Quote Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung View Post
I weep for all the GM's and players who come here for help and instead get taught how to be prejudice towards classes. D&D is supposed to be a game that plunges you into a world of imagination and instead people around the world are standing around a table arguing over "tiers".
Except it fails at that. You want a game about big damn heroes, in a world with dragons and wizards? First question you need to ask yourself: do I base it on simulation and make it rules-heavy, or narrative and make it rules-light? The best narrative-based game I've seen is FATE. GURPS and HERO are great simulation-based games (although HERO is better at doing stuff for the "in-between" power level, while GURPS tends to be either real gritty or crazy high-powered).

D&D can support many different power levels. The problem is, it doesn't say that, and the devs didn't really know it until late in the game. Is your preferred power level high-powered warriors with supernatural powers (clerics, gishes, and druids) and powerful masters of magic (wizards, psions, archivists), strong supernatural and martial warriors (crusader, warblade, toned down cleric, lower powered gishes) and mages with a couple tricks up their sleeves (toned down wizards, psions, and cloistered clerics), a strong band of adventurers who nonetheless have to pick their battles carefully (well-played barbarian and fighter, blaster wizard with a couple lower-level control spells, cleric that buffs the brute) or a misfit band of adventurers who have to pick their battles carefully and get some luck (sword-n-board fighter, crossbow-wielding rogue, blaster wizard, and healbot cleric)?

Ignoring this discrepancy in power level that comes from the very core of the system will create more problems than it solves.