Tier Levels

[tstewt1921]

I see a lot about I need a tier 3 build or a tier 1 build and what not, I have never heard anything about this or where this even comes from. Why is this a thing?? Every class in D&D has it's uses so why do some groups restrict players to certain tiers? If anyone could explain this that would be wonderful.

[Grod_The_Giant]

http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=t0j4b7ndsq3fon43n30cib2h62&topic=658
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?269440-Why-Each-Class-Is-In-Its-Tier-%28Rescued-from-MinMax%29

Basically, different base classes have different amounts of oomph. There are classes like the Fighter that can hit people and not much else; there are classes like the Druid who can hit people and has an animal friend who hits people and has a huge swathe of spells that can re-shape the battlefield and sidestep entire questlines; and there are classes like the Monk who can't even do one thing very well. The Tier System is an attempt to sort and explain that, so groups can know to be careful about having, say, a Druid and a Monk in the same party. Some games will limit class availability based on Tier in an attempt to make sure that everyone in the party can contribute equally.

[Coventry]

I see a lot about I need a tier 3 build or a tier 1 build and what not, I have never heard anything about this or where this even comes from. Why is this a thing?? Every class in D&D has it's uses so why do some groups restrict players to certain tiers? If anyone could explain this that would be wonderful.

"Tier" is nothing official - it is simply a perspective of the relative ability of a given class in the game to do it's job. I'm going to quote from Power's discussion of Pathfinder tiers (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=11990.0), but there are variations of this list that you can find with a google search:


Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played 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.

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 itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. 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 are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility.

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

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.

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 poorly.

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 is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

Mechanically, the difference between a well-played tier 1 character and a well-played tier 6 character will be that the first totally outshines the second. One of your players may be utterly bored senseless.

Whether or not this is a bad thing depends entirely on the psychology of your players. If the person playing a tier 4 character is happy being in the shadows of a tier 1, then great!

How does this play out? A DM that tries to let everyone shine will find that a tier-5 in a group of tier-1s only shines in one type of encounter. That naturally leads to making every third encounter be that type. Fifteen sessions later, most everyone is bored with playing that same encounter over and over again, and the campaign withers. Or worse, the tier-1s tune themselves to own that one specific encounter type, and then the tier-5 has nothing left.

But there are some other things to consider:

A poorly-played tier 1 can stink worse than a well-played tier 6.
Campaign-specific details can affect the relative value of specific class or build.

[Fizban]

If you're aware enough of the game that you know every class has a use, then you don't need anyone's tiers.

[Pleh]

If you're aware enough of the game that you know every class has a use, then you don't need anyone's tiers.

And also that some classes have literally every use, while others have few or one (and generally are inferior at that one thing compared to the classes good at everything).

[King of Nowhere]

tiers become more relevant at higher levels of optimization.

Casual players don't need tiers. In their hand, a wizard is not more powerful than a fighter.

Veteran players can work around tiers. A wizard can do everything the fighter does and do it better, but having the fighter there will free the wizard resources that he can use elsewhere.

hardcore optimizers must use tiers. A wizard there will defeat in one round enemies that the fighter can't even approach, leading to a very boring game for the fighter (and possibly the wizard, that must be careful to not accidentally kill that loser companion with some area spell)


Tiers are also more relevant at higher levels. A low level wizard can disable a single boss or a bunch of thugs with a sleep spell; but he has very few spells, and if the enemies luck their saving throw, or if they are somehow immune, then the wizard is left with nothing. At high level a wizard can alter the whole campaign world with a single spell, the fighter can at most face and kill a demon that the wizard can summon several times per day.

[Gnaeus]

tiers become more relevant at higher levels of optimization.

Casual players don't need tiers. In their hand, a wizard is not more powerful than a fighter.

Tiers are also more relevant at higher levels. A low level wizard can disable a single boss or a bunch of thugs with a sleep spell; but he has very few spells, and if the enemies luck their saving throw, or if they are somehow immune, then the wizard is left with nothing. At high level a wizard can alter the whole campaign world with a single spell, the fighter can at most face and kill a demon that the wizard can summon several times per day.

The wizard may not be. But the casual Druid certainly is. And the casual wizard can certainly pick individual spells stronger than a casual fighter, so any level could completely rewrite the game math.

The tiers are most relevant 6-15. Moderately 1-5, least 16-20

[Nifft]

I see a lot about I need a tier 3 build or a tier 1 build and what not, I have never heard anything about this or where this even comes from. Why is this a thing?? Every class in D&D has it's uses so why do some groups restrict players to certain tiers? If anyone could explain this that would be wonderful.

Generally I've seen Tiers used to reduce potential player frustration.

Even in games that are at low-optimization, in good-faith, and not intentionally abusing anything, you can end up with a situation like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw

[Cosi]

If you're aware enough of the game that you know every class has a use, then you don't need anyone's tiers.

No one cares if you are more useful than nothing. The Commoner manages to reach that lowly bar. People care if you are more useful than the character you are displacing (because rational people understand what "opportunity cost" is), and the reality is that if you measure that way some classes simply don't measure up. A Fighter is not as good as a Wizard, and to pretend he is would be an insult to both players.

Now, as it happens, the particular tiers that people on this forum talk about are fairly bad because they lack any kind of empirical grounding, but the idea that imbalance isn't real is a naive fantasy perpetrated by people who believe that designers shouldn't have to produce good products.

[King of Nowhere]

The wizard may not be. But the casual Druid certainly is. And the casual wizard can certainly pick individual spells stronger than a casual fighter, so any level could completely rewrite the game math.

The tiers are most relevant 6-15. Moderately 1-5, least 16-20

I don't think your "casual players" are my casual players.
I have players that, without directions, would be less powerful with a druid than with a fighter.

[Gnaeus]

I don't think your "casual players" are my casual players.
I have players that, without directions, would be less powerful with a druid than with a fighter.

That’s odd, because once he realizes having a pet wolf sounds all cool and house Starkish he is ahead of the fighter beginning at level 1, and if he’s read the hobbit and realizes he can turn into a bear it’s all over but the math. A casual fighter can’t compete with bear and pet bear. I usually set as my standard for casual optimization (takes mostly or entirely core options based on what sounds cool) and by that standard Druid stomps all over mundane melee. There’s a reason the giant describes Druid as “I have class features that are stronger than your entire class”.

[eggynack]

The tiers are most relevant 6-15. Moderately 1-5, least 16-20
This doesn't seem all that accurate. The inverse statement, that various level ranges factor into tiering with that ordering, is an accurate one, but that one doesn't follow from this one. A fighter is going to be way more overshadowed by a wizard at level 17 than at level 10. Of course, there's weird bumpiness hanging about, like how healers and truenamers go up some tiers at late levels, meaning they'll be less overshadowed at higher levels, but I think the broad trend of the tier system is that it becomes more and more relevant when you increase the level.

[King of Nowhere]

That’s odd, because once he realizes having a pet wolf sounds all cool and house Starkish he is ahead of the fighter beginning at level 1, and if he’s read the hobbit and realizes he can turn into a bear it’s all over but the math. A casual fighter can’t compete with bear and pet bear. I usually set as my standard for casual optimization (takes mostly or entirely core options based on what sounds cool) and by that standard Druid stomps all over mundane melee. There’s a reason the giant describes Druid as “I have class features that are stronger than your entire class”.

ok, so maybe there's the fact that the casual fighter is still a tad bit better than the casual druid, or maybe it's just general ignorance regarding the druids...

the thing is that powergaming a druid is far more difficult that most people here seems to assume. Your pet animal is so awfully weak, our group forgets about it for half the fights, and treat it as comedy relief in the other half. A bear is no match for even a suboptimal fighter with the same hd. and druidic spells before level 6 are mostly support. I've been playing the game for years, and yet I never figured out how to use a druid effectively. To me a druid is somebody that is basically a cleric without armor, has an animal companion that is useless in combat, has spells less powerful than those of a cleric at least until the mid levels, and can turn into an animal that has a lot of attack that deals negligible damage and awfully low AC that will get chopped to pieces easily.
That's until you reach high level enough that you can stay in animal shape all day, but for some reason I find the concept distasteful.

[Gnaeus]

ok, so maybe there's the fact that the casual fighter is still a tad bit better than the casual druid, or maybe it's just general ignorance regarding the druids...

the thing is that powergaming a druid is far more difficult that most people here seems to assume. Your pet animal is so awfully weak, our group forgets about it for half the fights, and treat it as comedy relief in the other half. A bear is no match for even a suboptimal fighter with the same hd. and druidic spells before level 6 are mostly support. I've been playing the game for years, and yet I never figured out how to use a druid effectively. To me a druid is somebody that is basically a cleric without armor, has an animal companion that is useless in combat, has spells less powerful than those of a cleric at least until the mid levels, and can turn into an animal that has a lot of attack that deals negligible damage and awfully low AC that will get chopped to pieces easily.
That's until you reach high level enough that you can stay in animal shape all day, but for some reason I find the concept distasteful.

I did it by accident before I ever read a guide. The wolf has 2 HD and a free trip attack. Your fighter took TWF and Toughness? The wolf is likely better. Also likely better than level 1 monk, ranger or Paladin. And it has its own second character, who can at least be standing behind it dropping cure light woundses.

The bear is fantastic. By the time you get it, you already have barkskin and greater magic fang, core. Your fighter has now added power attack and dodge to his toughness twf combo. You have less attacks than the bear. Your maximum damage and average damage are worse than the bear. And the bear has a free flanking buddy, who trips targets, assuming that the Druid didn’t upgrade to an ape or another bear. Your casual fighter is wolf poo before you even factor in the spellcasting.

[Fizban]

A bear is no match for even a suboptimal fighter with the same hd. and druidic spells before level 6 are mostly support. . .
That's until you reach high level enough that you can stay in animal shape all day, but for some reason I find the concept distasteful.
Like Gnaeus already answered, it's the bear. The Brown Bear specifically, which isn't available until 7th. It's basically got endgame strength, 3 attacks, and built in grapple, (which is enough to knock over the fighter on paper, see Gnaeus's straw fighter) as far as they're concerned and competes easily against basically everything until probably CR 12 or so with some buffs- after which you can upgrade to an even bigger animal or the "fighter" becomes completely irrelevant depending on their view. You can stay in wild shape "all day" at 6th, since you get wild shape 2/day the very next level after you get wild shape, for 12 hours per day.

So I expect the difference comes from your games not going much past 10th, not piling a whackload of buffs on the animal (which includes encounters built to deny or waste buff spells, a standard anti-spellcaster supremacy tactic), possibly also from using actual monsters that animals aren't good against, and people playing mid-range fighters that are straight up better than an animal without being broken. In short, your table does not play in a way that makes paper druids crazy overpowered.

[eggynack]

Druidic spells before level 6 are mostly support.
Not precisely sure what you mean here. Like, how are you defining support? Is wall of thorns "support"? Control winds? Entangle? Even core only, it seems like a weird way to classify a lot of what the druid is doing.

[Gnaeus]

Like Gnaeus already answered, it's the bear. The Brown Bear specifically, which isn't available until 7th. It's basically got endgame strength, 3 attacks, and built in grapple, (which is enough to knock over the fighter on paper, see Gnaeus's straw fighter) as far as they're concerned and competes easily against basically everything until probably CR 12 or so with some buffs- after which you can upgrade to an even bigger animal or the "fighter" becomes completely irrelevant depending on their view. You can stay in wild shape "all day" at 6th, since you get wild shape 2/day the very next level after you get wild shape, for 12 hours per day.

So I expect the difference comes from your games not going much past 10th, not piling a whackload of buffs on the animal (which includes encounters built to deny or waste buff spells, a standard anti-spellcaster supremacy tactic), possibly also from using actual monsters that animals aren't good against, and people playing mid-range fighters that are straight up better than an animal without being broken. In short, your table does not play in a way that makes paper druids crazy overpowered.

I don’t feel at all bad about the fighter. By the time the “casual fighter” is doing more than picking essentially random cool sounding feats, so should the Druid. Core melee Druid can have improved grapple or trip by 3. And by the time we’ve hit upper low op should have learned that you barkskin and GMF yourself and pet before you bear. Even the black bear has 19 str and is an acceptable grappler, and even at fifth level the 4hd wolf can chew the face off a grappled target.

[emeraldstreak]

On great number of isolated tables fighters and monks are believed to be stronger than druids and wizards. Causes range from bad choices to bad tactics to DM interventions that are NOT recognized as such.

[King of Nowhere]

then in my case we probably have casual fighters who are better than casual druids. fighters still get decent feats, druids don't use any buff spell, then the fight starts and they eiher blast as glass cannon, or they lose actions to cast buff spells.

[death390]

i use this page for my tier list.
https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/38201/what-are-tiers-and-what-tier-is-each-class

the thing about tiers that everyone is not talking about is that the different tiers also have a ingrained chunk of system mastery requirements.

basic system mastery for ALL classes is knowledge not to pick the trap options that are available to every class IE things like run, dual skill booster, or dodge. (barring extremely niche builds or pre-reqs)

T1 & T2 generally have a lot more trap options in feat and casting choices (because all t1-2 are spellcasters, artificers also have their building options to choose from with their infusion spells) quite possibly the lowest common sense skill floor due to so many good looking options that are literally traps (IE metamagic with no reducers is a great example)

T3 are mostly highly specialized casters, have fixed spell lists, or cast so little that their spell choices don't make as much of a difference. thankfully their style is often focused in one direction or so open that you can try to do anything, needs only basic system mastery to make a competent character. honestly doesn't have many specialized trap options beyond standard spellcaster traps.

T4 so focused in one direction that you only need basic system mastery to make a competent character. several of these classes have specialized traps but are not nearly as problematic as the upper tiers. as long as you know the mundane traps (2h vs 2weapon vs sword and board) and specialize your character "should" work.

T5 flavor filled classes that are often so limited by their flavor that they dont work except in specific circumstances. these classes have a extremely low system mastery ceiling but their skill floor is about the same as a T4.

T6 we dont talk about T6.

[Goaty14]

You might want to look at the reasoning behind the tiers (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?269440-Why-Each-Class-Is-In-Its-Tier-(Rescued-from-MinMax)).

[Calthropstu]

These threads always leave people in...
Tiers.