I give you TIERS OF THE OPTIMIZER!

[arkangel111]

I've been on these forums a long time now. And one of the most common questions "Can you help me build xxx?" is almost always quickly followed up with "what level do you play at?" or some such. Things usually get derailed for a bit, "Your high optimization is different from mine blah blah blah." eventually an answer is given and the OP goes away or just stops posting. Well in order to help with the second question I give you....


Arkangel's Tiers of the Optimizer!

Using the following tier system it is my intent that with a quick glance the OP can say, "Oh thats me!" and then everyone can give build advice appropriate for that tier. Without further ado, lets begin.

Tier 0 - TO territory. This is theoritcal optimization. Optimizing to such a degree that the game world actually ceases to function properly. Usually at this level there is no DM/GM. There is the player character. Instead of class ideas these characters usually go by their name as given by the original creator. Pun Pun is not a dragonwrought kobold, Pun Pun is Pun Pun. Easily recognized things in T0: Pun Pun, Omnificer...

Tier 1 - RAW is war! At this level DM and player alike are so profficient at building characters that they instead actively find new ways to break the game at the table. Often times the games only function because a gentleman's agreement is in place. Perhaps any trick can be used once, but might later be tweaked to keep the game functioning. At this level a TO trick might make an appearance now and then, but things quickly go back to normal. This is probably where the Tippyverse plays at. For a challenge most builders try to stick to raw as much as possible even when it means the rules don't really work.

Tier 2 - Uberchargers reign supreme. This level is where a player has learned certain tricks. A barbarian guide was good, but by combining tips and selecting a few hidden gems here and there can literally break the game. At this level you know what you are looking for most of the time, and don’t NEED to follow another’s build stub. Most build types that have been given a name to more easily refer to them sit here. At this level you may have even considered writing your own guide or miniguide just to display your cool trick. Uberchargers, CoDzillas, and the like are very common at the table. It’s also important to note that ToB and PoW are freely allowed.

Tier 3 - There is a guide for everything! This is the level where you understand that a quick search will lead you to a guide that will tell you which ability is good, maybe a few sentences as to why as well. You may not understand why, they rated things the way they did but you know if you follow it blindly you should have a competent character. It’s important at this level that you don’t mix it with the above when thinking about your group. Just because you have had an ubercharger doesn’t mean you know how to make one on your own. Usually at this level Tome of Blood and Path of War are finally tolerated though still looked at askance.

Tier 4 - Dipping for power. This is the level where players and GM’s understand that dipping can grab a bunch of upfront abilities from several classes and make a focused character quite strong. This level often displays a 6th level character with 3 or more classes. Usually the character is so focused on its one big thing however that something is entirely neglected. And that really is the key at this level. For instance a Rogue 3/Spellthief 1/Psychic Rogue 1 has 4d6 sneak but only a 2 BAB and a 1 fort save. The player knows they can dip but still doesn’t quite grasp how to do it effectively.

Tier 5 - The Monk Fallacy. This is actually more of a lack of optimization. Where the player looks at the list of monk abilities and immediately thinks to themself “wow, that is broken!” This is the level of most groups that don’t visit these forums. Of special note most players and GMs also think wizards are worthless, while at the same time thinking a fireball is too strong. That two weapon fighting is amazing and that full bab means something. If we are being honest this is probably the level the game designers are or at least intend their players to be.

Tier 6 - New to the game. It’s ok to be here first of all. We all were at one time. At this level players build characters purely for fun or style. All of them are playable, and if they had an outside perspective no one would think the characters are broken. You’ll find martials that don’t 2h. Characters that play samurai and think its amazing, or just odd combos that don’t really work but you love it just the same.



This work is meant to help people easily identify with the forum so they can ask build advice. As always please comment and respond, so we can hash out the exact details. I tried to stick with JaronK's idea of a few tiers with broad encompassing criteria. of course some groups are gonna be T2.5 and such but unless there is an overwhelming support for more tiers then lets try to keep it simple. It is afterall meant as a tool to help.

[Anthrowhale]

This was interesting, but you might want to change it to something like "tiers of optimizer" since this seems to be about the expertise of the person doing the optimization rather than the quality of the optimized solution?

For example, if the goal was purely optimizing to defeat encounters you might never make an ubercharger as other spellcaster-based builds are superior. On the other hand, if you want to make an effective(ish) mundane fighter, then you might optimize to reach an ubercharger.

[death390]

yay i love this, finally a decent way to show my group about optimization that doesn't look threatening. i tend to build at the T2-3 mark myself. (i can sometimes dip into T1 but thats rare).

my favorite i ever built was a shadowcraft mage/ shadowcrafter with enhanced shadow reality. using Heightened silent image, metamagic reducers, heighten spell, and earth spell to get 9th level shadow spells at 150% disbelieved power (what you see is worse than what i showed you Cthulu anyone?) i unfortunately lost that build back when i moved last time :(

[flappeercraft]

my favorite i ever built was a shadowcraft mage/ shadowcrafter with enhanced shadow reality. using Heightened silent image, metamagic reducers, heighten spell, and earth spell to get 9th level shadow spells at 150% disbelieved power (what you see is worse than what i showed you Cthulu anyone?) i unfortunately lost that build back when i moved last time :(

Interesting, why not use it for a Shadow Miracle and use that Shadow Miracle to be able to replicate Destruction for 150% death?
Seriously, I think that would combo well with Avasculate which could be replicated with a Shadow Miracle. That way instead of taking 50% health, it would take away 75% health.

[Lord Raziere]

Tier 0 - TO territory. This is theoritcal optimization. Optimizing to such a degree that the game world actually ceases to function properly. Usually at this level there is no DM/GM. There is the player character. Instead of class ideas these characters usually go by their name as given by the original creator. Pun Pun is not a dragonwrought kobold, Pun Pun is Pun Pun. Easily recognized things in T0: Pun Pun, Omnificer...

Tier 1 - RAW is war! At this level DM and player alike are so profficient at building characters that they instead actively find new ways to break the game at the table. Often times the games only function because a gentleman's agreement is in place. Perhaps any trick can be used once, but might later be tweaked to keep the game functioning. At this level a TO trick might make an appearance now and then, but things quickly go back to normal. This is probably where the Tippyverse plays at. For a challenge most builders try to stick to raw as much as possible even when it means the rules don't really work.

Tier 2 - Uberchargers reign supreme. This level is where a player has learned certain tricks. A barbarian guide was good, but by combining tips and selecting a few hidden gems here and there can literally break the game. At this level you know what you are looking for most of the time, and don’t NEED to follow another’s build stub. Most build types that have been given a name to more easily refer to them sit here. At this level you may have even considered writing your own guide or miniguide just to display your cool trick. Uberchargers, CoDzillas, and the like are very common at the table. It’s also important to note that ToB and PoW are freely allowed.

Tier 3 - There is a guide for everything! This is the level where you understand that a quick search will lead you to a guide that will tell you which ability is good, maybe a few sentences as to why as well. You may not understand why, they rated things the way they did but you know if you follow it blindly you should have a competent character. It’s important at this level that you don’t mix it with the above when thinking about your group. Just because you have had an ubercharger doesn’t mean you know how to make one on your own. Usually at this level Tome of Blood and Path of War are finally tolerated though still looked at askance.

Tier 4 - Dipping for power. This is the level where players and GM’s understand that dipping can grab a bunch of upfront abilities from several classes and make a focused character quite strong. This level often displays a 6th level character with 3 or more classes. Usually the character is so focused on its one big thing however that something is entirely neglected. And that really is the key at this level. For instance a Rogue 3/Spellthief 1/Psychic Rogue 1 has 4d6 sneak but only a 2 BAB and a 1 fort save. The player knows they can dip but still doesn’t quite grasp how to do it effectively.

Tier 5 - The Monk Fallacy. This is actually more of a lack of optimization. Where the player looks at the list of monk abilities and immediately thinks to themself “wow, that is broken!” This is the level of most groups that don’t visit these forums. Of special note most players and GMs also think wizards are worthless, while at the same time thinking a fireball is too strong. That two weapon fighting is amazing and that full bab means something. If we are being honest this is probably the level the game designers are or at least intend their players to be.

Tier 6 - New to the game. It’s ok to be here first of all. We all were at one time. At this level players build characters purely for fun or style. All of them are playable, and if they had an outside perspective no one would think the characters are broken. You’ll find martials that don’t 2h. Characters that play samurai and think its amazing, or just odd combos that don’t really work but you love it just the same.



I'm fully cognizant that wizard can break the game, don't buy the Monk Fallacy, but I don't dip or do anything like that, not new to the game, and actively hate optimization, particularly Theoretical Optimization and RAW. What tier am I?

[ATHATH]

I'm fully cognizant that wizard can break the game, don't buy the Monk Fallacy, but I don't dip or do anything like that, not new to the game, and actively hate optimization, particularly Theoretical Optimization and RAW. What tier am I?
Is that hypothetical(,) or does that actually describe your views?

Just curious.

[Lord Raziere]

Is that hypothetical(,) or does that actually describe your views?

Just curious.

Yes, it does describe my views. I know enough to know the system, but the way it gets at higher tiers of optimizer turns me off and doesn't make me want to learn any further.

[flappeercraft]

Yes, it does describe my views. I know enough to know the system, but the way it gets at higher tiers of optimizer turns me off and doesn't make me want to learn any further.

That's more of a "I'm an X tier in knowledge but act like Y tier" thing than not belonging in any tier.

[Lord Raziere]

That's more of a "I'm an X tier in knowledge but act like Y tier" thing than not belonging in any tier.

Ok.

I hate Tier 0, 1, and 2 , I don't use 3 or 4 to build my character ever, I don't have the fallacies or misconceptions of 5 nor am I new like 6, but do I build only for fun or style.

What tier am I?

[Rynjin]

Ok.

I hate Tier 0, 1, and 2 , I don't use 3 or 4 to build my character ever, I don't have the fallacies or misconceptions of 5 nor am I new like 6, but do I build only for fun or style.

What tier am I?

Tier who gives a ****, why are you derailing a thread with this?

[arkangel111]

@Lord Raziere - So this tier system kind of does 2 things. first it's measuring the ability for you to optimize. Second It lets you get a general idea of the table level of optimization. You may be T2 but your 2 friends and the DM are T4-5. If you build a T2 you will outshine them every day of the week. If instead you want to build towards their level you can instead build something focused that leaves a glaring couple weaknesses and be happy in that group. For instance I typically like to build T1-2 but what I play with is typically T4-6 so if I were to ask for help I would ask for a build that matches my group. In fact because I typically build so much stronger I have a hard time building below my tier. My most recent group is easily T6 and I built a gunslinger. I honestly forgot I had 3 attacks/round instead of 2 and there was literally no one near my damage output. One player expressed to me before the game how OP his build was, I found out his build used natural attacks to get 3 attacks at level 6 for 1d6+2 each. He was the strongest in the group. And to answer your question directly I'd say T2-3, it kind of depends on how you feel about ToB.

@Anthrowhale - I see your point. Editing.

@Death390 - thanks.

[Lord Raziere]

Tier who gives a ****, why are you derailing a thread with this?

I'm not derailing, I'm just curious as to where you put me, and giving arkangal an opportunity to analyze a outlier case. whats wrong with that? I'm improving the system.


@Lord Raziere - So this tier system kind of does 2 things. first it's measuring the ability for you to optimize. Second It lets you get a general idea of the table level of optimization. You may be T2 but your 2 friends and the DM are T4-5. If you build a T2 you will outshine them every day of the week. If instead you want to build towards their level you can instead build something focused that leaves a glaring couple weaknesses and be happy in that group. For instance I typically like to build T1-2 but what I play with is typically T4-6 so if I were to ask for help I would ask for a build that matches my group. In fact because I typically build so much stronger I have a hard time building below my tier. My most recent group is easily T6 and I built a gunslinger. I honestly forgot I had 3 attacks/round instead of 2 and there was literally no one near my damage output. One player expressed to me before the game how OP his build was, I found out his build used natural attacks to get 3 attacks at level 6 for 1d6+2 each. He was the strongest in the group. And to answer your question directly I'd say T2-3, it kind of depends on how you feel about ToB.


ToB? don't use or have it. but I do like and have Path of War. (PoW)

[Crake]

I'm fully cognizant that wizard can break the game, don't buy the Monk Fallacy, but I don't dip or do anything like that, not new to the game, and actively hate optimization, particularly Theoretical Optimization and RAW. What tier am I?

The concept of dipping and ubercharging are just examples of some of the lowest levels of character optimization that can be done. It's not to be taken literally. If you do very low level optimization you're roughly tier 3 or 4. You don't need a guide to build a character, but at the same time you don't build a character that the rest of the players wouldn't have thought to put together. So your build tier is probably around there, despite the fact that you're capable of being able to build at a higher tier.

[ATHATH]

Something about this tier list seems... "off" to me, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it's because I feel like "can blindly follow a handbook" should be below "knows/has memorized a few minor optimization tricks, like dipping" (or just not on the list at all).

[ryu]

Something about this tier list seems... "off" to me, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe it's because I feel like "can blindly follow a handbook" should be below "knows/has memorized a few minor optimization tricks, like dipping" (or just not on the list at all).

I suppose you should ask the question of whether you want to measure aptitude of the person in an absolute sense, or merely the results they likely produce. For example if you make the assumption that the person guide following is also primed on basic session to to session tactics, the fact they're actively following a guide suggests an active desire to grow to a certain level of competency. On the other hand the person who knows a few tricks may or may not have higher potential but that says nothing about drive to improve save the possibility that more things may be slowly picked up.

[ATHATH]

I suppose you should ask the question of whether you want to measure aptitude of the person in an absolute sense, or merely the results they likely produce. For example if you make the assumption that the person guide following is also primed on basic session to to session tactics, the fact they're actively following a guide suggests an active desire to grow to a certain level of competency. On the other hand the person who knows a few tricks may or may not have higher potential but that says nothing about drive to improve save the possibility that more things may be slowly picked up.
Mm. So this list is "results-focused", so to speak?

[Lazymancer]

Mm. So this list is "results-focused", so to speak?
No.

In the first place it is unclear what exactly is being evaluated:
T6 - personal (in)competence
T5 - specific false assumption
T4 - specific false assumption
T3 - general attitude towards character building
T2 - personal competence
T1 - interaction within the game
T0 - discussion topics on forums

[ryu]

Mm. So this list is "results-focused", so to speak?

One could make a case that that is the intent.

[arkangel111]

@Crake - thanks. Yes examples were all I was trying to give. First of all trying to give a comprehensive list is just a waste of time. Most answers on the forum are only going to be a few words anyways.

@Athath - well when we figure out what's bothering you I can address it. I think that maybe I didn't describe the thoughts behind the dipping tier (T4) and the guide tier (T3) as well as I could have. In tier 4 the player is focused so much on what they gain by dipping that they often forget to take into account what they are losing. In tier 3 we have moved beyond that, I know I can dip to get things I want but is there a better way? That's when a guide pops up. And I'm not just talking about the handbooks either, that was just an example. It really refers to any real effort placed into making the decision better. A tier 3.5 might think when looking at a guide that the author is wrong on several points, thinking to themselves "hideous blow is amazing!" but they do refer to the guide when lost. Where a solid T3 is convinced by the arguments given in the guide or at least convinced enough to trust the authors judgement and go with a different option. In contrast tier 2 would be where you are questioning the guide, but doing it because you actually feel you can give a better guide, perhaps the original author didn't think about how 2 or more skills could combine to make something gamebreaking. Or more likely the guide is out of date and you consider taking the update upon yourself.

@ryu - I'm not sure it necessarily describes the drive of the player. Ultimately if you visit these boards enough I believe you can increase your personal optimizing level, but I don't think this system rates that. You can visit these boards regularly like a certain person who posts a sorcerer build, and still never learn a thing. So i think drive doesn't come into play.

[ryu]

@Crake - thanks. Yes examples were all I was trying to give. First of all trying to give a comprehensive list is just a waste of time. Most answers on the forum are only going to be a few words anyways.

@Athath - well when we figure out what's bothering you I can address it. I think that maybe I didn't describe the thoughts behind the dipping tier (T4) and the guide tier (T3) as well as I could have. In tier 4 the player is focused so much on what they gain by dipping that they often forget to take into account what they are losing. In tier 3 we have moved beyond that, I know I can dip to get things I want but is there a better way? That's when a guide pops up. And I'm not just talking about the handbooks either, that was just an example. It really refers to any real effort placed into making the decision better. A tier 3.5 might think when looking at a guide that the author is wrong on several points, thinking to themselves "hideous blow is amazing!" but they do refer to the guide when lost. Where a solid T3 is convinced by the arguments given in the guide or at least convinced enough to trust the authors judgement and go with a different option. In contrast tier 2 would be where you are questioning the guide, but doing it because you actually feel you can give a better guide, perhaps the original author didn't think about how 2 or more skills could combine to make something gamebreaking. Or more likely the guide is out of date and you consider taking the update upon yourself.

@ryu - I'm not sure it necessarily describes the drive of the player. Ultimately if you visit these boards enough I believe you can increase your personal optimizing level, but I don't think this system rates that. You can visit these boards regularly like a certain person who posts a sorcerer build, and still never learn a thing. So i think drive doesn't come into play.

I'm not just talking about where you frequent. I'm talking about the explicate behavioral pattern of engaging with guide material for the purpose of building strong characters. There's a significant difference there. The person you're thinking of occasionally shows up with the goal of attempting to validate his supposed skill at the game with a bit of general internet troll style attention seeking. About as far from engaging with people in an honest way at all as is realistically possible, much less actively doing so with the intent of self betterment.

[Pleh]

"Tiers of system mastery" perhaps?

Please note that Lord Raziere is an outlier only due to a high system mastery player electing by preference to play down to a lower mastery scale.

[Knaight]

Please note that Lord Raziere is an outlier only due to a high system mastery player electing by preference to play down to a lower mastery scale.

That's less an outlier and more a substantial sub population of the high system mastery players - his particular technique is odd, but things to the effect of deliberately picking an underpowered to the point of basically unusable baseline concept and optimizing that to fit in with a more conventional group is pretty common.

This non-outlier also pokes some pretty foundational holes into this system as described, although fairly minor descriptive changes might salvage it.

[Sam K]

Arkangel111, I've been thinking along these lines, but more on a game level (the intended optimisation of a game). Would you mind if I borrowed some of your ideas to apply it to a "applied levels of optimisation" tiers system?

[Darrin]

Some thoughts:

I think I'd prefer another term other than "tier". When someone mentions Tier 1 or Tier 0, I know exactly what they are talking about without requiring much context. If you want to discuss optimization theory based on the *player's* grasp of system mastery, then I think I'd rather not use a term with an already somewhat established meaning. However, I'm at something of a loss for what term to use... my initial thought was "Ziggurat", because it's a cool word that won't be confused with class tiers, and we can abbreviate it to "Zig 0, Zig 1" etc. It doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, though.

There should also probably be a category for "Zig Neutral" or "Zig Agnostic": A person who is aware of how tiers and optimization works, has dabbled around with it, and has just decided not to bother with it. They can play Fighter 20 or Monk 20 without hesitation because they have deliberately separated their enjoyment of the game from their system mastery. They can optimize if they have to, but usually don't bother because they'd rather chill, roll some dice, kill some naked monsters and take their stuff. They can still enjoy the game and have a good time via good roleplaying and smart tactics without going down the "what's the best pole-arm for a left-handed hummingbird?" hole.

[arkangel111]

@ryu - I see what you mean.

@Pleh - I like the term system mastery a little better as well. I'll be applying that soon but I need to address Darrin's comment as well and don't want to do a whole bunch of back to back editing and changing titles like mad.

@SamK - Feel free to, but I think this might already cover it. it bother measures the the player knowledge as well as can give an idea of where the DM wishes to play at.

@Darrin - I actually had the same Idea but was at a loss for what to call it. Tiers fit, and looking through the thesaurus I couldn't find another word I liked as well. I'll have to look again using the term system mastery as proposed by Pleh and see what comes up. I'm certainly open to changing it to be less confusing. I was thinking it might just simply be referred to as OPT 1, OPT 2,... (OPtimization Tier). Just brainstorming.

[Buufreak]

I agree with lazy. Your tiers all seem to be measuring different things. This is a classic example of moving the goal posts.

[Nifft]

Nifft's Tiers of Optimizers

Tier -1: "Ser Comflex is a tough-as-nails Paladin, so I took Toughness."
- Chooses options based on flavor text rather than mechanics.
- Often frustrated by inability to perform as flavor advertised.
- Gets angry at "optimizers", which are usually T0.
- Doesn't really notice T1, except in curiosity as T1 players aren't frustrated.


Tier 0: "My character is a spiked-chain trip ubercharger, with pounce, and regional feats from three settings. Oh, what's his name? Uh..."
- Has learned to use the internet.
- Chooses options based on maximum mechanical impact; plays a "build".
- Over-compensated for past frustration by attempting to build over-powered self-reliant characters.
- Often frustrated by lack of engagement with ongoing game, or frustrated by how games die when a whole session devolves into a fight between the player and the DM about the weird rules abuses that the internet told the player to use.
- Looks down on T-1 because they can't perform as well mechanically.
- Doesn't understand T1 motivation.


Tier 1: "Three-Finger Alyx was a thief from the streets, but after being taken in by Avadu the Water-Blade, Alyx is now proud to claim the title of best duelist in the kingdom."
- Mechanical expertise in service of character concept.
- Can make a large number of different character concepts work.
- Uses mechanics intelligently, but isn't solely focused on finding a way to break the game.
- Frustrated with T0 players who keep making the same few boring OP builds.
- Tries to help T-1 players become functional; frustrated when the T-1 picks based on explicit flavor rather than re-fluffing a more appropriate mechanical option.

[emeraldstreak]

Nifft's Tiers of Optimizers

Tier -1: "Ser Comflex is a tough-as-nails Paladin, so I took Toughness."
- Chooses options based on flavor text rather than mechanics.
- Often frustrated by inability to perform as flavor advertised.
- Gets angry at "optimizers", which are usually T0.
- Doesn't really notice T1, except in curiosity as T1 players aren't frustrated.


Tier 0: "My character is a spiked-chain trip ubercharger, with pounce, and regional feats from three settings. Oh, what's his name? Uh..."
- Has learned to use the internet.
- Chooses options based on maximum mechanical impact; plays a "build".
- Over-compensated for past frustration by attempting to build over-powered self-reliant characters.
- Often frustrated by lack of engagement with ongoing game, or frustrated by how games die when a whole session devolves into a fight between the player and the DM about the weird rules abuses that the internet told the player to use.
- Looks down on T-1 because they can't perform as well mechanically.
- Doesn't understand T1 motivation.


Tier 1: "Three-Finger Alyx was a thief from the streets, but after being taken in by Avadu the Water-Blade, Alyx is now proud to claim the title of best duelist in the kingdom."
- Mechanical expertise in service of character concept.
- Can make a large number of different character concepts work.
- Uses mechanics intelligently, but isn't solely focused on finding a way to break the game.
- Frustrated with T0 players who keep making the same few boring OP builds.
- Tries to help T-1 players become functional; frustrated when the T-1 picks based on explicit flavor rather than re-fluffing a more appropriate mechanical option.

This is good.

[Telonius]

Optimization tiers should somewhat mirror class tiers in terms of capacity. Somebody at Tier 0 is capable of making a build that can achieve Pun-Pun-esque power levels. Whether or not they actually (or regularly) do is up to them. They could just as easily figure out what's broken about the system and suggest houserule fixes that address those issue. Just like the Wizards who follow the gentleman's agreement not to break the game; they're still Tier 1 classes, just not bringing out the big guns.

[CharonsHelper]

"Tiers of system mastery" perhaps?

Please note that Lord Raziere is an outlier only due to a high system mastery player electing by preference to play down to a lower mastery scale.

I don't have Lord Raziere's hate of optimization. I actually enjoy optimizing quite a bit - but I only optimize support and/or concepts which are underutilized. Partially because I don't want to be "that guy" and partially because I find it more interesting.

Things like a tanky Bard, a Samurai who can cause fear (Pathfinder Samurai), and a viable nat weapon Dragon Disciple which works from level 1 (straight from sorc) are much more interesting to build/play then yet ANOTHER ubercharger or druid. Could I build them? Sure. They're pretty obvious - and guides abound.

Finding a combination which I haven't seen before is more fun - and frankly - I don't WANT to dominate the table, nor do I want to have to cripple my character. So - I can optimize to my heart's content so long as I do it in sub-par/support ways.

[Lord Raziere]

Tier -1: "Ser Comflex is a tough-as-nails Paladin, so I took Toughness."
- Chooses options based on flavor text rather than mechanics.
- Often frustrated by inability to perform as flavor advertised.
- Gets angry at "optimizers", which are usually T0.
- Doesn't really notice T1, except in curiosity as T1 players aren't frustrated.


Yeah by this I'm probably Tier -1.

[Segev]

My question is whether the tiers of optimizers are wept in joy or sorrow.

[Melcar]

Ok.

I hate Tier 0, 1, and 2 , I don't use 3 or 4 to build my character ever, I don't have the fallacies or misconceptions of 5 nor am I new like 6, but do I build only for fun or style.

What tier am I?

So you have never taken Weapon Focus or Weapon specialization with your fighter?

[Nifft]

Yeah by this I'm probably Tier -1.

I would encourage you to become T1.

IMHO it's more fun when you have the ability to make the rules serve your character concept.

[King of Nowhere]

this is pretty useful, and I hope it catches on. It would be good if I could open a thread asking for some advice and say "I am a tier 4 optimizer", so that peoople wouldn't propose me wacky builds with more classes than levels and whackier class/feat/race combo overlaps.

nifft scale is fun, but not particularly helpful, as virtually any functional player is tier 1

[Lord Raziere]

So you have never taken Weapon Focus or Weapon specialization with your fighter?

I've never played a fighter. I prefer Path of War.

[Crichton]

at this level Tome of Blood and Path of War are finally tolerated though still looked at askance.




So just to clarify, are you talking about Tome OF Battle (Book of Nine Swords), or Tome AND Blood (A Guide to Wizards and Sorcerers)??

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think the idea is good, the tiers are good, but I disagree with some examples, and I think it can use some systematization. I support Darrin's point that a different word than 'tier' is required. How about "stratum"? I think that doesn't carry too many positive or negative associations (like "grade" or "level"), and it's easy to say ("strat 1").


Tier 0 - TO territory. This is theoritcal optimization. Optimizing to such a degree that the game world actually ceases to function properly. Usually at this level there is no DM/GM. There is the player character. Instead of class ideas these characters usually go by their name as given by the original creator. Pun Pun is not a dragonwrought kobold, Pun Pun is Pun Pun. Easily recognized things in T0: Pun Pun, Omnificer...
The game world functions, just differently. There's a lot of TO that assumes a functioning world, for example with magic item crafters, and Tippy shows that you can go a very long way towards strict RAW, and retain a functioning world. In the same way, there is a DM, it's just an impartial DM (or a computer, or a dummy played by consensus) with very little (~no) interest in game balance.

The bold part is a pretty loose way of identifying the stratum. Jack B. Quick is not nearly TO, but it's a specific build typically known by that name. Fusion + astral seed is every bit as powerful as the next ascension trick, but doesn't have a snappier name than that.

That said, I get what you're getting at, with all three points: you reserve this stratum for the very exclusive set of tricks that provide ascension to (virtual) omnipotence, which change the assumptions about the world, make it virtually impossible for the DM to provide counterplay, and are rare enough that they are almost always received from forum TO threads. This is the stuff you don't just come up with. That part of the metagame that is still accepted as RAW more often than not (meaning it's very hard to put an exact definition to this, same as tier 0), though mostly by other optimizers, and less by strata 6 to 4.


Tier 1 - RAW is war! At this level DM and player alike are so profficient at building characters that they instead actively find new ways to break the game at the table. Often times the games only function because a gentleman's agreement is in place. Perhaps any trick can be used once, but might later be tweaked to keep the game functioning. At this level a TO trick might make an appearance now and then, but things quickly go back to normal. This is probably where the Tippyverse plays at. For a challenge most builders try to stick to raw as much as possible even when it means the rules don't really work.
You might use Tempest_Stormwind's table (of the optimization showcases) as an example. I think it's a continuum from here to stratum 3, because there is constant interplay between current threads, guide writers, and guide users.

Maybe "stratum of forum threads", the stuff that hasn't made it into guides yet, but I think it can be merged with strat 2.


Tier 2 - Uberchargers reign supreme. This level is where a player has learned certain tricks. A barbarian guide was good, but by combining tips and selecting a few hidden gems here and there can literally break the game. At this level you know what you are looking for most of the time, and don’t NEED to follow another’s build stub. Most build types that have been given a name to more easily refer to them sit here. At this level you may have even considered writing your own guide or miniguide just to display your cool trick. Uberchargers, CoDzillas, and the like are very common at the table. It’s also important to note that ToB and PoW are freely allowed.
Whether überchargers reign is more a matter of the tier and level you play at than the optimization stratum you play at. Übercharging an equally optimized high-level CoDzilla is probably not that effective, whereas low-level barbarians are twice as strong as low-level fighters, simply because of Whirling Frenzy and Pounce.

Anyway, "stratum of the guide writers", this is where the metagame is defined, the cutting edge, if you will.


Tier 3 - There is a guide for everything! This is the level where you understand that a quick search will lead you to a guide that will tell you which ability is good, maybe a few sentences as to why as well. You may not understand why, they rated things the way they did but you know if you follow it blindly you should have a competent character. It’s important at this level that you don’t mix it with the above when thinking about your group. Just because you have had an ubercharger doesn’t mean you know how to make one on your own. Usually at this level Tome of Blood and Path of War are finally tolerated though still looked at askance.
I think it's right to put guide-diving at a fairly high stratum. It takes continued interest to consult a guide, and, more importantly, it takes a developed metagame to even have guides. The effort that goes into writing a guide isn't all the writer (how many guide writers come up with all the tricks they describe?), but builds on a history of discussion.

This is "using the wider established metagame to make character building decisions".


Tier 4 - Dipping for power. This is the level where players and GM’s understand that dipping can grab a bunch of upfront abilities from several classes and make a focused character quite strong. This level often displays a 6th level character with 3 or more classes. Usually the character is so focused on its one big thing however that something is entirely neglected. And that really is the key at this level. For instance a Rogue 3/Spellthief 1/Psychic Rogue 1 has 4d6 sneak but only a 2 BAB and a 1 fort save. The player knows they can dip but still doesn’t quite grasp how to do it effectively.
I think you might call this stratum "using only the group-specific metagame to make character building decisions". That is, a relatively small group of players building characters amongst themselves, with little input from the 'mainstream' metagame. I think that's a break from strata 0 to 3, which probably don't exist at single tables with no (past) community input (or not often, anyway--just guessing here). From here, there's a continuum down to stratum 6.


Tier 5 - The Monk Fallacy. This is actually more of a lack of optimization. Where the player looks at the list of monk abilities and immediately thinks to themself “wow, that is broken!” This is the level of most groups that don’t visit these forums. Of special note most players and GMs also think wizards are worthless, while at the same time thinking a fireball is too strong. That two weapon fighting is amazing and that full bab means something. If we are being honest this is probably the level the game designers are or at least intend their players to be.
Yeah, misunderstandings about balance must be a stratum, all the developers are there :smalltongue:.

This could be called "using D&D-specific misinformation to make character building decisions", but it's rather condescending to call it "misinformation". Overlaps with the above stratum, and they're really the same, I think, it's just that we mostly disagree with this stratum, and mostly sympathize with strat 4.


Tier 6 - New to the game. It’s ok to be here first of all. We all were at one time. At this level players build characters purely for fun or style. All of them are playable, and if they had an outside perspective no one would think the characters are broken. You’ll find martials that don’t 2h. Characters that play samurai and think its amazing, or just odd combos that don’t really work but you love it just the same.
I think this can be summed up by picking the name of the character option over its result. Essentially, using the base English + common ground to make character building decisions, rather than D&D-specific knowledge.

To sum up:
Stratum 5
Character-building and -playing decisions do not rely on D&D-specific knowledge. Character option names are more important than rules text, because they have non-D&D referents to fall back on.

Stratum 4-3
Uses non-mainstream D&D-specific knowledge to inform character decisions. Heavily shaped by personal preference and anecdotal at-this-table evidence.

(stratum 4: they're wrong)
(stratum 3: they got it right)

(breaking point: contact with greater optimization community from here on out)
(personal specialization in specific areas of optimization becomes greater)

Stratum 2
Uses the mainstream D&D-specific metagame to inform character decisions. Shaped by guides, advice threads, and solid rules-of-thumb.

Stratum 1
Uses the cutting edge of the D&D-specific metagame to inform character decisions. Shapes guides, advice threads, and rules-of-thumb.

Stratum 0
Whatever part of stratum 1 that breaks down too many assumptions of the game to be considered a D&D campaign/character building. Involves infinities and no longer having to choose between character options, because you have them all.


This is still a little vague, but it's much more concise.

[arkangel111]

Sorry had work today and going out of town for the weekend. will respond monday

[ATHATH]

I've realized what was "off".

Power level and optimization ability are two different things, and thus should use two different scales/tier lists.

Nifft's tier list is a good tier list for optimization ability.

The class tier list, on the other hand, is an adequate tier list for power level. Remember that good builds/playstyles/optimization can shift the tiers of classes and character concepts/archetypes.

Thus, there is no need for arkangel111's tier list, as the two things that it is trying to gauge are both independent and better represented by other tier lists.

Instead, a more refined "power level" tier list should be created, preferably one that can gauge power levels better than the class tier list can.

[Lazymancer]

The class tier list, on the other hand, is an adequate tier list for power level.
No, it isn't. Power level is a quality of specific PC as it is being played by specific player in specific circumstances. It depends on build, player, and GM.

What you have is a measurement of potential.

[ATHATH]

No, it isn't. Power level is a quality of specific PC as it is being played by specific player in specific circumstances. It depends on build, player, and GM.

What you have is a measurement of potential.
What I meant by that is that the tiers provided by the class tier system can be repurposed to be a power level tier list by replacing "class" with "character".

[tiercel]

Tier 6: Doesn’t understand or doesn’t get what all the fuss about “tiers” is about.
Tier 5: Gets the general idea of tiers, but much prefers the tears of defeated enemies.
Tier 4: Thinks that having tiers of flexibility/potential power for various classes is a useful guide.
Tier 3: Thinks that having tiers of system mastery for various playstyles is a useful guide.
Tier 2: Thinks that having tiers of tier mastery is a meta deconstruction of tiers as a useful guide.
Tier 1: Sees no reason to not go meta with tiers which are themselves meta deconstructions.
Tier 0: Has already completed an infinite metatier recursion loop; “it’s tiers all the way down!”

——

Put another way:
If D&D is the game,
then character creation is a metagame,
then the theory of relative potential strengths of character types during the creation process is a meta-metagame,
then talk about the level at which someone pursues the theory of character creation is a meta-meta-metagame,
then talk about the theory of the level of the theory of character creation would be a meta-meta-meta-metagame...

...at some point it really is turtles all the way down (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down).

[Lazymancer]

What I meant by that is that the tiers provided by the class tier system can be repurposed to be a power level tier list by replacing "class" with "character".
No. Once you start changing system mastery of player and circumstances the character is being played in, classes will not go up or down in power uniformly.

Poor selection of spells would easily put Sorcerer below the T3 classes which do not fall apart in the hands of inept players (Beguiler, for example). No time for crafting, no action points, and no "spontaneous infusion" feat (forgot the name) for Artificer? He'll be much worse than the Barbarian in the same conditions.

[Nightcanon]

The problem with this is that it suggests a linear progression, beginning with newbies and ending with "play to win with all the win buttons available", and implies that the only reason for not optimising to TO levels is the inability to do so. There are plenty of gamers like Lord Razierre who know all the tricks but feel that using them all the time isn't as fun as playing lower optimisation characters.
I've never played in a game with a high-optimisation Batman wizard, but from what I read here it looks like such a game devolves into an out-of-session arms race where the DM and one player try to second guess and outwit each other. At that point an alternative is to start a new campaign in-session, and play chess by sms in between times.

[Lazymancer]

but from what I read here it looks like such a game devolves into an out-of-session arms race where the DM and one player try to second guess and outwit each other.
Not really. You can turn game competitive even with the minimal system mastery. It's independent quality.

I'd guess people prefer sharing horror stories, rather than successes.

[Mike Miller]

I'd guess people prefer sharing horror stories, rather than successes.

This is how many misconceptions happen. People pass on certain information, but not all the information and things quickly become misunderstood. Example, so many people think ToB is OP and ban it without actually using it for a variety of levels to see.

I agree with lazymancer's pov about this tier system.

[weckar]

From a pure legibility perspective, this list could really do with being reversed. Your descriptions really seem to indicate a progression, after all. (Although on your SA example: Are there still tables out there that DON'T use fractional BAB?)

[danzibr]

Interesting thread!

Personally, I think I'm tier 2, but the people I play with are 5-6. Complicates things.

[King of Nowhere]

And here is the downfall of smart and inquisitive people. Give them a good rule of thumb, and they will tear it apart until it is no longer good and no longer a rule of thumb.
Guys, defning tiers is not an exact science. the OP gave it a goodd try, and attempts to complicate it removes from its beautiful simplicity


I think the idea is good, the tiers are good, but I disagree with some examples, and I think it can use some systematization. I support Darrin's point that a different word than 'tier' is required. How about "stratum"? I think that doesn't carry too many positive or negative associations (like "grade" or "level"), and it's easy to say ("strat 1").


The game world functions, just differently. There's a lot of TO that assumes a functioning world, for example with magic item crafters, and Tippy shows that you can go a very long way towards strict RAW, and retain a functioning world. In the same way, there is a DM, it's just an impartial DM (or a computer, or a dummy played by consensus) with very little (~no) interest in game balance.

The bold part is a pretty loose way of identifying the stratum. Jack B. Quick is not nearly TO, but it's a specific build typically known by that name. Fusion + astral seed is every bit as powerful as the next ascension trick, but doesn't have a snappier name than that.

That said, I get what you're getting at, with all three points: you reserve this stratum for the very exclusive set of tricks that provide ascension to (virtual) omnipotence, which change the assumptions about the world, make it virtually impossible for the DM to provide counterplay, and are rare enough that they are almost always received from forum TO threads. This is the stuff you don't just come up with. That part of the metagame that is still accepted as RAW more often than not (meaning it's very hard to put an exact definition to this, same as tier 0), though mostly by other optimizers, and less by strata 6 to 4.


You might use Tempest_Stormwind's table (of the optimization showcases) as an example. I think it's a continuum from here to stratum 3, because there is constant interplay between current threads, guide writers, and guide users.

Maybe "stratum of forum threads", the stuff that hasn't made it into guides yet, but I think it can be merged with strat 2.


Whether überchargers reign is more a matter of the tier and level you play at than the optimization stratum you play at. Übercharging an equally optimized high-level CoDzilla is probably not that effective, whereas low-level barbarians are twice as strong as low-level fighters, simply because of Whirling Frenzy and Pounce.

Anyway, "stratum of the guide writers", this is where the metagame is defined, the cutting edge, if you will.


I think it's right to put guide-diving at a fairly high stratum. It takes continued interest to consult a guide, and, more importantly, it takes a developed metagame to even have guides. The effort that goes into writing a guide isn't all the writer (how many guide writers come up with all the tricks they describe?), but builds on a history of discussion.

This is "using the wider established metagame to make character building decisions".


I think you might call this stratum "using only the group-specific metagame to make character building decisions". That is, a relatively small group of players building characters amongst themselves, with little input from the 'mainstream' metagame. I think that's a break from strata 0 to 3, which probably don't exist at single tables with no (past) community input (or not often, anyway--just guessing here). From here, there's a continuum down to stratum 6.


Yeah, misunderstandings about balance must be a stratum, all the developers are there :smalltongue:.

This could be called "using D&D-specific misinformation to make character building decisions", but it's rather condescending to call it "misinformation". Overlaps with the above stratum, and they're really the same, I think, it's just that we mostly disagree with this stratum, and mostly sympathize with strat 4.


I think this can be summed up by picking the name of the character option over its result. Essentially, using the base English + common ground to make character building decisions, rather than D&D-specific knowledge.

To sum up:
Stratum 5
Character-building and -playing decisions do not rely on D&D-specific knowledge. Character option names are more important than rules text, because they have non-D&D referents to fall back on.

Stratum 4-3
Uses non-mainstream D&D-specific knowledge to inform character decisions. Heavily shaped by personal preference and anecdotal at-this-table evidence.

(stratum 4: they're wrong)
(stratum 3: they got it right)

(breaking point: contact with greater optimization community from here on out)
(personal specialization in specific areas of optimization becomes greater)

Stratum 2
Uses the mainstream D&D-specific metagame to inform character decisions. Shaped by guides, advice threads, and solid rules-of-thumb.

Stratum 1
Uses the cutting edge of the D&D-specific metagame to inform character decisions. Shapes guides, advice threads, and rules-of-thumb.

Stratum 0
Whatever part of stratum 1 that breaks down too many assumptions of the game to be considered a D&D campaign/character building. Involves infinities and no longer having to choose between character options, because you have them all.


This is still a little vague, but it's much more concise.
I disagree with your concept. It makes it look like contact with mainstream metagame equuals to a change of stratum, which is a fallacy. By mosst definition, I would be stratum 3 or 4 - depending on how effective my builds are? how can you judge what exactly means "getting it right"? My builds are stronger than nooobs, weaker than powergamers, and they are also very fluff-oriented.
Yet I read this forum, I have mainstream metagame information. Not enough to make builds more effective. Or maybe I'm stratum 2 because I occasionally take advice from here? what does that mean?
The OP had more merit; with his scale, I know monks are underpowered and why, so I am higher than tier 5, but I don't follow guides, and my builds are less powerful than what I could take ffrom the internet; I occasionally take tips, but most of the times I just shake my head and go "no, I don't want to use that stuff". that put me solidly in tier 4.


The problem with this is that it suggests a linear progression, beginning with newbies and ending with "play to win with all the win buttons available", and implies that the only reason for not optimising to TO levels is the inability to do so.
It doesn't have to. It can simpply mean the level of power you're aiming with the build.

Nifft scale could be quite useful in that regard, but it needs additional tiers; it only cconsiders those who can't make builds, those who optimize at the expence of roleplaying, and those who put roleplaying first. It considers all those who did not put roleplaying first as disfunctional.

[Nifft]

Power level and optimization ability are two different things, and thus should use two different scales/tier lists.

Nifft's tier list is a good tier list for optimization ability. Thanks!


Nifft scale could be quite useful in that regard, but it needs additional tiers; it only cconsiders those who can't make builds, those who optimize at the expence of roleplaying, and those who put roleplaying first. It considers all those who did not put roleplaying first as disfunctional.

I don't think I've called anyone dysfunctional.

[ATHATH]

No. Once you start changing system mastery of player and circumstances the character is being played in, classes will not go up or down in power uniformly.

Poor selection of spells would easily put Sorcerer below the T3 classes which do not fall apart in the hands of inept players (Beguiler, for example). No time for crafting, no action points, and no "spontaneous infusion" feat (forgot the name) for Artificer? He'll be much worse than the Barbarian in the same conditions.
I meant the descriptions of the tiers, not the placement of each class.

[Lazymancer]

I meant the descriptions of the tiers, not the placement of each class.
Would you mind explaining what you meant exactly?

AFAIK description of T1 (original) boils down to "class abilities can do many unexpected things". This has nothing to do with actual power. T1 can be weaker than T3 Warblade before and after the game-changing event. And the game-changing event will not be about power, but doing what was not expected by GM (or module writers), like casting Speak with Dead spell instead of having properly thrilling investigation that will end with the shocking reveal of "it was butler all along!"

[King of Nowhere]

I don't think I've called anyone dysfunctional.
well, not that specific word, but...

Nifft's Tiers of Optimizers

Tier -1: "Ser Comflex is a tough-as-nails Paladin, so I took Toughness."
- Chooses options based on flavor text rather than mechanics.
- Often frustrated by inability to perform as flavor advertised.
- Gets angry at "optimizers", which are usually T0.
- Doesn't really notice T1, except in curiosity as T1 players aren't frustrated.

You called T-1 players frustrated.
they get angry at those who are more skilled than they are, which is definitely a childish attribute.
You write that T-0 players have learned to use the internet, strongly implying that T-1 haven't.
You point out how T1 players are the only ones not frustrated.
You portray those guys like dumb losers.



Tier 0: "My character is a spiked-chain trip ubercharger, with pounce, and regional feats from three settings. Oh, what's his name? Uh..."
- Has learned to use the internet.
- Chooses options based on maximum mechanical impact; plays a "build".
- Over-compensated for past frustration by attempting to build over-powered self-reliant characters.
- Often frustrated by lack of engagement with ongoing game, or frustrated by how games die when a whole session devolves into a fight between the player and the DM about the weird rules abuses that the internet told the player to use.
- Looks down on T-1 because they can't perform as well mechanically.
- Doesn't understand T1 motivation.

You assume that just because someone optimizes he sucks at dealing with a story.
You actually imply that this guy cares about the story in the first place; maybe he just likes to experiment with builds? As in, "Oh, what's his name? I don't care, that's not the kind of game I'm playing"
There is a strong sarcastic undertone in "has learned to use the internet"; as in, copycat.
You call them frustrated twice in a row.
You state that they often suffer from lack of engagement with the game, or infighting with the DM
Later in describing T1 you say that T0 keeps making the same boring builds
You portray those guys as angry kids.



Tier 1: "Three-Finger Alyx was a thief from the streets, but after being taken in by Avadu the Water-Blade, Alyx is now proud to claim the title of best duelist in the kingdom."
- Mechanical expertise in service of character concept.
- Can make a large number of different character concepts work.
- Uses mechanics intelligently, but isn't solely focused on finding a way to break the game.
- Frustrated with T0 players who keep making the same few boring OP builds.
- Tries to help T-1 players become functional; frustrated when the T-1 picks based on explicit flavor rather than re-fluffing a more appropriate mechanical option.
You call those guys intelligent and expert, adept at many different things.
When they are frustrated, it is only because of the other player's failings.
You portray those guys as cool and wise.

So yes, you are actually saying that the only correct way to play is your T1. You don't seem to consider that some (many?) players don't give a dam about optimization and are in for other reasons. You imply that every powergamer is copying internet builds in an attempt to overcompensate their bad experiences when they were T-1. Your post was funny, but as far as fairness go, it was extremely shortsighted.

[ExLibrisMortis]

So yes, you are actually saying that the only correct way to play is your T1. You don't seem to consider that some (many?) players don't give a dam about optimization and are in for other reasons. You imply that every powergamer is copying internet builds in an attempt to overcompensate their bad experiences when they were T-1. Your post was funny, but as far as fairness go, it was extremely shortsighted.
I agree with this.


And here is the downfall of smart and inquisitive people. Give them a good rule of thumb, and they will tear it apart until it is no longer good and no longer a rule of thumb.
Guys, defning tiers is not an exact science. the OP gave it a goodd try, and attempts to complicate it removes from its beautiful simplicity
We shouldn't discuss anything, because that might change things? No, that's not how it works. If someone offers an idea, it will be torn apart and reassembled to see what it's worth. If you don't want discussion, don't join a discussion forum.

The OP's system is anything but simple. It's unclear what it's trying to classify. I'm trying to turn it into a systematic approach, rather than a loose collection of symptoms.


I disagree with your concept. It makes it look like contact with mainstream metagame equuals to a change of stratum, which is a fallacy.
You really have no idea what a fallacy is.

In my version of "optimization tiers", stratum is defined by attitude towards the metagame. The OP's tiers show a progression in metagame involvement, and I'm making that part of the definition, so that it's clear why the strata follow one another the way they do.


By mosst definition, I would be stratum 3 or 4 - depending on how effective my builds are?
Build effectivity is not a part of my version of the system. That's a matter of tier, ECL, power level (point-buy, WBL, etcetera), personal skill, and preference.


Yet I read this forum, I have mainstream metagame information.
That's pretty clearly stratum 2. Easy to answer.


The OP had more merit; with his scale, I know monks are underpowered and why, so I am higher than tier 5, but I don't follow guides, and my builds are less powerful than what I could take ffrom the internet; I occasionally take tips, but most of the times I just shake my head and go "no, I don't want to use that stuff". that put me solidly in tier 4.
You choose not to build high-OP characters, like Lord Raziere chooses not to do so, but you know you are doing so. The OP's version cannot account for that very well, because it uses the power level achieved as indicator of optimization background. My version does not have that problem, because it cares about how you inform yourself, rather than what you play.


Let's take an example. LordofProcrastination (the optimizer) joins a game of first-time players, and they roll up a dwarven samurai with only [abberant] feats (I have no idea whether this would be in character for them, but okay). Does their stratum change? Of course not--they are basing their decisions off of the same knowledge that got us the Omniscificer. They made the decision to play our abberant dwarven samurai knowing full well that it's not going to be a strong character. They do that on purpose, to make sure he isn't overshadowing the first-time players.

Someone without optimization knowledge could not choose to play a low-powered character like that, and it is exactly that that makes you an optimizer: having an informed choice to make.

[Nifft]

well, not that specific word, but...

You called T-1 players frustrated. I also call T0 and T1 optimizers frustrated, just in different circumstances.

You've even quoted -- but deceptively not bolded -- the place where I say something about what frustrates T1 optimizers.

You're doing a reading that's quite biased, and I'm not sure why.

What is this really about?

[King of Nowhere]

We shouldn't discuss anything, because that might change things? No, that's not how it works. If someone offers an idea, it will be torn apart and reassembled to see what it's worth. If you don't want discussion, don't join a discussion forum.


I'm not criticizing discussions and critical thinking, but I can't help smirking at seeing simple definitions and concepts becoming increasinly complex in an attempt for greater clariity. And each one of those attempts is only opening more potential holes, hence the need for even more complexity.



You choose not to build high-OP characters, like Lord Raziere chooses not to do so, but you know you are doing so.
It's a bit more complicated than that. I do not know how to build high-op characters, except by following builds online. I am at a point where I could learn some secrets of high-OP myself if I really applied myself - first step would be having a greater knowledge, because I know very little outside of the core manuals. So... I can't make a high-OP build, but I know how to make a high-Op build?

Anyway, when I was referencing build effectiveness, I was referencing your difference between 3 and 4
(stratum 4: they're wrong)
(stratum 3: they got it right) and I see it as judging by effectiveness. I want to achieve some specific goals, I get a better job than some, a worse job than others. But maybe I've misunderstood your point?


I also call T0 and T1 optimizers frustrated, just in different circumstances.

You've even quoted -- but deceptively not bolded -- the place where I say something about what frustrates T1 optimizers.

You're doing a reading that's quite biased, and I'm not sure why.

What is this really about?
I addressed that point in my reply




When they are frustrated, it is only because of the other player's failings.

Look, I don't want to start one of those personal wars where we would each write walls of text quoting and dissecting every small point the other guy made; it's clear from the way you wrote your post that you are very dismissive of players behaving differently than your T1. Don't try to deny that based on exact wording.

[Nifft]

Look, I don't want to start one of those personal wars where we would each write walls of text quoting and dissecting every small point the other guy made; That's an excellent description of something which you and only you are currently doing.


it's clear from the way you wrote your post that you are very dismissive of players behaving differently than your T1. Don't try to deny that based on exact wording. That's BS, and it's got nothing to do with any wording technicality.

What I am doing is descriptive, not dismissive. This is a description of what I've seen out there in the world.

Many people start interacting with the rules by reading for tone, instead of thinking about mechanical impact. Is that a ~dismissal~ of those people? No, and saying so is an arrogant and prejudicial way of thinking. What I've done is supply a description of their behavior.


It's like you're stuck in Thesis vs. Antithesis identity-politics, and you're offended when someone says: "Hey, check out Synthesis, it's good at both."

Thesis vs. Antithesis aren't stuck in an eternal struggle for domination. They're stages of development.

You start at T-1: System Naivety.

Then you get some system mastery (possibly first-hand, possibly from the internet), and you pass through T0: System Mastery Is God.

Eventually (hopefully) you mature into T1: System Mastery Is My Tool, and you're not beholden to bad or misleading flavor text, nor are you beholden to optimization as the only possible goal in the game. At T1, the human is in control.


Yeah, I think it's most fun to be the human who is in control. That's not a ~dismissal~ of course, it's an opinion based on a lot of experience.

I suspect that I'm not the only one who's seen this sort of player growth over time.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'm not criticizing discussions and critical thinking, but I can't help smirking at seeing simple definitions and concepts becoming increasinly complex in an attempt for greater clariity. And each one of those attempts is only opening more potential holes, hence the need for even more complexity.
Right, you do have a point there, but I think it's too early in the discussion to think about consolidation yet. Let's look at the discussion in a few weeks, see what worked and what didn't.


So... I can't make a high-OP build, but I know how to make a high-Op build?
Uh... a low stratum 2? This is a bit tricky to account for. It's basically the "bought the textbook, didn't read it" level of knowledge, which is different from "read the book, passed the test", but I'm not sure you want a separate stratum for that, because these states are usually quite closely linked. For me, the main thing is you know what there is to know; you read the table of contents, so to speak.


Anyway, when I was referencing build effectiveness, I was referencing your difference between 3 and 4 and I see it as judging by effectiveness. I want to achieve some specific goals, I get a better job than some, a worse job than others. But maybe I've misunderstood your point?
Aha yes, that was a joke! A bit vague--too vague, apparently. It was hinted at in the Excessive Detail spoiler:

[about tier 4] [...] a relatively small group of players building characters amongst themselves, with little input from the 'mainstream' metagame. [...] From here, there's a continuum down to stratum 6.

[about tier 5] This could be called "using D&D-specific misinformation to make character building decisions", but it's rather condescending to call it "misinformation". Overlaps with the above stratum, and they're really the same, I think, it's just that we mostly disagree with this stratum, and mostly sympathize with strat 4.
N.B. Tier 4 and 5 became strata 3 and 4 respectively.

I think strata 3 and 4 should be more or less the same. They're only differentiated by 'degree of wrongness', and I don't think that's going to be useful. I mean, when someone asks for advice on the forum, who's going to identify themselves as "stratum 4, my opinions are all wrong"? But then I didn't want to change too much at once, so I put both under the same header.

[rrwoods]

At the risk of getting myself involved in something that could get heated...

In Nifft's system, I believe (and have seen) that T1s generally only get "frustrated" at T-1s when the T-1s themselves are frustrated but don't want to change their mechanical choices. Sometimes a T-1 makes a character that doesn't work as advertised but they're still having fun. One may wonder why they chose to play D&D rather than a more free-form system, but whatever floats their boat is fine with a T1, generally.

I'd consider myself a T1 optimizer, and generally the people around me are (each, individually!) a mix of T1/T-1. I don't get frustrated even though they do things that slightly sabotage their ability to contribute to encounters, because they're still having fun.

[martixy]

Let me offer a quick redefinition:

Tier 2: RAW is war and you still think you can win.
Tier 1: RAW is war that you know you can't win.
Tier 0: You glimpsed all that RAW has to offer and beheld the edge of infinity. You've moved beyond.

[Nifft]

Let me offer a quick redefinition:

Tier 2: RAW is war and you still think you can win.
Tier 1: RAW is war that you know you can't win.
Tier 0: You glimpsed all that RAW has to offer and beheld the edge of infinity. You've moved beyond.

"RAW... RAW never changes."

[ryu]

"RAW... RAW never changes."

"Except with errata."

[ATHATH]

Would you mind explaining what you meant exactly?
Behold, the Power Level Tier List/System (adapted from JaronK's Class Tier List/System):


The Tier System

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

Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer, Erudite (Spell to Power Variant)

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class character itself is capable of anything, no one build it can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes characters. Still potentially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and easily world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 classes characters are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes characters... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

Examples: Sorcerer, Favored Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges), Erudite (No Spell to Power)

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

Examples: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factotum, Warblade, Psychic Warrior

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competence without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribute to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Examples: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Zhentarium Variant)

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter unless the encounter matches their strengths. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class character poorly.

Examples: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight, CW Samurai (with Imperious Command available)

Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class Character build is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

Examples: CW Samurai (without Imperious Command available), Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner

Does that clear things up?

[King of Nowhere]

That's an excellent description of something which you and only you are currently doing.

That's BS, and it's got nothing to do with any wording technicality.

What I am doing is descriptive, not dismissive. This is a description of what I've seen out there in the world.

Many people start interacting with the rules by reading for tone, instead of thinking about mechanical impact. Is that a ~dismissal~ of those people? No, and saying so is an arrogant and prejudicial way of thinking. What I've done is supply a description of their behavior.


It's like you're stuck in Thesis vs. Antithesis identity-politics, and you're offended when someone says: "Hey, check out Synthesis, it's good at both."

Thesis vs. Antithesis aren't stuck in an eternal struggle for domination. They're stages of development.

You start at T-1: System Naivety.

Then you get some system mastery (possibly first-hand, possibly from the internet), and you pass through T0: System Mastery Is God.

Eventually (hopefully) you mature into T1: System Mastery Is My Tool, and you're not beholden to bad or misleading flavor text, nor are you beholden to optimization as the only possible goal in the game. At T1, the human is in control.


Yeah, I think it's most fun to be the human who is in control. That's not a ~dismissal~ of course, it's an opinion based on a lot of experience.

I suspect that I'm not the only one who's seen this sort of player growth over time.

So you wanted to go with hegel's philosophy of thesis-anthitesis-synthesis?
well, at least it makes some sense. Or it would if I held hegelian ideas in any regard. i believe they are an unnecessary railroading of any process, and they don't work at all unless one bends over himself and ignores a lot of things to make them work. For example, when hegel talked about history of phylosophy, he completely ignored easter philosophy because it didn't ffit into his neat scheme of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. And hegel put himself at the end of philosophy, claiming his own system was the best and most perfect ever conceived (at least according to my textbook). Really, anyone claiming something like that has no authority in my book. When I was in university there were a lot of philosophers in my college, and I've never heard one who had a good opinion of hegel.
History doesn't follow railroads, it's more like a tree branching. Just like hegel ignored a lot of ideas to make his neat shceme fit, you ignored that a lot of players you defined frustrated are happy at T0 or T-1, and that others have yet different goals.

[ExLibrisMortis]

As King of Nowere said, this type of thought on progress (whether Hegel's or another's) is not very practical. You might sum it up as "things fluctuate, combine, and settle in the middle" (the comparison with eddies in fluid dynamics suggests itself), which is so general that it can't really be applied. Nifft's system is equally useless. It incorporates the Stormwind Fallacy, suggests there is a single (finite) linear progression through the tiers, and defines the "end" of this progression as the one true enlightenment. It fails to take into account the difference between the original tiers 0 and 1 (TO and PO), and it doesn't distinguish between the original tiers 6 and 5 (newb and noob (http://cad-comic.com/comic/glossary-newbnoob/), if you will). I'd suggest ignoring it.

[Endarire]

Tier 0 campaigns are technically possible to play, run, and enjoy for everyone, but everyone (PC and GM) must be very fluent with the game and working at a similar level of power. This means things like Dweomerkeeper Clerics, Dal Quor Planar Shepherd Druids, Anima Mages, and Red Wizard Incantatrixes. My current GM has done so, but would prefer not to do again because of all the work involved.

[ryu]

Tier 0 campaigns are technically possible to play, run, and enjoy for everyone, but everyone (PC and GM) must be very fluent with the game and working at a similar level of power. This means things like Dweomerkeeper Clerics, Dal Quor Planar Shepherd Druids, Anima Mages, and Red Wizard Incantatrixes. My current GM has done so, but would prefer not to do again because of all the work involved.

You're putting anima mage in the same category as all those? Really? I mean it's got some nice tricks, but REALLY?

[Endarire]

Anima Mage was something that GM said someone played and apparently it worked well for him. Perhaps being able to make certain spells cast as an immediate action was worth it. Ever wanted to turn genesis into a fast cast? Now you can!

Also of note was free metamagic 1/day and later 2/day. Want Persistent Spell or Quicken Spell on something? Now it's there!

[ryu]

Anima Mage was something that GM said someone played and apparently it worked well for him. Perhaps being able to make certain spells cast as an immediate action was worth it. Ever wanted to turn genesis into a fast cast? Now you can!

Also of note was free metamagic 1/day and later 2/day. Want Persistent Spell or Quicken Spell on something? Now it's there!

I mean don't get me wrong. Those aren't bad by any means. It's just that you don't even need to prestige to gain access to immediate casting of any spell you want. Notice I didn't say any wizard spell. A wizard with the right feat can easily get immediate casted versions of any spell owned by any person in the party as well as any cooperative NPC. We also have plenty of ways of getting reduced or free metamagic, but the common favorite is incantrix.

[King of Nowhere]

just out of curiosity, how do you go about making a campaign when each and every member of your party can become effectively invincible? You have equally invincible foes? Do you have to write long sequences of contingencies or hordes of minions and the fights resolve in who made the most preparations there?
I noticed a sharp increase in the work needed for my campaign when one of my players learned enough to progress from stratum 5 to 4 (according to the definition of the OP, that just stuck better in my mind). I ccan't even imagine what kind of hassle it would require to plan a meaningful fight for a campaign at that level of power.

[ryu]

just out of curiosity, how do you go about making a campaign when each and every member of your party can become effectively invincible? You have equally invincible foes? Do you have to write long sequences of contingencies or hordes of minions and the fights resolve in who made the most preparations there?
I noticed a sharp increase in the work needed for my campaign when one of my players learned enough to progress from stratum 5 to 4 (according to the definition of the OP, that just stuck better in my mind). I ccan't even imagine what kind of hassle it would require to plan a meaningful fight for a campaign at that level of power.

Depends on whether you're planning a fight designed to MATTER and be substantial or merely mooks. A fight designed to matter usually involves an opponent of roughly equal means and as levels increase becomes more a game of information gathering, the hiding of same information, attempting to give false information if possible, and eventually coming up with a plan of attack or defending against when the enemy attacks you if you did poorly enough in the previous stages of conflict to loose initiative. Actual initiative not the game construct. Think literal weeks of ingame planning all to come down to a few incredibly violent seconds, to a few minutes at the absolute silly tops.

[King of Nowhere]

Depends on whether you're planning a fight designed to MATTER and be substantial or merely mooks. A fight designed to matter usually involves an opponent of roughly equal means and as levels increase becomes more a game of information gathering, the hiding of same information, attempting to give false information if possible, and eventually coming up with a plan of attack or defending against when the enemy attacks you if you did poorly enough in the previous stages of conflict to loose initiative. Actual initiative not the game construct. Think literal weeks of ingame planning all to come down to a few incredibly violent seconds, to a few minutes at the absolute silly tops.

I see. then it's not really that different from how I do it, only the means used change

[ryu]

I see. then it's not really that different from how I do it, only the means used change

I'd also be willing to wager the time spent in direct conflict is probably shorter due to higher power options tending to lead to shorter combat times, and that more stuff happens in the planning weeks because tier 1 is the king of information gathering and how important it is actually grows when there's less obvious information to plan around because the enemy literally has more options.

[Calthropstu]

Anyone else think "Tears of the optimizer" should be a warhammer enhancement? "Behold my Tears of the Optimizer... my +10 GM Banhammer which gives me a +10 bonus on all 'LOL No' checks."

[Snowbluff]

I think you’re conflating knowledge/familiarity with willingness/permission here...

I’m easily tier 0 in terms about ability but nowhere near that high in how I actually play.

[Calthropstu]

I think you’re conflating knowledge/familiarity with willingness/permission here...

I’m easily tier 0 in terms about ability but nowhere near that high in how I actually play.

Yeah, few people even WANT to play at tier 0, nor will it be allowed by any gm I've ever played with.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think you’re conflating knowledge/familiarity with willingness/permission here...

I’m easily tier 0 in terms about ability but nowhere near that high in how I actually play.
That's why my version (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22576476&postcount=38) categorizes only the first. Hmm, a scale of permissiveness could be constructed, but I wonder how to order it. Simple source restrictions aren't enough to rank a table's permissiveness, and the final builds that are allowed can be slotted into the tier system.

For example, a table that permits Dragon Magazine content doesn't have to allow any of the broken combos that result (Troll-Blooded gheden/pugilist and whatnot), whereas a core-only table can play at tier 1, allowing multiple PAOs and barghest + energy drain infinite HD tricks. And a table that plays at tier 1 can be quite restrictive, allowing only the 'native' tier 1s to compete (e.g. erudites who can't bypass UPPD limits fall behind incantatrices), or they can be permissive, allowing many t2 classes to reach t1 performance.

I only see one hard divide (similar to the tier system's game-breaking/non-game-breaking divide): either all RAW tricks are allowed, or some are not. You can then subdivide those into more "permissive" and "restrictive" of RAW and RAI respectively, but that's quite subjective.
(0) All tricks--RAW or no--are allowed. Game breaks down. Not a real category.
(1) All RAW tricks are allowed, even those the players agree are unintended and should not have been part of the game. Drown-healing is fine; you can swim in lava with fire resistance 1.
(2) As (1), except that the limits of RAW are stricter. No idea what that means exactly, to be honest. Is the whole 'immunity to lava' thing less RAW than drown-healing?
(3) All RAW tricks are allowed, except those the players agree are unintended and should not have been part of the game. Think: drown-healing is removed.
(4) As (3), except that more things are considered unintended. Simply a stricter version of (3).
(5) No RAW tricks are allowed, except those the players agree are intended and should be part of the game. The strictest possible approach, this is essentially houseruling parts of 3.5 into the game, rather than out of the game.

I think permissiveness is a tricky one to put on a scale. Familiarity is just about doable, in the sense that you can rank test scores or whatever, but permissiveness can be all over the place.

[Calthropstu]

That's why my version (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=22576476&postcount=38) categorizes only the first. Hmm, a scale of permissiveness could be constructed, but I wonder how to order it. Simple source restrictions aren't enough to rank a table's permissiveness, and the final builds that are allowed can be slotted into the tier system.

For example, a table that permits Dragon Magazine content doesn't have to allow any of the broken combos that result (Troll-Blooded gheden/pugilist and whatnot), whereas a core-only table can play at tier 1, allowing multiple PAOs and barghest + energy drain infinite HD tricks. And a table that plays at tier 1 can be quite restrictive, allowing only the 'native' tier 1s to compete (e.g. erudites who can't bypass UPPD limits fall behind incantatrices), or they can be permissive, allowing many t2 classes to reach t1 performance.

I only see one hard divide (similar to the tier system's game-breaking/non-game-breaking divide): either all RAW tricks are allowed, or some are not. You can then subdivide those into more "permissive" and "restrictive" of RAW and RAI respectively, but that's quite subjective.
(0) All tricks--RAW or no--are allowed. Game breaks down. Not a real category.
(1) All RAW tricks are allowed, even those the players agree are unintended and should not have been part of the game. Drown-healing is fine; you can swim in lava with fire resistance 1.
(2) As (1), except that the limits of RAW are stricter. No idea what that means exactly, to be honest. Is the whole 'immunity to lava' thing less RAW than drown-healing?
(3) All RAW tricks are allowed, except those the players agree are unintended and should not have been part of the game. Think: drown-healing is removed.
(4) As (3), except that more things are considered unintended. Simply a stricter version of (3).
(5) No RAW tricks are allowed, except those the players agree are intended and should be part of the game. The strictest possible approach, this is essentially houseruling parts of 3.5 into the game, rather than out of the game.

I think permissiveness is a tricky one to put on a scale. Familiarity is just about doable, in the sense that you can rank test scores or whatever, but permissiveness can be all over the place.

Might want to add this stuff into the OP.

[King of Nowhere]

I think another useful way of categorizing would be by looking at how meaningful are class tiers. After all, an important hting to know when you start a game is whether it makes sense to pick a fighter when there is a wizard in the party. Something like

stratum 0: theoretical optimization. this is where we have unlimited power tricks. there is really no reason to play anything other than a full caster at this level. I guess a mundane could deal infinite damage, but it matters little when every other character can destroy someone on the other side of the world without saving throw. even most people with the skill to play at that level won't do it because it is very hard to set a campaign with those premises.

stratum 1: very high optimization. You need to play groups with classes of equal tiers, otherwise the lower tiers are going to feel useless, and they will actually be.

stratum 2: high optimization. Here is where you have the gentleman agreements between tiers; tier 1 casters could solve encounters alone, but they are built to help the mundane. Even then, mundanes are probably going to feel outpowered. above level 9, there is no flippin way a tier 1 caster can lose to a mundane barring really extreme luck (or the caster being used suboptimally, which would however kick it out of stratum 2, or the mundane being helped by spells and buffs, which would turn it into a 2v1 contest). Basically it's close to stratum 1, except that tier 1 classes choose not to unleash their full potential

stratum 3: fairly high optimization: like stratum 2, except that a stratum-1 mundane build can still manage to be useful. This is defined as the highest level at which skill can still somewhat fill the gap between the tiers.

stratum 4: moderate optimization. tier 1 casters are more powerful and there's no question about it, but mundanes can fill in specific roles and meaningfully contribute. a low tier mundane built for the purpose may reasonably defeat a tier 1 caster if he was well prepared for the encounter and he get a bit lucky. oots bounces between this level and the next one

stratum 5: low optimization. tiers matter little. wizards go around casting fireballs*, and warriors can charge them and have good chances of winning. Spellcasters will rarely, if ever, change their prepared spells. tier 1 casters are still more powerful than mundanes because they have more options - a fighter cannot teleport and that's it - but in battle they will be of roughly equal power. that is also the level at which the game was intended to be played.

* there is nothing wrong in the noble fireball, which is a useful spell to deal with large groups of mooks. However throwing one at a fighter, or, worse, a rogue, is like using a hammer to plant a screw.

stratum 6: no optimization. people have no idea what they are doing. this is the level where you see a gnomish cleric take exotic weapon proficiency: katana and weapon focus: katana because katanas are cool, and then charge opponents in battle with his katana and his STR penalty when he has 8th level spells (that's what I actually did with my first character. good thing the rest of the group was even worse. I was so naive I want to facepalm). tiers matter nothing.

So if I say I want to build a monk to specialize in fighting spellcasters, and I specify I play at stratum 4, then it's difficult but doable, I need to cover a lot of tricks - high saving throws, teleportations, tumble past summoned mooks, a way to reach a flying opponent, a way to see an invisible opponent - but it is conceivable that I may survive whatever spell the wizard will throw at me and then stun/grapple him into submission. If I was playing at stratum 5, the answer would be 'just go ahead and charge, you can survive a fireball', because wizards do not permafly or be invisible at that level, and their standard reaction to someone charghing them is fireball. and if I was playing at stratum 1, the wizard would live in an extraplanar space with a thousand ice assassins each one with one contingency per hit dice and will never, ever leave except by astral projection and he'll have several dozen contingencies related to someone even trying to start to think of potentialy harming his silvery cord and there would be absolutely nothing I could do to even potentially approach the problem.

I think this is a quite useful categorization, as it allows to better gauge the answer to someone asking "how can I contribute during combat". Of course, this has a lot of overlapping with other methods of categorization discussed by other posters, because it's basically the same thing, only putting the emphasis on tier difference in the attempt to find a more objective, measurable frame of reference

[ExLibrisMortis]

I think another useful way of categorizing would be by looking at how meaningful are class tiers. After all, an important hting to know when you start a game is whether it makes sense to pick a fighter when there is a wizard in the party.

[good points]
"How optimized do I need to be to compete at this table using this tier of class?"

I think that is a very good way to look at permissiveness and optimization expectancy. Straightforward, but deep, I think.

I think your scale is about games/tables/groups, whereas mine is more about individual players. For example, let's say you have an s3 game (your scale). That involves moderately optimized t1-t2 casters, and very highly-optimized mundanes. The t1-t2 players must be at least s2 (my scale), the t4-t3 players must be at least s1, and the t6-t5 players are screwed (or go TO/s0). That is, the mundane player must have a greater knowledge of the metagame to be able to build a competetive character.

Back to the group/player distinction: I think it's reasonable to say that optimization ability is reasonably independant of the group you are in. Case in point: I currently play in a group with a mix of s5 players (no D&D knowledge) and s4-3 players (personal experience only), whereas I'd put myself at s1-s2. Optimization knowledge will diffuse into the group, but it can take a frustratingly long time :smalltongue:.

Permissiveness as something the group has agreed on (and is thus constant across group members) is ideal, but sometimes not the case. Help threads about this issue crop up from time to time. However, even if the group hasn't agreed to set an optimization expectancy, you can say it's automatically set at the highest individual expectancy (the person whom others must catch up to).


(reality check: Am I/Are we getting too involved in theoretical musings? A little, right?)

[ryu]

"How optimized do I need to be to compete at this table using this tier of class?"

I think that is a very good way to look at permissiveness and optimization expectancy. Straightforward, but deep, I think.

I think your scale is about games/tables/groups, whereas mine is more about individual players. For example, let's say you have an s3 game (your scale). That involves moderately optimized t1-t2 casters, and very highly-optimized mundanes. The t1-t2 players must be at least s2 (my scale), the t4-t3 players must be at least s1, and the t6-t5 players are screwed (or go TO/s0). That is, the mundane player must have a greater knowledge of the metagame to be able to build a competetive character.

Back to the group/player distinction: I think it's reasonable to say that optimization ability is reasonably independant of the group you are in. Case in point: I currently play in a group with a mix of s5 players (no D&D knowledge) and s4-3 players (personal experience only), whereas I'd put myself at s1-s2. Optimization knowledge will diffuse into the group, but it can take a frustratingly long time :smalltongue:.

Permissiveness as something the group has agreed on (and is thus constant across group members) is ideal, but sometimes not the case. Help threads about this issue crop up from time to time. However, even if the group hasn't agreed to set an optimization expectancy, you can say it's automatically set at the highest individual expectancy (the person whom others must catch up to).


(reality check: Am I/Are we getting too involved in theoretical musings? A little, right?)

You say that as though there even is such a thing as too meta. I'm confused.

[ExLibrisMortis]

You say that as though there even is such a thing as too meta. I'm confused.
My philosophy professor says you're not a real philosopher unless you experience hints of imposter syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome) sometimes.

[ryu]

My philosophy professor says you're not a real philosopher unless you experience hints of imposter syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome) sometimes.

Eh. That's really just a more specific version of Dunning Kruger effect where everyone places their own personal competence in any field as reasonably high but not the top. People with little or no competence assume there's nothing much to fields they don't know and assume they're at least passable, while actually brilliant people assume most everyone else is just as brilliant as them if not more. Even THAT is part of the much more general rule that everyone sees themselves as "normal."

[Zanos]

Yeah by this I'm probably Tier -1.
I recommend Improved Toughness.