Which Tier is your favorite to play?

[Endless Rain]

There's been a lot of discussion on the Tier system, but comparatively little on which Tier people prefer to play? As originally outlined by JaronK, each Tier has its own power level and playstyle, leading to campaigns with different tier parties playing significantly differently. I'm curious which Tiers people prefer in actual play. There's been little discussion on this topic, and a lot of people (including game designers) automatically assume that most people prefer Tier 3, something that might not be as popular as they think. Which Tier classes do you prefer to play (or DM for), and why?

I personally prefer Tier 2, since it allows PCs to be very powerful while still having relatively predictable powers and limitations. I'll allow players to play classes of lower Tiers, (I strongly recommend against Tier 5-6 classes, but I'll allow them if they insist) but I downgrade most Tier 1 classes to Tier 2 and ban the unsalvageable ones like the Erudite.

So, I was thinking about the whole "what is the best Tier" thing. And of course it varies by campaign, but I'll talk about it a bit.

Tier 1 is the best tier if you want the PCs to be super powered... similar to an Exalted campaign (the RPG, not BoED). I've heard of one great campaign where the DM made the only character creation rule be that your character had to be evil and be after immortality. They had a Wizard who turned into a Lich, a Druid who used Reincarnation cheese, and so on. When they hit level 20 after having totally thrashed the campaign world, the DM ended the campaign and started a new one. It was 1000 years in the future, and the evil characters were all epic now, and ruling the whole land. The players had to start over as first level good characters and try to defeat their old PCs. Neat. Also, Clerics and Druids can be very nice for newbies because any poor build choices they make early on really won't matter that much later... sure, Weapon Focus Scimitar on the Druid may have been dumb, but you can turn into a Dire Bear so who cares? And if you picked the wrong spells today, that's okay... pick better ones tomorow. That said, I only recommend this tier for veteran DMs who can keep the PCs in line in agreeable ways, as campaigns can be broken very quickly by the unpredictable and powerful tools available to the players.

Tier 2... I'm not sure how many people would specifically want this one because it's pretty small, but it does have the advantage of giving you big power spells while still being at least a bit more predictable with your tricks. Newbies who might be overwhelmed with the number of spells constantly available to Clerics and Druids and Wizards might be more comfortable if they don't have to repick every day, so it might be best for them.

Tier 3 is the best tier for me. Everyone in the party has great tricks and can still throw some big surprises at me when I'm DMing, but everyone else still needs a party to work with them, which makes it easier to make sure specific party members have chances to shine. I like the versitility of players at this level, and power wise they're still managable without flat out saying "no, you can't do that."

Tier 4 is best for a lot of people too. At this Tier you can start predicting what the players will do in a situation, so DMs can better gauge how encounters will go. That Barbarian is going to deal a lot of damage through charging... if you want a hard encounter, use difficult terrain or whatever, and if you want an easier encounter, make sure he's got a target he can charge. The more flexible Tier 4s will be less predictable but they won't blow you away with a sudden trick you didn't see coming... that Rogue may have awesome tricks with his UMD, but only with items that you give him. Plus, teamwork is definitely important at this level. That Barbarian may be awesome in combat, but when it's time for stealth, he's not going to shine, and someone else will.

Tier 5 is probably best for new DMs, especially when dealing with veteran players. PCs at this point are getting very predictable. That Fighter with Improved Trip and a Spiked Chain will trip enemies, the Healer will be a healbot, the Monk can run fast and make a lot of attacks, but generally speaking you know what's going to happen in advance, especially in combat. This predictability makes it easy for a DM to guide the plot where he wants without it looking like railroading, as the limitations of the classes provide the railroad tracks for you. If the PCs are supposed to kill a dragon by going in through his cave, that's what they'll do... they're not going to Love's Pain nuke said dragon from miles away and then float ethereally through his lair or something.

Tier 6 is best when what you want is a fun little low powered game. The PCs are very limited, so challenges should be primarily player-centric in nature, since the classes themselves won't create many good solutions to situations. Puzzles that the players must solve, fights that are more about organization than damage dealing, and so on. I don't recommend this Tier to anyone but veterans though, as it's very limited in a lot of ways. Really, if you want to play at this low power level, you may be more satisfied playing a game like A|State than D&D.

[Falontani]

I personally dm T1-3. If your not in the t3 category I try to help you catch up a bit. I put a ban on Illithid Savant, Beholder Mage, and Tainted Scholar, as well as Dragon magazine content that I haven't seen and approved. All the homebrew I do I try to aim towards t3, unless it's a mage class in which case it's usually T2 or T1. When I play then I try to stick to T4-T2 because when I optimize I generally play the character closer to t1 power (my T2 character is running planar binding...)

[noob]

Nothing forbids you from doing a wizard then always preparing the same spells each day so wizards does not force you to think and pick the right spells each day.
Then when you see you just are no longer participating efficiently at that moment you change your prepared spells.
While if you play a sorcerer basically any spell pick you will do as a beginner will probably doom you for one or two levels.
Basically spontaneous full casters are not easier than prepared full casters except for beguilers, dread necromancers and warmages.
Spontaneous cloistered clerics are rather forgiving provided you picked one good domains such as trickery or that you know you can spontaneously cast sanctified spells but very few players know the existence of spontaneous cloistered clerics especially since it is a variant rule.
Spontaneous druids were evaluated recently as being T1 like druids in the second evaluation of the tiers(I forgot the reason why)

[zlefin]

I don't think designers aim for tier 3 because of an assumptions that it's what people like. I think it's more that the years of system experience have shown that tier 3 classes work best within the overall framework of the game; able to be powerful and level appropriate but without breaking things horribly.

[razorback]

IRL, I like to play in a group where no one dominates everything. I like groups in the 3-4 range, where everyone can shine at least at one thing and everyone is needed to succeed. It's a reason to be social with friends and everyone including, maybe especially, the barbarian can shine at various points.
Here on the forums, I like to read through various build suggestions and such along with a list of builds that I would like to play someday, things like a Bloodstorm Blade or a Zatoichi-styled blind swordsman. But, with a couple of dozen possibilities for any given game, I can usually pick one that fits the power level and game requirements. But, to be honest, I still like the 3-4 range because, in the end, its a social game with a party and I don't look to overshadow people but play a character that needs to struggle to succeed. Its nice to steam roll things every once in a while but the drama of everyone scrapping by has its own rewards.

[RoboEmperor]

Depends. Literally all I do is
1. "Summon" a creature
2. Buff and heal it.

So all I do is literally physical damage. I cast buff spells to boost its damage and to make it immune to stun, SoDs, level drain, etc.

In this sense I am T3. You won't be seeing celerity time stop or anything like that from me.

But I play a Cleric so in that sense I am T1

[JMS]

Tier 3, with some 4 - I can do stuff, I'm versatile, and I don't fully break the game.

[Buufreak]

I play what I deem appropriate. Just like if the party needs a specific role filled I would fill it, if the party expects a certain level of play I will bring it. I don't see a point in making something that is going to steal the show all day, nor something that is going to fall off and never shine.

[Crake]

As a DM, I find my players hanging around the t3-5 area, seemingly intentionally. They just aren't interested in playing anything higher tier, too much effort.

As a player, though admittedly I don't get to play much, I hang around the t2-4 range, I've eeked into t1 a bit here and there, but had to pull back because the DMs didn't handle it very well. I'd LIKE to play t1 properly, but I just haven't been able to play it enough to say whether I'd enjoy it or not. I can't really say what's my favourite though, as I don't find tiers to necessarily be an indicator of what's fun or not. I've had more fun playing a t4 barbarian than I've had playing a t2-3 cleric, but I've also had more fun playing a t2 rogue/shadowdancer/incanter monstrosity than I've had playing a t3-4 investigator.

That said, anything below t4 seems to be almost cripplingly prohibitive in terms of tools available, so I guess my answer would be t4+

[Zaq]

As long as I feel like I'm doing something worthwhile in an interesting and at least moderately unique way ("unique" being used colloquially as a highly relative term), I can have fun. That isn't limited to any specific tier, but I do try to stay out of the sub-T4 range in general (give or take, you know, the whole truenamer thing, not that truenamers fit in the traditional tier rating in the first place). But I need to feel like I'm doing something clever instead of just pushing a win button, for what that's worth.

My experience with really high-powered casters was, to be blunt, stressful, so I guess I'm most comfortable in that T3-T4 range. It gets squishy, of course.

[ezekielraiden]

Generally, higher tier 3 or above. Balls-out tier 1 is perhaps a little much, but I've accepted 3e is a game you play, in part, to be crazy powerful. I give my inner filthy powergamer free rein. I don't much see the point of playing tier 4-5 except in an E6 kind of context, and that's not really my cup of tea.

[rel]

Tier 3 with a further agreement to not trivialize combat is my general play style for 3.5 and probably my favorite.
combat and other obstacles are challenging, builds are fun to play and play with and there is a wide breadth of options to build from and archetypes you can achieve.

Tier 1 is a close second although I play it much less often, again generally with a further agreement to not trivialize things by default.
I still enjoy myself, the challenge is less simply overcoming the obstacles (although knowing the right option from your laundry list of cosmic power is still a big part of the game) but rather overcoming with style, anticipating and mitigating consequences.
Less killing Smaug in a desperate fight and more killing Smaug such that lake town survives, the five armies are never sent out, we have a dragon hoard and an intact carcass to stuff and mount in our dining room.


I find Tier 4, 5 and 2 less fun in general especially in a long game.
It is hard to make a Tier 4 or 5 build that isn't boring to play minute to minute (although an all Tier 5 party is an interesting type of high challenge play).
I find Tier 2 feels limited; builds often end up feeling quite similar and characters are often limited to doing their one special gimmick if they want to be effective.

[BowStreetRunner]

I prefer to play low-level games in which the Tier system is really much less important. Most of my favorite classes are Tier 3-4 skillful types and far too many of their strengths become irrelevant in high-level play, particularly at epic levels. I much prefer when not only does a rogue have a decent chance to sneak attack a wizard, but the fighter guarding the wizard actually has a chance to detect even an optimized rogue if the dice are favorable.

[ngilop]

I want to be able to be excellent at my intended role/concept and be able to contribute, even minorly, outside of that.



So for me accordingly either 'tier' 4 or 'tier' 3.

[Quertus]

So, the "tier system" is utter garbage.

I play Wizards. I feel on love with the idea of the D&D Wizard - the sage who explorers the ruins of ancient civilizations for scraps Arcane knowledge, and whose entire source of power is whatever random scraps he's found.

That Wizard no longer exists as of 3e, but I play as close as I can get.

My Wizards range in power / effectiveness / "tier" from "solo gods" to "the Fighter and Monk ask 'why did we bring this dead weight?'".

[rel]

I much prefer when not only does a rogue have a decent chance to sneak attack a wizard, but the fighter guarding the wizard actually has a chance to detect even an optimized rogue if the dice are favorable.

I have to ask, Does a fighter *ever* have a chance to spot an optimised rogue?
Even the most basic level of optimisation will give the rogue +12 to hide from level 1. A few minutes refining your build will boost that. By level 2 or 3 you could be sitting at hide +20 without much effort.
what does the fighter bring to the party? 2 cross class skills in spot (bought with the many skill points fighters are known for)? A wisdom bonus of +1 (at best)? Maybe a masterwork tool of spot?
The wizard is probably better at spotting things than the fighter.

[BowStreetRunner]

I have to ask, Does a fighter *ever* have a chance to spot an optimised rogue?
Even the most basic level of optimisation will give the rogue +12 to hide from level 1. A few minutes refining your build will boost that. By level 2 or 3 you could be sitting at hide +20 without much effort.
what does the fighter bring to the party? 2 cross class skills in spot (bought with the many skill points fighters are known for)? A wisdom bonus of +1 (at best)? Maybe a masterwork tool of spot?
The wizard is probably better at spotting things than the fighter. Maybe. But I've played in plenty of games where the level optimization was a bit less 'extreme min-max' and a bit more 'efficient cost-benefit-ratio'. Games where sometimes if the rogue rolls terribly at the same time that the fighter rolls exceptionally well it's just enough, so it keeps people on the edge of their seat. Much more fun.

If you want every check to be a guaranteed outcome, just go play Amber dice-less. :smalltongue:

[rel]

The numbers I quoted aren't exactly "extreme". And the scenario specified a fighter stopping an optimised rogue from sneaking up on a wizard.

I can see the reverse happening (a wizard pointing out a sneaking rogue to the fighter) but the original scenario doesn't really mesh with my experience of 3.x even at very low levels.

[Troacctid]

I don't like classes based on their power level, I like them based on the gameplay experience they provide. While there's certainly some correlation, I think it would be highly inaccurate to suggest causation. For example, I enjoy playing warlocks, incarnates, bards, crusaders, warmages, and psychic rogues (all T3), but I really dislike shugenjas, wilders, psychic warriors, swordsages, and factotums (all T3 as well).

[Florian]

I don´t really care about tiers. What I care about is how a given class and build plays, the feeling and experience I get out of it. I'm equally happy playing a Fighter as playing an Occultist or Wizard, I wouldn't play an Anti-Paladin or Summoner.

[flappeercraft]

I like Tier 1 most because of the options but to me I generally just like to get Tier 1 to do whatever I want and focus on a couple of things, choose a concept and optimize it even if 3.5 doesn't have a way to make it work well normally, I just research enough and build enough to make it work the way I want it to. I don't like Tier 1 because of the power alone, but because it allows one if creative enough, and persistent enough to get stuff that is beyond the normal scope of the game with existing mechanics and no houseruling or homebrewing necessary. It allows you to be whatever you want to be and however you want it to be most of the time. It's just the level of complexity and uniqueness that is just not possible with a tier 3, 4 or 5, sometimes not even possible with tier 2.

However I also like other tiers and still quite enjoy them. I've played fighters, rogues, healbots, god wizards, blasters, uberchargers, warlocks, fiends of possession, psions, etc. You name it and chances are I have played it and I have enjoyed every single one of them.

I saw a quote on this forums sometime, I don't remember exactly who wrote it or how exactly it was but it went something along like this. "Playing exclusively Tier 1 is like only going to 5 star restaurants, it's nice but sometimes I just want a cheeseburger." Honestly that fits me perfectly, it is what I enjoy most but it's not something I would choose exclusively over the other tiers.

[16bearswutIdo]

Honestly, my party falls somewhere within tiers 3-5 90% of the time. Even when they play wizards and clerics, they do things like specialize in evocation and ban transmutation/abjuration. It also probably helps that we tend to play at levels <8. Highest level we got to was 10, and that was with a party of Barbarian, Wizard/Cleric/MT, bard/druid, and rogue.

It's an extremely comfy tier placement, I think.

[ericgrau]

Glancing at the 1d4chan list, which I know is different from the latest giantitp list I can't find. It might be the same as JaronK's list though. 1-2 or 4-5 have the classes I like to play the most. Especially 2 and 5. Because they're the most fun for me.


I don´t really care about tiers. What I care about is how a given class and build plays, the feeling and experience I get out of it. I'm equally happy playing a Fighter as playing an Occultist or Wizard, I wouldn't play an Anti-Paladin or Summoner.
Pretty much me too. Really they never made any sense. Even when you optimize well there are 1,000 exceptions, and they don't seem to ever hold at other levels of optimization either. Maybe they hold at a certain specific level of optimization except even then with a dozen mistakes. And for most casual games there's not a huge difference anyway, except for NPC classes (including adept) and hard to play classes (including bard, which used to be infamous for this) since casual players have trouble making them work.

[unseenmage]

T1 so that I can actually play with the game mechanics.

I play so rarely that nerfing my ability to access varied nuances rules elements by playing a class with less access to those elements (eg no spellcasting) just isnt worth my time.

Spells can do just about anything, without them how am I supposed to fully explore my latest flavor of the week rules element?

[rel]

Given some of the replies I feel like I should throw this out here.

The tier system is a measure of a characters ability to affect the game world. A class has a tier only in terms of its theoretical potential. A characters tier is dependent on its build and to a lesser extent how it is played.

A wizard with 8 int is a tier 5 character (maybe tier 4)
A sorcerer or psion with poor spell selections can be anything from tier 3 to tier 5 depending on how bad the choices are.
a barbarian or rogue with poor stat, feat, skill selections can easily be tier 5 or 6.


If you build characters that can trivialise almost any challenge. Those are Tier 1 characters.

If you build characters that have a limited number of extremely powerful tricks that can trivialise any challenge that doesn't specifically bypass said tricks you build tier 2 characters.

If you build a character that is competent in a specific way or a generalist who can struggle through most things that is a tier 3 character.

and so on.



The components (class, race, etc) you use to build your character doesn't determine the tier of your build. The tier of your build is determined by how much the final assembly can affect the game world.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I bounce around a bit but I can't deny a certain affinity for some of the T6 classes. Turning them into something cool and powerful (for a warrior) has a certain appeal as an optimization challenge.



Depends. Literally all I do is
1. "Summon" a creature
2. Buff and heal it.

So all I do is literally physical damage. I cast buff spells to boost its damage and to make it immune to stun, SoDs, level drain, etc.

In this sense I am T3. You won't be seeing celerity time stop or anything like that from me.

But I play a Cleric so in that sense I am T1

Why not play a warrior class with a cleric cohort if that's your style?


I have to ask, Does a fighter *ever* have a chance to spot an optimised rogue?
Even the most basic level of optimisation will give the rogue +12 to hide from level 1. A few minutes refining your build will boost that. By level 2 or 3 you could be sitting at hide +20 without much effort.
what does the fighter bring to the party? 2 cross class skills in spot (bought with the many skill points fighters are known for)? A wisdom bonus of +1 (at best)? Maybe a masterwork tool of spot?
The wizard is probably better at spotting things than the fighter.

Unless you stay right next to a source of concealment, the rogue has to eat that -5 per 5ft of open ground to get to the fighter or his wizard buddy (who is likely no better than the fighter at spotting) plus the further -5 if they're more than ~10-15ft away, else eat the -20 for an attempted sniping. You probably get that one surprise attack and that -may- be enough to kill the wizard but then you're found. Make sure your fighter is situated between the wizard and the most likely point of ingress, making him the more accessible target, or that you're at least 35ft from any nearby sources of concealment and the rogue is SoL.

[skunk3]

I try not to even think of 'tiers' when it comes to putting together a new character. I come up with what seems like a fun idea and figure out a cool and flavorful way to put it together and just run with it. If the rest of the party is fairly balanced and if the DM is a quality one, I can play basically any build and have fun, and if I die, I die. That said, I usually end up playing a lot of characters in the 3 range. Competent, useful, but not game-breaking or hogging the spotlight. I like weird prestige classes like Master Thrower, Avenging Executioner, etc.

[Florian]

Depends. Literally all I do is
1. "Summon" a creature
2. Buff and heal it.

So all I do is literally physical damage. I cast buff spells to boost its damage and to make it immune to stun, SoDs, level drain, etc.

In this sense I am T3. You won't be seeing celerity time stop or anything like that from me.

But I play a Cleric so in that sense I am T1

You know, the sad thing is that PF has three dedicated "pet classes", the Hunter, Summoner and the Spiritualist.
You know why it is sad? Because it is explicitly understood that these classes, despite being casters, will replace one of the martial classes, not one of the caster classes, their spells being there to keep their pets on the front line. But they do it in a way and on a power level that they are expressively designed to, not by using a T1 class and bending some of the most broken rules in the game to their end (and ultimately souring the game for the mundanes, but also depriving the party of a functioning cleric).

[RoboEmperor]

Why not play a warrior class with a cleric cohort if that's your style?

You don't understand. I want to create a monster and have it go crazy. I'd go construct master artificer if the game didn't fight that playstyle in every way possible. Creating the monster is half the joy and watching it tear stuff up is the other half of my joy. Playing a non-expendable warrior is not the same. If creating a monster is not viable because of wealth, downtime, etc. I resort to summoning or calling.

I tried really, really, really hard to do shadowcraft mage because they create their monsters out of shadow instead of calling/summoning. But shadowcraft mages have no long duration summon, and it's impossible to persist summon spells so...

Same with Psion and Astral Construct. The way to make AC permanent is only super high levels and because of terrible RAW way too expensive.

Secondly, check this picture out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ad/f5/52/adf552148066339dcc2e6f72e108caa6.jpg
A cloaked figure with that guy standing behind me is inconceivably more cool than a warrior with a cleric cohort standing behind him.


You know, the sad thing is that PF has three dedicated "pet classes", the Hunter, Summoner and the Spiritualist.
You know why it is sad? Because it is explicitly understood that these classes, despite being casters, will replace one of the martial classes, not one of the caster classes, their spells being there to keep their pets on the front line. But they do it in a way and on a power level that they are expressively designed to, not by using a T1 class and bending some of the most broken rules in the game to their end (and ultimately souring the game for the mundanes, but also depriving the party of a functioning cleric).

I don't play pathfinder. And contrary to your claim, I had to honor of playing with a fighter who knew what he was doing. This fighter outperformed any creature I raised, summoned, or bound. It wasn't until level 11 where I could stand on equal footing as him and even then our party members viewed him as superior to me because he was medium sized, the magic items he had made him have more utility than me, and he could overcome DR while I couldn't. And at level 15 i switched to blasting so no overlap.

And how is me playing a summoner instead of a cleric not depriving the party with a functioning cleric? In any case I play a healbot with my cleric via extended lesser vigors, or persistent positive energy aura so other party members benefit from what I do as well.

[jdizzlean]

As long as I feel like I'm doing something worthwhile in an interesting and at least moderately unique way ("unique" being used colloquially as a highly relative term), I can have fun. That isn't limited to any specific tier, but I do try to stay out of the sub-T4 range in general (give or take, you know, the whole truenamer thing, not that truenamers fit in the traditional tier rating in the first place). But I need to feel like I'm doing something clever instead of just pushing a win button, for what that's worth.

My experience with really high-powered casters was, to be blunt, stressful, so I guess I'm most comfortable in that T3-T4 range. It gets squishy, of course.

pretty much this. in my groups, combat is certainly important, but we spend and equal if not greater amount of time on the roleplay as well. if my character can't do both at least to some extent, then there's no point in playing it.


I don't like classes based on their power level, I like them based on the gameplay experience they provide. While there's certainly some correlation, I think it would be highly inaccurate to suggest causation. For example, I enjoy playing warlocks, incarnates, bards, crusaders, warmages, and psychic rogues (all T3), but I really dislike shugenjas, wilders, psychic warriors, swordsages, and factotums (all T3 as well).

fixed that for you :p
now i can say i wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm currently playing a druid, and in the entirety of this campaign we're in, i feel like i've only been relevant to 1 game session, and the rest of it is simply just being so/so along w/ everyone else. I've used wild shape exactly twice, and both times were for flight forms, otherwise i just summon things and throw a lightning bolt here and there.

It's been swell, but we're almost to that level 10 range, and i'm considering killing him off and playing something like a soulbow, because i think that'd be more fun...

[rel]

Unless you stay right next to a source of concealment, the rogue has to eat that -5 per 5ft of open ground to get to the fighter or his wizard buddy (who is likely no better than the fighter at spotting) plus the further -5 if they're more than ~10-15ft away, else eat the -20 for an attempted sniping. You probably get that one surprise attack and that -may- be enough to kill the wizard but then you're found. Make sure your fighter is situated between the wizard and the most likely point of ingress, making him the more accessible target, or that you're at least 35ft from any nearby sources of concealment and the rogue is SoL.

Okay, that makes sense. I forget how much effort goes into making stealth and sneak attacks functional.


depriving the party of a functioning cleric).

A cleric that can effectively overcome obstacles is functioning pretty well. A cleric that expends spell slots on healing is not functioning at all.

[Malphegor]

I started playing in 2018, and I think I'm addicted to T1 classes.

See, I always wanted to play back in the 90s, but never found a group. I have now. And now all my decades of planning of how to wizard should I get the chance are coming to fruition...

But after playing a one-shot where I forced myself to build a Rogue who is basically a very specialised fear-inducing wizard in rogue pants, I think I also enjoy martial classes if I give them feats to be ridiculous.

But that's like adding sugar to corn flakes. You can, but is it really the corn flakes you're enjoying?

I dunno. There's something about being intrinsically special, about the superiority complex over ordinary common folk, that magic gives me a lot of joy. I kinda want to try playing a monk to see how I can break it to be fun, but I imagine it'd be a lot more effort than 'play a wizard, do magic, keep away from the heavy hitters'

[Quertus]

The tier system is a measure of a characters ability to affect the game world.

The tier of your build is determined by how much the final assembly can affect the game world.

From that description, I want to play exclusively "rel tier 1". I want to build kingdoms, slay gods, restructure the world / universe.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You don't understand. I want to create a monster and have it go crazy. I'd go construct master artificer if the game didn't fight that playstyle in every way possible. Creating the monster is half the joy and watching it tear stuff up is the other half of my joy. Playing a non-expendable warrior is not the same. If creating a monster is not viable because of wealth, downtime, etc. I resort to summoning or calling.

I tried really, really, really hard to do shadowcraft mage because they create their monsters out of shadow instead of calling/summoning. But shadowcraft mages have no long duration summon, and it's impossible to persist summon spells so...

Same with Psion and Astral Construct. The way to make AC permanent is only super high levels and because of terrible RAW way too expensive.

Secondly, check this picture out. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ad/f5/52/adf552148066339dcc2e6f72e108caa6.jpg
A cloaked figure with that guy standing behind me is inconceivably more cool than a warrior with a cleric cohort standing behind him.

Fair enough, I suppose.


I had to honor of playing with a fighter who knew what he was doing. This fighter outperformed any creature I raised, summoned, or bound. It wasn't until level 11 where I could stand on equal footing as him and even then our party members viewed him as superior to me because he was medium sized, the magic items he had made him have more utility than me, and he could overcome DR while I couldn't. And at level 15 i switched to blasting so no overlap.

Now hold on just a cotton-pickin' minute. We've gone back and forth on two other threads where you were claiming this was nigh-impossible when you've experienced it first hand? The hell, dude?

[RoboEmperor]

Now hold on just a cotton-pickin' minute. We've gone back and forth on two other threads where you were claiming this was nigh-impossible when you've experienced it first hand? The hell, dude?

I think there was a miscommunication. You were trashing on PB creatures and called them trash compared to mundanes (not your exact words) and therefore unworthy of buffs, in addition to having a hefty, hefty RP cost. I came to the defense of PB creatures to show that they can and do more damage than mundanes against creatures without DR especially thanks to Girallon's Blessing. In the end I admitted that a properly built and equipped mundane was better than a PB creature.

[noob]

pretty much this. in my groups, combat is certainly important, but we spend and equal if not greater amount of time on the roleplay as well. if my character can't do both at least to some extent, then there's no point in playing it.



fixed that for you :p
now i can say i wholeheartedly agree with you. I'm currently playing a druid, and in the entirety of this campaign we're in, i feel like i've only been relevant to 1 game session, and the rest of it is simply just being so/so along w/ everyone else. I've used wild shape exactly twice, and both times were for flight forms, otherwise i just summon things and throw a lightning bolt here and there.

It's been swell, but we're almost to that level 10 range, and i'm considering killing him off and playing something like a soulbow, because i think that'd be more fun...

So you mean bards are tier 2?
I know bards are awesome but I did not knew they were tier 2 unless taking sublime chord(in which case it is surely tier 2).

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think there was a miscommunication. You were trashing on PB creatures and called them trash compared to mundanes (not your exact words) and therefore unworthy of buffs, in addition to having a hefty, hefty RP cost. I came to the defense of PB creatures to show that they can and do more damage than mundanes against creatures without DR especially thanks to Girallon's Blessing. In the end I admitted that a properly built and equipped mundane was better than a PB creature.

Seems we were both making some presumptions about the other's position. I said in that thread that conjured minions could be adequate but not as good as a dedicated PC in the beat-stick department. I still maintain that if there's a fighter in the party and you're tossing out buffs anyway, he's a better target than minions most of the time.

But let's not derail this thread.

[thompur]

In the 4+ decades I've been playing, I've had the most fun with Rogues, Warlocks, Binders, Witches, Warblades, Bards, Investigators, and most recently, Kineticists. So mostly 3-4.

[King of Nowhere]

I prefer the lower tiers.

there's nothing heroic in doing greatstuff when you have exceptional powers. Everyone could do the same, given the same powers.
that regular guy who hangs around the superpowered people and find ways to be useful regardless of power imbalance? that's the real hero.

Plus, fun is struggling to overcome a challenge, and it's not fun if you can trivialize it regularly.

[maruahm]

I used to find Tier 3 and Tier 4 the funnest to hang around, until I played Rappan Athuk, a. k. a. How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Tier 1s.

[jdizzlean]

So you mean bards are tier 2?
I know bards are awesome but I did not knew they were tier 2 unless taking sublime chord(in which case it is surely tier 2).


haha, no, even if bards were a mythical Tier 0, i would never play one, because bards are the suck.

[SLOTHRPG95]

haha, no, even if bards were a mythical Tier 0, i would never play one, because bards are the suck.

Aww, poor bards. What did they ever do to you? :smallfrown:

I usually play around T3-4, although I end up as some sort of wizard around one time out of three. Now, most of the tables I have played at or am playing at are somewhere between no-op and mid-op, and my real concern is just about table balance. Often in the past I've played purposefully gimped wizard to provide support without overshadowing anyone, but more recently I've decided that just spelling that B-A-R-D is less complicated. Plus, I like my skill points. I could be getting ten per level with no group pressure to be a skill monkey, and I'll still end up feeling like I don't have enough. This is also why I like rogues and scouts, except that I also want some easy, in-house magic.

[noob]

Also bards are great in that they allow you if you discover you like one play-style more than the others to specialize into it after the first few levels(for example if you like casting then you can become a sublime chord and if you like bardic music there is awesome feats for supporting bardic music and if you like to slice people into parts your bardic music will make you appropriate at that)
And even if you decide to stay an all around bard you will be awesome(even more true in 5e).
The only problem is the need to spend actions to drop immunity to bardic music when you have mind blank and other buffs like that.

[nighteyes95]

I generally fill party composition and I try to make any class i play T1 but then play down to the tables optimization because I enjoy playing support

[Luccan]

I like Tier 3 conceptually. Everyone is supposed to be flexible enough, but not so powerful they don't need help. However, I really want to DM a T4 game, I think the limitations are interesting and I like that the heroes will always need to rely on their allies against appropriate threats.

[Psyren]

I've enjoyed classes from every rung above 5.

T5s I generally need some kind of archetype or other buff to make them worth playing. Like I'll never just play a base Fighter, I need Advanced Weapon Training or Combat Stamina or Lore Warden or Martial Master etc. Similarly, I won't just play a base monk, it has to be Qinggong or Unchained or MoMS etc.

[Cosi]

Defining these things in terms of tiers is useless. The tiers are designed to do a very specific thing which they do in a vaguely passable if you squint way. But they do that by smuggling in a bunch of assumptions that are not fundamental to the classes they describe, and by adding a bunch of implications that don't follow at all.

I like to play Wizards. The nominal description of Tier One has almost no relation to what I like about them, or why I think they are good. The good things about Wizards have essentially nothing to do with "breaking the game" or "trivializing encounters" and the only reason the tiers emphasize those things is because they are supposed to provide an assessment in a context where you are potentially evaluating all classes. If you assume that a game where you are playing reasonably optimized Wizards doesn't include Fighters -- because obviously it shouldn't -- it is no longer true that having the power of a Wizard breaks the game. The Tiers would have you believe that "wanting to cast teleport" necessarily implies "wanting to break the game", which is simply absurd.

I mean, look a the definition of Tier Three. It's not in any way specific to features Tier Three classes have that other classes lack, it's just a description of how the game works when you play characters who are relatively balanced and face challenges that are scaled to those characters. Saying "I like Tier Three" is just saying "I expect that the characters in a party will be basically playing the same game and will not be confronted with challenges radically above or below their power level". That's almost certainly something you want, but it doesn't have anything to do with the party tank being a Crusader instead of a Druid or a Knight.

[rel]

Defining these things in terms of tiers is useless. The tiers are designed to do a very specific thing which they do in a vaguely passable if you squint way. But they do that by smuggling in a bunch of assumptions that are not fundamental to the classes they describe, and by adding a bunch of implications that don't follow at all.

I like to play Wizards. The nominal description of Tier One has almost no relation to what I like about them, or why I think they are good. The good things about Wizards have essentially nothing to do with "breaking the game" or "trivializing encounters" and the only reason the tiers emphasize those things is because they are supposed to provide an assessment in a context where you are potentially evaluating all classes. If you assume that a game where you are playing reasonably optimized Wizards doesn't include Fighters -- because obviously it shouldn't -- it is no longer true that having the power of a Wizard breaks the game. The Tiers would have you believe that "wanting to cast teleport" necessarily implies "wanting to break the game", which is simply absurd.

I mean, look a the definition of Tier Three. It's not in any way specific to features Tier Three classes have that other classes lack, it's just a description of how the game works when you play characters who are relatively balanced and face challenges that are scaled to those characters. Saying "I like Tier Three" is just saying "I expect that the characters in a party will be basically playing the same game and will not be confronted with challenges radically above or below their power level". That's almost certainly something you want, but it doesn't have anything to do with the party tank being a Crusader instead of a Druid or a Knight.

But parties built to different power tiers do play differently:

A tier 5 party will really struggle solving a lot of the typical problems adventurers are expected to face.
They will have trouble completing published adventures.
A GM will have to put in a lot of extra effort or adjust the opposition on the fly to prevent defeat; simply picking a random monster of appropriate CR will not end well.
The characters are cripplingly dependent on magical gear to shore up their deficiencies.
The game is a LOT more swingy, a few bad rolls can hurt the party and when things go bad they have little to fall back on.

A tier 3 party will find a typical game challenging but surmountable.
They might struggle on occasion but they will get through a published adventure.
The GM can place opposition without too much concern; picking random monsters will usually work out pretty well. They usually have some way of defeating a typical non-combat challenge.
If the party is behind on gear for a level or two they can probably still hold their own with careful play. The GM needs to watch the loot level but not that closely.
If the party get into trouble they probably have a few tricks to escape with.

A tier 1 party will trivalise normal play.
A published adventure will at best be a walk in the park and at worst break entirely in short order.
The GM has to work hard to challenge the players. striking a balance where a challenge is legitimate but not overwhelming requires a good knowledge of the rules and the players builds or a lot of fudging to keep things running.
The party is much more able to handle a lack of gear and usually have ways to sort out their own equipment. The GM need not be cautious about what loot to drop where trusting the players to sort it out.
If things go badly for the party they can often recover or at least escape, legitimately pressuring the party is tricky.


Now, nothing is inherently wrong with any of this. At the end of the day you can have fun with any type of game with a party at any tier.
But the tier of the party undeniably changes the dynamic of a game and knowing the particulars of play at a particular tier is helpful when designing a campaign, adjusting one during play, building a character to fit a group, etc.
And using Tiers in conversation is a quick way to put people familiar with the system in general on the same page.

[Luccan]

But parties built to different power tiers do play differently:

A tier 5 party will really struggle solving a lot of the typical problems adventurers are expected to face.
They will have trouble completing published adventures.
A GM will have to put in a lot of extra effort or adjust the opposition on the fly to prevent defeat; simply picking a random monster of appropriate CR will not end well.
The characters are cripplingly dependent on magical gear to shore up their deficiencies.
The game is a LOT more swingy, a few bad rolls can hurt the party and when things go bad they have little to fall back on.

A tier 3 party will find a typical game challenging but surmountable.
They might struggle on occasion but they will get through a published adventure.
The GM can place opposition without too much concern; picking random monsters will usually work out pretty well. They usually have some way of defeating a typical non-combat challenge.
If the party is behind on gear for a level or two they can probably still hold their own with careful play. The GM needs to watch the loot level but not that closely.
If the party get into trouble they probably have a few tricks to escape with.

A tier 1 party will trivalise normal play.
A published adventure will at best be a walk in the park and at worst break entirely in short order.
The GM has to work hard to challenge the players. striking a balance where a challenge is legitimate but not overwhelming requires a good knowledge of the rules and the players builds or a lot of fudging to keep things running.
The party is much more able to handle a lack of gear and usually have ways to sort out their own equipment. The GM need not be cautious about what loot to drop where trusting the players to sort it out.
If things go badly for the party they can often recover or at least escape, legitimately pressuring the party is tricky.


Now, nothing is inherently wrong with any of this. At the end of the day you can have fun with any type of game with a party at any tier.
But the tier of the party undeniably changes the dynamic of a game and knowing the particulars of play at a particular tier is helpful when designing a campaign, adjusting one during play, building a character to fit a group, etc.
And using Tiers in conversation is a quick way to put people familiar with the system in general on the same page.

I'm not sure there's much point in trying to convince Cosi that the tiers, as commonly understood, are useful. They've made their opinion on the matter quite clear and page upon page of tier related threads have been devoted to debates trying to change their mind.

[maruahm]

I'm not sure there's much point in trying to convince Cosi that the tiers, as commonly understood, are useful. They've made their opinion on the matter quite clear and page upon page of tier related threads have been devoted to debates trying to change their mind.

I don't expect most debates to change anyone's minds. The points are made for the benefit of the observers, and I thought rel's post was great in that respect.

[Luccan]

I don't expect most debates to change anyone's minds. The points are made for the benefit of the observers, and I thought rel's post was great in that respect.

Oh, absolutely agree that rel's response was good. It's just that this thread is only on the second page and these things tend to sidetrack threads. I'd be interested in seeing more feedback about the initial topic before that (admittedly, inevitably) happens. But it was just a bit of advice on my part, people are free to engage as they'd like.

[Malroth]

Low 2 High 3 is my prefrence, you get to do some of the cool stuff but it's fairly telegraphed and gives the DM time to prepare.

[Lans]

The way I feel about a tier 5 melee character is that it's chance to defeat a bruiser monster that has the same or higher CR than its ECL with out help or assistance, will be on the low side, but should be able to do it easily with a bit of assisstance. Maybe another character throws a net and then flanks, or a caster casts bulls strength and a CMW.

A tier 4 melee character will do the same task pretty regularly with out assistance, but will not have much to do outside that role.

A tier 3 will do the above, but have more flexibility in non melee combat

T6 will need significant assistance.

[Afgncaap5]

Aw, geeze, I dunno. I like tier 1-5 classes playing at the tier 2-4 mindset, and I break rules so that characters can do things that aren't allowed in a typical game of any tier because I find the ruleset limiting for what I actually want sometimes and perfectly fine other times.

Is there a tier for constantly playing with (what for a lack of a better term I'll call) artifacts that bring unique rules into play? Like, one of my setting villains was a clockmaker who developed timepieces that prevented his adversaries from doing anything to oppose him if it took longer than three seconds (standard actions being temporarily defined as four seconds for the purpose of that story.) I wanna say it was a tier 3 or 4 or 2 game, but it was kind of all over the map. I guess tier 3?

[Ignimortis]

T3 all the way, with some T4 and T2 outliers, which are still more or less powerful than most of their tiermates.

By using T3 classes you don't have to actively cripple yourself to NOT break the game, and you're still very, exceedingly competent at the thing you want to do, while having weaknesses that justify having other people around to cover those. So the game doesn't turn into 4D chess with the DM, and nobody has to actively support a weak link all the time.

[OgresAreCute]

Well, I'm not very keen on spellcasting so tier 1 and 2 are kinda right out. Then one time I played a Stone Giant using the progression in Savage Species and really lamented the fact that you can't do anything other than power attack mooks, so tier 5 and below aren't fulfilling me. So that leaves tier 3 and 4, which I think are both fine. Exception is if psionics is involved, then I'll play that in tier 1 or 2 instead.

[noob]

Aw, geeze, I dunno. I like tier 1-5 classes playing at the tier 2-4 mindset, and I break rules so that characters can do things that aren't allowed in a typical game of any tier because I find the ruleset limiting for what I actually want sometimes and perfectly fine other times.

Is there a tier for constantly playing with (what for a lack of a better term I'll call) artifacts that bring unique rules into play? Like, one of my setting villains was a clockmaker who developed timepieces that prevented his adversaries from doing anything to oppose him if it took longer than three seconds (standard actions being temporarily defined as four seconds for the purpose of that story.) I wanna say it was a tier 3 or 4 or 2 game, but it was kind of all over the map. I guess tier 3?

so someone with two standard actions per turn takes 8 seconds to do a 6 seconds turn?

[Cosi]

But parties built to different power tiers do play differently:

Well, yes, you'll note that I totally acknowledged that you do need to scale challenges to different characters. But that's not "Wizards are inherently broken". And, frankly, Wizards don't really trivialize normal play outside of a very small number of broken spells. Different characters have different power levels, but the specific way the Tiers describe those power levels is stupid. Yes, Wizards behave differently from Fighters. But using the Tiers to describe that difference is just a way to avoid having a serious conversation about the advantages of Wizards by preemptively declaring them "broken".


I'm not sure there's much point in trying to convince Cosi that the tiers, as commonly understood, are useful. They've made their opinion on the matter quite clear and page upon page of tier related threads have been devoted to debates trying to change their mind.

And, of course, there's a great deal of point in trying to convince you they aren't. The Tiers are, factually, bad. The thing they measure isn't useful, they don't accurately measure it by their own standards, they're not consistent with the term "Tier" as it is used in almost any other context, and they're not testable or falsifiable. People on this forum like them because they endorse the forum groupthink that Wizards are inherently broken and people who like Wizards are powergamers.

[Luccan]

And, of course, there's a great deal of point in trying to convince you they aren't. The Tiers are, factually, bad. The thing they measure isn't useful, they don't accurately measure it by their own standards, they're not consistent with the term "Tier" as it is used in almost any other context, and they're not testable or falsifiable. People on this forum like them because they endorse the forum groupthink that Wizards are inherently broken and people who like Wizards are powergamers.

That you completely and willfully mischaracterise everyone who disagrees with you is just part of the problem with trying to debate you on this subject, as you have just perfectly demonstrated. I've seen you argue against many people on these forums about the Tier system. None of them have ever
claimed, by my memory, that people who like wizards are power gamers. I like wizards (and especially druids) and I also find the tier system useful. I wouldn't consider myself much of a powergamer.

Regardless, now I'm ignoring my own advice. I don't want to be involved in derailing this thread. I've said my piece on the matter, everyone else is free to do as they wish

[noob]

And, of course, there's a great deal of point in trying to convince you they aren't. The Tiers are, factually, bad. The thing they measure isn't useful, they don't accurately measure it by their own standards, they're not consistent with the term "Tier" as it is used in almost any other context, and they're not testable or falsifiable. People on this forum like them because they endorse the forum groupthink that Wizards are inherently broken and people who like Wizards are powergamers.

I believe jaronk tier 1 and 2 were defined by the ability to break the game(in all the ways for tier 1 and in some ways for tier 2).
Ability is not obligation.

[Alabenson]

Personally, I tend to prefer to play T1-T3 classes built at a T3 level. What I find nice about the higher tier classes is that they give you more room to mess around with your actual build without crippling your effectiveness, whereas with the lower tiers there can be more of a pressing need to optimize in order to keep up.