PDA

View Full Version : Class "Tiers"



paladinn
2022-02-21, 05:51 PM
I frequently see classes, levels and abilities referred to by "tier." I know level "tiers" were very much a thing RAW in 4e. But I've seen 3x and 5e classes and abilities referred to as "tier x." Who came up with these rankings? What is the basis of them, besides someone's opinion?

I often see "plain" fighters/ "champions" as like tier 12 (or bottom of the barrel). There are some people who actually like playing simpler characters. I do think they could have done a better job with a "basic" fighter than what we have with the champion, but some people must like it. I just wonder whose opinion qualifies them to come up with these "rankings".

OldTrees1
2022-02-21, 07:57 PM
1) Okay quick summary: 3E and 5E are talking about different things.

1A) In 5E the levels are split into ranges. 1-4th level, 5th-10th level, 11th-16th level, and 17th-20th level. Those level ranges are called Tier 1, 2, 3, & 4 respectively. If you see someone in 5E talking about tiers, they just mean various level ranges.


1B) In 3E the power imbalance between different classes was so large that it was useful to talk about the vertical and horitzontal power of each character to avoid the imbalance growing so large that it affected play. Go watch Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFuMpYTyRjw) for a quick parody. Eventually someone in the fandom made a tier list (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=658.0) of the main base classes based on their vertical and horizontal ability to overcome encounters. Yes, it is all opinion based analysis but the framework had enough merit that the fandom discussed and analyzed the topic to death.

Important notes about the 3E usage:
1B1) Low / High Tier is not a value judgement. It is a capability estimate. In an RPG it is possible for a character to be too capable. It is also possible to enjoy a party of commoners. Groups could use the terminology to help communicate what game they wanted to play. (For example I generally like characters that are Tier 3-4, and don't want to deal with Tier 1-2)

1B2) It is not about simplicity vs complexity. WotC just has an easier time making complex & overpowered or simple & underpowered. There is plenty of homebrew that shows simplicity is orthogonal to capability.

1B3) While the 3E Tiers talk about classes, that is more out of necessity rather than a focus. Realistically you would be comparing the definition of each tier against the characters in the party. Between feats, items, racial features, multiclassing, character flaws, etc, the character might behave as a different tier than their classes.

1B4) Depending on the campaign, DMing style, group dynamic, etc, a group can handle a wider or narrower range of tiers. I am sure there are campaigns where someone played a literal potted plant in the same party as powerful wizard.

Scots Dragon
2022-02-21, 10:17 PM
1B4) Depending on the campaign, DMing style, group dynamic, etc, a group can handle a wider or narrower range of tiers. I am sure there are campaigns where someone played a literal potted plant in the same party as powerful wizard.

Consider; the potted plant is a variant vegepygmy druid.

Stonehead
2022-02-21, 11:40 PM
"Class Tier lists" are just like character tier lists for any video game. Perfect balance is impossible, so players try to group up all of the available options by power-level. It's also a very old argument, so it's almost like a touchy subject. People are very entrenched and passionate about their opinions. Especially when it comes to martials vs casters.

Now, it kind of sounds to me that you saw a class you liked was ranked "low tier" by someone, and that ranking doesn't match your personal experience. I do think there can be value in ranking, or at the very least recognizing the difference in effectiveness of different classes, but I don't think it works super cleanly in rpgs. I think the biggest reason is that everyone's playing a different game. In video games, there's a set list of options, and the different elements of the game are always the same (or in some games, always randomly generated using the same probabilities). In tabletop rpgs however, every table has different goals, different sets of enemies, and different types of obstacles. The least contentious example I can think of is the different types of damage. In general, 1d6 sonic damage is stronger than 1d6 acid damage, which is stronger than 1d6 fire damage. They all deal the same damage of course, but in the bestiary, there are a lot of monsters with fire resistance, and almost none with sonic resistance. BUT, in one given campaign, it's possible that the DM put a lot of bards (who, at least in P1e have bonuses against sonic damage) as the villains making sonic the weakest, or that the enemies are all humans making them all the same.

The other problem you run into with class tier lists is that the classes all (at least, in theory) fill different roles that are hard to compare. The wizard can cast a bunch of spells, but is frail and goes down easily. The fighter can survive much longer, but is limited to relatively mundane feats. The rogue can master skills, but is weaker in a fight. It's easy to say that the ninja is a better version of the rogue, but it's harder to say that the barbarian is a better version of the rogue. Now, in reality, sometimes the differences can be so overwhelming that they bypass this, but it's still worth mentioning.

TLDR: Tiers are a rough grouping of classes based on power-level. But, the rankings are imperfect, and are not consistent across different tables. Play whatever you enjoy, the tiers are largely fueled by people complaining about their own character, not of the other party members.

Kurald Galain
2022-02-22, 03:25 AM
Who came up with these rankings?
Various forums, over literally years of discussion.


What is the basis of them, besides someone's opinion?
Lots of math and analysis. It's not a matter of opinion that a str-based fighter that cannot fly has trouble engaging an enemy that does fly, or that flying monsters are more common at higher levels. It's not a matter of opinion that a paladin has better saves than a rogue, or that a barbarian deals more average damage than a monk.

Eldan
2022-02-22, 05:13 AM
TLDR: Tiers are a rough grouping of classes based on power-level. But, the rankings are imperfect, and are not consistent across different tables. Play whatever you enjoy, the tiers are largely fueled by people complaining about their own character, not of the other party members.

I think it's better to think of them as "potential power level". The most powerful wizard is just much better than the most powerful monk.

It's also not mainly about complaining, I think. I find them a very valuable tool for DMs. If three of my players want to play a rogue, a monk and a samurai, and the fourth player is playing a druid, I know that I will have to take care. Because there's three fighters in the group and the druid's pet is potentially stronger than all of them at low level. Also, there's 5000 problems in the game that need a caster to solve, but very few problems that only a sword and board fighter can solve. IT's a thing to keep in mind when designing encounters so that all party members feel valuable. Look at my hypothetical party above. If I design an adventure that features, in order, flying monsters, ghosts, a magically cursed room and an extremely powerful spellcaster boss, the three low-tier party members will have a much tougher time contributing to the fight than the druid would. Even if the druid isn't minmaxing. If there's a wide tier-disparity in your party, you have to take care to design encounters that
a) aren't trivialized by the potentially strongest character (Your wizard loves casting Hold Monster? Don't send a single giant with a +4 will save against hte party)
b) aren't overwhelming against everyone else (Unless they have tons of magic items, fighting demons or angels that casually sling powerful spells around has a chance to be very quickly lethal to non-casters).

The saddest thing in a campaign, and a thing I've seen happen, is when you reach the middle levels (around level 10) and every time you encounter an obstacle in your way, three of the party members just turn their heads over to the caster, because they have all the utility.

MeimuHakurei
2022-02-22, 05:19 AM
Class Tiers in 3.5 existed not because it's more imbalanced than 5e but because people are more willing to admit that their pet game has flaws and imbalances so that the players have a better guidance for what is how strong. I can still fit 5e's classes into the given tiers, but for overall play and build performance, I find the three levels of optimization to be a better guideline of how strong a party is:

Low-op: The most casual and basic form of D&D. The core four classes are a likely party. Wizards want to deal damage with their spells, Clerics use them for healing. Fighters can stand in front and be all that's needed to shield the backline. Most enemies are just straightforward attackers and occasionally there's some debuffs thrown around, but generally no forms of incapacitation. People may take a feat for roleplay purposes or a novel gameplay boost, like Actor or Skilled.

Mid-op: What most forums consider optimized. Barbarians adding Great Weapon Master for heavier hits while offsetting the accuracy loss with Reckless Attack. Paladins taking a level in Hexblade to make melee attacks with Charisma. Wizards are more inclined to use spells that debilitate enemies over throwing damage spells all over. Multiclasses consider important break points like ASIs or Extra Attack. Feats will generally upgrade the characters over just straight stat boosts. Enemies will optimize their positions and pick fights in favourable terrain, forcing martials to hold chokepoints or use special features to protect their party. Spellcasting enemies become more frequent and occasionally pack Counterspell.

High-op: The transitional point is when the party no longer resembles any standard D&D tropes. Nobody picks up melee weapons. Crossbow Expert and Sharpshooter Hand Crossbows are the only weapon worth using. Wizards and Sorcerers dip other classes for armor proficiencies, adding their defensive reactions to be immensely durable. Paladins are only used for their 6th level Aura (maybe 7th). ASI investment and class progression is meticulously planned for efficacy. If there's any martials left, they'll be the focus target once more as they're far more vulnerable than the armored casters, while often also being the only ones getting into melee. Enemies have immense buffs, most of them will have spell access, no hesitations are given about taking player characters out of the fight.

Anonymouswizard
2022-02-22, 06:25 AM
5e is narrower in tiers, but that's mostly due to essentially removing the very bottom and very top tiers, condensing the skill list, and increasing the minimum number of skills a PC gets.

Note that the 3.5 Tiers measure (white room) versatility as well as power. Tier 1 and 2 have more power than the lower tiers, but Tiers 3-6 are defined by how many things you do well and how many you do passably (which punts rogues up to Tier 4).

The archetypal Dwarven Fighter of average intelligence is a good example. You get four skills, two of which probably go on Athletics and Perception, and two tools. In 3.5 you got eight skill points, four of which are required to get to the same relative level as 5e Proficiency. Does your Knight wand Knowledge (Heraldry)? Now you get to pick one of Climb, Jump, Ride, or Swim (I recommend looking at the first three, you don't want to go in the water anyway). Your farm boy to have farm skills? Spend those skill points on Profession (Farmer) and possibly Ride. Fighters got so few skill points that they might as well drop them in Profession (Experimental Speed Hump) and Craft (Flower Bracelets).

The 5e Fighter is higher tier than the 3.5 Fighter, but it's got nothing to do with combat power. The 3.5 Fighter had that if you knew how to build. It's because they get just enough Skills and Tools to not be completely useless when combat ends.

Psyren
2022-02-22, 10:52 AM
I frequently see classes, levels and abilities referred to by "tier." I know level "tiers" were very much a thing RAW in 4e. But I've seen 3x and 5e classes and abilities referred to as "tier x." Who came up with these rankings? What is the basis of them, besides someone's opinion?

As others have said they are rough rankings of class problem-solving ability, which tends to be weighted towards combat effectiveness (as that tends to be the primary focus of most popular class-based games) but is often broader than that. They are a pretty well-known concept in gaming circles - not just D&D, nor even just tabletop roleplaying.

They are not based on the opinions of a single person (though an individual might gravitate towards a specific ranking). You might see versions of some tier listings and rationales behind them being more generally accepted or widely shared than others, and some of those have been associated with specific forumites and other personalities. For example, one of the more widely shared posts about 3.5e tier listings was authored by a forumgoer named JaronK who is on this site.

Class tiers also got a namecheck by the Giant in this site's own webcomic. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0764.html)


I often see "plain" fighters/ "champions" as like tier 12 (or bottom of the barrel). There are some people who actually like playing simpler characters. I do think they could have done a better job with a "basic" fighter than what we have with the champion, but some people must like it. I just wonder whose opinion qualifies them to come up with these "rankings".

Measuring a class' tier or overall effectiveness is not an indictment of that class, nor is anyone telling you that you're not allowed to play it or have fun playing it. Champion Fighter is often seen as one of the most played subclasses in the entire game. (https://www.thegamer.com/dungeons-dragons-best-fighter-subclasses-ranked-popularity-dnd-gunslinger-arcane-archer-cavalier/) A tier list isn't meant to convince you that you aren't having fun - rather, it's a heads-up both for you and your DM that a low tier class tends to have a narrow focus and therefore might struggle in challenges that don't match up with its strengths, and so might need either a bit more support from its team in those situations, a bit more help from the DM (easier challenges, additional items etc.) or both. Some DMs and playgroups do that kind of adjustment without really thinking about it, so the class never has any of those moments of strain. That's totally fine.

Grod_The_Giant
2022-02-22, 11:29 AM
A quick-but-fair summary of 3.5 tiers might be "problem solving capabilities." A Bard is a higher tier than a Fighter because they can use their class features to solve problems that the Fighter can't.


Class Tiers in 3.5 existed not because it's more imbalanced than 5e
Um. As someone who's played and discussed both systems pretty heavily... this isn't true. Imbalance in 5e means doing and extra ten points of damage per round, or a spellcaster having more tools than a martial type. Imbalance in 3.5e means the wizard taking three actions and ending the encounter before anyone else gets to move, and the druid's pet having better numbers and special abilities than the Fighter, and the Monk not being able to face equal-level foes without serious optimization effort, and the Rogue's entire schtick can be replaced with a couple cheap wands.

(Your three tiers of optimization are certainly a factor in intra-party balance, don't get me wrong. 3.5 tiers are (in theory) about results when everyone is putting equal skill and effort into character creation)

Telok
2022-02-22, 11:49 AM
Um. As someone who's played and discussed both systems pretty heavily... this isn't true. Imbalance in 5e means doing and extra ten points of damage per round, or a spellcaster having more tools than a martial type. Imbalance in 3.5e means the wizard taking three actions and ending the encounter before anyone else gets to move, and the druid's pet having better numbers and special abilities than the Fighter, and the Monk not being able to face equal-level foes without serious optimization effort, and the Rogue's entire schtick can be replaced with a couple cheap wands.

No, thats just d&d 3.5e having a wider optimization effect spread and more potential for imbalance. The range of imbalance does not cause the tier discussion, the existance of imbalance, like the difference between moon druid vs champion fighter in a no feats limited magic items d&d 5e game, causes the tier discussion.

RandomPeasant
2022-02-22, 12:01 PM
Grod, they're not saying that 3e wasn't more imbalanced than 5e, they're saying that wasn't the reason for tier discussion. Your points may be true, but they're not really responsive.


What is the basis of them, besides someone's opinion?

Depends on the version. The original is just "some guy's opinion", though he had some degree of system mastery. Later versions were based on the averaged opinions of large groups of people, which is generally more accurate, though still vulnerable to groupthink. There are tiering projects that are based on some notion of objective data, but the most popular versions are not.

JNAProductions
2022-02-22, 12:07 PM
Class Tiers in 3.5 existed not because it's more imbalanced than 5e but because people are more willing to admit that their pet game has flaws and imbalances so that the players have a better guidance for what is how strong. I can still fit 5e's classes into the given tiers, but for overall play and build performance, I find the three levels of optimization to be a better guideline of how strong a party is:


Grod, they're not saying that 3e wasn't more imbalanced than 5e, they're saying that wasn't the reason for tier discussion. Your points may be true, but they're not really responsive.

I dunno, Random... Reading Meimu's post, it sounds like they're saying "5E is just as bad as 3.5, people just won't admit it."

Which is not true at all. There's still variance, but in 3.5, a thematic Druid can completely overshadow a Monk of the same level in the same party, whereas short of intentionally shooting yourself in the foot (say, a 9 9 9 15 15 15 Barbarian) you'll be competent enough to contribute in 5E.

paladinn
2022-02-22, 12:09 PM
Grod, they're not saying that 3e wasn't more imbalanced than 5e, they're saying that wasn't the reason for tier discussion. Your points may be true, but they're not really responsive.



Depends on the version. The original is just "some guy's opinion", though he had some degree of system mastery. Later versions were based on the averaged opinions of large groups of people, which is generally more accurate, though still vulnerable to groupthink. There are tiering projects that are based on some notion of objective data, but the most popular versions are not.


I'm a sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and groupthink:)

Grod_The_Giant
2022-02-22, 12:19 PM
Grod, they're not saying that 3e wasn't more imbalanced than 5e, they're saying that wasn't the reason for tier discussion.
If that's the case, I'm sorry, MeimuHakurei. It's a bit of a pet peeve. I wasted so much time in college arguing and homebrewing about 3.5 balance issues...


No, thats just d&d 3.5e having a wider optimization effect spread and more potential for imbalance. The range of imbalance does not cause the tier discussion, the existance of imbalance, like the difference between moon druid vs champion fighter in a no feats limited magic items d&d 5e game, causes the tier discussion.
It wasn't the existence of imbalance so much as it was the fact that 3.5e could run into issues at very low levels of play and optimization, I think. You have to try to make a 5e character who dramatically overshadows or under-shadows the rest of the group, whereas in 3.5e that could happen entirely by accident.

AvatarVecna
2022-02-22, 12:46 PM
I frequently see classes, levels and abilities referred to by "tier." I know level "tiers" were very much a thing RAW in 4e. But I've seen 3x and 5e classes and abilities referred to as "tier x." Who came up with these rankings? What is the basis of them, besides someone's opinion?

I often see "plain" fighters/ "champions" as like tier 12 (or bottom of the barrel). There are some people who actually like playing simpler characters. I do think they could have done a better job with a "basic" fighter than what we have with the champion, but some people must like it. I just wonder whose opinion qualifies them to come up with these "rankings".

TL;DR Liking something and having fun with it doesn't make it good. Fighter is a guilty pleasure.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-02-22, 01:01 PM
It wasn't the existence of imbalance so much as it was the fact that 3.5e could run into issues at very low levels of play and optimization, I think. You have to try to make a 5e character who dramatically overshadows or under-shadows the rest of the group, whereas in 3.5e that could happen entirely by accident.

This. Imbalance is one thing. Accidental imbalance, caused by taking the logical things, is a whole different matter. Because frequently it can happen to new players and new groups who don't have a clue what went wrong or how to adjust.

gijoemike
2022-02-22, 01:14 PM
It wasn't the existence of imbalance so much as it was the fact that 3.5e could run into issues at very low levels of play and optimization, I think. You have to try to make a 5e character who dramatically overshadows or under-shadows the rest of the group, whereas in 3.5e that could happen entirely by accident.

Every time I see this quote or similar I must repeat my 2 stories as I fully agree.

Story 1
Player wanted to play Mowgli ( The Jungle Book human main character raised by wolves) as a druid that summoned, had a companion wolf, could turn into and speak to wolves. Straight PHB idea.

First real fight encountered he...

ROUND 1
summoned a wolf and had his own wolf companion attack.
The fighter moved and attacked. The wolf moved and attacked a different target.
fighter hit, wolf hit and tripped.
Wolf then got an AOO when target stood up

ROUND 2
Fighter attacked and hit again ,kills target, moves to new target.
Wolf companion attacked trips target again
Wolf Summoned moved, flanked, attacked, and tripped fighters new target.
Druid ran up and attacked in a flank with companion wolf with a staff, hit kills
Both the wolf and fighter got an AOO when the 3rd enemy stood up. It died.

Result
in every round the druid completely overshadowed everything the fighter could possibly do, and had greater action econ. By round 2 the average debuff and damage team druid was putting out made our fighter feel totally inefficient. Except the druid was using non optimal choices and tactics. Druid was so much better. The rest of the short campaign wasn't any better.


Story 2
I was playing a rogue. The party I was in had a summoner wizard and a druid who both know about share spells. We were high enough level the druid could also transform. We had 2 rounds to prepare. The wizard cast instant buff spells on themselves and shared with the familiar. Druid case duration spells and shared with companion. Next round all the wiz summon d3 critters, and druid shifts.

Round 3
I won initiative and just yelled charge. My PC then sat down. The druid ran shoulder to shoulder with the companion (5" rule with share spell) and a HORDE of summons/familiar run to the fray.

Round 4
Everything died. It was horribly lopsided. No challenge at all.



I am not complaining about druids, wizards, or summons in general. Nor am I bitter I was overshadowed in story 2. I am reinforcing the whole it was easy to overshadow and make obsolete players and entire archetypes in 3.5 without trying. Wiz, Cleric, Druid do it very early on.

Psyren
2022-02-22, 01:16 PM
I dunno, Random... Reading Meimu's post, it sounds like they're saying "5E is just as bad as 3.5, people just won't admit it."

Which is not true at all. There's still variance, but in 3.5, a thematic Druid can completely overshadow a Monk of the same level in the same party, whereas short of intentionally shooting yourself in the foot (say, a 9 9 9 15 15 15 Barbarian) you'll be competent enough to contribute in 5E.

Agreed. Class imbalance and therefore tiers are indeed still present in 5e, but they are much less pronounced/drastic/spaced out than they were in 3.x.

Telok
2022-02-22, 01:29 PM
It wasn't the existence of imbalance so much as it was the fact that 3.5e could run into issues at very low levels of play and optimization, I think. You have to try to make a 5e character who dramatically overshadows or under-shadows the rest of the group, whereas in 3.5e that could happen entirely by accident.

Eh, sorta? I mean, we (my group) did see imbalance in d&d 3.0 within 6 months with a monk & sorcerer played ad&d style. But that was at levels 9+ with the sorcerer player having enough math knowledge to get a 16 con & dex with items while the monk player had the usual MAD issues plus gearing up with stuff like boots of speed and two +x weapons for twf. But its the same with d&d 5e where you get a moon druid vs champion fighter at level 3, or a sorlock vs a twf beserker barbarian at level 15. One gets spells for utility & combat & stuff plus skills & class features for combat & noncombat, the other gets to hit things with swords & class features for combat plus skills.

Yeah, you can have 5e casters not optimized for combat doing half the damage of an optimized combat character. But are you predicating "try to make a 5e character who dramatically overshadows" only on how far they do or do not exceed the baseline combat assumptions? The whole current d&d tier thing started with an issue that the d&d 3.x fighters had so many fewer system mechanic based options and basically none out of combat. That mostly hasn't seen significant changes and was what the (to my mind) more useful tier analysis & ranking was about.

For example, the game I'm in now we're on a multi-continent multi-level fetch & favors quest to repair a flying castle. The casters in the party will have to do the repairs of course, but the point of the repairs is to get it so the non-full-casters can steer & command it at all. Without the push to play down to non-casters we'd just fly the castle around on caster power and do our own stuff. The non-casters spent time & money on training flying mounts to get up & down from the castle, bit all the casters have 1 to 3 options each of getting multiple people up & down just from the spell lists.

So our "adventures on a flying castle" has responses from that druid or sorcerer of "yay, lets go now" and the fighter or barbarian going "dm may we please have magic items or skill rolls to be allowed to participate". What 5e did different from 3.x was cut out the bottom tiers where you could make a fighter who couldn't effectively participate in combat or a wizard with an int too low to cast spells, and to reduce some top tier excesses by reducing high end spells per day. The core imbalance of character A requiring dm intervention to participate in some situations and character B auto-passing some situations because they have spell(s) still exists, and that was the original thing that drove the tier discussion.

LibraryOgre
2022-02-22, 02:08 PM
No, thats just d&d 3.5e having a wider optimization effect spread and more potential for imbalance. The range of imbalance does not cause the tier discussion, the existance of imbalance, like the difference between moon druid vs champion fighter in a no feats limited magic items d&d 5e game, causes the tier discussion.

Some of this also goes back to design... I often refer to 3e character creation as a "losable mini-game."

Take, for example, a rogue. Not a bad character. I want to be the best lock-picker in the game. Seems like Skill Focus would be a natural fit, right?

No. Because while it gives me a bonus to my lock picking skill, it's a static bonus that's quickly overshadowed by simple leveling up, and the fact that most of my party won't be able to do it at all, or will comparatively suck by virtue of the difference between Class and Non-Class skills. It is a "trap"... a choice that looks good until you do the math.

4e swung hard against this; most feats were minor bonuses, and the feats themselves were level-limited. 5e swung more back to a medium... skill proficiencies are more or less binary (you're proficient or not, and everyone at your level and attribute will be the same, barring some other effect), and backgrounds also mean that your Farm Boy fighter and your Noble fighter will have different skill sets, even though they're the same class and race.

Stonehead
2022-02-22, 02:16 PM
It's also not mainly about complaining, I think. I find them a very valuable tool for DMs.

That's fair, "things Stonehead has seen in games/on forums" is pretty far from a representative sample. The DM should know each character's strengths and weaknesses, and classes are a good starting point for figuring that out.

Maybe online discourse about game balance just tends to come across as very whiny when it's repeated every week.

I also don't want to give off the impression that balance wasn't an issue in 3e/3.5/Pathfinder. If I remember correctly, highlighting character-creation skill was a design decision the developers had from the start. Almost like highlighting deckbuilding skill in a game like Magic.

RandomPeasant
2022-02-22, 10:24 PM
4e swung hard against this; most feats were minor bonuses, and the feats themselves were level-limited.

4e chargen was in many respects even more loseable than 3e's was. Taking a bad feat in 3e hurt you, but numbers got big enough (and varied enough) that you could recover from even a couple of bad decisions. 4e's extremely tight math meant that not having the bonuses you were expected to meant you just weren't competitive, end of story.

PhoenixPhyre
2022-02-22, 10:54 PM
4e chargen was in many respects even more loseable than 3e's was. Taking a bad feat in 3e hurt you, but numbers got big enough (and varied enough) that you could recover from even a couple of bad decisions. 4e's extremely tight math meant that not having the bonuses you were expected to meant you just weren't competitive, end of story.

Yeah. Whether from magic items (recoverable if you used the Automatic Bonus Progression optional rules that came out much later) or from not realizing that the Weapon Focus (IIRC) feat was basically mandatory from 1st level...

I'm not a fan of putting system-expected number sources in optional material (such as feats or items). Bake in whatever progression the system assumes right into the core mechanics and don't let people trade it out for other things or skip it. But that's just me.

Telok
2022-02-23, 12:12 AM
I'm not a fan of putting system-expected number sources in optional material (such as feats or items). Bake in whatever progression the system assumes right into the core mechanics and don't let people trade it out for other things or skip it. But that's just me.

Preach it.

The mantra that always followed tier discussions that inevitably came around to "class x is tier y but in my game its acting like tier z" was "player mattered more than build that mattered more than class". Which was so so so true. I got to see an urrercold assault necromancer wizard build run into the ground in its first fight. The tactic "spam cold/necrotic fireballs on you dragon zombie" wasn't followed. What was done was to send the zombie dragon to attack a room of enemies, lock the door behind it, turn invisible, spend three rounds of combat self buffing, then try to melee with a vampritic touch spell and get owned by four mooks.

Player > build > class. Been true since before 1980, still true today.

Kurald Galain
2022-02-23, 04:37 AM
4e chargen was in many respects even more loseable than 3e's was. Taking a bad feat in 3e hurt you, but numbers got big enough (and varied enough) that you could recover from even a couple of bad decisions. 4e's extremely tight math meant that not having the bonuses you were expected to meant you just weren't competitive, end of story.
Very much this.

I've not had an actual problem with class balance in 3E except when a player deliberately tried to pull theory op tricks on a casual table. Whereas in 4E I've had several players who, around level 10, might as well not be at the table for all the impact they were making. And quite by accident, too. I'd say this is not just because feat choice (4E characters get more feats) but also power choice. By level ten, having picked ten good powers instead of ten mediocre ones makes a huge difference.

RandomPeasant
2022-02-23, 11:23 AM
I'm not a fan of putting system-expected number sources in optional material (such as feats or items). Bake in whatever progression the system assumes right into the core mechanics and don't let people trade it out for other things or skip it. But that's just me.

No, that is broadly the right way to go about things. I'm personally a fan of eventually giving people magic items that give you small (and constant) bonuses above what's expected, because that feels cool and tipping things towards players winning slightly more is genuinely not a problem, but the idea that you would trade your +2 sword for a +3 sword is tedious and completely unsupported in the source material.


Player > build > class. Been true since before 1980, still true today.

I've always felt that was overstated, particularly in the context of 3e. It's true that you can build or play a very powerful class in a way that makes it worthless, but the reverse isn't nearly as accurate. A Wizard that's played badly will be useless, but even the best Fighter in the world isn't as useful as a mediocre Wizard. And there are plenty of classes or builds that violate the assumption even beyond that. For an Ubercharger, build decisions matter much more than anything else, as the basic "charge the biggest thing you can" gameplay loop can be executed by a flowchart with reasonable success. For the fixed-list casters, build decisions (outside the very highest levels of optimization) rarely move the needle compared to the fact that the classes start out as Sorcerers with decent (Warmage) to great (Beguiler, Dread Necromancer) spell selection. Hell, a 3 Wisdom Druid ends up being stronger than mid or even high op versions of some classes.

The more accurate principle is the one Kurald alludes to: not trying to break the game is the best way to not break the game. Which is one of the reasons I'm not all that enamored of the Tiers in practice. You don't need to tell someone they can't play their favorite class, you need to communicate power level expectations and let people match their performance to those expectations. A large portion of why the Tiers "work" is that they send a signal about what the DM expects. If you can send that signal without banning a chunk of the game, that's a better way of going about things.

Grod_The_Giant
2022-02-23, 11:52 AM
I'm not a fan of putting system-expected number sources in optional material (such as feats or items). Bake in whatever progression the system assumes right into the core mechanics and don't let people trade it out for other things or skip it. But that's just me.

Preach it.
One hundred percent. I've been toying with a Mutants and Masterminds derivative system for a while, and one of the earliest decisions I made was to make the important combat numbers fill in automatically--you can't choose not to put enough points in Dodge, or to raise your attack bonus so high your damage will be ineffective. (M&M uses trade-offs for combat balance, so a high bonus to one trait has to be paired with a low bonus in another)

paladinn
2022-02-23, 03:16 PM
One hundred percent. I've been toying with a Mutants and Masterminds derivative system for a while, and one of the earliest decisions I made was to make the important combat numbers fill in automatically--you can't choose not to put enough points in Dodge, or to raise your attack bonus so high your damage will be ineffective. (M&M uses trade-offs for combat balance, so a high bonus to one trait has to be paired with a low bonus in another)

Well-said, Grod.. I wanted to be a fan of M&M as well, being both a comic nerd and a RPG grognard. I think what started losing me was the fact that so many things were de-coupled from stats and other "core" features. You normally have to roll x to hit because of your strength, dexterity, or whatever. But no worries, you can always just add y to your roll if you spend some points. Is there an in-game reason? Nope. You just paid the points for it.

Then 3rd edition lost me even further by going even farther off the reservation. I think if I play a Supers game now, it would be Silver-Age Sentinels for D20 (it really is D&D Supers) or Amazing Adventures for 5e. Or even original AA or Victorious for alternative-but-still-playable Supers.

Sorry, I digressed.. lol

Mechalich
2022-02-23, 07:10 PM
One hundred percent. I've been toying with a Mutants and Masterminds derivative system for a while, and one of the earliest decisions I made was to make the important combat numbers fill in automatically--you can't choose not to put enough points in Dodge, or to raise your attack bonus so high your damage will be ineffective. (M&M uses trade-offs for combat balance, so a high bonus to one trait has to be paired with a low bonus in another)

I think a lot of this sot of problem arises from games trying to pretend that their playspace is significantly larger than it actually is. A lot of games want to pretend that their system has vast potential to play all kinds of games in all sorts of settings because this sort of flexibility necessarily offers greater advertising and sales potential. It is relatively rare for a publisher to admit that 'this system only works if you hold to these specific assumptions about how gameplay works.' White Wolf, actually was one of the few companies to have any real success in doing so and they still had the problem that people hated the assumptions behind their most popular game, ignored them, and then basically all games were broken. VtM was fundamentally not designed to do what the majority of its players proceeded to do with it and did it ever show.

As a result a lot of games provide the ability to produce completely non-viable characters for the purposes of the core gameplay experience because they are pretending to offer alternative forms of gameplay that the system does not actually effectively support. Sometimes this isn't even really a choice on the publishers part. For example, space fantasy settings feel obligated to offer space combat systems even though they never, ever work or properly interact with small group tactical combat systems at the human scale and the result is always a mess.

Many systems would benefit, in terms of balance, from much more focused and limited design. We can see this in practice by comparing tabletop and video game versions of the same sort of system. Many cRPGs, by removing subsystems outright, remove the traps associated with focusing on said subsystems and firm up the floor beneath all characters for interacting with the core gameplay loop.


The more accurate principle is the one Kurald alludes to: not trying to break the game is the best way to not break the game. Which is one of the reasons I'm not all that enamored of the Tiers in practice. You don't need to tell someone they can't play their favorite class, you need to communicate power level expectations and let people match their performance to those expectations. A large portion of why the Tiers "work" is that they send a signal about what the DM expects. If you can send that signal without banning a chunk of the game, that's a better way of going about things.

It is entirely possible to break the game without trying to do so, especially for relatively inexperienced tables. This commonly happens at low levels of system mastery and optimization when someone either goes on the internet and reads about a build combo, or in a game like D&D levels up and picks an extremely powerful option that overshadows the rest of the party's capabilities. For example, a Wizard who previously chose blasting spells picking up Black Tentacles at level 7 can completely warp game balance for a given party. In such cases, the tiers provide guardrails that help to mitigate unexpected power variance.

RandomPeasant
2022-02-23, 07:44 PM
someone either goes on the internet and reads about a build combo

How is "I found this super-powerful combo, I am going to use it to become super powerful" not intentionally breaking the game?


For example, a Wizard who previously chose blasting spells picking up Black Tentacles at level 7 can completely warp game balance for a given party. In such cases, the tiers provide guardrails that help to mitigate unexpected power variance.

I disagree that a Wizard learning black tentacles is game-breaking. There's really very little you can do in terms of casting combat spells in combat that breaks the game. You may end up being MVP more than the guy who is playing a Fighter or a Rogue, but it takes serious and dedicated effort to break the game. I've played in a game where a new player picked top-tier combat spells at some levels, and that was not game-breaking even in a party that contained multiple characters who took Skill Focus as their 1st level feat.

But setting that aside, this doesn't really rescue the Tiers. Because the sort of dynamic you're describing (where a character selects a very strong ability after previously selecting weak ones) happens in every tier. What happens when the Warblade suddenly decides that iron heart surge or white raven tactics looks cool? What about the Warlock who gets Imbue Item and decides to make a whole bunch of scrolls? Most pressingly, the "a character who previously picked blasting spells gets black tentacles" scenario you describe is something that happens 100% automatically with the Warmage, a class that is in T3. Perhaps it is true that some games are easily destabilized by seemingly-innocuous choices. But it is deeply unclear to me that following the Tiers does very much to mitigate that.

Eldan
2022-02-24, 04:03 AM
Which is why it's generally agreed that a lot of the tiers is about versatility. A fighter is stuck with their feats. A wizard can just decided to cast different spells this day.

And while the mid-tiers can absolutely get powerful jank going as well, the low tiers really can't. Lots of half-casters can pick up a few powerful spells. A monk can't.

Tiers are also general trends. At least on the DM side, I tend to think of them more as "these are characters you have to watch a bit more and maybe talk with them about their build", than anythign else.

Kurald Galain
2022-02-24, 05:26 AM
It is entirely possible to break the game without trying to do so, especially for relatively inexperienced tables. This commonly happens at low levels of system mastery and optimization when someone either goes on the internet and reads about a build combo, or in a game like D&D levels up and picks an extremely powerful option that overshadows the rest of the party's capabilities. For example, a Wizard who previously chose blasting spells picking up Black Tentacles at level 7 can completely warp game balance for a given party.

As far as I've seen, most "relatively inexperienced" tables deal with that by either not overusing that particular option, OR by giving the other characters something new and powerful as well, OR by simply not minding that things aren't perfectly balanced. The result of any of the three is that it doesn't "break the game".

Telok
2022-02-24, 12:04 PM
Perhaps it is true that some games are easily destabilized by seemingly-innocuous choices. But it is deeply unclear to me that following the Tiers does very much to mitigate that.

My experience was that it was usually several smaller things that could combo with a single new option. Early d&d 3.0 had a sorcerer with a portable hole, scry, and large elemental summoning. No problem, then... teleport. It was taken as a party support spell actually, not untill the sorc decided to settle an old score on his own did we think of scry-summons-invis-tp-gank. Then the sorc soloed a level appropriate encounter, returned home for breakfast, and we knew we had a problem.

So before 3.5 had even been announced and any of us were on forums we'd started down the "well lets not break the game by using this" when the sorc took what they thought was a utility & party support spell.

One question I have: what does "following the tiers" mean? As I always understood it they are descriptive, not some formula to follow.

RandomPeasant
2022-02-24, 01:01 PM
Which is why it's generally agreed that a lot of the tiers is about versatility. A fighter is stuck with their feats. A wizard can just decided to cast different spells this day.

I don't think that's the consensus at all. My understanding is that there was at some point a re-tiering project that was based more directly on power. I also don't think that thesis holds up to much scrutiny, because Sorcerer and Beguiler (neither of which have much versatility) are T2, but Incarnate (which has Druid or Cleric levels of versatility) is T4.


Tiers are also general trends. At least on the DM side, I tend to think of them more as "these are characters you have to watch a bit more and maybe talk with them about their build", than anythign else.

The thing is, I'm not even sure that's true. As a DM, I find it much harder to meaningfully challenge an Ubercharger than the vast majority of Wizards, because the Ubercharger is binary in a way Wizards just aren't. I can design a challenge, or a series of challenges, where a Wizard has to make meaningful decisions and manage resources. It's much harder to do that for a character whose only option is an "overkill anything I hit" button.


As far as I've seen, most "relatively inexperienced" tables deal with that by either not overusing that particular option, OR by giving the other characters something new and powerful as well, OR by simply not minding that things aren't perfectly balanced. The result of any of the three is that it doesn't "break the game".

Also, most of the power options that inexperienced players end up taking are things that don't directly overshadow other characters. A new player is not going to end up with a Cleric Archer who makes the party Fighter irrelevant. They might end up with a save-or-die spell that wins some encounters, but that's pretty easy to DM around. More likely, they end up with buffs or BFC that are higher impact than anything other players are doing, but in a way that ends up not being obvious to casual players, who are not doing diligent power analysis. If your party wins a fight because you locked down the enemies with black tentacles and buffed their damage output with haste, you probably had the highest impact of anyone in the party, but the experience of the Fighter and the Rogue is that they did a bunch of damage to the enemies. So they end up feeling happy because they got to do their thing.


One question I have: what does "following the tiers" mean? As I always understood it they are descriptive, not some formula to follow.

I meant it in the sense of "using them as a balancing mechanism". So you ban T1 or T1 and T2 because those are the "break the game" tiers, and you rely on that (rather than a series of ability-specific gentleman's agreements, or broad power level targeting) as your way of avoiding the game breaking. My contention is that doing so is not particularly a necessary, sufficient, or efficient way of avoiding balance problems, for a variety of reasons.

Telok
2022-02-24, 01:26 PM
I meant it in the sense of "using them as a balancing mechanism". So you ban T1 or T1 and T2 because those are the "break the game" tiers, and you rely on that (rather than a series of ability-specific gentleman's agreements, or broad power level targeting) as your way of avoiding the game breaking. My contention is that doing so is not particularly a necessary, sufficient, or efficient way of avoiding balance problems, for a variety of reasons.

Ah, yeah. Using them as a balancing mechanisim is like using an economics statistical averages model to do your taxes. There's an intersection on the venn diagram, but what you need is way outside of that.

LibraryOgre
2022-02-24, 01:34 PM
It is entirely possible to break the game without trying to do so, especially for relatively inexperienced tables.

A prime example of this is 3.5's druid.

Ok, I'm a druid. I want a sturdy animal companion, so wolf, so check.
I want to select good spells... oh, I don't have to CHOOSE summoning spells, they can just be cast whenever? Cool!
Oh, man, I can't cast spells in Wild Shape? Oh, hey, there's a feat for that. Cool.

This doesn't require theorycrafting or anything more in-depth than "reading the rules" and making obvious good choices... and then you're half the party, by yourself.

RandomPeasant
2022-02-24, 03:24 PM
Except those things are incredibly complicated. The number of new players who can handle an animal companion and summons and wild shape and Druid casting effectively is not very high. You're not going to get full Druidzilla out of a new player. You might get someone who uses bear form to be an effective melee combatant and throws around some spells, and that character is probably the closest to game-breaking of anything a new player does (more because of how closely it treads on the toes of the Fighter than raw power), but they're still very possible to challenge and design encounters and adventures for. In a party where there isn't a primary melee, or where the primary melee is something like a Warblade or a Totemist, the Druid is unlikely to be a huge problem, even with new players.

Florian
2022-02-24, 03:40 PM
Except those things are incredibly complicated. The number of new players who can handle an animal companion and summons and wild shape and Druid casting effectively is not very high. You're not going to get full Druidzilla out of a new player. You might get someone who uses bear form to be an effective melee combatant and throws around some spells, and that character is probably the closest to game-breaking of anything a new player does (more because of how closely it treads on the toes of the Fighter than raw power), but they're still very possible to challenge and design encounters and adventures for. In a party where there isn't a primary melee, or where the primary melee is something like a Warblade or a Totemist, the Druid is unlikely to be a huge problem, even with new players.

YEah, but that's also in part where the trouble starts: New player gets into it, makes a deep dive into the rules and finds their first "winner combo" and tries to dominate the game with it. A lot of inexperienced DMs are pretty inexperienced, too, lacking the knowledge to to handle such a mess.

Psyren
2022-02-24, 03:51 PM
While I agree that a new druid player in D&D is unlikely to be full druidzilla off the bat, they don't have to be full druidzilla to vastly overshadow the martial characters either, especially if said martials are also new.

Personally I'd like to combine the PF and 5e druids in some way:

In PF, wildshape augments your physical stats rather than replacing them completely (and your HP stay the same), so if you want to be a melee powerhouse then dumping your Str/Dex/Con down to 8 is a bad idea. In addition, the degree of the augments scales with your level, so you don't get the wonky scaling of 5e wildshape where you are an unstoppable juggernaut at level 2, but by the time you hit level 11+ you're falling behind everyone else in melee. You also get much stronger plant and elemental forms at later levels, which is about when beasts/animals start falling off in terms of effectiveness.

In 5e meanwhile, being a melee shapeshifter druid cuts off more caster-friendly options like Land/Stars/Wildfire, so there's an actual tradeoff there. In addition, 5e restricts flying and swimming forms until later so that new DMs in low-level campaigns don't have to deal with three-dimensional combat right off the bat. And of course, 5e druids don't get Natural Spell or an equivalent, forcing them to precast their buffs and be strategic about maintaining them (while also giving you something useful to do with your spell slots while you're shifted.)

Eldan
2022-02-24, 04:35 PM
Thing is, Level 1, a wolf is almost as good as a fighter. Lower AC, most likely, certainly slightly lower damage, but has Trip and higher speed.

You just get that as a class feature on top of your spellcaster.

RandomPeasant
2022-02-24, 04:50 PM
While I agree that a new druid player in D&D is unlikely to be full druidzilla off the bat, they don't have to be full druidzilla to vastly overshadow the martial characters either, especially if said martials are also new.

Sure, I will grant that this sometimes happens. But other times there isn't a dedicated martial type, or the dedicated martial type is a Warblade that can keep up with basic Wildshaping, or the newbie Druid picks a wild shape form that sounds cool but isn't very good. In any of those cases it just isn't a problem. I'm not saying there's no circumstance where the game can get destabilized, but it's not nearly as easy to do as people seem to think. New (or more accurately, casual) players are not very sensitive to imbalance, for much the same reasons that they don't tend to optimize their characters very effectively. As long as the Fighter is able to make his attacks and kill enemies or tank hits with some regularity, even fairly large imbalances can go unnoticed.


Thing is, Level 1, a wolf is almost as good as a fighter. Lower AC, most likely, certainly slightly lower damage, but has Trip and higher speed.

You just get that as a class feature on top of your spellcaster.

You can get that as a class feature. But you could also get an Owl or a Badger that is much less effective. Yes, a Druid that happens to make the optimal choice for their animal companion and use it effectively in combat and make good choices for wild shapes and effectively mix in spells where appropriate and use their spontaneous summoning effectively will probably overshadow a sword and board Fighter. But that exact convergence of circumstances is rare. Someone who has just started playing D&D is not going to be able to direct three or four characters at once. They will not understand what makes a good wild shape form, animal companion, or summoned ally. They will not optimize their list of prepared spells. And not every party is going to have a sword and board Fighter. Sometimes they will have a Crusader who is perfectly capable of keeping up with a Druid, or a Rogue who has enough of a niche to not feel bad about being out-DPSed. Or they will have no martial character at all, because people thought that Warlock, Bard, and Sorcerer were the coolest classes.

Eldan
2022-02-24, 05:25 PM
I'd bet anything that wolf is the most common first level companion, though. I've seen so many wolves, even from new players. Wolves are cool. It's always either wolves or birds.

And again, Tier is about potential. It tells me what to watch out for.

Psyren
2022-02-24, 06:18 PM
The top three are definitely wolf, bear, and a bird of some kind. Two of those compare well stacked up to a fighter, especially a less optimal one.

RandomPeasant
2022-02-24, 06:19 PM
And again, Tier is about potential. It tells me what to watch out for.

Sure, but how effectively are the Tiers doing that?

The tiers say you should watch out for a Wizard more than a Warblade. But if our concern is making the Fighter feel overshadowed, isn't the latter far more likely to cause a problem?

The tiers say you should watch out for a Druid more than a Dread Necromancer. But if our concern is avoiding game-breaking power, isn't planar binding far more threatening than "easy, early access to permanent flight"?

The tiers rank the expected average power or problem-solving capability of classes in play. This is not a good proxy for whether or not a character will overshadow another! People don't care very much if some other character is a 8/10 while their character is a 5/10 if they can still do whatever thing they are trying to do. But they care a lot if another character is a 6/10 at the same thing they are a 5/10 at. It's also not a good proxy for whether classes break the game, because game-breaking powers generally are not allowed in play, and therefore do not contribute much to expected power. The Wizard isn't good because he can blow up the world with planar binding. He's good because he can help his team win encounters with spells like black tentacles or glitterdust. This is why the Druid is T1 despite having very little by way of game-breaking power.

tenshiakodo
2022-02-24, 06:37 PM
Another Tier debate? Wait, what year is it?!

So here's the thing. Tier lists are fiddly because they are trying to rate different things. "Potential power" is a very loose concept, as is versatility. And they are useless to a lot of people because either A), they have never seen the circumstances that are being rated, or B), these aren't things that concern them.

And so the arguments go round and round. Some people just get outraged that their favorite class is being called out as "problematic". It was proven on the 3.5 forums that one could make a Samurai that can absolutely devastate opponents, and it's well known that a Wizard with bad spell choices is less useful than an Expert. The difference has always been that, without some kind of retraining mechanic, you are 'locked in' to bad choices with some classes, while others have innate ways to recover.

Built your Fighter or Sorcerer wrong? Aw, too bad.

Took the wrong animal companion for your Druid? Wizard has bad spells? Well that's something you can fix with a little time and energy.

And THAT is the thing that should be rated. Not "can X break the game?". Because anything can, with the right setup. It should be "if X is above/below the power curve, can it be adjusted without DM fiat?".

RandomPeasant
2022-02-24, 07:11 PM
And so the arguments go round and round. Some people just get outraged that their favorite class is being called out as "problematic". It was proven on the 3.5 forums that one could make a Samurai that can absolutely devastate opponents, and it's well known that a Wizard with bad spell choices is less useful than an Expert. The difference has always been that, without some kind of retraining mechanic, you are 'locked in' to bad choices with some classes, while others have innate ways to recover.

I mean, also that it is much easier to build an effective Wizard than it is to build that Samurai. It is true that you can build most classes to most standards of effectiveness, but the fact that it is easier to build some classes than others that way is not irrelevant.


Built your Fighter or Sorcerer wrong? Aw, too bad.

Well, even there, there's a difference between Fighter and Sorcerer.

Character progression as a Fighter (or Barbarian, or Swashbuckler, or most non-ToB martials) is largely what you might call "stacking". You take a feat that improves a tactic, then you take another feat that improves that tactic, and so on, and if you do a good job of picking your feats and your tactic, you might maintain a reasonable level of power. That means that as a Fighter, you're heavily and permanently penalized for "wasting" feats by investing them somewhere ineffective. If you spent six levels taking random feats that don't do much, you will always be six levels of feats behind the power curve.

With a Sorcerer, that's not really how it works, as your power progression is more what you'd describe as "overlapping". cloudkill isn't a buff to the effectiveness of black tentacles, it's a new effect that is more effective than black tentacles. That means that, in the long run, a Sorcerer who gains a better understanding of how to optimize at 6th level will (gradually and asymptotically) converge towards one that's been optimized to that degree from 1st level. As a 14th level character, it really doesn't matter if you took burning hands or color spray as a 1st level spell if you're taking finger of death now.


And THAT is the thing that should be rated. Not "can X break the game?". Because anything can, with the right setup. It should be "if X is above/below the power curve, can it be adjusted without DM fiat?".

I think that's still the wrong perspective to have. There's not "a" thing that should be rated. Lots of things are worth ranking. "What is likely to break the game and how" is a useful question to have an answer to. "How much effort does it take to optimize this class to some arbitrary benchmark of competence" is a useful question to have an answer to. "How easy is it to improve your performance as this class" is a useful question to have an answer to. "How much skill does it take to play this class effectively" is a useful question to have an answer to. And you could go on and on listing potentially interesting ways to rank classes.

The flaw with the Tiers isn't the particular question that they answer (how things stack up by overall effectiveness is the core of what you want from tiering), it's the way they get applied as a universal ranking of classes for any question about classes. The relative ranking of Artificer and Warmage is not the same if you are asking "which of these classes is easier to play effectively" as it is if you are asking "which of these classes has a higher power ceiling". Hell, even the kind of resource you want isn't the same over all those questions. "What breaks the game" is not something you answer with a list of classes, it's something you answer with a lengthy preamble about what you consider "breaking the game" to mean, then a list of abilities and build strategies. Wizards don't break the game. planar binding does. That means if you ever output a system that says "you should ban Wizards to stop the game from breaking", you have fundamentally misunderstood your problem.

tenshiakodo
2022-02-24, 10:15 PM
But what I mean is, there's a difference between "oops I found a combo that's too good, better scrap or ask the DM to let me redesign the character" and "oh this spell is causing problems, good thing i can choose to use a different one".

That's the kind of versatility that I think matters most- if someone discovers a trick that the game just can't handle at the moment, or they find that their character is lackluster, what can they do about it? For some classes, absolutely nothing without being allowed a "do over".

For other classes, it's as easy as selecting different abilities.

Now I don't think it's right that classes are designed in this manner. Sorcerers can retrain spells, but rarely, and it wasn't until Pathfinder that Fighters could swap out Feats when they leveled up, which is nice, but still too darned slow- but that's a separate discussion.

How easy is it to make decisions that are bad/good, and how easy it is to dig yourself out of a hole, are valid points to consider.

RandomPeasant
2022-02-24, 10:56 PM
But what I mean is, there's a difference between "oops I found a combo that's too good, better scrap or ask the DM to let me redesign the character" and "oh this spell is causing problems, good thing i can choose to use a different one".

But how often do you find a combo that is just blanket too good? Even something like planar binding can be played at a variety of power levels, many of which aren't problematic. It's true that as a 12th level Sorcerer you could bind a Glabrezu that was roughly as strong as any individual party member, but you could also bind a Large Earth Elemental that is a speedbump in combat (and not a particularly impressive one). I do think you have a point when you talk about underpowered choices in similar circumstances, but that gets back to my complaint with the "Player > Build > Class" mantra: it's easy to move the needle down relative to earlier stages, but it's much harder to move it up.


How easy is it to make decisions that are bad/good, and how easy it is to dig yourself out of a hole, are valid points to consider.

Certainly. I don't mean to imply that they aren't. But I don't think they are the first, or the primary, things you'd want a tiering project to consider. Frankly, they're orthogonal enough to what tiering represents that I'd want a separate set of rankings.

Kurald Galain
2022-02-25, 02:35 AM
I'd bet anything that wolf is the most common first level companion, though. I've seen so many wolves, even from new players. Wolves are cool.
I have literally never seen a druid with a wolf animal companion. Off the top of my head I've seen eagles, monkeys, a horse, tiger, elephant, and some kinds of dinosaur; but never a wolf.

Sure, that's anecdotal, but so is yours. I seriously doubt that the very best animal companion mechanically also just so happens to be the one most picked by novice or casual players.

Faily
2022-03-01, 01:53 PM
Tiers isn't really important for most tables and groups.

It's a good guide when a group isn't really familiar with eachother, as the GM eliminates what they think is going to be troublesome for their campaign ahead of time (IME it never works because players are clever bastards).


But personally I am of the opinion that each group finds their power-level, which is not tied to tiers that much. A skilled player will make a beast out of a low-tier class, while a poor player can have a tier 1 class and all the tools but still suck at putting it into action. Is it easier for a skilled player to do OP stuff with a high tier class? Yes, but skilled players are also often the ones who are great at making tier 1 or 2 characters that will round out the party and make everyone better. Because in the end its about group-play rather than "who can solo this encounter".

Just looking at some of my own playgroups. In my weekly Pathfinder group I am probably the best optimizer/rules-lawyer, I play a standard Paladin (no archtype), in a group with a Cleric and a Draconic Sorcerer. The Paladin (normally ranked as Tier 4 in Pathfinder) is by far the strongest member of the party, despite being a much lower tier than the other two (1 and 2 respectively). This is because I am good at optimizing my character to make up for their shortcomings as well as making tactical decisions in combat, and the other two aren't really terribly good at optimizing and really lack the ability to think tactics in the heat of the moment.

In another group, I am probably... tied for second best optimizer? We're four players and overall I'd say that group has a pretty high skill with the rules, optimization, *and* in-game tactics. We're also incredibly chill on it all and enjoy playing a wide assortment of classes. You could just as easily see us rocking a Wizard, Cleric, Paladin, and Knight in the same party (War of the Burning Sky campaign) as you'd see us have a Gunslinger, Fighter, Magus, and Skald (Zeitgeist campaign).

Approach building characters together as a group-thing. Let players think of how their character fits into a group and how everyone can work together. That is my advice. Toss tiers and power-rankings out the window, and focus on having fun as a group. This way, the more experienced players can also help out the less experiences ones.

Eldan
2022-03-01, 02:49 PM
I have literally never seen a druid with a wolf animal companion. Off the top of my head I've seen eagles, monkeys, a horse, tiger, elephant, and some kinds of dinosaur; but never a wolf.

Sure, that's anecdotal, but so is yours. I seriously doubt that the very best animal companion mechanically also just so happens to be the one most picked by novice or casual players.

Huh. Maybe that's just my table then. But I have one player who is all about wolves. Like, he has about five wolf posters, and all his characters are wolf themed. Then I had another new player who played a druid and also got a wolf.

That's it for new players who play druids for at least the last ten years. Honestly, I don't get a lot of new players, and mostly, I play FATE with them.

I can also say that while Wolf companions were very popular, neither of them used wildshape for combat much. Combat for them was spellcasting, wildshape was for stealth or scouting. (I may have allowed them to fudge size restrictions a bit when one of them got really excited about turning into a bird and doing aerial scouting at level 5).

Mechalich
2022-03-01, 04:17 PM
Tiers isn't really important for most tables and groups.

It's a good guide when a group isn't really familiar with eachother, as the GM eliminates what they think is going to be troublesome for their campaign ahead of time (IME it never works because players are clever bastards).

A significant fraction of TTRPG play now takes place through online marketplaces such as Roll20 in which the group is unlikely to be familiar to each other. The proportion of groups for which tiers matter is actually much higher now than when these problems were first identified.

Scots Dragon
2022-03-01, 04:46 PM
A significant fraction of TTRPG play now takes place through online marketplaces such as Roll20 in which the group is unlikely to be familiar to each other. The proportion of groups for which tiers matter is actually much higher now than when these problems were first identified.

I believe this has also been exacerbated somewhat by the pandemic.

Thane of Fife
2022-03-01, 05:20 PM
Huh. Maybe that's just my table then. But I have one player who is all about wolves. Like, he has about five wolf posters, and all his characters are wolf themed. Then I had another new player who played a druid and also got a wolf.

Well, the iconic 3e druid is Vadania, an elf woman with a wolf. My copy of the 3.0 PHB has stat blocks for nine familiars and one animal companion in the back of it, and that one animal companion is a wolf. In 4e Essentials, the druid's animal companion options were wolf and bear. I think it would be reasonable to think that wolf is a pretty normal/popular animal companion.

RandomPeasant
2022-03-01, 05:51 PM
It's worth pointing out that even if you do happen to pick the literal best 1st level animal companion, it's not going to overshadow the Fighter for very long. At 2nd level, the Fighter is better than the wolf unless he's hilariously poorly optimized. At 10th level, I can imagine scenarios where the wolf overshadows the Fighter, but they involve either A) significant investment on the part of the Druid or B) a Fighter who was not going to feel good about their character even with no Druid in the party.


It's a good guide when a group isn't really familiar with eachother, as the GM eliminates what they think is going to be troublesome for their campaign ahead of time (IME it never works because players are clever bastards).

Also because classes are just fundamentally the wrong way to solve that problem 99% of the time. glibness is broken whether it's a Bard or a Beguiler casting it. fireball doesn't magically become game-destroying when the Wizard gets it at 5th level instead of the 6th level the Warmage gets it at. The problems people try to use the tiers to solve ("Sally's Druid is better than Larry's Fighter" and "teleport just negated the adventure I spent a week planning") are generally things they are not very well suited to solve. If you don't want to deal with teleport, you need to ban teleport, otherwise someone will buy a Helm of Teleportation or take Arcane Disciple (Travel) on their Warmage. The tiers rank classes by power. But people don't care very much about absolute power. They care about relative power and protected niches. Someone playing a Fighter will be much happier in a party with a blaster or BFC-focused Wizard than one with a Warblade who is just them but better.

Scots Dragon
2022-03-01, 05:52 PM
Wolves are neat.

https://cdn.britannica.com/07/5207-050-5BC9F251/Gray-wolf.jpg

Big fluffy doggo, 1.0 edition.

Kurald Galain
2022-03-02, 02:56 AM
A significant fraction of TTRPG play now takes place through online marketplaces such as Roll20 in which the group is unlikely to be familiar to each other.

Meh, playing with people you don't know well and/or randomly selected groups has existed for over a decade in the form of Organized Play campaigns. Living City started in, what, 1990? Living Forgotten Realms and Adventurer's League and Pathfinder Society have all been highly popular.

Satinavian
2022-03-02, 11:24 AM
I'd bet anything that wolf is the most common first level companion, though. I've seen so many wolves, even from new players. Wolves are cool. It's always either wolves or birds.

And again, Tier is about potential. It tells me what to watch out for.
Ok, i have seen many wolf characters as well. Not only in D&D, in other systems as well, so it is not just about superior stats, it is about many people finding wolves cool.

However i haven't seen wolf animal companions dominating the game or anything, not even in D&D. And the promary reason for that was that the effort players took to keep their wolf safe and alive meant they weren't generally where they would be most useful.

Summons however always were a different matter.

Scots Dragon
2022-03-02, 01:04 PM
Ok, i have seen many wolf characters as well. Not only in D&D, in other systems as well, so it is not just about superior stats, it is about many people finding wolves cool.

However i haven't seen wolf animal companions dominating the game or anything, not even in D&D. And the promary reason for that was that the effort players took to keep their wolf safe and alive meant they weren't generally where they would be most useful.

Which is really just playing in-character, honestly. Your character isn't actually necessarily going to risk a beloved companion in the most vicious parts of a battle all that readily.

TalonOfAnathrax
2022-03-06, 09:54 AM
If the OP is still reading this thread, I'd recommend they check out this link (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?600635-Why-each-class-is-in-its-tier-2019-update!) (it leads here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?600635-Why-each-class-is-in-its-tier-2019-update!)
It neatly defines Tiers, presents them for 3.5, and justifies its choices. It's also a lot better than older Tier lists.
I use it regularly when starting new games, to ensure that the whole party is more or less the same Tier. For example my current game has a level 3 Crusader and a level 3 decently optimized poison-using archer Ranger (going into Wild Shape Ranger), so when the newbie player said "I want a spellcaster who knows things and blasts enemies with fire magic" I steered them towards Warlock.
I have had no problems with balance within the party so far! This is a lot better than my first few games, which were wildly imbalanced 3.0 (often with a monk, a rogue, a wizard and a cleric in a single party). Balance is especially difficult when everyone is a new player with limited optimization knowledge, because a lot of the weaker classes have very low effectiveness "floors" on top of being subpar. See for example Monk, Ranger, etc.

Pauly
2022-03-08, 12:57 AM
I’m not a fan of “tiers” for a number of reasons.

1) They assume your local environment is similar to the “meta”. Availability of magic items, whether or not the bad guys prepare specific defenses against magic, attitudes of the society towards magic/combat, the tactical ability of the GM especially in avoiding meat shields and getting after the backline damage dealers, and so on all can alter the relative power level of classes.
2) Player skill can make a real difference. Some classes are very powerful with a highly skilled player but average or sub-par with a less skilled player making the decisions. Some classes are just easier to play than others.
3) Non-standard builds and play styles can be more effective than the standard wisdom of how a class ‘should’ be played.
4) Party size and composition can affect the relative power levels.
5) Campaign themes such as combat heavy, diplomacy heavy, covert heavy will make a difference to relative power levels.

I find tiers to be useful as a broad indicator only. Often I will treat them as a challenge to find “low tier trash” to turn into a highly effective character.

paladinn
2022-03-20, 10:41 PM
I’m not a fan of “tiers” for a number of reasons.

1) They assume your local environment is similar to the “meta”. Availability of magic items, whether or not the bad guys prepare specific defenses against magic, attitudes of the society towards magic/combat, the tactical ability of the GM especially in avoiding meat shields and getting after the backline damage dealers, and so on all can alter the relative power level of classes.
2) Player skill can make a real difference. Some classes are very powerful with a highly skilled player but average or sub-par with a less skilled player making the decisions. Some classes are just easier to play than others.
3) Non-standard builds and play styles can be more effective than the standard wisdom of how a class ‘should’ be played.
4) Party size and composition can affect the relative power levels.
5) Campaign themes such as combat heavy, diplomacy heavy, covert heavy will make a difference to relative power levels.

I find tiers to be useful as a broad indicator only. Often I will treat them as a challenge to find “low tier trash” to turn into a highly effective character.

I just find tiers to be very subjective, opinion-based. And over time some people's opinions just began to carry weight. But tiers in general are artificial and extra-game.

RedMage125
2022-03-22, 09:17 AM
I’m not a fan of “tiers” for a number of reasons.

1) They assume your local environment is similar to the “meta”. Availability of magic items, whether or not the bad guys prepare specific defenses against magic, attitudes of the society towards magic/combat, the tactical ability of the GM especially in avoiding meat shields and getting after the backline damage dealers, and so on all can alter the relative power level of classes.
2) Player skill can make a real difference. Some classes are very powerful with a highly skilled player but average or sub-par with a less skilled player making the decisions. Some classes are just easier to play than others.
3) Non-standard builds and play styles can be more effective than the standard wisdom of how a class ‘should’ be played.
4) Party size and composition can affect the relative power levels.
5) Campaign themes such as combat heavy, diplomacy heavy, covert heavy will make a difference to relative power levels.


I find this to be incorrect. The original Tier System by JaronK doesn't really assume anything of the sort. In fact, a crucial element to understanding Tier designation is the idea that "everything outside of game mechanics is equal".

And that's kind of a key point, because those are things that will never actually BE equal in play. The Tier system judges the classes in a vacuum, essentially. But that vacuum only exists in theorycrafting and the meta. Eldan said it right. The Tier system just highlights what you might have to watch out for.

Player skill makes a HUGE difference. Someone who builds a Wizard (Tier 1) as a blaster only is going to have a less effective character than a Warmage (Tier 3), because that class is meant to be a blaster, and has additional class features that shore that up. The Tier system recognizes this, and makes mention of it: "Remember, you're probably more experienced with your favorite class than with other classes. Plus, your personality probably fits well with the way that class works, and you probably are better inspired to work with that class. As such, whatever your favorite class is is going to seem stronger for you than everyone else. This is because you're simply going to play your favorite class in a more skillfull way..."

Build is also hugely important. As well as the makeup of the rest of the party. Again, this is mentioned in the Tier system, "Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier in terms of tier descriptions, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging, assuming that everyone in the party is playing with roughly the same skill and optimization level. As a rule, parties function best when everyone in the party is within 2 Tiers of each other (so a party that's all Tier 2-4 is generally fine, and so is a party that's all Tier 3-5, but a party that has Tier 1 and Tier 5s in it may have issues)."

So even in the original Tier System post, it is recognized that a specific build of a given class could improve or worsen the "Tier standing" of an individual class. And even if one goes online and copies some kind of "amazing build", in the hands of a less experienced player, it still won't perform to the highest level. So Player > Build > Class. And the Tier system is only measuring Class. Each class is also in a vacuum. No one actually expects a wizard to literally have every single spell in the game. And for those wizard spells that can "do [x task], often better than the class that specializes in that thing"...if the party has someone who specializes in that thing, the wizard likely won't take those spells. But the fact that Wizard as a class even has those spells is what makes it Tier 1. It's Tier ranking is predicated solely on the overwhelming capability and utility of the options available to it, and the fact that it is versatile enough to change its capability selection on the fly, with only a day's notice.
Nothing illustrates this point better than the very existence and definition of Tier 2. Tier 2 is barely a distinct Tier in and of itself. It's members are primarily the "spontaneous caster" types, who have limited spells known from the class lists of those Tier 1 classes (or very similar, like the psion). The existence of Tier 2 highlights only just how amazing those spell lists from the Tier 1 classes are. Because a character who can cast any of those spells, but simply lacks the ability to change up their spell selection, is what makes up Tier 2. So this alone showcases how Tiers are only looking at the entire class as a whole, and not anything to do with any one build or character.

The point is that the Tier system is not, and never has been, about actual gameplay. It's a guideline for the DM to be aware of, and kind of assumes that the DM also has an inkling of the capabilities of their players. So if you have moderate-to-very experienced players playing Tier 1 and 2 classes, and have a relatively inexperienced player playing a Tier 5 class, it sort of lets you know that it may be okay to give the Tier 5 guy a little something extra, perhaps a LA-free more powerful race or something, since it won't be game-breaking.

I know this is an anecdote, but that's how I've used it in the past. The last time I ran a 3.5e game, I had newer players playing the Wizard, the Cleric, and the Rogue. I had a fairly experienced (but not necessarily prone to optimization) player playing a Barbarian. The last guy to make his character was very experienced, and I knew from previous conversations with him that he was well aware of a lot of optimization tricks. He decided to make a druid. What I did was talk with him. I pointed out everyone's skill level, and how we both knew that his Tier 1 class was capable of overshadowing some of the other players' spotlight time. I asked him to throttle back on the optimization a bit, and be conscious of the other players. He agreed. It was as simple as that. His character was still very powerful (apes are another great animal companion choice, btw), but he didn't go trying to outperform the other characters at the table.

And as for what you said about campaigns, the Tier system addresses that, too: "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."


I find tiers to be useful as a broad indicator only.

They were only ever meant to be a broad indicator. And they're really only useful in the meta. During actual gameplay, "Tier standing" means very little, player skill and build choices mean much more.


Often I will treat them as a challenge to find “low tier trash” to turn into a highly effective character.
That challenge can be fun. I've done it when I was proving to another poster that the "3 situations" was just a guideline meant to highlight JaronK's point, and was not an absolute yardstick to determine Tier standing. The CA Ninja (objectively a worse class than the Rogue), could do exactly what the Rogue did in situations 2 and 3, but due to Ghost Walk (or whichever ability allows them to go ethereal for long periods), would blow the Rogue out of the water in situation 1. Especially because it could stay ethereal, and strike the dragon with a CDG while it was sleeping, forcing a Fort save that even a Great Wyrm Black Dragon could only make only on a nat 20.

Sometimes it's not worth it. Someone mentioned a high-performing CW Samurai, and I just...ugh, no. I've hated that class since it came out, nothing about "samurai" evokes "2 weapon fighting" to me (Niten style was extremely uncommon and unorthodox). And the class features seemed underwhelming. I've used them as NPCs for "guards" sometimes, but that's it.

Stonehead
2022-03-22, 06:22 PM
I’m not a fan of “tiers” for a number of reasons.

1) They assume your local environment is similar to the “meta”. Availability of magic items, whether or not the bad guys prepare specific defenses against magic, attitudes of the society towards magic/combat, the tactical ability of the GM especially in avoiding meat shields and getting after the backline damage dealers, and so on all can alter the relative power level of classes.
2) Player skill can make a real difference. Some classes are very powerful with a highly skilled player but average or sub-par with a less skilled player making the decisions. Some classes are just easier to play than others.
3) Non-standard builds and play styles can be more effective than the standard wisdom of how a class ‘should’ be played.
4) Party size and composition can affect the relative power levels.
5) Campaign themes such as combat heavy, diplomacy heavy, covert heavy will make a difference to relative power levels.

I find tiers to be useful as a broad indicator only. Often I will treat them as a challenge to find “low tier trash” to turn into a highly effective character.

I know they're intended to show the breadth of situations the class will be useful in, but I think most people treat "class tiers" as basic power rankings. Then you run into a lot of these issues. Trapfinding is a great example. Basically required in some campaigns (at least, in the editions in which it was _impossible_ to detect magical traps without it), and totally useless in others.

#2 is something I've never thought about, but it makes a lot of sense. Part of why the wizard is ranked so highly is because there's no upper limit to the amount of spells you can learn, but keeping track of all of them takes a lot of time and energy.

Lans
2022-03-25, 12:52 AM
I don't think that's the consensus at all. My understanding is that there was at some point a re-tiering project that was based more directly on power. I also don't think that thesis holds up to much scrutiny, because Sorcerer and Beguiler (neither of which have much versatility) are T2, but Incarnate (which has Druid or Cleric levels of versatility) is T4.
It tends to be mainly power with a class having versatility adding a tier. An incarnate for the most part only has the power of a T5 class but is versatile so it gets put Into tier 4. I also think it has a shrodingers effect that puts some classes up higher.




Sure, that's anecdotal, but so is yours. I seriously doubt that the very best animal companion mechanically also just so happens to be the one most picked by novice or casual players.
Wolves are strictly worse than riding dogs, which I have never seen taken. I have seen wolves taken most of the time, followed by the birds, heavy horse and badgers.I have never seen the other options taken

Telok
2022-03-25, 10:14 AM
Wolves are strictly worse than riding dogs, which I have never seen taken. I have seen wolves taken most of the time, followed by the birds, heavy horse and badgers.I have never seen the other options taken

I took a cheetah on a druid once, trying for a cat theme & some character > optimization. Unfortunately everything in that game moved at speed of plot when out of combat time. Which kind of screwed the character over by causing them to lose all gear (annoying but survivable) and never arrive anywhere first or in time to have any useful effect.

elros
2022-03-25, 12:05 PM
I learned about class tiers when I got back into gaming, and I found it to be a useful way to view character classes. But like everything else in RPG, other things impact gameplay.
As a DM, the tiers help me think about what members in the party are capable of doing, especially out of combat. A wizard has spells that are often superior to rogue abilities, but the wizard has limited spell casting and the rogue does not have to spend resources to do those actions. I tried to make sure the wizard had other uses for spells, or could be the one to overcome key obstacles while the rogue handled other ones.
I think tiers also identify the “one trick pony” classes, which may end up boring to play as players get more experience and PCs level up.

RandomPeasant
2022-03-27, 10:06 AM
They assume your local environment is similar to the “meta”. Availability of magic items, whether or not the bad guys prepare specific defenses against magic, attitudes of the society towards magic/combat, the tactical ability of the GM especially in avoiding meat shields and getting after the backline damage dealers, and so on all can alter the relative power level of classes.

One of the things tiers are intended to represent is the ability of classes to adapt to different circumstances. This is why the Rogue is in T4, despite being incredibly effective in a campaign that plays to its strengths. Casters are able to build around most of the things people present as screwing them, if they have an idea of what kinds of challenges they need to deal with. Beyond that, understanding the baseline power level of classes, and how specific decisions effect that baseline, is important for understanding how and if a campaign will be balanced after a specific set of changes.


Player skill can make a real difference. Some classes are very powerful with a highly skilled player but average or sub-par with a less skilled player making the decisions. Some classes are just easier to play than others.

The impact of player skill is overstated, because it lets people feel like their brains are huge. In general, most of the impact of player skill is that you can play virtually any class in a way that makes it much worse, and build it in a way that makes it worse still (an 8 Charisma Sorcerer is only marginally better than a Commoner). But doing the reverse is much harder. There's no way to build or play a Fighter that makes it as mechanically effective as even a moderately optimized Wizard, discounting PrCs like Ur Priest that replace your class with a better one. What mostly happens is that because games are social and cooperative, people avoid playing in a way that makes someone who brought a Monk useless, even if doing that is pretty easy in practical terms.


Non-standard builds and play styles can be more effective than the standard wisdom of how a class ‘should’ be played.

That's just an argument that certain classes are mis-tiered, not that there's anything wrong with tiers in concept. It's not supposed to be "how good is this class if you play it the way the game expects you to", just "how good is this class". If it turns out that a Rogue that plays as a full plate-wearing frontliner is as good as a Sorcerer, then the Rogue should be in T2.


It tends to be mainly power with a class having versatility adding a tier. An incarnate for the most part only has the power of a T5 class but is versatile so it gets put Into tier 4. I also think it has a shrodingers effect that puts some classes up higher.

But power also puts classes up a tier. The T5 Swashbuckler is a good deal like the T6 Warrior, except that it gets a number of additional abilities that make it better, resulting in it being a higher tier. And if versatility can only send you up one tier, while power can send you up all of them, it seems inaccurate to me to say the tiers are "about versatility" to any real degree. It seems more accurate to say that both "versatility" and "power" are the same sort of thing. If you're fighting a thing with DR/bludgeoning, both an attack that deals bludgeoning damage (increase in versatility) and a damage bonus (increase in power) will allow you to defeat it.


I think tiers also identify the “one trick pony” classes, which may end up boring to play as players get more experience and PCs level up.

Again, I'm not really convinced that's true. It's probably true at the high end (no T1 or T2 classes are one-trick ponies). But even down in T5, there's a bunch of stuff you can do as a Truenamer or Magewright, it's just that all of it sucks. Even at the high end, it's only true contingently, as a class that had one trick that was sufficiently powerful and difficult to counter (like a blaster that did Mailman-level damage out of the box) would get to T2 or even T1, it's just that WotC never printed that class.

Eldan
2022-03-27, 11:33 AM
Yeah, versatility is, again, a big part of class tiers. If you know you're going to face a lot of antimagic fields, or you're going to have your components or stolen, a wizard can work around that, just by selecting different spells for the day. A fighter who has his weapons broken? Has a massive problem and can't just go unarmed for the day, they'd have to gain several feats for that.

RedMage125
2022-03-27, 12:46 PM
EDIT: Moved some things around.


That's just an argument that certain classes are mis-tiered, not that there's anything wrong with tiers in concept. It's not supposed to be "how good is this class if you play it the way the game expects you to", just "how good is this class". If it turns out that a Rogue that plays as a full plate-wearing frontliner is as good as a Sorcerer, then the Rogue should be in T2.
I gotta be honest, I think I mis-read this when I first started responding, and thought you were saying something different. But by the time I got down to this response and re-read it, I'd already put so much into this response that I'm still going to post. So let me just take this opportunity to add a disclaimer, that I think we may be more or less on the same page, with only differing on slight details.


One of the things tiers are intended to represent is the ability of classes to adapt to different circumstances.

But power also puts classes up a tier.
It seems more accurate to say that both "versatility" and "power" are the same sort of thing.
Yes, that's clearly stated in the Tier System:


This post is NOT intended to state which class is "best" or "sucks." It is only a measure of the power and versatility of classes for balance purposes.



The impact of player skill is overstated, because it lets people feel like their brains are huge. In general, most of the impact of player skill is that you can play virtually any class in a way that makes it much worse, and build it in a way that makes it worse still (an 8 Charisma Sorcerer is only marginally better than a Commoner).
I don't really agree, because the Tier system doesn't take either individual player skill nor specific build choices into account, and didn't even try to.
JaronK explicitly addresses that:


Remember, you're probably more experienced with your favorite class than with other classes. Plus, your personality probably fits well with the way that class works, and you probably are better inspired to work with that class. As such, whatever your favorite class is is going to seem stronger for you than everyone else. This is because you're simply going to play your favorite class in a more skillfull way...
...
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.
...
However, if your group is instead a healbot Cleric, a Beguiler who hasn't figured out how to use illusions effectively, a Sword and Board Fighter, and a Shock Trooper/Leap Attack Fighter, then the charge based Fighter is the odd one out. Bump him up a Tier... maybe even 2. So now you've got a Tier 1, a Tier 3, a Tier 5, and maybe a Tier 4. Remember, this whole thing is about intra party balance... there's no objective balancing, because each campaign is different.
What this is essentially saying is that the Build of a given Class can impact the Tier standing, so Build > Class*. And individual Player skill counts for a lot. Someone who really knows Rogues and plays them all the time will be pushing the limits of what that class is capable of. Also, someone might copy a powerful build off the internet, but not know how to play it well, dropping their standing, as you mentioned. So that means Player > Build > Class. And the Tier System is only even trying to judge Class, by itself, in a vacuum. Like I just quoted, "if everything other than mechanics is totally equal", which, in practice, can never ever be true, and thus never will be true.

*Example: A Fighter (Tier 5) can, through their build and skillful play, end up "Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise" (Tier 4), or even "Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate" (Tier 3).



But doing the reverse is much harder. There's no way to build or play a Fighter that makes it as mechanically effective as even a moderately optimized Wizard, discounting PrCs like Ur Priest that replace your class with a better one. What mostly happens is that because games are social and cooperative, people avoid playing in a way that makes someone who brought a Monk useless, even if doing that is pretty easy in practical terms.
The Tier System is also useful for determining what other things may be a good idea to assist with this, from the DM's perspective. If you've got a skilled, moderately optimized person playing a Druid, in a party with a less optimized Monk, even if the Druid player is attempting to be conscientious of the other player at the table, it's going to be difficult to not outshine him. Maybe allow the monk to play a more powerful race, free of level adjustment or something.

To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out.



And if versatility can only send you up one tier, while power can send you up all of them, it seems inaccurate to me to say the tiers are "about versatility" to any real degree. It seems more accurate to say that both "versatility" and "power" are the same sort of thing. If you're fighting a thing with DR/bludgeoning, both an attack that deals bludgeoning damage (increase in versatility) and a damage bonus (increase in power) will allow you to defeat it.
So JaronK says something later in the Tier System that almost seems to contradict the first quote, but the key is in the last sentence. And it highlights exactly what you're saying here.

The Tier System is not specifically ranking Power or Versitility (though those are what ends up being the big factors). It's ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in any given situation. Highly versitile classes will be more likely to efficiently apply what power they have to the situation, while very powerful classes will be able to REALLY help in specific situations. Classes that are both versitile and powerful will very easily get what they want by being very likely to have a very powerful solution to the current problem. This is what matters most for balance.



Again, I'm not really convinced that's true. It's probably true at the high end (no T1 or T2 classes are one-trick ponies). But even down in T5, there's a bunch of stuff you can do as a Truenamer or Magewright, it's just that all of it sucks. Even at the high end, it's only true contingently, as a class that had one trick that was sufficiently powerful and difficult to counter (like a blaster that did Mailman-level damage out of the box) would get to T2 or even T1, it's just that WotC never printed that class.

I mean...Tiers 3, 4, and 5 kind of are the "one trick ponies". The distinction usually being "Good at one trick, but still decent outside it" (3), "Good at that one trick, useless outside it" (4), and "Capable of that one trick, but not great even at that, and otherwise kind of gimped" (5). Tier 6 of course, is the "not even one trick" ponies.

You mentioned the Truenamer, which sits outside the whole Tier System, because of how wonky and varied it is. JaronK acknowledged that it could rank at Tier 4 or 6, and the class features themselves don't explicitly make the difference. You also mentioned Magewright, which I think is a bit odd, since few people play NPC classes, but I find the Magewright comparable to the Adept, which is actually Tier 4.

And I had one final, parting thought about the blaster you mentioned. A Warmage 10/Rainbow Servant 10 can spontaneously cast off the entire Warmage and Cleric spell lists (up to L8 spells) with the spells per day of a 16th level Warmage (same as Sorcerer). That might actually bump that character all the way to T1. Unless the lack of L9 spells keeps it from that highest Tier.

RandomPeasant
2022-03-27, 01:31 PM
Yeah, versatility is, again, a big part of class tiers. If you know you're going to face a lot of antimagic fields, or you're going to have your components or stolen, a wizard can work around that, just by selecting different spells for the day. A fighter who has his weapons broken? Has a massive problem and can't just go unarmed for the day, they'd have to gain several feats for that.

But that still fails to explain why the Sorcerer, who can change exactly zero of their choices from day to day, is T2, while the Incarnate, knows their whole list and can swap abilities during the day in multiple ways (making them substantially more versatile than the Wizard), is T4. I don't think there's a definition of "versatility" you could give that would accurately predict the tiering of the classes, or even a significant chunk of the classes, on its own. Conversely, "how powerful is this" is a very strong predictor of where a class ends up, whether you consider versatility or not.

And beyond that, I don't think it makes any real sense to single out "versatility" as some special attribute of classes. The fact that the Wizard can choose different spells tomorrow than he choose today is just a way in which the Wizard is powerful. But there are lots of ways classes are powerful, and most of them don't get any special consideration. You could talk about "flexibility", where a Beguiler can choose whether to cast knock or glitterdust during the day, rather than before it starts. You could talk about "adaptability", where a Sorcerer can pivot their build over time from a blaster to a BFCer, while a Barbarian is stuck on the "hit things hard" plan for the whole campaign. You could talk about "endurance", where a Warlock gets to use their abilities at will, rather than having a limited number of daily abilities. It's not at all clear to me what it is about "versatility" that makes it a more useful metric than those others, other than "the very best classes in the game have a lot of it".

RedMage125
2022-03-27, 02:51 PM
But that still fails to explain why the Sorcerer, who can change exactly zero of their choices from day to day, is T2, while the Incarnate, knows their whole list and can swap abilities during the day in multiple ways (making them substantially more versatile than the Wizard), is T4. I don't think there's a definition of "versatility" you could give that would accurately predict the tiering of the classes, or even a significant chunk of the classes, on its own. Conversely, "how powerful is this" is a very strong predictor of where a class ends up, whether you consider versatility or not.

And beyond that, I don't think it makes any real sense to single out "versatility" as some special attribute of classes. The fact that the Wizard can choose different spells tomorrow than he choose today is just a way in which the Wizard is powerful. But there are lots of ways classes are powerful, and most of them don't get any special consideration. You could talk about "flexibility", where a Beguiler can choose whether to cast knock or glitterdust during the day, rather than before it starts. You could talk about "adaptability", where a Sorcerer can pivot their build over time from a blaster to a BFCer, while a Barbarian is stuck on the "hit things hard" plan for the whole campaign. You could talk about "endurance", where a Warlock gets to use their abilities at will, rather than having a limited number of daily abilities. It's not at all clear to me what it is about "versatility" that makes it a more useful metric than those others, other than "the very best classes in the game have a lot of it".

This is a pretty important point of distinction. And it harkens back to what I said in my first post:
"Nothing illustrates this point better than the very existence and definition of Tier 2. Tier 2 is barely a distinct Tier in and of itself. It's members are primarily the "spontaneous caster" types, who have limited spells known from the class lists of those Tier 1 classes (or very similar, like the psion). The existence of Tier 2 highlights only just how amazing those spell lists from the Tier 1 classes are. Because a character who can cast any of those spells, but simply lacks the ability to change up their spell selection, is what makes up Tier 2."

Versatility is kind of secondary with respect to power, in terms of Tier ranking. Because a class with Tier 1 spells that lacks that versatility you mentioned is really the entire delineation of Tier 2. Which, like i said, really highlights more about just how powerful those Tier 1 abilities really are.

To reject "versatility" as a factor at all, however, kind of makes Tier 2 not a thing. But acknowledging that sorcerers and favored souls are more limited in scope as a class than their counterparts, wizards and clerics, and that scope is distinct enough to warrant a separate Tier, means that versatility is, in fact, significant. You're right in that Power is the primary, as the Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage, who can all cast spontaneously from their entire spell lists, occupy lower tiers because the scope of power that those spell lists can accomplish is more limited.

Also: The version of the Tier List I can find doesn't list Incarnate. Where do you see it as T4?

paladinn
2022-03-27, 10:37 PM
It sounds like the "tier" concept, besides being very subjective and an external, artificial construct, is more something used for/by power gamers?

Telok
2022-03-28, 12:32 AM
It sounds like the "tier" concept, besides being very subjective and an external, artificial construct, is more something used for/by power gamers?

Used? Maybe. It originally came about from people observing things in game and trying to analyze classes in comparison to other classes without delving into specific 'builds' or relying on the skills of the players. I was seeing the things that made people come up with the tier stuff within 6 to 9 months after 3e hit the store shelves. Its basically just a rough ranking of the generalized power+adaptability of a class over the 20 levels of play at the system mechanics level. Its an attempt at organizing & categorizing information.

Once it hit the forums... well some people disagree about details, some despise the entire concept, some use & some misuse, some seize on any mistake to dismiss it completely. You know, typical human disagreement stuff. But in general it attempts to codify & explain why people say "CoDzilla" & "Batman wizard" but not "F(ighter)oM(onk)zilla" & "Batman rogue".

Mechalich
2022-03-28, 01:18 AM
The Tier System is mostly 'useful' in that it's a tool to teach lessons to GMs, especially GMs new to the systems: 3.5e D&D and Pathfinder 1e where it primarily applies.

The most important of these lessons is that the idea, present throughout a huge amount of material for those games, that characters of the same level are roughly equivalent in power regardless of class is complete and total BS. This is important when considering both PCs - where the lesson is the build is extremely important and the GM needs to keep an eye on builds and ban builds they aren't willing to handle (minionomancy doesn't fly at a lot of tables, simply because it bogs the game down a lot) - and also NPCs - where it's important to recognize that these vanilla-build creations are by no means even and an NPC caster with the good spells on their list is extremely dangerous in a way no other opponent is liable to be (also applies to spellcasting monsters, notably dragons).

So while the precise ranking of any particular class on the Tier list only really matters in highly optimized games, the existence of immense variability between the classes, especially the Core classes, is immensely important to recognize.

Kurald Galain
2022-03-28, 01:54 PM
It sounds like the "tier" concept, besides being very subjective and an external, artificial construct, is more something used for/by power gamers?

It's probably broader that. However, in almost a decade of organized play experience I can say that "the tier list" just doesn't apply there (to be fair, organized play goes to about level 12, not higher). If you'd expect T1 casters to be dominating over every other class, well, they just don't. The argument that "this should happen in theory" rather falls flat when it doesn't happen in practice.

Telok
2022-03-28, 03:20 PM
It's probably broader that. However, in almost a decade of organized play experience I can say that "the tier list" just doesn't apply there (to be fair, organized play goes to about level 12, not higher). If you'd expect T1 casters to be dominating over every other class, well, they just don't. The argument that "this should happen in theory" rather falls flat when it doesn't happen in practice.

Yeah, a great deal of the tier stuff is about the choices a class has to influence the game and anything decreasing choice decreases the relevance of tier discussion to a game. In actual play any issues don't tend to crop up until about 9th level, maybe 7th at the earliest, simply because nobody has very many options & chances to use them. It also generally won"t appear in railroaded & timed games because both are designed to lock out options & chances that aren't already scripted. Of course its all a misapplication by the original purpose of the tiers, they weren't intended to be a prescriptive "this will happen in your game" thing. Thats a later forum thing.

RandomPeasant
2022-03-28, 04:01 PM
It's also that, because the game is social and cooperative, people naturally skew away from things that are disruptive, like bulldozing plots and overshadowing other players. You could write an adventure that depended on the high-level utility abilities that casters have, but because that would mean an adventure's worth of non-casters standing around doing nothing, DMs don't.


Its basically just a rough ranking of the generalized power+adaptability of a class over the 20 levels of play at the system mechanics level.

Again, is it? It's hard to argue that a Dread Necromancer is particularly "adaptable", but it's cleanly T2. I just don't understand the impulse people have to say that the tiers are "power + other thing" rather than just accepting that there are a variety of different ways to be powerful. Are the best classes able to adapt to different circumstances? Sure. But they also have the ability to make good use of downtime, and no one says "the tiers rank power and how well you exploit downtime".

Mechalich
2022-03-28, 04:17 PM
Again, is it? It's hard to argue that a Dread Necromancer is particularly "adaptable", but it's cleanly T2. I just don't understand the impulse people have to say that the tiers are "power + other thing" rather than just accepting that there are a variety of different ways to be powerful. Are the best classes able to adapt to different circumstances? Sure. But they also have the ability to make good use of downtime, and no one says "the tiers rank power and how well you exploit downtime".

Minions are a very substantial part of adaptability, and the Dread Necromancer gets minions.

This is an important part of the Tier List, it assumes PCs will utilize minions if not to the fullest extent possible, at least substantially. This is probably the biggest departure from typical play because lots of tables are extremely skeptical of minions as they tend to bog down play by, especially if the DM counters by adding minions to pump up antagonist action economy.

And many tables either soft or hard ban Planar Ally and Planar Binding, which are huge contributors to the overwhelming power of Tier Is to unless the minions.

RandomPeasant
2022-03-28, 05:18 PM
Minions are a very substantial part of adaptability, and the Dread Necromancer gets minions.

Again, I would contest that. Minions are absolutely powerful, and the Dread Necromancer does get them, but minions aren't broken because of "adaptability" or "flexibility" or "versatility" or whatever term you want to use. They're powerful because they are very powerful. People don't ban planar binding because the Wizard spends an hour picking their pokemon for any given adventuring day and thereby negates challenges by employing specialized silver bullets. They ban it because you can pretty much point to a random 12 HD Outsider and get something that is about as strong as anyone in the party. In fact, summon monster almost never gets banned, and it is in many ways the most flexible of the minionmancy spells, because you can decide what you want on the spot.

Fundamentally, I just don't see the assertion that "versatility" (or whatever word you want to use) is a key factor in tiering holding up to much scrutiny. It is true that the strongest classes have a lot of versatility, but they have a lot of many types of power, because they are very powerful. The Wizard has a lot of different abilities, and can choose different ones each day, and that is a strong attribute to have. But they also have abilities that are individually strong. And they have abilities that are difficult to defend against. And they have abilities that allow them to interact with a wide variety of different minigames. And they aren't dependent on items to be effective. And they can be built to fill a variety of roles in a party. And they benefit from many different avenues of optimization. And so on and so forth for many different forms of power, most of which are at best tangentially related to any notion of "versatility".

Telok
2022-03-28, 06:57 PM
Fundamentally, I just don't see the assertion that "versatility" (or whatever word you want to use) is a key factor in tiering holding up to much scrutiny. It is true that the strongest classes have a lot of versatility, but they have a lot of many types of power, because they are very powerful.

Ah, I think the crux of your opposition is to the sort of vague hand-wavy use of the word "power". Its absolutely true that versatility/flexability is a form of power. I, in D&D discussions, tend to use the word "power" more for combat ability. So for me as the D&D fighter in 3e & 5e does get absolutely more powerful in basic standard combat* they tend to get relatively less powerful to their opposition & game challenges unless they have magic items duplicating spell effects. For me the "versatility" axis is more about the ways the class offers the player to affect the game progress outside of combat and to deal with non-standard combat situations.

For your T2 dread necro example it might have some zombie dragons but needs to go find & kill something to get a different undead, and the wizard example casts planar binding every day and gets a different outsider ally for a week to have 7 different caster allies at any one time with the option to change them to fit the situation. While the two classes may be of similar power in any given single fight the wizard has more ability to tailor their abilities to different situations, and more class based tools available to change how the game is playing at the time.

Thats my take on it. Combat being the core of current D&D systems is one "power" axis for a class, with the ability to shape the rest of the game play and deal with unusual situations being the "versatility" axis of a class.

* basic standard combat being anything where walking up to stuff and beating it with a stick long & hard enough is enough to get the win condition. Airship battles, hostage rescues (where the hostages are actually endangered during combat), roof-top chases, and "get past an indestructible monster" type encounters are not basic/standard. Even most of your iconic boss-dragon battles are basic standard combat because they're just a death match in a functionally closed arena where walking over and sticking a knife in the dragon a bunch is a win.

RandomPeasant
2022-03-28, 07:09 PM
Ah, I think the crux of your opposition is to the sort of vague hand-wavy use of the word "power".

I would say that's sort of backwards. I think we should be more vague and hand-wavy in our use of the word "power", because it is the best word I can think of for the "how good is this character overall at solving problems" that class balance discussions focus on.


For me the "versatility" axis is more about the ways the class offers the player to affect the game progress outside of combat and to deal with non-standard combat situations.

But isn't that contrary to what the "versatility" axis is used to justify in terms of how the classes are tiered? The Beguiler has a very similar ability to do non-combat stuff as a Wizard, and spontaneous casting is often going to be better than prepared casting for dealing with "non-standard combat situations". And yet the Beguiler, and spontaneous casters more generally, are T2. I don't think that's wrong, those classes are (generally, the T1/T2 distinction is not super meaningful even by the standards of tier distinctions) worse than the T1s. But I think you have to be very careful, and somewhat unintuitive, in how you define "versatility" if you want to say that's why.


While the two classes may be of similar power in any given single fight the wizard has more ability to tailor their abilities to different situations, and more class based tools available to change how the game is playing at the time.

Sure. I'm not disputing that versatility is real, I'm just disputing that it deserves the special emphasis it gets in tier discussions. It is true that the Wizard can prepare a different set of spells tomorrow and the Dread Necromancer can't (though the DN does get the same planar binding as the Wizard). But it's also true that any individual set of prepared spells the Wizard has is likely to be more diverse than the Dread Necromancer's. And that the Wizard gets new spell levels faster than the Dread Necromancer. And that the Wizard has a wider variety of tools to gain power from downtime than the Dread Necromancer. And that they benefit more from access to a wider variety of splatbooks. I just don't see the argument that specifically versatility deserves to be called out in our discussion of classes, and I think that focusing on it tends to result in bad conclusions about class power.

RedMage125
2022-03-28, 10:41 PM
Again, is it? It's hard to argue that a Dread Necromancer is particularly "adaptable", but it's cleanly T2.


And yet the Beguiler, and spontaneous casters more generally, are T2.
Both of those classes are Tier 3, not Tier 2.

The "limited list" casters are all Tier 3 or 4. Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, and Warmage.


Sure. I'm not disputing that versatility is real, I'm just disputing that it deserves the special emphasis it gets in tier discussions.

Like I said before, it gets special emphasis at certain levels of power. Tier 2 is Sorcerer and Favored Soul, not Beguiler and Dread Necromancer. Versatility is the only distinction between Tier 1 and Tier 2. And that, really, just says more about just how powerful the spell lists of "Wiz/Sor" and "Clr" really are. That any class with unrestricted access to those lists, but cannot change their spell allotment from day to day deserves a distinct Tier ranking.

Because if versatility "isn't a factor that deserves consideration", then Tier 2 doesn't exist at all.