Another tiers thread

[lylsyly]

Maybe I'm stupid, but with all the talk and arguing about tiers (I shudder at the thought of yet another Wiz v Sorc or Dragonwrought thread), I wonder why tiers even matter?

Okay, Group 1 plays core only, group 2 plays Core + SRD, group 3 plays Core + Completes, Group 4 adds Races and group 5 adds everything but BoED and BoVD ....
need I go on? (would a core only Paladin be in the same tier with an ALL books allowed Paladin?)

Can you show that a tier ranking would change from group to group? And does it really matter?

[GilesTheCleric]

The point of tiers is to help groups make sure that everyone can shine in a game. Some groups may not realize that fighters can't contribute mechanically outside of combat, and that their combat contribution significantly decreases at higher levels. The tier system points that out, so everyone can have fun.

[lylsyly]

Can you show that a tier ranking would change from group to group? And does it really matter?

I stand by this.

Edit: took seven minutes, i'm kinda surprised it was so slow.

[Jormengand]

A tier list is basically a warning that classes with a tier of 1 or 2 may do things which bypass large parts of the story if left unchecked, and classes with a tier of 4, 5 or 6 may be unable to contribute unless you play to their strengths. Essentially, that's it.

Adding more sources helps in some ways, especially for the paladin (battle blessing, sword of the arcane order and mystic fire knight turn you into a pseudo-wizard) but adding more sources also makes the tier 1 and 2 classes more powerful, so in general a wizard is always going to be better than a fighter (banning all the non-class options from core and only allowing a list of books which includes complete warrior and tome of battle but no good spells would certainly help level the playing field).

It doesn't have to matter, but it can be helpful to allow new DMs to watch out for the kind of power that a wizard can have and the difficulties that a fighter can face.

[eggynack]

There are some clear cut cases of tiers changing based on book availability. Paladin's actually a decent example of that, given sword of the arcane order, cause you can use that and other resources to become a crap-bard, which is better than tier five. Another is healer, which is probably like a high tier five low tier four in its own book, with the latter ranking based on that companion ability, but they're more like a low tier three high tier four when you include the book of exalted deeds and/or champions of valor. I'm not exactly sure what you're getting out of the information that source changes can lead to some shifting in the tiers, but there ya go.

[GilesTheCleric]

I stand by this.

The tiers should be consistent across groups. They do cave across sources. For example, fighter, Paladin, and ranger can all move up tiers when you add extra sources.

[lylsyly]

The tiers should be consistent across groups.

They should be?


They do cave across sources. For example, fighter, Paladin, and ranger can all move up tiers when you add extra sources.

Yet, apparently their not?


There are some clear cut cases of tiers changing based on book availability.

So you will admit that the tiers system's usefulness is going to vary from group to group? Unless of course a consensus is 1st reached about which levels of resources are used in rating the various classes (and would you bother to have different rankings for each group?).

[Jormengand]

So you will admit that the tiers system's usefulness is going to vary from group to group?

Everything's usefulness varies from group to group.

[GilesTheCleric]

The system itself states that it varies based on optimisation.

[Gusmo]

The system itself states that it varies based on optimisation.

How dare you actually read the subject matter being discussed!

[PersonMan]

I wonder why tiers even matter?

In what context? What does it mean to 'matter'?

It's sort of dodging the question, but it's important to establish this early, to hopefully avoid 15 pages of people arguing past each other before realizing they have different definitions of 'mattering'.

I'd say that, in the realm of discussion (especially online) of the classes and their powers, houserules, etc. having a shorthand for "can do X / has Y level of power" is quite useful, which means the tiers matter in that context.

Are you looking solely at games? PbP included? In-person only? Virtual tabletop? All have their own contexts (for example, a PbP allows for a caster player to put a lot more thought into spell prep and divination-spam than they might get at a table full of people who groan whenever 'I cast...' comes up as part of a non-combat encounter) which can make a large difference.

If we assume:
All players will be playing at roughly the same level of optimization.
No player wants to be drastically more or less powerful.
All players define 'power' as both in and out of combat capabilities.


Then the Tier system could mean that, during chargen, a player who might otherwise play a Wizard realizes that his plans for a "Tentacles for Everyone! Yay!" mage who controls the battlefield with his magic would vastly overshadow the chain-tripper guy's concept decides to go with something lower in tier, and possibly filling a different niche. Or he may play a Wizard but tune his spell list to avoid being too powerful. This could happen without a Tier System to put these things into words and numbers, but it does help communication and may be the only reason the players in question are keeping an eye out for PC-PC imbalance before the game starts.

[eggynack]

They should be?

Yes. Meaning they hold reasonably consistent, but can't account for everything.


Yet, apparently their not?


They're not what? When a class is tier four if and only if it has access to a single obscure feat, you've gotta think that most builds based on that class won't be using that feat, which means you shouldn't weight the feat that much. It has value, but it's not the same as having great stuff with no books.



So you will admit that the tiers system's usefulness is going to vary from group to group? Unless of course a consensus is 1st reached about which levels of resources are used in rating the various classes (and would you bother to have different rankings for each group?).
A proper tiering should take a rough average of the power level of the various classes as they do distributed across a number of axes. So, for example, a random guess I'm making right now would say that 50% of games are core only, so you should give anything outside of core at most half the weight of something in core based on that assumption. You can apply a similar weighting to, say, optimization, which is related. The estimates at work here are necessarily imperfect, but the thing it implies is surprisingly straightforward, in that it's basically what I said above. Rare stuff is accounted for, but common stuff is counted more. How much more? Not entirely clear, but you can usually get your possibility space of averages to fall within about a tier.

[OldTrees1]

Maybe I'm stupid, but with all the talk and arguing about tiers (I shudder at the thought of yet another Wiz v Sorc or Dragonwrought thread), I wonder why tiers even matter?

Can you show that a tier ranking would change from group to group? And does it really matter?

Perhaps I could show the tier ranking of a class would change from Y to Y. Does it really matter?

No.

The value of the Tiers is not in lists of class rankings (despite what the focus of Tier threads might be). The value of Tiers is the description of and communication about a problem we DMs might face and how to name, recognize, and handle it. I do not allow Tier 1-2 at my table because those tiers are defined by their game breaking ability and I make sure to design my encounters/adventures to be compatible with any Tier 4-5 at my table. It is not about classes(Wizard characters can be Tier 3) but about the capabilities and limitations of those characters you are running a game for.

As such, just politely nod you head as people toil in Tier lists. You are more concerned with being cognizant of the PCs in the campaign you are running.

[johnbragg]

Maybe I'm stupid, but with all the talk and arguing about tiers (I shudder at the thought of yet another Wiz v Sorc or Dragonwrought thread), I wonder why tiers even matter?

Okay, Group 1 plays core only, group 2 plays Core + SRD, group 3 plays Core + Completes, Group 4 adds Races and group 5 adds everything but BoED and BoVD ....
need I go on? (would a core only Paladin be in the same tier with an ALL books allowed Paladin?)

Can you show that a tier ranking would change from group to group? And does it really matter?

The tier rankings wouldn't change that much. MOAR SPLAT can help weaker classes, but the stronger classes get stronger too. Splat can move a class up a tier or maybe two (5 to 4 or 3, 4 to 3), but it also makes the Tier 1-2s stronger by adding more spells. (In poker terms, I see your Tome of Battle and raise you a spellhoarding loredrake venerable dragonwrought kobold with a Candle of Invocation and a Pun-pun poster on his wall.)

Tiers matter because they're a way to explain how and why martials fall behind casters.

As to the specific paladin question, I'm not the most qualified to answer, but given the amount of 3X/PF splat in existence, I'll say with confidence that there are a half-dozen Tier 4 Paladin ACFs and Paladin-tweak classes out there. You could look at Tome of Battle Crusader as a Tier 3 PAladin.

[Pleh]

Maybe I'm stupid, but with all the talk and arguing about tiers (I shudder at the thought of yet another Wiz v Sorc or Dragonwrought thread), I wonder why tiers even matter?

Okay, Group 1 plays core only, group 2 plays Core + SRD, group 3 plays Core + Completes, Group 4 adds Races and group 5 adds everything but BoED and BoVD ....
need I go on? (would a core only Paladin be in the same tier with an ALL books allowed Paladin?)

Can you show that a tier ranking would change from group to group? And does it really matter?

:smallfrown: :smallannoyed: :smallsigh:

Your signature seems to indicate a little bit more about your meaning here.


"You are the master architect. If a chart gives you a result that you don't like, throw the book out the window and make your own choices!" World Builders Guidebook, 1996, TSR Inc
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." - Gary Gygax Second hand Attribution here

The point you are making seems to be that tiers don't matter because roleplaying -> rules. People play whatever they want anyway. Especially now that there are no formal/competitive/organized tournaments for this system anymore.

But some people play because of the rules more than the roleplaying. Some people enjoy the mechanics for what they are and just like toying with the numbers. Most people have a bit of balance between wanting hard set rules to be followed and waiving them to make the story come together.

Of course Tiers don't matter in the face of Rule 0 and the philosophy of "The story/fun comes first, rules come second."

I don't think anyone was meaning to suggest otherwise.

Any discussion of RAW comes preloaded with the assumption that people are doing their best NOT to simply waive the rules and play by houserules.

The Tiers are a theory based on RAW. They also come preloaded with the assumption that Houserules have been considered and are being avoided.

Getting back to your question:

Can we demonstrate that tiers can change from group to group?

Yes, it isn't all that hard to demonstrate that tiers can change from player to player, and since the main difference between groups is the players that comprise them, it isn't that hard to demonstrate that tiers can vary from group to group.

After all, what is the qualification for demonstrating that a Tier has changed? The Tiers are defined by their effectiveness at doing what they were meant to be good at doing and/or adequate at doing a number of auxiliary things they didn't specialize in. This means proof is as easy as building a few test characters and establishing that a few builds can stink at their own game (especially compared to other classes) without intentionally sabotaging themselves.

Does it matter? The Tier theory is a tool. It's meant to fix a particular problem. If you don't experience that problem for any reason, the Tiers really do not matter in the least.

But it would be difficult to defend the position that they NEVER matter in ANY scenario, unless you're attacking the fundamental premise: because you don't ACTUALLY have to stick to RAW.

That counterargument is trivial. The Tier theory is a tool to help players balance the rules they are using without abandoning said rules for their inherent lack of balance.

[Tiri]

Yet, apparently their not?

I'm sorry, but I feel the need to point out that you are misusing the word 'their'.

'Their' is used to indicate ownership, for example:

'That's their car.'

'Did you break into their house?'

What you were clearly intending to use was a contraction of the words 'they' and 'are', otherwise known as 'they're'. Not 'their'.

[lylsyly]

Ack! It be duh englich poleez, dunt shuut! :smallbiggrin: What I get for typing with a buzz on.

Yes - role playing -> roll playing.

And do you really need a tier system to explain why casters are superior to martials? Duh ... spells, mate.

I suppose the chances of getting everyone to agree on some of the classes are about has good a lord draco (?) not showing up again after he gets banned this time :LOL:

[JNAProductions]

Ack! It be duh englich poleez, dunt shuut! :smallbiggrin: What I get for typing with a buzz on.

Yes - role playing -> roll playing.

And do you really need a tier system to explain why casters are superior to martials? Duh ... spells, mate.

I suppose the chances of getting everyone to agree on some of the classes are about has good a lord draco (?) not showing up again after he gets banned this time :LOL:

I'm really unsure what you're trying to say.

Tiers matter because they show that different classes have different floors and (more importantly, and more measured by the tiers) different ceilings. In any individual group, they might not matter because, say, the Wizard player likes blasting and the Fighter is high-OP, but they let people know things.

The tier system is information. Do with it what you will.

[johnbragg]

And do you really need a tier system to explain why casters are superior to martials? Duh ... spells,

But this is not a universal truth across RPGs. It's mostly an artifact of design choices made (mostly unwittingly) in 3X. It's not that hard to come up with rule systems where casters are vastly disadvantaged vs martials--read any sword and sorcery pulp novel where the plot device is that the hero(es) must stop the villain before he *completes* the spell.

Pre-3X, the saying "casters run out of spells way before fighters run out of sword" was in many cases true. 3X made memorizing new spells *much* easier, as well as establishing rules for magic item creation that meant crafting wands basically obliviates spells/day limitations. Together with high-level play being more common in 3X than in older editions, the effects of high level spells (and of sloppily written spells) are more obvious.

That's a truism in the 3X/PF community now, in 2016. The earilest copy of JAronK's tier list I can google up is from 2008, and is a repost from WOTC forums that are long gone.

[Pleh]

You're asking questions, but you don't seem to be interested in listening to the answer.

Why bother asking the question when you've already made up your mind?

[WbtE]

D20's character creation is a mini-game. You don't have to play that mini-game, or you can consider it to be marginal to your interests, but it has its own rules and its own fans. The question about whether tiers matter is about as useful as asking whether role-playing matters.

[Fizban]

Allow me to supply last months thread dedicated to the exact same question: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?509329-Tiers-Caster-Noncaster-Disparity-and-the-Point-of-the-Game .

I'm willing to admit my suspicious are aroused however, as we've had plenty of nigh duplicate threads running around lately.

[lylsyly]

only allowing a list of books which includes complete warrior and tome of battle but no good spells would certainly help level the playing field.

PHB, DMG, MM, CW, and TOB? Next time I give the regular DM a break, I am going to try this.



As such, just politely nod you head as people toil in Tier lists. You are more concerned with being cognizant of the PCs in the campaign you are running.

You are right about this.


The tier system is information. Do with it what you will.

That I will do.


You're asking questions, but you don't seem to be interested in listening to the answer.

I am listening. I just started with 3.5 in August 2016 and every thread I start I AM listening to the answering/suggestions/criticisms/et. al...

Listening and Learning.

Of course, some people do seem to believe that if your opinion doesn't change to match theirs, then you can't be listening. Which is a normal part of being human, I guess.

I appreciate everyone's responses.

[GilesTheCleric]

I am listening. I just started with 3.5 in August 2016 and every thread I start I AM listening to the answering/suggestions/criticisms/et. al...

Listening and Learning.

Of course, some people do seem to believe that if your opinion doesn't change to match theirs, then you can't be listening. Which is a normal part of being human, I guess.

I appreciate everyone's responses.

Welcome to 3.5. Many of the folks offering advice have probably been playing it for almost two decades at this point, so their difference in view might be a result of that change in perspective. It's big of you to be open. I expect that as you gain more system mastery, your views might change as well - mine definitely have, to the point where I'm embarrassed but not ashamed to admit that when I first started, I thought that the dwarven defender class was the best in the game.

[A_S]

The Tiers are a theory based on RAW. They also come preloaded with the assumption that Houserules have been considered and are being avoided.
Important note: The tier system is ignoring houserules for the purpose of tiering the classes. It doesn't necessarily mean that anyone making use of the system isn't going to then decide to, in fact, use some houserules. In fact, in my opinion, one of the most useful things about the tier system is that it helps you decide what houserules are appropriate for your game, depending on what kind of game you want.

Don't want major plot-points invalidated or bypassed by handwave-y magic? Hey, look here, a convenient list of classes who are capable of bypassing plot points via handwave-y magic! Guess you should focus your houserules on them.

Want to run a mechanics-intensive cutthroat game where your players have to push the power envelope to survive? Would ya look at that, there's a list right here of classes that are going to struggle in a game like that! Better make sure the guy rolling a Healer knows what he's getting into.

[Amphetryon]

When 3.5 was a living system, the Tier System served as a set of guideposts for new Players and DMs, indicating which Classes might be more (or less) powerful/versatile than a cursory glance at the Class's writeups might otherwise lead one to believe. This is/was especially useful information if a group of newer Players came to the table with a party of wildly divergent Tiered Classes (such as a party of Samurai, Favored Soul, Ninja, and Wizard). For a newer group and/or an unaware DM, this discrepancy in relative power could easily lead to an unsatisfying gaming experience for everyone,with some struggling to contribute and others ROFLstomping the encounters while the DM scrambles to calibrate encounters.

Given 3.5's current status, the Tier System serves to foment arguments about people being Wrong On The Internet.

[Calthropstu]

This thread brings tiers to my eyes.