously have been reported enough by this point to get rebanned.

That sounds like the old joke about the economist not believing there's a dollar bill on the ground, since somebody else would have already taken it. :smallbiggrin:

Particle_Man

2016-12-21, 03:48 PM

AvatarVecna

2016-12-21, 03:49 PM

That sounds like the old joke about the economist not believing there's a dollar bill on the ground, since somebody else would have already taken it. :smallbiggrin:

Well obviously. The only kind of legal currency that's literally not worth bending over to pick up is pennies. :smalltongue:

Jormengand

2016-12-21, 04:19 PM

Flickerdart

2016-12-21, 04:29 PM

So if Tier one can do Everything, and Tier two can do Anything (but not Everything), then Tier three can do One Specific Thing very well, . . . and Tier six can do Nothing.

So I guess some more fleshing out of the middle Tiers would help. And there would be differences between Focused classes and Jack of All Trades classes.

The middle tiers are fleshed out just fine.

Tier 3 is "can do one specific thing well, and can contribute outside of that thing" or "can do lots of things well enough." Tier 4 is "can do one specific thing but not that well, or can do lots of things but poorly" and Tier 5 is "can do one thing, poorly."

Think of a party containing a character from each tier. They encounter a Challenge.

T6: I have no exceptional abilities, so I have nothing to do here. I will go play Super Smash Bros in the next room.
T5: If the Challenge falls within my area of expertise, I get to play today. If not, I will join T6 at Super Smash Bros.
T4: If the Challenge falls within my area of expertise, I get to enjoy myself, because I can contribute something meaningful. If not, I might still get to play, depending on how specialized I am. Otherwise, I will have to join T5 and T6 in the next room.
T3: If the Challenge falls within my area of expertise, I get to shine. If not, I still get to enjoy myself, because I can contribute something meaningful. It's highly unlikely that I will have to go play Smash Bros.
T2: My area of expertise is appropriate for any Challenge. I get to shine.
T1: I have expertise in all areas, and pick one most appropriate for the Challenge. I get to shine.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-12-21, 04:47 PM

The middle tiers are fleshed out just fine.

Tier 3 is "can do one specific thing well, and can contribute outside of that thing" or "can do lots of things well enough." Tier 4 is "can do one specific thing but not that well, or can do lots of things but poorly" and Tier 5 is "can do one thing, poorly."

Think of a party containing a character from each tier. They encounter a Challenge.

T6: I have no exceptional abilities, so I have nothing to do here. I will go play Super Smash Bros in the next room.
T5: If the Challenge falls within my area of expertise, I get to play today. If not, I will join T6 at Super Smash Bros.
T4: If the Challenge falls within my area of expertise, I get to enjoy myself, because I can contribute something meaningful. If not, I might still get to play, depending on how specialized I am. Otherwise, I will have to join T5 and T6 in the next room.
T3: If the Challenge falls within my area of expertise, I get to shine. If not, I still get to enjoy myself, because I can contribute something meaningful. It's highly unlikely that I will have to go play Smash Bros.
T2: My area of expertise is appropriate for any Challenge. I get to shine.
T1: I have expertise in all areas, and pick one most appropriate for the Challenge. I get to shine.T1: I also get to have fun playing Smash at the same time. And since it's my console and game, I get lots of practice and can use cheap juggling moves with Bayonetta, while everyone else is randomly mashing buttons.

Zanos

2016-12-21, 04:51 PM

T1: I also get to have fun playing Smash at the same time. And since it's my console and game, I get lots of practice and can use cheap juggling moves with Bayonetta, while everyone else is randomly mashing buttons.
In my experience T1 players are too busy juggling the effects of 15 buffs and the stats for 1-5 different summons/callings/undead to do much of anything else. Although I understand the point you're trying to make with their ridiculous power.

Although that makes me think of another question. Should classes that require significantly more effort to play be more powerful when that effort is put in? I think there's a quote in someone's sig about playing a wizard "correctly" requiring the same effort as a university minor.

AvatarVecna

2016-12-21, 04:52 PM

Serafina

2016-12-21, 05:07 PM

Really, the whole point of the Tier-system is just to make players (and game designers, and optimizers) aware of this:
It's good if your character can always contribute meaningfully to a situation.

And tons of classes don't provide any means of doing so, even if you try for it rather than be a hyperspecialist.
Even the great Tome of Battle classes only get skillpoints for contributing to any non-combat situation. At least they get a good amount of them, so it'll often be enough for a meaningful contribution.
A Bard always gets something to do, since they have a good amount of skillpoints, some flexible spells, and most importantly can always just aid a teammate via bardic music.
A Fighter gets barely any skillpoints, no class features, and feats very rarely open up a new way to contribute.

Think about all the possible situations you can encounter.
Combat is the obvious one. There's a ton of variety - against hordes of enemies, incorporeal ones, flying ones, magic-resistant ones, melee, ranged, casters, monsters of all sorts and so on. A good class will not be too focussed onto one combat trick that may fail in a situation - say, a melee build who can't catch up to a teleporting or flying monster. Meaningful contribution is easy to measure here - do a good amount of damage, boost your party members, or hinder your enemies.
Movement can be a challenge on it's own too. Finding your way through a desert, chasing someone through dense forest, climbing up a mountain, travelling to another plane, just getting somewhere fast. Skills can contribute here, as can some class features - but eventually, almost all of this can be handled much better by spells.
Acquiring Knowledge is obviously important to a lot of adventures, quests and other endeavors. You can do so by having friends and talking to people (diplomacy), by knowing things or knowing where to look them up (knowledge-skills), by stealing the information (stealth), by listening carefully - or just via divination-spells, though at least those don't cover everything.

There's a lot more than that, of course. And all of this can be combined into less abstract, but more complicated scenarios.
A good class will have something to contribute almost all the time.
We can call it a game-breaker if it can be solved trivially, without any challenge - teleport + divination is a game-breaker for many navigation-challenges, for example. That actually makes contribution harder - because it can obsolete what other classes can do. Who needs a ranger if you just have tree stride, flight, or teleportation? Who needs a rogue if you can just summon an invisible scout?
So it's important to be aware of that. In a party of tier 4 and 5 classes, there's little risk of ruining someone elses ability to contribute - but then again, the way those classes tend to be, they only have a few select areas where they can do so in the first place. Be aware of that too, and how it can interact with your game.

Mato

2016-12-21, 05:12 PM

Do you think Beguilers are equally as powerful as Sorcerers, without Rainbow Servant cheese?Not at all. The beguiler's spell list is numerically long but if you just look at it when it gets 2nd level spells it's pretty limited. Glitterdust is so good you'll never cast his other save-or-sucks such as blinding color surge, hypnotic pattern, stay the hand, vertigo, whelming burst, and sleep/color spray are cycling out of usefulness.

Basically if you were to ask the forum "color spray or sleep?" you'd get a GitP hate war because each has their pros and cons. Getting both is naturally assumed to be better. However any day of the week I'd replace one of them with protection from evil so my character can ignore beguilers. Having eight save-or-sucks diverse when it comes to choosing which save-or-suck you'll use but being able to choose a save-or-suck or alter self is better. And if sleep isn't going to work anymore replace with with grease which works at all levels.

As Troacctid brings up, if you try setting up a spell selection for a sorcerer that's significantly better than the entire beguiler spell list all at once you'll probably just say ice assassin, gate, or wish. But if you ask a beguiler to try and set up a spell selection that's better than your average sorcerer and you'll get a rainbow servant that just happens to use five levels of beguiler instead of warmage or dread necromancer.

1. I remain skeptical of this assertion. Video games, by their very nature, MUST eventually come down to a simple computation and/or random roll of the digital dice.
2. In Brawl, or LoL, or any other combat game with distinct characters/classes with specific advantages and abilities, there aren't as many variants and options to consider.
3. there is no getting around the invisible walls and thinking outside the box of what the machine was programmed to do. A video game doesn't let you stretch RAW to fit RAI (without some rather exceptionally good or exceptionally bad programming skills).You had a very long post but over all it feels like you think D&D is too complex to be easily summarized. I fundamentally disagree for obvious reasons.

However I did quote that section and number it for a reason.
1. And D&D doesn't often come down to dice rolls?
2. 90% of D&D's content is useless too.
3. You should look up glitch quest on youtube. Video game programming is "RAW" and since there is no DM to patch is a lot of very abusable exploitations can be used, including getting around invisible walls that your DM may otherwise railroad to onto. Sarcastic comments aside, just wanted to plug a cool youtube channel :p

The rest of the posts I'm pretty much meh about. I feel like I already covered this. With no actual way to grade a class people are just asserting tier X mean this and by that definition here are some classes I'll include and some I'll exclude even through subjectively you can pose arguments either for each. And so to everyone else it's wrong, corrections are posted and people restart the meanings of the tiers. If there was any actual common sense applied a way to measure them would be created, tiers would name them selves and classes would list them selves. But this is GitP, arguing is the entire point of things here.

Hurnn

2016-12-21, 05:39 PM

The middle tiers are fleshed out just fine.

Tier 3 is "can do one specific thing well, and can contribute outside of that thing" or "can do lots of things well enough." Tier 4 is "can do one specific thing but not that well, or can do lots of things but poorly" and Tier 5 is "can do one thing, poorly."

Think of a party containing a character from each tier. They encounter a Challenge.

T6: I have no exceptional abilities, so I have nothing to do here. I will go play Super Smash Bros in the next room.
T5: If the Challenge falls within my area of expertise, I get to play today. If not, I will join T6 at Super Smash Bros.
T4: If the Challenge falls within my area of expertise, I get to enjoy myself, because I can contribute something meaningful. If not, I might still get to play, depending on how specialized I am. Otherwise, I will have to join T5 and T6 in the next room.
T3: If the Challenge falls within my area of expertise, I get to shine. If not, I still get to enjoy myself, because I can contribute something meaningful. It's highly unlikely that I will have to go play Smash Bros.
T2: My area of expertise is appropriate for any Challenge. I get to shine.
T1: I have expertise in all areas, and pick one most appropriate for the Challenge. I get to shine.

This might be the best explanation of the tiers i have ever seen.

Pleh

2016-12-21, 09:04 PM

You had a very long post but over all it feels like you think D&D is too complex to be easily summarized.

Eh, more like it's too intentionally flexible to be as easily summarized as video games can be.

Your argument about glitching games is in the same vein of thought as people who talk about TO and PO builds in the Tier system. Rank and tier often place game breaking strategies in a different league than average playstyles. You're talking about an effectively different game at that point. You might as well be modding your game code.

Troacctid

2016-12-21, 09:54 PM

As Troacctid brings up, if you try setting up a spell selection for a sorcerer that's significantly better than the entire beguiler spell list all at once you'll probably just say ice assassin, gate, or wish. But if you ask a beguiler to try and set up a spell selection that's better than your average sorcerer and you'll get a rainbow servant that just happens to use five levels of beguiler instead of warmage or dread necromancer.
Whaaaaat! I didn't say that at all!

And ice assassin is the one that beguilers actually do get!

Also, protection from evil doesn't do jack against most of the beguiler's save-or-suck effects! It only prevents direct mental control, which stops dominate and suggestion and half of charm, and that's it. And you're ignoring all the beguiler's 2nd level spells that aren't save-or-sucks: invisibility, spider climb, silence, see invisibility, blur, detect thoughts, stay the hand, mirror image, misdirection, fog cloud, minor image, knock...honestly, it's like you've never even looked at their spell list!

VisitingDaGulag

2016-12-27, 12:17 AM

+1, RedMage. Zanos, the real link already has adjusted for what you are asking. So anyways I tried sending a PM to the author on this site but had to use the original one. They work miracles.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it? Build the complete list for every 3.5 class, along with an explanation of why each class is in each tier.Step 1) Read the authoritative thread (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8914.0), Step 2) Realize it's already done, Step 3) ????, Step 4) Profit!

I think I start to see the real problem here.That everyone sits on the sideline and complains at the one person who's actually compiled everything you are looking for?

This is sad, because I was hoping to study a comprehensive list so I could better understand how tiers are categorized.The real sad part is how much she spent on all that information, just to have people link the one that was halfway done and mock her for it. Apparently BG became MinMax.

Did anyone else notice how Mato's "The method for determining what class belongs where can arguably set any given class an any given category" offers no solution, nor he does he prove that a solution is impossible? It's basically an "I want to muddy the waters" post that is of no help to anyone.

Out of date, unfinished and found in a bin somewhere is how I like my tier lists trolling about being in the main online repository for 3.5 handbooksis how I like replies (http://lmgtfy.com/?s=d&q=base+class+%26+tier+information)

Troacctid

2016-12-27, 12:31 AM

Step 1) Read the authoritative thread (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8925.0), Step 2) Realize it's already done, Step 3) ????, Step 4) Profit!
Yeah but that list has several classes misclassified, as well as errors in the "Why each class is in its tier" section, sooo...

Zanos

2016-12-27, 12:33 AM

Zanos, the real link already has adjusted for what you are asking. So anyways I tried sending a PM to the author on this site but had to use the original one. They work miracles.
Sorry, what was I asking for?

Zale

2016-12-27, 07:04 AM

What's wrong with wilders?

Well,

They can't access the discipline only powers that a Psion can without blowing feats on them. On top of that they, at the end of the day, get somewhere less than a third of the powers known of a Psion.

In exchange for this, they get a few fairly forgettable class features. The most obvious one, Wild Surge, is kind of a trap option, as it's basically 'Gain transitory bonus in exchange for potentially losing a turn and some power points'.

I don't think many spellcasters would cheerfully nab a +1 CL bonus in exchange for damaging their action economy and losing spell-slots.

Not to mention the power point drain actually gets worse with the number of levels you have in the class!

Compare to the sorcerer: There are tons of sorcerer-specific options, spells, prestige classes, feats-

Wilders don't have that kind of support.

ZamielVanWeber

2016-12-27, 07:42 AM

Yeah but that list has several classes misclassified, as well as errors in the "Why each class is in its tier" section, sooo...

I actually sat down at took a look and I almost feel badly; they put a ton of work into that but it has so many things that make me twitch. I get the feeling that it was based on hearsay as opposed to practical experience.

Pleh

2016-12-27, 09:27 AM

Step 1) Read the authoritative thread (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8925.0), Step 2) Realize it's already done, Step 3) ????, Step 4) Profit!

Excellent. Thanks for the link!

That everyone sits on the sideline and complains at the one person who's actually compiled everything you are looking for?

The real sad part is how much she spent on all that information, just to have people link the one that was halfway done and mock her for it. Apparently BG became MinMax.

Yes, I agree.

Yeah but that list has several classes misclassified, as well as errors in the "Why each class is in its tier" section, sooo...

I actually sat down at took a look and I almost feel badly; they put a ton of work into that but it has so many things that make me twitch. I get the feeling that it was based on hearsay as opposed to practical experience.

Sure, but I expect ANY effort to actually construct any such list of Tiers is going to run into exactly this kind of criticism.

Hey, rather than criticizing the work, why don't we pick up where they left off and fix it ourselves? Surely, if we know so much better how the tiers ought to work than they do, then it shouldn't be hard to take their hours and hours of work compiling the data to go ahead and tweak it into a better alignment with how we feel best reflects the game.

Compiling these classes and getting them put into relative tiers is largely half of the friggin job. All that needs to be done next is calibrating the system to best accurately reflect the system. Rather than just being critics and enjoying the sounds of our own voices detracting from the hard work of other people, why not step out and build on their work and actually produce something other people can use (rather unlike our opinions)?

I'm prepared to put my hobby where my mouth is. I can go through this list VisitingDaGulag linked and try to work out the places it needs more elbow grease. But the real problem it has currently is that it doesn't seem to match the general community consensus about class ranking yet. For that, I will absolutely need the community to help (because I am not a professional purveyor of D&D mechanics, the various class options, and their relative weight in comparison to each other).

Fun thing, that means everyone else gets to do the thing they like the best, arguing about which class is the best and not having to actually do any of the real work of putting a list together.

Sound fun?

Zanos

2016-12-27, 01:05 PM

I actually sat down at took a look and I almost feel badly; they put a ton of work into that but it has so many things that make me twitch. I get the feeling that it was based on hearsay as opposed to practical experience.
Yeah I'm fairly certain Truenamer isn't tier 6, despite ragging on it pretty much being a meme at this point.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-12-27, 01:14 PM

Yeah I'm fairly certain Truenamer isn't tier 6, despite ragging on it pretty much being a meme at this point.Truenamer is more Tier +++Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++ because it really doesn't work without a lot of work.

dhasenan

2016-12-27, 01:17 PM

it assumes that you have pretty rude and inconsiderate players

You do have a point in there.

Players see the cool things their characters can do and get excited without always considering how it would make the rest of the players feel. That sounds pretty common. It's inconsiderate, but not deliberate.

We can consider the tier system as a guide for how careful players need to be in order to ensure the rest of the party feels useful, like they're doing awesome things. Specifically relative tiers. You're a Tier 1 and everyone else is Tier 3? You'll have to be rather careful. Everyone else is Tier 6? You'll have to use every scrap of ingenuity you can find so that the rest of the party doesn't feel eclipsed (and even that probably isn't enough). Or if there's only a one tier difference between you and another character, you'll be fine most of the time but might have to be cautious in a few areas.

Zanos

2016-12-27, 01:17 PM

Truenamer is more Tier +++Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++ because it really doesn't work without a lot of work.
It works okay with max ranks, skill focus, max intelligence, and level appropriate amulets of the silver tongue. It just seems bizzare because the designers actually assumed that you would optimize the hell out of your truespeech check, so you never really get better at it, you just keep pace.

Vaz

2016-12-27, 01:35 PM

Even the "3 scenarios" that JaronK uses to highlight his point are not absolute maxims. A CA Ninja, for example (a Tier 5 class) could easily handle Situation 1 (black dragon) by using Ghost Walk and a weapon with a x4 crit modifier to walk into the cave when the dragon is sleeping (blindsense can't detect incorporeal creatures), and coup de grace the thing. A heavy pick would thus do 14d6 damage (average 49) on the coup de grace. Even a Great Wyrm Black Dragon can only make that save on a natural 20. The CA Ninja could also do anything a Rogue could in Situations 2&3, and Rogue is a Tier 4 class. Does this mean CA Ninjas are Tier 4? No, they're Tier 5 for other reasons, which make them less versatile than a rogue.

Assumes a lot about the Dragon, and a lot about the Ninjas ability to locate said Dragon in their underwater den during their few Minutes of Ki Abilities, let alone defenses of the nest that a 1200 year old Sorcerer with 20 Intelligence, who happens to also be an Acid Breathing Dragon. Most obvious being Walls of Force to sleep in or Rope Trick.

Kind of not the point you were making, I know, but it helps to stop strawmans.

ZamielVanWeber

2016-12-27, 02:04 PM

@Pleh; it is a nice thought, but due to the nature of this game and the data being heavily subjective you cannot produce a correct list, only a list that is deficient of critical errors and even that I am not entirely sure of.

For example, just on the tiering we have a few things that I have never experienced: sha'ir casts from a stronger list than wizard but is a tier below it; dragonfire adept, a solid if narrow class, is equivocated with the terrible dragon shaman; totemist is somehow tier 4 (how?); shadowcaster is tier 3 despite its insanely painful casting mechanic and the fact that you have a much narrower spell selection than sorcerer. And those are just the ones where I cannot figure out why the author did them. There are others I would consider plenty debatable.

Troacctid

2016-12-27, 02:13 PM

Hey, rather than criticizing the work, why don't we pick up where they left off and fix it ourselves? Surely, if we know so much better how the tiers ought to work than they do, then it shouldn't be hard to take their hours and hours of work compiling the data to go ahead and tweak it into a better alignment with how we feel best reflects the game.

Compiling these classes and getting them put into relative tiers is largely half of the friggin job. All that needs to be done next is calibrating the system to best accurately reflect the system. Rather than just being critics and enjoying the sounds of our own voices detracting from the hard work of other people, why not step out and build on their work and actually produce something other people can use (rather unlike our opinions)?

I'm prepared to put my hobby where my mouth is. I can go through this list VisitingDaGulag linked and try to work out the places it needs more elbow grease. But the real problem it has currently is that it doesn't seem to match the general community consensus about class ranking yet. For that, I will absolutely need the community to help (because I am not a professional purveyor of D&D mechanics, the various class options, and their relative weight in comparison to each other).
Because:
a. We've already established that the old thread is going to be locked to the top of the Google results, and JaronK isn't going to edit it.
b. The tier system is shallow and limited in usefulness, and doesn't give a nuanced picture of the class's actual power. It would be more useful to come up with new ranking systems entirely, which...
c. Has already been done (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?459141-Optimization-and-Tiers-The-Tier-System-Expanded), more than once (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System). (And since I'm guessing you weren't aware of either of these, see also point A?)

Truenamer is more Tier +++Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++ because it really doesn't work without a lot of work.
No, it works fine. It's a solid T4, or T5 if it's poorly optimized.

And even if you could never hit an Evolving Mind DC more than 5% of the time, it would still be better than friggin' expert! I mean come on! An NPC class? Geez! I assume they must have been thinking, "Gee, this class's class features don't work at all (because utterance DCs scale, except for the ones that don't, but we didn't read that part of the chapter, so we'll ignore that)! You know what's better? A class that doesn't have any class features!" I mean, I can't even.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-12-27, 02:19 PM

And even if you could never hit an Evolving Mind DC more than 5% of the time, it would still be better than friggin' expert! I mean come on! An NPC class? Geez! I assume they must have been thinking, "Gee, this class's class features don't work at all (because utterance DCs scale, except for the ones that don't, but we didn't read that part of the chapter, so we'll ignore that)! You know what's better? A class that doesn't have any class features!" I mean, I can't even.Experts get plenty of skill points and any skills they want. That's pretty darned valuable -- just ask factotum players.

Still, I get what you're saying, but expert actually should rank higher than a lot of PC classes, if only because so many PC classes and PrCs are absolutely horrid. I mean, look at the shining blade of Heironeous. Look at the soulborn. Ugh.

Pleh

2016-12-27, 02:42 PM

Because:
a. We've already established that the old thread is going to be locked to the top of the Google results, and JaronK isn't going to edit it.
b. The tier system is shallow and limited in usefulness, and doesn't give a nuanced picture of the class's actual power. It would be more useful to come up with new ranking systems entirely, which...
c. Has already been done (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?459141-Optimization-and-Tiers-The-Tier-System-Expanded), more than once (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System). (And since I'm guessing you weren't aware of either of these, see also point A?)

A. Okay, so the playground might be wont to put these more completed, more accurate tier lists on a sticky FAQ style thread since the subject comes up so often? If Google won't help, at least the forum could.

B. I don't think the systems you listed are entirely different. They are just a little more complex and in depth, which is more useful if they're built better. JaronK wasn't wrong for giving us a general concept more based on common consensus than hard data (it being a highly debated subject), we just hope we can eventually do better.

C. Having comparative lists to go on is even better than just the one. At last my original request for actual lists was answered with lists instead of arguments about how good beguilers and truenamers are.

Troacctid

2016-12-27, 02:45 PM

Experts get plenty of skill points and any skills they want. That's pretty darned valuable -- just ask factotum players.

Still, I get what you're saying, but expert actually should rank higher than a lot of PC classes, if only because so many PC classes and PrCs are absolutely horrid. I mean, look at the shining blade of Heironeous. Look at the soulborn. Ugh.
Dude, you realize that you can take away 5 spellcasting levels from a Cleric and still have it be T3, right? I'll take the Shining Blade over an Expert any day of the week. (Except for Generic Class Tuesday, when we use the Generic Expert.)

Soulborn can focus to be decent at one or two things. Expert can't really do that, because the best it can do is be worse at a job than anyone else who maxed the same skill.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-12-27, 03:15 PM

Dude, you realize that you can take away 5 spellcasting levels from a Cleric and still have it be T3, right? I'll take the Shining Blade over an Expert any day of the week. (Except for Generic Class Tuesday, when we use the Generic Expert.)

Soulborn can focus to be decent at one or two things. Expert can't really do that, because the best it can do is be worse at a job than anyone else who maxed the same skill.Experts are one of only a tiny handful of classes that have the opportunity to gain any skill they want, along with taking a single feat for all Knowledge skills (in case they have too many skill points and need extra skills to spend them on). This includes the very best of skills, such as Use Magic Device, Diplomacy, Lucid Dreaming, and Iaijutsu Focus. They can combine skills in practically any way they want, and they have zero reason not to be highly Int-focused, leaving them as SAD or MAD as their stats allow them to be.

Focus on Lucid Dreaming and Diplomacy alone can give this particular NPC class a better than even shot at taking over just about any campaign world. I mean, who needs to put themselves at risk defeating or even sweet-talking their enemies face-to-face when they can simply enter one's dreams and Diplomacize him? A factotum outshines an expert due to having the same skill access while also having class features to further capitalize, but the number of other classes that can say the same are almost nil.

Honestly, with even the tiniest bits of system knowledge, you could easily play an expert along with T1s and shine really, really brightly. At mid levels of op-fu, they could easily be powerful T3s, and at high levels, they can even be a major threat to many (though not all) Theoretical Ops T1s.

Sure, it's not as good as a factotum, but you could easily make a case for factotums being, by far, the T3 class with the highest native optimization ceiling -- and thus being the strongest class outside of the T1s and T2s.

Troacctid

2016-12-27, 03:32 PM

A. Okay, so the playground might be wont to put these more completed, more accurate tier lists on a sticky FAQ style thread since the subject comes up so often? If Google won't help, at least the forum could.
To my knowledge, that's not really the goal of sticky threads.

Experts are one of only a tiny handful of classes that have the opportunity to gain any skill they want, along with taking a single feat for all Knowledge skills (in case they have too many skill points and need extra skills to spend them on). This includes the very best of skills, such as Use Magic Device, Diplomacy, Lucid Dreaming, and Iaijutsu Focus. They can combine skills in practically any way they want, and they have zero reason not to be highly Int-focused, leaving them as SAD or MAD as their stats allow them to be.

Focus on Lucid Dreaming and Diplomacy alone can give this particular NPC class a better than even shot at taking over just about any campaign world. I mean, who needs to put themselves at risk defeating or even sweet-talking their enemies face-to-face when they can simply enter one's dreams and Diplomacize him? A factotum outshines an expert due to having the same skill access while also having class features to further capitalize, but the number of other classes that can say the same are almost nil.
Anyone can take feats or dips to get any skills they want. It's not that big a deal. An Aristocrat with Flexible Mind does the same thing while also being much better in combat, and Aristocrats are still considered T6.

Pleh

2016-12-27, 10:12 PM

To my knowledge, that's not really the goal of sticky threads.

Maybe not on this forum, but it certainly can be a use for them. I won't pretend to understand the organizational structure of this particular forum, but it certainly could be helpful for topics that come around all too often to have a sticky FAQ thread pertaining to common questions posted on the forum specifically so the forumites can quickly give reference links to newcomers and visitors who are unfamiliar with the ongoing discussion.

Making it sticky would help keep it easy to find and view. Even though JaronK's original thread will always take the top pick on the search engine, this particular website is likely to pop up somewhere in the top 10, and a sticky thread in the related subforum could help people find the related subject matter more quickly.

Coidzor

2016-12-27, 10:34 PM

This. The edges of the tiers are blurry. Partly due to disagreements among play community, but also due to different table optimization and assumptions. Tiers assume equivalent optimization and that's much easier said than done. Something as simple as access to WBL/magic marts helps some classes more than others. And there may be more daylight between a high T3 and a low T3 than the low T3 to the high T4, because the tiers are definitional and you can't always measure game power directly.

But the difference between T1, T3, and T5 is clear and often relevant.

"Lesser planar binding is almost definitely superior"
Is is really? Do we know all outsiders? Are there knowledge checks? If summoning a hound archon is OK, can we summon 50? Will bigger outsiders pay attention if we do? Is the DM cool with chain summoning imps for communes, and will he give game time to do that? And do the outsiders have access to better information via commune than you can get by bribing or charming a guard? Does the campaign take place somewhere with lots of humanoids, and is it assumed that everyone has a custom protection from evil item? I think LPB is not almost definitely superior to dominate monster, without a lot of assumptions I don't feel comfortable making at all tables. And that's a good example of why tier boundaries blur.

"Call a Hound Archon? YOU GET ORCUS."

That's all I can think of now. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?357981-Can-you-cheat-at-D-amp-D/page44&p=17759232#post17759232)

"There is no reason for the Law of Sequence to exist. It's like demanding Sorcerers may not spam fireball (You can't cast that! The fireball from last turn is still burning!)"

Like, bruh, did you even read the part where fireball has an instantaneous duration and so the LoS wouldn't care about it?

You are aware that Truenaming still remains a poorly understood subsytem, right? You managing to seemingly naturally grasp it doesn't change that. :smallconfused:

Oh come on, that means that an expert with a copy of the book of vile darkness is T2. The problem with a wilder is that, without excessive measures to optimise, they don't have the power or versatility of a T2 class.

You'd make a better argument if you didn't immediately jump to an artifact right off the bat.

nyjastul69

2016-12-28, 01:59 AM

Maybe not on this forum, but it certainly can be a use for them. I won't pretend to understand the organizational structure of this particular forum, but it certainly could be helpful for topics that come around all too often to have a sticky FAQ thread pertaining to common questions posted on the forum specifically so the forumites can quickly give reference links to newcomers and visitors who are unfamiliar with the ongoing discussion.

Making it sticky would help keep it easy to find and view. Even though JaronK's original thread will always take the top pick on the search engine, this particular website is likely to pop up somewhere in the top 10, and a sticky thread in the related subforum could help people find the related subject matter more quickly.

I kindly disagree. There are enough, if not too many, stickied threads as it is. A stickied tier thread would have to have some kind of credible backing, this does not exist. Tiers are as subjective as they are controversial, I can't see a stickied thread of this sort being of any value.

Jormengand

2016-12-28, 04:34 AM

You are aware that Truenaming still remains a poorly understood subsytem, right? You managing to seemingly naturally grasp it doesn't change that. :smallconfused:

People shouldn't speak authority on what they haven't a clue about.

You'd make a better argument if you didn't immediately jump to an artifact right off the bat.

No, I don't mean The Book of Vile Darkness, the artifact (which exists?). I mean BoVD, the book with multiple copies in print, that can be used as an optional sourcebook to Dungeons and Dragons Third Edition (and Revised Third Edition by induction).

Pleh

2016-12-28, 06:37 AM

I kindly disagree. There are enough, if not too many, stickied threads as it is. A stickied tier thread would have to have some kind of credible backing, this does not exist. Tiers are as subjective as they are controversial, I can't see a stickied thread of this sort being of any value.

Once again, this seems a houserule on this particular forum. On this subforum, we have rules for posting and a simple RAW thread for 3.5 and PF. I'm not sure of how many is too many stickies, but I don't think adding another would break the subforum.

And credible backing? Why exactly does a sticky thread must needs have credible backing? It is a conversation a lot of people are interested in, so why not make it easier to find? Why does it matter if the thread ultimately tells people that there is no specific answer, rather a range of solutions for them to consider? Isn't that range of solutions just as valid an answer to their questions about game balance as anything could be?

Or are you worried about forum balance and not wanting to see the discussion space cluttered with topics that won't go away? I guess my point is that this discussion isn't really going away anyway, so a sticky could theoretically streamline the process.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-12-28, 06:53 AM

If another stickied thread was in the works, I'd suggest a list of lists -- a thread specifically designed to be a resource to easily find other resources, among which could be a subthread for tier lists and related items. That would be broad enough in scope to fit being a stickied thread, while vastly increasing its usability above a mere tier list or list of tier threads.

Vaz

2016-12-28, 07:28 AM

Once again, this seems a houserule on this particular forum. On this subforum, we have rules for posting and a simple RAW thread for 3.5 and PF. I'm not sure of how many is too many stickies, but I don't think adding another would break the subforum.

And credible backing? Why exactly does a sticky thread must needs have credible backing? It is a conversation a lot of people are interested in, so why not make it easier to find? Why does it matter if the thread ultimately tells people that there is no specific answer, rather a range of solutions for them to consider? Isn't that range of solutions just as valid an answer to their questions about game balance as anything could be?

Or are you worried about forum balance and not wanting to see the discussion space cluttered with topics that won't go away? I guess my point is that this discussion isn't really going away anyway, so a sticky could theoretically streamline the process.

Who really gives a ****? This forum is for discussion on 3.5, a dead gaming system woth its lifeless husk supported by pathfinder and diehards.

Does it matter what tier something is in? If people have a question over why their monk isn't doing as well as a wizard, let them ask the question.

The tier thread was a useful discussionary tool, but it serves no purpose outside of that.

To be able to contribute to a tiering thread, you need to know the game well enough to talk about it with authority. Take a look at Smogon, for example, a pokemon website whonhas a similar "authority".

Many play Smogon because the game is boring and broken as people spam legendaries. Smogon is a competitive battlers forum which objectively discovers mechanics rather than the subjective influences of the person playing it, with councils of people and ban lists decided by popular vote. Despite that, there are subtiers as people modify rulesets to their houserules, but other than that niche market of Smogon and other Pokemon Showdown users, the literal millions of other users around the world ignore it.

Tiering is to allow competitive play to occur. How do they do that? They have the entire list of pokemon broken down into their respective tiers. They then playtest them, and play with movesets, abilities, EV spreads, and equipped items so as to determine how those pokemon can operate at certain niches.

How do they do that? By having individual threads based on those pokemon.

You want to apply that to D&D, first you are going to need to find a group of competitive D&D players within its already niche online presence, then find an agreed upon baseline as this is a game of improv and choices over pure mechanics. And once all that is done, you are left with a build that can be placed in any tier.

Considering that any discussion with JaronK's tiering is based on the idea that his is wrong for niche reasons (Beguiler 8 is netter than Sorc 8, everything is wrong!), the entire argument has lost its credibility. There is no need to tier things.we have handbooks.

Do not expect the mods or anyone in charge to recognise your opinion as being more important than discussion, or anyone else elses question. They don't entertain JaronK's tiering as being anything like defining as his critics insist it to be so.

Create the thread and do the work, then see if anyone cares enough outside of your small niche for it to make a 'competitive' D&D game.

If you want to talk that, go to MinMax and talk to Plz and SorO, apart from they have already done the work. And people don't care, because people play what they want.

This forum is a discussion board, and generic help system, especially now the WotC seem to have contracted Mad Cow Disease and think Twitter, FB and Reddit as a viable alternative. Let it be used as such without highly polarizing and often subjective, rather than objective, threads like Tier Systems.

To clarify, i think that the tiering system is a useful tool to quickly get an idea for people new to the game. Not a be all end all dossier on what people can operate in a certain tier.

Pleh

2016-12-28, 10:37 AM

Who really gives a ****?

Well, I do. You seem to, though in the opposite direction. You seem angry and I'm not sure why.

This forum is for discussion on 3.5, a dead gaming system woth its lifeless husk supported by pathfinder and diehards.

Then why do you care? If it doesn't matter at all, why would a sticky about a dead discussion for a dead gaming system hurt anyone anyway?

I think the reason you care is because it isn't a dead or meaningless discussion, you just don't like making it a sticky. That's fine. I'm not campaigning to make it into one. At this point I'm just trying to make sense of people's arguments against it, and so far the people making the arguments aren't being very convincing with their positions.

Forums can be what we want it to be, so if no one on the forum wants this topic to be a sticky, that's reason enough not to do it. It doesn't really matter to me. I just thought it might be a handy thing to have around.

Does it matter what tier something is in? If people have a question over why their monk isn't doing as well as a wizard, let them ask the question.

Funny enough, there's an ongoing thread nearby (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?509329-Tiers-Caster-Noncaster-Disparity-and-the-Point-of-the-Game) that asked that very question. Strange thing is that the conversation didn't simply end with everyone saying, "No, it doesn't really matter what tier something is in."

The tier thread was a useful discussionary tool, but it serves no purpose outside of that.

To be able to contribute to a tiering thread, you need to know the game well enough to talk about it with authority.

Agreed, but part of the ways that people learn the game well enough to talk about it is by studying the conversations people have already had about it. It might be helpful to people who are still coming in to the discussion fresh to have ready access to old discussions so they aren't unintentionally necromancing old conversations.

But 3.5 is a dead system. No one is going to be asking about that old stuff anymore today, right?[/sarcasm]

Take a look at Smogon, for example, a pokemon website whonhas a similar "authority".

Many play Smogon because the game is boring and broken as people spam legendaries. Smogon is a competitive battlers forum which objectively discovers mechanics rather than the subjective influences of the person playing it, with councils of people and ban lists decided by popular vote. Despite that, there are subtiers as people modify rulesets to their houserules, but other than that niche market of Smogon and other Pokemon Showdown users, the literal millions of other users around the world ignore it.

Tiering is to allow competitive play to occur. How do they do that? They have the entire list of pokemon broken down into their respective tiers. They then playtest them, and play with movesets, abilities, EV spreads, and equipped items so as to determine how those pokemon can operate at certain niches.

How do they do that? By having individual threads based on those pokemon.

You want to apply that to D&D, first you are going to need to find a group of competitive D&D players within its already niche online presence, then find an agreed upon baseline as this is a game of improv and choices over pure mechanics. And once all that is done, you are left with a build that can be placed in any tier.

So tiering only matters if you're playing in a specifically competitive setting and the forum should only bother highlighting such discussion if there were active 3.5 tournaments being held? The fact that people come on here every day to talk about their 3.5 games and ways to improve their gameplay doesn't really matter at all?

Considering that any discussion with JaronK's tiering is based on the idea that his is wrong for niche reasons (Beguiler 8 is netter than Sorc 8, everything is wrong!), the entire argument has lost its credibility. There is no need to tier things.we have handbooks.

I was proposing also that we do some work to iron out little "niche" wrinkles as best as we could, but regardless the arguments "credibility" it is an often used and discussed argument and having some official space to hold the conversation in might be useful.

Handbooks might indeed be a better solution to the problem from a player's perspective. You get an instruction manual to tell you how to avoid punishing pitfalls of bad build design and hints on where to find the real good stuff so you can custom build your character to have exactly the effectiveness you really want.

But the Tiering system, for all its flaws and fuzzy edges, is still useful from a GM's perspective. If he's got a table where his experienced player is set on playing a Wizard and his newbie is fascinated with his new monk abilities, the tier system warns him to talk to the players and start making plans to get ahead of the balancing issues the players will experience. You know, even in a non-competitive setting?

Maybe even more so for a non-competitive setting, as a competitive setting would prevent him from intervening in the monk's demise.

Do not expect the mods or anyone in charge to recognise your opinion as being more important than discussion, or anyone else elses question. They don't entertain JaronK's tiering as being anything like defining as his critics insist it to be so.

Oh, I don't expect anything at all. I was trying to make a polite recommendation and I trust the mods know what they're doing. Again, I'm not campaigning for anything. I just see a lot of bad counterarguments that are poorly constructed and I am trying to defend my position. I can be completely right and it can totally not matter because the mods still aren't going to do anything about it. It doesn't matter.

I just thought there was a chance my proposal could be beneficial to the forum. It's no skin off my nose whether I'm right or wrong or if my idea is ever considered or put into effect. I had an idea, shared it, and people don't seem to like it. Fair enough. Whatever floats your boat.

Create the thread and do the work, then see if anyone cares enough outside of your small niche for it to make a 'competitive' D&D game.

Well, that's something I proposed doing, but I already mentioned to people that I'll need the forum's help doing so. If you think that my best bet is to just create the thread and get the ball rolling, then cool, maybe I'll do that sometime soon.

If you want to talk that, go to MinMax and talk to Plz and SorO, apart from they have already done the work. And people don't care, because people play what they want.

But that's exactly why people care about tiering. People want help playing their games the way they want to play them. Why? Because the game has rules and they have to do something to reconcile how they want to play with how the rules dictate they must play. Even in non-competitive settings, this can at times be problematic and Rule 0 doesn't really solve all problems. The players can loose that feeling of immersion and even feel condescended to if the DM has to hand wave every problem the rules create off the table.

A competitive table treats the game as a game. A non-competitive table treats the game like Minecraft, a cooperative, creative ensemble with the goal of crafting a story together. The rules are meant to support both styles of play, but sometimes the rules trip over their own shoes and sometimes Balance and Disparity are to blame. Helping players correctly diagnose when this is the case helps them build better game experiences in competitive and non-competitive settings alike.

This forum is a discussion board, and generic help system, especially now the WotC seem to have contracted Mad Cow Disease and think Twitter, FB and Reddit as a viable alternative. Let it be used as such without highly polarizing and often subjective, rather than objective, threads like Tier Systems.

To clarify, i think that the tiering system is a useful tool to quickly get an idea for people new to the game. Not a be all end all dossier on what people can operate in a certain tier.

And to me, I don't care if it's subjective or objective. I care that it is a useful tool. That is a helpful thing on a forum board for generic help systems.

But hey, I meant it as an off the cuff recommendation that the forum might benefit from. You guys don't need a reason to say no. It's your playground. I just like playing in it.

137beth

2016-12-28, 11:40 AM

Who really gives a ****? This forum is for discussion on 3.5, a dead gaming system woth its lifeless husk supported by pathfinder and diehards.

Apparently you care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be spending so much of your time posting here.
And so do I. And so others in this community.

rrwoods

2016-12-28, 12:14 PM

Man, is there something about the phrase "teir list" that makes people immediately think of competition? It's always been about facilitating cooperation in this game.

Mato

2016-12-28, 01:08 PM

Man, is there something about the phrase "teir list" that makes people immediately think of competition? It's always been about facilitating cooperation in this game.Because tiering is about competition.

Here, from Lost's post on his ratings.

Q: So what a minute, how can I use Tiering then? My players all play differently.
Normally, you don't. D&D is not about competitive play so there is no use in preventing players from choosing Roy to smash people off the stages or Akuma for his unfair long list of specials and omfg damage ratings. This is just a quick summery ranking, the smartest player can use a Fighter to keep up with the poorest played Wizard and sometimes that's just what the group needs to function.

Q: My players want to play classes of wildly different Tiers. What can I do about this?
Tell them that's great, but don't try to outshine each other or break your game. You're fundamentally there to have a great time and not a cockfight.

Q: My party mates all want to play classes of wildly different Tiers. What can I do about this?
Sounds like you have that CDO disorder (the letters are in the correct order because they should be!)In really lampshades it's self as being a mostly worthless vs rating to a point where it just answers a question with a joke and reminders to have a fun time.

The only positive aspect outside of a quick fyi summery of expectations is in that first entry I quoted. Like the iron chief challenges posed here, an optimizer who enjoys optimizing characters may enjoy the task of generating a fighter that can keep up with another player's wizard. The optimizer will feel less constrained in his options and the DM won't have to worry as much since most of the simply won't have the impact that spell choice can bring. In the worst case, the fighter starts talking to the wizard & cleric about what game breaking spells to use. But at least that way they are cooperatively working together right? :smallsmile:

Stealth Marmot

2016-12-28, 02:46 PM

There is one other use of tiered lists, DMs can use it as a ballpark rating to adjust possible CRs for the party.

It also can be useful if you want to try balancing the tiers a bit, possibly adjusting a few classes that fell behind with some extra perks or even throwing the god tier a nerf or two.

Giving Samurai some bonus feats or some class bonuses to make it more viable for a player if they want to play a samurai, or keeping a firm hold on some arcane spells to make sure the powergamer doesn't abuse them.

rrwoods

2016-12-28, 03:13 PM

Because tiering is about competition.
But only because it's normally presented in a competitive context. The teir list for 3.5 is explicitly about reducing accidental competition by recognizing when you're playing a class that has the potential to accidentally outshine the party. It's in the intro!

I do think the word "teir" is loaded. No changing it at this point though, it's already too ingrained in the community's collective consciousness.

MaxiDuRaritry

2016-12-28, 04:24 PM

Tiers:
http://cloud-3.steamusercontent.com/ugc/351643763285870712/1650759A16052757246DF259ED6915CD0B1CA26D/

Teir:
http://elfquest.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Teir-Final-Quest-Teaser.jpg

Know the difference! It could save your life!

Troacctid

2016-12-28, 04:56 PM

There is one other use of tiered lists, DMs can use it as a ballpark rating to adjust possible CRs for the party.
Not really. Tiers don't mean anything in the context of a single encounter. JaronK's rankings are based on versatility across a wide range of encounters. T4 classes can be just as strong or stronger than T1s if you're only considering one fight. Just look at the ubercharge-barian for proof of that.

Vaz

2016-12-29, 02:05 AM

Apparently you care. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be spending so much of your time posting here.
And so do I. And so others in this community.

I don't give a **** about tiering though. I enjoy playing this dead game as much as I like playing scrabble, or monopoly. Tiering is completely irrelevant to that.

Somensjev

2016-12-29, 02:28 AM

I believe myself, and a number of other members of the community, would be interested in attempting to rewrite the tier list to something that most would be able to agree upon, or at least not argue against too much.

Because I'm certain that there are some base classes that haven't been properly tiered, and some that people don't agree upon for a number of reasons.

Flickerdart

2016-12-29, 08:17 AM

I believe myself, and a number of other members of the community, would be interested in attempting to rewrite the tier list to something that most would be able to agree upon, or at least not argue against too much.
Good luck with that. There's a huge anti-optimization community that gets triggered by the very word "tier." You'll never get them to even agree to the premise that all the classes in the game aren't equal.

Vaz

2016-12-29, 08:46 AM

I like optimization. I still find tiering ridiculous and self aggrandizing, especially when there are several out there already which you don't agree with/completely ignore based on minor quibbles. The "community tier" thread has already devolved into 'no your opinion is wrong'. And they hope to keep this collective effort up for 3 months?

*Grabs popcorn*

Pleh

2016-12-29, 09:15 AM

Not really. Tiers don't mean anything in the context of a single encounter. JaronK's rankings are based on versatility across a wide range of encounters. T4 classes can be just as strong or stronger than T1s if you're only considering one fight. Just look at the ubercharge-barian for proof of that.

This is not true. Tiers are a theory that suggests in that imbalance and disparity could influence any given encounter, not that they will invariably influence every possible encounter. The fact that some encounters play to the T4's few strengths and none of the T1's strengths is only more reason to be familiar with the tiering; it enables the DM to know exactly how to make sure the encounters have a little bit of fun for everyone so that the T4 eventually does get that encounter that makes them feel important.

Without understanding the limitations of the classes, DMs can blindly make generic, randomly rolled encounters that are technically balanced with the party only to find that the T1 breezes the party through 90% of them and the T4 gives an assist in the last 10% to help the T1 finish it off.

A DM who understands Tiering could design their encounters to be more 50/50 between the T4 and the T1.

I don't give a **** about tiering though. I enjoy playing this dead game as much as I like playing scrabble, or monopoly. Tiering is completely irrelevant to that.

You care enough to fight against it. If you didn't care, it wouldn't have been worth the effort to get involved or compose a response.

The Tiering theory itself admits that not every game is going to be affected by imbalance or disparity. At many tables, it truly won't matter.

The fact that some tables will not need tiering theory is by no means proof that no table ever will benefit from it.

I like optimization. I still find tiering ridiculous and self aggrandizing, especially when there are several out there already which you don't agree with/completely ignore based on minor quibbles. The "community tier" thread has already devolved into 'no your opinion is wrong'. And they hope to keep this collective effort up for 3 months?

*Grabs popcorn*

Well, all I'm hearing you say is that people have tried before and failed. That doesn't preclude the possibility that we could try again and do better this time.

I feel the benefit of having a solid, reliable tiering theory is worth the effort, even if it falls apart again.

And also, I disagree that Tiering theory is about optimization. I know it's been said, many times, many ways, but JaronK was not meaning to express balance relative to optimization. He was meaning to offer tiers based on more average gameplay (which is to say, that the people at the table have relatively the same amount of game experience and the same amount of optimization in their characters). Ultimately, Optimization is meant to be considered a constant with respect to tiers, not a variable (even though it can be variable, it is considered held constant with respect to tier theory).

Vaz

2016-12-29, 09:38 AM

They haven't tried and failed. They succeeded. Just "nobody cares" except the people who created it. Except in this, you are expecting people to compromise to suit people who have different subjective opinions over something.

It is tough to hear "nobody cares", especially to the extent that JaronK's idea has been seized upon, but you'll note that experienced players who would be the ones who would care about a supposed tier wouldn't seriously consider playing a game with T5 characters.

Tiers 0, 1 and 2 might as well be one. They can potentially break the game. Doesn't matter if they have 20 or 1 way to do it, they can. This is fixed by a housrule of 'Don't break the game'. Any class with UMD, Full Casters, in particular those with Wish, Miracle, Shapechange, or Reality Revision on their potential spell list should fall within this bracket. Those with very open spell lists, namely Conjuration, Necromancy, Transmutation, Enchantment and Action Enconomy breakage, unless specifically catered for, can break a highly genericized idea for a campaign.

Tier 3 and 4 also should be one. Can do many things or one thing okay to well done. Can't break game. Most classes fall within this. It shouldn't need explaining which are in here.

Tier 5 and 6 is the last and melded into one. They fall behind in what they do, and require others.to help them achieve. Specialised Magic Items designed to help them, party members specifically targeting them with spells, especially those which provide Permanent or Semi Permanent changes to a character being integral to that characters contribution in game should be considered viable options to this set of Characters.

Truenamers requiring magic items of +Truespeak, Fighters with custom equipment, all the way up to DCFS all fall within this, Monks that aren't homebrewed/told to play Swordsages instead, etc.

3 Tiers, which each explain exactly what each one does, with Tier 1 and Tier 3 listing what each can do with Tier 2 just explaining that most are there.

What does tiering serve? An idea so newcomers get an idea of what characters can do what. Something for veteran optimizers to do this;

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHwKZ_pK93fYPoH6_Zbtisw08LdyH0k IF24KKZ8qr0hbieo6z3Fg

When in reality it boils down to 'But Beguiler has 8 good 4th level spells known, while Sorcerer has only 2, JaronK is a thief and a liar and a horrible person who wears socks with the days of the week stitched in but wears them on the wrong day".

It is all very laughable. No-one failed. Just nobody gives that much thought to it outside of the typical internet SJW mentality of "my opinion is superior to yours and must supplant yours" when in reality it is equally controversial and wrong, and, as shown in the thread, already "failing" because that is how group projects go.

Flickerdart

2016-12-29, 09:48 AM

Tiers 0, 1 and 2 might as well be one. They can potentially break the game. Doesn't matter if they have 20 or 1 way to do it, they can. This is fixed by a housrule of 'Don't break the game'. Any class with UMD, Full Casters, in particular those with Wish, Miracle, Shapechange, or Reality Revision on their potential spell list should fall within this bracket. Those with very open spell lists, namely Conjuration, Necromancy, Transmutation, Enchantment and Action Enconomy breakage, unless specifically catered for, can break a highly genericized idea for a campaign.
0 is nonsense, so I won't mention it, but 1 and 2 are very different. A T2 class can be shut down very easily, because the DM can adapt to their gimmick, no matter how powerful it is. A T1 class can then change to a different gimmick and keep on keeping on. In this way, a T2 is actually much more like a T3 than a T1 - once their main schtick is countered, they resort to good but not game-breaking options, the sort of options a T3 uses.

Tier 3 and 4 also should be one. Can do many things or one thing okay to well done. Can't break game. Most classes fall within this. It shouldn't need explaining which are in here.

Also wrong. If you shut down a T3's main thing (insofar as a T3 still has a main thing), they have something to do. Shut down a T4's main thing, and they have nothing. Pit either against a novice DM, and you might find your game broken.

5 and 6 are equally useless, sure.

The reason it's useful to have six tiers and not three is that you can place the brackets in different places. A DM can say "this is a T2-T3 game" (more powerful than "everyday" classes but not ubergods) or "this is a T4-T5 game" (weaker than "everyday" classes but not trash).

Pleh

2016-12-29, 10:19 AM

They haven't tried and failed. They succeeded. Just "nobody cares" except the people who created it. Except in this, you are expecting people to compromise to suit people who have different subjective opinions over something.

Expecting people to compromise to suit people who have different subjective opinions over something? Oh, NO! WHAT HAVE WE DONE?![/sarcasm]

What does tiering serve?

Again, it is meant to serve tables that have players and DMs who aren't aware of the games balance issues and pitfalls. Even if the arguments over balance are subjective, the goal of making tables aware of the existence of balance issues is objective and useful.

An idea so newcomers get an idea of what characters can do what.

Precisely.

Something for veteran optimizers to do this;

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQHwKZ_pK93fYPoH6_Zbtisw08LdyH0k IF24KKZ8qr0hbieo6z3Fg

When in reality it boils down to 'But Beguiler has 8 good 4th level spells known, while Sorcerer has only 2, JaronK is a thief and a liar and a horrible person who wears socks with the days of the week stitched in but wears them on the wrong day".

It is all very laughable. No-one failed. Just nobody gives that much thought to it outside of the typical internet SJW mentality of "my opinion is superior to yours and must supplant yours" when in reality it is equally controversial and wrong, and, as shown in the thread, already "failing" because that is how group projects go.

All of civilized society is a group project. Politics, for all its flaws and failings, is a group project.

But it gets the job done. We're not giving up on improving the system, either.

And the criticism that points out the flaws and then laughs off the whole effort just because it has flaws and fails a lot is unproductive criticism.

Why are you trying to stop us from doing a better job today on the basis that it hasn't worked in the past?

Vaz

2016-12-29, 10:51 AM

Wow, that was quick. Don't even need 'relevantxkcd' this time. Strawman does work here I suppose but I'll take the flack for that bait. Also, I will also ppint out that I was changing the goalposts of what each tier meant. Simply saying if it broke the game, it was Tier 1, if it played okay, Tier 2, of it needed helping hands to even function outside of general party interactions/average loot, it was Tier 3.

But you see, the system works. We have discussions over what goes where by virtue of our ability to understand and read the game. Not even over what the classes do, but simply what a tier is defined by, which is utter ludicrous; we can't even agree what a tier is, let alone require a subjective "authority" or popular vote define its placement.

You should see the discussions going back and forth on the pokemon competitive community on where to place or ban certain pokemon based on validity of movesets. If you like, Anything Goes (AG) being Tier 0, Ubers being Tier 1, Overused (OU) being Tier 2, UNderused (UU) Tier 3, Rarely Used (RU), Never Used (NU) and PU (anachronistically 'pee-yew) as appropriate.

This easy to judge; Tier 2, OU, is the gaming standard. Tier 3 (UU) and below can also fight in the upper tiers, because of the Tier being defined on usage (datamined from the standalone battler, Showdown, as no info is available from Cartridges), where each tier cut off is if the pokemon is in the bottom 3% of each team.

A Pokemon, to define itself has maybe 1-2 types, which has an effect on what damage it does, and how certain moves damage it. 6 base stats with a variable total but ultimate set across all mon of that type. On top of that, there are multipliers, known as IV's, which are hidden stats. Only recently can these be improved; normally they were.set at time of egg hatching. Each IV is a number between 0 and 31 for each of the 6 stats, where the higher the number, the better. On carts, this is important, as it means a lot of difference in their end abilities. You also have EV's. These are player 'assigned', and gained from training your pokemon in a certain way. These cap out at 252, and you can spead up to 510 over 6 stats. There are up to 3 possible abilities for each pokemon, but they can only have one. Each pokemon has around 50-70 moves available to it, some of which are mutually exclusive, and others are useless, but essentially 6-12 competitive moves total. To finish it off, there are around 50 hold items which may improve/change how a pokemon works. And you can have 6 different ones on the team at once.

This might seem like bull**** words saying a lot but meaning little, but what it (I) means is that ultimately, people playtest these, and playtest and playtest. Literally hundreds.of battles. Normally the tiers are based on usage, but occasionally, special occasions are called for, when something isn't in the usage stats for its tier, but is more powerful than the one below can handle. To be on this decision making team, you need around to have a certain skill level; something like maybe 5:1 win:loss over a short period of time, like 70 battles. It means people know what they are talking about.

Currently, there is an ongoing discussion, where a certain pokemon is at risk of being 'banned' to Ubers (Tier 1). It would get destroyed in Ubers. The meta is more than capable enough to counter it and as a whole is better. But in OU (T2) this pokemon is just too varied. Some argue it as being good for the meta, others argue it as being bad. It has something like 8 possible sets and is near impossible to counter from the meta perspective.

What you can be sure of os that whatever the decision, whether to ban it, or keep it, the idea is made on the collective authority of people at the top of their game, within a varied, but ultimately closed ruleset, with a finite and defined, non arbitrary validation ceiling. The maths can only go so high.

And still they are struggling.

In D&D, we have something like 30 Base Classes all told, who all supposedly offer different options, or ways of doing things. Throw on ACF's, and 20 level worth of options, like feats, skills, magic items, spell selection (let alone those with spell prep or the ability to swap out), and how the game is played by the individual and what the DM allows or interprets and you are out on a limb.

Play an Elder Evils game where you are a Divine Caster? Good luck, Tier 1, until you hit 0 spells. Rokugan with a wizard? Good luck once more, they hate you already.

There are all these options, and it ultimately comes down to we have to cut the optimization of somewhere or else you get stuff like 'The Cube' or 'The Ex-Fighter' to count. This limit? Arbitrary. Why? Because there isn't a finite ceiling.

All we can do is come up with a rough idea that allows the gaming equivalent of grumpy old men the ability to effectively moan about something inconsequential.

The question is, regardless of Tier, "Aee you having fun?" If yes, go to "Is your party?" if no, find out if it is because of you and whether it is your ceiling or floor which is causing it. In which case, here is a guidebook on [insert class here] and how you can tone yourself down/improve your party/improve yourself depending on what is necessary.

These discussions and help threads are not answered by Tiering. Ah cool, my monk is Arbitrary Tier "Seven", and the party Wizard Arbitrary Tier "Meat and Potato Pie", how can I be relevant.

Do people to those answers say "Be tier 3" or "Be a swordsage", and do they give answers based on how to build Mr S Sage, or on how to build a Bard which is also in the same Tier?

I find the exercise argumentative and pointless, and will be amused to see what happens to it after this initial rush, and when they get to letter G or whatever random letter people no longer care by.

I mean, I'll eat my words if anything miraculous comes of this thought exercise. But I don't expect to see (collective) opinions being rated any higher than JaronK's ever was (outside of Google recognising his as the most popular and well known, arguably by him being the first) and hence being deserving of a stickied thread to discuss tiers, when there is a forum dedicated to helping people in 3.5.

Vaz

2016-12-29, 11:30 AM

Expecting people to compromise to suit people who have different subjective opinions over something? Oh, NO! WHAT HAVE WE DONE?![/sarcasm]
And compromise means that you don't get an.accurate picture, because you have poorly defined boundaries with no actual control.

Again, it is meant to serve tables that have players and DMs who aren't aware of the games balance issues and pitfalls. Even if the arguments over balance are subjective, the goal of making tables aware of the existence of balance issues is objective and useful.
The current 3-4 not doing that already?

All of civilized society is a group project. Politics, for all its flaws and failings, is a group project.
Which make little relevance outside of the fact that nobody cares about the actual work involved apart from how it impacts things. It literally will not change anything.

But it gets the job done. We're not giving up on improving the system, either.
Then play Plz's houserules. Considering he has been a part of the optimization community for longer than many have played the game for, and his name comes from 'Please break my campaign', and, despite being occasionally abrasive, was the guy who came up with an ECL20 build with a 99 HD Dragon). You maybe read the bit above about the players in Smogon/Pokemon Showdown being top tier, Plz is one of the few in a worldwide niche optimization community who has been able to get to that level in a game as community minded and cooperative in spirit as D&D.

And the criticism that points out the flaws and then laughs off the whole effort just because it has flaws and fails a lot is unproductive criticism.

Why are you trying to stop us from doing a better job today on the basis that it hasn't worked in the past?
You're ignoring the point that it has worked. Just nobody cares enough past the basic idea that things are unbalanced. Tier 6 vs Tier 1, any guy in game can recognise that difference. T2 v T1? Not so much. T3 v.T4? Again, much of a muchness. It changes little.

It is also irrespective of optimization floors and ceilings, and what WBL can do, and seriously how many options there are.

I mean, here is Smogon website. http://www.smogon.com

Gives you an idea of what things look like. Spread over 7 tiers of single battles, where it is PvP, there are nearly 700 pokemon in circulation, maybe 60 of which are OU viable, and each of them having 1-3 movesets dedicated to their discussion, and how to run something.

Sure, looking at the Tier overviews, Serperior, say, may well be OU. But that doesn't mean you can rock up with a random IV spread, non specific EV allocation pokemon, not using its hidden ability, and any random moveset that worked while playing through the game. You wouldn't stand a chance.

Not only that, you need to know how to use it. Assuming you build everything correctly, you can't just sit there and spam Leaf storm for a free +2 every turn, because next turn, a pokemon with resist Grass (like Heatran, with its 4x say) will come in, and you have to prepare and predict, which is where the skill comes in... And is why there are specific articles and threads discussing these options.

Metas change in Pokemon easily. As builds evolve or become more popular, so do their checks and counters. Changing usages. As some become popular others lose that favour and change tiers, up or down, let alone with the new stuff brought from a mechanics upgrade such has just happened.

How is any of that tiering process applicable to D&D?

It isn't. You are simply rehashing everything, except maybe reallocating a few up a tier, or down a tier based on a collective bias.

I'm not stopping you. I'm simply being that guy who is stood watching you build a sandcastle saying "It will all wash away, you know", and you get angry and tell me to stop ruining your fun, when I'm doing no such thing. Merely stating the futility and pointlessness of it.

Lets not even get to the fact that there is a sandcastle a little bit further along which is absolutely massive, a little bit weatherworn, and not exactly perfect but still functional for most intents and purposes. It is pointless, ultimately, considering there are cjncrete flood defenses titled "Handbooks" in one way and "3.5/Pathfinder Discussion Forum" the other.

Mate, knock yourself out, and I hope you have fun doing it. Doesn't mean I can't question the futility and pointlessness of it.

Pleh

2016-12-29, 03:06 PM

And compromise means that you don't get an.accurate picture, because you have poorly defined boundaries with no actual control.

Any kind of information has two particular qualities: Accuracy and usefulness. Each piece of information can possibly have varying degrees of either.

First, Accurate and Useful. The cream of the crop and hopefully something we enjoy to have more often than not. RAW is definitively accurate and more often than not, useful (when it isn't vague, abusable, or otherwise poorly crafted).

Second, Inaccurate and Unusable. There is an infinite amount of this junk that we just need to stay away from.

Third, Accurate, but not useful. Definition of Trivial Pursuit. It can be right as much as it wants and still never matter in the slightest. Tier theory is trivial for tables that already have no problem with balance.

Fourth, Inaccurate, but useful. The fact that any degree of accuracy has a tendency to make itself useful makes this seem a contradiction in terms, but Classical Mechanics proves that even theories that are completely wrong are still generally useful in the correct context (as an approximation).

And that's my point. Tier theory can be an approximation. Approximations are useful to the extent that they get us into the correct ballpark. We may not be factually 100% right, but we can get close enough to accurate to be useful.

The current 3-4 not doing that already?

I dunno. There's been a substantial amount of people on the forum talking about it recently to make it seem like you are underestimating the scope of the problem a solid Tier theory could fix.

Which make little relevance outside of the fact that nobody cares about the actual work involved apart from how it impacts things. It literally will not change anything.

No, doing nothing at all will not change anything. Giving another crack at something that hasn't quite worked before still has the potential to accomplish something (I'll tackle the issue of how successful its been in the past in a bit).

Then play Plz's houserules. Considering he has been a part of the optimization community for longer than many have played the game for, and his name comes from 'Please break my campaign', and, despite being occasionally abrasive, was the guy who came up with an ECL20 build with a 99 HD Dragon). You maybe read the bit above about the players in Smogon/Pokemon Showdown being top tier, Plz is one of the few in a worldwide niche optimization community who has been able to get to that level in a game as community minded and cooperative in spirit as D&D.

You're ignoring the point that it has worked. Just nobody cares enough past the basic idea that things are unbalanced. Tier 6 vs Tier 1, any guy in game can recognise that difference. T2 v T1? Not so much. T3 v.T4? Again, much of a muchness. It changes little.

I'm not ignoring the fact that it worked. I'm suggesting that it didn't work because people are disregarding that system and still looking for an answer to this subject.

It's good and wonderful that Plz's work is a sufficient answer for some people. The fact that it hasn't become a definitive response means there's still room for improvement.

And the fact that people are still talking about it means that people still care enough about it to pursue it.

It is also irrespective of optimization floors and ceilings, and what WBL can do, and seriously how many options there are.

It doesn't have to be. Jormengand is putting together a Community Tiering for 3.5 Base Classes that is based on a voting system where people can express a class's tier flexibility based on such variables as optimization floors/ceilings, WBL, and options like ACFs. The conversation seems to be going well.

-snip-

How is any of that tiering process applicable to D&D?

It isn't.

Couldn't agree more. It's probably best not to think of this kind of Tiering in the same way as ranking pokemon for competitive play.

You are simply rehashing everything, except maybe reallocating a few up a tier, or down a tier based on a collective bias.

For the most part, yes, that's all that needs doing. People criticize JaronK's tier less for being completely upside down and more for being a tier off here or there.

And collective bias is exactly what we're looking for. Anyone who is satisfied with JaronK's original work can still use it and access it. Anyone who wants to look up Plz or Sor0 still can look them up, too.

But a lot of people want to have the authority of the community at large, rather than just a couple of specialists who are the best we have. Individuals are easy enough for a large number of people to disagree with, but if we have a tier that by definition most people can agree with, then it becomes far more useful to people who want a tier theory that is applicable to the AVERAGE group of players.

I'm not stopping you. I'm simply being that guy who is stood watching you build a sandcastle saying "It will all wash away, you know", and you get angry and tell me to stop ruining your fun, when I'm doing no such thing. Merely stating the futility and pointlessness of it.

Lets not even get to the fact that there is a sandcastle a little bit further along which is absolutely massive, a little bit weatherworn, and not exactly perfect but still functional for most intents and purposes. It is pointless, ultimately, considering there are cjncrete flood defenses titled "Handbooks" in one way and "3.5/Pathfinder Discussion Forum" the other.

Mate, knock yourself out, and I hope you have fun doing it. Doesn't mean I can't question the futility and pointlessness of it.

You can question it, but you look a little much like the XKCD comic you posted earlier.

Vaz

2016-12-29, 08:23 PM

VisitingDaGulag

2017-01-06, 12:47 AM

Sorry, what was I asking for?

Should classes that require significantly more effort to play be more powerful when that effort is put in?I tried to save you the shame of your ungramattical question /grammar nazi. Optimization effort is already included in the coloring, I believe.

I can go through this list VisitingDaGulag linked and try to work out the places it needs more elbow grease.It's your thread. Go for it. Perhaps you should start with anything that's clearly off by more than just a few slots. That would make your job easier. Wilder, for example is almost t2, so everyone arguing about how it deserves to be a few classes ahead is a little silly.

Truenamer is more Tier +++Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++ because it really doesn't work without a lot of work.That was JK's reason to put it in t6. It isn't hard to salvage with just a few houserules.

already been done (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?459141-Optimization-and-Tiers-The-Tier-System-Expanded), more (www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System)Here's what I find about D&D's Niche ratings (http://www.lmgtfy.com/?s=d&q=D%26D+niche+rating).

I've never seen a post from bekeleven (maybe you purposely chose someone obscure), but the "B" or "normal" optimization seems to have the same general line-up of class tiers. Is he just as "off" as the link I gave? He puts Wilders in t3 but says they can only stretch to t2 and easily fall to t5. Ouch.

If another stickied thread was in the works, I'd suggest a list of lists -- a thread specifically designed to be a resource to easily find other resources, among which could be a subthread for tier lists and related items.Optimizers already have that (http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=399.0).

part of the ways that people learn the game well enough to talk about it is by studying the conversations people have already had about it.Very well defended, OP.

we can't even agree what a tier is, let alone require a subjective "authority" or popular vote define its placement.For the record, I've yet to see a single large tiering list that was defined somewhat similarly to JK's that I disagreed with heavily. Sure some people forget to mention all the aspects of each tier. I certainly do. But no one has ever to my knowledge been like: Tier 1 break the game in a new way tomorrow. Tier 2: Never uses Magic! Tier 3: Really versatile or really powerful. Tier 4: Can do acrobatics! Tier 5: Can't even do their main thing well. etc where the italicized parts are just way wrong.

Play an Elder Evils game where you are a Divine Caster? Good luck, Tier 1, until you hit 0 spells. Rokugan with a wizard? Good luck once more, they hate you already.I know you're trying to find ways where the tier system either doesn't work as expected or is difficult to judge, but can you specify why you think a Tier 1 PC optimizing at an equal level to the campaign average will have difficulty with either of those things? Casting divine spells as arcane is just a feat away and deceptive casting isn't hard to do either.

There are all these options, and it ultimately comes down to we have to cut the optimization of somewhere or else you get stuff like 'The Cube' or 'The Ex-Fighter' to count. This limit? Arbitrary. Why? Because there isn't a finite ceiling.This is a very good point. But since 3rd edition isn't balanced to begin with, you have to start there (see "Breaking the Core"), which I think you were already saying. So, er, I agree. :smallsmile:

Vaz aint messing around when he links to smogon: "specializing in the art of competitive battling." Wow. I am really starting to see your point. D&D is far more flexible / stretchy than pokemon's 1v1 pvp. It is true that even commoners (no class optimization possible) can very wildly in effectiveness do to other factors besides class. It takes a great deal of system mastery to see through all those other factors quickly and easily.

You are simply rehashing everything, except maybe reallocating a few up a tier, or down a tier based on a collective bias.Absolutely. The best acknowledge that a list isn't the work of one man, but are attempts at synchonization. A group of handbook Ranger writers would be more biased to putting Rangers is t3 or even 3, even though everyone else might think they belong in.

Lets not even get to the fact that there is a sandcastle a little bit further along which is absolutely massive, a little bit weatherworn, and not exactly perfect but still functional for most intents and purposes. It is pointless, ultimately, considering there are concrete flood defenses titled "Handbooks"Do you write poetry, Vaz? This is good stuff. :smallbiggrin:

I really do not understand the voting in Jormengand's thread. What is an X doing in the voting? Why did someone vote archivist 123x45? Does that mean they think its equally likely that someone will play a tier 3 archivist as a tier 1 one? What does the x mean in between 3 and 5? Does x mark the spot or does it mean "excluding". The voting system doesn't seem to include methods to evaluate negative votes. What the heck?

eggynack

2017-01-06, 02:43 AM

I really do not understand the voting in Jormengand's thread. What is an X doing in the voting? Why did someone vote archivist 123x45? Does that mean they think its equally likely that someone will play a tier 3 archivist as a tier 1 one? What does the x mean in between 3 and 5? Does x mark the spot or does it mean "excluding". The voting system doesn't seem to include methods to evaluate negative votes. What the heck?
I don't much like the X, personally, but the "ranked choice" voting is theoretically logical (if a bit weird in the context of an ordered list). The person that gave that vote to the archivist presumably meant, through the 1-5 part, that they'd give a higher tier over a lower tier in every competition, with the x meaning that, in a choice between ranking them tier 4 or lower or calling the archivist too odd in its power elasticity relative to optimization to fit a single category, they'd choose the latter. I agree, however, that there's a lot of unnecessary nuance to the system. What does 12345 tell you that 1 or 12 doesn't, realistically? 34 is useful compared to just 3, because it indicates that you rate them on the lower end of tier 3, but 324 is usually not going to do much (though I think my justification for such a grade on barbarian was solid). X, meanwhile, is mostly just useful for truenamer and spirit shaman, maybe with a side order of paladin depending on how you count their enhanced casting tricks. I'm probably going to just call truenamer a warlock-lite 4, and I have a pretty lengthy argument for spirit shaman as 2 planned when we get there.

Pleh

2017-01-06, 10:03 AM

Just going to address this point; "You can question it, but you look a little much like the XKCD comic you posted earlier."

In what way is questioning what somebody doing embodiment of that. It's a mild bemusement at best that allows me 20 minutes of fun, rather than signing myself up to 3 months of work to prove someone wrong.

The comic's point was irrespective of the time spent and the attitude demonstrated in compulsively pointing out what someone else was doing wrong, whether it's 20 minutes of fun or 3 months of work. The fact is you can't seem to help putting my ideas down when you could be spending your energy elsewhere, which makes the xkcd comic more than a little relevant.

Because someone on the playground internet is WRONG!

I've already given you a guideline on how to tier classes, Broken Powerful, Okay, and Broken Weak. But you've dismissed that. Why? Because you feel like your opinion is worth more than somebody elses and you JUST have to let people know.

No, I "dismissed" it because I'm looking for a better guideline than what you recommended. In my OP, I was looking for an actual comprehensive tier list for the base classes in 3.5. Giving me a guideline that simplifies the tier system without giving me a list dodges the objective. I don't care that you're tired of helping people pursue this objective, you aren't required to pay it any attention.

Fixing the problems with the tier system is a different, though related, topic of conversation in a thread about where I can find whole lists.

And I appreciate some of the lists that have been provided here, especially the ones that use alternative methods for tiering. It helps to understand the true balance of the game to see different perspectives on the matter.

You'd do better to link Handbooks on how specific classes can be played and how to emphasise power. A monk can't operate at T2 level without some very specific choice made. So teach people how to close that gap. Whether it is as simple as 'don't play Monk, play Swordsage' and optimizing from there, or coming up with a copy paste build from Tippy's Monk Challenge.

Tiering is ultimately goalless, outside of rectifying some arbitrary subjectivity, which is hilarious.

I disagree. One of the arguments brought up earlier (I don't remember who, it was before the holidays) was that there is no point to creating a tier list because JaronK's original thread will always dominate the google searches.

That means people are looking for it. People are looking for it because it has purpose and a goal. The problem that many people have is that JaronK's list is incomplete and doesn't finish what it started in helping them in pursuing their goal.

It isn't up to me to determine what goal they have in mind, but it's fairly safe to assume they're trying to figure out why their PC is having trouble with encounters that they shouldn't be having trouble with.

If there's a problem with the other lists that have been referenced here, it was because, for one reason or another, they also have failed to help the community at large finish the task of helping them pursue their goals. Perhaps they were too complex, perhaps they weren't widely accepted enough to garner sufficient credibility, perhaps they work just fine for every person that uses them and they just need more advertisement. This is a perfect thread to advertise them, but I don't take too kindly to being told, "We gave you the only answer you need, why is that not good enough for you?"

Because you are not the sole repository of knowledge. I am aware enough of the discussion at hand to know that there are different viewpoints on the matter. And if there are a number of lists, I want to be able to see them all, not just the one guideline you posted that you insist must be good enough for me (because tiering is "goal-less").

For some people, JaronK's thread might be enough by itself. Good, they have that. Let them use it as they need.

Some people (like me) keep searching for deeper knowledge and understanding. Are we better off linking handbooks so people understand how to make any class functional? I think yes, I would agree with you. Handbooks are a much better resource for the actual work of balancing games through the class selections and choices.

But as a player, sometimes I'm not sure which class I'd like to play yet and handbooks are by nature very dense with information and not easy to browse through until you know for fact that you have the class you want to play.

A good, solid tiering list for 3.5 classes could help narrow a search based on what party members a player already has. "I know I want to play a Battlefield Control character for my party, but which classes do that AND match my party's tier?" It's a table of contents to a selection of handbooks that help you get the rest of the way.

That is the goal I have in mind in pursuing the question of tiering. It's less about the specific tiers that get assigned and more about having a reliable list to draw from as a reference. It can be flexible and fuzzy in tier assignment. But it needs to be visible, accessible, effective/accurate to within a particular degree of certainty, and having the credibility of being backed by the community. JaronK's list nearly matches these qualifications, but it only lacks having definitive placements for a comprehensive list.

I think people understand well enough that the list is not only fuzzy, but SHOULD be fuzzy, because that means there's room for them to do some of the work in building their characters. If the classes were actually hard set in their tiers, it would make class selection too much of an easy calculation and the outcome would feel predetermined. You win or lose the game because you chose the right or wrong class, respectively.

The list only needs to give a general categorization so they know what to expect from their choice in class. The handbook can help them build the character to the appropriate power level to an accurate degree.

It's your thread. Go for it. Perhaps you should start with anything that's clearly off by more than just a few slots. That would make your job easier. Wilder, for example is almost t2, so everyone arguing about how it deserves to be a few classes ahead is a little silly.

I am willing and proposed such a venture, but Jormengand's community poll seems to already be doing this better than I probably could on my own, as I would need help from the community to iron out the kinks anyway.

I figure I'll wait and see how his thread turns out before dumping a lot of time into an individual effort.

I really do not understand the voting in Jormengand's thread. What is an X doing in the voting? Why did someone vote archivist 123x45? Does that mean they think its equally likely that someone will play a tier 3 archivist as a tier 1 one? What does the x mean in between 3 and 5? Does x mark the spot or does it mean "excluding". The voting system doesn't seem to include methods to evaluate negative votes. What the heck?

I don't much like the X, personally, but the "ranked choice" voting is theoretically logical (if a bit weird in the context of an ordered list). The person that gave that vote to the archivist presumably meant, through the 1-5 part, that they'd give a higher tier over a lower tier in every competition, with the x meaning that, in a choice between ranking them tier 4 or lower or calling the archivist too odd in its power elasticity relative to optimization to fit a single category, they'd choose the latter. I agree, however, that there's a lot of unnecessary nuance to the system. What does 12345 tell you that 1 or 12 doesn't, realistically? 34 is useful compared to just 3, because it indicates that you rate them on the lower end of tier 3, but 324 is usually not going to do much (though I think my justification for such a grade on barbarian was solid). X, meanwhile, is mostly just useful for truenamer and spirit shaman, maybe with a side order of paladin depending on how you count their enhanced casting tricks. I'm probably going to just call truenamer a warlock-lite 4, and I have a pretty lengthy argument for spirit shaman as 2 planned when we get there.

Tier X was originally crafted for the Truenamer, which was somewhere between 5 or 6 until the Web Updates boosted it up to top tiers. In essence, TX means, "Largely variable based on class option selections (even more so than typical for the average class) to the degree of making tiering largely uncategorizable."

Another simpler way is to say, "TX means you really gotta just read the class's handbook, cause this class is a minefield between an easy, safe game and having a really bad day."

As opposed to more self-balanced classes that generally fall into a single tier easily as their class abilities don't tend to vary quite as wildly in power level. That's why a lot of full casters get a T1, TX vote, because you can get into a Truenamer situation with wonky spell selections, but it's still probably T1 because you're less likely to screw up that badly given the statistical abundance of excellent options available to full casters.

My understanding is that you vote for tiers in the order that you find them most likely to fall. It's a vote of statistical averages. 123x45 means you're saying, "I would rate the Archivist as most likely T1 for any given player building an Archivist. Slightly less likely is building a T2 character, then T3, but getting a random TX is still more likely than failing to build an archivist so badly that you statistically find T4 or T5 Archivist."

The alternative vote is kind of a way of including negative votes by statistics. Voting 123 for a class is like a negative vote for 456 because of how the system counts the votes (because you could have said 123456 and still voted for them, even if you would have placed the 456 votes at a lower value than the 123 votes). A vote "Archivist 123" would instead be saying "I would rate Archivist T1, then T2, then T3 as possible tiers, but I could never see it falling into the lower tiers or an uncategorizable TX situation." It votes against rating the class as T4, T5, T6, TX because those tiers were omitted from the vote.