PDA

View Full Version : Complete the tier list! Where is balance?



Frosty
2008-09-03, 02:56 PM
This tier list is apparently taken from the WoTC gleemax forums. It has a lot of classes, but it's missing a few as well. Off the top of my head, I'm sure a few psionics are missing. Swordsage, Knight, and Dragon Shaman are missing as well. Go ahead and stick any missing classes in the appropriate tier, or if you feel one of the existing classes are tiered wrong, feel free to post your own list as well. Let's get EVERY base class on this list to make it comprehensive!

I personally feel that Tier 3 and 4 is where it's at. That's where the game can be very fun and full of options, but the DM isn't hating you for breaking the game wide open. In fact, I may soon start running a game where The first two tiers are not allowed, just to see how it goes. Where do you think are the optimal power levels for fun and balance so that the DM doesn't need to buff up every single monster in the MM just to challenge you?

As for my picks, I don't know much about psionics, so I won't touch those classes. The Knight goes to Tier 4. Dragon Shaman goes to Tier 5. Swordsage goes Tier 3.

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer.

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways.

Examples: Sorcerer, Favoured Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to online vestiges)

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Examples: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factorum, Warblade

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Examples: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Dungeoncrasher Varient), Psionic Warrior

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Examples: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert

Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

Examples: CW Samurai, Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner

And then there's the Truenamer, which is just broken (as in, the class was improperly made and doesn't function appropriately).

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-03, 03:01 PM
Monk needs to be dropped a Tier. Binder is usually considered weak except for dips, I'm surprised it's tier 2. I'd knock it to 4.

Crow
2008-09-03, 03:03 PM
Personally, I think Tier 4 is where it's at. Tier 3 is only a "balanced" tier due to the existence of the two tiers above it.

If I had to choose one tier and play with only those classes, it'd be tier 4.

Spiryt
2008-09-03, 03:09 PM
Paladin's missing.

Toss him to 4th, I think.

Also, what so good about Dungeoncrasher warrior variant that makes him 4th tier as well, compared to 5th normal figter?

Frosty
2008-09-03, 03:10 PM
Personally, I think Tier 4 is where it's at. Tier 3 is only a "balanced" tier due to the existence of the two tiers above it.

If I had to choose one tier and play with only those classes, it'd be tier 4.

So you're saying the BARD is overpowered?

Crow
2008-09-03, 03:11 PM
So you're saying the BARD is overpowered?

Once you add in all the splatbooks, yes. I could actually see him in either tier, depending on the player.

Tengu_temp
2008-09-03, 03:12 PM
Psionic Warrior deserves tier 3, if you ask me. Coincidentally, I think it's the tier where the funnest classes reside, too - tier 1 and 2 are overpowered, tier 5 and 6 are weak, tier 4 are often boring and limited.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-03, 03:13 PM
I like Tier 2 and 3. Powerful enough that you can do what you want, but not quite god.

Oslecamo
2008-09-03, 03:15 PM
Tiers are nonsense in D&D 3.5. If you want to start an arms race, everybody can get game ending combos, and honestly, the game can only end once, so there's no advantage on having more ways on ending the game.

Assuming for one moment that the idea makes any sense, there's really no diference between tier 1 and 2, fighter can own everything else on tier 5 on several ways so should go up, and the warblade/crusader/swordsage can't really compare to the beguiller/dread necromancer/wildshape ranger in terms of variety and power whitout chesse so they should go down.

So I can only conclude the people who originally built those list aren't much of great optimizers.

Spiryt
2008-09-03, 03:15 PM
About "balance" - I like 4th tier too, although 3rd also have some OK classes.

skywalker
2008-09-03, 03:32 PM
I like Tier 3 as well, some tier 4s can be boring, some can be just fine. I would also put paladin in 4.

I think it's that the dungeoncrasher has significant options beyond just being a fighter, some special tricks.

FMArthur
2008-09-03, 03:37 PM
Assuming for one moment that the idea makes any sense, there's really no diference between tier 1 and 2, fighter can own everything else on tier 5 on several ways so should go up, and the warblade/crusader/swordsage can't really compare to the beguiller/dread necromancer/wildshape ranger in terms of variety and power whitout chesse so they should go down.

The classes in each tier are not supposed to be exactly equal in power to the others in the same tier. Some are obviously more powerful than others. This doesn't change the way they are sorted, which is by usefulness in a regular party, and it should be obvious that a character's usefulness is not equal to its ability to beat up other PC classes. In fact, their usefulness is often inversely proportional to it. A Psychic Warrior is better than a Hexblade in most circumstances, for instance, but I don't think the Psychic Warrior belongs in the tier above it or the Hexblade belongs in the tier below. They're around the same power level, which is what counts.



OP: I think I would bump the Marshal down to Tier 5 or even Tier 6. I know it's not about how well they perform on their own, but Auras aren't enough and he doesn't get any other class features. You don't have a role in combat or out of combat outside of just standing there and shouting encouragement to everyone. There's just nothing else to do. And of course you can take Leadership, but Leadership cheese is about saying "screw this, I want to play other classes", and is probably an indication of negative value for the class. Anyone can take it.

Frosty
2008-09-03, 03:42 PM
I'd probably also bump Fighter up to 4th tier, with or without Dungeoncrasher.

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-03, 03:51 PM
Just to show a bit more, here's a link (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1045580) to the original thread, and here's the first post(the spoilers, except the outer ones, are in the same places, and I've bolded where he italicized, the rest is the same).:



Tier System for Classes

The following is a rough ranking of classes by power level. Psionic classes are mostly absent simply because I don't have enough experience with them. Other absent classes are generally because I don't know them well enough to comment. Note that "useless" here means "the class isn't particularly useful for dealing with situation X" not "it's totally impossible with enough splat books to make a build that involves that class deal with situation X." "Capable of doing one thing" means that any given build does one thing, not that the class itself is incapable of being built in different ways. Also, "encounters" here refers to appropriate encounters... obviously, anyone can solve an encounter with purely mechanical abilities if they're level 20 and it's CR 1.

Also note that with enough optimization, it's generally possible to go up a tier, and if played poorly you can easily drop a few tiers, but this is a general averaging.

Generally, the purpose of this system is to allow DMs to gauge power levels of builds in their party. As long as everyone's within one power Tier of each other, it should be fine. Differences of two or more tiers can be problematic in some groups. Avoid differences of 3 or more tiers unless the lower tier characters are more heavily optimized. It's also useful for figuring out what's really cheesey... sure, a Half Minotaur Water Orc Fighter sounds like a cheesy race, but if he's in a party with a Druid, a Cleric, and a Wizard, maybe you should allow it.

It's also handy for making new classes, as you can try to fit your class in to whatever tier you like best. Personally, I think Tier 3 is about the perfect balance point, as it allows teamwork and lets everybody shine appropriately, and everyone always feels useful. Other people prefer Tier 4. Perhaps still more prefer different points.

Note that some classes are in itallics. These are classes where I've heard about them, and other people have mentioned where they think they go, but I don't have enough direct experience to be sure of where they belong, so they're guesses.

The Tier System

Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than classes that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers at high levels. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.

Examples: Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Archivist, Artificer.

Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 classes, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks, and while the class itself is capable of anything, no one build can actually do nearly as much as the Tier 1 classes. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 classes are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways.

Examples: Sorcerer, Favoured Soul, Psion, Binder (with access to Summon Monster vestige)

Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as classes that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult. Will outshine any Tier 5s in the party much of the time.

Examples: Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Crusader, Bard, Swordsage, Binder (without access to the summon monster vestige), Wildshape Varient Ranger, Duskblade, Factorum, Warblade

Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Won't outshine anyone except Tier 6s except in specific circumstances that play to their strengths. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.

Examples: Rogue, Barbarian, Warlock, Warmage, Scout, Ranger, Hexblade, Adept, Spellthief, Marshal, Fighter (Dungeoncrasher Varient), Psionic Warrior

Tier 5: Capable of doing only one thing, and not necessarily all that well, or so unfocused that they have trouble mastering anything, and in many types of encounters the character cannot contribute. In some cases, can do one thing very well, but that one thing is very often not needed. Has trouble shining in any encounter. DMs may have to work to avoid the player feeling that their character is worthless unless the entire party is Tier 4 and below. Characters in this tier will often feel like one trick ponies if they do well, or just feel like they have no tricks at all if they build the class poorly.

Examples: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert

Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

Examples: CW Samurai, Aristocrat, Warrior, Commoner

And then there's the Truenamer, which is just broken (as in, the class was improperly made and doesn't function appropriately).

Now, obviously these rankings only apply when mechanical abilities are being used... in a more social oriented game where talking is the main way of solving things (without using diplomacy checks), any character can shine. However, when the mechanical abilities of the classes in question are being used, it's a bad idea to have parties with more than two tiers of difference.

It is interesting to note the disparity between the core classes... one of the reasons core has so many problems. If two players want to play a nature oriented shapeshifter and a general sword weilder, you're stuck with two very different tiered guys in the party (Fighter and Druid). Outside of core, it's possible to do it while staying on close Tiers... Wild Shape Varient Ranger and Warblade, for example.

Extra Sections!

FAQ:

Q: So, which is the best Tier?

A: In the end, the best Tier is the Tier that matches the rest of your party and appeals to you. If your party is Fighter, Rogue, Healer, Barbarian, then Tier 4 or 5 is going to be the best. If your party is Sorcerer, Beguiler, Crusader, Swordsage, then Tier 2-3 will be best. Really, if you're having fun and no one in the party feels either useless or overpowered, then you're doing it right. Personally, I prefer Tier 3, but I still match to whatever party I'm in if I join after other characters are created.

Q: Why is my favorite class too low? It should TOTALLY be much higher!

A: 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... plus you'll be blinded to the shortcomings of that class, since you probably don't care about those anyway (they match with things that you as a player probably don't want to do anyway). As such, if I did this right most people should think their favorite class is a little too low, whether that class is Fighter or Monk or Rogue or whatever else.

Q: I totally saw a [Class X] perform far better than a [Class Y] even though you list it as lower. What gives?

A: This system assumes that everything other than mechanics is totally equal. It's a ranking of the mechanical classes themselves, not of the players who use that class. As long as the players are of equal skill and optimize their characters roughly the same amount, it's fine. If one player optimizes a whole lot more than the other, that will shift their position on the chart.

Q: So what a minute, how can I use it then? My players all play differently.

A: First, determine what you'd say is the average optimization and skill level in the group, then make adjustments for people who are noticably different from that. I can't give examples of skill level, but here's an example for optimization. Imagine for a moment that your party has a Cleric with DMM: Persistant Spell, a Fighter with Shock Trooper and Leap Attack, a Beguiler with a Mindbender dip and Mindsight, and a traditional Sword and Board Fighter. Now, the first three are pretty optimized, but the fourth is pretty weak. So in that case, what you've actually got is a Tier 1, a Tier 3, a Tier 5, and a Tier 6, with that second Fighter being Tier 6 because he's far less optimized than the rest of the group. 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.

Q: So what exactly is this system measuring? Raw Power? Then why is the Barbarian lower than the Duskblade, when the Barbarian clearly does more damage?

A: For this, we need another block, because it's going to be a long answer.

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.

For example, here's how the various Tiers might deal with a specific set of situations.

Situation 1: A Black Dragon has been plaguing an area, and he lives in a trap filled cave. Deal with him.

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

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

Okay, so, here we go.

Tier 6: A Commoner. Situation 1: If he's REALLY optimized, he could be a threat to the dragon, but a single attack from the dragon could take him out too. He can't really offer help getting to said dragon. He could fill up the entire cave with chickens, but that's probably not a good idea. Really, he's dead weight unless his build was perfectly optimized for this situation (see my Commoner charger build for an example). Situation 2: Well, without any stealth abilities or diplomacy, he's not too handy here, again unless he's been exactly optimized for this precise thing (such as through Martial Study to get Diplomacy). Really, again his class isn't going to help much here. Situation 3: Again, no help from his class, though the chicken thing might be amusing if you're creative.

Tier 5: A Fighter. Situation 1: If he's optimized for this sort of thing (a tripper might have trouble, though a charger would be handy if he could get off a clear shot, and an archer would likely work) he can be a threat during the main fight, but he's probably just about useless for sneaking down through the cave and avoiding any traps the dragon has set out without alerting said dragon. Most likely the party Rogue would want to hide him in a bag of holding or something. Once in the fight if he's optimized he'll be solid, but if not (if he's a traditional SAB build or a dual weilding monkey grip type) he's going to be a liability in the combat (though not as bad as the Commoner). Situation 2: As the commoner before, his class really won't help here. His class just doesn't provide any useful tools for the job. It's possible (but very unlikely) that he's optimized in a way that helps in this situation, just as with the Commoner. Situation 3: Again, his class doesn't help much, but at least he could be pretty useful during the main battle as a front line trooper of some sort. Hack up the enemy and rack up a body count.

Tier 4: The Rogue. Situation 1: Well he can certainly help get the party to the dragon, even if he's not totally optimized for it. His stealth and detection abilities will come in handy here, and if he puts the less stealthy people in portable holes and the like he's good to go. During the combat he's likely not that helpful (it's hard to sneak attack a dragon) but if he had a lot of prep time he might have been able to snag a scroll or wand of Shivering Touch, in which case he could be extremely helpful... he just has to be really prepared and on the ball, and the resources have to be available in advance. He's quite squishy though, and that dragon is a serious threat. Situation 2: With his stealth and diplomacy, he's all over this. Maybe not 100% perfect, but still pretty darn solid. An individual build might not have all the necessary skills, but most should be able to make do. Situation 3: Perhaps he can use Gather Information and such to gain strategic advantages before the battle... that would be handy. There's a few he's pretty likely to be able to pull off. He might even be able to use Diplomacy to buff the army a bit and at least get them into a good morale situation pre battle. Or, if he's a different set up, he could perhaps go out and assassinate a few of the orc commanders before the fight, which could be handy. And then during the fight he could do the same. It's not incredible, but it's something.

Tier 3: The Beguiler. Situation 1: Again, getting through the cave is easy, perhaps easier with spell support. And again, if he's really prepared in advance, Shivering Touch via UMD is a possibility. But he's also got spells that could be quite useful here depending on the situation, and if he's optimized heavily, this is going to be pretty easy... Shadowcraft Mage, perhaps? Or Earth Dreamer? Either way, he's got a lot of available options, though like the Rogue he's somewhat squishy (and that Dragon won't fall for many illusions with his Blindsense) so he still needs that party support. Situation 2: Again, with his skills he's all over this one, plus the added ability to cast spells like charm makes this one much easier, allowing him to make contacts in the city quickly while he figures out where this guy is. Situation 3: Like the Rogue, he can get strategic advantages and be all over the Diplomacy. He's not quite as good at assassinating people if he takes that route (though sneaking up invisible and then using a coup de gras with a scythe is pretty darn effective), but using illusions during the fight will create some serious chaos in his favor. A single illusion of a wall of fire can really disrupt enemy formations, for example.

Tier 2: The Sorcerer. Situation 1: It really depends on the Sorcerer's spell load out. If he's got Greater Floating Disk, Spectral Hand, and Shivering Touch, this one's going to be easy as pie, since he can just float down (and carry his party in the process) to avoid many traps, then nail the dragon in one shot from a distance. If he doesn't he'd need scrolls with the same issues that the UMD Rogue and Beguiler would need. If he's got Explosive Runes he could create a bomb that would take out the Dragon in one shot. If he's got Polymorph he could turn the party melee into a Hydra for extra damage. If he's got Alter Self he could turn himself into a Skulk to get down there sneakily. Certainly, it's possible that the Sorcerer could own this scenario... if he has the right spells known. That's always the hard part for a Sorcerer. Situation 2: Again, depends on the spell. Does he have divinations that will help him know who's part of the resistance and who's actually an evil spy for the Tyranical Govenerment? Does he have charm? Alter Self would help a ton here too for disguise purposes if he has it. Once again, the options exist that could totally make this easy, but he might not have those options. Runestaffs would help a bit, but not that much. Scrolls would help too, but that requires access to them and good long term preparation. Situation 3: Again, does he have Wall of Iron or Wall of Stone to make fortifications? Does he have Wall of Fire to disrupt the battlefield? How about Mind Rape and Love's Pain to kill off the enemy commanders without any ability to stop him? Does he have Blinding Glory on his spell list, or Shapechange, or Gate? Well, maybe. He's got the power, but if his spells known don't apply here he can't do much. So, maybe he dominates this one, maybe not.

Tier 1: The Wizard. Situation 1: Memorize Greater Floating Disk, Shivering Touch, and Spectral Hand. Maybe Alter Self too for stealth reasons. Kill dragon. Memorize Animate Dead too, because Dragons make great minions (seriously, there's special rules for using that spell on dragons). Sweet, you have a new horsie! Or, you know, maybe you Mind Rape/Love's Pain and kill the dragon before he even knows you exist, then float down and check it out. Or maybe you create a horde of the dead and send them in, triggering the traps with their bodies. Or do the haunt shift trick and waltz in with a hardness of around 80 and giggle. Perhaps you cast Genesis to create a flowing time plane and then sit and think about what to do for a year while only a day passes on the outside... and cast Explosive Runes every day during that year. I'm sure you can come up with something. It's really your call. Situation 2: Check your spell list. Alter Self and Disguise Self can make you look like whoever you need to look like. Locate Creature has obvious utility. Heck, Contact Other Plane could be a total cheating method of finding the guy you're trying to find. Clairvoyance is also handy. It's all there. Situation 3: Oh no, enemy army! Well, if you've optimized for it, there's always the locate city bomb (just be careful not to blow up the friendly guys too). But if not, Love's Pain could assassinate the leaders. Wall of Iron/Stone could create fortifications, or be combined with Fabricate to armour up some of the troops. Or you could just cast Blinding Glory and now the entire enemy army is blind with no save for caster level hours. Maybe you could Planar Bind an appropriate outsider to help train the troops before the battle. Push comes to shove, Gate in a Solar, who can cast Miracle (which actually does have a "I win the battle" option)... or just Shapechange into one, if you prefer.

So yeah, as you move up the Tiers you go from weak, unadaptable, and predictable (that Commoner's got very few useful options) to strong, adaptable, and unpredictable (who knows what that Wizard is going to do?). A Wizard can always apply a great deal of strength very efficiently, whether it's Shivering Touch on the Dragon or Blinding Glory on an enemy army. The Sorcerer has the power, but he may not have power that he can actually apply to the situation. The Beguiler has even less raw power and may have to use UMD to pull it off. The Rogue is even further along that line. And the Fighter has power in very specific areas which are less likely to be useful in a given situation.

So yeah, that's really what the Tiers are about. How much does this class enable you to achieve what you want in a given situation? The more versitile your power, the more likely that the answer to that question is "a lot." If you've got tons of power and limited versitility (that's you, Sorcerers and charging Barbarians) then sometimes the answer is a lot, but sometimes it's not much. If you've got tons of versitility but limited power (hi, Rogue!) then it's often "a decent amount." If you've got little of both (Commoner!) then yeah, it's often "it doesn't."

And of course reversing that and applying it to DMs, you get "how many effective options does this class give for solving whatever encounters I throw at them?" For Commoners, the answer may be none. For Fighters, it's sometimes none, sometimes 1, maybe 2, but you generally know in advance what it will be (if he's got Improved Trip and a Spiked Chain and all that, he's probably going to be tripping stuff, just a hint). For Wizards, it's tons, and they're all really potent, and you have no idea how he's going to do it. Does he blind the enemy army or assassinate all its leaders or turn into a Solar and just arbitrarily win the battle? There's no way to know until he memorizes his spells for the day (and even then you might not see it coming).


Q: But what about dips? I mean, I rarely see anyone playing single class characters. What would a Barbarian 1/Fighter 6 be, for example?

A: It's pretty simple. This system is paying attention to the fact that people are more likely to take the early levels of a class than the later levels, either because they simply don't get to a level where they'd see the late levels, or because of dipping. Generally speaking, a mix of classes should end up being as high up as the most powerful class in the mix if it's optimized, or somewhere in the middle of the classes used if not very optimized, and below them both if it's really strangely done. A Barbarian 1/Fighter 6 that's optimized would thus be Tier 4 generally, because it took the best qualities of a Barbarian (probably pounce, rage, and so on) and then made it stronger. Generally, you don't multiclass out unless you get something better by doing so, so you're usually going to end up at least as strong as the strongest class. This isn't always true, but it generally is. Meanwhile, if you do something silly like Wizard 4/Sorcerer 4, you might end up much lower. But assuming you're not doing anything rediculous, a combination of Tier 4 and Tier 5 classes will usually be Tier 4, though it might be Tier 5. Similar examples would be that a Scout/Ranger is probably going to be Tier 4 (though because there's a multiclassing feat for that, it could end up Tier 3), a Monk 1/Druid X will be Tier 1, a Fighter 2/Warblade X will be Tier 3, and so on.

Q: My players want to play classes of wildly different Tiers. Can you suggest some house rules to deal with this?

A: Again, this gets its own block. These will be quick and dirty solutions... if you want, you can make something more intricate. The Tier system is designed to be the foundation for house rules... it tells you which direction you should take classes, power wise. For example, it's telling you that you shouldn't buff Sorcerers (unless the rest of the game is Tier 1) or nerf Monks (unless everyone else is Tier 6) in whatever changes you do. But, if you really want some house rules, here's a few:


Option #1: Point Buy modifications. This is a quick and dirty fix that helps a bit. It's not perfect, but it's certainly something. Tier 1s get 24 point buy. Tier 2s get 28 point buy. Tier 3s get 32 point buy. Tier 4s get 36 point buy. Tier 5s get 40 point buy. Tier 6s get 44 point buy. Result? At low levels, their Tiers are nearly reversed, with CW Samurai having awesome stats while Wizards really are weak bookish types. By the high levels, the Tiers are back in order, but the difference is less pronounced through the mid levels. Obviously, you can adjust what the differences are, but this works pretty well, and most importantly it's extremely easy. The big downside is that you really can't allow much multiclassing or else it all goes out of whack. Other similar methods include rolling but letting lower Tiers get extra rerolls or bonuses after the roll, and giving free LA points to low tier classes (so, everyone Tier 3 and below gets 1 free LA, and everyone Tier 5 and below gets 2 free LA).

Option #2: Partial Gestalt. Tier 1s and 2s are normal. Tier 3s and 4s may gestalt their levels with an NPC class of their choice (Adept, Expert, Commoner, or Warrior). Tier 5s and 6s may gestalt their levels with any other Tier 5 or 6 class of their choice, or Adepts. Result? Again, a healthy power boost for the low Tiers. Suddenly the Rogues can have full BAB and lots of hitpoints, and the Monks can have Fighter powers too. Very handy. Plus, multiclassing works... it's just that if you start as a Fighter//Monk and want to take a level of, say, Ranger, that level must have an NPC class on the other side. If for some reason you wanted Sorcerer, you wouldn't be gestalt at all in that level. Lord knows Fighters get a lot better when they can be Fighter//Monks or Fighter//CA Ninjas or whatever.

Option #3: Mass bannings. Clunky method, but simply saying "no, you can't be Tier X and above" does work. You pick the level that you want to deal with (let's say Tier 3, because that's my favorite) and then ban the ones higher than that (no Tier 2 or Tier 1). Some would ban the levels below that too (say, no Tier 5s or 6s) but I actually find that unnessesary... sometimes those weaker classes might work for your build as a dip. Honestly, I don't favor this method, because sometimes players can't find a class that fits their concept just right this way, but it is an option.

Areswargod139
2008-09-03, 03:52 PM
Personally, I think Tier 4 is where it's at. Tier 3 is only a "balanced" tier due to the existence of the two tiers above it.

If I had to choose one tier and play with only those classes, it'd be tier 4.

There, Frosty, I think that's a good way of putting my position from the other thread.:smallsmile:

But for the most part, this is a good tier system, it's just a bit more fleshed out than anything I thought of. I wonder where you would put the 3.5 DL classes at? probably near the bottom except for the mystic. Basically, it's a cleric without heavy armor that gets one domain and casts like a sorc, sort of a stripped down Favoured Soul. Any thoughts?

Starbuck_II
2008-09-03, 04:02 PM
I'd play Psychic warrior in his own semi-Tier: Tier 3.5.

He fits this: Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with.

AstralFire
2008-09-03, 04:07 PM
I prefer Tiers 3-4 for the most part.

UglyPanda
2008-09-03, 04:10 PM
Tires don exits!

Smash community joke, I just felt like making it. Incarnum classes, Wilder, and Dragonfire Adept are missing from this as well. The Complete Psionic classes don't exist.

Kurald Galain
2008-09-03, 04:11 PM
Samurai should be tier 2, obviously.

...what? :smalltongue:

AstralFire
2008-09-03, 04:12 PM
Tires don exits!

Smash community joke, I just felt like making it. Incarnum classes, Wilder, and Dragonfire Adept are missing from this as well. The Complete Psionic classes don't exist.

CM Suicune has no weak!

...Sorry, wrong competitive Nintendo community.

Eldariel
2008-09-03, 04:17 PM
The tier I usually prefer is Tier 3-4, with gritty fantasy at Tier 5-6 when I feel like it and occasional High Fantasy at Tier 1. Of course, much depends on the party and the game - we often mix tiers, but we always work it out somehow to even it out (usually using internet variants for the low tier classes if wanting high power, or for the high tier classes if wanting low power). This way, everyone gets to enjoy and we get to play all the way to epic without worries about anything except player incompetence making someone fall behind (and for that, we always help each other out if need be so that just doesn't happen).

Blackfang108
2008-09-03, 04:18 PM
I'd choose tier III, because my favorite class resides there.

The Duskblade.

Ascension
2008-09-03, 04:25 PM
In my experience most games end up being played in tiers 2-4, since most players recognize the weakness of 5 and 6 and most players of tier 1 characters don't manage to play them well enough to truly be as powerful as they could be. True, there are outliers, but statistically most of the games are fairly balancedish.

Judging from some of the stories I've heard, though, that's not the case for everyone else.

By the way, Tier 4 contains almost all my favorite classes, with the rest falling in 2 and 3.

EDIT: I'm currently playing in an intentionally Tier 5-6 game right now, though, and it's made of awesomeness.

Frosty
2008-09-03, 04:26 PM
There, Frosty, I think that's a good way of putting my position from the other thread.:smallsmile:

But for the most part, this is a good tier system, it's just a bit more fleshed out than anything I thought of. I wonder where you would put the 3.5 DL classes at? probably near the bottom except for the mystic. Basically, it's a cleric without heavy armor that gets one domain and casts like a sorc, sort of a stripped down Favoured Soul. Any thoughts?

DL classes? No idea what they are.

In any case I'm ok with tier 4 as long as I have enough splatbooks to optimize and give options to. Tier 3 are good enough without heavy optimization.

Areswargod139
2008-09-03, 04:28 PM
DL classes? No idea what they are.

In any case I'm ok with tier 4 as long as I have enough splatbooks to optimize and give options to. Tier 3 are good enough without heavy optimization.

Dragonlance 3.5, they had the noble, mystic (already told you what the mystic was), Mariner, and Master. I'd say all but the Mystic would be tier 4. Mystic would be tier 2 or three.

Akimbo
2008-09-03, 04:29 PM
There, Frosty, I think that's a good way of putting my position from the other thread.:smallsmile:

But for the most part, this is a good tier system, it's just a bit more fleshed out than anything I thought of. I wonder where you would put the 3.5 DL classes at? probably near the bottom except for the mystic. Basically, it's a cleric without heavy armor that gets one domain and casts like a sorc, sort of a stripped down Favoured Soul. Any thoughts?

I'm sorry, what the hell is DL that you reference every single post as if it were actual WotC material and everyone knew what you were talking about?

Frosty
2008-09-03, 04:30 PM
I'm sorry, what the hell is DL that you reference every single post as if it were actual WotC material and everyone knew what you were talking about?

Campaign-specific classes apparently.

Areswargod139
2008-09-03, 04:31 PM
I'm sorry, what the hell is DL that you reference every single post as if it were actual WotC material and everyone knew what you were talking about?

Every single post? You know, I've been a pretty good sport today, but I think several people may have missed their nappy-naps.:smallsigh:

hamishspence
2008-09-03, 04:32 PM
Not sure where dragonlance ranks on the scale of officialness: if its allowed, why not Dragon magazine classes like the Jester, or Unearthed Arcana variant classes? (Not gestalt- ever)

I notice Eberron's magewright NPC class isn't on list.

Hal
2008-09-03, 04:32 PM
Personally, I think Tier 4 is where it's at. Tier 3 is only a "balanced" tier due to the existence of the two tiers above it.

If I had to choose one tier and play with only those classes, it'd be tier 4.

Are you basing that off of the description given or the classes chosen?

Honestly, I don't think the addition of focused characters detracts from broader characters that much. I've enjoyed the Beguiler I've been playing in a campaign so far, but my main contributions to combat have been to cast some utility spells on/for everyone else then turn in visible and wait for them to kill stuff. I can't kill anything unless it falls unconscious.

Frosty
2008-09-03, 04:33 PM
But for the most part, this is a good tier system, it's just a bit more fleshed out than anything I thought of. I wonder where you would put the 3.5 DL classes at? probably near the bottom except for the mystic. Basically, it's a cleric without heavy armor that gets one domain and casts like a sorc, sort of a stripped down Favoured Soul. Any thoughts?

A stripped down Favored Soul sounds like between tier 3 and 4 to me.


Are you basing that off of the description given or the classes chosen?

Honestly, I don't think the addition of focused characters detracts from broader characters that much. I've enjoyed the Beguiler I've been playing in a campaign so far, but my main contributions to combat have been to cast some utility spells on/for everyone else then turn in visible and wait for them to kill stuff. I can't kill anything unless it falls unconscious.

My Beguilers MAKE things go unconscious or paralyzes them. Then the scythes come out.

Areswargod139
2008-09-03, 04:52 PM
Mystic gets any one domain that it wants so that might make it a bit higher, as for DL being on the same wavelength as Dragon articles, well, there were times in which Dragonlance gaming products outsold Ebberron, and though it was licensed by WotC, it was published by Sovereign Press, so you could argue official or un-official. Since it was a lower-powered setting, and a fairly popular one, I'd throw it in the mix.

XenoGeno
2008-09-03, 05:01 PM
Didn't Fax make a tier list already? Scratch that, I know he did. Anyone have the link to it?

TeeEl
2008-09-03, 05:08 PM
I had an idea for an arena type game based on this tier list the other day, using power incentives for lower tier classes to help even the playing field. A few holes to plug:

-Dragon Shamans are right on the edge between 4 and 5. In terms of raw power they're 5s, no question, but they generally do have something useful (if not exactly earth-shattering) to contribute most of the time.
-Knights are probably on the same level. About even with barbarian sounds right.
-Dragonfire Adept is definitely a solid 4 alongside Warlock and Warmage.
-I'm not that familiar with Incarnum, but from what I've heard I would guess totemist around 3 or 4 (probably 4) and soulborn and incarnate around 4 or 5. They seem pretty gimped powerwise but they do have an impressive amount of adaptability.

Crow
2008-09-03, 05:14 PM
Are you basing that off of the description given or the classes chosen?



Well as the description is quite obviously biased based on the writer's playstyle, I would have to say the classes. :smallwink:

Frosty
2008-09-03, 05:15 PM
I had an idea for an arena type game based on this tier list the other day, using power incentives for lower tier classes to help even the playing field. A few holes to plug:

-Dragon Shamans are right on the edge between 4 and 5. In terms of raw power they're 5s, no question, but they generally do have something useful (if not exactly earth-shattering) to contribute most of the time.
-Knights are probably on the same level. About even with barbarian sounds right.
-Dragonfire Adept is definitely a solid 4 alongside Warlock and Warmage.
-I'm not that familiar with Incarnum, but from what I've heard I would guess totemist around 3 or 4 (probably 4) and soulborn and incarnate around 4 or 5. They seem pretty gimped powerwise but they do have an impressive amount of adaptability.

Well the free healing up to half is pretty nifty certainly.

Oslecamo
2008-09-03, 05:15 PM
My Beguilers MAKE things go unconscious or paralyzes them. Then the scythes come out.

And that's why the ToB classes should go on the tier below beguillers. A warblade can't get any girl on town while making his angry boyfriend go sleep for a while can he?

Frosty
2008-09-03, 05:16 PM
Warblades are more like tier 3.5...they're very good, but it ain't a full caster.

Crow
2008-09-03, 05:23 PM
Warblades are more like tier 3.5...they're very good, but it ain't a full caster.

Aint that the truth...

Chronos
2008-09-03, 05:24 PM
If it weren't for the existence of the beguiler and factotum (which is incidentally misspelled), I'd argue that the rogue should be tier 3, since it can fill the skillmonkey role better than anyone else besides those two, but the skillmonkey role can be fairly broad. As it is, though, they definitely belong on different tiers.

And I would actually argue that, with the tier descriptions as given, that the commoner should not be in tier 6. Yes, it completely sucks, but it's supposed to completely suck, and therefore it does exactly what it's supposed to. It's just that what it's supposed to do isn't something that's useful very often, which would put it in 5 or even 4.

Frosty
2008-09-03, 05:30 PM
Tier 6: Not even capable of shining in their own area of expertise. DMs will need to work hard to make encounters that this sort of character can contribute in with their mechanical abilities. Will often feel worthless unless the character is seriously powergamed beyond belief, and even then won't be terribly impressive. Needs to fight enemies of lower than normal CR. Class is often completely unsynergized or with almost no abilities of merit. Avoid allowing PCs to play these characters.

But does the commoner even have an area of expertise?


If it weren't for the existence of the beguiler and factotum (which is incidentally misspelled), I'd argue that the rogue should be tier 3, since it can fill the skillmonkey role better than anyone else besides those two, but the skillmonkey role can be fairly broad. As it is, though, they definitely belong on different tiers.

I thought Beguilers do skillmonkey-ing on the same level as Rogues do? It's just that Beguilers can do things *other* than skillmonkey-ing? Well, rogues can too, but it's Sneak Attack 10d6 vs Timestop.

chiasaur11
2008-09-03, 05:34 PM
If it weren't for the existence of the beguiler and factotum (which is incidentally misspelled), I'd argue that the rogue should be tier 3, since it can fill the skillmonkey role better than anyone else besides those two, but the skillmonkey role can be fairly broad. As it is, though, they definitely belong on different tiers.

And I would actually argue that, with the tier descriptions as given, that the commoner should not be in tier 6. Yes, it completely sucks, but it's supposed to completely suck, and therefore it does exactly what it's supposed to. It's just that what it's supposed to do isn't something that's useful very often, which would put it in 5 or even 4.

How very Zen.

Chronos
2008-09-03, 05:39 PM
I thought Beguilers do skillmonkey-ing on the same level as Rogues do? It's just that Beguilers can do things *other* than skillmonkey-ing?Yeah, that's basically it. As far as the skills themselves go, rogues are a little better, thanks to having more points and Skill Mastery, but beguiler spellcasting is more than enough to make up for that, especially since many of the beguiler spells complement skill use well.

Dode
2008-09-03, 05:45 PM
Spirit Shaman I'd say is a tier 2. It's got Druid spells, rather nasty tricks unique to the class and some strong abilities but at the same time isn't at the game-dominating level as a well-played core caster.

Incarnate I'd say is a tier 4 - It has a lot of versatility but simply can't handle anything that requires expertise.

Totemist is a Tier 3 in my book. It's like the Blue Mage of D&D with a sack of monster combat abilities that are difficult to attain anywhere else. Or a primal Duskblade that never runs out of juice.

Soulborn is a tier 5. A level 6 Soulblade is honestly inferior to a Fighter 5/Incarnate 1.

Frosty
2008-09-03, 05:55 PM
Yeah, that's basically it. As far as the skills themselves go, rogues are a little better, thanks to having more points and Skill Mastery, but beguiler spellcasting is more than enough to make up for that, especially since many of the beguiler spells complement skill use well.

And what do you feel abnout the other PHB2 classes?

Dode
2008-09-03, 06:02 PM
Knight I'd say is a Tier 3, the defense counterpart to Barbarian offense.
Beguiler I'd say is in a correct place.
Dragon Shaman is a Tier 4
Duskblade is also a Tier 3, he's fun and all but can be taken down by determined tier 3s as well.

Inhuman Bot
2008-09-03, 06:03 PM
A commoner can be very effective if used right....
.... Just for referance.

Da Beast
2008-09-03, 06:04 PM
Ooo, what's this thread going to be? Fighters vs Casters? A monk thread? Maybe a psionics thread. We haven't had a good psionics thread in a while.

Suppose I may as well contribute something. I'd move the beguiler up to tier two. There are a few enemies it will never be very good at dealing with (undead and constructs) but for the most part it's a very potent and flexible caster on top of being a INT based skill monkey. Plus, being able to overcome SR is all kinds of nice.

Frosty
2008-09-03, 06:05 PM
Knight I'd say is a Tier 3, the defense counterpart to Barbarian offense.

But Barbarian is tier 4, not tier 3 :smallconfused:

Also, anyone else think Favored Soul might be tier 2.5 or 3 instead of 2? Having 2 casting stat kinda blows.


Ooo, what's this thread going to be? Fighters vs Casters? A monk thread? Maybe a psionics thread. We haven't had a good psionics thread in a while.

Huh? Are you saying this thread will devolve into one of those?

Curmudgeon
2008-09-03, 06:42 PM
I'd put Paladin in Tier 4, and maybe drop Favored Soul to Tier 3 due to its dual attribute dependency.

I think this ranking could be useful with something like a golf handicapping system. The lower your ranking, the more points you get to buy your stats. Something like:
19 points
25 points
32 points
37 points
43 points
50 points
Gets more complicated with multiclassing, of course.

UglyPanda
2008-09-03, 06:47 PM
I'd put Paladin in Tier 4, and maybe drop Favored Soul to Tier 3 due to its dual attribute dependency.

I think this ranking could be useful with something like a golf handicapping system. The lower your ranking, the more points you get to buy your stats. Something like:
19 points
25 points
32 points
37 points
43 points
50 points
Gets more complicated with multiclassing, of course.
The problem with that is that some of the higher ranked classes don't need high stats to do well. You can make a perfectly viable druid with 8, 8, 15, 8, 16, 8 as your stats.

Frosty
2008-09-03, 07:12 PM
I'm not sure that even a 50 pt-buy would help the Truenamer.

AstralFire
2008-09-03, 07:16 PM
I'd put Paladin in Tier 4, and maybe drop Favored Soul to Tier 3 due to its dual attribute dependency.

I think this ranking could be useful with something like a golf handicapping system. The lower your ranking, the more points you get to buy your stats. Something like:
19 points
25 points
32 points
37 points
43 points
50 points
Gets more complicated with multiclassing, of course.

Seen this before, but the problem is, of course, variable dependencies on stats and where those stats are needed. Extra points at low level don't lessen the effect of MAD noticeably at high level, when you're getting items that are worth a third of your total point buy.

Bonuses to WBL or ECL are probably a stronger way to go.

Deepblue706
2008-09-03, 07:22 PM
The problem with that is that some of the higher ranked classes don't need high stats to do well. You can make a perfectly viable druid with 8, 8, 15, 8, 16, 8 as your stats.

Unfortunately, an array like that could easily get you killed at low levels.

Starting beyond level 5, however, will likely put you in a fairly good position.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-03, 07:25 PM
I'm not sure that even a 50 pt-buy would help the Truenamer.

Remove restriction that stats can't go above 18 in point buy before Racial stats?
18 is 16 points
19 is 3 points, 20-21=4, 22-23=5, 24-25=6, 26-27= 7, etc.

So he can get 25 Int at level 1 and 1 point left over.

That means he has an extra +3 to Truename (assuminmg 18 is normal Int)... that helps a little right?

FMArthur
2008-09-03, 07:37 PM
If you kept it at 3 per point after 18, you'd get...


point cost(current score)

0(8) -> 6(14) -> 4(16) -> 39(29)

So a 29 to your casting stat means a +9, which isn't particularly helpful in the face of the massive DCs later, but means that he won't fail at lower levels. Hell, at low levels, he'd be able to out-fight a melee character with better BAB than him if he put it into strength. Truenamer needs more class abilities, and revisions to his current ones. Higher stats could help him survive, fight, and use skills (except for the one that counts), but it can't help him significantly in his primary class focus. A Truenamer with 50 point buy is best used as a commoner with 50 point buy. Forget Truenaming altogether unless you find something that's well below your CR or characters with gigantic LA.

Mushroom Ninja
2008-09-03, 07:44 PM
I'm not so sure on its classification of Adept. As much as they may (or may not) suck, I'm sure a fighter can beat an Adept.

MeklorIlavator
2008-09-03, 07:52 PM
I'm not so sure on its classification of Adept. As much as they may (or may not) suck, I'm sure a fighter can beat an Adept.

Actually, I believe that a this was tested, and due to some choice spells off the list the Adept was able to win.


Well as the description is quite obviously biased based on the writer's playstyle, I would have to say the classes. :smallwink:
Not sure what exactly you mean by this. Since the main point is raw versatility and power, how would play style reflect this?

Mushroom Ninja
2008-09-03, 07:55 PM
Actually, I believe that a this was tested, and due to some choice spells off the list the Adept was able to win.


Alright, I can see that. I suppose the adept does get Polymorph after all.

Crow
2008-09-03, 08:18 PM
Not sure what exactly you mean by this. Since the main point is raw versatility and power, how would play style reflect this?

Actually the point was at which tier the game achieves balance.

In my opinion, the classes in tier 4 are the most balanced by themselves within the system. They can do one thing well, or many things just OK. On the other hand though, they are usually only "useless" when paired with classes from tiers 1, 2, and 3. Note that a lot of the tier 3's are also only considered well-balanced because of the massive raw power of the tier 1 and 2's.

As I said, if I had to choose one tier to play in, it would be tier 4. In fact, even though this is a 3.5 discussion, I would consider that most 4e characters seem to fall into this catagory.

Dode
2008-09-03, 09:44 PM
{Scrubbed}

Akimbo
2008-09-03, 09:52 PM
{Scrubbed}

Frosty
2008-09-03, 11:18 PM
{Scrubbed}

Akimbo
2008-09-03, 11:25 PM
What do you mean here? You saying that he is too lazy to use contect to figure out whether it'd 3e or 4e?

He's used to being handfed the answer, whereas 3.5 players are used to choosing between hundreds or thousands of options, and having to figure out what's worth it and not.

So we expect to have to sort, and he expects everything to be clearly labeled.

Frosty
2008-09-03, 11:34 PM
So Akimbo do you agree with the tier system or do you think there's some mis-matches?

Akimbo
2008-09-03, 11:45 PM
So Akimbo do you agree with the tier system or do you think there's some mis-matches?

I think the primary flaw with the tier system, or the attempt at one, is that you actually need at least two, maybe three tiers systems to account for different levels of optimization.

At the lowest level of optimization I can accept as realistic, Druid is amazing, Other casters are lower, but Dread Necro and Beguiler are better then Sorc.

As you get to higher levels of optimization, Fighters get better then Barbarians, Rogues get better then any straight damage class, and Sorcerers get better then Beguilers and Dread Necros.

Things change to much. That tier system works great for people who generally play at the optimization level where Tier 3-4 are equal to CR X challenges. Which is why most people who like that system say they like Tier 3-4 best.

But if you optimize more then that, some classes get better, others relatively worse, and it changes the order considerably.

Frosty
2008-09-04, 12:05 AM
Hmm...do you think there is a level of optimization where there is the least amount of imbalance? There comes a point when the relatively new DM just can't handle the optimization anymore and the PCs walk over everything, at which point the DM starts giving invincibility against certain abilities/spells to monsters, quadrupling HP, and doubling of all saves of monsters just to keep up, and end up destroying versimilitude.

Do you think you can come up with a 2 or 3-tier optimization separation to accurately reflect how different people play and perhaps give examples of the optimization skills?

Justin_Bacon
2008-09-04, 12:12 AM
I think the primary flaw with the tier system, or the attempt at one, is that you actually need at least two, maybe three tiers systems to account for different levels of optimization. (snip good points)

You make some good points. I'd also add that the tiers don't seem to take into consideration different styles/paces of play.

The most extreme contrast is the classic one between the wizard vs. fighter. If you're playing in a game which consistently allows the wizard to bring all of their daily resources into the majority of encounters, then the wizard has a clear advantage over the fighter.

But if you increase the pace of encounters (and there are many ways for that to be done), the fighter benefits. If you run a campaign like some of mine where the PCs might routinely face 8-12 encounters per day at higher levels, then the wizard is put into a situation where they have to shepherd their resources whereas the fighter can consistently contribute round-after-round.

Which of these styles is better? Entirely a matter of personal taste.

Frosty
2008-09-04, 12:48 AM
Problem is, combat takes so long that even two encoutners takes up all the time we have. Maybe my encounters are just tougher and take longer, but on average I make my group run through their resources within 2 to 3 fights.

AstralFire
2008-09-04, 06:47 AM
He's used to being handfed the answer, whereas 3.5 players are used to choosing between hundreds or thousands of options, and having to figure out what's worth it and not.

So we expect to have to sort, and he expects everything to be clearly labeled.

That was a little uncalled for. I knew this was about JaronK's tier system just because I've read about it before, but tags for sorting are useful for everyone.


Problem is, combat takes so long that even two encoutners takes up all the time we have. Maybe my encounters are just tougher and take longer, but on average I make my group run through their resources within 2 to 3 fights.

This is part of why my homebrew system is going simple and one-roll. Even 4E takes a little longer than I'd like, though it's a bit better at representing endurance battles. My party doesn't always roll through all their resources that fast, but running that many combats is fatigue-inducing to me as a DM.

Frosty
2008-09-04, 01:11 PM
I wasn't aware any extra tags were needed. I thought the post was mostly self-explanatory.

AstralFire
2008-09-04, 01:14 PM
I wasn't aware any extra tags were needed. I thought the post was mostly self-explanatory.

From the topic list, I mean. Reading a post or two should make things blatantly obvious.

I don't really find the lack of tags to be a problem since I'm a big-time message board troll (in ye olden sense of someone who just loves to patrol the whole board in boredom), I just didn't think Yakk needed to be disparaged for asking, either.

Oslecamo
2008-09-04, 02:12 PM
But if you optimize more then that, some classes get better, others relatively worse, and it changes the order considerably.

I agree with this. An unoptimized newbie wizard won't scare anyone and will probably get killed really fast. A veteran player with a wizard has very litle to fear.

A barbarian or cleric, on the other hand, are pretty much on the same power level if they're played by newbies or veterans.

Frosty
2008-09-04, 02:13 PM
I agree with this. An unoptimized newbie wizard won't scare anyone and will probably get killed really fast. A veteran player with a wizard has very litle to fear.

A barbarian or cleric, on the other hand, are pretty much on the same power level if they're played by newbies or veterans.

barbarian, yes. Cleric...no. I've seen newbies do all the wrong things with clerics.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-04, 02:21 PM
Maybe he meant Druid, which is the most powerful caster for newbies.

Crow
2008-09-04, 03:10 PM
Maybe he meant Druid, which can be the most powerful caster for anyone.

The Druid is great in that it can be awesome at any level over a 20 level spread.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-04, 03:22 PM
The Druid is great in that it can be awesome at any level over a 20 level spread.Fully cheesed Wizard at a level past 10 is better due to being invulnerable, and Clerics can get a slight lead with a lot of work, especially at later levels. Druid just starts at almost the highest point on it's power curve with no optimization effort, and can't be brought up as much.

Oslecamo
2008-09-04, 03:30 PM
barbarian, yes. Cleric...no. I've seen newbies do all the wrong things with clerics.

Yes, but even if you burn your feats and pick the worst domains, you can still change your spell list on the next day for something usefull. Or be an healbot.

This is, I've also seen druids get their animal companions slaughtered easily while trying to defeat stuff with arrows. Trying, not suceeding.

Da Beast
2008-09-04, 03:45 PM
Huh? Are you saying this thread will devolve into one of those?

Threads about the merits of any class can devolve into savage balance debates. A thread dedicated to ranking the classes against one another is just asking for something to happen. I must say that I'm pleasantly surprised that this thread has stayed on track for this long.

Chronos
2008-09-04, 04:13 PM
With regards to the [3e] and [4e] tags, I think there's a simpler explanation that's not insulting to either game. It used to be that nobody labelled their threads (unless it was a particularly uncommon system), because almost all threads were D&D 3.x edition, so it was just assumed. To those of us who have stuck with 3e, it doesn't seem like anything has changed: We're still playing and asking about the game we're used to. But for those who have switched to the new edition, the fact that there are multiple editions of the game is a lot higher in their consciousness, so they're more likely to think to make it explicit. It's probably a good idea for everyone, but it's easy to understand why the 3e folks would forget.


Back to the original topic, I'd argue for moving ninja up to the same tier as rogues. There's not all that much difference between them: They have basically the same skill list, and Sudden Strike is almost the same as Sneak Attack. Ninja get fewer skill points, but the ki abilities aren't completely negligible, either. And at higher levels where invisibility starts becoming irrelevant, they get that nondetection ability, which is considerably better than the corresponding spell (an equal-level spellcaster with no CL boosts has no chance at all of scrying on a ninja).

Crow
2008-09-04, 05:22 PM
Fully cheesed Wizard at a level past 10 is better due to being invulnerable, and Clerics can get a slight lead with a lot of work, especially at later levels. Druid just starts at almost the highest point on it's power curve with no optimization effort, and can't be brought up as much.

A lot of the Wizard and Cleric cheese is directly dependant upon how much the DM is willing to let you get away with though. The druid is pretty much cut and dry.

Akimbo
2008-09-04, 05:22 PM
Ayep -- the content of the post. I went into it hoping for an interesting discussion of the 3 tiers of 4e D&D, and intended to remind the OP that tagging with [4e] is a polite thing to do.

It turned out not to be about 4e tiers, which was perfectly OK -- but I figured I'd still point out that tagging it would be a good idea.

The rude flames about how people who play 4e are bad people who suck(tm) are, I suppose, to be expected.

I don't see how it's an insult:

You clearly prefer having things labeled, both by your edition choice and the fact that you very specifically came into this thread asking for it to be labeled.

I very clearly prefer not having things labeled based on my addition choice and the fact that I think labeling threads is a waste of time.

Starbuck_II
2008-09-04, 05:27 PM
Fully cheesed Wizard at a level past 10 is better due to being invulnerable, and Clerics can get a slight lead with a lot of work, especially at later levels. Druid just starts at almost the highest point on it's power curve with no optimization effort, and can't be brought up as much.

What about Planar Shepard?

Frosty
2008-09-04, 06:54 PM
I don't see how it's an insult:

You clearly prefer having things labeled, both by your edition choice and the fact that you very specifically came into this thread asking for it to be labeled.

I very clearly prefer not having things labeled based on my addition choice and the fact that I think labeling threads is a waste of time.

Well, it's not a huge waste of time because it takes so little effort.

Starbuck: We're talking about base classes here, not PrCs.

FMArthur
2008-09-04, 07:03 PM
I don't see how it's an insult:

You clearly prefer having things labeled, both by your edition choice and the fact that you very specifically came into this thread asking for it to be labeled.

I very clearly prefer not having things labeled based on my addition choice and the fact that I think labeling threads is a waste of time.

It's just a convenience. None of the spells in the spell descriptions section of the PHB have to be labelled. I'm sure that by reading the description, you'd get which spell it was referring to. You can call anyone lazy for preferring easy and efficient clarification. It's not a waste of time to type a couple letters out of courtesy to prevent other people from wasting more time than the two letters cost you. It sounds reasonable enough to me.

Riffington
2008-09-04, 09:51 PM
I'm just curious, but why is it that nearly every [4e] thread has an original poster polite enough to label the thread, yet the same isn't true of [3e] posters?

"Polite" is a loaded word. The 4e posters don't specify which game's 4th edition is being discussed. Why not make it [D&D 4E - English Language]? The reason is that it can be assumed that most people in this thread are discussing D&D if the discussion is game-specific. If the discussion is about Ars Magica, it's likely to be labeled as such. It can likewise be assumed that topics are in English unless otherwise specified. At this point, there is no need to label 3.5 topics because they are the most common topics. 4e needs a label because it is not.

Maybe one day, 4e will be assumed and 3.5e threads will need to be labeled. That day is not today.

Frosty
2008-09-04, 09:54 PM
There is no need to be belligerent right now. I'm fine with labeling or not. I can usually figure it out.

NeoVid
2008-09-05, 06:04 AM
Also, anyone else think Favored Soul might be tier 2.5 or 3 instead of 2? Having 2 casting stat kinda blows.


Hum... I'm certain the original list was assuming the characters would be designed and played with a fairly high degree of optimization. The FAvored Soul is most effectively played by dumping Wis and taking no spells that allow a save, focusing on being a self-buffing beating machine. Simply having the entire cleric list available sticks him on tier 2.

It's good to see this list being worked on again. I was hoping that every base class would end up being covered, but then the original thread degenerated so far it had to be locked... eesh.

I hope the list in the first post gets updated... I'm willing to trust the statements of people who have extensive experience with the classes they add.

Oslecamo
2008-09-05, 06:04 AM
What about Planar Shepard?

If the DM's campaign doesn't use alternate planes, it isn't that bad.

Akimbo
2008-09-05, 07:10 AM
If the DM's campaign doesn't use alternate planes, it isn't that bad.

I'm sorry, that's kinda not even remotely true.

The Planar Shepard gets SLAs. It's an Eberron PrC. 99% of all Planar Shepard optimization is done using just the Eberron planes. Sure, someone will always want to play using the Far Realm, and claim Planar Bubble is exactly like Time Stop, and he can shapechange into a pseudonatural version of any creature, but just picking Dal Quor or the Chaos one gives you action advantage, and kickass forms with awesome SLAs.

Oslecamo
2008-09-05, 07:16 AM
I'm sorry, that's kinda not even remotely true.

The Planar Shepard gets SLAs. It's an Eberron PrC. 99% of all Planar Shepard optimization is done using just the Eberron planes. Sure, someone will always want to play using the Far Realm, and claim Planar Bubble is exactly like Time Stop, and he can shapechange into a pseudonatural version of any creature, but just picking Dal Quor or the Chaos one gives you action advantage, and kickass forms with awesome SLAs.

Eberron planes are alternate planes. The oficial planes are the usual fire, water, earth, air, heart, positive energy, negative energy, 9 hells, celestia, limbo and some others, and none of them give action advantage.

Frosty
2008-09-05, 10:28 AM
But they probably give SLA advantage.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-05, 01:30 PM
Eberron planes are alternate planes. The oficial planes are the usual fire, water, earth, air, heart, positive energy, negative energy, 9 hells, celestia, limbo and some others, and none of them give action advantage.But PS is an Eberron PrC, so using the Eberron planes with it was assumed when it was written. In fact, I'd view the standard D&D cosmology as an alternate to Dal Quor, not the other way around.

Frosty
2008-09-05, 01:37 PM
Either way, Planar Shepherd is ridiculously good. What does it give up anyways in order to gain all the planar goodies?

tyckspoon
2008-09-05, 01:47 PM
Either way, Planar Shepherd is ridiculously good. What does it give up anyways in order to gain all the planar goodies?

12 skill points in Knowledges you probably were already going to take and one feat.

Frosty
2008-09-05, 01:53 PM
12 skill points in Knowledges you probably were already going to take and one feat.

Is it a crappy feat? So PS advances spellcasting, Wildshape, AND AC?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-05, 02:01 PM
Is it a crappy feat? So PS advances spellcasting, Wildshape, AND AC?Yes. and it gives you the ability to Wildshape into any being native to your chosen plane(though it's closer to Shapechange than Wildshape at level 10), immunity to harmful effects of your plane, and lets you Planar Bubble for 10 minutes a day.

For 1 feat.

Frosty
2008-09-05, 02:03 PM
-_- What feat is it that drives this monstrosity?

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-09-05, 02:07 PM
-_- What feat is it that drives this monstrosity?Does it matter? It could take Skill Focus:Speak Language and not be losing anything.

AstralFire
2008-09-05, 02:10 PM
-_- What feat is it that drives this monstrosity?

Nightbringer Initiate in FoE or Greensinger Initiate from EbCS. Both add skills to your class list and add useful spells to your spell list.

olentu
2008-09-05, 02:14 PM
Yes. and it gives you the ability to Wildshape into any being native to your chosen plane(though it's closer to Shapechange than Wildshape at level 10)

In some ways it is actually better then shapechange since you get the extraordinary, supernatural and, spell like abilities.

However you also loose the a thousand faces, and the timeless body abilities. Also Wildshape also only stacks for daily uses, HD, duration, and size but not for creature type.

tyckspoon
2008-09-05, 02:22 PM
Upon further research, the feats do not suck- they add a couple skills to your class skill list and add spells to your spells known list, like the Dragon Compendium bloodline feats. Not the most powerful additions, but certainly no great sacrifice.



However you also loose the a thousand faces, and the timeless body abilities. Also Wildshape also only stacks for daily uses, HD, duration, and size but not for creature type.

Oh noes Thousand Faces and Timeless Body! Funnily enough I've never seen any build with those as a focal ability.. not much of a loss. And Planar Shepherd's progression lets you Wildshape into magical beasts, elementals, and outsiders from your chosen plane.. all you really lose out on there is some stunningly effective grapple forms from Plant Wildshape.

olentu
2008-09-05, 02:26 PM
And Planar Shepherd's progression lets you Wildshape into magical beasts, elementals, and outsiders from your chosen plane.. all you really lose out on there is some stunningly effective grapple forms from Plant Wildshape.

Well it at least makes you use fourth level spell slots on Enhance Wild Shape if you want to be a plant.

Frosty
2008-09-05, 02:43 PM
Well it at least makes you use fourth level spell slots on Enhance Wild Shape if you want to be a plant.

Would you even want to be a plant when you're a PS?

Riffington
2008-09-05, 02:53 PM
4e posts do not need a label -- people label it out of politeness.

At least, that is why I'm doing it. I'm being polite, considerate, nice. It makes it easier for people to understand the topic being discussed. It improves everyone's board experience.

Other people seem to disagree -- including the OP of this topic, and apparently you.

You missed the point completely. You label English-language D&D 4e posts [4e]. Why don't you label them [English D&D 4e] so that we know they are in English, and that they are about 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons rather than 4th edition Shadowrun or 4th edition Ars Magica?
Is it because you are rude, inconsiderate, or mean? Surely not. Surely it's because people here automatically know that 4e with no more qualifications means 4th edition D&D. Just like people here automatically know that a lack of tags means either 3.5 edition D&D, or non-game-specific questions.

AmberVael
2008-09-05, 03:16 PM
4e posts do not need a label -- people label it out of politeness.

At least, that is why I'm doing it. I'm being polite, considerate, nice. It makes it easier for people to understand the topic being discussed. It improves everyone's board experience.

Other people seem to disagree -- including the OP of this topic, and apparently you.

I think the reason the majority of 3.5 threads are not labeled as such is because the people who create the threads, and who talk about 3.5 on these forums, are used to 3.5 being the norm and the standard. It doesn't need to be labeled because it is assumed unless otherwise stated.

That's my perspective, at least. Personally I don't want [3E] tags because then I'll feel like 4th edition is thought to be on equal standing with 3rd edition, which it's totally not! :smalltongue: Bad 4th edition, getting airs and thinking you're so good! DOWN! No supper for you! :smalltongue:

Frosty
2008-09-05, 03:29 PM
I think the reason the majority of 3.5 threads are not labeled as such is because the people who create the threads, and who talk about 3.5 on these forums, are used to 3.5 being the norm and the standard. It doesn't need to be labeled because it is assumed unless otherwise stated.

That's my perspective, at least. Personally I don't want [3E] tags because then I'll feel like 4th edition is thought to be on equal standing with 3rd edition, which it's totally not! :smalltongue: Bad 4th edition, getting airs and thinking you're so good! DOWN! No supper for you! :smalltongue:

*gives Vael a thumbs up* What she said. Vael rocks. Listen to her.

AstralFire
2008-09-05, 05:43 PM
I don't tag things simply because I'm lazy. This whole business of denigrating Yakk because he mentioned it is really getting to me, though. Because I am a spiteful, spiteful little man I've half a mind to just start labeling all of my 3E threads as such.

Of course, I don't do much at all for 3E on message boards anymore aside from the one homebrew campaign setting I'm working on off-site, so that's probably moot. I do even less for 4E.

Maybe I can tag the threads I start in Banter. [FUNNY TO ME] [ALSO FUNNY TO ME] [YOU WON'T FIND THIS FUNNY I DID] [HALP HOW MINE 4 FISH] [SELF-REFERENTIAL TAG TO SEE FIRST THREE COMMENTS]

Frosty
2008-09-05, 05:45 PM
The Denigrating, while sad, doesn't surprise me anymore since this is an internet forum.

Justin_Bacon
2008-09-05, 11:48 PM
Problem is, combat takes so long that even two encoutners takes up all the time we have. Maybe my encounters are just tougher and take longer, but on average I make my group run through their resources within 2 to 3 fights.

Fair enough. I actually just got done writing an essay about
the pacing and difficulty of encounters (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/encounter-design.html).

If you're consistently running tougher and fewer encounters, then you're encouraging the spellcasters to nova their most powerful abilities at a faster pace. When they happens, melee-only classes are disadvantaged.

(However, if your fights are also taking more rounds to resolve and if you've also got lots of non-combat activities going on, these will skew things back towards the melee-only classes. Why do non-combat abilities have that effect? Because then the spellcasters can be motivated to sink their daily spellcasting resources into non-combat spells.)

Fighters also have problems if you're running a primarily skill-oriented campaign with very little combat.

The nice thing about 3rd Edition is that there's a sufficient range of playing styles supported mechanically by the various classes that you can usually find something to play that will fit your tastes and balance out with the playing style of the rest of the group.

I think the biggest danger comes into play when you've got two PCs who are both in the same niche. Imbalances between those two characters are much more problematic.

Frosty
2008-09-06, 12:04 AM
There are two melee tanks in the party I'm currently DMing. The Dragon Shaman is feeling a bit inadequate compared to the Warblade.

NephandiMan
2008-09-06, 01:40 PM
Planar Shepherd's progression lets you Wildshape into magical beasts, elementals, and outsiders from your chosen plane.. all you really lose out on there is some stunningly effective grapple forms from Plant Wildshape.

Plant grappling...?

Now I want to make a female druid named Venus Flytrappe.

Roland St. Jude
2008-09-06, 05:34 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: If you'd like to discuss the proper use of tags, please do so in Board Issues in a manner that doesn't insult other posters.

Frosty
2008-09-07, 03:38 AM
Plant grappling...?

Now I want to make a female druid named Venus Flytrappe.

The DM should kill your character just for that bad pun :smallyuk: