Tiers Vs. Anti-Tiers [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Cosi

2018-11-16, 08:13 AM

I mean, I think that the original 3.5 (3e?) Tier list is a load of Melarchy, pushing an agenda, and otherwise terrible.

To expound on this, the original tiers have a lot of problems.

Some of those are pretty basic "JaronK doesn't know what he's talking about" things like "planar binding gives you infinite money, you can buy magic circle castings with money, JaronK things not having magic circle is a major weakness for a character with planar binding" or "JaronK thinks your Factotum will be able to get a favorable interpretation of a web enhancement feat, but that your Beguiler won't ever do anything to expand her list".

But there are also structural problems with how the list is created. The idea of ranking classes purely in a vacuum is nonsense, because class abilities effect the value of all sorts of other things, so even if that wasn't unevenly applied (consider: why is the Artificer allowed to spend his wealth on crafting if we aren't considering WBL?), that would be a dumb idea. It also leads to dumb knock-on projects where you try to do tiers for PrCs or Items that themselves disregard interaction effects. There's also no meaningful ability to test the tiers. There's no attempt made to explicate what the predictions of the Tier System are, let alone how you would figure out if those predictions were right or not.

That last point ties into one of the big ongoing problems of the tiers, which is that because they're poorly defined, people tend to assume they mean "whatever my balance hobby horse is". Also, despite the fact that when you say "Tiers" in literally any other context people assume you mean "power ranking", people will come out of the woodwork to insist that understanding the Tiers as a power ranking is missing the point. Oh, and people try to use the Tiers as guidelines for balancing new material, which is hot nonsense.

Finally, the biggest problem with the Tiers is that they mostly aren't wrong. Wizards are better than Fighters and Sorcerers. Rogues are worse than Druids. The issue is that there are small but important inaccuracies, and that the system as a whole is build on faulty logic, not that the particular rankings are backwards.

It used to be balanced with the experience point table as well.

It was, but that was never a particularly good idea, or (as I understand it) all that effective. If you can give a Wizard and a Rogue equally large piles of XP abilities such that they're roughly equivalent in terms of impact and viability, you could just normalize things so that they were the same level. And in AD&D, it was still very much a caster's game at high levels (even if there was enough fuzzing to make that less pronounced).

So in what way are the tier lists only about combat?

There's some truth to the notion that it's more focused on combat, but that's because combat is where you can draw clear conclusions about disparate capabilities. If one character can defeat a Babau and another can defeat a Stone Giant, you have an obvious axis for comparison of those capabilities -- the CR of the creatures involved -- in a way that you don't if one character can walk on water and another can speak to animals. That means that it tends to take a comparatively much larger swing in non-combat capability to influence people's assessments, because it's much harder to make a clear case based on non-combat options.

John05

2018-11-16, 10:33 AM

Wasn't there a lot of discussion on how the upper tiers do much more than just "squash bad guys in combat well", and that's why they're up there in the first place?

To me, the reason they're up there is because of how game defining/warping they are.

Obviously, *everything* is up to the DM in the end. He sets the environment, the rules, etc. So if one player is hogging too much of the limelight, and the DM wants everyone to have their time to shine, then the DM can clearly do something about it. So the metric of "power" in classes and prestige classes in the top tiers has less to do with just explicit numbers and mechanics, but abstractly: How much of a pain in the ass they are for the DM to work around while avoiding DM fiat ("No you can't do that.... because uhh. I say so") and ruining DM/player transparency wrt the rules.

If I define *somewhat* self-consistent world with monsters that follow my rules without invoking DM fiat (for the sole purpose of "balancing" the PC party), and one class is causing me to warp my world more than another, I consider that class "more powerful".

If I have a well crafted kingdom, with history, politics, defenses (including monsters), and a druid can just fly over, cast earthquake, destroy half the castle, and kill the king and half the nobles on an easy afternoon... that's world-breaking to me. I need to shape my world just to deal with that class. If my BBEG and his organization that I spent hours crafting can be taken out by a scry or die and I need to spend extra hours coming up with plans/contingencies against a party's wizard... that's a lot of extra work. This is in contrast to say the party's fighter for whom I'd spend MUCH less time just picking a fat bruiser of a monster in his way and call it a day (unless he bought an item that allowed him to imitate what the wizard, cleric, or druid can do).

While that's arguably a limitation of our brains being unable to naturally accommodate for caster classes, I'd argue that that should still factor. All of us DMs are IRL raised in non-magic envs, so we're used to thinking of worlds defined by non-magic, and thus caster classes have a higher chance of warping fantastic environments we conjure up with our imaginations. On the other hand, I think it's implied by game theory that players with the most options tend to have higher likelihood of "winning" or at least being much more difficult to go against, and caster classes certainly have a lot more "options" to worry about.

It's definitely not *just* about combat. It really is about upper tiers being able to "do anything". The DM has to put a lot more effort into accommodating for upper tiers. No one needs to state the obvious that "Oh it's the DM's job to check what he allows into his game." The point is the DM has to actually spend much more time reading over and thinking about the consequences each time the wizard/sorcerer says, "Can I pick this spell for my next level?" vs a Monk saying "I'll take this combat feat for my next level."

Darth Ultron

2018-11-16, 12:20 PM

The tier list is a guidepost. It helps people make informed decisions about the game and how they'd like to play it, or design for it. This "classic game" you're talking about never existed.

In the Role Playing games that existed before 2000, mechanics did not matter as much.

People get way too worked up about Tiering and seem to forget that it's just a handy tool for gauging a character's potential ability to respond to different situations. .

Tiers is all about Roll Playing:

DM:Player you encounter obstacle type one.
Player:Me character uses their obstacle type one ability, and I rolled 100.
DM:You pass the obstacle, good game!

Let's beat the dead horse I guess.

Undead Wild Stallions!

Opposite of reality. If you aren't concerned with tiers, then you'll probably have no problems with the Combat part of "roll playing". The idea with tiers is to rank the class capability of resolving things outside the scope of just going into a dungeon, killing monsters and grabbing the loot.

But I guess you wouldn't really know, since all you do, know and talk about is "roll play".

It's not just combat, it's all rolling game play.

Roll play: DM: The door has a DC of 15 to open/Player: I use my Open Door Ability and roll a 20.

Role Play: DM:The door is locked. Player(leaves dice on the table): Ok, I need to figure out some way to get past or around the door (player then tries and figures out ways to do this)

So, yes, if your in a roll playing game...where a character can only take roll playing actions, the tiers matter. If your in a role playing game, where the characters can at least try anything...the tiers are just silly.

The three examples given are:
1: Dragon in a trap filled cave. That has combat in the dragon, but also has non-combat in getting to the dragon.
2: Find and ally with an underground rebel group. Has no combat except what the players or GM force.
3: Help a city prepare for an upcoming war. This is combat adjacent, but the actual task has no combat at all.

So in what way are the tier lists only about combat?

I missed those examples, but they would still all be Adventure Roll Playing. It's still not the players role playing, or thinking outside the rules...it's just the players playing a narrowly focused game by the narrow rules.

Nifft

2018-11-16, 12:24 PM

In the Role Playing games that existed before 2000, mechanics did not matter as much.

Actually back then we had to do stuff like calculate the cubic volume of a whole dungeon just to adjudicate one spell being cast (fireball).

That involved cylinders, pyramids, and other math which seemed pretty intense to my 5th grade self.

Mechanics won battles, just like mechanics always wins battles.

We built tank-golems with spells, too.

It was pretty great.

eggynack

2018-11-16, 12:45 PM

DM:Player you encounter obstacle type one.
Player:Me character uses their obstacle type one ability, and I rolled 100.
DM:You pass the obstacle, good game!
Abilities are not typically labelled so conveniently. Anything you'd ever try to solve with, say, silent image, is inevitably going to be rather more complex than this.

It's not just combat, it's all rolling game play.
You literally said it was all about combat. You were wrong.

Roll play: DM: The door has a DC of 15 to open/Player: I use my Open Door Ability and roll a 20.

Role Play: DM:The door is locked. Player(leaves dice on the table): Ok, I need to figure out some way to get past or around the door (player then tries and figures out ways to do this)
A door could have a ridiculous number of mechanical solutions, some of which are very creative. Any "roleplaying" solution is inevitably going to have some mechanical center to it, just because it is fundamentally a problem of physics.

So, yes, if your in a roll playing game...where a character can only take roll playing actions, the tiers matter. If your in a role playing game, where the characters can at least try anything...the tiers are just silly.
Mechanical abilities expand your capacity to try things. A magically oriented character has more solutions available to any given problem, and a lot of those solutions are more efficient and/or more powerful. What are these role playing problems where magic or other abilities can't make things go smoother? The door clearly doesn't function as such, given that even with this "open door ability", that clearly works as an easy solution. The door is still present in the role playing game. The ability is still present in that game as well. How is the ability not helping with the problem?

BlackDragonKing

2018-11-16, 12:50 PM

I don't think there's really grounds for being "anti-tier" so much as there are people who think tiers are significant and people that ignore them.

The fact some classes can do more things and do them better than others isn't up for debate. This edition of Dungeons and Dragons was very specifically designed so that a well-built 20th level fighter is very good at fighting things and a well-built 20th level wizard is a demigod. That's just how the cookie crumbles.

You can say it doesn't matter to you that four is more than one because you like one better, and that's a perfectly valid view to have in my book. A less valid view would be insisting that 1 and 4 are the same or that 1 is more than 4 because you like them equally or prefer 1.

A cleric can do more things than a fighter can and if he wants to can quite competitively do the fighter's job while still being a miracle-worker. You can't argue with someone saying that makes the cleric's potential as a class higher than the fighter's. You can say the potential of the classes isn't that big a concern to you because your group is unlikely to tap the full potential of the classes that heavily and will just focus more on what comes naturally and try to keep things on an even keel.

In my view Tiers are objective fact but they're more of a tool for GMs than a way to sort good classes for bad. High-tier classes have more options (often many more options) than lower-tier classes in most cases, which means the GM needs to take that into account since there are more ways they can respond to the obstacles and opportunities the GM provides. A low tier class might not play badly, but the ways it can engage with an obstacle/opportunity are more limited and are easier to predict as a result.

What skills the rogue has invested in and will therefore try to use to solve problems, for example. It's a pretty good variety if the rogue's any good at their job but it's also a fixed investment that will scale linearly. You know what the rogue is good at and can take that into account when designing obstacles/opportunities with very minor adjustments as levels grow.

A prepared caster can be a different sort of challenge altogether. Their abilities can change dramatically from day to day and level to level because spells can have a huge impact on the game but are easier to swap out than feats or skill ranks. How a magic-user will respond to opportunities and obstacles isn't as predictable and so requires more planning most of the time, particularly since high-level magic offers numerous options not only to engage honestly with the obstacle/opportunity but to bypass it entirely, alter it into a different opportunity, or create an opportunity you had no intention of giving the party and letting them pursue that instead.

To sum up my view: Tiers exist and I don't think you can argue with that. You can ignore tiers if you don't feel they are relevant to your particular group's gameplay but that's not the same thing as the system being wrong.

ExLibrisMortis

2018-11-16, 12:57 PM

Actually back then we had to do stuff like calculate the cubic volume of a whole dungeon just to adjudicate one spell being cast (fireball).

That involved cylinders, pyramids, and other math which seemed pretty intense to my 5th grade self.
Best. Math. Class. Ever.

I think it's pretty well-accepted that two classes, built and played to the same degree of optimization, can vary wildly in mechanical power (and versatility, if you want to separate that out). There are a lot of different opinions on what all those words mean, exactly, and to what extent the mechanical differences are relevant to the game. Quertus, for example, thinks that the mechanical balance in 3.5 isn't a problem (or not a big one, or only at some tables), and as a consequence that the tier system isn't all that important, but he doesn't contest that there is a mechanical power difference (I'm pretty sure, correct me if I'm wrong, Quertus). Cosi, on the other hand, has problems with the definition of "same degree of optimization" (and other bits, I'm picking an example), which admittedly is a really hard thing to define, and seems to be a matter of consensus at best--but he, too, doesn't contest that there's a mechanical power difference.

If two big critics of the tier system are still agreed on the basic premise--that there is a (big) mechanical power difference between classes in 3.5--I think it's fair to say that denying that the power difference exists altogether is something of an outlying position. I think (and I didn't do a big survey, so don't go biting my head off if I'm wrong :smalltongue:) that most people on these forums who might be called (mildly) "anti-tiers" think along the lines of Quertus' and Cosi's posts, arguing--fairly--against the relevance, applicability, accuracy, etcetera of the system more than the primary observation behind it.

JNAProductions

2018-11-16, 01:03 PM

Yeah. Relevance can vary, the existence of the tiers cannot really be denied.

It's perfectly possible to play a Wizard in a table of new folk and have everyone feel they're contributing and having fun. Whether you (assuming you're an experienced player) intentionally pick less than optimal choices, or focus on optimizing party-friendly things (buffs, for example) the new players need not ever fear the tiers.

But to say that there's no real difference between a well-built Fighter and a well-built Wizard... That's foolish. The Fighter might rock the socks off combat (assuming they can reach the enemy) but the Wizard will still contribute pretty much as well to combat, and to most other things beside.

Pex

2018-11-16, 01:33 PM

One person's personal opinion does not dictate nor validate how one should play the game. You never need the Tier System's approval for anything. It is not evidence. It is not proof. It is not gospel.

Nifft

2018-11-16, 01:43 PM

Best. Math. Class. Ever. I would at least partially credit D&D with my own advanced placement in math, physics, and literature. The game has been a significant educational boon in my experience.

One person's personal opinion does not dictate nor validate how one should play the game. You never need the Tier System's approval for anything. It is not evidence. It is not proof. It is not gospel. There may be some magical thinking going on -- "Ssh! If we don't tell people that the game is like this, then the game won't be like this!" -- because from some perspectives the game appeared to be working well enough until the Internet started exposing its flaws.

Alabenson

2018-11-16, 02:08 PM

Honestly, I think half the problems people have with the Tier list comes from a misunderstanding as to what it was supposed to do. The idea was to provide a very rough guideline as to the problem-solving abilities of each class so DMs, and to a lesser extent players, could have an easier time identifying potential balance issues. That's about it. Trying to claim that the Tier list is flawed because it fails to do something other than that is a bit like saying your laptop is inherently flawed because it functions poorly as a frying pan.

The Insanity

2018-11-16, 03:51 PM

John05

2018-11-16, 04:18 PM

Tbh, I've never thought of it as a very useful tool for myself. A lot of it is intuitive. I just enjoy classifying things.

I take it to mean "how much marginally more effort certain classes are for the DM to work around".

High tiers take marginally more thought and consideration for DMs to work with. Obviously, a DM doesn't *have* to put much thought or consideration into anything, but if allowed to let a typical self-consistent fantasy setting progress, higher tiers will generally wreck **** if left unchecked.

Suppose a low-tier like a monk suddenly decided to cause damage or warp the world around him. What does he honestly do besides kill the people in a few cities before eventually running into a challenge?

In contrast, a high-tier like a cleric or wizard, left unchecked, can crush a nation and warp a self-consistent setting irrevocably.

It's not just the numeric/mechanical advantage but the narrative power. Obviously narrative impact relies mostly on the player. If I give Alice 5 options/powers but give Bob over 100 options, but Bob only thinks of using one of his 100 options while Alice fully utilizes 2 of her 5 options beautifully and impactfully, she had more narrative impact. I'd still say I gave Bob more power and options, did I not? Yes, the player mattered the most, but factoring that, we can still make reasonable observations about the classes (options offered) themselves. This should be obvious.

JNAProductions

2018-11-16, 04:20 PM

Tbh, I've never thought of it as a very useful tool for myself. A lot of it is intuitive. I just enjoy classifying things.

I take it to mean "how much marginally more effort certain classes are for the DM to work around".

High tiers take marginally more thought and consideration for DMs to work with. Obviously, a DM doesn't *have* to put much thought or consideration into anything, but if allowed to let a typical self-consistent fantasy setting progress, higher tiers will generally wreck **** if left unchecked.

Suppose a low-tier like a monk suddenly decided to cause damage or warp the world around him. What does he honestly do besides kill the people in a few cities before eventually running into a challenge?

In contrast, a high-tier like a cleric or wizard, left unchecked, can crush a nation and warp a self-consistent setting irrevocably.

I wouldn't consider it THAT intuitive, if you don't frequent forums, since the books act under the assumption that any PC of level X is equal to any other PC of level X, regardless of class.

Cosi

2018-11-16, 06:52 PM

If I have a well crafted kingdom, with history, politics, defenses (including monsters), and a druid can just fly over, cast earthquake, destroy half the castle, and kill the king and half the nobles on an easy afternoon... that's world-breaking to me.

No, it just means you didn't have a well-crafted kingdom. If you created a kingdom where the king was appointed by arm-wrestling competition, populated it with people with STR 8 and a STR 12 king, a STR 18 Barbarian could "break" the political system. The problem there isn't the Barbarian.

The point is the DM has to actually spend much more time reading over and thinking about the consequences each time the wizard/sorcerer says, "Can I pick this spell for my next level?" vs a Monk saying "I'll take this combat feat for my next level."

I don't disagree about that necessarily, but you're depicting it in a very one-sided way. The player-focused way of looking at that phenomenon is that there's no ability the Monk can pick that has a real impact on the plot. If the DM doesn't have to change things based on your actions, there's a very real sense in which you are no longer necessary to the whole enterprise of "playing Dungeons and Dragons".

To sum up my view: Tiers exist and I don't think you can argue with that. You can ignore tiers if you don't feel they are relevant to your particular group's gameplay but that's not the same thing as the system being wrong.

Yeah. Relevance can vary, the existence of the tiers cannot really be denied.

That's not quite right. Imbalance cannot be denied or argued with. But the tiers represent a specific framework for conceptualizing that imbalance, and a specific set of theories about why that imbalance exists and what things contribute to it. Those things could be wrong. If you were to show (for example) that imbalance only exists because people pick different magic items on different character builds, the tiers would be wrong because they say that imbalance can be observed purely on the class level. There are plenty of frameworks for talking about imbalance (and balance) that aren't the tiers. Some of them are better than the tiers. In particular, I think test-driven frameworks have big advantages over the tiers in terms of objectivity of judgment.

saying your laptop is inherently flawed because it functions poorly as a frying pan.

If you call something a frying pan, you can't reasonably complain when people judge it based on its ability to fry food. "Tiers" means "power rankings" in the overwhelming majority of contexts in which it is used. If JaronK wanted to do something else, he should have picked a different name.

The Random NPC

2018-11-16, 07:22 PM

To expound on this, the original tiers have a lot of problems.

Some of those are pretty basic "JaronK doesn't know what he's talking about" things like "planar binding gives you infinite money, you can buy magic circle castings with money, JaronK things not having magic circle is a major weakness for a character with planar binding" or "JaronK thinks your Factotum will be able to get a favorable interpretation of a web enhancement feat, but that your Beguiler won't ever do anything to expand her list".

But there are also structural problems with how the list is created. The idea of ranking classes purely in a vacuum is nonsense, because class abilities effect the value of all sorts of other things, so even if that wasn't unevenly applied (consider: why is the Artificer allowed to spend his wealth on crafting if we aren't considering WBL?), that would be a dumb idea. It also leads to dumb knock-on projects where you try to do tiers for PrCs or Items that themselves disregard interaction effects. There's also no meaningful ability to test the tiers. There's no attempt made to explicate what the predictions of the Tier System are, let alone how you would figure out if those predictions were right or not.

That last point ties into one of the big ongoing problems of the tiers, which is that because they're poorly defined, people tend to assume they mean "whatever my balance hobby horse is". Also, despite the fact that when you say "Tiers" in literally any other context people assume you mean "power ranking", people will come out of the woodwork to insist that understanding the Tiers as a power ranking is missing the point. Oh, and people try to use the Tiers as guidelines for balancing new material, which is hot nonsense.

Finally, the biggest problem with the Tiers is that they mostly aren't wrong. Wizards are better than Fighters and Sorcerers. Rogues are worse than Druids. The issue is that there are small but important inaccuracies, and that the system as a whole is build on faulty logic, not that the particular rankings are backwards.

It was, but that was never a particularly good idea, or (as I understand it) all that effective. If you can give a Wizard and a Rogue equally large piles of XP abilities such that they're roughly equivalent in terms of impact and viability, you could just normalize things so that they were the same level. And in AD&D, it was still very much a caster's game at high levels (even if there was enough fuzzing to make that less pronounced).

There's some truth to the notion that it's more focused on combat, but that's because combat is where you can draw clear conclusions about disparate capabilities. If one character can defeat a Babau and another can defeat a Stone Giant, you have an obvious axis for comparison of those capabilities -- the CR of the creatures involved -- in a way that you don't if one character can walk on water and another can speak to animals. That means that it tends to take a comparatively much larger swing in non-combat capability to influence people's assessments, because it's much harder to make a clear case based on non-combat options.
And that's fair, it does focus heavily on combat. It just isn't only about combat.

In the Role Playing games that existed before 2000, mechanics did not matter as much.

Tiers is all about Roll Playing:

DM:Player you encounter obstacle type one.
Player:Me character uses their obstacle type one ability, and I rolled 100.
DM:You pass the obstacle, good game!

Undead Wild Stallions!

It's not just combat, it's all rolling game play.

Roll play: DM: The door has a DC of 15 to open/Player: I use my Open Door Ability and roll a 20.

Role Play: DM:The door is locked. Player(leaves dice on the table): Ok, I need to figure out some way to get past or around the door (player then tries and figures out ways to do this)

So, yes, if your in a roll playing game...where a character can only take roll playing actions, the tiers matter. If your in a role playing game, where the characters can at least try anything...the tiers are just silly.

I missed those examples, but they would still all be Adventure Roll Playing. It's still not the players role playing, or thinking outside the rules...it's just the players playing a narrowly focused game by the narrow rules.

Examples 1 and 3 are Roll play incentivized enough that I'm not going to argue about it (there are role play solutions but whatever). Example 2 however, is almost the ur-example of Roleplay. Sure you can just cast divinations and Charm Person. But you could also role play going to the seediest bar and scoping out the joint until you find someone who seems like they'll lead you to the rebels. Maybe you capture and interrogate the guy until he cracks, maybe you start doing some jobs until he recommends you to the group. The possiblities are endless. If you see that and think, "ug, another roll play session" maybe you're the one that needs to roll play less.

RoboEmperor

2018-11-16, 07:43 PM

When anything creative you want to do with a spellcaster results in the mundanes becoming complete total deadweight you cannot deny the existence of tiers.

Minionmancy? All minions are superior to everything but the ubercharger, and some minions are superior to the ubercharger. Planar Binding/Ally, Simulacrum, Animate Dead, Ice Assassin
Blasting? Renders even the ubercharger obsolete
Buffing? Not even the ubercharger can land a single hit on you
BFC? It doesn't matter whether you have an Ubercharger or a normal fighter who grabs weapon focus. The fighter is irrelevant in determining the outcome of a fight.
Out of Combat Utility? Spellcasters can craft magic items, create flying fortresses, make entire kingdoms and create all 1million of its civilians, break the economy, etc. etc. Mundanes got zilch.

You gotta ban all core spells, metamagic reducers, and all spells that have an out of combat application to make spellcasters equal to mundanes.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-16, 08:39 PM

Abilities are not typically labelled so conveniently. Anything you'd ever try to solve with, say, silent image, is inevitably going to be rather more complex than this.

Abilities are so simply labeled for the Tier System, as you know the whole point is to make it easy. Silent Image is not really a ''tier type spell" unless your playing the wacky type game with things like "My character uses silent image to make a hole in the dragon gods chest and it thinks itself dead!"

You literally said it was all about combat. You were wrong.

In the casual game with the typical ''gentleman's agreement" where the DM is just letting the ''fellow players" automatically do whatever they want...the game is all about combat.

And the tiers only care about mechanical rules.

Mechanical abilities expand your capacity to try things. A magically oriented character has more solutions available to any given problem, and a lot of those solutions are more efficient and/or more powerful. What are these role playing problems where magic or other abilities can't make things go smoother? The door clearly doesn't function as such, given that even with this "open door ability", that clearly works as an easy solution. The door is still present in the role playing game. The ability is still present in that game as well. How is the ability not helping with the problem?

My point is that it's the Player...not the ''character tier".

See the ''tier way" is how well the player knows the rules and can read a character sheet to play the pure roll playing game. The DM presents a game rule based problem, and the player does a game rule base solution.

The other way is the role play way: where the player uses their own skill, intelligence, and abilities to ''become''(aka role play) a character in a fiction world setting and do things.

Roll Play:

DM: Ahead you see a glowing blue ball (or ''thing 11")!
Player: *leans back* whatever, I rolled a 100, my character knows what it is..
DM:Yes, your character does, its-
Player:Eh, don't bother with the lame flavor text, I rolled a 100 to disarm dispel it
DM:Your character walks past the glowing blue ball

Role Play:

DM: Ahead, floating about five feet off the ground is a glass-like ball, glowing with a blue light. The flat dirt ground all around the ball in a ten foot circle is clear of plants, rocks or anything else.
Player: Ok, my character stops two feet before the edge of the circle. He will grab a rock and toss it into the circle and see what happens.
DM: As soon as the rock enters the circle area a bolt of light shoots out of the orb and destroys the rock.
Player:Ok, my character will throw two rocks, the one from his left hand a second before the rock from his right hand
DM:The orb shoots out a bolt and destroys the rock on the left...but the rock on the right lands on the ground on the other side of the circle.
Player:Ok, I throw a rock to the left first, then a second later, run through the circle and past the orb to the right!
DM:The orb shoots out a bolt and destroys the rock on the left...but your character runs to the other side of the circle safely.

Arbane

2018-11-16, 08:46 PM

In the Role Playing games that existed before 2000, mechanics did not matter as much.

As someone who's played RPGs since the days of Basic D&D, I can assure you that you are still being wrong.
GURPS existed back then. Your argument is invalid.

Roll Play:

DM: Ahead you see a glowing blue ball (or ''thing 11")!
Player: *leans back* whatever, I rolled a 100, my character knows what it is..
DM:Yes, your character does, its-
Player:Eh, don't bother with the lame flavor text, I rolled a 100 to disarm dispel it
DM:Your character walks past the glowing blue ball

Why do you still play RPGs, if you hate players this much?

Role Play:

DM: Ahead, floating about five feet off the ground is a glass-like ball, glowing with a blue light. The flat dirt ground all around the ball in a ten foot circle is clear of plants, rocks or anything else.
Player: Ok, my character stops two feet before the edge of the circle. He will grab a rock and toss it into the circle and see what happens.
DM: As soon as the rock enters the circle area a bolt of light shoots out of the orb and destroys the rock.
Player:Ok, my character will throw two rocks, the one from his left hand a second before the rock from his right hand
DM:The orb shoots out a bolt and destroys the rock on the left...but the rock on the right lands on the ground on the other side of the circle.
Player:Ok, I throw a rock to the left first, then a second later, run through the circle and past the orb to the right!
DM:The orb shoots out a bolt and destroys the rock on the left...but your character runs to the other side of the circle safely.

This isn't 'roleplaying'. It's the kind of problem-solving I'd expect from a Sierra On-Line adventure game circa 1989. (Kids, ask your parents!) I literally know nothing about the character solving the trap after reading this except that they presumably have limbs of some sort and are capable of perceiving colors, so where's the 'role' they're 'playing'?

Quertus

2018-11-16, 08:57 PM

Classes are like power sources. Let's say we view nuclear, diesel, solar, coal, and wind-up to represent tiers power.

Sure, with the same level of optimization, we might expect to see a nuclear powered submarine, a diesel Volvo, and a wind-up toy.

However, 3e provides such a broad range of optimization and power to add on on top of the base class, that you might well find a party with a coal-powered Death Star, a nuclear-powered Volvo, and a diesel toy. Looking at that party in terms of tiers is misunderstanding the situation entirely.

If the problem is game balance, then address game balance. Leave the tiers out of it.

Quertus, my signature academia mage, for whom this account is named, is, by design, tactically inept. He very well demonstrates that character > player > build > class.

The MVP of his primary 3e party is a Monk, followed closely by a Fighter. Quertus falls so far behind them in contribution that they've jokingly threatened to vote him off the island.

There is very clear power disparity in this party. Looking at tiers in no way helps evaluate the situation, or - were I to be disgruntled rather than pleased by Quertus' ineffectiveness - to solve the "problem" with the game balance.

A system that, instead of talking about "tiers" instead discussed floor, ceiling, and measuring actual power and contribution might have some value. The tier system... I was going to say "does not", but, really, it does have value - just that, IME, that value is negative. I have to get people to unlearn the idiocy they've learned from the tier system before we can start a meaningful discussion of a character's actual performance.

Quertus casts Balefire on the tier system.

Does that make my stance clear?

Best. Math. Class. Ever.

I think it's pretty well-accepted that two classes, built and played to the same degree of optimization, can vary wildly in mechanical power (and versatility, if you want to separate that out). There are a lot of different opinions on what all those words mean, exactly, and to what extent the mechanical differences are relevant to the game. Quertus, for example, thinks that the mechanical balance in 3.5 isn't a problem (or not a big one, or only at some tables), and as a consequence that the tier system isn't all that important, but he doesn't contest that there is a mechanical power difference (I'm pretty sure, correct me if I'm wrong, Quertus). Cosi, on the other hand, has problems with the definition of "same degree of optimization" (and other bits, I'm picking an example), which admittedly is a really hard thing to define, and seems to be a matter of consensus at best--but he, too, doesn't contest that there's a mechanical power difference.

If two big critics of the tier system are still agreed on the basic premise--that there is a (big) mechanical power difference between classes in 3.5--I think it's fair to say that denying that the power difference exists altogether is something of an outlying position. I think (and I didn't do a big survey, so don't go biting my head off if I'm wrong :smalltongue:) that most people on these forums who might be called (mildly) "anti-tiers" think along the lines of Quertus' and Cosi's posts, arguing--fairly--against the relevance, applicability, accuracy, etcetera of the system more than the primary observation behind it.

So, I hope I've made my stance clear. I believe that there is a difference between solar and nuclear, but that different is ultimately irrelevant to evaluating a character's actual performance.

If you're living in a world where people have built solar powered cars, nuclear calculators, and wind-up Death Stars, why the **** would people still be discussing which tier coal is in?

eggynack

2018-11-16, 09:00 PM

Abilities are so simply labeled for the Tier System, as you know the whole point is to make it easy. Silent Image is not really a ''tier type spell" unless your playing the wacky type game with things like "My character uses silent image to make a hole in the dragon gods chest and it thinks itself dead!"
No ability is labeled in any way by the tier system. Because the tier system doesn't label abilities. Silent image is very much a "tier type spell", given that it is highly versatile, powerful, and efficient.

In the casual game with the typical ''gentleman's agreement" where the DM is just letting the ''fellow players" automatically do whatever they want...the game is all about combat.
I don't know why you think that this arbitrary casual game is allowed to put stipulations on the tier system. It's not. The tier system cares about non-combat situations.

And the tiers only care about mechanical rules.
Pretty much. The mechanical rules cover a lot of ground though.

My point is that it's the Player...not the ''character tier".

See the ''tier way" is how well the player knows the rules and can read a character sheet to play the pure roll playing game. The DM presents a game rule based problem, and the player does a game rule base solution.

The player can offer some solutions unlinked to any character ability. Class can expand on that quantity of solutions though. For example, when presented with a door, mechanical solutions can include, but are not limited to, using stone shape on the surrounding wall, buffing up to smash the door, summoning a tunneling monster to tunnel beneath the door, charming a guard to give you keys, disintegrating the door directly, teleporting past the door, or, yes, making a skill roll to unlock the door. Determining how your abilities interact with the door is non-trivial, and is itself dependent on class.

Roll Play:

DM: Ahead you see a glowing blue ball (or ''thing 11")!
Player: *leans back* whatever, I rolled a 100, my character knows what it is..
DM:Yes, your character does, its-
Player:Eh, don't bother with the lame flavor text, I rolled a 100 to disarm dispel it
DM:Your character walks past the glowing blue ball

This is ludicrously reductive. How do we even know, before knowing what the mysterious ball is, whether dispelling it will work? Depending on the ball's nature, any number of weird abilities could come into play.

Role Play:

DM: Ahead, floating about five feet off the ground is a glass-like ball, glowing with a blue light. The flat dirt ground all around the ball in a ten foot circle is clear of plants, rocks or anything else.
Player: Ok, my character stops two feet before the edge of the circle. He will grab a rock and toss it into the circle and see what happens.
DM: As soon as the rock enters the circle area a bolt of light shoots out of the orb and destroys the rock.
Player:Ok, my character will throw two rocks, the one from his left hand a second before the rock from his right hand
DM:The orb shoots out a bolt and destroys the rock on the left...but the rock on the right lands on the ground on the other side of the circle.
Player:Ok, I throw a rock to the left first, then a second later, run through the circle and past the orb to the right!
DM:The orb shoots out a bolt and destroys the rock on the left...but your character runs to the other side of the circle safely.
It's nice that this arbitrary problem you've invented can be circumvented by a dude with some rocks. Not all problems are so straightforward though. Maybe the orb doesn't have a weird delay on it. Maybe it just kills anything it sees. And, hey, maybe in that case you can generate an illusion, using the apparent silly game spell silent image, to move past the orb without it seeing you. Or you can use some of those door solutions I just mentioned, cause some of them are applicable. That I know literally nothing about this orb beyond the fact that rock throwing is effective renders my solution finding capacity relatively limited, but suffice to say that interesting mechanical options likely exist.

ExLibrisMortis

2018-11-16, 10:25 PM

So, I hope I've made my stance clear. I believe that there is a difference between solar and nuclear, but that different is ultimately irrelevant to evaluating a character's actual performance.

If you're living in a world where people have built solar powered cars, nuclear calculators, and wind-up Death Stars, why the **** would people still be discussing which tier coal is in?
I think your stance is clear, though I think you're selling the tier system short by denying its relevance entirely. To stay with your metaphor, you'd still be able to point to the specific energies and energy densities of nuclear power systems, fossil fuel systems, kinetic energy storage etcetera, the efficiency with which they are implemented, the expense of constructing and using such a system, and the skill with which the final device is employed. All of these variables would be be correlated with the characters' higher or lower performance. Of all these things, the tier system only looks at energy density/specific energy: all devices to be compared are assumed to have a set amount of fuel at a set efficiency, and the drivers are all clones. That's a lot of assumptions, but unlike the amount of fuel, efficiency, and driver, the actual fuels are relatively constant between tables, which is important for forum discussions.

In other terms, let's say I have a million-euro nuclear drive, and I'm building a very streamlined car around it. This is now a very fast car, but I'm a terrible driver, so I'm winning no races. I am, however, avoiding last place pretty consistently, because there's always the very streamlined one-million-euro steam car with an equally terrible driver*. Car and driver being equal, I conclude that nuclear power must be doing something for me. Of course, I could win races in the streamlined one-euro competition, but the race leader won't let me compete there.

In short, if you live in a world with wind-up Death Stars next to nuclear dress-up dolls, you're living in a world without economy--where optimization (player and build and class) isn't important. For those of us who compete (in the loosest sense of the word) in weight classes in an economical world, however, it's still valuable to look at the particulars of nuclear power versus rubber bands.

*IRL, I'm reasonably sure a steam car would outpace any similarly-priced nuclear car that left its driver alive at the end of the race, but that's neither here nor there.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-17, 12:06 AM

Why do you still play RPGs, if you hate players this much?

Only the Roll Players.

This isn't 'roleplaying'. It's the kind of problem-solving I'd expect from a Sierra On-Line adventure game circa 1989. (Kids, ask your parents!) I literally know nothing about the character solving the trap after reading this except that they presumably have limbs of some sort and are capable of perceiving colors, so where's the 'role' they're 'playing'?

They are playing the role of a clever elf that can use their wits to get around traps. Granted it's hard to tell from from the example.

It's nice that this arbitrary problem you've invented can be circumvented by a dude with some rocks. Not all problems are so straightforward though. Maybe the orb doesn't have a weird delay on it. Maybe it just kills anything it sees. And, hey, maybe in that case you can generate an illusion, using the apparent silly game spell silent image, to move past the orb without it seeing you. Or you can use some of those door solutions I just mentioned, cause some of them are applicable. That I know literally nothing about this orb beyond the fact that rock throwing is effective renders my solution finding capacity relatively limited, but suffice to say that interesting mechanical options likely exist.

The point is a role playing game has the DM and players engaged and doing things.

Roll play is just:

DM: says something
Player: Rolls past it
DM: says something
Player: Rolls past it

One of the huge flaws with the ''tiers" is it's just playing the character sheet.

Say the character needs to start a fire:

Role Playing: without even a glance at the character sheet, the player can have the character gather dry wood and start a fire.

Roll Play: The player looks at the character sheet. The character does NOT have the ability to ''produce fire". Player gets sad and looks down, "I'm tier zero and useless".

Another huge flaw is that a ''tier character" must use over optimization, exploits and wacky rule interpretations. And has to play in a game with a DM that not only allows all that, but adds in more things that show over favoritism to the character.

I've seen ''tier cheerleader" players break down and cry when they are told their sorcerer can't just pick any spell they want to use, and can only pick from the spells the sorcerer knows for the spell shadow evocation, for example. Yes, it's a ''house rule", but then so is "no problem, good player buddy, just pick any spell it's all ok with me (wink wink)".

Cosi

2018-11-17, 12:28 AM

Darth Ultron

2018-11-17, 01:14 AM

Heaven forbid that people who are playing a game might expect that the rules of that game were of some meaning, or that the guidelines that the game provided for adjudicating actions be used to adjudicate actions. Can you imagine?

It's been a nightmare for years...and it's were the tier system comes from: players just want to label everything and ''put it in a corner" . That is tier whatever/I don't like that, so it's bad wrong fun.

tiercel

2018-11-17, 01:30 AM

Let me try to put this from an Asmodeus' Advocate point of view, on behalf of at least some version of an "anti-tiers" view:

"Anti-Tier" doesn't necessarily have to mean "I don't believe in Tiers" or "I don't think they apply in any way."

The Tier System is often a Really Big Deal when it comes to online discussions (look at how many threads are about Tiers specifically, much less involve them!). It can be easy, reading forums like these, to get the impression that "Tiers" mean that when A Wizard Enters the Game, it is Game Over for any schmuck foolish enough to be T4 or worse, or that games should or must ban Tiers outside a certain agreed-upon range (and indeed, some players and DMs even campaign this way).

Some people are simply "anti-tier" in the sense that they are really, really sick of hearing about tiers.

One such reason might be that potential power is often conflated (by the writer or by the reader) with actual, in-game power. Some people react badly to the idea of Tiers because they feel like their beer-and-pretzels Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric game is now declared badwrongfun. This sense isn't helped by "help my build" threads where people have a specific aim in mind and some respondents will often immediately "up-tier" whatever is suggested ("look, just use Tome of Battle for melee or else gish!" or "if you play bard, you basically HAVE TO go Sublime Chord"), even if that's not what is desired.

Another such reason is that Tiers might seem like a lot of fuss for "spellcasting gives you more options."

No, seriously, Tier is pretty closely tied to how much/how broad/how strong spellcasting or manifesting or meldshaping or binding or whatever EXTRAPLANAR GOOGLE-FU SPLATOMANCY BASKETWEAVING shenanigans a class or build can accrue. There are useful options other than casting (or "casting"), e.g. Wildshape, but I can see how some folks might say "Okay, I get it already, more spells means more options, enough with the Tiers! Sheesh!"

Tiers can also be seen as ... pretty theoretical. After all, a lot of T1 Phenomenal Cosmic Power becomes most obvious when achieving 9th level spells (or whatevers). [No, spellcasting power is not limited to 9ths. I know this. It's just more hideously obvious when Shapechange and Gate and Miracle enter the game.] And while there's nothing wrong with high level play... for a lot of groups, high level play *is* theoretical. Having a "gish standard" of "+16 BAB/9ths" is a bit theoretical for a D&D group whose adventures rarely, if ever, exceed 12th level. (Trying to play a classic gish or theurge-type character at all may be an exercise in frustration if campaigns spend relatively little time much above, say, 9th level anyway!) But optimization exercises very often focus on 20-level builds, which leaves a certain "blue collar" sort of playstyle (i.e. rarely playing at high levels) feeling like the whole discussion is a bunch of hypothetical flimflam.

So...

There are reasons people might be kind of sick of tiers discussions and even intrusions. Some people are more interested in a tabletop experience than theorycrafting, and while understanding Tiers or the basic idea behind them can inform a tabletop experience, their importance in actual gameplay depends on everything from party level to preferred playstyle to "gentleman's agreements" (i.e. how much RAW strictly rules, or doesn't, a given tabletop), or even just "Player > Build > Class."

So yeah. Being "anti-tier" doesn't have to be a tinfoil-hat knee-jerk reaction. It can just be "this is a lot of fuss over something that doesn't affect me personally as much as it does other people's campaigns, apparently, or optimization thought exercises and frankly I wish it didn't keep coming up all the time."

But wishing for less talk about Tiers is probably like wishing for less talk about Alignment.

Erloas

2018-11-17, 02:33 AM

But wishing for less talk about Tiers is probably like wishing for less talk about Alignment. Maybe if you weren't such a low tier you could make it happen. Wish is only available to casters :p

It is ultimately not much more than a general idea of how many options a class has. No indication though of how any given player will utilize those options.

Florian

2018-11-17, 06:09 AM

So what your opinion of this topic?

My 2 cents: The usefulness of the Tier system is based heavily on a given tables understanding of how the actual game should be played. For example, a major question always is: Who is the challenged party here, the character(s) or the player(s)?

The tiers are a useful tools when considering "power" and "flexibility" when a given tables gravitates towards a RAW/Mechanics First approach. For example, in a mechanics-focused game, you wouldn't have your character interact with an NPC without a solid skill set covering all possible angles and hedge your odds by also going in with charm and holding an Amnesia spell at the ready, should you botch a roll.

They actually don't really matter when you approach a more old-school approach, which means the player is the challenged party and has to explain or role-play the intended action and you only roll a check when the outcome is in doubt. Alternatively, when you use a very New-School approach, like fail forward or "Yes, and...", "Yes, but..". For example, skill don't really matter all that much at my table, you only roll when it really matters. Any adventurer can climb a tree, over a wall and so on. The question that matters is whether you can do it in combat, while people keep shooting at you.

Pleh

2018-11-17, 06:14 AM

Quertus casts Balefire on the tier system.

"... it isn't very effective."

The original tier list was never disagreeing with your assertion that player > build. You're fighting a nonexistent enemy here.

The Tier system was meant to be a very broad tool to help predict intraparty imbalances. If you already know that your group is both skilled enough with the mechanics and cooperative to maintain mutual balance, the purpose of the tiers hss already been accounted for. The Tier system was meant to explain to groups that lacked system mastery why the fighter, monk, and paladin were bored watching their druid friend solve all the encounters. The stated purpose of the tiers is for DMs to place restrictions on class builds so that players do not unintentionally marginalize one another.

Why do this when people could just "git good" and avoid imbalance on their own? Maybe because casual players (and just players who don't have time to hang around on internet forums very long) are a very real thing and they might appreciate a simplified, condensed presentation of class balance concerns to help them avoid common pitfalls.

Just because you have no use for it doesn't mean that no one else does either.

Sir Chuckles

2018-11-17, 08:34 AM

Say the character needs to start a fire:

Role Playing: without even a glance at the character sheet, the player can have the character gather dry wood and start a fire.

I'm going to have to ask you to roll Survival to see if you actually know how to properly start a fire.

eggynack

2018-11-17, 09:19 AM

The point is a role playing game has the DM and players engaged and doing things.

Roll play is just:

DM: says something
Player: Rolls past it
DM: says something
Player: Rolls past it
Continuing to be reductive in exactly the same way over and over again really isn't helping your case. Would you make this claim regarding chess? That there is no player engagement to that game? Because chess is literally nothing but its mechanics.

One of the huge flaws with the ''tiers" is it's just playing the character sheet.
The tiers only concern what is on the character sheet. The tiers don't play anything though. They don't dictate how you play the game to any degree.

Role Playing: without even a glance at the character sheet, the player can have the character gather dry wood and start a fire.

Roll Play: The player looks at the character sheet. The character does NOT have the ability to ''produce fire". Player gets sad and looks down, "I'm tier zero and useless".
Or, hey, maybe this supposed rollplayer does the former, because making a fire is pretty easy, and problems that make heavier use of mechanics are more difficult and complex.

Another huge flaw is that a ''tier character" must use over optimization, exploits and wacky rule interpretations. And has to play in a game with a DM that not only allows all that, but adds in more things that show over favoritism to the character.
There is no such thing as a tier character. That is not anything. I have literally no idea what you're talking about. The tier system itself certainly doesn't just assume over optimization, exploits, or wacky rule interpretations, and the idea that a system measuring class power would care about DM favoritism is baffling.

I've seen ''tier cheerleader" players break down and cry when they are told their sorcerer can't just pick any spell they want to use, and can only pick from the spells the sorcerer knows for the spell shadow evocation, for example. Yes, it's a ''house rule", but then so is "no problem, good player buddy, just pick any spell it's all ok with me (wink wink)".
If you did that on the spot, then I think you were pretty in the wrong there. The whole point of shadow evocation, even from the designer perspective, is to poorly replicate a bunch of effects that you wouldn't otherwise have. I rather doubt that their crying was linked to the fact that they know about the tier system.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-17, 12:09 PM

I'm going to have to ask you to roll Survival to see if you actually know how to properly start a fire.

Now, see, that is a perfect example of Roll Playing.

Continuing to be reductive in exactly the same way over and over again really isn't helping your case. Would you make this claim regarding chess? That there is no player engagement to that game? Because chess is literally nothing but its mechanics.

Yes, Chess, like many board games and video games is a simple do mechanical action and repeat.

Chess, really is a good example. In a game of Chess you are given the rules of the game limits of the game board and how the pieces move and interact. Then you use the rules, and only the rules, to try and win the game.

And to play a RPG just like a game of Chess is....odd. To like have a foe just standing '10 squares away' and your character can use the actions of 'move', or 'attack' or 'surrender'. To read the rules as if they are the limits and only things you can even do in an RPG.

Chess is winning by using the rules. You and another player agree to the very limited rules and then play the game to see who can ''use the rules better" to win the game.

That is not what an RPG is. To use the RPG style of play in Chess, I could have my Queen leave the chess board move across the table and then move back onto the chess board on the other side and put the other King in Checkmate.

The tiers only concern what is on the character sheet. The tiers don't play anything though. They don't dictate how you play the game to any degree.

They sure seem to do so to 'tier players', as most can't do anything not on the character sheet.

Or, hey, maybe this supposed rollplayer does the former, because making a fire is pretty easy, and problems that make heavier use of mechanics are more difficult and complex.

Are you saying you want a more complex example?

There is no such thing as a tier character. That is not anything. I have literally no idea what you're talking about. The tier system itself certainly doesn't just assume over optimization, exploits, or wacky rule interpretations, and the idea that a system measuring class power would care about DM favoritism is baffling.

A 'tier character' has to be made in a very specific way or they are not ''at the tier''. Wizards are not just ''tier one awesome", it's the exact ''type" of wizard that is. For an easy example, a wizard with an intelligence of 12 would never be considered a ''tier 1".

And the DM Buddy is a huge thing for the tier idea, and I can say that as I'm NOT one of them. So many 'tier players' simply can not play in my game as I'm not being their ''good buddy" and letting them get away with anything they want.

If you did that on the spot, then I think you were pretty in the wrong there. The whole point of shadow evocation, even from the designer perspective, is to poorly replicate a bunch of effects that you wouldn't otherwise have. I rather doubt that their crying was linked to the fact that they know about the tier system.

You are free to have your own interpretation of the spell effect. And if you support the wacky, optimized player munchkin interpretation that also just happens to, by chance, support the Tier System...then you are free to do so.

I guess you can ''say the designer" thought this or that, if you want too.

JNAProductions

2018-11-17, 12:15 PM

eggynack

2018-11-17, 12:28 PM

Yes, Chess, like many board games and video games is a simple do mechanical action and repeat.

Chess, really is a good example. In a game of Chess you are given the rules of the game limits of the game board and how the pieces move and interact. Then you use the rules, and only the rules, to try and win the game.

And to play a RPG just like a game of Chess is....odd. To like have a foe just standing '10 squares away' and your character can use the actions of 'move', or 'attack' or 'surrender'. To read the rules as if they are the limits and only things you can even do in an RPG.

Chess is winning by using the rules. You and another player agree to the very limited rules and then play the game to see who can ''use the rules better" to win the game.
My issue here, the reason I brought up chess, is that you've been setting up mechanically oriented play is fundamentally uncreative and boring. There can obviously be tons of thought and creativity even as applies to a purely mechanical system. That you keep describing "rollplaying" as picking the right skill and using it is massively reductive.

That is not what an RPG is. To use the RPG style of play in Chess, I could have my Queen leave the chess board move across the table and then move back onto the chess board on the other side and put the other King in Checkmate.
None of your cited situations, as far as I can recall, involve breaking the rules. They're all just, y'know, physics. You can't just make up stuff. When faced with a dragon in the game, you can't just say, "I use my awesome blizzard swipe and automatically defeat him without a roll." You are inevitably limited to, first, a set of reasonable and realistic actions that a mundane human could perform, and, second, a set of mechanical abilities that go above and beyond those mundane human capabilities. Mechanical abilities can offer methods of interaction that mundane human abilities can't offer. Both sets of options are available to everyone, and they are both valuable.

They sure seem to do so to 'tier players', as most can't do anything not on the character sheet.

Are you saying you want a more complex example?
What I'm saying is that people who make use of mechanical abilities in games aren't necessarily idiots.

A 'tier character' has to be made in a very specific way or they are not ''at the tier''. Wizards are not just ''tier one awesome", it's the exact ''type" of wizard that is. For an easy example, a wizard with an intelligence of 12 would never be considered a ''tier 1".
You'd probably need enough intelligence to cast your spells, but beyond that wizards don't need a specific level of intelligence to be tier one. I wouldn't really call a wizard who increases their main stat to a reasonable degree an exact type of wizard. An exact type of wizard is more like, say, a gray elf domain wizard with the elven generalist sub levels, who has some specific set of spells on their list. That level of specificity, and, indeed, many levels of specificity below that, are not necessary for a class to have the tier they're assigned.

You are free to have your own interpretation of the spell effect. And if you support the wacky, optimized player munchkin interpretation that also just happens to, by chance, support the Tier System...then you are free to do so.

Your interpretation is wrong. I dunno why this is a weird sore spot for you. The tier system does make the assumption that the game works the way it says it works. I do not contest that, but I don't see why I would. It's a reasonable assumption to make.

I guess you can ''say the designer" thought this or that, if you want too.
The issue is, the spell is functionally useless on a sorcerer with this house rule. So, if I'm reading the situation correctly, you arbitrarily removed a player's spell known without warning.

Florian

2018-11-17, 12:41 PM

@eggynack:

It might be massively reductive, but it is still true.

Basically, it´s the heart of "rules vs. rulings".

Chess could be considered a "complete game", because most possible legal moves are covered by the rules. That's more or less impossible for a TTRPG, unless we turn it into something like Descent, Arkham Horror and other near-RPG board games, or we use such a high abstraction level that we mostly use conflict resolution mechanics.

Still, the chess example is a good one: Either we talk about the player, or the board and pieces.

eggynack

2018-11-17, 12:44 PM

@eggynack:

It might be massively reductive, but it is still true.
It is not still true. By "The right skill", I mean the apparently obviously labelled skill that does the exact thing that's in front of you. There is no "right skill" in chess. There's a gazillion options at various levels of efficacy. The "rollplaying" game Darth Ultron describes is not a good one. I take issue with this, because "rollplaying" games can be very good indeed.

death390

2018-11-17, 12:47 PM

Going by the most widely accepted tier list for 3.5 "battle" is only one of the factors.
The example situations given are:
Situation 1: A Black Dragon has been plaguing an area, and he lives in a trap filled cave. Deal with him.

Situation 2: You have been tasked by a nearby country with making contact with the leader of the underground slave resistance of an evil tyranical city state, and get him to trust you.

Situation 3: A huge army of Orcs is approaching the city, and should be here in a week or so. Help the city prepare for war.

as an example, i will go through the general statement of what each of these scenarios take:
Scenario 1: possible combat to get to the dragon, known traps to get to dragon, dealing with the dragon. result: better than likely combat tasks, need a trapfinder character/ a lot of manual trap problems, and slight chance at diplomatic encounter. only a handfull of classes can do this well; technically all of the classes can do this though.

martial? combat fine, not great but w/e, traps? toss a corpse every few feet and hope it triggers everything/ use 10ft pole, dragon, most likely combat but might be able to intimidate/diplomacy dragon if actually spent its 2 skills per level there.

martial trapfinder? combat good with sneak attack and flanking with party, traps? what traps, dragon? diplomacy probably, combat possible. (martial trapfinders include rouges, ninjas, factorum)

caster? combat what combat i battlefield controlled/ save or sucked/ save or died/ alpha striked, traps? summons, 10ft pole, manual corpse method, find traps spell (cleric list), ect, dragon? skills sure, combat ?? i polymorphed it into a rabbit and ate it, or dominated its mind to stop attacking townsfolk, or alpha striked it with a mailman build, ect ect ect.

hell best class for this scenario: beguiler, trapfinding spellcaster with enchantment/ illusion focus.

scenario 2: a bunch of skill checks or spellcasting, negligible combat.
martial? uhh, what skills do i even get? not much in the way of charisma there. rouge is one of few who could pull it off.
skilled caster? charm, suggestion, hell most of enchantment school helps here (and divination), skill checks for when you don't want to burn slots.
caster? same as skilled casters but without the skills. generally more access to spells especially divination.

best classes for this bard and beguiler.

scenario 3: bunch of craft , proffesion(instructor), other skills, and just attribute checks, maybe even a diplomacy check to increase morale.
marrial? i have skills? oh you mean those 2 points per level for most of us right? end up doing grunt work like digging ditches or hammering things into the earth.
roguish martials? i'll go scout the enemy to gather information, use my many skills to help craft fortifications, ect.
casters? huh lets see what do we have that can control the battlefield that can be set up ahead of time and still be active after a full rest (off the top of my head- google for levels): 1st level: create trap, 2nd level: wood shape, 3rd level: explosive runes, stone shape, 5th: wall of stone, shape metal, 6th: wall of iron, move earth, 8th level: polymorph any object (that bull will make a fine manticore ). hell most spells will work when permanancied or persisted: silent image, wall of fire, prismatic mist, prismatic wall, ect ect. not to mention magic item crafting: traps that auto reset and apply buffs to anyone in the area, healing, litteral traps on the battlefield. hell even a necromancer binding the towns dead to defend them.

best classes: any caster with access to good spells to be persisted/ long term spells: druid rises up there along with wizard, archivist, and artificer.

Nifft

2018-11-17, 12:48 PM

The way "rollplaying" seems to be used in this thread, all it means is "rules competency".

Not a bad thing at all, and certainly not at odds with roleplaying.

Florian

2018-11-17, 12:59 PM

It is not still true. By "The right skill", I mean the apparently obviously labelled skill that does the exact thing that's in front of you. There is no "right skill" in chess. There's a gazillion options at various levels of efficacy. The "rollplaying" game Darth Ultron describes is not a good one. I take issue with this, because "rollplaying" games can be very good indeed.

Right. Chess doesn't have a Diplomacy skill or Planar Binding, if you get my drift. You also can´t upgrade your queen to Incantatrix and ignore half of the rules.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-17, 01:27 PM

A Wizard with Intelligence of 12 is not a potent character.

At levels 1-4, their save DCs are low and they have less spells than most other Wizards.

Starting at level 5, unless they acquire items or otherwise increase their Int score, they're literally incapable of casting spells of the appropriate slot.

There's a world of space between "Stupidly built" and "Tier 1 Game Wrecker".

Some people would be just fine with such a character, and that is the point. You do not have to play the game as a Super Hero Demi God. Some people can have tons and tons of fun playing the goofy ''not too bright" wizard. Sure they can't do all the boring rule and roll playing...but that just does not matter to some people.

My issue here, the reason I brought up chess, is that you've been setting up mechanically oriented play is fundamentally uncreative and boring. There can obviously be tons of thought and creativity even as applies to a purely mechanical system. That you keep describing "rollplaying" as picking the right skill and using it is massively reductive.

Well, dull and limiting, yes. As soon as you say ''my character can only do what it says on my sheet", you are self limiting yourself. And it is repetitive: a 'tier wizard' will use knock to open a locked door, not spontaneously come up with a new way each time.

Is it possible to ''out think the DM in the rules and the interpretation of the rules"? Sure, but that is still under the limit of "I did it under the rules". I would also note this type of player is rare.

Mechanical abilities can offer methods of interaction that mundane human abilities can't offer. Both sets of options are available to everyone, and they are both valuable.

This is the Core of the problem:

1.Using the very limited rules to do a specific wanted goal
2.Using the vague rule frame work to create a solution and reach a wanted goal

What I'm saying is that people who make use of mechanical abilities in games aren't necessarily idiots.

Never said they were?

Your interpretation is wrong. I dunno why this is a weird sore spot for you. The tier system does make the assumption that the game works the way it says it works. I do not contest that, but I don't see why I would. It's a reasonable assumption to make.

The tier system assumes the game is only one way: the casual soft buddy DM ''players first" way. And it's a popular way to play the game...but not the only way.

The issue is, the spell is functionally useless on a sorcerer with this house rule. So, if I'm reading the situation correctly, you arbitrarily removed a player's spell known without warning.

I'm not talking about a jerk surprise move...this is one of my printed house rules that each player gets a copy of. So more jerk player did not read the house rules given to him, and then in the game tried to make the stupid argument that as he did not read the house rules they should not apply to him.

In your option it makes the spell useless...I don't agree.

The "rollplaying" game Darth Ultron describes is not a good one. I take issue with this, because "rollplaying" games can be very good indeed.

Roll Playing is not ''bad", it just is what it is. Roll/Rule Playing is fun for lots of people...it's why millions play board games and video games. My point is Role Playing games can(and should be) be much more.

death390

2018-11-17, 01:40 PM

hell, what most people seem to be saying opposed to tier is that either people are roll playing or role playing. either way works guys, that is WHY the rules are there. if you want to role play go for it have fun. other people might want a simulation of combat. others want both! mechanics are there for a reason, no matter how much you role play your fighter/ barbarian is not going to be as good as a rouge investing in open lock to open locks! the ONLY way for a fighter/ barbarian to progress beyond a locked room are: a magic item, break down the door/ wall next to the door, find a key, or go around. this is because genrally they don't have the skill to pick the lock, or spells to deal with it.

what most people tend to forget is that the tier list is a CEILING list, one that does away with builds that are available to either everyone or enough people that it doesn't matter. this means magic items don't count, feats combos like the uber charger build don't count, and other such things. spellcasters have THE HIGHEST character ceilings due to the fact magic breaks the world. look at the tier list, 2nd group is generally non-spellcasters who have spell-like abilities. then you get the skilled characters, then there are the super focused "i can only do this", and finally near the bottom are those who don't get jack, who's abilities don't break the universe, or just don't work. i mean honestly the SOULKNIFE, a class with makes weapons out of nothing is tier 5 because all his ability does is make you spend less gold and can't be disarmed. the healer who is a spellcaster is Tier 5 because they can't do anything but heal.

meanwhile the Healer could build Ubercharger, not as well as a fighter but still able to. the soulknife could get a magic item that warps reality, bending it to his whim. but those are not something that only they can do.

the character floors are so much worse because EVERYONE can be so horrendously bad they are unplayable: the wizard with 8 int, the fist fighters without extra damage/monk, ect. its the unintentional character floors that matter most. the classes that when played normally, non-optimized, that fail so horridly that their should be a tier list for. different things ONLY work in combination, Dex combat (ranged or melee) needs a extra source of damage, metamagic as written (except for energy substitution). then there are all the bad spells written (there are a LOT of those), the feats that are nothing more than traps or DM fodder (run, most all skill feats, scribe scroll, brew potion, craft wand, almost all feat taxes [dodge], most of the "improved combat maneuver" feats, ect).

a quick explanation of why brew potion, scribe scroll, and craft wand are trap feats: by the way that magic item creation is set up craft wonderous item can make all of thes by following the specific creation rules.
brew potion: single use, use activated item
scribe scroll: single use, spell completion
craft wand: 50 use spell activation

all of these are technically possible already with craft wonderous item just called something else. a bone engraved with runes that activated a spell when chanted and waved, acts like a wand not a wand. a disk when broken heals that which it is broken against, acts like a potion, not a potion. a origami flower that must be crushed after read to complete a spelll, acts like a scroll isn't a scroll.

Arbane

2018-11-17, 02:01 PM

I'm going to have to ask you to roll Survival to see if you actually know how to properly start a fire.

You don't understand. Basically, Real Roleplaying is about the PLAYER knowing how to do anything the CHARACTER tries to do, and reading the GM's mind well enough to describe how do it without ever having to roll dice, which can kill you.

Which made a certain amount of sense in AD&D before it had any sort of skill system, but even then it broke down often when some wiseguy tried mixing charcoal, sulfur, and saltpeter...

The way "rollplaying" seems to be used in this thread, all it means is "rules competency".

Not a bad thing at all, and certainly not at odds with roleplaying.

In Darth Ultron's case, it's synonymous with "Working the Ref".

Now, see, that is a perfect example of Roll Playing.

Or maybe people want to get to the part THEY find interesting, and don't regard starting a campfire as all that engrossing? Those filthy ROLLplaying munchkins.

eggynack

2018-11-17, 02:15 PM

Well, dull and limiting, yes. As soon as you say ''my character can only do what it says on my sheet", you are self limiting yourself. And it is repetitive: a 'tier wizard' will use knock to open a locked door, not spontaneously come up with a new way each time.
Recognizing that certain classes offer more utility than others does not mean ignoring the existence of more mundane approaches. Also, chess is decidedly neither dull nor limiting, given that it's operated as a broadly played game for roughly infinite time. Also also, as I've already noted, there are many many ways to mechanically deal with a locked door. Lots of them don't require you to only be able to deal with locked doors.

Is it possible to ''out think the DM in the rules and the interpretation of the rules"? Sure, but that is still under the limit of "I did it under the rules". I would also note this type of player is rare.

I dunno where interpretation comes into it. Not even sure where outthinking is necessarily pertinent. The DM puts problems in front of you. Get over there, deal with this situation, solve that problem, and so on. Class abilities can offer many weird ways around those problems.

This is the Core of the problem:

1.Using the very limited rules to do a specific wanted goal
2.Using the vague rule frame work to create a solution and reach a wanted goal
The rules aren't necessarily that limited. A wizard is liable to have dozens of spells with varying degrees of utility with regards to a certain situation, and few of those spells are likely to outright tell you that they can help. Consider sending effects for an example. Some of those can operate as basically cell phones, offering a broad communication network with the entire party. That is a capability that can come in handy, but it is not necessarily, in and of itself, the solution to any given problem. It helps. Same way phones do in the real world.

Never said they were?
Kinda implied it, talking about them ignoring basic information about a mysterious glowing orb that could be literally anything. If there's one quality I associate with optimizers, it's decidedly not ignoring information. There's a reason the stereotype of the all powerful wizard involves a ton of divinations.

The tier system assumes the game is only one way: the casual soft buddy DM ''players first" way. And it's a popular way to play the game...but not the only way.
Not even remotely. The tier system assumes a DM that operates according to the rules as written. This does mean that they don't house rule spells into uselessness, but it also means that they don't house rule them into additional power.

In your option it makes the spell useless...I don't agree.
What's its use? Shadow evocations are generally strictly worse than the spells they copy. The only possible utility is if you've used up all the spells of a lower level, and that is extremely limited.

Roll Playing is not ''bad", it just is what it is. Roll/Rule Playing is fun for lots of people...it's why millions play board games and video games. My point is Role Playing games can(and should be) be much more.
The issue is, the existence of mechanical abilities, ones that are better or worse than each other, does not magically delete roleplaying from existence.

Arbane

2018-11-17, 03:13 PM

The issue is, the existence of mechanical abilities, ones that are better or worse than each other, does not magically delete roleplaying from existence.

You can't really ROLEplay unless your character is a one-eyed illiterate peasant with leprosy.

John05

2018-11-17, 04:25 PM

You can't really ROLEplay unless your character is a one-eyed illiterate peasant with leprosy.

To be fair to the ones who say (paraphrase) that sentiment, they probably have a harder time controlling for fantastical elements.

A man who can bend reality to his will on any good morning and acts like he was raised knowing that... might be hard for a lot of DMs to build a story around. They’re less likely to see role playing opportunities for such characters.

Like I said earlier, I have to put a lot more thought into my setting to prevent a mid to high level wizard from potentially *easily* scry-and-die NPCs and settings I spent a lot of time making.

@Cosi

Yes obviously there’s things we can do to account for that, many contingencies/traps even well known among 3.5 fanatics (eg forbiddance). The point is it’s still more more effort to look up and know the countermeasures.

And yes sure everything depends on context (eg, the tiers might be slightly different for E6 or low magic campaigns or some other arbitrary settings from the DM) and nothing is purely objective, but outside college classrooms we can just be more cooperative and look past post-structuralist ideas and just agree with basics. Decriers of tier discussions don’t have to use tier systems or talk about them if they don’t like it. And if they join, they can at least acknowledge “I understand what you’re describing and I respect and understand that you probably are nuanced enough to get that everything comes with context.

The Random NPC

2018-11-17, 04:47 PM

Arbane

2018-11-17, 05:06 PM

Wait, Darth, are you saying that in your games, I could play a Commoner who apprenticed himself to a Wizard, and without taking any actual levels in Wizard begin casting spells by role playing the chanting and rune writing? Like we could get to the end game and I can just say, "I begin inscribing Elbereth around my feet and start chanting. At the end of my turn the magic coaleses and summons a Pit Fiend that rushes my enemy and drags them to the Abyss to be tortured for eternity".

For some real pain, try playing a rogue. If you can't describe how to pick locks or pockets in RL, you autofail in game!
Or a cleric. "Sorry, you violated Precept 14 of the Holy Book of Pelor, so you lose all powers until you atone. Oh, you didn't READ the entire 241 page book that only exists in my imagination? LERN 2 ROLEPLAY, NOOB!"

Darth Ultron

2018-11-17, 06:08 PM

Recognizing that certain classes offer more utility than others does not mean ignoring the existence of more mundane approaches.

Again, though, this is only going by what is written on the character sheet.

Also, chess is decidedly neither dull nor limiting, given that it's operated as a broadly played game for roughly infinite time. Also also, as I've already noted, there are many many ways to mechanically deal with a locked door. Lots of them don't require you to only be able to deal with locked doors.

Chess is limited as you can only make a couple moves. It's a classic example as you can say at a point ''checkmate in five moves". Because only x and y can happen, the game will be checkmate in five moves.

The rules aren't necessarily that limited. A wizard is liable to have dozens of spells with varying degrees of utility with regards to a certain situation, and few of those spells are likely to outright tell you that they can help. Consider sending effects for an example. Some of those can operate as basically cell phones, offering a broad communication network with the entire party. That is a capability that can come in handy, but it is not necessarily, in and of itself, the solution to any given problem. It helps. Same way phones do in the real world.

Using the roll playing abilities is a big part, one that I did not mention yet. A lot of players just grab a ''tier one awesome character" and think they will ''rule the game", but have no clue what they are doing.

Kinda implied it, talking about them ignoring basic information about a mysterious glowing orb that could be literally anything. If there's one quality I associate with optimizers, it's decidedly not ignoring information. There's a reason the stereotype of the all powerful wizard involves a ton of divinations.

Except it's not, as the divination optimizer is only possible in the easy buddy DM game. Where the DM just gives up information freely, under the false screen of "oh your character cast a spell..well here is all the information you wanted buddy player(wink wink)."

Not even remotely. The tier system assumes a DM that operates according to the rules as written. This does mean that they don't house rule spells into uselessness, but it also means that they don't house rule them into additional power.

It does not. It only works in the casual game with low magic/low fantasy, the typical ''gentleman's agreement" and the Buddy DM.

What's its use? Shadow evocations are generally strictly worse than the spells they copy. The only possible utility is if you've used up all the spells of a lower level, and that is extremely limited.

I notice you went from ''useless" to "limited".

The issue is, the existence of mechanical abilities, ones that are better or worse than each other, does not magically delete roleplaying from existence.

Not the existence, no, but the overwhelming focus on nothing except the mechanical abilities does.

Wait, Darth, are you saying that in your games, I could play a Commoner who apprenticed himself to a Wizard, and without taking any actual levels in Wizard begin casting spells by role playing the chanting and rune writing? Like we could get to the end game and I can just say, "I begin inscribing Elbereth around my feet and start chanting. At the end of my turn the magic coaleses and summons a Pit Fiend that rushes my enemy and drags them to the Abyss to be tortured for eternity".

No, not at all. What I'm saying is you can play any character and have a good, fun time in a game. The tiers only matter for the limited roll/rule playing game, not the whole wider game of role playing.

Also, in what way is Shadow Evocation useful to a Sorcerer in your game?

They can use it to emulate spells they know.

The Random NPC

2018-11-17, 06:31 PM

No, not at all. What I'm saying is you can play any character and have a good, fun time in a game. The tiers only matter for the limited roll/rule playing game, not the whole wider game of role playing.
Why not, I did the roleplaying. Is there perhaps some kind of rule preventing it?

They can use it to emulate spells they know.

That isn't useful. A Sorcerer already knows the spells they know and can just cast them. I'm asking what specific use the spell has, and 'can cast spells they know' is already a part of the Sorcerer class.

eggynack

2018-11-17, 06:34 PM

Again, though, this is only going by what is written on the character sheet.
The class stuff is character sheet based, yes. There can be a lot written on the character sheet though, and that stuff can interact with the mundane stuff.

Chess is limited as you can only make a couple moves. It's a classic example as you can say at a point ''checkmate in five moves". Because only x and y can happen, the game will be checkmate in five moves.
I think you're rather underselling how ludicrously complex chess is. You have a limited number of possible moves in a given moment, but the utility of those moves is determined by the ridiculous number of move piles that result from those initial moves. There exist forced moves, but they're decidedly not the whole of the game.

Except it's not, as the divination optimizer is only possible in the easy buddy DM game. Where the DM just gives up information freely, under the false screen of "oh your character cast a spell..well here is all the information you wanted buddy player(wink wink)."

If the spell says it gives you a particular piece of information, then that's what it does. A player-positive DM would grant more information than the spell says it does. A player-negative DM would grant less. The tier system assumes a player-neutral DM, one who just does what the frigging spell says.

It does not. It only works in the casual game with low magic/low fantasy, the typical ''gentleman's agreement" and the Buddy DM.
I have literally no idea where you're getting any of these ideas. They don't seem to represent the tier system to any extent.

I notice you went from ''useless" to "limited".
I wasn't sure if you could use sorcerer slots to spontaneously cast lower level sorcerer spells. That's how it works for druids. It doesn't seem like you can, so that'd make it go from useless to just virtually useless.

Not the existence, no, but the overwhelming focus on nothing except the mechanical abilities does.

No, it doesn't. The tier system focuses on nothing but mechanics, to the exclusion of anything else. That does not mean that games need to exclude mechanics.

No, not at all. What I'm saying is you can play any character and have a good, fun time in a game. The tiers only matter for the limited roll/rule playing game, not the whole wider game of role playing.
The first statement is true. The second decidedly is not. A wizard has the capacity to teleport whether they spend their time chatting up nobles or slashing goblins, and it is a thing with utility in either circumstance. The same is true of a lot of spells and abilities. As it turns out, the general capacity to bend the universe to your will is useful.

They can use it to emulate spells they know.
But they don't need a spell to emulate spells they know. They already know the spells they know.

Sir Chuckles

2018-11-17, 07:23 PM

Now, see, that is a perfect example of Roll Playing.

No, it's a perfect example of playing the within the rules provided. You're suggesting that player knowledge trump character knowledge or that we outright ignore the dice in favor of freeform. Ignoring the dice is not what D&D is about. What if I'm playing a city-slicker Swashbuckler whose entire wilderness experience is the one time he went fox hunting? That character probably doesn't know how to properly shave kindling off dry deadwood, assemble the wood, safely build a fire ring, and use friction to ignite it. Thus, this is reflected in his low Survival check. Conversely, the grizzled army veteran he's traveling with knows exactly how to do all this proficiently. Thus, he has ranks in it and can roll poorly and still acheive success. Because that's what he wrote his character to be. The mechanics should reinforce, restate, and generally support non-mechanical claims.

What you are thinking of is not roleplay vs. rollplay. What you've been describing is Rules System vs. Freeform System, not "tier vs. anti-tier". You call it "rule playing". Well, just like chess, we sat down to play D&D. We sat down and agree on the D&D ruleset.

Again, The mechanics should generally support non-mechanical claims. The tier system tends to and should measure how well a class can achieve can reinforce the claims that the class inherently makes, as well as how well it can go against those claims. This is why the Monk gets shoved to the bottom. If your goal is to punch stuff, Monk is, shockingly, not a great choice.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-17, 07:34 PM

That isn't useful. A Sorcerer already knows the spells they know and can just cast them. I'm asking what specific use the spell has, and 'can cast spells they know' is already a part of the Sorcerer class.

Well, how about they can still cast a spell they know, but don't have a slot to use to cast it?

I think you're rather underselling how ludicrously complex chess is. You have a limited number of possible moves in a given moment, but the utility of those moves is determined by the ridiculous number of move piles that result from those initial moves. There exist forced moves, but they're decidedly not the whole of the game.

Look, I'm not try to say Chess is in anyway bad. It's just a simple, limited game. Any move you might make has been done before: Literary every game of Chess is one that has been done before. There is nothing ''new" or "different" in Chess.

If the spell says it gives you a particular piece of information, then that's what it does. A player-positive DM would grant more information than the spell says it does. A player-negative DM would grant less. The tier system assumes a player-neutral DM, one who just does what the frigging spell says.

I disagree. The tiers and the game they are effective in is a player positive one.

I have literally no idea where you're getting any of these ideas. They don't seem to represent the tier system to any extent.

The tier system can only exist in the Easy Button type game: in other words a game that not only lets the players win, but is designed to let the players win.

I wasn't sure if you could use sorcerer slots to spontaneously cast lower level sorcerer spells. That's how it works for druids. It doesn't seem like you can, so that'd make it go from useless to just virtually useless.

The shadow spells might not be the ''best" spells a sorcerer can pick, it's true.

No, it doesn't. The tier system focuses on nothing but mechanics, to the exclusion of anything else. That does not mean that games need to exclude mechanics.

What?

The first statement is true. The second decidedly is not. A wizard has the capacity to teleport whether they spend their time chatting up nobles or slashing goblins, and it is a thing with utility in either circumstance. The same is true of a lot of spells and abilities. As it turns out, the general capacity to bend the universe to your will is useful.

A wizard can eleport over and talk to people....any any other character can just walk over an talk to people. I'm not sure, is your point here just that the wizard ''looks cooler"?

But they don't need a spell to emulate spells they know. They already know the spells they know.

Again, it's not the best pick for a sorcerer.

Lets try another example:

1.Reality. With in the limits of reality, physics and your own means...you can, at least try, to do anything. If you want to try and do something, you can..with in the limits of reality. You can't just ''jump to the moon", but, if you wanted to, you could become a movie actor.

3.Games. Because ''reality" is too vague to measure for most things, people invented games. Rule/Roll games. Take a person, limit their actions by a couple rules/rolls, and have them play against some one: the person that uses the (limited) rules ''the best", is the winner...of the game.

You might have noticed the missing: 2.Role Playing games: games that are much more closer to reality then rule/roll games. In a role playing game, a lot like real life, a character can try anything...within the limits of the rules.

Like say you need to get through a locked door and into a house(like say you locked yourself out of your house).

1.Well...you have to just figure out a way to do it under the limited of reality. You can't ''wish" the door open...but maybe you can find an open window to climb through? Or figure out another way into the house. And sometimes...well, you just have to break your own door to get back inside.

3.Roll/Rule playing. The player will look on their character's sheet for a skill, ability or such that can be used to open the locked door. If they find something, they will use it according to the set game rules.

2.Role Playing. Combines the above two: the player can use both the things on the character sheet AND anything else they can think of and try to do within the game reality.

An in game example: A goblin guards a door the character wants to get past quietly, and with no nosy combat.

Roll/rule playing: The player looks on their character sheet for a skill or ability that will get them past the goblin. Something like the skill Bluff or the spell Charm Person. Then they will use that ability to get past the goblin.

Role Playing. The player might have the character try and talk their way past the goblin for ''real": that is the player will come up with some type of story or reason to get past the door. The player might try the Ye Old Toss a Rock Trick...and slip past the goblin while it's distracted(using say move silently here). The player might have the character simply bribe the goblin or blackmail the goblin or trick the goblin...all for real(so instead of just making a skill roll, the player would say "I offter the goblin ten gold coins to let me pass") or dozens of other things.

And this is a good place to point out the dull roll/rule playing. The tier 1 character, with like a +10 in all charisma skills, will simply use one of the skills and get past the goblin with a dull, casual roll. And, why not? It does make sense to do so. Sure, "in theory" the tier character could do all the things listed under Role Playing above....but they never will. After all if they can just roll right past something..they will.

eggynack

2018-11-17, 07:57 PM

Look, I'm not try to say Chess is in anyway bad. It's just a simple, limited game. Any move you might make has been done before: Literary every game of Chess is one that has been done before. There is nothing ''new" or "different" in Chess.
Ludicrously untrue. The combinatorial complexity of a game of chess is such that we will never play through all the possibilities. It is by no means a solved game.

I disagree. The tiers and the game they are effective in is a player positive one.
What do you even mean by this? You're claiming that a game where things do the things they say they do is player positive. How is that remotely player positive? According to you, the only way to be player neutral is by changing the rules such that they're more against the players. How does that make any sense?

The tier system can only exist in the Easy Button type game: in other words a game that not only lets the players win, but is designed to let the players win.

Why do you think this? How would the tiers change in a game without this supposed easy button?

The shadow spells might not be the ''best" spells a sorcerer can pick, it's true.
They're actually pretty much the worst, using your strange house rule.

What?
The tier system fixating on mechanics doesn't mean I need to.

A wizard can eleport over and talk to people....any any other character can just walk over an talk to people. I'm not sure, is your point here just that the wizard ''looks cooler"?
No, my point is that you can move halfway across the world to, I dunno, retrieve something, or talk to different people, or coordinate a plan.

2.Role Playing. Combines the above two: the player can use both the things on the character sheet AND anything else they can think of and try to do within the game reality.
That is indeed what I've been talking about, yes. Things on the character sheet and things not on the character sheet are both pertinent.

Roll/rule playing: The player looks on their character sheet for a skill or ability that will get them past the goblin. Something like the skill Bluff or the spell Charm Person. Then they will use that ability to get past the goblin.

Role Playing. The player might have the character try and talk their way past the goblin for ''real": that is the player will come up with some type of story or reason to get past the door. The player might try the Ye Old Toss a Rock Trick...and slip past the goblin while it's distracted(using say move silently here). The player might have the character simply bribe the goblin or blackmail the goblin or trick the goblin...all for real(so instead of just making a skill roll, the player would say "I offter the goblin ten gold coins to let me pass") or dozens of other things.
You literally just said that roleplaying was inclusive of things on the character sheet. Excluding that from the possibility space now makes no sense. Both sets of options are available within roleplaying.

Erloas

2018-11-17, 08:02 PM

If you tried actually address what other posters have said instead of making up the thinnest straw-man you can come up with it might give your statements a little weight.

Roleplaying has nothing to do with how powerful or weak a character is. They are unrelated. A DM that adjudicates actions that haven't been clearly defined by the player is a poor DM, that is not a function of the power or lack there of, of the character. A player that uses the skills and abilities of their character is a *better* roleplayer than someone who uses a lot of fancy descriptions to get their character to do something the character wouldn't have any idea how to do or know anything about. A DM that gives someone success because they've used a bunch of fancy words but punishes another player for doing something their character can do but the player can't is not a good DM. "You've described that very well, you succeed" is a more "buddy DM" than one that stays with the character as they're defined. Rather than the character the player made, you're instead playing the player.

Bartmanhomer

2018-11-17, 08:21 PM

Cosi

2018-11-17, 08:32 PM

People: stop taking the bait. Yours is not going to be the page-long refutation of Darth Ultron that suddenly convinces him that he's wrong.

And yes sure everything depends on context (eg, the tiers might be slightly different for E6 or low magic campaigns or some other arbitrary settings from the DM) and nothing is purely objective, but outside college classrooms we can just be more cooperative and look past post-structuralist ideas and just agree with basics. Decriers of tier discussions don’t have to use tier systems or talk about them if they don’t like it. And if they join, they can at least acknowledge “I understand what you’re describing and I respect and understand that you probably are nuanced enough to get that everything comes with context.

You're really conflating several kinds of objections here.

Some people are denying the entire notion of ranking classes. They think that it's pointless to talk about something that's so heavily overshadowed by player skill, or they think caring about the rules ruins the game, or they think the DM will calibrate encounters so that the players are equally challenged, regardless of nominal power. In that case, it probably is worth understanding that the phenomenon exists and whatever ranking people are using is pretty good.

Some people are objecting to the specific claims the tiers make, either in terms of what criteria their rankings are based on, or in terms of how those rankings are actualized. They think the tiers don't reflect the real abilities of some particular class, or that excluding items weakens your analysis, or that the distinction between power and versatility isn't a useful one. In that case, the entire point of their objection is that the ranking is bad in minor ways that produce bad analysis and bad habits of thought about whatever the game is ranking.

And, of course, people are going to make bad faith versions of those arguments, and in that case you won't be able to get them to productively engage because they don't want to productively engage. But you shouldn't dismiss the idea that people might have legitimate and reasonable objections to the way you've structured your project of ranking classes, particularly if you're going to insist that the rankings reflect some specialized evaluation beyond "how good is this class at solving problems".

Peat

2018-11-17, 09:24 PM

I think by now the most interesting thing about the Tiers to me is less what they get right or wrong but just how enduringly popular a topic of conversation they are.

I think the obvious answer to that is a large number of people want a semi-consensus guide towards what the many options available to them can do. The Tiers don't do that perfectly - they're a very particular view on the subject that deliberately doesn't address all of it, both explicitly and implicitly - but they do it better than anything else it seems and at least offer a point for starting conversation. Without the tiers, we'd probably have the same conversations just with more mutual groping for understanding.

The other part of it is that how much people value the Tiers runs fairly parallel to a major divide in how to approach the game, turning them into a totem that they're not necessarily meant to be.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-17, 09:33 PM

No, it's a perfect example of playing the within the rules provided. You're suggesting that player knowledge trump character knowledge or that we outright ignore the dice in favor of freeform.

No my suggestion is half rules and half reality simulation.

Ignoring the dice is not what D&D is about.

It's not so much ignoring the dice, it's saying you don't need to obsess over the dice as if they were the ONLY thing.

What if I'm playing a city-slicker Swashbuckler whose entire wilderness experience is the one time he went fox hunting? That character probably doesn't know how to properly shave kindling off dry deadwood, assemble the wood, safely build a fire ring, and use friction to ignite it. Thus, this is reflected in his low Survival check.

Well, see this is where it gets odd. I guess you'd say a ''city-slicker" has never made a fire? Like, sure you can say there is one type or two of city-slicker: the dumb fool type or the clueless type that ''can't" make a fire. But it's a bit much to toss ALL city-slickers into one huge broad category.

What you are thinking of is not roleplay vs. rollplay. What you've been describing is Rules System vs. Freeform System, not "tier vs. anti-tier". You call it "rule playing". Well, just like chess, we sat down to play D&D. We sat down and agree on the D&D ruleset.

Again, The mechanics should generally support non-mechanical claims. The tier system tends to and should measure how well a class can achieve can reinforce the claims that the class inherently makes, as well as how well it can go against those claims. This is why the Monk gets shoved to the bottom. If your goal is to punch stuff, Monk is, shockingly, not a great choice.

What I'm talking about is not being a slave to the rules and playing the rules only type game.

*In chess you can only move one piece on your turn, and each piece type can only move a set way. Period.

*In a RPG, your character can at least try anything within the rules framework. You are not limited to one or even three actions(like you are in chess). And it's a bad idea to say, ''well my character can try anything...but lets forget about that and say my character can only do one thing...so my character does that only one thing".

Ludicrously untrue. The combinatorial complexity of a game of chess is such that we will never play through all the possibilities. It is by no means a solved game.

Maybe you're thinking of another game? Chess is not a complex game, it's a simple game

What do you even mean by this? You're claiming that a game where things do the things they say they do is player positive. How is that remotely player positive? According to you, the only way to be player neutral is by changing the rules such that they're more against the players. How does that make any sense?

To be player neutral, things would have to be right at 50%...the players do it or fail 50% of the time..no matter what. A tier game can never be like that as when the rules are used the result must be 100% positive all the time. Otherwise the tier system does not work.

Why do you think this? How would the tiers change in a game without this supposed easy button?

If a high tier character can't automatically, or near automatically do whatever they want to do...they are not a high tier character.
They would not exist. When the game is not set out to be easy for the players, there are no tiers.

That is indeed what I've been talking about, yes. Things on the character sheet and things not on the character sheet are both pertinent.

And this comes back to the tiers. The tiers are only about the rules, rolls and the character sheet...nothing else.

You literally just said that roleplaying was inclusive of things on the character sheet. Excluding that from the possibility space now makes no sense. Both sets of options are available within roleplaying.

Yes, Role Playing is.

But Roll Playing the Tiers is not.

I agree. Roleplaying doesn't have anything to do with tiers and non-tiers.

Again, like I keep saying, Roll Playing is all about the Tiers.

it's pointless to talk about something that's so heavily overshadowed by player skill, or they think the DM will calibrate encounters so that the players are equally challenged, regardless of nominal power.

Yes, this right here.

eggynack

2018-11-17, 10:02 PM

Maybe you're thinking of another game? Chess is not a complex game, it's a simple game
The rules are simple. The games are enormously complex.

To be player neutral, things would have to be right at 50%...the players do it or fail 50% of the time..no matter what. A tier game can never be like that as when the rules are used the result must be 100% positive all the time. Otherwise the tier system does not work.
The tier system functions on the essential truth that the rates at which various classes succeed at various tasks varies. That's its entire point. It is thus decidedly not assumed that success is 100% guaranteed. It is assumed that things function according to the rules.

If a high tier character can't automatically, or near automatically do whatever they want to do...they are not a high tier character.
Not even remotely true. A level one druid is a tier one character. There are many limits to what that character is capable of. There're plenty of problems a tier one character cannot solve. The essential quality of a tier one character is simply that they are better at solving problems than a tier two character. This does not imply a 100% success rate.

They would not exist. When the game is not set out to be easy for the players, there are no tiers.
Again, tiers are a measure of your capacity to succeed at tasks. Do you think that, in a difficult campaign, a level 10 druid and a level 10 monk have the same capacity to deal with, say, an approaching army?

And this comes back to the tiers. The tiers are only about the rules, rolls and the character sheet...nothing else.
Yes, the tiers are about those things. They are correct about those things. Games can have mechanical aspects, which are influenced by the tier system, and non-mechanical aspects, that are not.

Yes, Role Playing is.
So roleplaying is influenced by the tier system.

But Roll Playing the Tiers is not.
This phrase makes no sense. I am not convinced that you fully understand what the tier system is.

Bartmanhomer

2018-11-17, 10:11 PM

I really don't see how roleplaying trumps tiers no matter what anyone else thinks about it. :confused:

The Random NPC

2018-11-17, 10:14 PM

Well, how about they can still cast a spell they know, but don't have a slot to use to cast it?

Sorcerers are already able to cast lower level spells with higher level slots, so unless you are saying they get to cast spells with no slots at all, it's still useless.

What I'm talking about is not being a slave to the rules and playing the rules only type game.

*In chess you can only move one piece on your turn, and each piece type can only move a set way. Period.

*In a RPG, your character can at least try anything within the rules framework. You are not limited to one or even three actions(like you are in chess). And it's a bad idea to say, ''well my character can try anything...but lets forget about that and say my character can only do one thing...so my character does that only one thing".

These two statements are functional identical. Watch,
*In chess you can try anything within the rules framework. You aren't limited to three acting (like in RPGs). And it's a bad idea to say, "well my queen can move in any direction... But let's forget about that and say my queen can move in only one direction... So my queen moves in only one direction".
*In a RPG, you only get to act on your turn, and you only get a move, standard, and a swift action.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-17, 11:13 PM

The tier system functions on the essential truth that the rates at which various classes succeed at various tasks varies. That's its entire point. It is thus decidedly not assumed that success is 100% guaranteed. It is assumed that things function according to the rules.

The tier system functions on the essential truth that the game will be set up to make the tier system exist and function.

Not even remotely true. A level one druid is a tier one character. There are many limits to what that character is capable of. There're plenty of problems a tier one character cannot solve. The essential quality of a tier one character is simply that they are better at solving problems than a tier two character. This does not imply a 100% success rate.

I disagree that is true. No character is ''better" then another, just different. And that tier one character player can only exist in a 100% success game, if they fail even more then twice, then they can't ''solve problems" now can they?

Again, tiers are a measure of your capacity to succeed at tasks. Do you think that, in a difficult campaign, a level 10 druid and a level 10 monk have the same capacity to deal with, say, an approaching army?

Yes. The druid and the monk have different abilities per class, and each of their players have different skills and abilities. Each can equally well try to do anything in the game.

Now sure, in the easy causal tier friendly buddy DM game, the druid can just walk out in front of the army and stop them with a couple spells...because the DM makes the game that way. And the same DM, will have the monk last like two rounds in combat with the army.

Yes, the tiers are about those things. They are correct about those things. Games can have mechanical aspects, which are influenced by the tier system, and non-mechanical aspects, that are not.

A role playing game is much more then just mechanics. That is my point.

This phrase makes no sense. I am not convinced that you fully understand what the tier system is.

1.Someone sat down and played the game in the One Way Stlye I have described: A Casual Heavy Roll play and Heavy Rule usage, a typical RPG Gentleman's Agreement, pro player friendly game with a good buddy DM that just lets the players succeed.

2.With that exact game in mind, that person ranked all the classes.

3.Then everyone,oddly, applied that to the whole game and all play styles.

Sound about right?

To keep it simple...just take that typical RPG Gentleman's Agreement. Would you EVER play in a game without one? One where the DM had absloute game power to do as they want on a whim? How well do you think the ''tier system" would work is such a game?

Again, like I keep saying, Roll Playing is all about the Tiers.

OK

Sorcerers are already able to cast lower level spells with higher level slots, so unless you are saying they get to cast spells with no slots at all, it's still useless.

Again, I agree that sorcerers should not use the spell.

These two statements are functional identical. Watch,
*In chess you can try anything within the rules framework. You aren't limited to three acting (like in RPGs). And it's a bad idea to say, "well my queen can move in any direction... But let's forget about that and say my queen can move in only one direction... So my queen moves in only one direction".
*In a RPG, you only get to act on your turn, and you only get a move, standard, and a swift action.

*Except the rules of Chess DO say how and when you can move a piece at all times during the game. The RPG does not have such rules; you can say "my character walks into town" and have that action happen in the game, using no rules what so ever.

*And here, you are only talking about Combat, or timed adventuring. And it's true, that in combat/timed adventuring the rules are very specific and exact (just like chess). But, thankfully...for most people...combat/timed adventuring is NOT the whole game.

JNAProductions

2018-11-17, 11:28 PM

So, following the rules is being a "buddy" DM?

Because a well-built Druid CAN work well against an army. Just with one spell-say, Storm Of Vengeance-and they can wipe out a good portion of the army.

A 360' radius storm covers around 16,000 squares. While the army is unlikely to be in a perfect circle for maximum destruction, it will take a big chunk from them, and will probably scare the ever-loving crap out of the rest that live.

A 20th level Druid can do that 4 times a day, not counting bonus spells. While Wildshaped, with Natural Spell, which means they're basically undetectable-even if you SUSPECT every random bird, there's virtually no chance of guessing right unless you're in a totally animal-free area. (And if you are, they can be an Earth Elemental, pop their head up, cast Storm Of Vengeance, and Earth Glide back down next turn. Whatever few shots they get off are unlikely to do much against the form.)

A 20th level Monk, meanwhile, can punch them really well and take hits like a champ, thanks to DR 10/Magic. They're likely going to take no damage from most of them, but anyone armed with a Greatsword or similar has a decent chance of damaging them. And, whereas the Druid can potentially hit 64,000 people in about five minutes, the Monk is limited to about five or six a round.

eggynack

2018-11-17, 11:30 PM

The tier system functions on the essential truth that the game will be set up to make the tier system exist and function.
No idea where you're getting that from.

I disagree that is true. No character is ''better" then another, just different. And that tier one character player can only exist in a 100% success game, if they fail even more then twice, then they can't ''solve problems" now can they?
A monk's capabilities are more or less a proper subset of those of a druid. Druids are somewhat better at hitting enemies, and way better at doing literally anything else. 100% success, or this double failure metric, I have no idea how you're arriving at it. Where is it coming from?

Yes. The druid and the monk have different abilities per class, and each of their players have different skills and abilities. Each can equally well try to do anything in the game.
How, precisely, does the monk "try" to destroy a city, or instantly travel halfway across the world, or simultaneously lock down an entire battlefield?

Now sure, in the easy causal tier friendly buddy DM game, the druid can just walk out in front of the army and stop them with a couple spells...because the DM makes the game that way. And the same DM, will have the monk last like two rounds in combat with the army.
If the druid is stopping the army with a couple of spells, it's because the druid has spells that can stop an army. A sufficiently high caster level control winds can has very specific and very potent effects on an army. The DM has no role in this. A monk has very specific and very not potent effects on an army. They mostly just have punching and reasonable AC.

A role playing game is much more then just mechanics. That is my point.
That's not a point that anyone has said anything against, the tier system included. However, a role playing game is not less than mechanics either. Mechanical options exist.

1.Someone sat down and played the game in the One Way Stlye I have described: A Casual Heavy Roll play and Heavy Rule usage, a typical RPG Gentleman's Agreement, pro player friendly game with a good buddy DM that just lets the players succeed.

2.With that exact game in mind, that person ranked all the classes.

3.Then everyone,oddly, applied that to the whole game and all play styles.

Sound about right?
I have no idea how, precisely, the original tier system was arrived at. There was definitely community effort involved. Your version does not "sound about right" though.

To keep it simple...just take that typical RPG Gentleman's Agreement. Would you EVER play in a game without one? One where the DM had absloute game power to do as they want on a whim? How well do you think the ''tier system" would work is such a game?
That's not what the RPG gentleman's agreement means to be. That typically means, y'know, don't be a butt. It more often refers to player behavior than DM behavior. I probably wouldn't want to play in a game where the DM generates spontaneous houserules at their whim, no. The tier system does depend on the game's rules being the game's rules. That strikes me less as a gentleman's agreement, and more as the general agreement you make when you play any game. To use the rules.

Cosi

2018-11-17, 11:41 PM

Because a well-built Druid CAN work well against an army. Just with one spell-say, Storm Of Vengeance-and they can wipe out a good portion of the army.

Druid is actually one of the best classes in the game for destroying an army, actually (oddly enough, Warlock of all things probably takes second place). storm of vengeance or control weather impose nasty conditions in impressively large AoEs and work without needing any tricks or optimization. A Wizard or a Cleric can destroy an army, either by buffing themselves up and carving their way through the ranks or by calling up minions to slaughter the enemy, but Druids are one of the few classes with the ability to do it directly with raw magical power.

The Random NPC

2018-11-18, 12:07 AM

Again, I agree that sorcerers should not use the spell.
So long as you recognize that your house rule is aimed at making prepared casters stronger than spontaneous casters, while only minimally weakening casters as a whole.

*Except the rules of Chess DO say how and when you can move a piece at all times during the game. The RPG does not have such rules; you can say "my character walks into town" and have that action happen in the game, using no rules what so ever.
The RPG does have such rules, those rules are reference reality.

*And here, you are only talking about Combat, or timed adventuring. And it's true, that in combat/timed adventuring the rules are very specific and exact (just like chess). But, thankfully...for most people...combat/timed adventuring is NOT the whole game.

No, I'm talking about the entire game, just because most people ignore timed adventuring outside of combat doesn't change the fact that the entire game takes place in rounds and limits activity by actions.

Florian

2018-11-18, 07:11 AM

I really don't see how roleplaying trumps tiers no matter what anyone else thinks about it. :confused:

Tiers deal heavily with the breadth and depths of mechanical options.

Basically, for a lot of stuff, you don't need any mechanics in the first place, you need, or better said, want them to clear up tricky situations. For example, a CHA 8 Fighter without ranks in any social skills can still talk with someone, lie, flirt, sweet-talk and such. The reason we use stuff like social skills is to prevent a player - gm disagreement. Does the person believe the lie? If not sure, roll the dice to find out.

The opposite approach is that you have to have something written down on the character sheet and co firmed by the RAW, else you don't have it, or at least only by "gm fiat". Players with that mind-set will not engage an NPC without having max ranks in social skills and spells to back them up should they roll a natural "1" and such.

The second angle here is the power of a gm. Should a gm want to host, say, a planes hopping campaign, there will be ways and means, portals abound and such, with stuff like Plane Shift being more or less worthless. Should the game be, say, a wilderness exploration or mega dungeon crawl, Plane Shift is either a thing or not. Maybe you're expected to seek out portals instead of buying a scroll, because that is what this particular campaign is about?

Last, but not least, is just the point that "power level" and "growth" can have vastly different meaning.
It´s actually funny that especially D&D, which models zero to hero, especially 3E, is so bad at modeling character growth based on what actually happened at the table, in the game, instead more or less relying on builds.

This is not saying that roll-play excludes role-play, but a thing to think about, when it comes to the various attitudes that are broadly covered by D&D (all editions or PF. "Normal" is relative.

zlefin

2018-11-18, 10:29 AM

I really don't see how roleplaying trumps tiers no matter what anyone else thinks about it. :confused:

you don't see it because it isn't there.
some people just have beliefs that don't conform to reality; and the nature of discussion means such things end up being disproportionately visible. There's no system in place to prevent people from endlessly posting disprovable nonsense, because it's a very tricky problem to address.

Pex

2018-11-18, 10:47 AM

It's always assumed spellcasters have the exact spell they need at the moment they need it and the bad guy always fails his saving throw. If a feat is needed the spellcaster has all of them. Meanwhile the warrior always fails his saving throw and cannot skill check himself out of a paper bag. If he has a feat but there's one particular scenario where that feat does not help that proves he's absolutely useless in every way for everything.

That may not be what the Tier System was originally intended to convey or advise, but that is what is has become.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-18, 11:45 AM

So, following the rules is being a "buddy" DM?

Well, it's always hard to talk about theoretical things like this as everyone is always changing things about the example..like when you suddenly changed the original example of a 10th level druid and made it a 20th level druid.

But, sure, in a general sense the Buddy DM would make a super weak 'target army', something like a bunch of warriors level one. A Buddy DM has the rules interpretation that the players must always win a encounter of combat, so they only make the challenge equal to, or less then what the character can handle. The rules don't say that, however, as I said, it is a set style of game play. The rules don't say that every encounter must be weak, but that is the DM Buddy's interpretation.

The rules, that everyone either ignores or interprets in favor of the players do actually say that some encounters should be overpowering and too difficult for the player characters.

So when you have an army of undead, storm giants, golems, dragons....or xorn or phase spiders, then the ''storm of vengeance attack" is a lot less effective.

Also a big part of your example is the whole army is dumb. And that it's impossible for the army to even think that a bird might be an arch druid foe. Well, this is a perfect example of Buddy DMing. Why is the whole army so culeless and helpless? Why can't anyone think of anything? Really, things even a INT 10 person can think of, let alone the INT 18 army battlemaster. So this includes things like air cover with flying monsters...and, my favorite, living spells(you know, like say having oh a mile around the army covered by a massive living Dowdraft spell..just for starters). Plus the army can se divinations too...so, they will likely know when and where and how the attack will be made.

Now, all the above also highlights my other point of the tier system only working in low magic/low fantasy setting. When a tier supporter hears the word ''army"..they only think of ''oh, a bunch of weak humanoids in armor..lame". Or, in other words, a super easy target for spellcasters. The idea of even a xorn or phase spider army just is beyond their comprehension. And, of course, such an army would not make a game where the spellcaster can be ''tier one awesome".

JNAProductions

2018-11-18, 12:05 PM

That's my bad-I didn't see 10th level.

I'm not a Druid expert (that's Eggynack) but I'm sure they could do serious damage to an army. It'd be harder than a 20th level Druid, but they could.

As for assuming it's an army of low level schmucks... That actually FAVORS the Monk, at 20th level. Since they have DR 10/Magic, that means most ordinary attacks bounce off them. If there are higher level goons or people with magical weapons... It goes a lot worse for them.

And finally, unless the army has a standing policy to kill EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL THEY SEE, the Druid can easily sneak in. In fact (to stick with my 20th level example), they don't even need to get close. They have a 1200' range to cast Storm Of Vengeance, so unless the army has snipers specifically told to shoot every single animal they see that's more than a fifth of a mile out...

Edit: And what would a Monk do against an army of Xorn or Phase Spiders?

Assuming the army of Xorn is even just average Xorn, they have Earth Glide (meaning they can engage the Monk and retreat without issue, while the Monk can only attack them when they expose themselves) and they do 4d6+3 damage (average 17) with a good ol' +10 to hit, on their main attack. The Monk probably has an AC of around... Let's call it 10 (Base)+4 (AC Bonus)+6 (Dex)+4 (Wis) for 24. Add some miscellaneous magic items for +6 or so, and the Xorn do only hit on a 20, meaning a Monk with 174 HP (+4 Con, maxed at level 1) survives...

24 hit. The 25th kills them.

Or 500 attacks, assuming the Xorn never bother aiding another, flanking, charging, attacking from surprise (which they can do easily thanks to Earth Glide)...

The Monk, meanwhile, can do up to five attacks (if they start next to a Xorn) at +15/15/15/10/5, before bonuses, so they can probably hit with AT LEAST 4. Against a 48 HP Xorn, they can (with their 2d10 fists) probably drop one a round.

So... Yeah, unless the army is tiny, the Monk loses. Loses hard. They engage a Xorn, get surrounded by others coming up from the ground, and take 8 attacks a round (with Flanking bonuses, but I'll assume they get hit on a 20 anyway).

So that's... 63 rounds to kill the Monk, or about 63 dead Xorn. How small is the army supposed to be?

eggynack

2018-11-18, 12:10 PM

But, sure, in a general sense the Buddy DM would make a super weak 'target army', something like a bunch of warriors level one. A Buddy DM has the rules interpretation that the players must always win a encounter of combat, so they only make the challenge equal to, or less then what the character can handle. The rules don't say that, however, as I said, it is a set style of game play. The rules don't say that every encounter must be weak, but that is the DM Buddy's interpretation.

The rules, that everyone either ignores or interprets in favor of the players do actually say that some encounters should be overpowering and too difficult for the player characters.

So when you have an army of undead, storm giants, golems, dragons....or xorn or phase spiders, then the ''storm of vengeance attack" is a lot less effective.
First, a monk is also worse against an army of undead, storm giants, golems, and whatever else. Literally all they have is punching. That's kinda the point, and why your "always succeed" thing is super wrong. Imagine some arbitrary army that the druid has 50% odds against. Make it level 10, because, honestly, level 20 is super weird for this. Now, what odds does a monk have against this army? Is it 50%? 75%? 0%? I seriously doubt it's the same number, and I"d contend it's way lower.

Second, I agree that the storm of vengeance plan is a bit weak. Really high level spell and not effective against stronger enemies. That's why I named control winds. At 10th level, it has greater range than storm has at 20th. It lasts for nearly two hours, meaning it's just a feature of the battlefield when cast. You don't have to concentrate on it, so you get to cast some other spells. And, most important of all, it does crazy things. Up your caster level to 15, which is plausible but difficult, and you get to turn a 400 ft. radius into a tornado (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/weather.htm#tornadoWind). Everyone in that radius has to make fortitude saves every round against getting taken out of combat for numerous rounds and quite likely killed. And if we're at CL 15 now, then the spell has a radius of 600 ft and lasts two and a half hours. You can't even ranged attack through it, so if you're on the far side of the tornado then you've gotta go around it. Suffice to say, this is not an ideal situation for armies.

Bear in mind, that's just one spell. Add a blizzard on and you get to also shut down vision, even more mobility, and you deal some low key damage as well. In a single level you get to start spontaneously summoning earthquakes. Is this stuff necessarily capable of taking out any army, 100%, such that there isn't even a need for cleanup afterwards? Absolutely not. But any army that can deal effectively with that situation is going to be a steep climb indeed for a monk.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-18, 12:12 PM

No idea where you're getting that from.

You do accept that there are many ways and styles to play the game right? Ok, well the Tier Friendly Style is just one of many.

A monk's capabilities are more or less a proper subset of those of a druid. Druids are somewhat better at hitting enemies, and way better at doing literally anything else. 100% success, or this double failure metric, I have no idea how you're arriving at it. Where is it coming from?

Right, in a pure combat roll playing game taking place in a ''blank room arena" you are saying one class is ''better" then the other. But only in COMBAT right? What happen to the tiers being about things other then combat? Gee, the tiers suddenly just became ''all about only combat" right?

How, precisely, does the monk "try" to destroy a city, or instantly travel halfway across the world, or simultaneously lock down an entire battlefield?

This is such a complex question and answer that it would really need it's own thread....and, of course, you would have to agree to MY personal style of game play for me to set an example in.

If the druid is stopping the army with a couple of spells, it's because the druid has spells that can stop an army. A sufficiently high caster level control winds can has very specific and very potent effects on an army. The DM has no role in this. A monk has very specific and very not potent effects on an army. They mostly just have punching and reasonable AC.

You can see the army example above.

That's not a point that anyone has said anything against, the tier system included. However, a role playing game is not less than mechanics either. Mechanical options exist.

The point is a role playing game is a mix of play actions/acting and mechanics. Take our guard at the gate:

Roll Playing-Player "I cast charm person on the guard" DM: he fails his save Player: "I tell my good buddy guard to let me in the door. DM: The guard lets you in. All pure Roll Playing.

Role Playing: Player "I approach the guard and offer him ten gold to let me through the door" (acting) DM: checks rules for economy(mechanics) Guard says "wow, a lot of money..sure"(acting)

I have no idea how, precisely, the original tier system was arrived at. There was definitely community effort involved. Your version does not "sound about right" though.

Wonder if there is a history somewhere?

That's not what the RPG gentleman's agreement means to be. That typically means, y'know, don't be a butt. It more often refers to player behavior than DM behavior. I probably wouldn't want to play in a game where the DM generates spontaneous houserules at their whim, no. The tier system does depend on the game's rules being the game's rules. That strikes me less as a gentleman's agreement, and more as the general agreement you make when you play any game. To use the rules.

But the rules are not just ''it", as it is also how you play the rules.

An easy example is simply the tone of the game, like to foes you tricks and traps and clever ideas........or do they just walk out into the open an let themselves be targets so the players can feel awesome.

The RPG does have such rules, those rules are reference reality.

Most RPGs only have rules for combat, and a couple select actions. But in an game play, you can do thousands of things that have no rules to cover them what so ever.

No, I'm talking about the entire game, just because most people ignore timed adventuring outside of combat doesn't change the fact that the entire game takes place in rounds and limits activity by actions.

The entire game does NOT take place in rounds that limit activity by actions....that is only true in Combat and some actions. The whole rest of the game is not played in rounds.

It's always assumed spellcasters have the exact spell they need at the moment they need it and the bad guy always fails his saving throw. If a feat is needed the spellcaster has all of them. Meanwhile the warrior always fails his saving throw and cannot skill check himself out of a paper bag. If he has a feat but there's one particular scenario where that feat does not help that proves he's absolutely useless in every way for everything.

That may not be what the Tier System was originally intended to convey or advise, but that is what is has become.

This.

eggynack

2018-11-18, 12:25 PM

You do accept that there are many ways and styles to play the game right? Ok, well the Tier Friendly Style is just one of many.
What I'm saying is that, with the exception of using the rules as they are written, there is not precisely a tier friendly style.

Right, in a pure combat roll playing game taking place in a ''blank room arena" you are saying one class is ''better" then the other. But only in COMBAT right? What happen to the tiers being about things other then combat? Gee, the tiers suddenly just became ''all about only combat" right?
That is not remotely what I said. In combat, a druid is somewhat better than a monk. Out of combat, a druid is way better than a monk. What resources does a monk have to offer in a non-combat context? What resources do they have that a druid doesn't trivially outmatch? Druids actually have tools for exploration, stealthing, learning, destroying, creating, and all kindsa other junk. A blank room arena is where a monk has the greatest relative advantage. They still suck in that blank room arena.

This is such a complex question and answer that it would really need it's own thread....and, of course, you would have to agree to MY personal style of game play for me to set an example in.
Okay, simpler question then. What can a monk do to accomplish those things that a druid cannot do better?

You can see the army example above.
Already handled.

The point is a role playing game is a mix of play actions/acting and mechanics. Take our guard at the gate:

Roll Playing-Player "I cast charm person on the guard" DM: he fails his save Player: "I tell my good buddy guard to let me in the door. DM: The guard lets you in. All pure Roll Playing.

Role Playing: Player "I approach the guard and offer him ten gold to let me through the door" (acting) DM: checks rules for economy(mechanics) Guard says "wow, a lot of money..sure"(acting)
The problem is, that first situation is also roleplaying. Because, if roleplaying is inclusive of mechanics, then a roleplayer can also use straightforward mechanical abilities. You can do both. Charm person and bribing are options available. Or, rather, charm person and bribing are both options available to a wizard. Only the latter is available to a monk.

But the rules are not just ''it", as it is also how you play the rules.

An easy example is simply the tone of the game, like to foes you tricks and traps and clever ideas........or do they just walk out into the open an let themselves be targets so the players can feel awesome.
Okay, but you've talked explicitly about breaking the rules. If the rules are staying as they are, then the foes can use all the tricks they want and still be in the context of the tier system. The thing about high tier classes is that they tend to be adaptable. A reasonably designed spell list grants access to a ton of options. By contrast, a low tier class is liable to have only a few mechanical options, and most of them will be similar. A druid is way more mechanically equipped to deal with a tricky opponent than a monk is.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-18, 12:35 PM

I'm not a Druid expert (that's Eggynack) but I'm sure they could do serious damage to an army. It'd be harder than a 20th level Druid, but they could.

Yes, but now your again changing things to 'making a super perfect anti-army druid character' not just ''a druid".

As for assuming it's an army of low level schmucks... That actually FAVORS the Monk, at 20th level. Since they have DR 10/Magic, that means most ordinary attacks bounce off them. If there are higher level goons or people with magical weapons... It goes a lot worse for them.

I'm no monk expert...but are not a 10th level monks attacks ''magic''?

First, a monk is also worse against an army of undead, storm giants, golems, and whatever else. Literally all they have is punching. That's kinda the point, and why your "always succeed" thing is super wrong. Imagine some arbitrary army that the druid has 50% odds against. Make it level 10, because, honestly, level 20 is super weird for this. Now, what odds does a monk have against this army? Is it 50%? 75%? 0%? I seriously doubt it's the same number, and I"d contend it's way lower.

Right, but you have only been talking about the pure mechanical Roll Playing game, right? That the ONLY way to stop the army is pure rules and rolls mechanical combat. Right?

Let me offer some ROLE playing ways:

*Challenge the general to single combat for control of the army. See how this small bit of ROLE PLAYING changes the whole game. Now the 10th level monk CAN defeat the whole army....they kill the general, and then order the army to leave (or do whatever).

*Assassinate the general and other leaders. Again, role playing and this works out good for a monk too.

*Of course, for true role playing the monk could have also stopped the army from even assembling in the first place

Note all of the above are Role Playing ways to defeat the army, ones that are NOT just pure roll playing combat (though they do involve combat as PART of what they are doing).

And yes, the druid...or ANY character can try to do the role playing ways..no matter what ''tier" they are. But the druid is far, far, far, far less likely to do anything other then roll playing combat and blast away with spells..and feed the tier system.

Bear in mind, that's just one spell. Add a blizzard on and you get to also shut down vision, even more mobility, and you deal some low key damage as well. In a single level you get to start spontaneously summoning earthquakes. Is this stuff necessarily capable of taking out any army, 100%, such that there isn't even a need for cleanup afterwards? Absolutely not. But any army that can deal effectively with that situation is going to be a steep climb indeed for a monk.

Right, but here is yet another one of my points: It is also player skill and ability.

You, Eggynack as a writer of a druid handbook, are a bit of a druid expert. So to say that you, personally, can make a ''perfect druid character" is one thing. But that does not mean others can. It's player skill and ability.

Any player can pick a ''tier 1" character class...but that does not give them the skill and ability to use the class at anywhere near the ''tier 1" level of ability. Just going by the rules and mechanics takes a lot of mastery.....and not all players have it.

eggynack

2018-11-18, 12:58 PM

Right, but you have only been talking about the pure mechanical Roll Playing game, right? That the ONLY way to stop the army is pure rules and rolls mechanical combat. Right?
It's an option available to the druid that is seemingly not available to the monk. What if you don't have that much time to prepare for the army? In that case, you may have no recourse besides dealing directly with the army.

*Challenge the general to single combat for control of the army. See how this small bit of ROLE PLAYING changes the whole game. Now the 10th level monk CAN defeat the whole army....they kill the general, and then order the army to leave (or do whatever).

*Assassinate the general and other leaders. Again, role playing and this works out good for a monk too.

*Of course, for true role playing the monk could have also stopped the army from even assembling in the first place

Note all of the above are Role Playing ways to defeat the army, ones that are NOT just pure roll playing combat (though they do involve combat as PART of what they are doing).
Okay, let's just be clear here. All of this? This more complicated interaction based stuff for dealing with the army? Yeah, that was all part of the army scenario as originally conceived. Here's JaronK (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?270721-How-would-your-characters-contribute-against-this-army) laying out what the army looks like, how it functions, and varying ways to deal with parts of it. Dealing with some leaders could absolutely help. Defeating one in single combat, maybe not so much.

That being said, your plans are way easier for the druid to accomplish than for the monk to accomplish. They have better knowledge gaining capabilities, via scouting and divinations, so they're more able to identify who the generals are, where they are, and what their capabilities are. They have more stealth, mostly via wild shape but also through spells, so they're better at getting to where those leaders are without being detected. And, of course, they're better at straight up combat, because that is what both of your named plans ultimately come down to. Hell, they even have a bit more in the way of social skills, though admittedly not a ton, so they're a bit more likely to get a general to agree to single combat in the first place.

And yes, the druid...or ANY character can try to do the role playing ways..no matter what ''tier" they are. But the druid is far, far, far, far less likely to do anything other then roll playing combat and blast away with spells..and feed the tier system.
That is an arbitrary assumption. A druid has more access to these roleplaying methods of dealing with the situation, not less.

Right, but here is yet another one of my points: It is also player skill and ability.

You, Eggynack as a writer of a druid handbook, are a bit of a druid expert. So to say that you, personally, can make a ''perfect druid character" is one thing. But that does not mean others can. It's player skill and ability.

Any player can pick a ''tier 1" character class...but that does not give them the skill and ability to use the class at anywhere near the ''tier 1" level of ability. Just going by the rules and mechanics takes a lot of mastery.....and not all players have it.
I'm still mostly core with only core items. This is not a perfect druid. The CL raising may have been a bit much, though it's of note that, in a single level, tornado out of nothing is doable with just some prayer beads of karma. I haven't even really used feats yet. Or clever tactics. Or anything. I cast a spell and then maybe cast a different spell. There's a lot of really interesting and powerful possibility space that I haven't even touched.

Moreover, we have to keep in mind that the goal isn't killing all the armies all the time without any effort. The essential goal is doing better at that goal than a monk. It's not a hard goal to reach. Assuming for the sake of argument we're just dealing with the army straight up, any number of spells could prove useful. Stuff like wall of thorns, or plant growth, or wind wall, or even call lightning could offer forms of utility that a monk can't really replicate. And that's on top of a reasonable capacity to hit enemies in the face. Outdoing a monk here is not a hard task.

JNAProductions

2018-11-18, 01:10 PM

The Monk has DR 10/magic.

Meaning that higher level foes are more dangerous to the monk, whether by dealing more damage to bypass the DR, having magic weapons, or both.

BlackDragonKing

2018-11-18, 01:56 PM

Also the idea that one class having options that effect the narrative that another doesn't only comes up in a game where the GM is enforcing that is laughable.

The demon the 10th-level party is fighting sees the tide of battle has turned against him and plane shifts himself away, growling an ominous threat about the party's loved ones. He can't beat you in a fair fight, but your loved ones in your hometown are vulnerable and his power to traverse dimensions means he can head straight to them to take his revenge!

Problem: Your hometown is a thousand miles away.

A tenth-level character that can cast teleport can respond to this problem. Having a single wizard in the party that has learned this highly useful spell means the party has the means to rush home in a matter of seconds to try and intercept the demon before he can attack their families. A GM who is not trying to help the party has no reason to prevent them from doing this; using Teleport to travel a thousand miles in six seconds to a place the teleporter is intimately familiar with is precisely how the spell is supposed to work.

A party with no casters in it cannot possibly beat the demon to their village without utilizing a scroll of teleport. The fighter describing in extreme detail his desperation to beat the demon home isn't going to open up a portal in space-time to let him get home and you can't just role-play a thousand-mile journey away; the GM's not trying to help you, remember, so if the party says "we find a way to get back home quickly" his only response will be "how?" Now, a friendly NPC wizard or extraplanar being might just HAPPEN along to cast the essential spell FOR the party...but then who's getting by because the GM is being a buddy?

Darth Ultron

2018-11-18, 02:01 PM

It's an option available to the druid that is seemingly not available to the monk. What if you don't have that much time to prepare for the army? In that case, you may have no recourse besides dealing directly with the army.

Note things like preparation time...and the whole world around this one event is role playing, not roll playing. The tier way is only ''ok there is an army, you have one character and the rest of the game world is a blank...what do you do hot shot?"

That being said, your plans are way easier for the druid to accomplish than for the monk to accomplish. They have better knowledge gaining capabilities, via scouting and divinations, so they're more able to identify who the generals are, where they are, and what their capabilities are. They have more stealth, mostly via wild shape but also through spells, so they're better at getting to where those leaders are without being detected. And, of course, they're better at straight up combat, because that is what both of your named plans ultimately come down to. Hell, they even have a bit more in the way of social skills, though admittedly not a ton, so they're a bit more likely to get a general to agree to single combat in the first place.

Your assuming a character in a trier friendly game that is made for them to win, of course.

That is an arbitrary assumption. A druid has more access to these roleplaying methods of dealing with the situation, not less.

Note all characters have the exact same amount.

I'm still mostly core with only core items. This is not a perfect druid. The CL raising may have been a bit much, though it's of note that, in a single level, tornado out of nothing is doable with just some prayer beads of karma. I haven't even really used feats yet. Or clever tactics. Or anything. I cast a spell and then maybe cast a different spell. There's a lot of really interesting and powerful possibility space that I haven't even touched.

It's not like core is weak or anything. Still you do show some system and rule mastery.

Moreover, we have to keep in mind that the goal isn't killing all the armies all the time without any effort. The essential goal is doing better at that goal than a monk. It's not a hard goal to reach. Assuming for the sake of argument we're just dealing with the army straight up, any number of spells could prove useful. Stuff like wall of thorns, or plant growth, or wind wall, or even call lightning could offer forms of utility that a monk can't really replicate. And that's on top of a reasonable capacity to hit enemies in the face. Outdoing a monk here is not a hard task.

If the goal here is to simply stop the army...it does not matter how it is done.

What I'm saying is that, with the exception of using the rules as they are written, there is not precisely a tier friendly style.

This might be a ''can't see the forest through the trees" type thing. Maybe you can list some of the things you personally use in a D&D 3.5 game like your version of the Gentleman's Agreement, your interpenetration of the rules, ways you want the game to be and your house rules. It might be good for you to type them out. As you do, just think of how different the game would be without each of them, and how it would effect the tiers.

That is not remotely what I said. In combat, a druid is somewhat better than a monk. Out of combat, a druid is way better than a monk. What resources does a monk have to offer in a non-combat context? What resources do they have that a druid doesn't trivially outmatch? Druids actually have tools for exploration, stealthing, learning, destroying, creating, and all kindsa other junk. A blank room arena is where a monk has the greatest relative advantage. They still suck in that blank room arena.

In your view a druid is ''better" then a monk at out of combat rules actions, right? Your example is only roll playing the rules using the character sheet right?

Okay, simpler question then. What can a monk do to accomplish those things that a druid cannot do better?

Such a vague question as to what ''better" is...I guess your just going by the roll playing numbers, right? Like your counting the amount of damage done and saying ''the druid is better!". Again, this is the tier problem: reducing the game to roll playing only.

A

The problem is, that first situation is also roleplaying. Because, if roleplaying is inclusive of mechanics, then a roleplayer can also use straightforward mechanical abilities. You can do both. Charm person and bribing are options available. Or, rather, charm person and bribing are both options available to a wizard. Only the latter is available to a monk.

Yes, many characters have many different abilities, some are special to a class, and some everyone can use. But a character is in on way ''better" just as they have an ability. Again, that is rule/roll play thinking. And again, it ignores player skill and ability.

Okay, but you've talked explicitly about breaking the rules. If the rules are staying as they are, then the foes can use all the tricks they want and still be in the context of the tier system. The thing about high tier classes is that they tend to be adaptable. A reasonably designed spell list grants access to a ton of options. By contrast, a low tier class is liable to have only a few mechanical options, and most of them will be similar. A druid is way more mechanically equipped to deal with a tricky opponent than a monk is.

I never talked about ''breaking the rules"? There is no rule that says ''no monster can attack the PCs unless they are fully ready". You might think that is a rule...but it's not. You might think there is a rule that says ''no monsters can steal things from the PCs", but again...that is not a rule.

And the thing about ''high tier classes" is they are adaptable for the easy, casual combat/action roll playing game with a buddy dm style of game play. And...that is it.

So, list some of the things you personally use in a D&D 3.5 game like your version of the Gentleman's Agreement, your interpenetration of the rules, ways you want the game to be and your house rules. Others can too. Lets see how many support and even create the tier style.

death390

2018-11-18, 02:07 PM

~snip~

Let me offer some ROLE playing ways:

*Challenge the general to single combat for control of the army. See how this small bit of ROLE PLAYING changes the whole game. Now the 10th level monk CAN defeat the whole army....they kill the general, and then order the army to leave (or do whatever).

*Assassinate the general and other leaders. Again, role playing and this works out good for a monk too.

*Of course, for true role playing the monk could have also stopped the army from even assembling in the first place

Note all of the above are Role Playing ways to defeat the army, ones that are NOT just pure roll playing combat (though they do involve combat as PART of what they are doing).

And yes, the druid...or ANY character can try to do the role playing ways..no matter what ''tier" they are. But the druid is far, far, far, far less likely to do anything other then roll playing combat and blast away with spells..and feed the tier system.

~snip

oh hell no, first of all these are DM decisions if the first place. hell your bribe the guard example from early is the same.

for example the bribe the guard bit is basically a opposed diplomacy roll with a bonus for you if the guard takes the bribe. mechanically speaking. hell might be enough that there is no need for a roll. on the flip side if the guard is upstanding and LIKES his job he can STILL turn you away.

then there are these examples you stated:
1v1 challenge? phht if that works your DM just waived an entire army campaign on the idea that they all just want to go home and don't care. hell why should the general even accept the challenge, he could tell you that this is ordained by the gods and you will not stop our cleanse. there is no listed reason WHY the army is coming in the example. EVEN IF the general accepts his 2nd, 3rd, 4th in command could challenge you right back for control of the army.

kill the leadership, yeah it can work. but how do you know they won't just come back or promote people to continue the campaign. this is actually a valid sort of thing that i could see an adventure being.

stopping the army from mobilizing in the first place. no, full stop; you don't get to decide that you could have stopped it after we are already stating that it has mobilized because that requires being in the right place at the right time and has the right skill set to have prevented it in the first place. it has already mobilized.

of course with all three of these a druid could do it better than the monk. to challenge the general you have to make it to one, which requires stealth or diplomacy/intimidate or even raw force. kill the leadership wild shape into many different forms bypasses most sentry lines and a mobile army won't have the resources to cover a huge area (or a bunch of small ones) against every contingency (flight, teleportation, burrow, raw stealth, innocuous disguises (squirrel anyone?), ect). finally as stated the army has mobilized so the last option of stopping the army from mobilizing is nothing more than a red herring.

also anyone can roleplay something, the problem for most roll playing as you put it is that some classes cant roll play their way out of it. that would mean that those who can't either don't have the right build to do so or mechanically can't. for example the monk CAN'T teleport halfway across the world, simultaneously lock down an entire battlefield (could hold the line somewhere though), he could destroy a city with enough explosives probably too.

eggynack

2018-11-18, 02:21 PM

Note things like preparation time...and the whole world around this one event is role playing, not roll playing. The tier way is only ''ok there is an army, you have one character and the rest of the game world is a blank...what do you do hot shot?"
Preparation time is beneficial to druids as well. They have abilities that turn time into resources. Y'know, various defenses, called monsters, a perfect list, that kinda thing. I mean, you've listed several "roleplaying options" already, and druids are decidedly better equipped for this.

Your assuming a character in a trier friendly game that is made for them to win, of course.
What? Where? I literally just named tools a druid has. Divinations are on the druid list. They do specific things. Druids can do those things, and a monk cannot. My basic assumption is that the situation operates as mentioned in that thread. It's a pretty comprehensive description that can be modified up and down difficulty-wise.

Note all characters have the exact same amount.
Not really, no. To return to something like teleportation, if a given roleplaying option is a distance away, and time is somewhat limited, then that is an option open to the druid and not to the monk. If a given option is dependent on being able to get somewhere without being spotted, then monks mostly cannot access it.

It's not like core is weak or anything.
It's not weak. It's also not especially optimized.

If the goal here is to simply stop the army...it does not matter how it is done.
As long as you succeed, sure. But if a given method is worse at stopping the army then another, or if a given method is outright ineffective in a given situation, then it definitely does matter what your method is.

This might be a ''can't see the forest through the trees" type thing. Maybe you can list some of the things you personally use in a D&D 3.5 game like your version of the Gentleman's Agreement, your interpenetration of the rules, ways you want the game to be and your house rules. It might be good for you to type them out. As you do, just think of how different the game would be without each of them, and how it would effect the tiers.
I can't really think of all that many house rules that I use. What are these house rules you think I'm using? If anything, a given house rule would tend to disadvantage higher tier classes. Because a class being overpowered isn't really ideal.

In your view a druid is ''better" then a monk at out of combat rules actions, right? Your example is only roll playing the rules using the character sheet right?
Yes and yes. A druid's advantage over a monk out of combat is generally limited to mechanics. They do, however, have numerous mechanical advantages. Not quite as many as a wizard, but they gots options.

Such a vague question as to what ''better" is...I guess your just going by the roll playing numbers, right? Like your counting the amount of damage done and saying ''the druid is better!". Again, this is the tier problem: reducing the game to roll playing only.

I don't just mean numbers, no. I mean literally anything. Name anything in the world that a monk can do that a druid cannot do better.

Yes, many characters have many different abilities, some are special to a class, and some everyone can use. But a character is in on way ''better" just as they have an ability. Again, that is rule/roll play thinking. And again, it ignores player skill and ability.

It doesn't ignore player skill at all. Every character has access to a pool of mundane roleplaying options. Some characters have access to an additional pool of abilities. Lemme ask you this. What is better, a warrior or a fighter? Would you disagree with the contention that the fighter is the more powerful class?

I never talked about ''breaking the rules"? There is no rule that says ''no monster can attack the PCs unless they are fully ready". You might think that is a rule...but it's not. You might think there is a rule that says ''no monsters can steal things from the PCs", but again...that is not a rule.
You talked about breaking the rules regarding shadow evocation. It is a minor assumption of the tier system that shadow evocation operates precisely as it is written. Making it operate not as written wouldn't change the tiers around, but enough house rules could do that.

And the thing about ''high tier classes" is they are adaptable for the easy, casual combat/action roll playing game with a buddy dm style of game play. And...that is it.
No, not at all. Casters have an even greater relative advantage in difficult non-combat encounters. Because they have actual pertinent abilities for those situations. A fighter has basically nothing for a non-combat scenario.

Kalkra

2018-11-18, 02:41 PM

It seems to me that the anti-tier argument can be broken up into three distinct points:

1. Any class can be played stupidly, thereby rendering it useless.

2. You can ignore the rules if you're good at telling stories, thereby rendering any useless class useful. (The roleplaying argument).

3. Your GM can change the rules if he doesn't like them, thereby rendering any useful class useless.

Point one assumes that you can't quantify optimization levels, and therefore no tier system could assume the same level of optimization across all classes, or it assumes that it isn't realistic to assume the same level of optimization across all classes, either due to some classes being easier to optimize than others, or due to any given group self-correcting for the difference in power levels.

That last case actually acknowledges the tier system, but considers it so be something which will never be reflected in an actual game, and is therefore misleading and useless.

Points two and three can't actually be addressed, because they're referring to a game which is fundamentally different that the game the tier system was designed to reflect. I don't mean that the game is set up in a different way, I mean that it's not the same D&D, but rather a different game which uses the same kind of campaign settings and whatnot. Of course, the problem here is that nobody plays the game to the fullest extent of the rules.

To use a simple example, if I'm playing a BSF, I'm not going to try to act stupidly, even though int was my character's dump stat. Some people will. Sure, Wizards have a lot more options than Fighters, but the character's mental stats and alignment will determine which option he chooses, in a deterministic worldview, at least, and factors which are too complex to account for in the rules are covered by die rolling (at least I assume that there's a reason fireballs sometimes do more damage than other times, and it's not just totally random.) Still, I very much doubt that anybody is ranking the available options from best to worst, and rolling to determine which one his character chooses.

The problem with D&D isn't that the rules can't encompass everything, but rather that they can, and they leave no room for the player to be a different person than his character.

So yes, nobody plays completely by the rules, and the less you play by the rules, the less any system of ranking anything will be valid. Point one still seems like a decent objection, or at least one that I can't easily disprove.

Y'know, I was going for a short post here. I didn't really realize how complex the issue was until I tries to toss my two cents in, and realized that opinions cost a dollar.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-18, 03:41 PM

oh hell no, first of all these are DM decisions if the first place. hell your bribe the guard example from early is the same.

for example the bribe the guard bit is basically a opposed diplomacy roll with a bonus for you if the guard takes the bribe. mechanically speaking. hell might be enough that there is no need for a roll. on the flip side if the guard is upstanding and LIKES his job he can STILL turn you away.

Well, DM decisions do make up a lot of the game. The point is you can get past the guard using mechanics or action actions, or a little of both. And, sure ''anything" can happen in the future.

then there are these examples you stated:

See, here is the problem: The mechanical roll players will flat out say absolutely nothing works except mechanical roll/rule playing. This is supporting the tiers. It's saying "ok, there is a fire and you have a bucket of water and all you can do is use the bucket...what do you do?"

Buddy DM: A player does anything that is not roll/rule actions "You fail!"

Buddy DM: Player does roll/rule actions Dm just rolls over and says "wow everything you do works!"

also anyone can roleplay something, the problem for most roll playing as you put it is that some classes cant roll play their way out of it. that would mean that those who can't either don't have the right build to do so or mechanically can't. for example the monk CAN'T teleport halfway across the world, simultaneously lock down an entire battlefield (could hold the line somewhere though), he could destroy a city with enough explosives probably too.

Agreed, anyone can role play(or at least try to), that is my point. It is true that some classes can't roll play out of things...this shows the hard limit of roll playing.

Of course this is also the low magic/low fantasy problem, the ''fairness" problem and the mundanes suck but magic rules problem too.

Easy example: The DM says ''the army is covered by an anti magic shield". And what would be the immediate cries:

1."the world must be low fantasy and low magic so my lone spellcaster can be tier one awesome!"
2."Awwww....it's not fair!"
3."Magic use by the players should be super awesome at all times.

Now note that third one. To the tier roll player, doing such things to the monk character is OK. So if the army was flying, they would just laugh and say ''see silly monk that is why your tier zero!" . Until it effects thier character...like the anti magic...they they whine and cry about how wrong it is:

"It's perfectly ok to be unfair and personally attack and belittle the monk character..because monks suck....but it's NOT ok to do anything to my special druid character ever!"

Preparation time is beneficial to druids as well. They have abilities that turn time into resources. Y'know, various defenses, called monsters, a perfect list, that kinda thing. I mean, you've listed several "roleplaying options" already, and druids are decidedly better equipped for this.

Again, this is player skill and abilities.

What? Where? I literally just named tools a druid has. Divinations are on the druid list. They do specific things. Druids can do those things, and a monk cannot. My basic assumption is that the situation operates as mentioned in that thread. It's a pretty comprehensive description that can be modified up and down difficulty-wise.

And, again, your talking about player skills and abilities.

See your saying the druid is ''better" as...theoretically...they can cast (some) spells to do a lot of things. Assuming the player thinks of those things and has the skill to do so. And your focus is on the pure use of rule class abilities on the character sheet.

The monk can do the same things in different ways...again, depending on the player skill and ability.

For example druid casts a divination spell. Monk uses magic item or hires someone to cast a divination spell. OK. Both have the exact same result: the character gets information. It does not matter ''how" it was done.

Not really, no. To return to something like teleportation, if a given roleplaying option is a distance away, and time is somewhat limited, then that is an option open to the druid and not to the monk. If a given option is dependent on being able to get somewhere without being spotted, then monks mostly cannot access it.

Though this does reduce the tier system to only mattering in the very rare, very narrow once a year ''ticking clock" type of roll play based situation.

Like: "Ok, your character is spontaneously trapped in hold of a shunken ship a mile underwater, upside down...and the ship is filling with water in one round....what do you do hot shot?"

And sure the spellcaster player can sit back half asleep and say ''zzzz...teleport home" and the player mundane character(with no magic items, wink wink) will just look down and say "nothing".

So sure...in that very, very, very,rare and narrow once a year ''ticking clock" type of roll play based situation(in a tier freindly game), might be true. But the rest of the time it's not.

I can't really think of all that many house rules that I use. What are these house rules you think I'm using? If anything, a given house rule would tend to disadvantage higher tier classes. Because a class being overpowered isn't really ideal.

Well, I don't know you well enough to guess your house rules. So how about your rule interpretations or your personal version of the Gentleman's Agreement?

Yes and yes. A druid's advantage over a monk out of combat is generally limited to mechanics. They do, however, have numerous mechanical advantages. Not quite as many as a wizard, but they gots options.

Again this is back to player skill and abilities...and the buddy DM for how easy the world is

I don't just mean numbers, no. I mean literally anything. Name anything in the world that a monk can do that a druid cannot do better.

Again, the focus on ''better" is just wrong. It's this kind of focus that fuels the tier system.

Richie Rich was born rich, so he has a ton of money and goes and buys an new car.
Paulie Poor was born poor, he finds a way to make good money, saves up for a while and goes and buys a new car

So, is Richie Rich ''better" then Paulie Poor? The answer is No. And just because you like Richie and his way, does not make it better.

It doesn't ignore player skill at all. Every character has access to a pool of mundane roleplaying options. Some characters have access to an additional pool of abilities. Lemme ask you this. What is better, a warrior or a fighter? Would you disagree with the contention that the fighter is the more powerful class?

This goes back to what I mentioned before: the players of high tier characters, in the tier friendly games, get used to the easy way. They see a problem and they just shrug and look at the character sheet for the perfect way or thing to do. Sure, they in theory, can do all the other stuff anyone can do....but they won't.

You talked about breaking the rules regarding shadow evocation. It is a minor assumption of the tier system that shadow evocation operates precisely as it is written. Making it operate not as written wouldn't change the tiers around, but enough house rules could do that.

A rule interpretation is not breaking the rules: it is interpreting the rules. Also, having house rules is not breaking the rules. A lot of rules need interpenetration, as they are not clear on what they do.

Shadow Evocation says this Rule: You tap energy from the Plane of Shadow to cast a quasi-real, illusory version of a sorcerer or wizard evocation spell of 4th level or lower.

That is it.

*Your (possible) interpenetration is: The player can pick any spell they want. So, your saying that a spellcaster that takes this spell automatically knows all the sorcerer or wizard evocation spell of 4th level or lower.

*My interpretation: The player can only pick from the spells their character knows.

No, not at all. Casters have an even greater relative advantage in difficult non-combat encounters. Because they have actual pertinent abilities for those situations. A fighter has basically nothing for a non-combat scenario.

Again, player skill and ability. And again, you are only talking about rule/roll abilities on the character sheet.

eggynack

2018-11-18, 03:58 PM

Again, this is player skill and abilities.

And, again, your talking about player skills and abilities.
Neither of these things is down entirely to player skills and abilities. They are things written on the broad list of druid class abilities. They are not written on the monk list.

See your saying the druid is ''better" as...theoretically...they can cast (some) spells to do a lot of things. Assuming the player thinks of those things and has the skill to do so. And your focus is on the pure use of rule class abilities on the character sheet.

The monk can do the same things in different ways...again, depending on the player skill and ability.

For example druid casts a divination spell. Monk uses magic item or hires someone to cast a divination spell. OK. Both have the exact same result: the character gets information. It does not matter ''how" it was done.
Exactly. A monk has to pay for it. It can be pretty expensive. It matters how it was done, because money is useful. A druid does all of these things natively. This is what the tier system measures: how much a character can do through the medium of their class alone. Because class is a major aspect of power. It's not the only aspect of power, but it is one of them.

Though this does reduce the tier system to only mattering in the very rare, very narrow once a year ''ticking clock" type of roll play based situation.

Like: "Ok, your character is spontaneously trapped in hold of a shunken ship a mile underwater, upside down...and the ship is filling with water in one round....what do you do hot shot?"

And sure the spellcaster player can sit back half asleep and say ''zzzz...teleport home" and the player mundane character(with no magic items, wink wink) will just look down and say "nothing".

So sure...in that very, very, very,rare and narrow once a year ''ticking clock" type of roll play based situation(in a tier freindly game), might be true. But the rest of the time it's not.
Teleportation is useful even if you're not in an extreme ticking clock situation. What if the army is arriving within a week, and there's someone who could help out if you could tell them about the situation? What if there's something dangerous between you and where you want to be? It's a powerful ability.

Well, I don't know you well enough to guess your house rules. So how about your rule interpretations or your personal version of the Gentleman's Agreement?
I really don't think I have much in the way of meaningful rules interpretations. Especially in my evaluation of the tier system.

Again this is back to player skill and abilities...and the buddy DM for how easy the world is

No, it's back to the list of things the classes have access to. An ability doesn't have to wholly resolve a problem to be useful for that problem.

Again, the focus on ''better" is just wrong. It's this kind of focus that fuels the tier system.
It is what fuels the tier system, yes. Please answer the question.

Richie Rich was born rich, so he has a ton of money and goes and buys an new car.
Paulie Poor was born poor, he finds a way to make good money, saves up for a while and goes and buys a new car

So, is Richie Rich ''better" then Paulie Poor? The answer is No. And just because you like Richie and his way, does not make it better.

Or, alternatively, Richie Rich spends the time Paulie Poor is earning and saving money also earning and saving money. Because that's an available option. So, while Paulie is purchasing his car, Richie is purchasing a car and also a house. Because he has the resources for that. A car and also a house is better than a car.

This goes back to what I mentioned before: the players of high tier characters, in the tier friendly games, get used to the easy way. They see a problem and they just shrug and look at the character sheet for the perfect way or thing to do. Sure, they in theory, can do all the other stuff anyone can do....but they won't.

But they can. It is, again, an arbitrary assumption that these options aren't available to high tier classes. They are. Your anecdotal experiences do not dictate the actions of all people in all situations.

A rule interpretation is not breaking the rules: it is interpreting the rules. Also, having house rules is not breaking the rules. A lot of rules need interpenetration, as they are not clear on what they do.
If a rule is unclear, then that's fair enough. It happens. However, to not be breaking the rules, the interpretation must be consistent with all available information. Some interpretations are like this. Some are not.

Shadow Evocation says this Rule: You tap energy from the Plane of Shadow to cast a quasi-real, illusory version of a sorcerer or wizard evocation spell of 4th level or lower.

That is it.

*Your (possible) interpenetration is: The player can pick any spell they want. So, your saying that a spellcaster that takes this spell automatically knows all the sorcerer or wizard evocation spell of 4th level or lower.

*My interpretation: The player can only pick from the spells their character knows.
My possible interpretation is the only correct one in this scenario. The game says you can cast a spell of this type. If you pick a spell you don't know, then you are casting a spell of this type. Spells you don't know are a subset of the category presented, and so are clearly rules legal.

Again, player skill and ability. And again, you are only talking about rule/roll abilities on the character sheet.
What? If I'm only talking about abilities on the character sheet, then I blatantly cannot be talking about only player skill and ability.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-18, 06:52 PM

Exactly. A monk has to pay for it. It can be pretty expensive. It matters how it was done, because money is useful. A druid does all of these things natively. This is what the tier system measures: how much a character can do through the medium of their class alone. Because class is a major aspect of power. It's not the only aspect of power, but it is one of them.

As the tier system is only measuring one thing, this is a sign it's not worth it.

Teleportation is useful even if you're not in an extreme ticking clock situation. What if the army is arriving within a week, and there's someone who could help out if you could tell them about the situation? What if there's something dangerous between you and where you want to be? It's a powerful ability.

It's a powerful ability, sure. But not the ''best ever", and it still takes player intelligence to use for any real benefit.

I really don't think I have much in the way of meaningful rules interpretations. Especially in my evaluation of the tier system.

Well, you have to have a Way you play the game: your game style. Everyone does. How about tell us about that?

No, it's back to the list of things the classes have access to. An ability doesn't have to wholly resolve a problem to be useful for that problem.

So some are useful and some are not? I'd note player skills and abilities are always useful.

It is what fuels the tier system, yes. Please answer the question.

Ok, i'll give one: A monk is a better fighter then a druid in an anti magic zone.

Or, alternatively, Richie Rich spends the time Paulie Poor is earning and saving money also earning and saving money. Because that's an available option. So, while Paulie is purchasing his car, Richie is purchasing a car and also a house. Because he has the resources for that. A car and also a house is better than a car.

But, the important part is he his not better. Really, that is just not a good way to think. Richie Rich wears clothing from Bahl, so he is a better person? Person A is better then person B as they have a bigger house? or more money? I sure hope you don't really think that way...

But they can. It is, again, an arbitrary assumption that these options aren't available to high tier classes. They are. Your anecdotal experiences do not dictate the actions of all people in all situations.

It's also an arbitrary assumption that options are not available to all classes.

If a rule is unclear, then that's fair enough. It happens. However, to not be breaking the rules, the interpretation must be consistent with all available information. Some interpretations are like this. Some are not.

Well, each interpretation is personal.

My possible interpretation is the only correct one in this scenario. The game says you can cast a spell of this type. If you pick a spell you don't know, then you are casting a spell of this type. Spells you don't know are a subset of the category presented, and so are clearly rules legal.

That is not how the world works. You can not just say you are right and everyone else is wrong. THIS is exactly what is wrong with the whole idea of the Tier System.

When people think they are better then others, and they are always right...you get things like the Tier System.

JNAProductions

2018-11-18, 06:55 PM

The Random NPC

2018-11-18, 07:02 PM

Bartmanhomer

2018-11-18, 07:06 PM

How does a monk get anti magic zone?
How does a monk close to fight a Druid, in an anti magic zone?
How does a monk stop a Druid from escaping the anti magic zone?

How often does anti magic zone even come up?

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but to answer your question, a monk doesn't have anto-magic zone unless if I'm being wrong here.

JNAProductions

2018-11-18, 07:07 PM

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but to answer your question, a monk doesn't have anto-magic zone unless if I'm being wrong here.

That’s my point.

The monk cannot natively access it.

Bartmanhomer

2018-11-18, 07:13 PM

That’s my point.

The monk cannot natively access it.

Ok just wanted to make sure.

eggynack

2018-11-18, 07:24 PM

As the tier system is only measuring one thing, this is a sign it's not worth it.
It measures one of the most important and central aspects of character power. Money is probably the second most important. It goes steeply downhill after that. The thing of it is though, if you're spending your money making up for character power, then that's money the other character is spending just doing awesome stuff.

It's a powerful ability, sure. But not the ''best ever", and it still takes player intelligence to use for any real benefit.

I didn't say it was the best thing ever. I said it was useful. It is a powerful ability that monks do not have access to. And I agree that abilities require intelligence to use properly. You're the one who was insisting that using class abilities requires nothing from you, with your examples involving rolling a die to perform a skill check.

Well, you have to have a Way you play the game: your game style. Everyone does. How about tell us about that?
Why would I? What's the pertinence of this? You have this really arbitrary set of assumptions that you think go into the tier system. If you want to know what actual assumptions go into the tier system, here's (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?568771-Retiering-the-Classes-A-new-home) a collection of a billion threads full of people talking about how to tier things. I am in those threads, often, stating my assumptions.

So some are useful and some are not? I'd note player skills and abilities are always useful.

Nearly no ability is wholly useless. They do vary though. Also, if a player is a big ol' dummy, then their player skills and abilities might not come in handy quite as much. The juice a player brings to the table varies in the same way as abilities.

Ok, i'll give one: A monk is a better fighter then a druid in an anti magic zone.
Eh, not necessarily. Animal companions operate just fine in an AMF, and, depending on the level and optimization, they might be comparable to the monk in and of themselves. Moreover, there're multiple spells that can be tossed into the AMF, or that interact well with it. But, beyond that, sure. This could be a scenario where a monk is superior. Is that it? Are there any other such scenarios? If not, then we have to ask two questions. First, how much better is a monk in this scenario, and, second, how often does this scenario come up? If the additional utility is limited and the situation itself limited in rate of occurrence, then it is fair to conclude that the many druid-superior situations outweigh the one monk-superior situation.

But, the important part is he his not better. Really, that is just not a good way to think. Richie Rich wears clothing from Bahl, so he is a better person? Person A is better then person B as they have a bigger house? or more money? I sure hope you don't really think that way...
In this analogy, a car was analogous to, like, stopping an army or defeating a trap or whatever. Being able to do both those things definitely makes you better than being able to do both. Keep in mind, when I say better I don't mean they're a better person. They're just more powerful. More capable of bringing more resources to bear in more situations. And, yeah, the person with more money has that capacity.

It's also an arbitrary assumption that options are not available to all classes.
I'm not sure what you mean here, given that this is what I said. If you mean it's an arbitrary assumption that options are available to all classes, I really don't think it is. There's nothing intrinsic to the classes that precludes access to these options.

Well, each interpretation is personal.
Each interpretation is fundamentally bound to the meaning of the text. There is thus both a personal and impersonal element to interpretation. If your interpretation does not line up with the text, then the interpretation is wrong.

That is not how the world works. You can not just say you are right and everyone else is wrong. THIS is exactly what is wrong with the whole idea of the Tier System.
I can say you're wrong, in this scenario, right now. Because you are. The text does not indicate, anywhere, this limitation you're putting forth. You're getting it from literally nowhere. Lemme ask you: Is it a valid interpretation of fireball to say that it can only be cast within 200 feet, maximum, in all situations?

When people think they are better then others, and they are always right...you get things like the Tier System.
My understanding of the game's rules is based on the rules that are written down. No more, no less. The same is the case for the tier system. You are insisting that our understanding of the game should be partially defined by a rule you made up. I disagree. And, moreover, I do not think any system about 3.5 as a whole should be aligned with your arbitrary added rules.

emeraldstreak

2018-11-18, 07:25 PM

The Monk has DR 10/magic.

Or he has much better stuff because he isn't a newbie.

How does a monk get anti magic zone?

In the MagicMart.

Minion #6

2018-11-18, 07:31 PM

Lot of baiting going on in this thread - after a certain point, just put someone on ignore if they're not contributing to the discussion with any actual arguments.

I think one thing that's often missed in this subject is that the tier list is descriptive, not prescriptive, and a GM tool, not a player guide. Things that can be down to table variance are deliberately not considered, because that introduces far too many variables to even meaningfully have a discussion - magic items alone, which are a core part of the rules, can vary all the way from none to anything the players ask for. Things like GMing style or houserules add even more complexity. Even wanting to bring things like that into the discussion smacks of the Oberoni fallacy - just because the imbalances that cause character tiering can be played around does not magically make those imbalances vanish from the ruleset.

The purpose of a tier system in 3.X, at least as I've always understood it, is to give GMs a guideline on the power ceiling of classes given just what they can do on pure RAW alone. Some versions will have different versions of the same classes tiered differently if they have access to certain things - through ACFs in 3.5, archetypes in PF - although that's not a universal feature. Usually, although not universally, the tier system is about the level of access to problem solving options of any type, which is why spellcasters normally dominate them. Things that are universal, such as skill uses (unless they are unique to a class) do not figure in, as any class can use skills. Things like player skill, build proficiency, or roleplaying, are not figured in, because those fall under the table variance category that has to be ignored for there to be any meaningful discussion in the first place.

Cosi

2018-11-18, 07:35 PM

1. Any class can be played stupidly, thereby rendering it useless.

2. You can ignore the rules if you're good at telling stories, thereby rendering any useless class useful. (The roleplaying argument).

3. Your GM can change the rules if he doesn't like them, thereby rendering any useful class useless.

You missed "the DM is supposed to challenge the PCs, therefore opposition will rubber-band to 'just strong enough to challenge you' regardless of how strong you are, so your character's power doesn't matter".

Or he has much better stuff because he isn't a newbie.

And those things might be? Many people are more persuaded by arguments that provide any evidence at all for the proposition they set out to prove. In any case, optimization is symmetric. Insofar as I've bothered to follow the conversation, they're not really talking about a high optimization Druid. Bringing Monk cheese into this is just a failure to understand how class evaluation works. Druid cheese is better than Monk cheese, because Druids are better than Monks.

emeraldstreak

2018-11-18, 07:38 PM

And those things might be?

Starmantle Cloak, at the very least.

death390

2018-11-18, 07:42 PM

@Darth_Ultron even with anti-magic bubble encompasing the ENTIRETY of the army the druid is still naturally better than the monk. because with magic he can still help setup the battlefield. anti-magic bubble suppresses ONGOING magic in the area. it does NOT suppress instant duration spells because the magic has gone its course. congrats the anti-magic. most of the wall, and shape spells are instant duration and thus not applicable to being suppressed. this means that fortifications can still be built to help.

hell that is one epic item that you have to make that anti-magic field around the army since standard size for the spell is a 10ft radius emanation for 10min/level. hell just making a simple spell version would cost 8 * 15 * 2000 * 1.5(duration change to continuous). so that means the simple 20ft diameter bubble costs 90,000 gold. so generally an increase in size is exponential but lets go linear for simplicity. a simple football field should be just barely large enough. 120 * 3 (yards->ft) 360 * 90,000 = 32,400,000 gold for an item that can produce a football sized anti-magic field continuously.

keep in mind that means that the ARMY ALSO HAS NO CASTERS ANYMORE!! and can't even use potions for healing. unless they step out of the AMF.

hmm whatever could the druid do?? oh i know get some boulders, fly above the AMF and drop them on the command tent, or ask some air elementals to do it. hell lets just use some chemicals and make gunpowder with charcoal sulfer and saltpeter, stick a fuse in a barrel of the stuff and light it before it is released into the command tent. ooo even better we can get a bunch of quaals feather tokens (tree) activate them in the air and let them drop onto the army, can carry more that way. hell only have to be what ~1210 ft in the air? since max range with a heavy crossbow is 120*10? actually with a decent AC probably don't even need to go that high since its -2 to hit per increment past the first. so only have to worry about the nat 20's. even then druid could heal up or just leave and come back later.

hell target the supply wagons, an army marches on their stomach. soon they won't want to continue since they have only the provisions they can carry.

oo wall of stone "Unlike a wall of iron, you can create a wall of stone in almost any shape you desire. The wall created need not be vertical, nor rest upon any firm foundation; however, it must merge with and be solidly supported by existing stone." this means as long as you have a stone the wall can be anchored to it doesn't need to be on the ground even. score so grab a boulder take it into the air cast wall of stone on it. then as it is ripped from your grasp since you can no longer carry it, watch as it falls heaviest side down on the enemy below. lets see 5ft of wall /lvl CL 10 per inch of x2 by making it 1/2 as thick = 100ft of wall spread out from the boulder you tried to hold that acts like a giant flipping spatula crashing down on your foes. and since it is instant duration it doesn't dispel due to the AMF.

grarrrg

2018-11-18, 07:44 PM

See your saying the druid is ''better" as...theoretically...they can cast (some) spells to do a lot of things...

The monk can do the same things in different ways...again, depending on the player skill and ability.

For example druid casts a divination spell. Monk uses magic item or hires someone to cast a divination spell. OK. Both have the exact same result: the character gets information. It does not matter ''how" it was done.
Wait.
How did this argument not end here?

Dude A is arguing "Druid is better than Monk".
Dude B says "nah, they about the same"

Dude A says "Druid is better because they can [decimate an army with a spell/teleport across the world with a spell/see the future with a spell]"
Dude B says "yeah, but the Monk can just hire a Druid to cast [spell]"

Like, seriously.
Your counter argument is that the Druid is not inherently better than a Monk, because the Monk can just hire a Druid.

How does that make any kind of actual sense?

Cosi

2018-11-18, 07:47 PM

Starmantle Cloak, at the very least.

Oh, you mean the magic item that is by definition not a Monk class feature*? The Monk gets Evasion, sure, but the Druid can just buy a Ring of Evasion with the money that the Monk is apparently spending on getting an AMF. Or he could take a Contemplative dip, pick up Persistent + Ocular Spell, and save the 132 the Monk has to spend on the Cloak. Admittedly, that's high optimization, but that only goes to show that bringing optimization into things is not a win for the Monk.

emeraldstreak

2018-11-18, 07:50 PM

Oh, you mean the magic item that is by definition not a Monk class feature*? The Monk gets Evasion, sure, but the Druid can just buy a Ring of Evasion with the money that the Monk is apparently spending on getting an AMF. Or he could take a Contemplative dip, pick up Persistent + Ocular Spell, and save the 132 the Monk has to spend on the Cloak. Admittedly, that's high optimization, but that only goes to show that bringing optimization into things is not a win for the Monk.

This is not about a Druid. This is about your Monks being utter trash.

Cosi

2018-11-18, 07:57 PM

This is not about a Druid. This is about your Monks being utter trash.

The context was very clearly Druid versus Monk, not "how much of a garbage fire is the Monk", because the latter has a settled answer of "total". But even if we grant you that you were only contesting that Monks are trash in general (no, it's not my Monks, it's all Monks -- it's a crap class), your argument is still pretty weak. Relative to buying a Ring of Evasion, Monk saves you 25k but costs you 2 levels. Whether you consider that a good trade or not is up to you (I think that in most games where Evasion + Starmantle Cloak is on the table I would not). But playing a Wizard/Incantatrix who uses Persistent Ocular starmantle instead of a Cloak saves you 132k. That's more than five times what Monk is saving you, and you got to take levels in classes that are actually good.

Bartmanhomer

2018-11-18, 08:17 PM

Ok to end this arugment a Druid is better than a monk. Can we please move on? :annoyed:

Darth Ultron

2018-11-18, 08:24 PM

How does a monk get anti magic zone?
How does a monk close to fight a Druid, in an anti magic zone?
How does a monk stop a Druid from escaping the anti magic zone?

How often does anti magic zone even come up?

Well, the tier system is not player vs player with character vs character...right? Or is it? Is that really what ''tier people" do? Just sit around and attack and kill other peoples characters?

And anything can ''come up" as often as needed.

I didn't say it was the best thing ever. I said it was useful. It is a powerful ability that monks do not have access to. And I agree that abilities require intelligence to use properly. You're the one who was insisting that using class abilities requires nothing from you, with your examples involving rolling a die to perform a skill check.

I have always been about the player. The tier system only ''ranks" classes....in a set type of game and played by expert players.

Nearly no ability is wholly useless. They do vary though. Also, if a player is a big ol' dummy, then their player skills and abilities might not come in handy quite as much. The juice a player brings to the table varies in the same way as abilities.

Right, I've said all along: it's the player that matters. Not anything else.

Eh, not necessarily. Animal companions operate just fine in an AMF, and, depending on the level and optimization, they might be comparable to the monk in and of themselves. Moreover, there're multiple spells that can be tossed into the AMF, or that interact well with it. But, beyond that, sure. This could be a scenario where a monk is superior. Is that it? Are there any other such scenarios? If not, then we have to ask two questions. First, how much better is a monk in this scenario, and, second, how often does this scenario come up? If the additional utility is limited and the situation itself limited in rate of occurrence, then it is fair to conclude that the many druid-superior situations outweigh the one monk-superior situation.

I'm not saying anti magic ''shuts down the druid"...as, yet again, a player with real skills and abilities can maybe do something. But that is all on the player.

Well, you did only ask for one.

Now how often it comes up is a good point. You find a LOT of people play the game this way:

Way Tier: Anti-magic is RARE to the extreme and will almost never come up in the game. It's not fair to the spellcasters and will make them unhappy. So it won't come up often at all...like maybe one out of every hundred encounters.

My Way: Anti-magic is like anything else in the game and might come up at any time. Once a game gets around and past 10th level or so, you can expect anti magic to come up at least a couple times per adventure, so like every three encounters or so.

Notice how the Way Tier is supportive and even creates the whole tier system?

In this analogy, a car was analogous to, like, stopping an army or defeating a trap or whatever. Being able to do both those things definitely makes you better than being able to do both. Keep in mind, when I say better I don't mean they're a better person. They're just more powerful. More capable of bringing more resources to bear in more situations. And, yeah, the person with more money has that capacity.

Yes, but how do you measure ''power". If character A and character B both each defeat an army....would you not say they were of equal power?

Each interpretation is fundamentally bound to the meaning of the text. There is thus both a personal and impersonal element to interpretation. If your interpretation does not line up with the text, then the interpretation is wrong.

Well, interpretations are what they are...and they do ''line up" for the people that have them.

I can say you're wrong, in this scenario, right now. Because you are. The text does not indicate, anywhere, this limitation you're putting forth. You're getting it from literally nowhere. Lemme ask you: Is it a valid interpretation of fireball to say that it can only be cast within 200 feet, maximum, in all situations?

Right, the text does not have the limit, but it also does not say ''pick any spell ever"...so it works both ways.

Fireball: no? But your comparing apples and oranges, as fireball does have a listed max range.

My understanding of the game's rules is based on the rules that are written down. No more, no less. The same is the case for the tier system. You are insisting that our understanding of the game should be partially defined by a rule you made up. I disagree. And, moreover, I do not think any system about 3.5 as a whole should be aligned with your arbitrary added rules.

It's not ''rules I made up", it's ways and styles of game play that everyone does.

You say you ''only use the rules", but that would make for an odd game as there are not rules of everything possible in an RPG. So what do you do when non rule stuff comes up? Just skip it?

@Darth_Ultron even with anti-magic bubble

Yes, you can play the game of theoretical optimization vs the DM all day and night....but most games are not played that way.

Like, seriously.
Your counter argument is that the Druid is not inherently better than a Monk, because the Monk can just hire a Druid.

How does that make any kind of actual sense?

Because my point has always been about the Players, not the character class. AND, I'm not the one in any way saying anything is ''better" then anything else: things are just different.

Say like:Ok the goal is to do X.

Player One does Y and does X. Player Two does Z and gets X. They both did the goal. To jump up and down and say Y way is better is wrong.

The Random NPC

2018-11-18, 08:38 PM

Because my point has always been about the Players, not the character class. AND, I'm not the one in any way saying anything is ''better"than anything else: things are just different.
Why are you even in this thread then? The whole point is to discuss the character class and whether or not tiers are a good way of evaluating them.

Say like:Ok the goal is to do X.

Player One does Y and does X. Player Two does Z and gets X. They both did the goal. To jump up and down and say Y way is better is wrong.

The point everyone is trying to make is that if Y uses up less resources than Z, Y is better. By simple virtue of being able to get more X. Like if I can pay $30 for a burger or $5 for the same burger, obviously paying $5 is better. If there's some situation where I want the restaurant to get $30, I can just give them the other $25. That's the whole point. I end up with $25 to do whatever I want with.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-18, 08:45 PM

Why are you even in this thread then? The whole point is to discuss the character class and whether or not tiers are a good way of evaluating them.

Odd, I thought it was Tier vs Anti-Tier?

The point everyone is trying to make is that if Y uses up less resources than Z, Y is better. By simple virtue of being able to get more X. Like if I can pay $30 for a burger or $5 for the same burger, obviously paying $5 is better. If there's some situation where I want the restaurant to get $30, I can just give them the other $25. That's the whole point. I end up with $25 to do whatever I want with.

This goes back to my point that the tier system only works when you limit it to one thing.

Ok, so it's ''better" to spend less on a burger?

eggynack

2018-11-18, 08:48 PM

I have always been about the player. The tier system only ''ranks" classes....in a set type of game and played by expert players.

Right, I've said all along: it's the player that matters. Not anything else.
It's about the combination. Classes offer a set of useful abilities. Players offer the brains to use those abilities. A good player with a monk won't have the same set of capacities as a good player with a druid.

I'm not saying anti magic ''shuts down the druid"...as, yet again, a player with real skills and abilities can maybe do something. But that is all on the player.
A good animal companion actually makes pretty limited demands on a player's capabilities. It's all down to a single decision.

Well, you did only ask for one.
Is there a second? Is there a third?

Way Tier: Anti-magic is RARE to the extreme and will almost never come up in the game. It's not fair to the spellcasters and will make them unhappy. So it won't come up often at all...like maybe one out of every hundred encounters.

My Way: Anti-magic is like anything else in the game and might come up at any time. Once a game gets around and past 10th level or so, you can expect anti magic to come up at least a couple times per adventure, so like every three encounters or so.

Notice how the Way Tier is supportive and even creates the whole tier system?
AMF is a 6th level spell that doesn't last all day, and which turns off your own capacity to interact with stuff. It seems like a relatively rare thing on that basis alone.

Yes, but how do you measure ''power". If character A and character B both each defeat an army....would you not say they were of equal power?
They may be of equal power in that one respect. There are caveats though. Specifically, it's pertinent how many resources the two characters used, and how high their percentage of success was. If both of those numbers are the same, then sure, character A and B are equal power with respect to that army.

Well, interpretations are what they are...and they do ''line up" for the people that have them.
If they don't line up with the text, then they're not lining up.

Right, the text does not have the limit, but it also does not say ''pick any spell ever"...so it works both ways.

Fireball: no? But your comparing apples and oranges, as fireball does have a listed max range.
It says pick a spell. If I pick fireball, then I am doing what the spell says, even if the spell isn't on my list. Fireball is the same, in that I am choosing a location that is included within the max range.

It's not ''rules I made up", it's ways and styles of game play that everyone does.
If you didn't make up the rule, then where is it present within the game?

You say you ''only use the rules", but that would make for an odd game as there are not rules of everything possible in an RPG. So what do you do when non rule stuff comes up? Just skip it?

Well, there are mundane actions, which are dictated by the rules of how mundane actions work (conversation and such), and there are mechanical actions that are dictated by the rules, which are dictated by the rules, and I suppose there're some actions that are not handled by the rules, which are dealt with on a case by case basis. Shadow evocation is dictated by the rules, however, so in this context I'd only use the rules, if possible. The same is the case for anything the tier system could realistically govern.

Bartmanhomer

2018-11-18, 08:52 PM

This arugment is a worser than the Dragonwrought Kobold arugment. :annoyed:

Darth Ultron

2018-11-18, 09:23 PM

It's about the combination. Classes offer a set of useful abilities. Players offer the brains to use those abilities. A good player with a monk won't have the same set of capacities as a good player with a druid.

Right, so if the tier system only does part of it...why is there not a ''other part" system?

And what about games not played tier friendly?

Is there a second? Is there a third?

I'm not a theoretical mechanical roll playing optimization player myself, so I'll have to have others answer this. My only other way is to change the way the game is played.

AMF is a 6th level spell that doesn't last all day, and which turns off your own capacity to interact with stuff. It seems like a relatively rare thing on that basis alone.

Again, this gets into theoretical mechanical roll playing optimization, and I'm not mastermind of that.

They may be of equal power in that one respect. There are caveats though. Specifically, it's pertinent how many resources the two characters used, and how high their percentage of success was. If both of those numbers are the same, then sure, character A and B are equal power with respect to that army.

There are a lot of qualifiers then...

If they don't line up with the text, then they're not lining up.

In your view, sure.

If you didn't make up the rule, then where is it present within the game?

As I said, it's not a rule, it's a rule interpretation. The rules don't cover everything.

Well, there are mundane actions, which are dictated by the rules of how mundane actions work (conversation and such), and there are mechanical actions that are dictated by the rules, which are dictated by the rules, and I suppose there're some actions that are not handled by the rules, which are dealt with on a case by case basis. Shadow evocation is dictated by the rules, however, so in this context I'd only use the rules, if possible. The same is the case for anything the tier system could realistically govern.

I don't think you understand that many people don't play the game exactly in the same way you play the game. And there is no ''wrong or right" and no way is ''better", they are just different.

This arugment is a worser than the Dragonwrought Kobold arugment. :annoyed:

Except that is no ''argument" from me to make there :(

eggynack

2018-11-18, 09:49 PM

Right, so if the tier system only does part of it...why is there not a ''other part" system?
You mean a rating system for items? Item power is frequently dependent on the class in question. Hence, you generally find that "other part" in handbooks for individual classes.

And what about games not played tier friendly?
I still don't think this "tier friendly game" is a thing.

I'm not a theoretical mechanical roll playing optimization player myself, so I'll have to have others answer this. My only other way is to change the way the game is played.
It shouldn't be that hard. The monk has an ability list. It's not too long. What is that list good at?

Again, this gets into theoretical mechanical roll playing optimization, and I'm not mastermind of that.
This really isn't all that theoretical. AMF's are just kinda limited in utility and inefficient. Besides which, why are you designing your encounters around stopping the druid? Why not specifically design your encounter around making the monk weaker?

There are a lot of qualifiers then...
I wouldn't call them qualifiers so much as I'd call them the fundamental metrics of tier. Presented with a given problem, what is your likelihood of success? Or, if a given level of success is assumed, then how many resources were expended to reach that level?

In your view, sure.
This is what RAW means. The tier list follows RAW. This is the primary assumption of the tier system.

As I said, it's not a rule, it's a rule interpretation. The rules don't cover everything.
The rules do not cover everything. The rules do cover this.

WesleyVos

2018-11-18, 09:57 PM

I've been silently following this discussion since it began, and I'm having some trouble understanding Darth Ultron's position.

Darth, would you mind explaining a few of the terms you're using?

- What is your idea of the Gentleman's Agreement?
- What exactly do you mean by a Buddy DM? Is this a DM who gives their players whatever they want? Because I've never seen a DM do that. Please give an example of one who you've played with, since most of the examples you give (I say most only because I don't want to go back through the thread to make sure, and I'm covering my bases) seem to be straw men examples you've built up in your head rather than something you've seen in person.
- Can I get a list of the houserules your table plays with? It would help me (and probably everyone who is disagreeing with you) see where you're coming from.
- What would be an example of what you consider a tier-friendly game? One in which you've actually participated, by the way - all the examples you've given again seem like straw men.
- In your opinion, should PCs and NPCs (both friendly and unfriendly) be bound by the same set of rules? If no, explain how the rules in your games are different for NPCs.

I think those would help clear up some issues for me.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-18, 10:24 PM

I still don't think this "tier friendly game" is a thing.

Well, it would make more sense if you would admit your game stlye. Maybe we can try some questions?

1.The players are not to exceed the optimization of the DM. Yes or no?
2.No player is to completely and absolutely make any other player feel irrelevant. Yes or no?
3.When you find quest hooks, it is generally expected that you follow them, and have some IC reason to follow them. Intentionally taking the GM bend over backward to get you into a dungeon isn't polite. Agree or disagree?
4.Treat the GM and his creations with some degree of respect. Murdering questgivers and burning down cities simply to throw the GM for a loop is frowned upon, even if you have some half-baked in-character reason for it. Agree or disagree?
5.If the players warnings about dangers to their characters then the DM is then justified in applying what he actually knows to be lethal force in an encounter. Agree or disagree?

Ye
It shouldn't be that hard. The monk has an ability list. It's not too long. What is that list good at?

Monk stuff? Really, I'm not a fan of monks.

This really isn't all that theoretical. AMF's are just kinda limited in utility and inefficient. Besides which, why are you designing your encounters around stopping the druid? Why not specifically design your encounter around making the monk weaker?

Well, in my style of gaming I do it for all the characters and players, but that is just me.

I wouldn't call them qualifiers so much as I'd call them the fundamental metrics of tier. Presented with a given problem, what is your likelihood of success? Or, if a given level of success is assumed, then how many resources were expended to reach that level?

But only rules/roll success.

This is what RAW means. The tier list follows RAW. This is the primary assumption of the tier system.

And not only is RAW not something everyone agrees on, but this is a very limited way to run a game.

The rules do not cover everything. The rules do cover this.

This is the odd thing where you see rules between the lines, right?

Makes me wonder what other rules you interpret? We can try some RAW ones:

1.How do you calculate the falling damage of something? I know that when something falls it takes 1d6 per 10 feet, but... if they fall on top of something, should they do the damage based on the size or the falling distance?

2.Can I maximize or empower dispel magic?

3.If an arcane caster (Level <26) transforms into a creature with 11 or more HD and the Evil Outsider type, does he get an overwhelming evil aura? What if his alignment is not evil.

Wow...just a sample of RAW questions...bet not everyone will have the same answer.

Pex

2018-11-18, 10:33 PM

death390

2018-11-18, 10:47 PM

W~snip
Yes, you can play the game of theoretical optimization vs the DM all day and night....but most games are not played that way.~snip

the whole point of Tier list is technically Theoretical optimization at its finest within the limits of the class itself and things others do not have access to! that is the point. theoretically all T1 classes could just NOPE an adventure with proper prep time and the correct resources, while T2 has to build certain ways to do so, and T3- generally can't!

the monk can't inherently by power of the class destroy a city, teleport, scry or die, or many other ways of Noping the campaign. druids, clerics and wizards CAN!!!

i have to go to work, be back when i can.

Efrate

2018-11-18, 11:05 PM

So a monk(or anyone) can challenge a general to stop an army? That's good rp? Fine. I'll bite. A few things.

1. What kind of rp or in setting reason is there ever for the general to accept? What makes this massive army fold If he is defeated? If you go to war to prove you are the strongest, or for personal glory, why have an army? Go to each town and challenge the strongest. Those ideals are counter intuitive for that npc. What makes the general, even if he agrees, bound to his word, and not just having his allies jump on the person challenging.

2. How does the monk know who the general is, where he is, get a message to him declaring his challenge, and get the general to agree to this? Why would whatever army bent on conquest either accept that and turn home on a loss? What of whoever is backing the army, the king or whoever say about that? How does that person react to his army saying "Well general Bob lost in single combat and it just wouldn't be right to keep going now that he lost. The millions you put into this just to have us all turn back was wasted, tough break."

I could see a scenario where a monk disguises himself, sneaks into camp, bribes some officers, get the info, and assassinates the general. What of the rest of the army? It sows confusion and makes for a nice precursor to a surprise attack whilst they are in disarray, but doesn't defeat the army, though it helps.

A druid(or anyone) could just as easily do that. A druid has tools to make it a lot easier, between wild shape, spells, and some social skills. In that situation, since anyone can role play the steps, druid can still use his abilities to do it with less resources or outside help. Hence, druid is a higher tier because he can do the same thing easier if you are anything but freeform. In a freeform no rules light, yes tiers are pointless, but that's not d&d.

Also you can always use higher level slots to cast lower level spells(on prepared casters, pretty sure all casters but I'm afb), so with your rule on shadow evocation you have made the spell basically non functional. I can use a much higher level slot to cast a weaker magic missle again, or I can just cast magic missle again using that slot that isn't weaker, or any of my known evocation spells of that level or lower with no reduced strength. Why would I take that option ever?

BlackDragonKing

2018-11-18, 11:12 PM

There's also what the game is very clearly designed to allow and what it isn't.

For example; the fighter is meant to be amazing at killing monsters. Every single class feature it possesses, and it doesn't have many, are all geared towards this end and this end exclusively. A fighter's abilities to do practically anything that does not involve "use weapon to kill thing" are coming from the player and their magical items, which are features independent of the class. Therefore, when people are comparing the classes, the fighter tends to get slotted in lower than most of the others in ranking, because D&D is designed as a game that has no noncombatants in the party; everyone defeats monsters in some way or another. The fighter is specialized to the point of tunnel vision, and so has fewer options to interact with other challenges than many of his peers. If two equally canny and intelligent players are playing, one using the fighter and one using the other class, it is deeply unlikely the player using a fighter will outshine his fellow at anything except killing things with weapons.

Most of the high casters are designed to be masters of magic, which at higher levels means basically whatever you want it to mean. What's the character capable of doing? Who knows? It could be anything by the end game, and for some of them it changes on a daily basis. That's a lot more for the GM to keep track of, and a lot more options for a player who wants to feel ready for anything. No, the wizard can't do literally everything perfectly, but people also aren't saying that's the case. They are saying the wizard tends to have a dizzying breadth of options and abilities at his fingertips many of his peers lack, some of them so potent that a canny intelligent player who has chosen this class might even be more than the GM's plan can handle without serious adjustment to compensate.

The game is designed so that while there is variety in the rock or pointy stick used with archery or two-handed weapons or sword and board, the fighter's journey tends to be going from being able to kill rats and goblins to being able to kill demons and dragons, in both cases by hitting them really hard. The mage's journey tends to be going from turning things blue and performing parlor tricks with light to being able to wish things were so and have the universe obey or build a comfortable pocket dimension for his retirement, and also be able to pull his weight in the killing demons and dragons thing.

Accordingly, people looking over what each class is capable of when it's allowed to operate at its full power tend to rank the mage over the fighter. Because a magic-user that gets to operate at maximum strength can do a whole lot of very impressive stuff that many non-mages cannot, and magic items and canny players are equally available to everybody.

ElFi

2018-11-18, 11:26 PM

For those who swear by the Tier System there are 4 types.

1) Tier 1 is an abomination. How dare players have such power. Animate Dead. Teleport. Gate. They ruin the game making it unplayable. Ban ban ban! If you play Tier 1 you are playing the game wrong.

2) Tier 4 and below are The Suck. They are unplayable. No one should play them. If you do you're playing the game wrong. They are wasted space.

3) Tier 3 is the One True Way. Everyone should only ever play Tier 3. It is the perfect balance of everything. If you do not play Tier 3 you are playing the game wrong.

4) The Tier System is proof why the game sucks. It's horrible. You should not play the game. If you play the game you're doing it wrong. You should play what I play. It is far superior in every way.

I'm not going to even try to address the Darth Ultron side of this thread, because by this point that argument has devolved into an endless swirl of contradictions and people talking past each other. But I'm going to try to address this comment because I feel like it's actually relevant to the thread in a way that most of the clatter floating around isn't. So, here goes.

Outside of strawmen types and threads specifically designed for optimization purposes, I don't think I've ever encountered any of these mentalities online. Your experience might differ from mine, Pex, but let's assume it hasn't for a second for the sake of discussion.

I don't claim to know the original purpose of the tiering system. I don't know why JaronK made it in the first place and what he intended with it, and you can ask Eggynack yourself if you want to know what his retiering project is intended for beyond the label on it. What I think the tier system has become, again per my personal experience, is a tool set with a mind towards providing context. I don't think anybody with a reasonable level of experience playing this game would dispute the idea that some classes are generally (not specifically) better than others, and the tier system offers a visual framework to understand that disparity in power and/or versatility. So, where do you go with it from there?

I've seen homebrewers use it to establish a desired power level for a piece of content they're creating. I've seen build-guide creators use it to establish how a particular class's abilities place it within the context of a wider party and what you can expect the class to be able to contribute. Mostly, though, I've seen it as a method of arguing that everything in D&D is relative.

The tier system works on the assumption that any particular class is built competently and taking full advantage of the mechanical options available to it (generally if not entirely ignoring rules cheese, like the infamous Infinite Solar Gate trick). And it states that assuming that baseline, not all classes are created equal. But that same assumption also contains the clear implication that classes of different tiers can commingle if everyone's playing nice (and let's face it, this is a cooperative game, if we're not playing nice we shouldn't be playing at all). A wizard that mainly blasts and buffs and a cleric that mostly heals and protects will have no problem adventuring with a beatstick fighter and a skill-monkey rogue. It's when the aforementioned two classes start to take advantage of everything offered to them that power discrepancies start to bubble up.

But you don't have to do that, because really, it ultimately comes down to a question of power floors vs. power ceilings. The vast majority of classes have a pretty similar (if not entirely uniform) power floor, and sticking to that point can go a long way towards improving party cohesiveness if the player group's experience level with the game varies. And the tier system can help with that, by informing the group about what their relative power ceilings if they do decide to optimize. Context matters; the tier system provides that context.

I'm not entirely sure if even after all of that I actually addressed your critique in a competent way, Pex. But these are my thoughts on the matter.

eggynack

2018-11-18, 11:39 PM

Well, it would make more sense if you would admit your game stlye. Maybe we can try some questions?
I don't know why you think my game style is pertinent. It's still not all that clear what you think is the game style of the tier system, and, more critically, why you think the tier system changes under other assumptions. I mean, I'm not the tier system. I just posted a ton of threads which explain my reasoning, and the reasoning of other people, for why things are tiered as they are. If you want to know my assumptions, they're right there.

1.The players are not to exceed the optimization of the DM. Yes or no?
Not necessarily. I think it's more important to not exceed the power level of the DM. The amount of optimization that takes is largely class dependent. A lower op druid and a higher op monk are liable to operate well in the same campaign.

2.No player is to completely and absolutely make any other player feel irrelevant. Yes or no?
Sure. That is the ideal. It is not an initial assumption of the tier system though. Rather, it is something the tier system helps with.

3.When you find quest hooks, it is generally expected that you follow them, and have some IC reason to follow them. Intentionally taking the GM bend over backward to get you into a dungeon isn't polite. Agree or disagree?

4.Treat the GM and his creations with some degree of respect. Murdering questgivers and burning down cities simply to throw the GM for a loop is frowned upon, even if you have some half-baked in-character reason for it. Agree or disagree?

5.If the players warnings about dangers to their characters then the DM is then justified in applying what he actually knows to be lethal force in an encounter. Agree or disagree?
I suppose.

Monk stuff? Really, I'm not a fan of monks.
What are you a fan of? Preferably low tier, cause it makes the comparisons easier. Like, I could probably demonstrate that a druid has more problem solving capacity than a beguiler, but it'd take awhile and feel like a lot more of a tossup.

Well, in my style of gaming I do it for all the characters and players, but that is just me.
Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that there is a party containing, I dunno, a crusader, swordsage, and warblade. Really arbitrary, and open to change. Imagine the set of encounters put before them. Now, who would have a higher rate of success against these encounters, a druid or a monk?

But only rules/roll success.

Not really. Any challenge put before you has some associated success rate and/or a quantity of resources expended. The army scenario is one challenge, but there could be more social or exploration oriented stuff too. The tier system is about all of those. The thing is, mechanical abilities are pertinent in areas not only governed by mechanics.

And not only is RAW not something everyone agrees on, but this is a very limited way to run a game.
RAW ain't perfect, but it's what we got. As I said, this is one of the base assumptions of the tier system. You can take issue with it, but that's just how it has to be.

This is the odd thing where you see rules between the lines, right?
I'm not sure what you mean. Shadow evocation is incredibly straightforward.

Wow...just a sample of RAW questions...bet not everyone will have the same answer.
This is silly. I never claimed RAW is wholly unambiguous. I can name numerous RAW ambiguities off the top of my head. Most of them involve form changing. RAW is not wholly ambiguous though. Most questions asked of the rules are answerable. Shadow evocation is that sort of situation. There is no ambiguity in this rule. We can have arbitrary debates about RAW in various scenarios until the end of time, because RAW is decidedly imperfect. But, where RAW is not imperfect, there's really no debate necessary. The way the rules are is how things work.

Illven

2018-11-19, 12:29 AM

Oh, oh, an antimagic shield has popped over the army.

Guess who lost their damage reduction.

Did you guess the monk?

Cause if so you're right.

Magic When magic can overcome a creature’s damage reduction, a weapon that has a +1 or higher magical enhancement bonus is required. If a creature has this kind of damage reduction, such as DR 5/magic, it also has the magic strike ability (see page 101). This kind of damage reduction is supernatural.

Nifft

2018-11-19, 01:37 AM

The Random NPC

2018-11-19, 01:41 AM

This goes back to my point that the tier system only works when you limit it to one thing.

Ok, so it's ''better" to spend less on a burger?

If you seriously can't understand that it's better to get more for less, then I'm done with you.

Selion

2018-11-19, 02:16 AM

It's totally possible for a tier 1 character and a tier 5 character to play together, but it requires a good amount of fairness from both of them. The tier 1 guy can overshadow easily the rest of the group, he should actively avoid to get constantly the spotlight, even going against role-playing (his character probably could and should solve the problem, the player conversely has to wait for other players to come with a different solution than him snapping his fingers). The tier 5 guy, at the same time, should avoid to sink further in inefficiency (which could be a temptation to some kind of players), trying hard to be useful at least in his field, or being interesting as a character without doing anything useful (there is plenty of good examples in fiction) I've seen a bard doing miracles just with his diplomacy skill, it's totally possible.
Furthermore, a mixed group could be more effective than a five full casters group even from a competitive perspective.

Nifft

2018-11-19, 02:54 AM

Furthermore, a mixed group could be more effective than a five full casters group even from a competitive perspective. I think this is incorrect.

But at least it's testable.

Post your "mixed group" at some level, and let's see if anyone can post a full-caster group which exceeds yours.

Troacctid

2018-11-19, 03:18 AM

Selion

2018-11-19, 03:18 AM

I think this is incorrect.

But at least it's testable.

Post your "mixed group" at some level, and let's see if anyone can post a full-caster group which exceeds yours.

This could be a good topic, maybe I'll open a discussion this evening.

vasilidor

2018-11-19, 03:40 AM

@ darth ultron: even in your games character options can still be ranked from most to least useful, your house ruling simply changes the base formula for determining which is which. class tiering is simply a way of looking at which classes have the most options built into them, outside of any variances such as the payer or any house rules that may or may not be in effect.
further more, while considering tiers, for the sake of argument, assume that the guy playing the monk and the guy playing the druid is the same one, just swapping out characters because reasons (maybe like me in some video games he likes to see how a change of class can affect game play, because I actually enjoy doing that in just about any game where different builds are possible).
Finally while it may be easier for the Druid to stop the army, their are those who would find playing the monk against the army more interesting because the monk would have a harder time dealing with the issue.
I myself do use the tiering system when deciding what character I want to play sometimes, because sometimes I am with a mostly new group that doesn't have a clue, and others I am with a group of power gamers (and do not tell me that power gaming is bad wrong fun, for I shall never agree to such a statement) and I mostly use it with the first type of group in order to play something that would be able to contribute without overshadowing people. the second group type I just go nuts and see what high numbers I can crank out.
as a final note, higher tier classes tend to be more complex and harder to learn and play, with the middle and lower tier being easier for new players.

Nifft

2018-11-19, 03:55 AM

The ideal group of five casters is also "mixed" because you don't want all of them covering the same bases as the others. Some degree of specialization is desirable in order to cover more bases more efficiently. In a party of five warlocks, for example, I'd probably expect to see each of the five with a different ability score as their primary stat. It's my understanding that the "mixed" party means mixing vastly different Tiers, as opposed to a party which is made of characters from two adjacent Tiers.

The control party (made of full-casters) would have 5 different classes, but not 5 different Tiers.

My T1-T2 party would probably be something like...
- Cloistered Cleric
- Druid
- Wizard (Conjurer)
- Psion (Telepath)
- Artificer

PrCs possible for the Cleric, Wizard, and Psion... or they could all 5 just go single-class to level 20.

This could be a good topic, maybe I'll open a discussion this evening. Cool, please do post a link here.

Florian

2018-11-19, 06:02 AM

@WesleyVos:

It´s basic old school vs. new school (at least new school when it comes to D&D).

What DU describes as Gentlemen Agreement and Buddy DM is the underlying core behind 3E, 4E and parts of 5E, a hard departure from how things were dealt with in prior editions, especially AD&D 1st.

It´s basically about everything that has to do with stuff like the CR system, formalized WBL tables, "adventuring day" and encounter/dungeon building based on a XP budget. Contrast that to either "Gygaxian Naturalism" or rule of cool approach to handling things.

"Tier thinking" is basically known as "player empowerment". Options and their results are hard-coded into the rules framework and a lot of things can basically be resolved a) on a purely mechanical level and b) without needing any GM judgment calls. That´s more or less the difference between "Ok, I'm an experienced Fighter, let me talk to the city guard because we talk the same professional language" and "No, Fighter, you have CHA 8, let the Bard simply Diplomacy the guard into the ground".

Darth Ultron

2018-11-19, 07:19 AM

So a monk(or anyone) can challenge a general to stop an army? That's good rp? Fine. I'll bite. A few things.

So, do you see the bias?

If a monk, or any low tier character tries to do anything, the immediate response is: Nope! Won't Work Ever! Impossible!

When they druid or a high tier character tries anything, the immediate response is: Yup! It works! Awesome!

A druid(or anyone) could just as easily do that. A druid has tools to make it a lot easier, between wild shape, spells, and some social skills. In that situation, since anyone can role play the steps, druid can still use his abilities to do it with less resources or outside help. Hence, druid is a higher tier because he can do the same thing easier if you are anything but freeform. In a freeform no rules light, yes tiers are pointless, but that's not d&d.

So why does ''easy" even matter?

Druid does some ''easy" thing for five minutes of game time. Monk does something ''hard" for five hours of game time. So why is easy better?

I don't know why you think my game style is pertinent. It's still not all that clear what you think is the game style of the tier system, and, more critically, why you think the tier system changes under other assumptions. I mean, I'm not the tier system. I just posted a ton of threads which explain my reasoning, and the reasoning of other people, for why things are tiered as they are. If you want to know my assumptions, they're right there.

How the game is played and the game style matters a lot. As I said, the tiers can only exist in a easy casual game that supports the tiers with a DM rolling over to allow it. That is just ONE style of D&D. Lets call it: The Tier Style.

You posting a ''ton of threads" really is no help. You typing right here in this thread your style would be a big help. Then I could point to your style and say, ''look at that".

Sure. That is the ideal. It is not an initial assumption of the tier system though. Rather, it is something the tier system helps with.

I say it's something the tier system fuels...and even creates.

What are you a fan of? Preferably low tier, cause it makes the comparisons easier. Like, I could probably demonstrate that a druid has more problem solving capacity than a beguiler, but it'd take awhile and feel like a lot more of a tossup.

What low tier class am I a fan of? Rogue.

Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that there is a party containing, I dunno, a crusader, swordsage, and warblade. Really arbitrary, and open to change. Imagine the set of encounters put before them. Now, who would have a higher rate of success against these encounters, a druid or a monk?

Now by encounter here you are talking about a pure combat or mechanics roll play encounter with a simple, easy and obvious goal...right? See, this is where how you play the game and your game style comes in.

Tier Encounter: Ok, in an open field there are 25 goblins, so how do you defeat them?

Another Encounter Style: Ok, somewhere in the castle is something that is killing people, you need to find it and stop it.

Now the first one is ''easy"....yawn...the druid wildshapes into a dinosaur and eats all the goblins, and the DM just sits back and watches and says "wow, dinosaurs are so cool!".

The second one...is hard. The druid won't be using one ability to end the encounter in five minutes. And in a well written encounter, one that is part roll play mechanics, part character role playing and part player engagement it is much harder.

I'm not sure what you mean. Shadow evocation is incredibly straightforward.

If you say so. The over all point here is RAW is not always so ''straightforward". Sure you take the easy ''player side" of shadow evocation and say it's straightforward. But, in all of RAW I bet there are a couple other ''straightforward" ones that you will ''suddenly veer off in the left field about". That is the ''fun" of RAW.

Shadow evocation is that sort of situation.

Well, again it's a rule interpretation.

Maybe try another one: There is nothing in the rules that says a druid automatically knows things. So:

Would you ''just say" a druid automatically knows all about the plants and animals they encounter? Or does the druid have to make a knowledge roll for everything? If a druid had lived in a temperate forest his whole life, would you say the druid has to make a knowledge nature check to identify ''the small furry creature" he sees?

Or would you ''suddenly" jump to the interpretation that the druid automatically knows all about all the common plants and animals around where they live? So no rolls ever have to be made.

@ darth ultron: even in your games character options can still be ranked from most to least useful,

Guess I'm more ''it was a good game ever everyone had fun" and not "I want to rank everyone so I can rub it in other peoples face that I'm better then they are".

Peat

2018-11-19, 07:51 AM

Pleh

2018-11-19, 08:03 AM

WesleyVos

2018-11-19, 08:17 AM

Tier Encounter: Ok, in an open field there are 25 goblins, so how do you defeat them?

Another Encounter Style: Ok, somewhere in the castle is something that is killing people, you need to find it and stop it.

I’m gonna take this one.

First, I have rarely if ever seen encounter type one, what you call a Tier Encounter. This type of encounter is usually only used as a play-test or because of DM laziness or incompetence.

But let’s take Encounter Two. We’ll use a fighter (T5), a rogue (T4), a warblade (T3), and a druid (T1).

Fighter: Can’t sneak in - doesn’t have the skill ranks. Same with an investigation - he will fail most diplomacy, gather info, etc. checks, as well as any search checks. If the buddy DM takes pith on him and let’s him find the thing, he might be able to fight it. The rest of the time his contributions are limited to what the player can roleplay, and even those are limited because player knowledge and skills are not character knowledge and skills. Even if we take your idea that the players should be actors, it is bad acting to have a character do something they would not know how to do.

Rogue: Definitely better at the investigation. This is the precise are where a rogue can shine, because they have the skill points to handle it. But if the killer is undead, she is in trouble - no sneak attack, unless she has taken Penetrating Strike. But the rogue does OK here (as would be expected of a T4).

Warblade: Because he has more skill points, the Warblade is better at the investigation than the fighter, theoretically. Diplomacy is a class skill, at least. And the warblade generally is a better fighter than the fighter when it comes to combat, particularly if the opponent is nonstandard or on difficult terrain. Balance and Tumble are class skills for the warblade.

Druid: A Druid post level 5 can handle this single-handedly. Wild shaping allows sneaking, tracking by scent, and combat. The only difficulty a Druid might face is an anti-magic field, and even then they drop back to range and let the animal companion soak up damage.

So why is the first encounter a tier encounter and the second is not?

RedMage125

2018-11-19, 08:28 AM

So, what I've gathered from this thread is that Darth Ultron doers not understand the Tier System. But he's sure he doesn't like it. This is Deja Vu of "Player Agency" all over again.

DU, before you get offended, I'm not being insulting or attacking you. But by your statements, you have LITERALLY said things about the Tier System that either A) are explicitly untrue or B) are so far off base that they have nothing to do with the system.

Here is the link to the original 3.5e Tier System (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=658.0). Please follow the link and read it now, even if you think you remember it well enough from reading it before, or think you know it well enough. Read the first 3 posts by JaronK, to include the spoiler blocks. I'm telling you, that you have given sufficient evidence that your understanding is faulty and you need a refresher. Note that I'm not trying to say that I think that reading this will somehow "convince you to like it" or "change your mind about rollplaying vis roleplaying". But if you're going to argue AGAINST the Tier System, it would be better if you understood what you are ACTUALLY arguing against, because some of your statements in this thread have been ignorant. That is not a personal attack, ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge. I am sharing this link to arm you with that knowledge. It will help your understanding of what the Tier System really is, so that your arguments against it can be better structured, and perhaps have something of substance.

Going forward, I'm going to assume that you have now read the link.

As you can see, the Tier System is NOT a lot of what you have been claiming. It is simply a measure of the relative Power and Versatility of the various CLASSES of 3.5e. Something that you and Quertus said early on was "Player>Build>Class", as if you somehow think that argument "invalidates" the Tier System. Now that you've read the link, you will see that such is actually SUPPORTED by the Tier System. The Tier System doesn't flat out say "X class is better than Y class". And it certainly doesn't say anything about player ability. In fact, JaronK explicitly says that one of the default assumptions in order to make this work is that all things other than mechanics are assumed to be equal. So yes, individual builds, and ESPECIALLY individual players may experience wildly different levels of power and versatility during the course of their game, depending on how they play that character. So yes, Builds and Players can matter a lot more.

DU, I would like to touch on something you got RIGHT. You (a lot earlier in the thread) said that the Tier System only regards mechanics. This is true. But what you missed was that the Tier System was only trying to objectively judge game mechanics. The Tier System has ZERO to do with HOW one plays the game, it is only ever trying to measure how the classes stack up with each other in terms of mechanics. So almost everything else you've said about "tier playing" or "tier way" is a ridiculous claim.

It's like comparing the various classes to different aircraft, to use an analogy that's close to home for me. One class is an F-14 Tomcat (a dogfighting aricraft, can carry missiles), one is an A-6 Intruder (bomber aircraft, large ordnance capacity), another is an A-10 Warthog (bomber aircraft, also has a HUGE gun), one is an F/A-18 D Hornet (dogfighting/bomber aircraft), and one is an F/A-18F Super Hornet (dogfighter/bomber). Involving the Tier System is pointing out how much more versatile the Super Hornet is over the others. It can dogfight as well as the Hornet, or the Tomcat. It can carry a large payload of ordnance, so can carry out bombing missions, performing just as well as the bombers. But it can also jam enemy communications, and with VERY short notice, it can be reconfigured to an Air Refueling Stores aircraft, to fly missions where it acts as a tanker for other aircraft, something none of those others can do. Meanwhile YOUR argument sounds like "the missions I prefer to run in my game don't use jamming mechanics, and I think allowing players to do air refueling is too gamist, and frankly the Tomcat is the only one that can carry a Phoenix missile, so your Tier ranking system is bad".

Do you see? The Tier System isn't even TRYING to do some of the things you are arguing about. All it does is says "Some classes, due to the way they were designed, can do pretty much anything, even better than the classes who are SUPPOSED to be good at their things. Some classes can do ALMOST anything. Some can do ONE thing pretty well, while not sucking at others. Some ONLY do one thing well, and suck at everything else. Some can ONLY DO one thing, not that great, and don't have any ability to do other things. And some classes are functionally useless". But that statement only measures the classes themselves. It's not even MEANT to judge an individual build, let alone a player's ability to play that class in a game. If that were the case, then Tier 2 wouldn't even be a thing. If you'll note, Tier 2 is barely a distinct Tier in and of itself, made up only of classes which have limited spells/powers KNOWN, but use spell lists comparable to Tier 1 classes. It LITERALLY states that they "can do ANYTHING a Tier 1 class can do, but no one build can do EVERYTHING a Tier 1 class can do". Honestly, that's supposed to be your first hint that the Tier System isn't saying anything at all about individual characters.

There is no such thing as "Tier Play". Tiers are only a tool, for the DM, or for potential players when making a character to join a game. The measure of Tiers assumes a similar sort of level of optimization. If most of the party is Tier 1, 2, and 3, then a new player joining the game, if he makes a Monk (Tier 5), might not get as much spoltlight time, due to elements that are nobody's fault (not even the DM's). It might be best to either allow that player some other options that are not granted others (JaronK has a few suggestions in post 3), or suggest he play a higher Tier Class, so he won't feel left behind.

Buddy DM rant is off topic, so I'm spoiler blocking it

Honestly, DU, what you have to say about "Buddy DMs" is almost absurd. And, from my perspective, you have it backwards, because technically, allowing pure roleplay to get one past obstacles requires "buddy DMs", whereas having the dice be an objective, unbiased judge of success or failure does not. Most people like to blend the two. I give my players bonuses to their Diplomacy rolls when they roleplay well, and to their Disable Device checks when they're creative. And yes, sometimes there are specific methods of bypassing an obstacle (whether it's a person or an object) that may not require a roll. But not every player is that creative. If you have a player who wants to play a dashing, suave, smooth-talking bard, with a High Charisma, and high ranks in Bluff and Diplomacy, who thinks well on his feet; but IRL he's kind of awkward with people, and doesn't improvise well, why punish that player? He's built a character he wants to play, and he's trying to roleplay well, but he's going to depend on the dice rolls for those skills that he spent his points on to do what that character was built to do. But you'd let the 8 CHA druid (who's player thinks on his feet better) auto-succeed on a check to fast-talk the guard into letting the party by simply because he can act out the conversation better? How is that fair to the first player?

That's one thing you missed about 3e+. You lamented all the "rollplaying" and the "I can do what's on my character sheet". But what you missed was how it leveled the playing field. By having set DCs and ways to meet them, hard-coded rules actually PROTECT players from capricious DM fiat. If a player put a lot of ranks in Jump, he's saying his character can jump pretty far. In older editions, the DM basically used whim and fiat to determine if you made the jump or not. In 3e, the players gets a running start, and can use what is IN THE BOOK, combined with their roll, to determine exactly how far they jumped.

Buddy76

2018-11-19, 08:54 AM

Darth Ultron, what most people have been trying to tell you is that the tier system ranks how many mechanical options a class has and how well those mechanical options perform within the rules. It does NOT say you should only atempt mechanical solutions in your game, it does NOT say that higher tier classes should be played instead of lower tier ones (or that higher tier classes are more fun to play), it does NOT say that DMs should warp the game so that higher tier characters always succeed and lower tier characters always fail.

The reason tiers assume RAW and focus on mechanics instead of role-playing is because they cannot possibly account for every houserule and individual player, DM and story moment. What's the use of the tier system, then? Well, most people seem to use it to calibrate the game. A DM might include more story hooks and options for lower tier characters, or craft a plot in a particular way to stop higher tier characters from solving everything through mechanics. People can even use the tiers to houserule something so that the game is more in line with what they want. The tiers are a tool, is what I'm trying to say. Knowing that a wizard has more mechanical options than a fighter might help you craft your story better.

Edit: More or less ninja'ed by RedMage

Pex

2018-11-19, 09:05 AM

the whole point of Tier list is technically Theoretical optimization at its finest within the limits of the class itself and things others do not have access to! that is the point. theoretically all T1 classes could just NOPE an adventure with proper prep time and the correct resources, while T2 has to build certain ways to do so, and T3- generally can't!

the monk can't inherently by power of the class destroy a city, teleport, scry or die, or many other ways of Noping the campaign. druids, clerics and wizards CAN!!!

i have to go to work, be back when i can.

This is an example of what I meant earlier on what the Tier System has become.

No, this is not the point of the Tier System. The original intent was an opinion on how the extent of versatility each class has affects the game in potential as a single individual of that class. It was never a tool on how to play the game. The only advise given was a recommendation not to have classes in the same party more than two tiers separated. Otherwise it is merely information for DMs and players alike to understand why balance or spotlight time issues may happen.

RedMage125

2018-11-19, 09:31 AM

Mato

2018-11-19, 10:05 AM

So what your opinion of this topic?
That this thread will hit 6 pages in a week and maybe thirty by the end of the month.

It's GitP, people love pointless "discussion" about the binary opinion it needs to be one or the other instead of something that's utilized when it's useful and ignored when it isn't.

eggynack

2018-11-19, 11:30 AM

How the game is played and the game style matters a lot. As I said, the tiers can only exist in a easy casual game that supports the tiers with a DM rolling over to allow it. That is just ONE style of D&D. Lets call it: The Tier Style.
But you have no evidence whatsoever that this style exists. You just kinda keep saying this.

You posting a ''ton of threads" really is no help. You typing right here in this thread your style would be a big help. Then I could point to your style and say, ''look at that".
You asked for a history of the tier system earlier. A place where you can find the set of assumptions that underlie the tier system. Well, there it is.

I say it's something the tier system fuels...and even creates.

Yes, that is what I literally just said.

What low tier class am I a fan of? Rogue.
Okay, then rogue. What stuff does the rogue do better?

Now by encounter here you are talking about a pure combat or mechanics roll play encounter with a simple, easy and obvious goal...right? See, this is where how you play the game and your game style comes in.
I do not mean that, no. What follows does literally nothing to answer my question. Please answer my question.

The second one...is hard. The druid won't be using one ability to end the encounter in five minutes. And in a well written encounter, one that is part roll play mechanics, part character role playing and part player engagement it is much harder.
It is harder. However, the druid has a decidedly higher chance of success and lower rate of resource expenditure. They have more movement capacity, to easily take them around the castle, more abilities that deal with barriers, more abilities that identify the enemy's location, and, of course, more combat ability when the enemy is finally confronted.

If you say so. The over all point here is RAW is not always so ''straightforward". Sure you take the easy ''player side" of shadow evocation and say it's straightforward. But, in all of RAW I bet there are a couple other ''straightforward" ones that you will ''suddenly veer off in the left field about". That is the ''fun" of RAW.
RAW is not always straightforward, no. When it's not, I think tier analysis has a tendency towards non-inclusion of the ability in question. For example, I doubt anyone's going to assume that wild shape removes ability damage.

Maybe try another one: There is nothing in the rules that says a druid automatically knows things. So:

Would you ''just say" a druid automatically knows all about the plants and animals they encounter? Or does the druid have to make a knowledge roll for everything? If a druid had lived in a temperate forest his whole life, would you say the druid has to make a knowledge nature check to identify ''the small furry creature" he sees?

Or would you ''suddenly" jump to the interpretation that the druid automatically knows all about all the common plants and animals around where they live? So no rolls ever have to be made.
The rules compendium leans towards a lack of rolls regarding common nearby creatures, at least regarding familiarity for wild shape. To quote, "The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid has seen or could reasonably know about." For this purpose, a lack of rolls seems like the correct option. With regard to broader identification, I'd think you'd want to just apply a circumstance bonus to the knowledge check, especially as the check grants more knowledge than a straight up identification. The roll itself isn't especially difficult though. Standard identification is 10+HD, and a druid will typically pump knowledge (nature) for wild shape anyway.

ElFi

2018-11-19, 11:54 AM

Troacctid

2018-11-19, 12:14 PM

This is exactly what Bartmanhomer wanted to talk about. Be careful what you wish for, etc.

(Also, eggynack is clearly acknowledging plenty.)

eggynack

2018-11-19, 12:20 PM

Eggynack, I think you're too close to this at this point. Darth Ultron is never going to admit that he's wrong or that you might have a point. Nothing you say is ever going to change his opinion or get him to actually acknowledge the logical fallacies in the argument he's trying to make. It's just going to be pages upon pages of you two talking past one another and making the same points over and over again, neither acknowledging the other, until somebody loses their patience, makes a personal attack, and the thread gets locked. One of you should really just stop responding to the other.
I'm mostly just having fun. Been awhile since my last weird tier argument, and this is among the weirdest. Reminds me a bit of old Pickford threads.

Who knows, maybe we might actually be able to get back to discussing the matter at hand that Barrtmanhomer originally wanted to talk about, instead of this endless circular argument that has taken up at least four pages of this thread by now.
In what way is this not precisely on topic? The thread literally opened with, "How about them tiers, and opposition to them?" I assumed this would lead to either a weird tier argument or absolutely nothing.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-19, 12:38 PM

But let’s take Encounter Two. We’ll use a fighter (T5), a rogue (T4), a warblade (T3), and a druid (T1).

You gave a good mechanics only roll play descrption of the four classes in a Tier Type game.

So, first, I'd say everything you just said only applies and works IN a Tier Style game.
Second, your example has no player skill at all.
Third, your example has no role playing(acting in character and doing things in character in the game world)

So why is the first encounter a tier encounter and the second is not?

1.Is a very easy encounter, set up by the DM to be an easy win for the players. Even Billy with his fidget spinner on his nose can be handed a 10th level ''tier one" character and he could say ''I fireballs the goblins!" and end the encounter. Again, it's an easy set up. And a wizard is only ''tier one" in the set up.

2.This encounter is hard. There is no easy button and the DM here is making the encounter a huge challange, and if the DM wants to be really hard core: makes it an encounter that no lone character can beat (no matter what ''tier" they are). Even a highly skilled player with rule and system mastery and a ''tier one" character, will find the encounter hand(and some, too lost in the tier game will find it impossible), and for the hardcore twist something they can't do alone. In this encounter Billy is just silly as he has his druid wildhape into a dog ''like Scooby" to look for clues.

Peat

2018-11-19, 01:05 PM

In what way is this not precisely on topic? The thread literally opened with, "How about them tiers, and opposition to them?" I assumed this would lead to either a weird tier argument or absolutely nothing.

I've not exactly been reading that part of the thread assiduously so I might be missing something, but I'm still not sure what the argument has to do with tiers.

Hunter Noventa

2018-11-19, 01:10 PM

You gave a good mechanics only roll play descrption of the four classes in a Tier Type game.

So, first, I'd say everything you just said only applies and works IN a Tier Style game.
Second, your example has no player skill at all.
Third, your example has no role playing(acting in character and doing things in character in the game world)

How do you adjudicate character actions if roleplay is so important? Your player says "My character enters the room in which the murder happened and scours for evidence" Is that enough for you? How much detail do they have to go into? It seems like you expect your player to know everything their character would in every situation. It seems you have no separation between player knowledge (which dictates what you can roleplay) versus character knowledge (which would be reflected by the dreaded numbers on a character sheet,the horror) kind of defeats the purpose of roleplaying as something you're not, because you're not allowed to be good at something if you can't describe it, despite most of us never having picked a lock or swung a sword.

eggynack

2018-11-19, 01:14 PM

I've not exactly been reading that part of the thread assiduously so I might be missing something, but I'm still not sure what the argument has to do with tiers.
Darth Ultron's claim is that the tier system is false, solely applicable to some easy subset of games. He has, to put it simply, taken on the anti-tier side.

RedMage125

2018-11-19, 01:16 PM

Darth Ultron, there is no such thing as a "Tier style game". Period.

Tiers are only a measure of the overall power and versatility of the classes in terms of the mechanics listed in their class descriptions as it may apply to a variety of situations, both in and out of combat.

It has nothing to do with how anyone plays. And you have now refused to respond to both posters who have pointed this out.

A person who only plays a wizard as a blaster will not meet "tier 1" descriptions, and will, in fact, be worse than a warmage (a class DESIGNED to be a blaster). This is not some kind of "failing" in the Tier system or descriptions thereof, because the wizard CLASS, in general (not just one build) meets the Tier 1 classification guidelines.

Pex

2018-11-19, 01:37 PM

Peat

2018-11-19, 01:40 PM

Darth Ultron's claim is that the tier system is false, solely applicable to some easy subset of games. He has, to put it simply, taken on the anti-tier side.

Huh. Maybe I'm just reading the parts where he goes on and on about this big difference in game type without particularly referencing the tiers. Not that the tier references are seemingly to the same-tier side as me.

Ah well. Doesn't matter too much anyway.

Pex

2018-11-19, 02:02 PM

I don't claim to know the original purpose of the tiering system. I don't know why JaronK made it in the first place and what he intended with it, and you can ask Eggynack yourself if you want to know what his retiering project is intended for beyond the label on it. What I think the tier system has become, again per my personal experience, is a tool set with a mind towards providing context. I don't think anybody with a reasonable level of experience playing this game would dispute the idea that some classes are generally (not specifically) better than others, and the tier system offers a visual framework to understand that disparity in power and/or versatility. So, where do you go with it from there?

I was there when he created it on Ye Olde WOTC Gleemax forums. There was heavy debate on the worthiness of the 3E Fighter. Many were claiming it sucks and should never be played. Others saying it works fine and any issues are blown out of proportion. One poster wrote an essay on how the fighter does well with skills, though agreeing he could use more skill points. The main gist was that DC were not so astronomically high to be autofails that people were assuming.

There was even debate as to whether it was a waste of a spell to buff the fighter. A tournament was set up where a single class fighter was set up against a series of monsters for each level. The fighter did not have to win the combat. He could lose all of them. It only had to be shown he put up a good enough fight to be a real threat to the monster such that if he was magically buffed by a spell it was worth the spell slot used. There were many participants of many fighter builds. Not only did the fighter win the combats he won them superbly. I don't remember the worst percentage of won/loss ratio, but it was not below 50% and a few managed 100% wins. A second contest was added where participants had to use the same fighter build of each level but fight multiple opponents that add up to the appropriate CR. I don't think anyone got 100% wins here, but the fighter was still superb enough and proved a buff spell was a valid option from a spellcaster.

Meanwhile JaronK was insisting the fighter was terrible and decided to put his thoughts to words to explain his position fully, combining all that was said and new ideas. However, taking to heart those who were defending the fighter and their evidence he did not make it only about the fighter and was respectful to opposing views. He abandoned the concept of saying the fighter was terrible not worth playing and instead expressed his ideas of the value of all classes based on their versatility. This essay he wrote is the Tier System.

As for the types of people I expressed, that was quite prevalent in the early years of Tier System debate. Maybe it's not as prevalent now, but yes, those who hated Tier 1 were insistent players should not have such power, those who hate Tier 4 were shouting fighters suck, Tier 3 disciples were insisting it's the only way to make the game work competed with those who were saying the entire game sucks and go play something else. It was in every thread. I still see it from time to time with the Tier 3 disciples being the most prevalent. I think that's because most of the others have switched to other games like 5E because their individual reason for hating the game was too much for them to keep playing. In a sense the type 4 won the argument, but they aren't around to gloat.

Arbane

2018-11-19, 02:15 PM

Yes, but now your again changing things to 'making a super perfect anti-army druid character' not just ''a druid".

You ARE aware that all a druid has to do to reshuffle their spells memorized is wait one day, right?

Let me offer some ROLE playing ways:

*Challenge the general to single combat for control of the army. See how this small bit of ROLE PLAYING changes the whole game. Now the 10th level monk CAN defeat the whole army....they kill the general, and then order the army to leave (or do whatever).

*Assassinate the general and other leaders. Again, role playing and this works out good for a monk too.

In what universe will neither of these involve ROLLING DICE, and situations where being a shapeshifting nature-magician is potentially more useful than 'I know kung-fu'?

It's totally possible for a tier 1 character and a tier 5 character to play together, but it requires a good amount of fairness from both of them.

I am required to post this by Federal law: Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw). :smallbiggrin:

ElFi

2018-11-19, 02:35 PM

I'm mostly just having fun. Been awhile since my last weird tier argument, and this is among the weirdest. Reminds me a bit of old Pickford threads.

In what way is this not precisely on topic? The thread literally opened with, "How about them tiers, and opposition to them?" I assumed this would lead to either a weird tier argument or absolutely nothing.

Mmm. Might just be me misreading the situation, then- hard to convey inflection through text and all that, yadda yadda. Mostly I'm just worried that the intention of the thread isn't so much getting lost but getting buried in debating with a strawman who is presenting a clearly fallible argument and discrediting the potentially legitimate viewpoint of the "Anti-Tiers" side of this debate. Speaking of said potentially legitimate viewpoint:

I was there when he created it on Ye Olde WOTC Gleemax forums. There was heavy debate on the worthiness of the 3E Fighter. Many were claiming it sucks and should never be played. Others saying it works fine and any issues are blown out of proportion. One poster wrote an essay on how the fighter does well with skills, though agreeing he could use more skill points. The main gist was that DC were not so astronomically high to be autofails that people were assuming.

There was even debate as to whether it was a waste of a spell to buff the fighter. A tournament was set up where a single class fighter was set up against a series of monsters for each level. The fighter did not have to win the combat. He could lose all of them. It only had to be shown he put up a good enough fight to be a real threat to the monster such that if he was magically buffed by a spell it was worth the spell slot used. There were many participants of many fighter builds. Not only did the fighter win the combats he won them superbly. I don't remember the worst percentage of won/loss ratio, but it was not below 50% and a few managed 100% wins. A second contest was added where participants had to use the same fighter build of each level but fight multiple opponents that add up to the appropriate CR. I don't think anyone got 100% wins here, but the fighter was still superb enough and proved a buff spell was a valid option from a spellcaster.

Meanwhile JaronK was insisting the fighter was terrible and decided to put his thoughts to words to explain his position fully, combining all that was said and new ideas. However, taking to heart those who were defending the fighter and their evidence he did not make it only about the fighter and was respectful to opposing views. He abandoned the concept of saying the fighter was terrible not worth playing and instead expressed his ideas of the value of all classes based on their versatility. This essay he wrote is the Tier System.

As for the types of people I expressed, that was quite prevalent in the early years of Tier System debate. Maybe it's not as prevalent now, but yes, those who hated Tier 1 were insistent players should not have such power, those who hate Tier 4 were shouting fighters suck, Tier 3 disciples were insisting it's the only way to make the game work competed with those who were saying the entire game sucks and go play something else. It was in every thread. I still see it from time to time with the Tier 3 disciples being the most prevalent. I think that's because most of the others have switched to other games like 5E because their individual reason for hating the game was too much for them to keep playing. In a sense the type 4 won the argument, but they aren't around to gloat.

Fighter hate is a real, awful thing and I'm glad that that contest was used as a means of partially discrediting it. At least in the modern version, though, I think the tiers are a measure of both power and versatility- and it's in the latter category that the fighter struggles, a lot, particularly once outside of combat. But a lot of the games where the fighter struggles exist entirely in theory or vacuum- from about levels 1 to 10, their deficiencies in noncombat roles and against particular encounter types (e.g. flying or incorporeal enemies) aren't nearly as prevalent as some people would like to claim they are. Particularly optimized fighters playing alongside party-friendly casters can go all the way from 1 to 20 with little issue, as CuriousPuzzle's Curse of Artaith (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?436134-The-Curse-of-Artaith-(a-3-5-Campaign-Journal)) campaign journal demonstrates aptly with Puck, the party's kaiju-slaughtering Dungeoncrasher.

But, I'm making myself get bogged down in semantics now. Whatever the past conflict brought about by the tiers system was (and it almost definitely did cause conflict, I'm not arguing with that point), I think it's solidified now into something more cohesive, less confrontational, and (for a lack of a better word) nicer than it has been in the past. Eggynack's retiering project threads are the crowning example of that. When tiers stop being an argumentative bludgeon and start being a tool for promoting understanding and party cohesion, I think they can work out to be something nice.

WesleyVos

2018-11-19, 02:35 PM

You gave a good mechanics only roll play descrption of the four classes in a Tier Type game.

As you still haven't defined what a "Tier Type game" is, I don't have a good response to this, except to say that we are talking about the tiers specifically, so I have to reference classes using them. Otherwise the discussion is meaningless.

So, first, I'd say everything you just said only applies and works IN a Tier Style game.
Second, your example has no player skill at all.
Third, your example has no role playing(acting in character and doing things in character in the game world)

First, I repeat what I said above. I can't figure out what exactly you mean by a "Tier Style game." You have referenced buddy DMs, blank canvas, and a lack of roleplay. I have never, I repeat never, seen or heard tell of a game like you describe.

Second, the example does assume player skill. It assumes player competency at playing the class and character as written. It also assumes the same player playing those four classes in alternate hypothetical worlds.

Third, my post specifically referenced acting in character and doing things in character in the game world. I quote:

Even if we take your idea that the players should be actors, it is bad acting to have a character do something they would not know how to do.

The character knowledge defines what the player can and cannot do. If the character is written as a smart, canny survivalist, then it might make sense for the fighter to have put ranks in survival or search, but the mechanics of the game don't allow the fighter to do much more than that, if even to do that well. That's why I said a warblade does it better, because they have the resources to put into the necessary skills. Unless, as multiple people have suggested, you are ignoring the skill system entirely, at which point you might as well not be playing 3.5e.

That said, the question has been asked, and I repeat it: How do you adjudicate player actions if not by skill rolls? Do you become the buddy DM in a different way, simply saying, "Well, you convinced me by your superior acting skills, you succeed," or alternatively, "You suck at acting, you fail!"? Or do you still require skill rolls to accomplish tasks? If the former, you're just another version of your own cursed buddy DM, and you still rank the players. You just use a different criteria (acting skill) than what you call a tier player (system mastery). If the latter, then you're playing the game as intended, and the tier system (or a tier system, even if you disagree with the way this one is ranked) could be helpful to you as a DM.

1.Is a very easy encounter, set up by the DM to be an easy win for the players. Even Billy with his fidget spinner on his nose can be handed a 10th level ''tier one" character and he could say ''I fireballs the goblins!" and end the encounter. Again, it's an easy set up. And a wizard is only ''tier one" in the set up.

2.This encounter is hard. There is no easy button and the DM here is making the encounter a huge challange, and if the DM wants to be really hard core: makes it an encounter that no lone character can beat (no matter what ''tier" they are). Even a highly skilled player with rule and system mastery and a ''tier one" character, will find the encounter hand(and some, too lost in the tier game will find it impossible), and for the hardcore twist something they can't do alone. In this encounter Billy is just silly as he has his druid wildhape into a dog ''like Scooby" to look for clues.

Actually, per my example, a druid (or a wizard - let's go with that, since I'm more familiar with wizards anyway) is still tier 1 in both scenarios. Actually, it's the first scenario in which a tier 4 or 5 character is on moderately even footing with the wizard or druid. A level 10 fighter against 25 goblins might take a bit longer than a level 10 blaster wizard, but the result is probably the same. A fighter can handle this without a problem. So too can a rogue, a warblade, a wizard, or a druid. The tier discussion doesn't really come into play here. In fact, scenario one is actually the anti-tier game, since it puts all the classes on an even (or semi-even) footing.

Scenario TWO is actually the tier-style game, because that is where the disparity in class is most evident. In case you missed it, I repeat my example from above:

Fighter: Can’t sneak in - doesn’t have the skill ranks. Same with an investigation - he will fail most diplomacy, gather info, etc. checks, as well as any search checks. If the buddy DM takes pith on him and let’s him find the thing, he might be able to fight it. The rest of the time his contributions are limited to what the player can roleplay, and even those are limited because player knowledge and skills are not character knowledge and skills. Even if we take your idea that the players should be actors, it is bad acting to have a character do something they would not know how to do.

Rogue: Definitely better at the investigation. This is the precise are where a rogue can shine, because they have the skill points to handle it. But if the killer is undead, she is in trouble - no sneak attack, unless she has taken Penetrating Strike. But the rogue does OK here (as would be expected of a T4).

Warblade: Because he has more skill points, the Warblade is better at the investigation than the fighter, theoretically. Diplomacy is a class skill, at least. And the warblade generally is a better fighter than the fighter when it comes to combat, particularly if the opponent is nonstandard or on difficult terrain. Balance and Tumble are class skills for the warblade.

Druid: A Druid post level 5 can handle this single-handedly. Wild shaping allows sneaking, tracking by scent, and combat. The only difficulty a Druid might face is an anti-magic field, and even then they drop back to range and let the animal companion soak up damage.

Now, could they handle it by themselves? Maybe, maybe not. It's always better to have a party with you. That said, the druid has a better chance of surviving and completing the adventure solo than the other classes. And note, this assumes that player X has a choice of characters before the campaign. His or her roleplay is going to be at the same level regardless of class. Same with player knowledge. Those don't change regardless of what class the player chooses. Given that roleplay and skill are constants, with the class being the variable, the druid is going to be better at doing the job than the fighter.

eggynack

2018-11-19, 02:47 PM

Mmm. Might just be me misreading the situation, then- hard to convey inflection through text and all that, yadda yadda. Mostly I'm just worried that the intention of the thread isn't so much getting lost but getting buried in debating with a strawman who is presenting a clearly fallible argument and discrediting the potentially legitimate viewpoint of the "Anti-Tiers" side of this debate.
I hadn't really considered it from the perspective of legitimizing a weird version of an actual argument. I've seen anti-tier stuff a whole lot, and these claims in particular are especially strange (still trying to work out how this supposed tier friendly game is supposed to operate, rhetorically speaking), so it doesn't strike me as all that representative. I suspect, sometimes, that I am one of the few that feels anything like nostalgia for Pickford type stuff. I dig me some odd and difficult to parse rhetoric that comes from a perspective that makes little apparent sense.

death390

2018-11-19, 02:52 PM

This is an example of what I meant earlier on what the Tier System has become.

No, this is not the point of the Tier System. The original intent was an opinion on how the extent of versatility each class has affects the game in potential as a single individual of that class. It was never a tool on how to play the game. The only advise given was a recommendation not to have classes in the same party more than two tiers separated. Otherwise it is merely information for DMs and players alike to understand why balance or spotlight time issues may happen.

no similarly to what redmage said, it basically takes TO and shows what can be done. my rushed explanation was poorly worded and probably slightly faulty (just got back from work an hour ago btw long shift). Tier 1 characters are so versatile and powerful part of the description is "Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player." to me that is just Nopeing the campaign. Tier 2 CAN do it but has less versatility due to more limited resources "no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes.". while Tier 3 can almost NEVER do it except in certain situations "Can be game breaking only with specific intent to do so.".

what i said is supported by the text of the tier lists just my presentation was lacking due to being rushed, for this i apologize i should have waited until after work to post.

the only reason that some builds are represented in this but others are not is due to the fact that many of the builds that lower Tier characters use are available to basically all characters. take the Ubercharger for example, it consists of: shocktrooper, power attack, leap attack, and combat brute, with a 1 level dip into barbarian for pounce. every thing else for the build is window dressing. all characters can make the build work using 2 flaws by level 12 easily. (BaB is hardest requirement and level 12 is the first level those who have 1/2 bab can pick up leap attack without an extra dip into fighter)

even then the Ubercharger build does not really add any versatility other than i hit things really really hard so doesn't inherently add much anyway.

Florian

2018-11-19, 03:00 PM

(still trying to work out how this supposed tier friendly game is supposed to operate, rhetorically speaking)

A lot of what Cosi apparently often seems to advocate as a game, with a heavy hint of MtG thrown into the mix.

Step 1: Reduce the game to pure mechanics. When it is not in the RAW, it doesn't exist. Period.

Step 2: Focus on the "I Win Button" aspect of the game, go from there and go into some CCG-like dueling about who trumps what (between individual player and gm, no-one cares about being cooperative anyways).

Step 3: Trat everything as binary, there his only pass or fail, so stack your dack in such a way that you're guaranteed a pass result on the RNG.

So, basically, it´s trying to cram in every mechanical option that can resolve an encounter, or at least have a hard counter available for when you don't have it.

Erloas

2018-11-19, 03:06 PM

First, I repeat what I said above. I can't figure out what exactly you mean by a "Tier Style game." You have referenced buddy DMs, blank canvas, and a lack of roleplay. I have never, I repeat never, seen or heard tell of a game like you describe.

(still trying to work out how this supposed tier friendly game is supposed to operate, rhetorically speaking)
As far as I can tell a "tier style game" and a "buddy DM" are ones that try to play by the rules as written. They make abilities and spells work like the rulebook says, they make skills and stats drive what a character is good and bad at. They try to enforce the consistency of the game world based on the rules of which it was designed around.
A "non-tier game" is one which player skill determines what a character is good at and the DM sets the rules of the universe based on the narrative they want any given scene to take. A character will or will not get overcome an encounter/challenge based on what the DM wants rather than some "known set of defined rules" agreed upon before the game starts.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-19, 03:28 PM

DU, before you get offended, I'm not being insulting or attacking you. But by your statements, you have LITERALLY said things about the Tier System that either A) are explicitly untrue or B) are so far off base that they have nothing to do with the system.

Well, even in that post JaronK says both this is only about the mechanics and the system assumes that everything other than mechanics is totally equal.

Ok, so I'm talking about how in a good RPG the game is 50% role playing(no mechanics) and 50% roll playing(mechanics) AND a game where ''everything is not equal"(like for example player skill). So seems like I'm right on track?

So almost everything else you've said about "tier playing" or "tier way" is a ridiculous claim.

Not so, maybe I just need to explain it better to you.

It's like comparing the various classes to different aircraft,

I don't know about planes...

Do you see? The Tier System isn't even TRYING to do some of the things you are arguing about. All it does is says "Some classes, due to the way they were designed, can do pretty much anything, even better than the classes who are SUPPOSED to be good at their things. Some classes can do ALMOST anything. Some can do ONE thing pretty well, while not sucking at others. Some ONLY do one thing well, and suck at everything else. Some can ONLY DO one thing, not that great, and don't have any ability to do other things.

And I point out that this is ONLY true not only in the mechanics game, but also is a game SET UP for this to be true.

There is no such thing as "Tier Play". Tiers are only a tool, for the DM, or for potential players when making a character to join a game. The measure of Tiers assumes a similar sort of level of optimization. If most of the party is Tier 1, 2, and 3, then a new player joining the game, if he makes a Monk (Tier 5), might not get as much spoltlight time, due to elements that are nobody's fault (not even the DM's). It might be best to either allow that player some other options that are not granted others (JaronK has a few suggestions in post 3), or suggest he play a higher Tier Class, so he won't feel left behind.

This is a big part of my point though in a Tier Game(that is a mechanical roll playing game where everything else is equal and is made to support the tier system.) the tier system is a thing...but only in that one style of game.

See you dismiss it so easy, ''oh it's nobody's fault": that is not true. It IS the DM's fault...and a bit lesser the players.

When the DM thinks ''tier 1 is so awesome" and "every other tier sucks" they will MAKE the game that way and will play the game that way. The Dm IS making a Tier One game, just for the Tier One characters...and utterly does not care about anything else. You might not see it, if your on the inside.

Just look back a page or two for the examples of:

*Anything a tier one encounters they can automatically deal with and it always works.

As opposed to:

*Anything a lower tier character tires is a joke and will automatically fail.

And the above also gets in to the Magic vs Mundane...a separate, but related problem:

*tier one character uses magic to get up into a secured tower: It always works and the DM gies the player a high five.

*Tier anything else character tries to do any mundane way to get into the tower: It fails, and DM gives a rant about their wacky understanding of real world physics.

Honestly, DU, what you have to say about "Buddy DMs" is almost absurd. And, from my perspective, you have it backwards, because technically, allowing pure roleplay to get one past obstacles requires "buddy DMs", whereas having the dice be an objective, unbiased judge of success or failure does not.

It does not matter if it's role or roll play, the Buddy DM still does things for the players. For example: mechanics wise the Buddy DM only uses things the players can ''handle", so a door guard is a ''2nd level warrior" that using the by-the-book stats is super easy to charm or even defeat.

You might have gotten the wrong idea: A Buddy Dm, for example, has everyone in an adventure be a humanoid, so the spellcasters can Charm Person any and all of them. Because on any non humanoid, and charm person is useless. This gets very noticable in higher level games. The example from before in the thread of ''an army of 2nd level human warriors vs a 10th level druid". Well, sure, the druid can wipe out that army quick: the Buddy DM made that army and easy target for the druid. Your rant is way off on another topic.

But you have no evidence whatsoever that this style exists. You just kinda keep saying this.

Well, I did ask you for your personal 3.5E Gentilemans Agreement, Rule Interperations and House Rules. But you refused to give them and said you had none? Maybe someone else can give us theirs?

Okay, then rogue. What stuff does the rogue do better?

But again, you are stuck on ''better". I'm not about that. I want everyone in the game to have fun...not have ''tier one jerks say they are better then everyone else".

I do not mean that, no. What follows does literally nothing to answer my question. Please answer my question.

Please state your personal 3.5E Gentilemans Agreement, Rule Interperations and House Rules, so I have a basic framework to but my answer in.

The rules compendium leans towards a lack of rolls regarding common nearby creatures, at least regarding familiarity for wild shape. To quote, "The form chosen must be that of an animal the druid has seen or could reasonably know about." For this purpose, a lack of rolls seems like the correct option. With regard to broader identification, I'd think you'd want to just apply a circumstance bonus to the knowledge check, especially as the check grants more knowledge than a straight up identification. The roll itself isn't especially difficult though. Standard identification is 10+HD, and a druid will typically pump knowledge (nature) for wild shape anyway.

Ok, so we now have One of your Houserules, right? Something you added to the game that changed the game so your game is NOT pure RAW.

How do you adjudicate character actions if roleplay is so important?

If you had read the thread, you would see it think the game is best when it's PART Role Playing(acting in character), PART Roll Play(mechanics) and PART Player Engagement(the player doing things).

I want the Player to figure out all by themselves that ''the room where the murder took place might have a clue in it" , then I want the player to role play the character to figure out a good spot to check and then the player would roll play a mechanical roll to made find a clue in that spot.

Darth Ultron, there is no such thing as a "Tier style game". Period.

Ok, let me be more basic:

1.You do agree that there are different ways and styles to play D&D, right?
2.You do also agree that there is no ''right" or "wrong" way?

3.Ok, now a hard one will be: do you agree that there ARE stlyes of playing D&d where the whole tier system is useless (this should be a yes, after all, you only need admit that a game style exist where :everything outside of the mechanics is equal..

4.Ok, once you get to the point were you can admit at least two styles of D&D exist that don't use the tier system....then there IS a tier system style.

eggynack

2018-11-19, 03:38 PM

Well, I did ask you for your personal 3.5E Gentilemans Agreement, Rule Interperations and House Rules. But you refused to give them and said you had none? Maybe someone else can give us theirs?
Why would I need to do that? Why would anyone? You made claims regarding the tier system, a thing which predates my entrance into 3.5 as a game. You should have evidence for this that does not rely on me personally.

But again, you are stuck on ''better". I'm not about that. I want everyone in the game to have fun...not have ''tier one jerks say they are better then everyone else".
Why does it matter how you want games to be? Some classes are better at solving problems than other classes on the basis of their mechanical abilities. This is the contention of the tier system. I am claiming that rogues are worse than druids at solving problems. If you don't care about that question, then the issue isn't that you disagree with the tier system. The issue is that you don't care about it, which is a different thing. The tier system can be a wholly accurate system that you don't care about.

Please state your personal 3.5E Gentilemans Agreement, Rule Interperations and House Rules, so I have a basic framework to but my answer in.
So you're saying that you had no basic framework when you made these assertions in the first place? Why did you make the assertions then? If you contend that the tier system is reliant on some particular interpretations and house rules, then name those rules and prove that they are in place.

Ok, so we now have One of your Houserules, right? Something you added to the game that changed the game so your game is NOT pure RAW.

I made a direct rules citation. I have no idea what houserule you're talking about.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-19, 04:04 PM

As you still haven't defined what a "Tier Type game" is, I don't have a good response to this, except to say that we are talking about the tiers specifically, so I have to reference classes using them. Otherwise the discussion is meaningless.

I have tried, but this is a big ''can't see the forest through the trees" problem. If you are pro-using the Tier System, you have to play the game a set way: Pro tier.

If you can list your personal Gentleman's Agreement, Rule Interpretations and house rules, that would be a nice start. Then I can point out the one's you must have to even have a tier game in the first place. And if you were to remove a couple of them from your game...suddenly the tiers would not even exist.

Ill give an example of a perfect anti-teir Gentleman's Agreement: This game will be a social group game, so each person and each character must contribute equally to the game play. At no time, for any reason, can one character ''do more" then the others. Most encounters will require ALL the characters acting to succeed. A single character can only do a part of the game play.

First, I repeat what I said above. I can't figure out what exactly you mean by a "Tier Style game." You have referenced buddy DMs, blank canvas, and a lack of roleplay. I have never, I repeat never, seen or heard tell of a game like you describe.

Really?

Buddy DM: Lets the players just get away with anything (though mostly the tier one characters, of course, wink wink). This Dm also makes sure the world is weak, low magic and low fantasy(so no magic and just like Earth), so again, the tier one characters can really dominate and shine and be tier one.

Blank Canvas: Most combat and actions take place in mostly empty one dimensional space (often with the monsters nicely lining up to be targets: also includes the ''awesome spot" exploit to Always Surprise monsters and Always go first in combat or actions).

Lack of Role Play: Wow, is this one common. You must have seen this one. Player: ''my character walks into town and rolls a 100 on gather information, DM tell me what my character learned." Or "My character bluffs the guard" or "I don't care what the NPCS name is, I just want to kill, loot, repeat!"

That said, the question has been asked, and I repeat it: How do you adjudicate player actions if not by skill rolls?

Again, I say skill rolls are fine part of the time. The rest of the time the players and DM just have to Role Play. How does the DM ''decide" what an NPC does...they just do, the same way they do anything else in the game.

As far as I can tell a "tier style game" and a "buddy DM" are ones that try to play by the rules as written. They make abilities and spells work like the rulebook says, they make skills and stats drive what a character is good and bad at. They try to enforce the consistency of the game world based on the rules of which it was designed around.

Well, to me your describing a Rule Worshiper here.

Buddy DM-the DM lets the players get away with anything and even goes as far as to set up the whole game world in favor of the PC...almost always only the ''high tier PCs". If a Buddy DM needs a CR 7 foe, they will ''amazingly" pick the low magic/low fantasy ''4th level ogre barbarian...as he has few defenses/protections a tier one spellcaster has to worry about, and the Buddy DM will not often us a Succubus, same CR, but wow, a TON of defenses and protections that sure can make a tier one spellcaster ''not so great". AND that is before things like templates and magic items too.

The Tier game is an easy set up for the players, specially the players with tier one characters, to have an casual and easy game play.

Buddy76

2018-11-19, 04:20 PM

Well, even in that post JaronK says both this is only about the mechanics and the system assumes that everything other than mechanics is totally equal.

Have you read the rest of the post RedMage provided? I'll just quote parts of it directly for clarification (I'll bold some of it for emphasis).

Q: So, which is the best Tier?

A: In the end, the best Tier is the Tier that matches the rest of your party and appeals to you. If your party is Fighter, Rogue, Healer, Barbarian, then Tier 4 or 5 is going to be the best. If your party is Sorcerer, Beguiler, Crusader, Swordsage, then Tier 2-3 will be best. Really, if you're having fun and no one in the party feels either useless or overpowered, then you're doing it right. Personally, I prefer Tier 3, but I still match to whatever party I'm in if I join after other characters are created.

Q: I totally saw a [Class X] perform far better than a [Class Y] even though you list it as lower. What gives?

A: This system assumes that everything other than mechanics is totally equal. It's a ranking of the mechanical classes themselves, not of the players who use that class. As long as the players are of equal skill and optimize their characters roughly the same amount, it's fine. If one player optimizes a whole lot more than the other, that will shift their position on the chart. Likewise, if one player is more skilled than the other, or campaign situations favor one playstyle over another, classes can shift around. Remember, this is a rough ranking and a guideline, not a perfect ruler.

Q: My players want to play classes of wildly different Tiers. What can I do about this?

A: Well, this will be a test of your DMing skill. The easiest solution is to convince them to play classes that are similar conceptually but different in power. For example, if they're currently going with Paladin, Druid, Monk, Illusionsist, then maybe you can get them to try out Crusader, Wild Shape Varient Ranger, Unarmed Varient Swordsage, Beguiler. That would make your life a lot easier. But if they're attached to their classes or feel that their class choice bests fits their character, then you've got a few options. One is to see the house rule section above and try something like that. Another is to simply provide extra support for the weaker classes... for example, perhaps more random magic items that drop are useful for unarmed strikers, while Wildling Clasps just don't seem to exist in your game. Maybe allowing more oddball "broken" tricks for the Monk (and perhaps Paladin) while being much more strict with the Illusionist and Druid. You can also allow more PrC options for the weaker guys... Monk 6/Shou Disciple 5/Unarmed Swordsage 4/Master of Nine 5 is fine for that Monk, but Illusionist 10/Earth Dreamer 5/Shadowcraft Mage 5 is not acceptable, and Druid/Planar Shepard is right out. You can also make sure that the challenges being put forward suit the strengths of the weaker classes. Something that makes good use of the Monk and Paladin's diplomacy would be advisable, for example. A challenge where being able to run really fast is handy might work too. And finally, you can bring the Druid and Illusionist aside and tell them the answer to the next question.

Q: My party mates all want to play classes of wildly different Tiers. What can I do about this?

A: First... see if you can get them to play something closer together, as above. If that won't work, okay. Now, if the class you're playing is noticeably stronger than everyone else, try focusing your energy on buffing your party mates. Channel your power through them... it helps. If you're a DMM Cleric in a party with a Monk and Fighter, try persisting Recitation, Lesser Vigor, and Righteous Wrath of the Faithful instead of Righteous Might, Divine Power, and Divine Favor. You're still very powerful, and definitely getting results, but since you use your party mates to get those results, they feel useful too. Also, let them shine in their areas. If they're melees and you're a Cleric, don't turn into Godzilla and smash Tokyo. It's not polite. Focus on the other areas a bit more. If one of them is playing a Rogue, using Divine Insight to beat him on skills isn't nice. Let him have his fun, and save your spells for other areas if you can. If, however, you're playing a weaker class, then optimize optimize optimize! A CW Samurai is going to have a lot of trouble in a party full of Tier 3s and up, so maybe try being a Necropolitan CW Samurai 10/Zhentarium Fighter 10 with Imperious Command, Eviscerator, Improved Critical, and a pair of Lifedrinker Kukris. Carve out a niche where you're the king... they can have everything else. Also, make sure you've got something to do when you do have to sit out. Give your character a drinking habit or something.

Q: Why does it matter if a class has broken abilities? Won't a DM just nerf that anyway? Shouldn't you just ignore broken abilities when ranking classes?

A: It actually matters a great deal if a class has broken abilities (such as flowing time Genesis, Planar Binding Wish loops, and so on). This system is designed to help DMs and players know what kind of power is coming their way, and if a DM is blindsided by something broken that's a serious problem. I'm not going to tell someone that a Sorcerer is weak because I'm assuming their best spells are all nerfed... I'd rather warn them that Sorcerers have overpowered abilities, so that they look more closely at the character sheets of Sorcerers that are playing in their game and watch out for such stuff. Remember, not everyone has the same opinion of "broken" and nothing ticks a player off more than having a DM tell them their neat trick that they were counting on is overpowered and suddenly banned. Ever seen a Sorcerer who took Shivering Touch and Spectral Hand and has been holding those in reserve for a few levels suddenly use those on a Dragon, only to have the DM suddenly say "no, that's broken, you can't use those spells?" It's not a pretty sight, and I'd like to avoid that.

So again, this is a system that ranks classes before such nerfing. Tier 1 and 2 class can easily do game breaking things, and DMing for those classes does require checking to make sure the player won't do anything silly (with good players, this is a simple matter of asking them to use their judgement. With munchkins, you have to be firm). The fact that they're Tier 1 and 2 is supposed to warn you that some house ruling may be necessary to avoid broken campaigns if your players go a little nuts.

Do you see how the tier system is NOT saying that you should only play uberoptimized tier 1's and disregard roleplaying? Do you see how JaronK was trying to make a tool for DMs and players to have fun and tell better stories? You may say that you disagree with the tier system, that it is not a useful tool, but saying it is that:
When the DM thinks ''tier 1 is so awesome" and "every other tier sucks" they will MAKE the game that way and will play the game that way. The Dm IS making a Tier One game, just for the Tier One characters...and utterly does not care about anything else. You might not see it, if your on the inside.

Just look back a page or two for the examples of:

*Anything a tier one encounters they can automatically deal with and it always works.

As opposed to:

*Anything a lower tier character tires is a joke and will automatically fail.

And the above also gets in to the Magic vs Mundane...a separate, but related problem:

*tier one character uses magic to get up into a secured tower: It always works and the DM gies the player a high five.

That's a pretty big strawman.

zlefin

2018-11-19, 04:24 PM

Eggynack, I think you're too close to this at this point. Darth Ultron is never going to admit that he's wrong or that you might have a point. Nothing you say is ever going to change his opinion or get him to actually acknowledge the logical fallacies in the argument he's trying to make. It's just going to be pages upon pages of you two talking past one another and making the same points over and over again, neither acknowledging the other, until somebody loses their patience, makes a personal attack, and the thread gets locked. One of you should really just stop responding to the other.

Who knows, maybe we might actually be able to get back to discussing the matter at hand that Barrtmanhomer originally wanted to talk about, instead of this endless circular argument that has taken up at least four pages of this thread by now.

as a pedantic quibble; I'd say that eggynack isn't talking past ultron at all. He's clearly addressing ultron's actual arguments and has acknowledged and countered them (as you yourself admit). It does not constitute "talking past" ultron that ultron chooses to ignore his points being countered.

That Ultron won't acknowledge it is a problem, but one that rests entirely on one side.

It's clear which party is correct and which should stop talking; it just won't happen due to the nature of people.

It only takes one person talking past in order to create the problem; and while sometimes it's both people, that is not the case here. it only takes one person to push a circular argument forward by endlessly restating nonsense.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-19, 04:31 PM

Why would I need to do that? Why would anyone? You made claims regarding the tier system, a thing which predates my entrance into 3.5 as a game. You should have evidence for this that does not rely on me personally.

Well, this works better if you just corporate. Otherwise you will just do the ''jerk evidence thing" and say it's not true as you want it to be not true. I can list the ways a game is pro tier and you will just say "nope, no games are like that ever!".

But if you give your way, then we have hard evidence to build off of...see. When you theoretically type: "my game is easy as I will never have anything attack the characters when they are not ready". Now, see, i'd point out that Buddy DM way of thinking creates the tier system. compare to my game: Anything can happen any time...even if the players ''don't like it" or think it's "unfair".

Why does it matter how you want games to be? Some classes are better at solving problems than other classes on the basis of their mechanical abilities. This is the contention of the tier system. I am claiming that rogues are worse than druids at solving problems. If you don't care about that question, then the issue isn't that you disagree with the tier system. The issue is that you don't care about it, which is a different thing. The tier system can be a wholly accurate system that you don't care about.

I'm not sure what else to say here...ok, your judgmental and like to label things and put them in 'easy boxes' so you can stand up and say ''amazing" whatever YOU like or do is "better" then everyone else.

So you're saying that you had no basic framework when you made these assertions in the first place? Why did you make the assertions then? If you contend that the tier system is reliant on some particular interpretations and house rules, then name those rules and prove that they are in place.

Sorry you lost me here.

I made a direct rules citation. I have no idea what houserule you're talking about.

Ok, I'll just put you down as the weird type who thinks their own house rules are Official Rules, and just leave it at that then.

That's a pretty big strawman.

Really, we should bring back that ''design an encounter" thread. It really highlighted how many Buddy DM's their are out there.

JNAProductions

2018-11-19, 04:34 PM

The rules of Shadow Evocation are clear. Eggynack is not using any houserules with it.

While I’m sure their game features houserules, in one way it another, that is not one of them.

WesleyVos

2018-11-19, 04:39 PM

I have tried, but this is a big ''can't see the forest through the trees" problem. If you are pro-using the Tier System, you have to play the game a set way: Pro tier.

If you can list your personal Gentleman's Agreement, Rule Interpretations and house rules, that would be a nice start. Then I can point out the one's you must have to even have a tier game in the first place. And if you were to remove a couple of them from your game...suddenly the tiers would not even exist.

Ill give an example of a perfect anti-teir Gentleman's Agreement: This game will be a social group game, so each person and each character must contribute equally to the game play. At no time, for any reason, can one character ''do more" then the others. Most encounters will require ALL the characters acting to succeed. A single character can only do a part of the game play.

Alright, this is helpful. This helps me know where you're coming from and what you see as a Gentleman's Agreement. Personally, I don't have a stated philosophy as such (I started playing in 2005, when I was in college, so I guess the term never came up), but generally my terms are that I won't surprise players with a rocks-fall-everybody-dies. I generally try to help players with mechanical builds based on their stated backstory (usually I require 2-3 paragraphs minimum, as I am a very roleplay-heavy DM), but if they don't want help I leave them to their own devices while still doing my best to make sure players don't feel completely left out. I tend more towards epic fantasy games than dark and gritty, but that's more thematic than anything else. I don't shy away from PC death - if you look at my signature, you'll note that survivability is a major issue in games I run.

As for houserules, it depends on the game - I'll houserule some games more than others, depending on the story - but I do have a few normal rules. I generally don't use favored classes or XP (mostly for my convenience, as I don't like the XP bookkeeping), and I modify item crafting to account for that. Leveling up is cinematic, meaning characters level up at story-appropriate times. I typically use a homebrewed setting, so deities, languages, and a few other things are customized (again, personal preference, as it's the setting I've created). Occasionally I'll give bonuses based on good roleplay (or the reverse - if you simply walk up to the guard and say, "I diplomance him," you're getting a penalty. At least give it a shot!). I don't require players to be skilled actors or to know everything their character would know, and I typically don't like to throw in things that only have one way to be solved, as I think that disadvantages players who are playing a character vastly different from themselves (which I like to encourage - it makes players get out of their comfort zone and try something new). Oh, and I typically don't use Incarnum or Psionics - despite having played a ton, those are two systems I'm just not very familiar with or comfortable with at this point.

That's typically it for houserules. Everything else would be ruled on in-game. Does that help answer your question?

Really?

Buddy DM: Lets the players just get away with anything (though mostly the tier one characters, of course, wink wink). This Dm also makes sure the world is weak, low magic and low fantasy(so no magic and just like Earth), so again, the tier one characters can really dominate and shine and be tier one.

Never seen this, and I would leave any game run by such a DM. This kind of game would be dumb.

Blank Canvas: Most combat and actions take place in mostly empty one dimensional space (often with the monsters nicely lining up to be targets: also includes the ''awesome spot" exploit to Always Surprise monsters and Always go first in combat or actions).

I repeat from above, this is more either DM laziness or incompetence, I think, than anything else. I have been guilty of the one-dimensional space issue myself, but it's more because I keep forgetting about environmental factors than by design. DMs have a lot to keep track of. That said, I do play my monsters/opponents/villains intelligently, and I abide by initiative rolls (the exception would be a forum-based game, in which I average monster initiative for convenience of posting).

Lack of Role Play: Wow, is this one common. You must have seen this one. Player: ''my character walks into town and rolls a 100 on gather information, DM tell me what my character learned." Or "My character bluffs the guard" or "I don't care what the NPCS name is, I just want to kill, loot, repeat!"

I have heard of this sort of game, though I've never actually seen it in action. If you did this in one of my games, you'd be getting severe penalties and/or asked to leave, because you're not even trying now. However, I don't require the silver-tongued bard's player to also be silver-tongued. I just require that they make an effort to RP out the scene.

Again, I say skill rolls are fine part of the time. The rest of the time the players and DM just have to Role Play. How does the DM ''decide" what an NPC does...they just do, the same way they do anything else in the game.

I don't think you're understanding the point. Roleplay is always required to describe what the character does. But mechanics support the roleplay. The tier system essentially tells a DM two things: (1) How well will the chosen class's mechanics support the chosen character's roleplay, and (2) how much does a DM need to adjust things to make sure the chosen character isn't shoved in a corner and forgotten about.

Well, to me your describing a Rule Worshiper here.

Buddy DM-the DM lets the players get away with anything and even goes as far as to set up the whole game world in favor of the PC...almost always only the ''high tier PCs". If a Buddy DM needs a CR 7 foe, they will ''amazingly" pick the low magic/low fantasy ''4th level ogre barbarian...as he has few defenses/protections a tier one spellcaster has to worry about, and the Buddy DM will not often us a Succubus, same CR, but wow, a TON of defenses and protections that sure can make a tier one spellcaster ''not so great". AND that is before things like templates and magic items too.

The Tier game is an easy set up for the players, specially the players with tier one characters, to have an casual and easy game play.

Once again, this is typically due to the DM being a new DM (I've been guilty of this before, as I don't have all the monster manuals memorized and regularly have to use tools like the Monster Finder just to figure out what foes are somewhat in the appropriate CR range), lazy, or simply having to come up with something on the fly. I've never seen a DM do this with the purpose of making things easy on the PC. (As a note, I have used a succubus before - she kissed a PC to death. Player described it as the best death ever. Don't get a lot of opportunity to use them, as I don't DM higher-level play very often - my games typically run between levels 3 and 7 at best - and they don't often fit the story.) I don't see this as the DM being a Buddy DM.

My interpretation of a Buddy DM is one who hears something cool described and, without justification, waives mechanical rules to allow it to happen. I did play for one of those once. Ended up quitting the game shortly after - if I wanted a freeform game without rules, I'd play FATE or just write a novel.

Buddy76

2018-11-19, 04:48 PM

.Really, we should bring back that ''design an encounter" thread. It really highlighted how many Buddy DM's their are out there. You are moving the goalposts. "Buddy DMs" ,as you describe, are another matter. You may argue that those type of DMs are taking the tier system as something prescriptve and axiological (as in, tier 1's are inherently more virtuous and fun to play) rather than something descriptive, but that is not the tier system's (or it's contributor's) fault. That's people either misreading or not reading the system at all.

Honestly, that's just another strain of bad DM. There are many out there and they are rarely caused by just one thing.

Reading my previous post would you say that the tier system as intended is inherently bad?

eggynack

2018-11-19, 04:48 PM

Well, this works better if you just corporate. Otherwise you will just do the ''jerk evidence thing" and say it's not true as you want it to be not true. I can list the ways a game is pro tier and you will just say "nope, no games are like that ever!".
But my personal feelings about the structure of games is irrelevant either way. If you say, "The original tier system fundamentally depends on spells with saving throws always working," to give an arbitrary example, me saying that my games don't have that rule isn't really evidence in my favor. The real evidence you'd want to provide with regards to the original tier system, or even later revisions or adaptations of it (including my own) is the set of assumptions explicitly or implicitly baked into those systems. If the systems don't make any problematic assumptions in and of themselves, then it is completely meaningless what assumptions I make or don't make.

Realistically, the way you'd form an argument against the tier list is pretty straightforward, within this tier style game paradigm. You'd present a set of assumptions that lead to characters not lining up with the tiers. As long as those assumptions are consistent with the rules as they are written, then it seems like fair game to me. After that, the debate would center on whether those assumptions are realistic, and whether they lead to your defined results.

But if you give your way, then we have hard evidence to build off of...see. When you theoretically type: "my game is easy as I will never have anything attack the characters when they are not ready". Now, see, i'd point out that Buddy DM way of thinking creates the tier system. compare to my game: Anything can happen any time...even if the players ''don't like it" or think it's "unfair".

See, this is a good example of what I'm talking about. Your contention is that, if we assume more ambushes, then the tier system shifts somewhat. I disagree. Higher tier classes are more capable than lower tier classes at dealing with ambush scenarios. They tend to have more in the way of alternate vision modes, which enable them to stop an ambush from happening, more options to handle the precarious situations brought about by ambushes, and, at higher levels of optimization, the capacity to mechanically stop ambushes from happening in the first place.

I'm not sure what else to say here...ok, your judgmental and like to label things and put them in 'easy boxes' so you can stand up and say ''amazing" whatever YOU like or do is "better" then everyone else.
I think you misunderstand what I mean when I say better. When I say that a class is better than another class, it is not a judgement on people playing that class or anything of that sort. It is precisely and only a claim that the first class is capable of dealing with challenges. If we assume some limit on resource expenditure, both in a daily and long term sense, then a class is better than another class with regard to a particular challenge if and only if they succeed against that challenge a greater percentage of the time while remaining within that resource limit. A class is "better" with regards to the game in general when their percentage chance against the entire field of challenges is greater than that of another class.

Sorry you lost me here.
If you need me to tell you the assumptions that lead to the tier system making sense, then you didn't know what those assumptions were in the first place. If you didn't have those assumptions in your head before you started claiming the tier system was wrong, then you were making that claim without evidence.

Ok, I'll just put you down as the weird type who thinks their own house rules are Official Rules, and just leave it at that then.
Or, alternatively, you could tell me what of the rules I've presented are not official. It's crazy to just say I'm using house rules when I made a direct citation of some rules to support my position.

Bartmanhomer

2018-11-19, 04:55 PM

This is exactly what Bartmanhomer wanted to talk about. Be careful what you wish for, etc.

(Also, eggynack is clearly acknowledging plenty.)

You're right about that. :sigh:

ElFi

2018-11-19, 04:56 PM

as a pedantic quibble; I'd say that eggynack isn't talking past ultron at all. He's clearly addressing ultron's actual arguments and has acknowledged and countered them (as you yourself admit). It does not constitute "talking past" ultron that ultron chooses to ignore his points being countered.

That Ultron won't acknowledge it is a problem, but one that rests entirely on one side.

It's clear which party is correct and which should stop talking; it just won't happen due to the nature of people.

It only takes one person talking past in order to create the problem; and while sometimes it's both people, that is not the case here. it only takes one person to push a circular argument forward by endlessly restating nonsense.

Since multiple people have referenced this now, I guess I might as well address it. I didn't mean "talking past" in the sense that eggynack is ignoring what DU is saying. I mean it more in the vein that it's obvious that the opposite is true (that is, DU is basically ignoring or disregarding what eggynack is saying), but eggynack is continuing to respond to him and feed into his strawman viewpoint. After a certain point it becomes obvious that nobody's going to be convincing anybody else of anything, and while some other forumites feel like it's still worth continuing the discussion, I'm personally not one of them.

No offense intended towards you, eggynack. Debate with people all you want. It's a free internet and all that. I just felt like clarifying my position on the whole thing.

Hunter Noventa

2018-11-19, 05:01 PM

If you had read the thread, you would see it think the game is best when it's PART Role Playing(acting in character), PART Roll Play(mechanics) and PART Player Engagement(the player doing things).

I want the Player to figure out all by themselves that ''the room where the murder took place might have a clue in it" , then I want the player to role play the character to figure out a good spot to check and then the player would roll play a mechanical roll to made find a clue in that spot.

So, you demand that players display a level of knowledge and skill equal to their character, in an area that they may have no expertise in in real life, before they can actually make a roll. A player who doesn't know where they might find clues to a murder is effectively punished, even though their character would know, because they aren't allowed to make a roll until they jump through the role play hoops, that require player knowledge they don't have.

To crib an example from earlier in the thread, a player wants their character to start a fire. The player has no idea how to do this in a real life wilderness situation, but their character, by virtue of having put ranks into Survival, does. Do they never get to role because the player doesn't know how to properly gather firewood and tinder? Does a player who has never been on a boat before never get to roll their character's Profession (Sailor) skill because they don't personally know how to do anything on a ship? because that's what it sounds like to me.

Florian

2018-11-19, 05:05 PM

The rules of Shadow Evocation are clear.

Nah, not really. See, the thing with some spells and class features is, that they have a problem explaining how you acquired the knowledge to use them in the first place. For example, we have Spellcraft and the different knowledge skill checks to identify things and find out whether and what a given character knows about the thing that is encountered. So, basically, we´d have to find out somehow whether a Sorcerer knows a Fireball exists, when that is not on the spells known list, or that a Druid knows that this specific animal from two galaxies over exists and is a Wild Shape option.

PF does offer a solution for this: Everything in the 3 core books is considered fair game, everything beyond that, even the stuff in the expanded core series (Advanced, Ultimate) is custom research to be "unlocked". (Now, PF doesn't stop at Shadow Conjuration and Evocation, but also goes into Enchantment and Transmutation, so that's pretty broad, especially since Enchantment is covering multiple caster lists, to boot).

That point in missing in 3E and 3.5E, which makes handling abilities that need a secondary source to function extremely odd. (In the sense of: You don't know Fireball and you need to roll a check to identify one, but you kn0w Fireball well enough to make a shadow copy off it. Or: You don't know a Fleshripper and must roll on Know: Nature to identify it, but you know it well enough to Wild Shape into one....). So, very odd.

RedMage125

2018-11-19, 05:25 PM

Well, even in that post JaronK says both this is only about the mechanics and the system assumes that everything other than mechanics is totally equal.

Ok, so I'm talking about how in a good RPG the game is 50% role playing(no mechanics) and 50% roll playing(mechanics) AND a game where ''everything is not equal"(like for example player skill). So seems like I'm right on track?
No, you are exactly OFF track, because you are not understanding what the tier system even IS.

Like, at all.

The ONLY THING the Tier system does is SOLELY look at the mechanics of each class, as they are written in the book, without assuming any kind of individual, specific input at all, and say "this class is capable of x, y, and z, with limitations n,m, and p".

That's it. Nothing else. No "rollplay". No "Tier x is better". None of that. EVERYTHING you say in those regards are straw men.

Not so, maybe I just need to explain it better to you.
No, there's still no such thing as "tier play". If you are playing 3.5e dnd, and classes and spells still work the way the PHB says they do, then Tiers are there. Whether or not you believe those assignations have any value is your opinion. Which you are certainly entitled to. But you need to stop acting like your opinion is fact. ESPECIALLY when your "opinion" about what the Tier system even is is factually inaccurate.

And I point out that this is ONLY true not only in the mechanics game, but also is a game SET UP for this to be true.

So, a game that uses the mechanics of the rules of the game. Got it.

So...what is YOUR game that's "so different"? Because if you completely abrogate the mechanics, it sounds like you do dice less, freeform cooperative storytelling.

This is a big part of my point though in a Tier Game(that is a mechanical roll playing game where everything else is equal and is made to support the tier system.) the tier system is a thing...but only in that one style of game.
Completely non-factual statement. Because no one ever PLAYS like that. There's no way "everything else [can be] equal" in actual play. That's not even possible if I were to clone myself with all of my exact memories and have a party of me clones playing different classes, because I have more experience with some classes than I do with others, so I will do better with them.

Tier isn't a style of game, and you keep failing to understand that. The tier system is a metagame understanding of how the various classes rank in terms of the capabilities assigned them by the game mechanics.

Until you are capable of letting go of your own ego enough to understand that your initial understanding of what the Tier System even is was faulty, you will never be able to contribute meaningfully and constructively to a thread about it.

I'm sorry if that's offensive. I am not trying to attack you. But you CONSISTENTLY demonstrate and reinforce that your idea of what the Tier System itself even IS, is incorrect. As in, factually wrong. Which is fine, people make mistakes. But you have made one, sir. Quite awhile back. And it has colored all of your attempts at discussion, because you are discussing your opinion on apples in a conversation about oranges.

See you dismiss it so easy, ''oh it's nobody's fault": that is not true. It IS the DM's fault...and a bit lesser the players.
What? How is it the DM's fault that clerics and sorcerers get spells that allow them to violate the laws of nature but monks do not? Because all the tier system says is that those classes have abilities which may allow them to do anything the monk could do, possibly better than the monk. And I even said the monk MIGHT not get as much spotlight time, due to how much more versatile those higher tier classes are. Obviously, it all depends on the players, the builds, and the DM. But if you actually DID read the link I shared, you would understand that the Tier System doesn't evaluate individual builds or characters, but the class as a whole.

When the DM thinks ''tier 1 is so awesome" and "every other tier sucks" they will MAKE the game that way and will play the game that way. The Dm IS making a Tier One game, just for the Tier One characters...and utterly does not care about anything else. You might not see it, if your on the inside.

Lolwut? This is the most absurd thing you have said yet. It's starting to sound a little "tinfoil hat"-y. Especially the last part.

First of all, AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU, it is uncommon, rare even, outside of TO, for an individual character of a Tier 1 class to actually be "capable of doing absolutely everything ". It is, in fact, possible for individual builds, due to feat selection, magic items, and other factors, to appear to meet the definitions of tiers higher or lower than the one they are assigned to. Wizards who primarily build as blasters is the example I used earlier.

And since the Tier System is not a system for judging individual BUILDS, and only individual characters (of some kind of build) are actually playing in a game, no such thing as a "Tier game" exists. Not without someone building some kind of "quantum wizard" who is simultaneously capable of doing everything that any theoretical wizard could do.

So there's no way to "make the game that way" or "play the game that way", and so your assertion is patently absurd and once again rooted in your misunderstanding of what the Tier System even is.

It does not matter if it's role or roll play, the Buddy DM still does things for the players. For example: mechanics wise the Buddy DM only uses things the players can ''handle", so a door guard is a ''2nd level warrior" that using the by-the-book stats is super easy to charm or even defeat.

You might have gotten the wrong idea: A Buddy Dm, for example, has everyone in an adventure be a humanoid, so the spellcasters can Charm Person any and all of them. Because on any non humanoid, and charm person is useless. This gets very noticable in higher level games. The example from before in the thread of ''an army of 2nd level human warriors vs a 10th level druid". Well, sure, the druid can wipe out that army quick: the Buddy DM made that army and easy target for the druid. Your rant is way off on another topic.

To my perception, this is Argumentum Ad Absurdum. Most people, in my experience, do not play like this. And it feels like you're saying that once a PC takes Charm Person as a known spell, that you advocate only using non humanoids thereafter. Which is adversarial DMing.

DMs don't make adventures full of humanoids FOR THE PURPOSE of making it easier for PCs to use "x Person" spells. That's an asinine claim. And it reeks of the perception that you just think your way is the only "good" way to play, and so clearly other people are playing like imbecils with no creativity, and hold their players' hands every step of the way. And that's not a good perception to create.

Ok, so we now have One of your Houserules, right? Something you added to the game that changed the game so your game is NOT pure RAW.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to say something here. You're being intentionally obtuse here. I play 3.5e with a handful of house rules. But apart from those, I try and stick close to RAW. Why? Because I believe in being FAIR. Players may look to the RAW and get a reasonable expectation of how something should work in my game. Whether it's a skill check, a spell, a feat, or even alignment. I don't use my own personal fiat unless the RAW and RAI are exceptionally unclear.

Very few people run "pure RAW", and it's intellectually dishonest of you to insinuate that because some house rules are used, that the RAW has no weight or bearing whatsoever.

If you had read the thread, you would see it think the game is best when it's PART Role Playing(acting in character), PART Roll Play(mechanics) and PART Player Engagement(the player doing things).

I want the Player to figure out all by themselves that ''the room where the murder took place might have a clue in it" , then I want the player to role play the character to figure out a good spot to check and then the player would roll play a mechanical roll to made find a clue in that spot.

Okay but all I hear is about what YOU want. Which sounds like you're even dictating how players play their characters.

And what if your player isn't any good at that kind of thing, but his character is (due to how his skill points are assigned)? Why should he not be able to do anything? But the savage, illiterate barbarian, who's player is a mystery novel enthusiast IRL, gets to solve the mystery?

Ok, let me be more basic:

1.You do agree that there are different ways and styles to play D&D, right?
2.You do also agree that there is no ''right" or "wrong" way?
1. Of course.
2. I always say that this game thrives in house rules and customization, and that the only wrong way to play is a way in which the people at your table are not having fun.

3.Ok, now a hard one will be: do you agree that there ARE stlyes of playing D&d where the whole tier system is useless (this should be a yes, after all, you only need admit that a game style exist where :everything outside of the mechanics is equal..
3. No. I certainly do not agree. And that is once again be because you have GROSSLY misunderstood the Tier System.

"Everything outside the mechanics " can NEVER be truly equal, not in actual play. And if you understood the Tier System, instead of the twisted, parodied straw man that you make it out to be, you would understand that. The Tier System is useful BECAUSE it doesn't apply to specific builds or cater to individual playstyles. Yes, someone with the right feat, gear, and prestige class choices can make an excellent Fighter. But that's not because of specific abilities "baked in" to the Fighter class itself. Fighters have almost no actual class abilities, and therefore almost no strong class identity or clear design goals. A glut of feats is great, but some feat choices are good at low levels, but become less useful later (looking at you, Great Cleave). But once you start on feat choices, you are discussing a BUILD, not the class as a whole.
Also, since feat choices cannot be undone outside of optional rules. This is why I say that the core Pathfinder Fighter (no archetypes, even) is Tier 4, not 5. They gave the class CLASS FEATURES. The core PF fighter is the combat guy who wears heavy armor better than anyone else. And most importantly, the ability to retrain feats at level up is part of Core PF rules, so the Fighter may get rid of less useful feats for more useful ones.

By contrast, Druids are capable of enormously powerful effects due to their spells alone. And while no one druid could possibly have every possible druid spell prepared, one day of preparation means that the druid can switch up his prepared spells to do the thing that he wasn't able to do the day before. Same with Wizard and Cleric. And again, the fact that the Tier System DOES NOT, CANNOT apply to individual builds is right there in the very existence of Tier 2. Which i said before, but you cut out of your response.

So no, I do not agree that all things other than mechanics can ever be equal, and therefore, the Tier System remains useful for it's intended purpose, which is a metagame tool for DMs to judge the overall power and versatility of classes, and to try and do what they need to in order to make the game FUN for each player. Even the guy playing a monk in a party with a cleric, a sorcerer, and a beguiler.

4.Ok, once you get to the point were you can admit at least two styles of D&D exist that don't use the tier system....then there IS a tier system style.

Since you don't understand the tier system, I still say that this is incorrect .

grarrrg

2018-11-19, 05:37 PM

The Random NPC

2018-11-19, 06:16 PM

Or, alternatively, you could tell me what of the rules I've presented are not official. It's crazy to just say I'm using house rules when I made a direct citation of some rules to support my position.

I believe the assertion is that since the book only implicitly says that you don't have to roll for commonly known animals, not rolling for commonly known animals is a house rule. I also believe that had you said that you require rolls for all animals, Darth wouldn't have changed their response. Based on thier responses to this thread about 100% RAW, and their response to the Best House Rules thread where they all but admit to trolling anyone they don't agree with, you're stuck in a situation where no matter your response you'll get that answer.

Pex

2018-11-19, 07:34 PM

Do you see how the tier system is NOT saying that you should only play uberoptimized tier 1's and disregard roleplaying? Do you see how JaronK was trying to make a tool for DMs and players to have fun and tell better stories? You may say that you disagree with the tier system, that it is not a useful tool, but saying it is that:

You weren't asking me, but I'd like to answer the question.

I agree. When I first read the original article way back when I was impressed of the respectfulness of it. Not that JaronK was disrespectful in the fighter debates, but rather he made the effort to ignore his own biases to present his opinion. I can respect this original intent of the article even though I don't agree there is a problem to be solved the Tier System is trying to solve. What I object to is when people have used it as holy writ as evidence and to justify whatever argument they make in a debate or how the game should be played - the four types I've talked about. If you prefer a Tier 3 game that's your business, but don't tell me, as did happen way back when, that we were playing the game wrong or the DM was running the game wrong when we had a druid and fighter in the same party and there were no problems. Both players contributed to the game and were having fun. The druid did not dominate, and the fighter did not feel useless.

vasilidor

2018-11-19, 07:40 PM

@darth ultron: it is not about rubbing it in the other guys face, so much as being able to recognize that my fighter is better off with a great sword vs a great club, or that sleep is mostly better than magic missile for a level one wizard to use the vast majority of the time, and skill focus on a cleric is probably a waste of a feat.
as much as I want my character to be able to contribute, I also want the guy next to me to also have fun, because his fun adds to my fun.
Further more I like the tactical side of dungeons and dragon, figuring out where to put my character, who best to attack and how to do so. all of that requires me to e able to figure out which options are better as a player for my character to choose.

Cosi

2018-11-19, 07:41 PM

A tournament was set up where a single class fighter was set up against a series of monsters for each level. The fighter did not have to win the combat. He could lose all of them. It only had to be shown he put up a good enough fight to be a real threat to the monster such that if he was magically buffed by a spell it was worth the spell slot used.

That sounds like a bunch of people who don't understand Value Above Replacement failing to prove anything. The Fighter being notionally useful doesn't mean anything, he has to be useful enough that you'd rather have him than a Cleric or a Druid. If you come out ahead replacing the Fighter with a caster, the Fighter is bad. That's all there is too it, and anything else is just failing to address the point.

A lot of what Cosi apparently often seems to advocate as a game, with a heavy hint of MtG thrown into the mix.

I like how you took the opportunity to drag your strawman of my position into something I was completely uninvolved in. It speaks to your maturity, not just as a member of this community, but as a person. In any case, your points are strawmen and best, and in most cases completely unrelated to my positions. This post is long enough without wasting a line-by-line response on you, but the basic problem is that you're applying the Stormwind Fallacy to game design. Analyzing the rules and trying to make them do things we want is not going to destroy our ability to improvise and roleplay, it will just produce better rules. That's really all that happens when you make the rules better. You get better rules.

Well, even in that post JaronK says both this is only about the mechanics and the system assumes that everything other than mechanics is totally equal.

I mean, it factually doesn't, JaronK's work is full of special allowances for classes he like and a special disallowances for classes he doesn't like. But that principle is absolutely correct. If you want to talk about the value of the class, why would you include variance in player skill? There's no good reason to assume that better players will prefer Fighters, and indeed there's a great deal of reason to expect the opposite.

When the DM thinks ''tier 1 is so awesome" and "every other tier sucks" they will MAKE the game that way and will play the game that way. The Dm IS making a Tier One game, just for the Tier One characters...and utterly does not care about anything else. You might not see it, if your on the inside.

It sounds like you're projecting your tendencies as a DM onto other people. Plenty of DMs are entirely capable of producing encounters that aren't design around solving the problem in the exact way they want. That may look like "making it a Tier One game", but that's only because it is factually true that certain classes provide more useful classes than certain others.

Well, I did ask you for your personal 3.5E Gentilemans Agreement, Rule Interperations and House Rules. But you refused to give them and said you had none? Maybe someone else can give us theirs?

That could be you. You could give us yours.

If you are playing 3.5e dnd, and classes and spells still work the way the PHB says they do, then Tiers are there.

This kind of argument weakens your ability to make claims that the tiers are useful. If the Tiers are just the fact that you can devise a function from "the abilities of the classes" to "the rankings JaronK came up with", the point you're making genuinely is trivial. Because there are an arbitrary number of such functions. The ranking of classes based on number of class skills inevitably exists. The ranking of classes alphabetically inevitably exists. Should we care as much about those rankings as we do the tiers? If not, there must be some property we believe the Tiers to have that is more useful than the ones those rankings provide, and if we believe that the Tiers have non-trivial properties it must, at least in theory, be possible for them to fail to live up to those properties.

RedMage125

2018-11-19, 07:54 PM

This kind of argument weakens your ability to make claims that the tiers are useful. If the Tiers are just the fact that you can devise a function from "the abilities of the classes" to "the rankings JaronK came up with", the point you're making genuinely is trivial. Because there are an arbitrary number of such functions. The ranking of classes based on number of class skills inevitably exists. The ranking of classes alphabetically inevitably exists. Should we care as much about those rankings as we do the tiers? If not, there must be some property we believe the Tiers to have that is more useful than the ones those rankings provide, and if we believe that the Tiers have non-trivial properties it must, at least in theory, be possible for them to fail to live up to those properties.
It certainly does not, because you are now injecting value judgment in regards to the Tier System. That has no basis on whether or not those classes are in Tiers. Some people may not find the Tier system, or an understanding of it, productive to their game*, others may.

But allow me to rephrase:

"If you're playing 3.5e D&D-and all the classes and spells therein work the way that the PHB says they do-then the fundamental elements upon which the Tier System is based (and is classifying) are there."

Better?

*And some willfully, adamantly, refuse to understand the Tier System, decide they don't like it anyway, and proceed to "educate" others, thinking they are the experts on it. It's a Dunning-Kruger effect, hard at work.

eggynack

2018-11-19, 07:55 PM

Nah, not really. See, the thing with some spells and class features is, that they have a problem explaining how you acquired the knowledge to use them in the first place. For example, we have Spellcraft and the different knowledge skill checks to identify things and find out whether and what a given character knows about the thing that is encountered. So, basically, we´d have to find out somehow whether a Sorcerer knows a Fireball exists, when that is not on the spells known list, or that a Druid knows that this specific animal from two galaxies over exists and is a Wild Shape option.
This seems like a very different issue. Not a rules-based assertion regarding the use of any given spell, but a metagaming one based on what a character is liable to do. Is it realistic that a sorcerer would make use of some super obscure spell that's never been cast before him? The spell itself can clearly replicate any spell that fits its stated restrictions. There is definitely no limit to spells known.

I believe the assertion is that since the book only implicitly says that you don't have to roll for commonly known animals, not rolling for commonly known animals is a house rule. I also believe that had you said that you require rolls for all animals, Darth wouldn't have changed their response. Based on thier responses to this thread about 100% RAW, and their response to the Best House Rules thread where they all but admit to trolling anyone they don't agree with, you're stuck in a situation where no matter your response you'll get that answer.
The book explicitly says that you don't have to roll for animals that you could reasonably know about. If an animal is a common one to your environment, then that is straightforwardly one you could reasonably know about. There isn't much in the way of ambiguity with regard to this scenario. Familiarity in general can be a thorny topic, but this case is rather cut and dry.

Cosi

2018-11-19, 08:03 PM

It certainly does not, because you are now injecting value judgment in regards to the Tier System.

Well, yes. Because otherwise why do we care?

As I said, you could have an Alphabet System where we divided the classes into "Tier A" and "Tier B" and "Tier C" and so on based on the first letter of their name. That system exists in every possible D&D game. But no one cares because it doesn't make any useful judgments or predictions. Similarly the "does the class start on a prime-numbered page" system, the "does the class have an odd number of vowels in its name" system, and the "what gender is the sample NPC art for the class" system all exist. They're all quite objective -- frankly, more so than the tier system -- but no one cares.

As far as I can tell, your position is "you can describe things that exist, and those descriptions themselves exist". Which is true, but so utterly trivial as to be irrelevant. When people say "do the Tiers exist" they are clearly not asking "can you rank the classes in the way JaronK ranks the classes", but "does ranking the classes in that way provide useful information". Which requires value judgments.

RedMage125

2018-11-19, 09:29 PM

Well, yes. Because otherwise why do we care?

As I said, you could have an Alphabet System where we divided the classes into "Tier A" and "Tier B" and "Tier C" and so on based on the first letter of their name. That system exists in every possible D&D game. But no one cares because it doesn't make any useful judgments or predictions. Similarly the "does the class start on a prime-numbered page" system, the "does the class have an odd number of vowels in its name" system, and the "what gender is the sample NPC art for the class" system all exist. They're all quite objective -- frankly, more so than the tier system -- but no one cares.

As far as I can tell, your position is "you can describe things that exist, and those descriptions themselves exist". Which is true, but so utterly trivial as to be irrelevant. When people say "do the Tiers exist" they are clearly not asking "can you rank the classes in the way JaronK ranks the classes", but "does ranking the classes in that way provide useful information". Which requires value judgments.

Which is what the OP was asking, yes.

But Darth Ultron has been saying something else entirely. He makes a claim about the Tier System which is not true, and argues against that straw man. Basically, the OP asked "oranges, do you find them delicious or not?" And Darth came in and said, "those round, orange-colored fruits are the worst apples ever! When you use them to make applesauce like any other apple, they create a terrible tasting concoction. I prefer Fuji Apples, and those 'apples' that you guys are describing are terrible!"

Pex

2018-11-19, 11:12 PM

That sounds like a bunch of people who don't understand Value Above Replacement failing to prove anything. The Fighter being notionally useful doesn't mean anything, he has to be useful enough that you'd rather have him than a Cleric or a Druid. If you come out ahead replacing the Fighter with a caster, the Fighter is bad. That's all there is too it, and anything else is just failing to address the point.

Here we are. Type 2 - Tier 4 and below is The Suck. If you play one you are doing it wrong.

Keltest

2018-11-19, 11:24 PM

Here we are. Type 2 - Tier 4 and below is The Suck. If you play one you are doing it wrong.

I think theres merit to the idea that the fighter should be better at his job - ie fighting - than most non-fighter classes. He traded away his ability to do non-fighting things for the ability to fight really well, so he should at least be rewarded for that trade compared to classes that didn't make it.

To that end "the fighter isn't literally a complete dumpster fire at his job" is indeed somewhat missing the point.

eggynack

2018-11-19, 11:25 PM

Here we are. Type 2 - Tier 4 and below is The Suck. If you play one you are doing it wrong.
Where was there any claim regarding the people who play fighters? It seems pretty blatantly absent from that quote.

Cosi

2018-11-19, 11:50 PM

Here we are. Type 2 - Tier 4 and below is The Suck. If you play one you are doing it wrong.

I didn't say playing a Fighter was wrong. I said, in effect, that absolute statements don't prove relative claims, and vice versa*. The Fighter is worse than the Wizard. Whether he can clear some particular bar under some particular condition doesn't figure into that. Whether playing the Fighter is wrong or not depends on the conventions of your group. If the conventions of your group are such that characters are expected to be as effective at achieving their intended goals as a Cleric or Wizard, playing a Fighter would be inappropriate. Of course, that comes with a correlate that if the conventions of your group are such that characters are expected to be no more effective at achieving their intended goals than a Fighter or Barbarian, playing a Wizard would be inappropriate. And if your group doesn't have any expectations about power, play whatever you want (but if you do that, don't complain if someone else plays something better). The question of the power level of the Fighter is a (relatively) factual one that is essentially disconnected from what the power level of the game should be.

*: This is a lesson than many on this form should take to heart. I have seen far too many people (read: any people at all) asserting "the Wizard is more powerful than the Fighter, therefore the Wizard is overpowered" as if that statement made any sense.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-19, 11:55 PM

Reading my previous post would you say that the tier system as intended is inherently bad?

Yes.

So, you demand that players display a level of knowledge and skill equal to their character, in an area that they may have no expertise in in real life, before they can actually make a roll. A player who doesn't know where they might find clues to a murder is effectively punished, even though their character would know, because they aren't allowed to make a roll until they jump through the role play hoops, that require player knowledge they don't have.

No, no, I expect player to display a level of knowledge and skill equal to a typical human being, and more so a gene savvy geek. (It might be important to also say I encourage metagming...but that is really for another thread). I don't expect a player to be as smart as a high intelligence character: that would simply be impossible. But it does not take a genius to figure out a typical Scooby Do mystery(and yes, I do use such mysteries in my game).

To crib an example from earlier in the thread, a player wants their character to start a fire. The player has no idea how to do this in a real life wilderness situation, but their character, by virtue of having put ranks into Survival, does. Do they never get to role because the player doesn't know how to properly gather firewood and tinder? Does a player who has never been on a boat before never get to roll their character's Profession (Sailor) skill because they don't personally know how to do anything on a ship? because that's what it sounds like to me.

I'm not a fan of a clueless player who ''can't tie a knot" and says ''I roll because my character is so smart that he can tie a knot!". But then, I would likely not play with that player...

The ONLY THING the Tier system does is SOLELY look at the mechanics of each class,

Ok, try: anything that target one limited thing...like mechanics...is pointless in a complex game like D&D.

So...what is YOUR game that's "so different"? Because if you completely abrogate the mechanics, it sounds like you do dice less, freeform cooperative storytelling.

Really the Darth Ultron Style Game(that you won't like) would really be a whole post and thread.

Completely non-factual statement. Because no one ever PLAYS like that. There's no way "everything else [can be] equal" in actual play.

BUT you can only use the ''tiers'' IN a game where everything else is equal. It even says that in the post.

Tier isn't a style of game, and you keep failing to understand that. The tier system is a metagame understanding of how the various classes rank in terms of the capabilities assigned them by the game mechanics.

In one Style of game play...and a ''perfect equal game"

What? How is it the DM's fault that clerics and sorcerers get spells that allow them to violate the laws of nature but monks do not? Because all the tier system says is that those classes have abilities which may allow them to do anything the monk could do, possibly better than the monk. And I even said the monk MIGHT not get as much spotlight time, due to how much more versatile those higher tier classes are. Obviously, it all depends on the players, the builds, and the DM. But if you actually DID read the link I shared, you would understand that the Tier System doesn't evaluate individual builds or characters, but the class as a whole.

Simply put, the DM has the power to change things and balance the game...and make the ''tiers'' useless. When a DM says ''nope, nothing I can do" they are enabling and supporting the tier idea.

DMs don't make adventures full of humanoids FOR THE PURPOSE of making it easier for PCs to use "x Person" spells. That's an asinine claim. And it reeks of the perception that you just think your way is the only "good" way to play, and so clearly other people are playing like imbecils with no creativity, and hold their players' hands every step of the way. And that's not a good perception to create.

A LOT of games are low magic and low fantasy(that is they are ''just like old Earth"). So the PCs only ever encounter ''simple" humanoids and races and creatures with no abilities. As I said, this supports the tier system.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I'd like to say something here. You're being intentionally obtuse here. I play 3.5e with a handful of house rules. But apart from those, I try and stick close to RAW. Why? Because I believe in being FAIR. Players may look to the RAW and get a reasonable expectation of how something should work in my game. Whether it's a skill check, a spell, a feat, or even alignment. I don't use my own personal fiat unless the RAW and RAI are exceptionally unclear.

THIS, right here above is the style of game play the is friendly to and supports the Tier System.

Okay but all I hear is about what YOU want. Which sounds like you're even dictating how players play their characters.

This is accurate. Players that want a more ''group hug cooperative game" will have to go else where.

And what if your player isn't any good at that kind of thing, but his character is (due to how his skill points are assigned)? Why should he not be able to do anything? But the savage, illiterate barbarian, who's player is a mystery novel enthusiast IRL, gets to solve the mystery?

2/3's of my game is about everything except the mechanics(that is the last 1/3). So most players can ''make it through a game" just fine. And should a player be ''really bad at things", I do sometimes help them out by telling them things like "fire is hot, don't touch it". Also I really encourage the players to help each other.

as much as I want my character to be able to contribute, I also want the guy next to me to also have fun, because his fun adds to my fun.
Further more I like the tactical side of dungeons and dragon, figuring out where to put my character, who best to attack and how to do so. all of that requires me to e able to figure out which options are better as a player for my character to choose.

I think each player should be able to contribute: my play style and house rules are based on this. And I love tactics, but more the real side: like ''you should attack a foe with overwhelming force" and not "Ok, if our characters do X we can get a +2 to hit!".

eggynack

2018-11-20, 12:30 AM

BUT you can only use the ''tiers'' IN a game where everything else is equal. It even says that in the post.
Not remotely the case. The tiers are, themselves, premised on all else being equal. If all else is not equal, then that doesn't mean discarding the tiers. It means modifying the positioning based on the changes made. So, if you toss a massive pile of gold at the monk that you're not giving to any other character, then it might make sense to adjust that character's tier position upwards somewhat. Maybe consider them a tier four or tier three.

Simply put, the DM has the power to change things and balance the game...and make the ''tiers'' useless. When a DM says ''nope, nothing I can do" they are enabling and supporting the tier idea.
Why not change things by increasing the power of spells and decreasing the power of the melee characters? Why do you think reducing the power of magic would make the game more balanced?

A LOT of games are low magic and low fantasy(that is they are ''just like old Earth"). So the PCs only ever encounter ''simple" humanoids and races and creatures with no abilities. As I said, this supports the tier system.
How? How does this support the tier system?

THIS, right here above is the style of game play the is friendly to and supports the Tier System.
Mostly following the rules? Yeah, that'll be "friendly" to the tier system, because it's physically impossible for any system assessing the structure of the game to take arbitrary house rules into account.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-20, 12:55 AM

That could be you. You could give us yours.

You can find my house rules over on the BEST house rules thread.

As for a ''gentilman's agreement"...well that is easy: mine game has NONE. My game is hard core cut throat enter and play at your own risk. But my game is extreme.

But Darth Ultron has been saying something else entirely. "

I'm always unique.

Not remotely the case. The tiers are, themselves, premised on all else being equal. If all else is not equal, then that doesn't mean discarding the tiers. It means modifying the positioning based on the changes made. So, if you toss a massive pile of gold at the monk that you're not giving to any other character, then it might make sense to adjust that character's tier position upwards somewhat. Maybe consider them a tier four or tier three.

I'm Anti-Tier.

Why not change things by increasing the power of spells and decreasing the power of the melee characters? Why do you think reducing the power of magic would make the game more balanced?

Guess it's up to you. My game is extremely high magic and fantasy, but that is just me.

How? How does this support the tier system?

Not sure how many times I can type this: when a DM makes things easy for the players and has a low magic world that is ''just like Earth" you have created a game setting that supports the tier system.

Really, this is a huge D&D problem and could be a whole thread.

Mostly following the rules? Yeah, that'll be "friendly" to the tier system, because it's physically impossible for any system assessing the structure of the game to take arbitrary house rules into account.

It's more about the FAIR part.

Luccan

2018-11-20, 01:02 AM

Not sure how many times I can type this: when a DM makes things easy for the players and has a low magic world that is ''just like Earth" you have created a game setting that supports the tier system.

Really, this is a huge D&D problem and could be a whole thread.

Leaving everything else aside for a moment (I don't want to get involved in this pages long argument) what does this even mean? How is a low-magic world easy for players? That implies fewer and less powerful magical goodies for everyone. How is that "just like Earth", when it still has freaking magic? D&D, 3.5 especially, clearly assumes a high magic game and allowing players access to their spells as written is entirely in keeping with that.

What is your definition for low magic and why do you think making up a bunch of house rules that make spells weaker make a setting less low magic?

eggynack

2018-11-20, 01:17 AM

I'm Anti-Tier.
Okay? I was specifically refuting a claim you made about the tier system. You were wrong. It's more broadly applicable than you were saying.

Guess it's up to you. My game is extremely high magic and fantasy, but that is just me.
That's not remotely my point. You were saying the DM could balance the game. Your essential contention, in refuting the tier system, is that the game is not imbalanced at the base. Given that, on what basis would you balance things?

Not sure how many times I can type this: when a DM makes things easy for the players and has a low magic world that is ''just like Earth" you have created a game setting that supports the tier system.

Really, this is a huge D&D problem and could be a whole thread.

Just saying it repeatedly is meaningless. I am asking you to evidence this claim. Provide any basis for the idea that this sort of game setting is one that is necessary for supporting the tier system. Or, hell, even provide a basis for the idea that this sort of game makes the tier system more accurate (or that a different sort of game makes it less accurate).

It's more about the FAIR part.
The specific and only way he spoke of being fair was with regard to following the rules. The notion of fairness, in this context, is fundamentally inseparable from the notion of rule following. They are, in fact, the same thing here.

Erloas

2018-11-20, 01:31 AM

Simply put, the DM has the power to change things and balance the game...and make the ''tiers'' useless.
That is in fact, exactly the opposite of reality and the *entire* point of the tier system. It is a tool for a DM to use to help balance the game. If you have no point of reference for the relative power of any given set of classes you have no benchmark to balance *to*.

Saying a DM can do things to balance the various classes is acknowledging that they aren't balanced as written. If you're doing things to help the monk, fighter, or other "low tier" class, or you're restricting spells/abilities of wizards, druids, and other "high tier" classes to keep them balanced then you are in fact *using* the tier system to help improve your game. Which *is* the point.

Florian

2018-11-20, 03:12 AM

RoboEmperor

2018-11-20, 03:20 AM

Oh man. Ok, take LotR as a rather classic example for "High Magic", but still "just like Earth". Stuff there is pretty mundane most of the time and 99,99% of all things function as expected.

Now contrast that with Planescape, Guardians of the Galaxy or Doctor Strange for a really fantastical environment that behaves more or less 0,01% as expected, the rest follows its own logic (no, not Tippyverse logic.)

Ex: When you have a portal opening up, Sahuagin riding on flying snapping turtles with subjective gravity fields appear and you must pull off a Avengers New York style scene to fit them off, boarding the turtles and jumping from back to back to kill the drivers, than this is pretty much "high fantasy" without needing any magic on the player side to make it "high".

How the hell is LotR "High Magic" when wizards cant cast a single lightning bolt and have to kill demons with swords? LotR is the very definition of a very low magic world.

Lans

2018-11-20, 03:31 AM

How the hell is LotR "High Magic" when wizards cant cast a single lightning bolt and have to kill demons with swords? LotR is the very definition of a very low magic world.

I think they meant low magic

Florian

2018-11-20, 03:41 AM

How the hell is LotR "High Magic" when wizards cant cast a single lightning bolt and have to kill demons with swords? LotR is the very definition of a very low magic world.

Don´t confuse the special effects with magical thinking/logik. A Wizard pulling of an Iron Man-like laser show isn't high magic, unless the whole world runs on magic logic, which Marvel, as an example, most of the time doesn't.

Erloas

2018-11-20, 04:41 AM

I'm not sure I would put LotR as high or low, more of a middle fantasy. I think the characters don't have a lot of magic, but setting itself does.

Bastian Weaver

2018-11-20, 04:46 AM

How the hell is LotR "High Magic" when wizards cant cast a single lightning bolt and have to kill demons with swords? LotR is the very definition of a very low magic world.

He's not a wizard and it's not a demon. They were both elemental spirits, so their combat was on a different level. Similar to how the duel with Saruman didn't involve any special effects - just staring down and breaking Saruman's staff in the end.

Cosi

2018-11-20, 07:35 AM

I'm not sure I would put LotR as high or low, more of a middle fantasy. I think the characters don't have a lot of magic, but setting itself does.

Does it really? I mean, compared to Earth sure, but compared to The Chronicles of Amber or something? Where do you see the setting using a lot of magic?

Oh man. Ok, take LotR as a rather classic example for "High Magic", but still "just like Earth". Stuff there is pretty mundane most of the time and 99,99% of all things function as expected.

LotR is not "high magic", and no one things "high magic" means things not functioning as expected is a necessary part of "high magic".

Now contrast that with Planescape, Guardians of the Galaxy or Doctor Strange for a really fantastical environment that behaves more or less 0,01% as expected, the rest follows its own logic (no, not Tippyverse logic.)

Those don't really follow "their own logic" 99.99% of the time. Guardians of the Galaxy has a pretty fantastic setting, but the things in it aren't all individually fantastic. The guns look like guns. Ronan is a genocidal racist (or maybe nationalist? I forget his exact motivations) strongman of some sort. And so on. Lots of thing in that setting (and the other settings you mention) behave in ways that you would expect, or are consistent with other kinds of fantasy.

Ex: When you have a portal opening up, Sahuagin riding on flying snapping turtles with subjective gravity fields appear and you must pull off a Avengers New York style scene to fit them off, boarding the turtles and jumping from back to back to kill the drivers, than this is pretty much "high fantasy" without needing any magic on the player side to make it "high".

Yes, The Avengers, movie well know for having protagonists who don't have any kind of "magic" or superhuman ability. An example of the Totally Regular Hero genre.

gkathellar

2018-11-20, 08:23 AM

Does it really? I mean, compared to Earth sure, but compared to The Chronicles of Amber or something? Where do you see the setting using a lot of magic?

It's not really present in LotR, but the broader Legendarium has a very high-concept understanding of the supernatural forces at work. Gods and spirits abound, the universe is literally made of music, elf kings and demon lords are described as fighting through their "songs of power," etc. Inhuman entities are frequently at a much higher level of power than is possible for human beings to achieve - dragons were pretty much the hard upper bound of what a mortal could fight, whereas Maiar and Maiar-class beings like balrogs were generally in a league of their own. By the time of the main books, a lot of this has calmed down and/or gone into the west, but it's there in the background.

That's not to say LotR is high magic - it isn't - but it does have a big fancy mythology that people can point to and say, "Gandalf was a level 20 solar erudite!" Those people are missing the point, but the claim isn't entirely surreal.

RedMage125

2018-11-20, 08:32 AM

Darth Ultron, before I begin, I need to emphasize something again, and I don't want it to get lost in the middle of response to one of your statements.

Myself, and several other posters, are trying to tell you that your understanding of what the Tier System is-at all-is faulty. Do you understand this? Are you open to the possibility that you may have made a mistake somewhere, that you are capable of error? Because somewhere along the line, you have misunderstood not only what the Tier System even IS, but also its purpose, and that has led to a great deal of unnecessary conflict, and you just talking past people like eggynack and myself. And it's okay that you made a mistake, people make mistakes, we're only human. But because of your mistake, you have been discussing apples in a conversation about oranges.

No, no, I expect player to display a level of knowledge and skill equal to a typical human being, and more so a gene savvy geek. (It might be important to also say I encourage metagming...but that is really for another thread). I don't expect a player to be as smart as a high intelligence character: that would simply be impossible. But it does not take a genius to figure out a typical Scooby Do mystery(and yes, I do use such mysteries in my game).
But that still punishes a player who would like to play a character who is good at skills that he or she does not have in real life.

I'm not a fan of a clueless player who ''can't tie a knot" and says ''I roll because my character is so smart that he can tie a knot!". But then, I would likely not play with that player...
Reducto Ad Absurdum. Look it up. Your response here is fallacious logic.

Ok, try: anything that target one limited thing...like mechanics...is pointless in a complex game like D&D.

Part of your misunderstanding is in thinking that the Tier System is somehow even "used" in the game. The Tier System is simply a tool for examining the mechanics of various classes, and their relative power and versatility (in a vacuum). For the DM, it helps him judge the potential of what his characters may be able to accomplish, and perhaps give him some foresight as to what changes he may need to make to help promote party balance in the name of fun. As JaronK suggested, perhaps some adventures, or elements therein, will need to be catered towards the strengths of the lower-tier character occasionally, so he/she gets time in the spotlight. Or perhaps allowing a more powerful race, more starting gold, etc. Again, this assumes that the DM 1)cares about maintaining some semblance of balance, and 2) is an accurate judge of the players' skill. A relatively inexperienced set of players who are playing Tier 1 classes, while the veteran players are playing Tier 3 or 4 probably won't need much, if anything, in the way of "balancing". For the player, this is a tool only useful at character creation when joining a game and looking at the makeup of the rest of the party, to perhaps stay more in line with relative ability to contribute productively. Again, if that is a priority (which it may not be).

That's it. Anything else you try and project onto the Tier System is entirely made up in your head.

Really the Darth Ultron Style Game(that you won't like) would really be a whole post and thread.
It could be a fun game, I'm not saying it isn't. But it doesn't sound like D&D. Why does a character sheet matter, then?

BUT you can only use the ''tiers'' IN a game where everything else is equal. It even says that in the post.
WRONG
Everything in this statement is wrong. You cannot "only use them when everything else is equal", nor does it say that in the post. So you once again, have misinterpreted something. Or you are intentionally being misleading, but I don't think that's the case.

JaronK was only attempting to be objective in order to critique the mechanics of the classes. In order to be objective, he had to abrogate all other factors (so "everything else was equal"). That was only necessary to try and judge the classes' power and versatility effectively. Obviously, when those other factors (which are, of course, NECESSARY for play) come back into the fold, they will alter the judgements accordingly.

Like I said, if you have less experienced players who are not trying to create "high-optimization" playing your Tier 1 classes (maybe the veteran players help give them a few good tips and pointers), you will not have the kind of "power and spotlight disparity" that JaronK warns us is possible.

And players always ARE the most important factor when it comes to actual gameplay. Last time I ran 3.5e, one of my veteran players ran a druid (Tier 1 class), the cleric and wizard (Tier 1) were run by less experienced players, as was the rogue (Tier 4). The other veteran player ran a barbarian (Tier 4). I made it a point to talk to the druid's player and ask him to be mindful of the newer players, to tone down his instincts to be overpowered, so that other players would not feel overshadowed. As he is a DM himself, he understood and agreed.

The Tier System, in this instance, was a useful tool that let me know which class-when played by a more experienced player-had to the potential to affect the fun of some of the other players at the table, and I took steps accordingly. The Tier System never had anything else to do with the game after that.

In one Style of game play...and a ''perfect equal game"

No, just...the mechanics of the classes as they exist in the RAW. That's it. That's all that's being judged.

Simply put, the DM has the power to change things and balance the game...and make the ''tiers'' useless. When a DM says ''nope, nothing I can do" they are enabling and supporting the tier idea.
Ding! Ding! Ding!

Yes! you get it! You are finally getting a glimmer of understanding of what the Tier System is! And in your own words, no less! Your last sentence tries to go completely the opposite direction, but the bolded part shows that you are beginning to grasp the concept.

If you recall, this particular back and forth has been about if a player joins a game made up of Tier 1, 2, and 3 classes, but wants to play a monk (Tier 5), and I said that the player "might not" get as much spotlight time in game, due to the limits of the mechanics of their class, which was no one's fault. You initially tried to say it was the DM's fault, and when I pointed out that the DM didn't make the classes, you responded with this.

This, Darth, is what the Tier System is for. This is how one "uses" the Tier System (which is solely a metagame concept that ranks the classes in a vacuum). By recognizing that your one non-spellcasting, non-reality-bending cgharacter in your party MAY require the DM to intervene and take steps to create balance, you are acknowledging that the Tier System has useful and constructive information.

The WHOLE POINT is that if you leave things as they are, with few deviations from RAW, and hold every player to the same standards, you have the POTENTIAL to have wildly unbalanced party mechanics, with High Tier Classes overshadowing their Low Tier counterparts (especially with disparity of more than 2 tiers). But nothing about acknowledging that means that the DM somehow has to sit on his hands and say "there's nothing I can do". Now that the DM is armed with the information of where and when imbalance is LIKELY to occur, they can be prepared to address issues, and create balance (if such is a priority).

A LOT of games are low magic and low fantasy(that is they are ''just like old Earth"). So the PCs only ever encounter ''simple" humanoids and races and creatures with no abilities. As I said, this supports the tier system.
You are attempting to move the goalposts in order to continue to repeat your rhetoric. I will not engage this point, but will repeat what I said.

You made the claim that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "DMs create adventures full of humanoids FOR THE PURPOSE of making it easier for PCs to use 'x Person' spells." That's an asinine claim. And it reeks of the perception that you just think your way is the only "good" way to play, and so clearly other people are playing like imbecils with no creativity, and hold their players' hands every step of the way. And that's not a good perception to create.

YOU, Darth, are responsible for the perception you create in others. You don't get to blame everyone for "taking it wrong" when you come across as that condescending.

THIS, right here above is the style of game play the is friendly to and supports the Tier System.
Playing by the rules?
You saw my post in the "good houserules" thread. you've seen the only modifications I make to the rules. Apart from those small modifications, I play D&D.

This is accurate. Players that want a more ''group hug cooperative game" will have to go else where.

This is why you also don't understand "Player Agency", and think that term means something else as well. It's not about "group hug cooperative game" (which is incredibly rude and condescending, btw). It's about letting a player at your table actually play their character, instead of just "letting them" roll dice sometimes while you decide what everyone has to do. Which you just copped to doing.

2/3's of my game is about everything except the mechanics(that is the last 1/3). So most players can ''make it through a game" just fine. And should a player be ''really bad at things", I do sometimes help them out by telling them things like "fire is hot, don't touch it". Also I really encourage the players to help each other.
That isn't what you've been espousing this whole time, by the way. You've been talking about how making skill checks without roleplaying is bad, and how roleplaying would just get to trump making any checks if they roleplay well enough. My whole point is that such is not necessarily fair to all your players.

Then again, I'm Lawful Neutral, what I consider to be "fair and equal" is probably one of my highest priorities. If I make a call, and all my players are equally happy, or equally unhappy, then I've made a good call.

I'm always unique.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist this.

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/323/067/229.jpg

Edit: I want to clarify that this is meant in jest and playfulness. When I reviewed my post, I realized it could be perceived as mean or hurtful, so I wanted to clarify.

Florian

2018-11-20, 08:33 AM

@Cosi:

"Personal Power" is not the only expression of "High Magic". I think the term would be "magical thinking", which is differentiating regular, non-magic-based (physical) laws from a totally self-contained set of laws that will always trump physical laws b/c magic, which will, or will not, be accessible to the players and their characters.

Basically, the New York sequence is a good example. Besides some FX, non of the hero powers change anything beyond ramping up the scale (but not depth). You could basically narrate the whole story with a WWII platoon defending against a sudden invasion and revive the same outcome, same as with the various "origin stories", which basically use the Monomyth pattern.

The intro sequence of GotG2 is actually a good one, because it is very close to the traditional european dragon killing stories: Power doesn't matter, it´s understanding and finding the flaw that will kill the dragon.

It´s the sum of all these small magical exceptions that will slowly drive a setting into high magic territory. Say we go with anything brothers Grimm, add victorian age fairy tales as well, maybe include the summer/winter court model, then we have a very high level of magic. Doesn't really matter if the hero is a plain guy with a sword or someone who wrestled the same power from the fae and is now a potent sorcerer.

Florian

2018-11-20, 08:42 AM

It could be a fun game, I'm not saying it isn't. But it doesn't sound like D&D. Why does a character sheet matter, then?

Apart from those small modifications, I play D&D.

Oh, we can really argue about that in length. Simple question: Is anything before 3E D&D for you or not? First, consider something: It´s common to confuse the Resolution Mechanics (PHB) with the Rules for the Game (DMG). Grab a 3.5E, 3.0E and AD&D 2nd DMG and compare the rules for the actual game and you'll not recognize them to be the same D&D, like, at all.

RedMage125

2018-11-20, 10:26 AM

Oh, we can really argue about that in length. Simple question: Is anything before 3E D&D for you or not? First, consider something: It´s common to confuse the Resolution Mechanics (PHB) with the Rules for the Game (DMG). Grab a 3.5E, 3.0E and AD&D 2nd DMG and compare the rules for the actual game and you'll not recognize them to be the same D&D, like, at all.

Those all are.

I started playing in 2e AD&D. I played 3.0, 3.5, 4e, and 5e. All have felt like D&D, even the oft-maligned 4e.*

What they all have in common is that the player makes a character, and puts things on his character sheet that represent (with in the bounds of whichever rule set) what his character can do, a long with modifiers that represent increases to a chance at success in that task when chance of success or failure is a factor (i.e. modifiers to the roll when a d20 is rolled). What I am saying to Darth Ultron in the post you are quoting me here, is that he seems to advocate that those elements that represent things that a character can do, that the player may not be able to do, are completely nullified, if the player is not able to act it out and roleplay it themself. Meaning that a guy who may not be good at mysteries himself, but wanted to play a "sherlock holmes" type inquisitive character will not be able to use the skill rolls to find clues to solve the mystery; but the player who is a fan of mystery novels IRL, but her character is an unwashed, illiterate barbarian from the sticks, will be able to find the clues and solve the mystery, simply because the player is better able to put clues together, completely abrogating any concept of skills or stats on the character sheet. This does not feel like D&D to me. That is my perception on the matter.

I know the rules are different for each system, but this is a 3e thread. Ergo, those are the rules that are relevant to this discussion.

*Funny side note: when I introduced my brother in law to D&D, it was in my 4e game that I was running. To him, 3e, Pathfinder, and 5e "did not feel like D&D". So...perception is important.

Florian

2018-11-20, 10:50 AM

RedMage125

2018-11-20, 11:21 AM

@RedMage125:

Interestingly, DU actually talked a bit about encounter design maybe a week ago. So it´s basically the very old-school approach of declare action > describe action > task resolution. The example that was given was based around climbing over a moat filled with acid, if I remember it correctly. DU also mentioned that this is a very "meta" process, because the player has to come up with the first two points, before the resolution happens, not the other way round (roll and describe result). Ex: "I roll jump" led to character death, "I bind a rope across my belly, get secured by the Fighter and then jump" led to results.
If that's what he's been advocating, it has not been very clear. Several other posters have gotten the same perception I have.

I like a bit of narrative myself, especially with social skills. But I also want the characters t be able to make use of the skills on their character sheets and make successful rolls, even if the player themselves is not very socially adept, or good at thinking quickly on the fly. So they can actually USE the skills they put points into.

Gather Information was mentioned earlier. Of course if a player were to just say "I walk into town and make a Gather Information check *rolls die* 17. What do I learn?" This is boring.

But the skill also shouldn't be useless. Some players are not good at expressing themselves in such a manner that roleplaying out individual conversations would be fun for them. But they have a character with a decent Charisma, and they've invested points in Gather Information, so their character is actually very good at getting the information they want out of people. So if they're in a major city, having just returned from stopping the lizardfolk of the Black Marsh, and they were able to get a list of reasonable demands from the tribe to negotiate a peace treaty, they need to find the people who are able to ratify such a treaty on behalf of the city. So a player may say "I want to start asking people where I would need to take this treaty. Who is the person or people with the authority to make this kind of decision?" Then I can just ask for a Gather Information check (which should take about an hour of time for their character). I'll also ask the rest of the party what they're doing during that time. If everyone goes along and also wants to help, I can have everyone make checks to assist (as per 3.5e rules on assisting skill checks), and the PC with the highest Gather Information modifier adds up their totals with their roll. Now, in this instance, the information is not that uncommon. And I would give a bonus to their check if they specify that they are going to ask for directions to the ruler/council/whatever, as well as other relevant specifics. Since it's not terribly uncommon knowledge, higher check results will mean it took less time than expected. For less common knowledge, there could be a chance that they do not meet the DC, and have to spend more time and make more checks (I usually also grant a bonus to anyone who shells out some money while they make the check, to grease people palms to encourage them to give them help). I've had players who, through a series of terrible rolls, take most of the day to find out that the symbol they were trying to track down belonged to an old, defunct shipping company down by the docks, and is still painted on the side of only one warehouse in that district. Now that took about 15 minutes of real time at the table, but since the whole party was involved, it wasn't keeping anyone else from doing what they wanted to do. Had I forced them to roleplay out those conversations, and actually think of the right questions to ask and find the right people to ask them to, it would have taken up the whole session, which would not have been very fun for the players, and would likely have led to some of them losing attention and starting to play on their phones.

While I basically agree with you, this approach needs you to spent time and think about how you do stuff like playing said Investigator, to be successful at the table, the upside is that you don't bore your gm or fellow players to death, because watching someone roll-play it at a live table is, to put it mildly, extremely boring.

Right. And the TL;DR of above is that forcing extensive role play and conversation may be equally off-putting and boring. Not to mention really dismissive of a player who spent skill points on skills not getting to use them because he may be poor at those kinds of things IRL.

Buddy76

2018-11-20, 11:45 AM

You know, despite some warnings in this thread I thought that DU was arguing in good faith. Honestly, his latest responses changed my mind. I think he's either trolling or he's too prideful to concede a point and is being deliberately dense to avoid doing so.

If he's not, well, english is not my native language and I certainly can't make myself more clear than I already have. Whatever it is, I won't be responding to him anymore.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-20, 12:17 PM

Leaving everything else aside for a moment (I don't want to get involved in this pages long argument) what does this even mean? How is a low-magic world easy for players? That implies fewer and less powerful magical goodies for everyone. How is that "just like Earth", when it still has freaking magic? D&D, 3.5 especially, clearly assumes a high magic game and allowing players access to their spells as written is entirely in keeping with that.

What is your definition for low magic and why do you think making up a bunch of house rules that make spells weaker make a setting less low magic?

First off, low magic mostly does not apply to the players. A player can be a spellcaster in a low magic world. And when the world has sticks and stones...and one character has the power to control time and space and energy like play-dough, you can see the imbalance.

To use only mundane ways to resist magic is possible, but many DM's don't have the skill or will to do this. For example, a door with nine locks is a nice way to stop a spellcaster with a lone spell of Knock from getting through. But few DM's would think of that, and even if they did they would think it was ''unfair" or worse is ''not like Earth" and they want a game exactly ''like Earth". And on Earth, in their view, doors have one lock.

Magic is the direct counter to magic. There are plenty of defensive and protective spells in the rules for this very reason. So when the DM does not use magic, the magic using players become very powerful. And it makes the game very easy.

And it only gets worse when you combine low magic with ''just like Earth". Everyone around is a humanoid...like a human or orc...so a spellcaster can use charm person on them all. This makes things easy for the spellcaster. But add in some more magic and fantasy, and you have a world of not just humanoids. In a Low world, a shopkeeper is a human that can be charmed easy. On a other world, the shopkeeper is a Mercane. It's a huge difference.

That's not remotely my point. You were saying the DM could balance the game. Your essential contention, in refuting the tier system, is that the game is not imbalanced at the base. Given that, on what basis would you balance things?

Toss out the tier system, make the balance on the players with the mechanics supporting it.

The specific and only way he spoke of being fair was with regard to following the rules. The notion of fairness, in this context, is fundamentally inseparable from the notion of rule following. They are, in fact, the same thing here.

This is the seeing the forest in the trees problem: you like and support the Tier Idea, and even more take advantage of it, so of course you see it as fair.

That is in fact, exactly the opposite of reality and the *entire* point of the tier system. It is a tool for a DM to use to help balance the game.

Odd, why would a system ''for the DM" focus on the Player Character Classes?

Ex: When you have a portal opening up, Sahuagin riding on flying snapping turtles with subjective gravity fields appear and you must pull off a Avengers New York style scene to fit them off, boarding the turtles and jumping from back to back to kill the drivers, than this is pretty much "high fantasy" without needing any magic on the player side to make it "high".

I so just did almost this a week a go, except the were Negoi on the Else Turtles and each couple of rounds they shifted to another plane.

I'm not sure I would put LotR as high or low, more of a middle fantasy. I think the characters don't have a lot of magic, but setting itself does.

Compared to D&D, LotR is very low magic. After all NONE of the main characters are spellcasters and they have only weak magic items. (Note:Gandalf is technically a DMPC)

Quertus

2018-11-20, 12:29 PM

5) The Tier System is a useful descriptive tool. We should aim for a party in which each character is close to the tier of the other characters, so we can all play together at a relatively similar power level.

This.

I think a lot of people blame the Tiers for the number of players being interested in powerful builds/always recommending the most powerful builds/being interesting in defining characters to a large degree by mechanics but the tiers didn't invent those things. They're just a guide for knowing what's going to happen when people are interested in those things to begin with.

Or they could be more rational and use the Tier system as intended, which is to say, "discourage players from trying to build parties where the PCs are more than 2 tiers apart from one another."

Because that was the actual point of the tiers. T3s usually get along fine with T1s. That's why you pick Warblade instead of Fighter if your friends go Wizard and Druid. Likewise, if your friends play as Fighter, Monk, and Paladin, you might downgrade your Druid to a Ranger and stick to their power range instead of hogging the spotlight.

OK, I'm only on page 5, but... this is why I hate the Tier system.

A nice, neutral explanation of what to expect from a given chassis, what it brings to the table? That I have no problem with.

The assertion that characters play well with one another when within X tiers of each other? Really? When we've got character > player > build > class? Really? When we've got a commoner optimized to take on the Tarrasque - at 1st level, IIRC? Someone's going to have the audacity to suggest that matching tiers actually matters to balance at an actual table? Really?!

No.

The tier of the underlying chassis is a thing, sure. But it contributes the least to the balance at actual tables.

Using Tier for theorycrafting discussions at - if I've read my fellow Playgrounders correctly in this thread - the absolute ceiling of build and play - the absolute "Schrödinger's Wizard" is the only one who need apply - is fine, it's what the Tier system was designed for.

Using it outside these limits is bad.

Now, the Tier system does explain why, when someone posts a "I want to build..." thread, they get responses of "just play a Wizard". Because, according to the Tier system, the Wizard has the maximum power and versatility, and, thus, will be most capable of fulfilling whatever role you've got in mind for your character. It explains why people are baffled that anyone would try to fulfill a particular vision without choosing a tier 1 chassis, because they're obviously designed to be the most adaptable. Anything else is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

The Tier system does do a decent job of expressing the amount of optimization you may need to use to make a balanced character. It's why someone who loves to optimize but hates to wreck the game for their fellow players / for the GM will choose to optimize a Tier 4-5 character. Sure, the tier system explains this phenomenon nicely.

But it sure the **** does not explain why the party Fighter and Monk totally outshine my Tier 1 Wizard, and have joked about voting him off the island. And it sure the **** is not the case that making them closer in tier would make them closer in performance.

It sure the **** is not a good idea to limit the optimizer to the same tier as the beer and pretzles players.

And, if you want to get a balanced party? Focusing solely on the least important metric is idiotic. It's absurd.

Let me paint the same picture in a few different media:

A man staggers into an ER, blood flowing from a neck wound. The doctor looks at his condition, and elevates his feet, to remove pressure from his bunions.

A man sees a financial planner about his desire to "keep up with the Jones's". He is advised to redouble his efforts to find pennies on sidewalks.

A group cares about game balance. They look at the Tier system.

The tier system is not useful the least useful metric for balance - whether planning or triage. Until you've evaluated / mastered the more important elements of character > player > build > class, you shouldn't even look at the tier system. So, really, in a perfect world, noone but a few arcane masters who should have gotten several PhDs with the effort that they've put into learning 3e should even know of the Tier system as more than rumors. Because, to everyone else, learning the Tier system should be considered wasted effort that would be better spent elsewhere.

I'd have no problem with a discussion of the floor and ceiling of power and versatility from the chassis of classes. But, as it stands, the Tier system is bad advice baked into a biased and flawed narrative posing as a neutral, informative, and useful analysis.

That's what I have against the Tier system.

eggynack

2018-11-20, 12:41 PM

Magic is the direct counter to magic. There are plenty of defensive and protective spells in the rules for this very reason. So when the DM does not use magic, the magic using players become very powerful. And it makes the game very easy.
You have laid out here the basic reason why a high magic game does not hurt high tier characters inordinately. Magic is the direct counter to magic. This means that, if you present a magical threat, then that is something that mundane characters have a very hard time dealing with. You've presented something that is challenging to magic users, granted, but it is also impossible for mundanes. It is obviously possible to challenge a caster. What is difficult, verging on impossible, is challenging a caster and a mundane class the same amount

Toss out the tier system, make the balance on the players with the mechanics supporting it.
What does it mean for things to be imbalanced in the first place?

This is the seeing the forest in the trees problem: you like and support the Tier Idea, and even more take advantage of it, so of course you see it as fair.
So... I support the rules of the game... because I like the tier system. This is insanely backwards. The rules of the game are massively more important to me than the tier system.

Keltest

2018-11-20, 12:46 PM

OK, I'm only on page 5, but... this is why I hate the Tier system.

A nice, neutral explanation of what to expect from a given chassis, what it brings to the table? That I have no problem with.

The assertion that characters play well with one another when within X tiers of each other? Really? When we've got character > player > build > class? Really? When we've got a commoner optimized to take on the Tarrasque - at 1st level, IIRC? Someone's going to have the audacity to suggest that matching tiers actually matters to balance at an actual table? Really?!

No.

The tier of the underlying chassis is a thing, sure. But it contributes the least to the balance at actual tables.

Using Tier for theorycrafting discussions at - if I've read my fellow Playgrounders correctly in this thread - the absolute ceiling of build and play - the absolute "Schrödinger's Wizard" is the only one who need apply - is fine, it's what the Tier system was designed for.

Using it outside these limits is bad.

Now, the Tier system does explain why, when someone posts a "I want to build..." thread, they get responses of "just play a Wizard". Because, according to the Tier system, the Wizard has the maximum power and versatility, and, thus, will be most capable of fulfilling whatever role you've got in mind for your character. It explains why people are baffled that anyone would try to fulfill a particular vision without choosing a tier 1 chassis, because they're obviously designed to be the most adaptable. Anything else is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

The Tier system does do a decent job of expressing the amount of optimization you may need to use to make a balanced character. It's why someone who loves to optimize but hates to wreck the game for their fellow players / for the GM will choose to optimize a Tier 4-5 character. Sure, the tier system explains this phenomenon nicely.

But it sure the **** does not explain why the party Fighter and Monk totally outshine my Tier 1 Wizard, and have joked about voting him off the island. And it sure the **** is not the case that making them closer in tier would make them closer in performance.

It sure the **** is not a good idea to limit the optimizer to the same tier as the beer and pretzles players.

And, if you want to get a balanced party? Focusing solely on the least important metric is idiotic. It's absurd.

Let me paint the same picture in a few different media:

A man staggers into an ER, blood flowing from a neck wound. The doctor looks at his condition, and elevates his feet, to remove pressure from his bunions.

A man sees a financial planner about his desire to "keep up with the Jones's". He is advised to redouble his efforts to find pennies on sidewalks.

A group cares about game balance. They look at the Tier system.

The tier system is not useful the least useful metric for balance - whether planning or triage. Until you've evaluated / mastered the more important elements of character > player > build > class, you shouldn't even look at the tier system. So, really, in a perfect world, noone but a few arcane masters who should have gotten several PhDs with the effort that they've put into learning 3e should even know of the Tier system as more than rumors. Because, to everyone else, learning the Tier system should be considered wasted effort that would be better spent elsewhere.

I'd have no problem with a discussion of the floor and ceiling of power and versatility from the chassis of classes. But, as it stands, the Tier system is bad advice baked into a biased and flawed narrative posing as a neutral, informative, and useful analysis.

That's what I have against the Tier system.

The tier system doesn't have any such value judgments built into it though? Theres nothing about it that says that a fighter cant or shouldn't play with a wizard, that's just the natural result of people looking at it and thinking "wow, theres a huge disparity in capabilities here."

The level system doesn't say that a level 5 player cant or shouldn't play in a level 15 party, but it is commonly recognized that such is not conducive to a good game. The same thing is going on here. Its just a presentation of information in such a way as to help both DMs and players decide what kind of game theyre going to play.

And yes, if I have a single optimizer at my table of "beer and pretzel" players, as you call then, I am absolutely going to tell him to stay away from the wizard when everybody else are playing monks and rogues, because having him steal the spotlight and solve all problems with his batman wizard is not going to be a fun game. Im not doing it because the tier system told me to do it, im doing it because I recognize the information that the tier system is trying to convey and came to my own conclusion about the likely result of putting these two different types of characters in the same party.

Nifft

2018-11-20, 12:59 PM

Pex

2018-11-20, 01:19 PM

I didn't say playing a Fighter was wrong. I said, in effect, that absolute statements don't prove relative claims, and vice versa*. The Fighter is worse than the Wizard. Whether he can clear some particular bar under some particular condition doesn't figure into that. Whether playing the Fighter is wrong or not depends on the conventions of your group. If the conventions of your group are such that characters are expected to be as effective at achieving their intended goals as a Cleric or Wizard, playing a Fighter would be inappropriate. Of course, that comes with a correlate that if the conventions of your group are such that characters are expected to be no more effective at achieving their intended goals than a Fighter or Barbarian, playing a Wizard would be inappropriate. And if your group doesn't have any expectations about power, play whatever you want (but if you do that, don't complain if someone else plays something better). The question of the power level of the Fighter is a (relatively) factual one that is essentially disconnected from what the power level of the game should be.

*: This is a lesson than many on this form should take to heart. I have seen far too many people (read: any people at all) asserting "the Wizard is more powerful than the Fighter, therefore the Wizard is overpowered" as if that statement made any sense.

It was a question of whether the Fighter could do his job. It was proven he can. It was proven a spellcaster buffing a fighter was worthy. If someone would rather a fighter PC was a cleric so he didn't have to buff that's his problem, not the fighter. A fighter can't do everything, but he doesn't have to. Some people have a problem in as much as a spellcaster maybe can, blaming the spellcaster for doing so or the warrior for not keeping up or both for existing. That's those people's problem. It's not universal.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-20, 01:28 PM

Myself, and several other posters, are trying to tell you that your understanding of what the Tier System is-at all-is faulty. Do you understand this? Are you open to the possibility that you may have made a mistake somewhere, that you are capable of error? Because somewhere along the line, you have misunderstood not only what the Tier System even IS, but also its purpose, and that has led to a great deal of unnecessary conflict, and you just talking past people like eggynack and myself. And it's okay that you made a mistake, people make mistakes, we're only human. But because of your mistake, you have been discussing apples in a conversation about oranges.

I understand you think I'm wrong, yes. I do sometimes make mistakes. I think the whole tier system is not only useless, but even more so hurts the game play. But I do agree the Tier System works just fine, in a Tier Game that is made specifically for and to support Tiers.

But that still punishes a player who would like to play a character who is good at skills that he or she does not have in real life.

From your perspective: Yes. But again, as with many other things this is a whole thread topic.

Reducto Ad Absurdum. Look it up. Your response here is fallacious logic.

Or Amazing Fringe Logic!

For the DM, it helps him judge the potential of what his characters may be able to accomplish, and perhaps give him some foresight as to what changes he may need to make to help promote party balance in the name of fun. As JaronK suggested, perhaps some adventures, or elements therein, will need to be catered towards the strengths of the lower-tier character occasionally, so he/she gets time in the spotlight.

Again, it's odd the ''DM Aid" has so much focus on the Player Characters? Is there a Tier Step Two post I missed about HOW to balance a game and cater to classes? My point is still you can make the game balanced and fun and whatever else without the ''help of the tiers".

It could be a fun game, I'm not saying it isn't. But it doesn't sound like D&D. Why does a character sheet matter, then?

The character sheet does list most of the mechanical things a character can do in a game, and my game is 1/3 mechanical. But most of all the mechanics support the Role Play.

WRONG
Everything in this statement is wrong. You cannot "only use them when everything else is equal", nor does it say that in the post. So you once again, have misinterpreted something. Or you are intentionally being misleading, but I don't think that's the case.

My game style is very different from yours. I know it's likely you are a victim of the Bubble Effect: you play D&D One Way and so does everyone Else you have ever met. So you might think the One Way you play is the Only way.

Now your One Way is popular on this corner of the internet, so it's not so amazing when ''everyone" agrees with you. And OK, once there was a Guy, who also played the game that One Way, and he made up the Tier System to help people...That play that One Way Style of D&D.

And players always ARE the most important factor when it comes to actual gameplay. Last time I ran 3.5e, one of my veteran players ran a druid (Tier 1 class), the cleric and wizard (Tier 1) were run by less experienced players, as was the rogue (Tier 4). The other veteran player ran a barbarian (Tier 4). I made it a point to talk to the druid's player and ask him to be mindful of the newer players, to tone down his instincts to be overpowered, so that other players would not feel overshadowed. As he is a DM himself, he understood and agreed.

Good story. I would note that Other Styles of D&D Gameplay other then Your Way, do not require the DM to ask the players to do anything.

The Tier System, in this instance, was a useful tool that let me know which class-when played by a more experienced player-had to the potential to affect the fun of some of the other players at the table, and I took steps accordingly. The Tier System never had anything else to do with the game after that.

It does seem like it was very useful to you in the one case for this one limited example. Glad it worked out for you.

No, just...the mechanics of the classes as they exist in the RAW. That's it. That's all that's being judged.

But, as has been said RAW is not absolute. And not everyone agrees on what RAW is, and plenty of us don't even care about RAW. Note, this is perfect example of different styles of games:

If you recall, this particular back and forth has been about if a player joins a game made up of Tier 1, 2, and 3 classes, but wants to play a monk (Tier 5), and I said that the player "might not" get as much spotlight time in game, due to the limits of the mechanics of their class, which was no one's fault. You initially tried to say it was the DM's fault, and when I pointed out that the DM didn't make the classes, you responded with this.

If a player does not get an equal time in the spotlight it IS the DM's fault. It's really a jerk move to hide behind the mechanics and say "Sorry, looser your tier five class is limited". As the DM can alter game reality on a whim, why could they not change things here...other then they wanted to be a jerk?

Take my example from before: the personal challenge encounter. So encounter six is a half white dragon orc monk that challenges the PC monk to single combat. Oh..look at that, the DM gave the spotlight to the player of the monk PC, and amazingly did not need any ''mechanics" to do it.

Now that the DM is armed with the information of where and when imbalance is LIKELY to occur, they can be prepared to address issues, and create balance (if such is a priority).

Not only is it a waste to have a whole system for such a simple concept, the bigger problem is that it ruins the game for anyone that does not use it in exactly the way you describe.

You made the claim that (and I'm paraphrasing here) "DMs create adventures full of humanoids FOR THE PURPOSE of making it easier for PCs to use 'x Person' spells." That's an asinine claim. And it reeks of the perception that you just think your way is the only "good" way to play, and so clearly other people are playing like imbecils with no creativity, and hold their players' hands every step of the way. And that's not a good perception to create.

I think it's fair to say some DMs are just inexperienced or clueless, so they don't even know they are doing it. And sure, some DM's are Jerks. I do think that the vast majority of DM do know exactly what they are doing.

And, again, I don't use the words like ''better", I say ''different".

YOU, Darth, are responsible for the perception you create in others. You don't get to blame everyone for "taking it wrong" when you come across as that condescending.

I own it.

Playing by the rules?
You saw my post in the "good houserules" thread. you've seen the only modifications I make to the rules. Apart from those small modifications, I play D&D.

Yes, you play your Style of D&D. There is no ''perfect generic way" to play D&D.

This is why you also don't understand "Player Agency", and think that term means something else as well. It's not about "group hug cooperative game" (which is incredibly rude and condescending, btw). It's about letting a player at your table actually play their character, instead of just "letting them" roll dice sometimes while you decide what everyone has to do. Which you just copped to doing.

I could say group huddle cooperative game. And that myth of player agency can..and has filled threads.

That isn't what you've been espousing this whole time, by the way. You've been talking about how making skill checks without roleplaying is bad, and how roleplaying would just get to trump making any checks if they roleplay well enough. My whole point is that such is not necessarily fair to all your players.

I have said playing the game as a pure roll playing game is ''bad'', sure. And yes, I count things like ''if the player is clever enough to role play their character clever and they climb through the open window instead of opening the locked door(roll play) as Role Playing.

Then again, I'm Lawful Neutral, what I consider to be "fair and equal" is probably one of my highest priorities. If I make a call, and all my players are equally happy, or equally unhappy, then I've made a good call.

I'm Chaotic Evil.

Meaning that a guy who may not be good at mysteries himself, but wanted to play a "sherlock holmes" type inquisitive character will not be able to use the skill rolls to find clues to solve the mystery; but the player who is a fan of mystery novels IRL, but her character is an unwashed, illiterate barbarian from the sticks, will be able to find the clues and solve the mystery, simply because the player is better able to put clues together, completely abrogating any concept of skills or stats on the character sheet.

Yes. In my game I would be very blunt with such a player and tell them ''you can not play that". And if the play still wishes to do so...they won't have very much fun in my game. And I would highly recommend they go find another game to do that in.

Though I'm more then willing to tutor a poor clueless player. Often they will make a clueless character that wants to be a cool investigator. Outside of the game I will talk with them, give them books to read and movies and tv shows to watch. During the game they will be clueless and just like walking into walls...but slowly, maybe in as long as a year, they might start to catch on. Once their character fails to solve like 100 mysteries they might finally star to figure out how to solve mysteries.

Very often I will see an amazing transformation. They maybe won't ever like mysteries and they won't ever be a ''real" investigator....but they sure will be able to Role Play one perfectly.

Peat

2018-11-20, 01:50 PM

So, really, in a perfect world, noone but a few arcane masters who should have gotten several PhDs with the effort that they've put into learning 3e should even know of the Tier system as more than rumors. Because, to everyone else, learning the Tier system should be considered wasted effort that would be better spent elsewhere.

This sentence caught me eye because, really, what's there to learn? It takes about 10 minutes to read and there's no great technicalities, nothing that should be difficult to memorise or understand. That's like three games of Freecell. I guess maybe that balloons into an hour or two if you read some comments, read some re-tiering threads... in any case, you've got a seriously efficient life if that's actually wasted effort to you. There's no reason why anyone interested shouldn't take a peek.

That's what I did, and as someone who's a long way from being an arcane master, I found it useful and interesting.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-20, 01:55 PM

You have laid out here the basic reason why a high magic game does not hurt high tier characters inordinately. Magic is the direct counter to magic. This means that, if you present a magical threat, then that is something that mundane characters have a very hard time dealing with. You've presented something that is challenging to magic users, granted, but it is also impossible for mundanes. It is obviously possible to challenge a caster. What is difficult, verging on impossible, is challenging a caster and a mundane class the same amount

This is not true in most cases. It's only when you get to extreme levels of being a jerk DM that is targeting players when this comes up.

Example one: Less Humanoids. Wally the Wizard and Matt the Monk. We have NPC Nog, who the PC want to convince to do something(does not really matter what).

Nog is a human commoner 1: Wally just walks right to to Nog and casts Charm Person and gets what he wants.
Nog is a aasimar commoner 1: Wallys Charm Person spell is useless...he will have to find another way.

But both Nogs are just fine for Matt the Monk as he can use Diplomacy on both. See, it's not about shutting down the wizard, it's about removing the Easy Button. The entire world should not be an easy wizard target.

What does it mean for things to be imbalanced in the first place?

I'm talking about having players of all equal skill and ability.

So... I support the rules of the game... because I like the tier system. This is insanely backwards. The rules of the game are massively more important to me than the tier system.

Right, I get you are a Rule Supporter. I'm not. One of the BIG points of my Style is: "the stuff in the books are just suggestions".

RedMage125

2018-11-20, 02:08 PM

Quertus, I was going to respond to some of your posts when I joined the thread, but you had not posted in awhile. It was my impression, from your earlier posts, that you, like Darth Ultron, have some misconceptions about what the Tier System IS (but you're closer to the ark than he is).

OK, I'm only on page 5, but... this is why I hate the Tier system.
And for the record, I am not trying to change your opinion.

A nice, neutral explanation of what to expect from a given chassis, what it brings to the table? That I have no problem with.
That's all it really is, though.

The assertion that characters play well with one another when within X tiers of each other? Really? When we've got character > player > build > class?

Except that the Tier System DOES account for the fact that player>build>class. That's WHY JaronK said all factors other than mechanics had to be considered equal when trying to be objective about the mechanics of the various classes. Because a REALLY GOOD player can absolutely make an effective fighter. And even with a great fighter build, a terrible player could make the exact same build perform poorly. You could make a very inefficient wizard that does not have the ability to "do everything". You could make a terrible blaster wizard that (in terms of individual build) barely meets the definition of Tier 3.

So yes, Player > Build > Class. Absolutely. But nothing in the Tier System says otherwise. And for those who insist otherwise, well...even people who seem "pro-Tier System" can be wrong, too.

You'll note that I did not include "character" in there like you did. Namely because to me "character" = race + class (to include build) + personality (player).

Really? When we've got a commoner optimized to take on the Tarrasque - at 1st level, IIRC? Someone's going to have the audacity to suggest that matching tiers actually matters to balance at an actual table? Really?!
Someone already addressed how a lot of Theoretical Optimization are just thought exercises, and not relevant to an actual game.

But the note on matching Tiers, again, is only ONE suggestion for how to use the Tier System. Another would be to give more stats for point buy to "lower tier" classes. Or allowing "level adjustment-free" more powerful races to characters of "lower tier" classes. "Matching Tiers" is not some kind of be-all-end-all of balancing a party, and no one made that claim.

The tier of the underlying chassis is a thing, sure. But it contributes the least to the balance at actual tables.
But it DOES contribute, and it CAN be a larger factor, all of that is situational.

If you are DMing, and you have a player who wants to build a "Batman Wizard", and another who's an experienced player who loves to play fairly well optimized clerics. Now your other two players are fairly new, let's say one has played once, and the other is brand new, and they want to play a Rogue and a Monk, respectively. Given your own experience, and what you believe to be true, do you think that the "tier of the underlying chassis" is going to matter "the least"?

Using Tier for theorycrafting discussions at - if I've read my fellow Playgrounders correctly in this thread - the absolute ceiling of build and play - the absolute "Schrödinger's Wizard" is the only one who need apply - is fine, it's what the Tier system was designed for.
You are understanding incorrectly. If that helps.

The Tier System was only ever meant to be a metagame concept that solely judged the power and versatility of the class as a whole, and not any one build. Very few Wizards, in actual play, are going to have spellbooks that literally contain every spell. Or even necessarily the exact spell they need. But the Wizard spell list is so overwhelmingly comprehensive that, by virtue of access to it, the wizard class as a whole is capable of producing-with a single class build with no prestige classes-a character with the ability to do X, where X could be literally anything. As no such "quantum wizards" actually exist in play, an understanding of what, exactly, Tier 1 is, only means that the character could potentially acquire the spell to do anything, given time and resources (i.e. access to a scroll of that spell or ability to research it and add it to spellbook, time to learn and memorize, etc).

One need look no further to see that what I am saying is true than the description of Tier 2. Tier 2 is BARELY a distinct Tier itself. But those Tier 1 classes could change up their spells available, and Tier 2 cannot. But the list of possibilities of what those Tier 1 classes can do is SO overwhelming, that even complete access to the same spell lists -even if they're limited in spells known- makes them in a whole category above the next-highest Tier of classes. But is distinct ONLY from Tier 1 in that "they can do ANYTHING a tier 1 class can, but no one build can do EVERYTHING a tier 1 class can".

That, right there. The Tier system does not assess builds, but the entire class, existing in a vacuum, in a quantum state where all class abilities of the class, and their potential, are weighed and measured.

Now, the Tier system does explain why, when someone posts a "I want to build..." thread, they get responses of "just play a Wizard". Because, according to the Tier system, the Wizard has the maximum power and versatility, and, thus, will be most capable of fulfilling whatever role you've got in mind for your character. It explains why people are baffled that anyone would try to fulfill a particular vision without choosing a tier 1 chassis, because they're obviously designed to be the most adaptable. Anything else is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
I've actually never seen that. The thing where people are "baffled that anyone would choose anything but a tier 1 class". I've never seen it. I've never seen it on the forums. And I don't think it exists. It sounds to me like the Reducto Ad Absurdum of your distaste for the Tier System.

The Tier system does do a decent job of expressing the amount of optimization you may need to use to make a balanced character. It's why someone who loves to optimize but hates to wreck the game for their fellow players / for the GM will choose to optimize a Tier 4-5 character. Sure, the tier system explains this phenomenon nicely.
That's a good example of someone who understand the Tier System, and put their knowledge of it to use effectively.

But it sure the **** does not explain why the party Fighter and Monk totally outshine my Tier 1 Wizard, and have joked about voting him off the island. And it sure the **** is not the case that making them closer in tier would make them closer in performance.
Because again, Player > Build > Class is correct, and the Tier system has always supported such. I mean, there are limits, and it's always easier for an individual character to go "down a tier" than up. If you're not building your wizard to be a "versatile, do everything" type, then you're not. Are you having fun? Do your party members feel you are contributing? Personally, I feel that if they seem to "outshine" you, but it's because you're casting buffs on them (Haste and the like), then you're shining a lot more than they give you credit for. If all that counts is killing blows, and your trying to be a blaster and STILL get "outshined" by a monk and a fighter, I would actually start to wonder if you have not intentionally gimped your character. Mechanically speaking, of course.

It sure the **** is not a good idea to limit the optimizer to the same tier as the beer and pretzles players.

And, if you want to get a balanced party? Focusing solely on the least important metric is idiotic. It's absurd.

Let me paint the same picture in a few different media:

A man staggers into an ER, blood flowing from a neck wound. The doctor looks at his condition, and elevates his feet, to remove pressure from his bunions.

A man sees a financial planner about his desire to "keep up with the Jones's". He is advised to redouble his efforts to find pennies on sidewalks.

A group cares about game balance. They look at the Tier system.
You have missed the point. "Looking at the Tier System" isn't a "solution", it's not an "action that one takes to promote balance". To imply such is intellectually dishonest.

The Tier System is one thing. It is a tool to judge the relative power and versatility of class mechanics ONLY. That's it. The original post by JaronK suggests some possible solutions that one could take IF the balance at one's table is being affected negatively by the limits of the mechanics of what some classes can do vis others. If you're not having that problem, then the Tier System is not a useful tool for you.

If I have a table saw, a very good, precise table saw, does your need for a hammer make my table saw a terrible tool? Objectively speaking? Or do you just not need that tool right now? Perhaps you should consider that just because YOUR table has not been negatively affected by power imbalance of things baked into the class mechanics, that maybe there are others who have. Maybe others are able to find a use for it. But it's narcissism to assert that your opinion or experience is so vital and universal that it applies to everyone.

The tier system is not useful the least useful metric for balance - whether planning or triage. Until you've evaluated / mastered the more important elements of character > player > build > class, you shouldn't even look at the tier system. So, really, in a perfect world, noone but a few arcane masters who should have gotten several PhDs with the effort that they've put into learning 3e should even know of the Tier system as more than rumors. Because, to everyone else, learning the Tier system should be considered wasted effort that would be better spent elsewhere.

I'd have no problem with a discussion of the floor and ceiling of power and versatility from the chassis of classes. But, as it stands, the Tier system is bad advice baked into a biased and flawed narrative posing as a neutral, informative, and useful analysis.

That's what I have against the Tier system.
And all of that, everything in that quote box, is 100% pure opinion, some of which you have attempted to couch as facts.

I want to end by reemphasizing that I'm not trying to make you LIKE the Tier System. Only to correct some of the factually inaccurate or misleading statements you have made that you couched as facts.

eggynack

2018-11-20, 02:22 PM

This is not true in most cases. It's only when you get to extreme levels of being a jerk DM that is targeting players when this comes up.

Example one: Less Humanoids. Wally the Wizard and Matt the Monk. We have NPC Nog, who the PC want to convince to do something(does not really matter what).

Nog is a human commoner 1: Wally just walks right to to Nog and casts Charm Person and gets what he wants.
Nog is a aasimar commoner 1: Wallys Charm Person spell is useless...he will have to find another way.

But both Nogs are just fine for Matt the Monk as he can use Diplomacy on both. See, it's not about shutting down the wizard, it's about removing the Easy Button. The entire world should not be an easy wizard target.
That is an incredibly specific situation that has virtually nothing to do with how magical the world is. I'm not talking about specifically targeting the monk or something. I'm literally just talking about the opponent being, say, a wizard. That's what you were broadly talking about too, I assume, so I don't know why you're talking about aasimars now. Wizards are the ones with the fancy anti-caster tech, not arbitrary races that impact like two spells. And wizards are pretty hard to deal with if you're a monk, especially if the wizard is trying to any extent.

Any sort of flight ability turns off a solid pile of monk options, maybe all of them depending on the build and level, and something like invisibility or mirror image is a defense that is very difficult for a monk to deal with. These are generically powerful spells. Many offensive spells are also very strong against monks. Stuff like black tentacles or solid fog shut down a lot of offensive capacity, and a monk has limited recourse. And, of course, the really direct means of dealing with spells, like dispel magic, are not available to the monk at all. Generally, any world that is not an easy caster target will be an even harder monk target. Things don't usually get harder specifically for wizards. The game is easier or harder, and the percentage chance of success goes up or down by about the same amount for various classes.

I'm talking about having players of all equal skill and ability.
What if all the players are of equal skill and ability and one character is capable of doing more than another? After all, it was your basic assertion only a bit ago that the tier system is at least applicable when skill and ability are held equal.

Right, I get you are a Rule Supporter. I'm not. One of the BIG points of my Style is: "the stuff in the books are just suggestions".
If you make all the rules different, then sure, the tier system may not be applicable. That doesn't mean the tier system is wrong though. It just means you're playing a different game. The degree to which the tier system is correct is, broadly speaking, directly proportional to the degree to which the game you're playing is D&D 3.5. Of course, this is not always the case. Certain sets of house rules could plausibly make the tier system hold even stronger. For example, a critical fumble rule will tend to empower casters more than mundanes, so this will make the high tier nature of casters even truer. I have no idea how your arbitrary house rules specifically impact the tier system.

Nifft

2018-11-20, 02:40 PM

And all of that, everything in that quote box, is 100% pure opinion, some of which you have attempted to couch as facts.

I want to end by reemphasizing that I'm not trying to make you LIKE the Tier System. Only to correct some of the factually inaccurate or misleading statements you have made that you couched as facts.

His argument is even less than what you're paraphrasing here.

His argument is that he played a Wizard so badly that the Fighter was more competent, therefore the Wizard class is not better than Fighters.

There's a kernel of truth in there -- the tier system offers no guarantee about player ability, nor does the class power ceiling provide any protection from self-sabotage -- but overall he's making a bad comparison.

Erloas

2018-11-20, 03:17 PM

Does it really? I mean, compared to Earth sure, but compared to The Chronicles of Amber or something? Where do you see the setting using a lot of magic? Which is why I said it was more of a medium fantasy. There are plenty of much higher fantasy settings, there are many lower fantasy settings, and there are plenty of similar magical settings. Most, all that come to mind but I'm sure I'm missing some, of the enemies in the setting have been corrupted by magic. There are a lot of secondary characters, that were mostly left out of the movies, with more magic/supernatural aspects to them. There is a lot of not-flashy magic going on, with the elves especially. There are a lot of beasts/monsters/environments with supernatural aspect to them.

Odd, why would a system ''for the DM" focus on the Player Character Classes?
Maybe because about 90% of a DM's "job" is focused on how the world interacts with the PCs, and consequently what sort of situations and encounters the PCs encounter and how they have to resolve them. You can't run a good game without knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the party and the individual characters that make up that party.

RedMage125

2018-11-20, 03:29 PM

I understand you think I'm wrong, yes. I do sometimes make mistakes.
I am telling you, objectively, that what you THINK the Tier System is -or, at least, what you have espoused in this thread- is objectively incorrect. Your facts are incorrect. This is not an opinion. You have said things that are not factually true, which can be verified by anyone who thoroughly reads the Tier System as originally posted by JaronK.

I think the whole tier system is not only useless, but even more so hurts the game play. But I do agree the Tier System works just fine, in a Tier Game that is made specifically for and to support Tiers.
There's no such thing as a "Tier Game". That is a term that doe snot exist. The game does not need to be "made for" or made "to support" Tiers. The Tier system is a classification system that ONLY regards the mechanics of the classes, as they exist in a vacuum of all other factors.

From your perspective: Yes. But again, as with many other things this is a whole thread topic.
If you flat-out don't permit a player to use a relevant skill check to bypass an obstacle in the game, then it's not just "my perspective". You are significantly altering the way the mechanics work and how the players interact with them.

Or Amazing Fringe Logic!

No, reducing the example to "I'm too stupid to tie a knot, so I must roll for it" is Reducto Ad Absurdum, and nothing else.

Again, it's odd the ''DM Aid" has so much focus on the Player Characters? Is there a Tier Step Two post I missed about HOW to balance a game and cater to classes? My point is still you can make the game balanced and fun and whatever else without the ''help of the tiers".

...
Yes, there is. It's in the link I posted to JaronK's original Tier System. I DID say that you should read all 3 of the first posts, to include spoiler blocks. There are actually several suggestions.

So yes, you missed it.

The character sheet does list most of the mechanical things a character can do in a game, and my game is 1/3 mechanical. But most of all the mechanics support the Role Play.

It's been sounding like you've been in favor of utterly abolishing the skills on the character sheet until now.

My game style is very different from yours. I know it's likely you are a victim of the Bubble Effect: you play D&D One Way and so does everyone Else you have ever met. So you might think the One Way you play is the Only way.

Now your One Way is popular on this corner of the internet, so it's not so amazing when ''everyone" agrees with you. And OK, once there was a Guy, who also played the game that One Way, and he made up the Tier System to help people...That play that One Way Style of D&D.

No, I certainly do not. I believe I have even said TO YOU, and in this thread that "the only wrong way to play is one in which people at your table are not having fun".

So I haven't espoused any "one true way", and I resent your implication that I do, simply because I am telling you that the statements you have made in regards to the Tier System are factually incorrect. You claimed that the Tier system "could only be used in a game where everything other than mechanicsa is equal" and that it "said so in the post". Both of which are SO factually incorrect that they border on intentional lies.

I said nothing about "one true way". In fact, I haven't even actually said that the way you are playing is somehow "wrong". What I have said is that, based on how you were presenting your style of DMing, that it seemed less fair to players who may not be able to adequately roleplay out things that their character is supposed to be good at. Something that strikes me as unfair to those players. You are beginning to clarify more, and that may have stemmed from a misconception I was getting from what you were saying. But for several posts, you were not correcting that misconception, and so I believed it to be the case.

Good story. I would note that Other Styles of D&D Gameplay other then Your Way, do not require the DM to ask the players to do anything.

It does seem like it was very useful to you in the one case for this one limited example. Glad it worked out for you.
I acknowledge that such was anecdotal. But it highlights how the Tier System, combined with a knowledge of the skill level and game system mastery of my players, was helpful. That doesn't make anything a "Tier game" as you call it.

And that was the point of me sharing the anecdote. That the Tier System is only ever relevant when taking all factors into consideration AND is "balance" is a concern for the DM or the party members.

But, as has been said RAW is not absolute. And not everyone agrees on what RAW is, and plenty of us don't even care about RAW. Note, this is perfect example of different styles of games:
The RAW are fairly straightforward. There's not many irregularities in regards to the class ability mechanics. And the class mechanics was all that the Tier System was attempting to categorize.

The point, though, is this: If you "don't care about RAW" to the extent that class mechanics are effected, then why so much hate for a system that only categorizes the classes based on mechanics that are in the RAW.

Instead of saying "Tier games are a type of game" which, by the way, is an asinine statement because it makes no sense...

You could say "I heavily deviate from the RAW as far as the mechanics of the various classes, and thus the Tier system is not a valuable tool for me".

I can almost guarantee you that if you say that on this thread, you'll stop having people debate with you.

If a player does not get an equal time in the spotlight it IS the DM's fault. It's really a jerk move to hide behind the mechanics and say "Sorry, looser your tier five class is limited". As the DM can alter game reality on a whim, why could they not change things here...other then they wanted to be a jerk?
First off, you've already acknowledged that the DM may have to tailor things so that certain classes can shine. Where you went wrong was thinking that this solution somehow "invalidated" the Tiers. When, in fact, it is actually one of the solutions to promote and recover game balance that is mentioned in the original Tier System.

No one has advocated a DM saying "sorry your loser tier 5 class is limited", that's a straw man.

And as for why they might not alter the game...what if they're playing a pre-published module? What if they were playing RPGA games at a convention (which is a thing of the past, I know, but this is a 3.5e forum and Adventure League is now all 5e)?

Time for you to look in the mirror with your OWN accusations. What about people who play different than YOU?

Take my example from before: the personal challenge encounter. So encounter six is a half white dragon orc monk that challenges the PC monk to single combat. Oh..look at that, the DM gave the spotlight to the player of the monk PC, and amazingly did not need any ''mechanics" to do it.
Quite right, but he DID tailor that challenge to the tier 5 character, didn't he? Which is one of JaronK's solutions. That "some challenges may be need to be tailored for the lower tier classes".

So...I don't know what you think you've proven with this example, except that you still didn't ACTUALLY read the link I provided and still want to act like you know what you're talking about.

Are you familiar with a Dunning-Kruger effect?

Not only is it a waste to have a whole system for such a simple concept, the bigger problem is that it ruins the game for anyone that does not use it in exactly the way you describe.
Prove this claim.

Prove it because I think that here, you're just digging in your heels and being obstinate because you don't like being shown that you're wrong. You are WRONG about what their Tier System even is. You STILL have not grasped that yet. You are obstinately refusing to follow that link and read it with an open mind -that is, without your preexisting notions firmly entrenched and coloring your reading- and so you are STILL arguing about things that are not true.

Look, if you lay a foundation for a house (your argument), and your foundation is not level (your initial assumptions and understanding about the Tier System are factually incorrect), then it does not matter how well you make your house perfectly square to the foundation (in this case, how well you construct your argument from your founding assumptions), your house will NEVER be level (your argument will still be wrong).

I think it's fair to say some DMs are just inexperienced or clueless, so they don't even know they are doing it. And sure, some DM's are Jerks. I do think that the vast majority of DM do know exactly what they are doing.

And, again, I don't use the words like ''better", I say ''different".
You say "useless", "hurts the game play", "it's a waste" , and "ruins the game"...those are value judgements that clearly imply that you think your way is "better". Do not insult my intelligence, I understand English very well. When you say "this system that I say I do not use is bad", it absolutely means you are saying the one you do use is "better".

And your CONSTANT use of Reducto Ad Absurdum in regards to examples you give about [what you mistakenly think is true about] the Tier System, highlights an attitude that you think people who play differently than you are imbeciles with no creativity who have to hold their players' hands every step of the way. You've actually used very similar wording to that a few pages back (the hand holding part, anyway).

Yes, you play your Style of D&D. There is no ''perfect generic way" to play D&D.
Never said there was. Don't put words in my mouth. But you said, when I mentioned a game with perhaps a few house rules that otherwise uses the mechanics and rules as they are present in the Core Rulebooks, you said was a "style of game that supports and is friendly to the Tier System". Which is about as close as you've come to acknowledging that the Tier System is actually a VALID assessment of the class mechanics by the RAW. Because if you must deviate from the RAW significantly (which you say you do) for them not to be applicable, then that means a RAW reading of them means they are, right? That's how logic works.

I could say group huddle cooperative game. And that myth of player agency can..and has filled threads.

A great deal of that thread went on so long was because -like this one- people were discussing oranges, and you INSISTED that an orange was a kind of apple, and steadfastly refused to understand that we were not discussing apples. You didn't want to understand that it is an entirely different kind of fruit. That thread stopped without you ever realizing what "Player Agency" even meant, despite having it spelled out for you a number of times. Countless posters said it, phrased a number of different ways, and you just pretended they didn't, and said things like "oh, so it's a granny smith apple, then!" or made the utterly untrue claim of "no one can define what it is".

Until you recognize that X (being what you think the Tier System is) is incorrect, you are only EVER going to continue to make incorrect statements about it.

I'm Chaotic Evil.
Honestly, until you made that admission in regards to the context of this thread, I have not assumed that you were just intentionally being a troll. This actually makes me wonder if I was wrong about that.

Have you been?

Right, I get you are a Rule Supporter. I'm not. One of the BIG points of my Style is: "the stuff in the books are just suggestions".

It's one thing to say "I don't stick that close to the Rules", and yet another altogether to say that "the people who use the Rules are 'Buddy DMs' who only present players with challenges that they can easily overcome with a roll of the dice. My way challenges players to think and people who use the Rules do not". Which, if you combine what you've said about "tier game"="buddy DMs" and "use the Rules"="tier games" is an ENTIRELY valid representation of what you have said in this thread.

Darth Ultron

2018-11-20, 05:15 PM

Any sort of flight ability turns off a solid pile of monk options, maybe all of them depending on the build and level, and something like invisibility or mirror image is a defense that is very difficult for a monk to deal with. These are generically powerful spells. Many offensive spells are also very strong against monks. Stuff like black tentacles or solid fog shut down a lot of offensive capacity, and a monk has limited recourse. And, of course, the really direct means of dealing with spells, like dispel magic, are not available to the monk at all. Generally, any world that is not an easy caster target will be an even harder monk target. Things don't usually get harder specifically for wizards. The game is easier or harder, and the percentage chance of success goes up or down by about the same amount for various classes.

So, wait, are you just talking about a pure player vs player arena fight now? Like going back to your ''I want to kill the other players character to prove I'm better?"

I'm talking about adding magic to the game world and not making the game world ''exactly like old Earth".

What if all the players are of equal skill and ability and one character is capable of doing more than another? After all, it was your basic assertion only a bit ago that the tier system is at least applicable when skill and ability are held equal.

This is the part where the DM steps in and makes the game balanced. It does not matter how much the one player sits there and says "I'm better", as it has no effect on the game what so ever.

. The degree to which the tier system is correct is, broadly speaking, directly proportional to the degree to which the game you're playing is D&D 3.5.

Right, of course, Your Way is Real D&D and everyone else is wrong.

Maybe because about 90% of a DM's "job" is focused on how the world interacts with the PCs, and consequently what sort of situations and encounters the PCs encounter and how they have to resolve them. You can't run a good game without knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the party and the individual characters that make up that party.

Yea....makes no sense though.

1.I have a very bumpy road full of pot holes, fallen trees and such(aka D&D rules)
2.I make an awesome Car Tier system to help to help the Department of Transportation(aka the DM) so they can know what cars are ''better" to use on the road. So Edgar can get in his monster truck and say he is ''better" then everyone and only he ''drives the right way".
3.So...er...why would the DOT(DM) not just fix the road?

I am telling you, objectively, that what you THINK the Tier System is -or, at least, what you have espoused in this thread- is objectively incorrect. Your facts are incorrect. This is not an opinion. You have said things that are not factually true, which can be verified by anyone who thoroughly reads the Tier System as originally posted by JaronK.

Again, I understand you think I'm wrong.

There's no such thing as a "Tier Game". That is a term that doe snot exist. The game does not need to be "made for" or made "to support" Tiers. The Tier system is a classification system that ONLY regards the mechanics of the classes, as they exist in a vacuum of all other factors.

It exists. I just made it up. That is how life works. That guy just made up the Tier System, so I made up this. See how that works.

If you flat-out don't permit a player to use a relevant skill check to bypass an obstacle in the game, then it's not just "my perspective". You are significantly altering the way the mechanics work and how the players interact with them.

Ok, I'll mark that down as part of your Personal Style.

No, reducing the example to "I'm too stupid to tie a knot, so I must roll for it" is Reducto Ad Absurdum, and nothing else.

Use Rope is a D&D skill is it not?

It's been sounding like you've been in favor of utterly abolishing the skills on the character sheet until now.

You might have been reading my posts wrong. It happens a lot. You might want to try re-reading them. If you don't see something like ''I don't like 3e psionics" it is better to not assume you think you know what I like or mean.

No, I certainly do not. I believe I have even said TO YOU, and in this thread that "the only wrong way to play is one in which people at your table are not having fun".

Sounds good to me...but not others of the ''better tier".

So I haven't espoused any "one true way", and I resent your implication that I do, simply because I am telling you that the statements you have made in regards to the Tier System are factually incorrect. You claimed that the Tier system "could only be used in a game where everything other than mechanicsa is equal" and that it "said so in the post". Both of which are SO factually incorrect that they border on intentional lies.

Well, if you use the Tier System, you must use the game style that supports it...seems a bit obvious.

I said nothing about "one true way". In fact, I haven't even actually said that the way you are playing is somehow "wrong". What I have said is that, based on how you were presenting your style of DMing, that it seemed less fair to players who may not be able to adequately roleplay out things that their character is supposed to be good at. Something that strikes me as unfair to those players. You are beginning to clarify more, and that may have stemmed from a misconception I was getting from what you were saying. But for several posts, you were not correcting that misconception, and so I believed it to be the case.

My game is completely unfair(as you would use the word). Having a fair game is one of the cornerstones of the Tier Style of play.

I acknowledge that such was anecdotal. But it highlights how the Tier System, combined with a knowledge of the skill level and game system mastery of my players, was helpful. That doesn't make anything a "Tier game" as you call it.

The RAW are fairly straightforward. There's not many irregularities in regards to the class ability mechanics. And the class mechanics was all that the Tier System was attempting to categorize.

Maybe you have never read through a RAW thread? Disagreements are common.

The point, though, is this: If you "don't care about RAW" to the extent that class mechanics are effected, then why so much hate for a system that only categorizes the classes based on mechanics that are in the RAW.

Instead of saying "Tier games are a type of game" which, by the way, is an asinine statement because it makes no sense...

You could say "I heavily deviate from the RAW as far as the mechanics of the various classes, and thus the Tier system is not a valuable tool for me".

I can almost guarantee you that if you say that on this thread, you'll stop having people debate with you.

As a Sith lord, the hate flows through me.

And it's not just me. As even this thread has shown, not everyone just automatically falls in line with the Tier system and plays D&S that one way. There is a bigger picture.

I asked before, why can't YOU accept there are...lets say at least 25 Styles of D&D game play, the the Tier System only apply to One of them?

First off, you've already acknowledged that the DM may have to tailor things so that certain classes can shine. Where you went wrong was thinking that this solution somehow "invalidated" the Tiers. When, in fact, it is actually one of the solutions to promote and recover game balance that is mentioned in the original Tier System.

No one has advocated a DM saying "sorry your loser tier 5 class is limited", that's a straw man.

I'd say the DM tailors the GAME so each PLAYER can shine.

And as for why they might not alter the game...what if they're playing a pre-published module? What if they were playing RPGA games at a convention (which is a thing of the past, I know, but this is a 3.5e forum and Adventure League is now all 5e)?

I'm not sure why you don't think you can alter a published module. Trust me, it's easy.

Also, I'd note that the Adventure League is not some ''pure as the wind driven snow RAW game", they in fact alter things A LOT for ''league play".

Time for you to look in the mirror with your OWN accusations. What about people who play different than YOU?

I don't care about them?

Quite right, but he DID tailor that challenge to the tier 5 character, didn't he? Which is one of JaronK's solutions. That "some challenges may be need to be tailored for the lower tier classes".

My point is, again, just tailor things and toss out the Tiers.

Are you familiar with a Dunning-Kruger effect?

Yes, Diane Kruger is one of my favorite actress and she has quite an effect on me.

Prove this claim.

Sure, just tell me what type of proof you'd like.

Prove it because I think that here, you're just digging in your heels and being obstinate because you don't like being shown that you're wrong. You are WRONG about what their Tier System even is. You STILL have not grasped that yet. You are obstinately refusing to follow that link and read it with an open mind -that is, without your preexisting notions firmly entrenched and coloring your reading- and so you are STILL arguing about things that are not true.

I tried to read the whole page...but I had to watch the new episode of Doctor Who and write my review.

Look, if you lay a foundation for a house (your argument), and your foundation is not level (your initial assumptions and understanding about the Tier System are factually incorrect), then it does not matter how well you make your house perfectly square to the foundation (in this case, how well you construct your argument from your founding assumptions), your house will NEVER be level (your argument will still be wrong).

Wait..wait..I get it now: The whole Tier System, it's an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect!

You say "useless", "hurts the game play", "it's a waste" , and "ruins the game"...those are value judgements that clearly imply that you think your way is "better". Do not insult my intelligence, I understand English very well. When you say "this system that I say I do not use is bad", it absolutely means you are saying the one you do use is "better".

I can see why you'd think that. You are used to people that don't ''type" what they mean...so you are used to ''translating" everything. Well, I'm not one of them people.

And your CONSTANT use of Reducto Ad Absurdum in regards to examples you give about [what you mistakenly think is true about] the Tier System, highlights an attitude that you think people who play differently than you are imbeciles with no creativity who have to hold their players' hands every step of the way. You've actually used very similar wording to that a few pages back (the hand holding part, anyway).

Well, a pure mechanical game is less creative. A description of a trap in my game might be a whole paragraph long; in a mechanical roll playing game the DM will just say ''trap DC 20".....and that is not very creative.

Never said there was. Don't put words in my mouth. But you said, when I mentioned a game with perhaps a few house rules that otherwise uses the mechanics and rules as they are present in the Core Rulebooks, you said was a "style of game that supports and is friendly to the Tier System". Which is about as close as you've come to acknowledging that the Tier System is actually a VALID assessment of the class mechanics by the RAW. Because if you must deviate from the RAW significantly (which you say you do) for them not to be applicable, then that means a RAW reading of them means they are, right? That's how logic works.

Yes, if you play the game by your personal style and interpretation of RAW.

A great deal of that thread went on so long was because -like this one- people were discussing oranges, and you INSISTED that an orange was a kind of apple, and steadfastly refused to understand that we were not discussing apples. You didn't want to understand that it is an entirely different kind of fruit. That thread stopped without you ever realizing what "Player Agency" even meant, despite having it spelled out for you a number of times. Countless posters said it, phrased a number of different ways, and you just pretended they didn't, and said things like "oh, so it's a granny smith apple, then!" or made the utterly untrue claim of "no one can define what it is".

I'm more of the guy that tells you a tomato is a Fruit...and then you're saying a tomato HAS to be a vegatiable as one was in Veggie Tales.

Maybe someone will make a player agency myth thread again some day.....

Until you recognize that X (being what you think the Tier System is) is incorrect, you are only EVER going to continue to make incorrect statements about it.

Right, as long as I disagree with you I will always be wrong.

Honestly, until you made that admission in regards to the context of this thread, I have not assumed that you were just intentionally being a troll. This actually makes me wonder if I was wrong about that.

I've been Chaotic Evil for many years.

It's one thing to say "I don't stick that close to the Rules", and yet another altogether to say that "the people who use the Rules are 'Buddy DMs' who only present players with challenges that they can easily overcome with a roll of the dice. My way challenges players to think and people who use the Rules do not". Which, if you combine what you've said about "tier game"="buddy DMs" and "use the Rules"="tier games" is an ENTIRELY valid representation of what you have said in this thread.

Ok...you need to seperate the two:

1.People who use RAW to play the D&D RPg just like a video game
2.Buddy DMs

See, two different kinds of people.

A tier game supportive easy, casual game with a buddy DM. (note no raw here).

Really the Buddy DM goes beyond just tiers, it's everywhere.

eggynack

2018-11-20, 05:34 PM

So, wait, are you just talking about a pure player vs player arena fight now? Like going back to your ''I want to kill the other players character to prove I'm better?"
Not remotely. I'm saying that the sorts of challenges that would meaningfully challenge a wizard would be yet more difficult for a low tier class. You said that magic challenges magic. I'm saying that magic challenges mundane even more. This is actually a thing you've already said you agree with. After all, it was your contention that a low magic world is one where casters thrive. If that's the case, then it means that a mundane party is one against which magical foes thrive.

I'm talking about adding magic to the game world and not making the game world ''exactly like old Earth".
But your only example of this was using a different race. Not all that magical of a thing to add, when all is said and done.

This is the part where the DM steps in and makes the game balanced. It does not matter how much the one player sits there and says "I'm better", as it has no effect on the game what so ever.
Of course imbalance has an effect. It has the effect that you have to modify the game to fix that imbalance. The tier system doesn't strictly imply that imbalance is impossible to resolve. It means that imbalance exists in the game at the base level.

Right, of course, Your Way is Real D&D and everyone else is wrong.
You're explicitly talking about changing the rules. How seriously do you expect me to take this as a condemnation of the tier system. I'm saying, "Druids are good," and you're saying, "You're wrong, because I can just take away literally all of their class features." The capacity to change and remove abilities is a response to imbalance, not a refutation of the existence of that imbalance.

Mordaedil

2018-11-20, 05:42 PM

So, I guess we all learned a valuable lesson about not paying attention to people that don't actually play the game.

I don't mean "play it like we play it", I mean they actively don't play D&D.

I can't really arrive at any other conclusion.

Pex

2018-11-20, 06:36 PM

*Funny side note: when I introduced my brother in law to D&D, it was in my 4e game that I was running. To him, 3e, Pathfinder, and 5e "did not feel like D&D". So...perception is important.

That further proves 4E is not D&D. That was your brother in law's first game which was labeled D&D in his mind. Since the other games are nothing like 4E they don't get the D&D label in his mind. His labels are mislabeled but the opinion is correct.

OK, I'm only on page 5, but... this is why I hate the Tier system.

A nice, neutral explanation of what to expect from a given chassis, what it brings to the table? That I have no problem with.

The assertion that characters play well with one another when within X tiers of each other? Really? When we've got character > player > build > class? Really? When we've got a commoner optimized to take on the Tarrasque - at 1st level, IIRC? Someone's going to have the audacity to suggest that matching tiers actually matters to balance at an actual table? Really?!

No.

The tier of the underlying chassis is a thing, sure. But it contributes the least to the balance at actual tables.

Using Tier for theorycrafting discussions at - if I've read my fellow Playgrounders correctly in this thread - the absolute ceiling of build and play - the absolute "Schrödinger's Wizard" is the only one who need apply - is fine, it's what the Tier system was designed for.

Using it outside these limits is bad.

Now, the Tier system does explain why, when someone posts a "I want to build..." thread, they get responses of "just play a Wizard". Because, according to the Tier system, the Wizard has the maximum power and versatility, and, thus, will be most capable of fulfilling whatever role you've got in mind for your character. It explains why people are baffled that anyone would try to fulfill a particular vision without choosing a tier 1 chassis, because they're obviously designed to be the most adaptable. Anything else is trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

The Tier system does do a decent job of expressing the amount of optimization you may need to use to make a balanced character. It's why someone who loves to optimize but hates to wreck the game for their fellow players / for the GM will choose to optimize a Tier 4-5 character. Sure, the tier system explains this phenomenon nicely.

But it sure the **** does not explain why the party Fighter and Monk totally outshine my Tier 1 Wizard, and have joked about voting him off the island. And it sure the **** is not the case that making them closer in tier would make them closer in performance.

It sure the **** is not a good idea to limit the optimizer to the same tier as the beer and pretzles players.

And, if you want to get a balanced party? Focusing solely on the least important metric is idiotic. It's absurd.

Let me paint the same picture in a few different media:

A man staggers into an ER, blood flowing from a neck wound. The doctor looks at his condition, and elevates his feet, to remove pressure from his bunions.

A man sees a financial planner about his desire to "keep up with the Jones's". He is advised to redouble his efforts to find pennies on sidewalks.

A group cares about game balance. They look at the Tier system.

The tier system is not useful the least useful metric for balance - whether planning or triage. Until you've evaluated / mastered the more important elements of character > player > build > class, you shouldn't even look at the tier system. So, really, in a perfect world, noone but a few arcane masters who should have gotten several PhDs with the effort that they've put into learning 3e should even know of the Tier system as more than rumors. Because, to everyone else, learning the Tier system should be considered wasted effort that would be better spent elsewhere.

I'd have no problem with a discussion of the floor and ceiling of power and versatility from the chassis of classes. But, as it stands, the Tier system is bad advice baked into a biased and flawed narrative posing as a neutral, informative, and useful analysis.

That's what I have against the Tier system.

https://i.postimg.cc/rmFB9yYy/applause.gif

Cosi

2018-11-20, 06:47 PM

Everyone who has been replying to Darth Ultron (a group which, lamentably, includes myself), note that he just said this:

Yes, Diane Kruger is one of my favorite actress and she has quite an effect on me.

When asked about the Dunning-Kruger effect. This is the person you have chosen to spend time arguing with. Someone who thinks "the Dunning-Kruger effect" means "being attracted to Diane Kruger", or is pretending to do so to amuse himself. Arguing with this person is how you -- we -- have chosen to spend our time. Reflect on this, and feel ashamed.

"Personal Power" is not the only expression of "High Magic". I think the term would be "magical thinking",

That is a term. It's not a term people use to define "High Magic", but it is definitely a term. So points for that.

I like a bit of narrative myself, especially with social skills. But I also want the characters t be able to make use of the skills on their character sheets and make successful rolls, even if the player themselves is not very socially adept, or good at thinking quickly on the fly. So they can actually USE the skills they put points into.

This is an important point. People play RPGs to be able to assume a character that is something they aren't -- like a Wizard, or an Orc. But sometimes that includes things like "a character who is more charismatic than them" or "a character who is smarter than them", and the game should facilitate those things as well. That's why we have a skill system, and rules for non-combat encounters. Hell, it's why we have rules for combat encounters and don't demand that people know fencing terminology to play a fencer.

(Note:Gandalf is technically a DMPC)

Yes, I know, I said in this post that replying to Darth Ultron is pointless. But there's an interesting point about Gandalf I want to make, and I'm not seriously engaging with his position.

Disclaimer aside, I think one of the more interesting readings of LotR-as-D&D has Gandalf as one of the PCs, and the rest of the Fellowship as NPCs. In this model, the party is something like Gandalf/Elrond/Galadriel (maybe Aragorn), and the adventure is "you need to get the Ring to Mount Doom, but you can't personally touch it, and the only people who can are gimpy and incompetent". In many ways, I think that's actually a more interesting challenge than the "walk to Mount Doom" that is the primary quest for Frodo and Sam.

It was a question of whether the Fighter could do his job. It was proven he can. It was proven a spellcaster buffing a fighter was worthy. If someone would rather a fighter PC was a cleric so he didn't have to buff that's his problem, not the fighter.

No, that is very much the Fighter's problem. He doesn't have any right to the other character's spell slots. If he wanted polymorph, he should have played a character that gets polymorph. Casters already provide a huge subsidy to Fighters by providing transportation, healing, and other utility despite him offering nothing in return. If he needs their help to contribute in the area where he's even nominally useful, he's just being selfish. It's like going out to lunch with your friends and refusing to pay, except that then you tell them they're the problem.

Bartmanhomer

2018-11-20, 06:51 PM

Where's the mod and the admin when you need them. :mad:

WesleyVos

2018-11-20, 06:57 PM

“Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.”
**Proverbs‬ *26:4-5

I think we have sufficiently answered Darth Ultron now.

Bartman, sorry your thread got hijacked like that. Until that last post, I thought there might be some redemptive qualities in DU. He has proven me wrong.

Pex

2018-11-20, 07:01 PM

Quite right, but he DID tailor that challenge to the tier 5 character, didn't he? Which is one of JaronK's solutions. That "some challenges may be need to be tailored for the lower tier classes".

This stood out to me because it was a major complaint by Tier System advocates of the past. They complain the DM had to tailor the challenge. That is one way they veer off the original intent of the Tier System. Where JaronK advises the DM this needs to be done and you appear fine with it, the advocates resented the DM having to do it. Thus the proof monks suck because the Tier System says so. JaronK didn't say that. The Tier System disciples did, and now that's common thought as if it's true by definition. That's where the Tier System falters.

Bartmanhomer

2018-11-20, 07:05 PM

Pex

2018-11-20, 07:08 PM

No, that is very much the Fighter's problem. He doesn't have any right to the other character's spell slots. If he wanted polymorph, he should have played a character that gets polymorph. Casters already provide a huge subsidy to Fighters by providing transportation, healing, and other utility despite him offering nothing in return. If he needs their help to contribute in the area where he's even nominally useful, he's just being selfish. It's like going out to lunch with your friends and refusing to pay, except that then you tell them they're the problem.

This is what I'm talking about. Type 2 - Tier 4 and below suck, you're doing it wrong if you play it. You resent the fighter's existence. What you call being selfish I call teamwork. The fighter contributes well enough, but it's not enough for you.

ExLibrisMortis

2018-11-20, 07:21 PM

The fighter contributes well enough, but it's not enough for you.
No, the fighter doesn't contribute enough, but you insist that it's enough anyway. Two can play at that game :smalltongue:.

What Cosi was saying is that the fighter supposedly being "worth buffing" is not an indication that they're "worth playing over a buffer". The fighter's value as a buff object can only rank them above a druid or cleric if a fighter contributes more when buffed by one character than they would have if they had been a cleric or druid buffed by one character and themselves. Which they don't.

RedMage125

2018-11-20, 07:23 PM

Again, I understand you think I'm wrong.

I you say "tier system is x" and that's not a factually correct statement, then you are objectively wrong.

It exists. I just made it up. That is how life works. That guy just made up the Tier System, so I made up this. See how that works.
Except that your definition is of something non-sequitur, because you don't understand what the tier system is. If you DID understand that (you don't), you would know that saying a game "made for" or made "to support" the Tier System is a nonsensical statement.

Ok, I'll mark that down as part of your Personal Style.
Look, you've flat-out acknowledged that you DO, in fact, alter the game mechanics and how players may interact with them. That's YOUR personal style. And you are talking about significantly altering the game mechanics, but then come to the forums and talk about YOUR game mechanics, which don't resonate with us, because we use the Rules.

Use Rope is a D&D skill is it not?
Used to tie an especially firm, load-bearing knot. Or a special knot that can slip loose, or slide slowly. But those aren't actually common skills IRL, either. And that wasn't what you said. You just said "tie a knot" as if in reference to a simple knot, making it seem utterly absurd.

You might have been reading my posts wrong. It happens a lot. You might want to try re-reading them. If you don't see something like ''I don't like 3e psionics" it is better to not assume you think you know what I like or mean.
You also went several posts where you made no attempt to correct said misconception, and allowed it to continue, digging those misconceptions deeper, further entrenching ANY given reader (of which I was not the only one) in the belief that such was correct.

It's funny how I told you that YOU are responsible for the perceptions you create, and that you don't get to blame it on others, and in your last post you said you "own it", but here you are, blaming the reader, instead of owning up to the fact that YOU created that perception.

Well, if you use the Tier System, you must use the game style that supports it...seems a bit obvious.
First of all, this doesn't even address what I said in the post you quoted. I was talking about how you BLATANTLY MISREPRESENTED what was in the link to JaronK's Tier system, and claimed it said words which it did not.

And, once again, the Tier System isn't "supported by" a game style. It's just a way to categorize the classes of 3.5e D&D into groupings based on power and versatility. Has nothing to do with game style, and the more you say this, the more and more ignorant you make yourself sound to those who actually ARE familiar with it.

Let me give you an analogy of how ridiculous and non-sequitur your claims are. You have books in your house and you like to read, right? So I say that your "reading style" supports the Dewey Decimal System that libraries use to organize books.

That is what you sound like. It REALLY IS that absurd.

My game is completely unfair(as you would use the word). Having a fair game is one of the cornerstones of the Tier Style of play.
This not only makes no sense, but REALLY drives home the idea that you are an adversarial DM. I define fair as treating players equally, if not equitably (preferably both), and being consistent with my rulings. You seem to think that treating people fairly and with respect is...bad?

Maybe you have never read through a RAW thread? Disagreements are common.
There are a few dysfunctions of RAW, yes ("drown healing" comes to mind). But rarely are those dysfunctions prominent in the mechanics of class features, which is what I said.

Nice attempt at a straw man, though.

As a Sith lord, the hate flows through me.

And it's not just me. As even this thread has shown, not everyone just automatically falls in line with the Tier system and plays D&S that one way. There is a bigger picture.

I asked before, why can't YOU accept there are...lets say at least 25 Styles of D&D game play, the the Tier System only apply to One of them?
I accept that there are CERTAINLY dozens of ways to play. And that some people do not find the Tier System to be a useful tool. I accept that some people's personal styles deviate from the RAW so much on class mechanics that the Tiers become irrelevant for them.

But NONE OF THAT has ANYTHING to do with my argument with YOU.

YOU have been saying things about the Tier System itself that are simply falsehoods. As I have provided you with the link, and you claimed that you read it, it would be a logical conclusion for me to assume that any further falsehoods you propagate are, in fact, intentional lies on your part, done in an attempt to troll. I have continued to discuss in good faith with you, however.

I have never said that the way those people play are "wrong". YOU wanted me to be saying that, so you keep building that straw man, because that way, you can act like you're somehow being victimized and marginalized by "my stance", which makes you feel martyred and ennobled, as per the current zeitgeist of American society. So you keep acting like I'm espousing "one true way", when I have NEVER said that, not once.

Once again, because you keep failing to get it:
All the Tier System does is create a series of classifications for the classes of 3.5e D&D, separating them into categories grouped by a general assessment of the class' power and versatility, as defined only by the mechanics of the class.

You can inject whatever OPINION about how you THINK people use that classification system, but at least acknowledge such as your opinion. Neither your opinion, nor how anyone "uses" the Tier System, have any bearing on what the Tier System is.

I'd say the DM tailors the GAME so each PLAYER can shine.
And if you never have to do that for spellcasters, because their class abilities allow them to shine enough, but you frequently find yourself having to tailor things for monks...what does that tell you about the class mechanics of those classes? Does it tell you that there might be some disparity in capability?

I'm not sure why you don't think you can alter a published module. Trust me, it's easy.

Also, I'd note that the Adventure League is not some ''pure as the wind driven snow RAW game", they in fact alter things A LOT for ''league play".
No, they really don't. Not if it's legal for League Play. Dude, have you never played at a convention before? Even back in the 3e days of the RPGA? I used to be an RPGA Judge back in those days. You really DON'T get to freeform modify the rules however you want. Consistency of the rule set that the players are playing with is one of the maxims that makes those Organized Play kinds things work.

My point is, again, just tailor things and toss out the Tiers.
You missed the point, which was that recognizing that a disparity (or the potential for disparity) even EXISTS is the only thing the Tier System actually DOES.

Yes, Diane Kruger is one of my favorite actress and she has quite an effect on me.

Wait..wait..I get it now: The whole Tier System, it's an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect!

...
In your case, and only in your case, yes. Everything YOU say about the Tier System is an example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Sure, just tell me what type of proof you'd like.
Some kind of evidence would be nice. Factual, objective evidence. Because, at this point, you're just making up falsehoods because you didn't like that I told you one of your pre-existing notions (what you thought Tier System meant) was wrong.

I tried to read the whole page...but I had to watch the new episode of Doctor Who and write my review.
So you never actually READ the Tier System, but you think you know more about it than the people who have?

Is that an accurate statement?

I can see why you'd think that. You are used to people that don't ''type" what they mean...so you are used to ''translating" everything. Well, I'm not one of them people.
No, I have an understanding of the English language, to include nuances, subtleties, context and syntax. You have tried to frame things in 2 ways "tier style" (as you ridiculously call it) and "your style", and expressed value judgments denigrating the former. I'm not "translating" or "inserting my own opinion" anywhere. That's how the language works.

You'll note that I am careful not to express value judgments without qualifiers such as "I think" or "I feel" or "my perception". That is because I take responsibility for how I communicate and don't want to come across as expressing that "my judgment" of something is somehow "factual".

At any rate, you DO come across as condescending and dismissive of people who play different than you. I'm careful not to. I even say things like "I'm not trying to change your OPINION", but rather "these things you have claimed are facts are incorrect". Which is why I take umbrage when you try and build a Straw Man claiming that I somehow espouse "one true way-ism". Because I certainly don't. I make it a point to say that I believe the only wrong way to play is when people at your table are having fun. Even in person. I was once invited to game with some younger sailors. They had a house rule that whenever someone rolls a natural 1 "something weird and bad and sexual happens to you". I was immediately put off. But what I told them was "that kind of thing isn't my bag. I will pass". I did not tell them that they "shouldn't" play that way. And before any outrage about sexism comes up, there was a female in that group. The DM. It was her rule.

Well, a pure mechanical game is less creative. A description of a trap in my game might be a whole paragraph long; in a mechanical roll playing game the DM will just say ''trap DC 20".....and that is not very creative.
Reducto Ad Absurdum. A Value Judgement. Expressing your opinion as fact. All in 2 sentences.

You cannot possibly know how others who actually use mechanics and use rolls for things like trap disabling will run their games, so you cannot possibly quantify this statement as anything but an opinion. An opinion which denigrates everyone who doesn't play like you as "less creative" and simplistic.

And furthermore, clearly untrue, as even most prepublished adventures don't have the DM just announce the Trap's DC to the players.

Hell I use mechanics, and when the payers find a trap, I describe it. And even if my player sitting at the table can't think of exactly what would be necessary to disable such a trap, his character clearly can (after all he has ranks in Disable Device). So I have him roll a Disable check. If he meets or exceeds the DC, I usually give some kind of narrative for how that was accomplished. "You wedge a bit of stone under the pressure plate, preventing it from sinking", "you stuff a rag into the hole that a needle would have shot out of", "after studying the nearly invisible runes for the magic trap, you carefully smudge and erase a few key runes, preventing the trap from activating".

Just because I don't demand that my PLAYERS provide that level of creativity, doesn't mean that kind of creativity and roleplaying doesn't happen at my table. And quite frankly, YOU are the condescending guy who thinks that no one plays the game "right" but himself. For you to project that onto anyone else is hypocrisy.

Of course, you could always feel free to withdraw such accusations to avoid being a hypocrite.

Yes, if you play the game by your personal style and interpretation of RAW.
No, we're talking about YOUR style. YOUR STYLE deviates from the RAW for class mechanics, right? And because of your deviations, the Tier System does not adequately describe the classes in your game, right? So...if one does not deviate, they are applicable classifications, then. That's logic.

I'm more of the guy that tells you a tomato is a Fruit...and then you're saying a tomato HAS to be a vegatiable as one was in Veggie Tales.

Maybe someone will make a player agency myth thread again some day.....

No, your the guy who walks into a room where they are talking about oranges. There are oranges present. You could see and examine one if you chose. You tell everyone "I bit into one of these apples once, and it tasted terrible, the skin was too think, the meat of the apple was WAY stringier than any other apple, and when I tried to mash it up to make applesauce it was awful. These are terrible apples, they don't even taste good with cinnamon, like my preferred apple, Fuji*. And proceed to tell everyone else (who knows what an orange is), that you know better about these fruits, because you are an expert on apples.

That's what happened with Player Agency. That is what is happening now.

*Which is still wrong. Everyone knows Granny Smith Apples are superior :wink:

Right, as long as I disagree with you I will always be wrong.

As long as you speak untrue things, yes. At some point, if you continue the trend, you would become a liar.

I've been Chaotic Evil for many years.

So...are you saying that you ARE just trolling?

Ok...you need to seperate the two:

1.People who use RAW to play the D&D RPg just like a video game
2.Buddy DMs

See, two different kinds of people.

A tier game supportive easy, casual game with a buddy DM. (note no raw here).

Really the Buddy DM goes beyond just tiers, it's everywhere.
See, now, not everyone who uses the Rules "plays like a videogame". That's incredibly rude, and condescending, and actually very "one true way" of you. So which is it? Pot or Kettle?

I agree that "Buddy DMs" can be a thing. But so can "Jerkbag DMs". So what? Like any other game element, the problem there is people and not anything having to do with game mechanics, any game element, any Rules, or even the Tier System. But you've taken your disdain of "Buddy DMs", lumped it together with the Tier System, for some odd, completely non-sequitur reason, and then basically said that anyone who actually uses the Rules when they play D&D does not challenge their players, only presents simple obstacles to be overcome with a die roll that the PCs can easily succeed at, and is less creative than you.

You're explicitly talking about changing the rules. How seriously do you expect me to take this as a condemnation of the tier system. I'm saying, "Druids are good," and you're saying, "You're wrong, because I can just take away literally all of their class features." The capacity to change and remove abilities is a response to imbalance, not a refutation of the existence of that imbalance.
This is an excellent point. But he seems to be impervious to any kind of critical self-examination that would allow him to think "am I wrong? can I look at this another way?" and possibly see any kind of light.

Either that, or he is intentionally trolling. I can't be sure.