Tier Definitions (potentially redefining)

[AvatarVecna]

The purpose of this thread is collecting feedback from members of the community on what they think the tiers should be defined as, as well as what they think of the definitions others put forth. The hope is that some kind of consensus can come forth as a good general definition for the tier system to serve as a base for further discussion in the future. Before we begin, I wanna be clear that this isn't a thread for discussing particular classes; classes are useful as potential examples of a tier (something like "this is my definition of Tier 1; basically, anything like a Wizard"), but the hope is that the definitions put forth will cover sufficient ground that new things could be easily tiered. Hopefully my own tier definition suggestion will make this a bit clearer.

The basic idea of my suggestion is that Tier is the result of the relationship between how many roles a class/build fills (Versatility), and how well it fills them (Power), with a slight additional metric for how easily an individual build can change its Versatility or Power (Flexibility).

Please note, I am aware that this definition is not entirely complete, due to needing a bit more definition on what roles there are, and possibly discussion of the relative value of those roles. I am also aware that some additional complexity is likely necessary for this system, given that classes might have different power levels for different roles, which isn't reflected in this current version.

Versatility

One Trick Pony (-0): A class/build that attempts to fill one role.

Simple (-1): A class/build that attempts to fill a few roles.

Complex (-2): A class/build that attempts to fill many roles.

Jack Of All Trades (-3): A class/build that attempts to fill all roles.

Power

Pointless (-0): A class/build that barely works towards filling its role(s) at all, but still does something more than nothing.

Weak (-1): A class/build that works towards filling its role(s), but will still struggle to fill them properly.

Average (-2): A class/build that can perform sufficiently at its role(s), but does not excel at them necessarily.

Strong (-3): A class/build that excels at its chosen role(s).

Broken (-4): A class/build that is virtually impossible to challenge in its chosen role(s).

Flexibility

Set In Stone (-0): Build cannot be changed, or can be changed with the expenditure of significant in-game resources (time, money, XP, etc).

Mutable (-1): Build can be altered with the expenditure of non-insignificant in-game resources (time, money, XP, etc).

Wish Fulfillment (-2): Build can be altered without the expenditure of in-game resources (more or less at-will).

I'll also clarify that flexibility is more about how much you can change your build around within the same tier. Like, a class that can change between different T4 Versatility/Power combos more or less at-will is probably T2, but a class that can change between a single T4 (strong at this one thing) and a bunch of T6 combos (weak at one other thing, pointless at a few other things, etc) isn't gonna get knocked up a tier for its ability to be slightly less awful at some things.




Pointless
Weak
Average
Strong
Broken


One-Trick Pony
7
6
5
4
3


Simple
6
5
4
3
2


Complex
5
4
3
2
1


Jack Of All Trades
4
3
2
1
0



Looking forward to hearing people's suggestions for tier definitions, or their thoughts on mine.

[eggynack]

This structure is a pretty interesting one. I appreciate that you can change the value of each facet by changing the range relative to the other facets. As for role counting and assessing, the niche system is probably a good starting place.

[Telonius]

A couple thoughts to start. I'd say that under "Versatility," all of the "attempts to" should be changed to "can." Lots of low-tier classes attempt to fill multiple roles, and fail; high-tier classes might only have been trying to fill one role and end up doing everything.

One weakness of the original tier definitions is that it's kind of hard to take into account variation in power throughout the progression. I'm thinking something like Healer or Truenamer, that are mostly junk until they get Gate; or something that starts out really strong like Crusader but then fizzles a bit in comparison to other classes. People's experience with the class (both as DM and as player) can vary widely depending on whether they're playing a low-level campaign or a high-level campaign; and trying to calibrate expectations is one of the main points of having the tier list to begin with. A "Consistency" variable (or something like it) could help capture this.

[ExLibrisMortis]

Looks good to me. Doesn't change tiers around too much as compared to JaronK's system, sums up a lot of what we already know about classes.

Funny thing to note: it's basically impossible to be a pointless one-trick pony. By the time you're pointless at your primary shtick, your secondary abilities are so close behind, you might as well be a generalist (cue amazement: it sucks in any way possible!). I mean, unless you design a class that literally gets worse at everything besides its primary ability (like a commoner with -class level to all d20 rolls except melee attacks with a shovel).

[Air0r]

Pet Peeve, ignore if you want: I dislike the use of the term broken when used to mean overpowered, as broken is also the same term used for nonfunctional (like truenamers in 3.5). it just feels misused any time someone uses it instead of just saying overpowered.

as for the list, looks comparable to existing tier systems.

[AvatarVecna]

This structure is a pretty interesting one. I appreciate that you can change the value of each facet by changing the range relative to the other facets. As for role counting and assessing, the niche system is probably a good starting place.

Niche system?


A couple thoughts to start. I'd say that under "Versatility," all of the "attempts to" should be changed to "can." Lots of low-tier classes attempt to fill multiple roles, and fail; high-tier classes might only have been trying to fill one role and end up doing everything.

One weakness of the original tier definitions is that it's kind of hard to take into account variation in power throughout the progression. I'm thinking something like Healer or Truenamer, that are mostly junk until they get Gate; or something that starts out really strong like Crusader but then fizzles a bit in comparison to other classes. People's experience with the class (both as DM and as player) can vary widely depending on whether they're playing a low-level campaign or a high-level campaign; and trying to calibrate expectations is one of the main points of having the tier list to begin with. A "Consistency" variable (or something like it) could help capture this.

That might be better reflected in some kind of "by level" thing, or maybe a variable tier for the class. Given that my current suggestion is to base a class/builds tier on their overall capabilities, tiers don't necessarily need to be consistent across all levels of optimization for a class, but will probably need to include level ranges, for classes that either gain abilities that significantly change their ability to function, or classes that more or less cease gaining features after the first few levels and gradually dwindle off.


Looks good to me. Doesn't change tiers around too much as compared to JaronK's system, sums up a lot of what we already know about classes.

Funny thing to note: it's basically impossible to be a pointless one-trick pony. By the time you're pointless at your primary shtick, your secondary abilities are so close behind, you might as well be a generalist (cue amazement: it sucks in any way possible!). I mean, unless you design a class that literally gets worse at everything besides its primary ability (like a commoner with -class level to all d20 rolls except melee attacks with a shovel).

I may have to refine the Power section, and was already considering doing so when I posted the OP, for exactly this reason: Pointless Power isn't meant as an "anything less than Weak" section, or as an "anything more than nothing at all" section, but rather as about the same step-down from Weak that Weak is from Average, Average is from Strong, and Strong is from Broken (although counter to that same sentiment, Broken is intended as a catch-all for "anything better than strong").

At least under this system, Commoner would probably be classified as T7, serving as the baseline - partially because Commoner does literally nothing for you (no special abilities, the worst chassis, and a meager skill selection), and partially because I can't imagine something worse than Commoner. A commoner could use their attributes and feats to try and work towards filling a particular role, but they would either spread themselves too thin to even be considered "Pointless" at anything, or they would focus just enough on one thing to be considered "Pointless" at that thing. A human commoner who builds to fill the tank role (say, by putting 32 pb into 8/16/18/8/14/8 and taking Light Armor Proficiency then Medium Armor Proficiency, gets a good money role and buys Hide) is a 1st lvl character with 8 HP, AC 15, Fort +4/Ref +3/Will +2, a Light Pick attack of -1 to hit and 1d4-1 (x4) for damage. It's clearly pretty awful at filling its intended role, but it's not as awful as it could be. Still, it's barely good enough to be Pointless and nowhere near good enough to be Weak, so it becomes T7 with a tanking "specialty". Everything else it can do besides a couple of skills (which isn't enough to give it an extra role most of the time) just isn't good enough to even be consider Pointless by default.

Incidentally, the idea of a Pointless Jack Of All Trades amuses me - a T4 who can do a tiny bit of everything, but not enough so that they're actually useful at any particular thing.


Pet Peeve, ignore if you want: I dislike the use of the term broken when used to mean overpowered, as broken is also the same term used for nonfunctional (like truenamers in 3.5). it just feels misused any time someone uses it instead of just saying overpowered.

as for the list, looks comparable to existing tier systems.

Hmm, that's probably fair. What would you suggest in its place? Overpowered?

[Quertus]

Love the idea.

I'd suggest removing the bias from the labels "pointless" through "broken". I prefer "Hard Mode" through "BDH", personally.

[SpamCreateWater]

Niche system?

I believe they are referring to Person_Man's Niche Ranking System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System).

Edit: Found Troacctid's transposition to Google Sheets (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U_Ql7b9nNI8y1K_yVgPbyusW_pclTa-q1k-OLMMO_EQ/edit#gid=0)... not that it was hard to find. It's the last comment in the thread :smalltongue:

[InvisibleBison]

Looking forward to hearing people's suggestions for tier definitions, or their thoughts on mine.

It seems to me that your definitions are very table-dependent. I could easily imagine a character that would be tier 0 at a very low-optimization table, T3 or T4 at a mid-op table, and T6 or T7 at a high-op table. I'm not quite sure what follows from this observation, but I thought it worth bringing up.

[Air0r]

Hmm, that's probably fair. What would you suggest in its place? Overpowered?

yes. Overpowered should be used to define something that is overpowered. In normal English, broken refers to something that is generally non-functional, so why should it be any different in reference to RPGs?

[SpamCreateWater]

yes. Overpowered should be used to define something that is overpowered. In normal English, broken refers to something that is generally non-functional, so why should it be any different in reference to RPGs?

In normal English broken can also mean that it fails to observe some kind of rule/law. It means other things, obviously, but this feels to be another pertinent definition of the word alongside something being non-functional.

I agree, however, that the context the word is used in could often times be better covered by another word - like overpowered.

[AvatarVecna]

Love the idea.

I'd suggest removing the bias from the labels "pointless" through "broken". I prefer "Hard Mode" through "BDH", personally.

I'll consider it. :smalltongue:


I believe they are referring to Person_Man's Niche Ranking System (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?314701-Person_Man-s-Niche-Ranking-System).

Edit: Found Troacctid's transposition to Google Sheets (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U_Ql7b9nNI8y1K_yVgPbyusW_pclTa-q1k-OLMMO_EQ/edit#gid=0)... not that it was hard to find. It's the last comment in the thread :smalltongue:

This will prove useful in more thoroughly codifying my tier definition, thank you.


It seems to me that your definitions are very table-dependent. I could easily imagine a character that would be tier 0 at a very low-optimization table, T3 or T4 at a mid-op table, and T6 or T7 at a high-op table. I'm not quite sure what follows from this observation, but I thought it worth bringing up.

I don't think they're very table-dependent. The tier of a class doesn't change with the table it's being played at, but rather playing at different tables can make the tier matter more or less than normal. If you're playing a pure hack-and-slash game where only combat stats matter, the ability to fill non-combat roles is less important for that table, but that doesn't mean it stops existing. Bard doesn't stop being T3 in games where there's no social stuff, it just means that the bards strength doesn't come up; the tier matters less for the actual play because the game differs from what's expected. Same thing with power: average power is meant to be balanced against the encounter expectations of the system: the difference between an Ubercharger 20 that deals 1000 DPR and one that deals 5000 DPR is pretty negligible since the only monsters you see with more than 1000 HP are epic. The fact that one is objectively more powerful than the other doesn't change that they've both maxed out the amount of damage they need to do at their level. Playing the game at a higher power level than normal (custom designed monsters far more optimal than existing monsters, for example) is you going beyond the system's expectations, and doesn't downgrade the Power aspect of a class'/build's tier in general...it just makes the tier matter less at your table.


yes. Overpowered should be used to define something that is overpowered. In normal English, broken refers to something that is generally non-functional, so why should it be any different in reference to RPGs?


In normal English broken can also mean that it fails to observe some kind of rule/law. It means other things, obviously, but this feels to be another pertinent definition of the word alongside something being non-functional.

I agree, however, that the context the word is used in could often times be better covered by another word - like overpowered.

My understanding is the the reason "broken" is used to refer to excessively powerful mechanics/combos is because of phrases like "that breaks the game". The mechanic itself isn't "broken", it's more the thing doing the breaking...but saying "that mechanic is broken" flows a bit better than "that mechanic is the breaker" and is faster than "that mechanic is gamebreaking". A bit more to the point, most people fully understand what is meant by the term in this context, and even for those people unfamiliar with this informal definition accepted by the community, I provide the definition of "Broken" as it matters for that tier definition in the same post.

[SpamCreateWater]

My understanding is the the reason "broken" is used to refer to excessively powerful mechanics/combos is because of phrases like "that breaks the game". The mechanic itself isn't "broken", it's more the thing doing the breaking...but saying "that mechanic is broken" flows a bit better than "that mechanic is the breaker" and is faster than "that mechanic is gamebreaking". A bit more to the point, most people fully understand what is meant by the term in this context, and even for those people unfamiliar with this informal definition accepted by the community, I provide the definition of "Broken" as it matters for that tier definition in the same post.

In the context of "that breaks the game" it does indeed fall under the "fails to observe some rule" definition - amusingly, this is the premise of the exception based system :smalltongue:
Regardless, when people exclaim something is broken, I feel that they usually mean it is overpowered or too strong for their tastes. The thing in question may not actually "break" anything apart from their own particular table's power level or individual tastes.

Minor quibble over semantics aside, I do think that someone immersed in gaming culture would understand what you're saying if you used broken as a tier. Though I also believe in providing your own definition, so that later arguments over semantics can be stopped prematurely (as if author's expressed intent would ever stop someone from assuming their actual intent :smallamused:).

[ExLibrisMortis]

I may have to refine the Power section, and was already considering doing so when I posted the OP, for exactly this reason: Pointless Power isn't meant as an "anything less than Weak" section, or as an "anything more than nothing at all" section, but rather as about the same step-down from Weak that Weak is from Average, Average is from Strong, and Strong is from Broken (although counter to that same sentiment, Broken is intended as a catch-all for "anything better than strong").
I didn't mean that as a downside or something that needs fixing. In fact, I thought it was rather sensible. A lot of scales break down if you get towards the intersection of extremes. Take temperature/volume/pressure graphs, for example--all sorts of weird **** goes down at the extremes (off the top of my head, anything from Bose-Einstein condensate to supercritical fluid to degenerate matter, though those are probably not included on typical phase diagrams), and the distinction between solid/fluid/gas seems comical once you get to those extremes. So too with your tier system; well, that's fair.


I'd just treat pointless like I treat LA -0: it's anything from "too weak to play at ECL = HD" to "flame striking otyugh this is weaker than a pig-bond commoner with a luhix addiction". I mean, you got to cover all your bases, including the really bad ones :smalltongue:.

[VisitingDaGulag]

What's wrong with the definitions in the initial thread?

[AvatarVecna]

What's wrong with the definitions in the initial thread?

To put it simply, they're vague and open-ended, and because of the vagueness of those definitions, of what qualifies as competent or versatile, one can argue that many classes could be this tier or that tier or what have you. I'm hoping to get a more set definition (with roles defined by the aforementioend Niche System, competency determined by appropriate CRs, and so on), with the hopes of later on having a thread where classes are assigned a new tier based not on general intuitions of where they fall based on where other classes perform, but based on how many roles they fill, how well they fill those roles, and how easily they can change both of those things - a thread where people can present evidence that class so-and-so can be built in such-and-such way that it can fill this role or that role to some degree of competency, to prove that it should be this tier or that tier.

TL;DR having a more codified definition for the tiers will make arguments about where a class should be tiered less about feelings and more about numbers, which should (hopefully) lead to less arguing due to people's opinions conflicting.

I know, I know, high hopes sure to be shattered, but I can dream. :smalltongue:

[Aimeryan]

You mentioned it yourself, there is an issue with where power and versatility are not equal at all points:


Something may be "Strong" power in one or two roles, while only "Average" power in others, and "Complex" versatility.
Something else may be "Strong" power in all of its roles, and "Complex" versatility.


Are these two the same? I would suggest not, but the system proposed wont handle it.

Indeed, a similar issue crops up with Bard and Psychic Warrior:


A Bard is "Strong" power in some of its roles (notably those revolving around buffing and bluffing), while only "Average" power in others. It is, however, "Complex" versatility.
A Psychic Warrior is "Strong" in all of its roles, although it is only "Simple" versatility.


The Bard is either a full tier ahead or not at all, depending on whether you choose "Strong" or "Average" for power.

Another issue that could be highlighted here is that all of the Psychic Warrior's roles are combat-orientated, even if it is not a "One-Trick-Pony", while the Bard has roles in both social and combat situations. Lets suppose the overall number of roles covered by the two were the same/similar, the Bard would still be more versatile in my opinion for having covered both combat and social situations. The proposed system doesn't cover this facet of versatility.

Basically, I don't think a tiering system is that good at covering such a number of variables. Personman's Niche system was/is the best I've seen at truly getting into where the classes are, although it is a little too coarse-grained. This issue is probably best highlighted by looking at the chart for Monk and Barbarian and then noting the final score.

[Calthropstu]

Weren't there like a dozen threads doing this like 6 months ago?

And that's my feedback. It bores me to... tiers.

[Gruftzwerg]

Imho the tiers need just to be split in versatility (ability wise) and combat power.

The regular tier system does a good job when comparing the versatile power of classes/builds. But it doesn't say much about the combat power.

Think about uberchargers. All builds fall into T3 or T4 and you can't say much about the builds with telling the tier they are in.
We need give the builds points for combat power in terms of:
- dmg per single attack
- dmg per round
- how well can the dmg be applied (is there enough mobility)
- defenses: how easy or hard can you be shut down (SuckOrSave spells/effects, ambushes, vision depandent...?)

we need Combat Power lvls and definition for it imho.

[AvatarVecna]

You mentioned it yourself, there is an issue with where power and versatility are not equal at all points:


Something may be "Strong" power in one or two roles, while only "Average" power in others, and "Complex" versatility.
Something else may be "Strong" power in all of its roles, and "Complex" versatility.


Are these two the same? I would suggest not, but the system proposed wont handle it.

Indeed, a similar issue crops up with Bard and Psychic Warrior:


A Bard is "Strong" power in some of its roles (notably those revolving around buffing and bluffing), while only "Average" power in others. It is, however, "Complex" versatility.
A Psychic Warrior is "Strong" in all of its roles, although it is only "Simple" versatility.


The Bard is either a full tier ahead or not at all, depending on whether you choose "Strong" or "Average" for power.

Another issue that could be highlighted here is that all of the Psychic Warrior's roles are combat-orientated, even if it is not a "One-Trick-Pony", while the Bard has roles in both social and combat situations. Lets suppose the overall number of roles covered by the two were the same/similar, the Bard would still be more versatile in my opinion for having covered both combat and social situations. The proposed system doesn't cover this facet of versatility.

Basically, I don't think a tiering system is that good at covering such a number of variables. Personman's Niche system was/is the best I've seen at truly getting into where the classes are, although it is a little too coarse-grained. This issue is probably best highlighted by looking at the chart for Monk and Barbarian and then noting the final score.

This is, in fact, the purpose of this thread: people either presenting their own proposed tier definitions, or pointing out potential flaws/problems in my own to be addressed. I'm currently figuring out a good way to use the existence of the Niche System mentioned upthread to make differences like this easier for the system to account for.


Weren't there like a dozen threads doing this like 6 months ago?

And that's my feedback. It bores me to... tiers.

Sort of. Those threads were about reassigning classes to the tiers as they were originally defined, but ran into a few problems on both premise and implementation. For starters, the existing tier "definitions" were more observations about similarities between classes that performed approximately as well as each other...which meant that right out of the gate, the original tier system had two definitions for every tier: "a class is tier X if it is about as powerful as these other classes (which all have this vague descriptor Y in common)" or "a class is tier X if has Y in common with these other classes". Secondly, the re-tiering of classes was based on an opinion-based voting system in which anybody could throw in their two cents, including their mechanical arguments for why they're opinion on where classes (instead of builds) fit into the vague, not-all-that-well-defined tier system. To make matters worse, the voting for particular classes was only open for a brief fraction of time that the thread as a whole was open. You go back and read those threads, and you'll see that most of it's just arguing that Beguiler was mis-tiered...which was one of the earlier classes in the thread.

The point of this thread is fixing the first problem - that the tiers aren't super-well defined in the first place. By getting a definition that's based on mechanics and benchmarks for competency ("this class fills these Niche System roles, and fills those roles this well" or "this class can fill any three of these ten roles at this level of performance, and can change between those three this easily" instead of "this class feels better than a bard but worse than a wizard" or "this class is a spontaneous caster that knows its whole list"), the intended follow-up re-tiering thread will have fewer problems.

It will also eliminate the other problems by being run differently: namely, rather than a direct voting system, I'll start the thread having figured out how my proto-tiering system in this thread will use the numbers in the Niche System thread to extract a new tier, and that will be the assigned tier for that class...at which point people can make arguments that such-and-such class fills so-and-so role better or worse than the Niche System thread gives it credit for, and that because of that change in how we know X class performs at Y role, the tier for class X should change based on the rules laid out in the OP of this retiering-thread-to-be. The people in the thread can then vote on whether they think the proposed change makes sense based on the rules put forth. Voting also won't ever really close.

[Aimeryan]

It is more that I feel that a tier system is inherently unsuited to complexity such as defining power, versatility, flexibility, trap-choices, etc., over levels, all while dependent on campaign styles such as heavy combat focus vs mostly social, magic mart vs loot-only... a tier system merely states an overall feeling of the class. It is simple, but not specific. It informs, while telling you very little.

Personman's Niche system is far more suited to this. I would be interested in a thread defining roles/solutions and having a far greater granularity than was present in Personman's. However, another tier definition thread that fails to understand that a tier system is just not suitable for what they want to express/quantify seems almost pointless.

[GrayDeath]

Hmmm....... setting aside the necessity to redefine tiers, whichd eoends on opinion and ivnestment in meta-parts of a game, these dont seem bad.

As far as I can see at the moment, the system overall should work very well, but it needs a very good/clearly defined seperation (with loads of examples for some classes, say bard) between the Power Levels. Versatility and Flexibility are easier in that regard.

Afterthought:
It might also be good to seperate them into 2 tables, one for up to, the other for above Level 10.

[EldritchWeaver]

I am missing optimization as a separate thing. Wizards can be tier 5 blasters or tier 1 setting breakers, just by changing the spell loadout. Effectively, I'd like to see a measure of how much effort it is to get to a competent state by showing what the floor and ceiling are.

[GrayDeath]

Thats easily achieved.

Give all Classes that need high effort/mastery to achieve their potential (which is still what tiers measure, no?^^) an asterisk and leave the tiers as (re)defined. :)

[Florian]

I am missing optimization as a separate thing. Wizards can be tier 5 blasters or tier 1 setting breakers, just by changing the spell loadout. Effectively, I'd like to see a measure of how much effort it is to get to a competent state by showing what the floor and ceiling are.

That's pretty pointless. Tiers only indicate the inherent power level of a class before you're starting to optimize it, as well as how much optimization effort it'd take to bring a class to higher tiers in terms of performance.

While there's the Blaster and the God Wizard, which can both be done on the same chassis by chasing a spell load-out, there's the Fighter and then there's the Iron Wizard, which vastly differ by build choices.

[EldritchWeaver]

That's pretty pointless. Tiers only indicate the inherent power level of a class before you're starting to optimize it, as well as how much optimization effort it'd take to bring a class to higher tiers in terms of performance.

It's not pointless. Everyone talks about how powerful a wizard can be, but then you dig deeper and you notice that there are a number of choices (while spells are important, ACFs/archetypes/prestige classes play also a part) which change the effectiveness of the build. In particular, if you need to discard 98% of the existing material to get to Tier 1 or even Tier 0 stuff. No newbie is capable of doing that, but if they chose wizard for being tier 1 and then build a blaster without seeing that this is a possibility, the tier system has failed. Maybe adding not merely the high points of power and versatility, but also the low points, too?


While there's the Blaster and the God Wizard, which can both be done on the same chassis by chasing a spell load-out, there's the Fighter and then there's the Iron Wizard, which vastly differ by build choices.

Irrelevant to my point, since these are different classes. Unless you are talking about the PF Iron Caster. Which is the same point as above.

To OP: Looking closer at the table, I'm confused how you get the numbers. Pointless On-Trick-Pony gets a 7, but are valued as 0? Or -0? Not sure if that is meant as negative number or not.

[death390]

i would like to throw in

optimization Floor (or suitable replacement meaning same thing)

~0 has so many trap options that system mastery is needed to know what not to take on accident.

~1 has several glaring trap options shoved in its face that don't work well unless you know how to work around them.

~2 while it has several trap options most of them come from the basic series of trap options, very few cater to the class directly.

~3 the only trap options are the ones designed for use by all classes (IE run, 1H0S fighting,)