[3.P] What classes should be the baseline of power?

[Endarire]

Overview
Inspired by various threads about comparative class power, I'm curious of your thoughts on this.

Tier 1 Classes have lots and lots of options. Can do anything their spells and DMs allow. Can eventually replace non-casters.

Tier 2 Classes have fewer potent options, but still very potent options if chosen correctly. Can eventually replace non-casters, but requires more effort to accomplish; usually more magic items or larger party sizes or higher levels.

Tier 3 Classes Are potent without having Ultimate Power™. They can do their thing well, but probably won't break the game on accident. Classes here are solid choices, and some are even casters. Tier 3 casters may be able to replace non-casters, but doing so generally requires a lot more effort than T1s and T2s.

T3s tend to be more flexible than T2s. Martial adepts and Bards are known for being able to slowly replace their known maneuvers/spells.

Some T3s (martial adepts especially) rely on spamming their best abilities. T3 casters tend to have too few spells to merely spam them, though each spell could do much.

Tier 4 Classes include the Dungeoncrasher Fighter and a remarkable number of Player's Handbook classes. Options tend to be especially rigid with little chance of replacement. From here on down, you'll probably be spamming your trick or two every fight it's viable, if not every round.

Tier 5 Classes try hard not to chosen last for Dodgeball teams. From here on down, you better hope your DM is being nice and your party's optimized as much as it can be. I don't want to consider a tier 6 campaign unless we're doing something wacky, like a group of Chicken Infested Warforged Commoners trying to open the world's first Khorvaire Fabricated Cuisine stand.

My Preference
Tier 1. Everyone is relevant, if not now then when the stars have fewer spells. As DM, I can throw bigger, cooler, CRAZIER combats and situations at the party and implicitly turn D&D into more of a puzzle game.

Tier 1 characters can also counter the DM's notorious plans. A well-placed spell turns a would-be TPK into a manageable or trivial situation. I've saved my party on at least one occasion by this.

[Kylarra]

Tier 1 as a baseline is good for those with the time/experience to have system mastery.

Personally, I prefer Tier 3/4 as a baseline in order to have something more along the lines of a "traditional" game without needing to plan for umpteen-billion contingencies and rocket tag [as much].

[dsmiles]

I'm a 3/4 kind of guy, myself. I don't like to put effort into writing adventure outlines, only to have the players teleport to the end, kill the bbeg, and save the princess in the first 5 minutes of the session. (I want them to at least take 20 minutes to do that, so I have a chance to write some more stuff. )

[Ajadea]

Tier 3/4. Tier 3.5, I guess. . You have your tricks. And you have your other tricks. But you can't do everything. In fact, there's a lot you can't do, but that's why you have things known as party members.

[Zaydos]

As a player either Tier 1 with the kid-gloves on, or Tier 3.
Long winded explanation spoilered below.

Spoiler

Show

I like tier 1 characters because I love wizards and druids from a fluff perspective (I wield the power of the cosmos/nature) and played magic-users and elves back in the old Red Box days. BUT when I play a caster I typically avoid heavy optimization, don't use Wild Shape, and keep the big guns stowed very, very far away; an exception was when the DM asked me to go all out... got to play that character for 1 adventure (which consisted entirely of encounters built from my list of *how best to neutralize this character* in the same order I gave them to the DM). Even then I didn't optimize as much as I could and the worst I did was take the DM up on his offer of a pixie familiar and coupled it with 1/day Draconic Polymorph (I could have been a Focused Transmuter), which is actually kind of funny since half the characters feats were devoted to getting as high a CL as possible for Conjuration spells to use Black Tentacles. Also I have a tendency towards gishes and theurges.

As a balance point, though, I prefer Tier 3 characters since: without optimization tend to be stronger than Tier 1s and 2s (exception Druid; an unoptimized wizard tends to die fast); with optimization they are still vulnerable; they can, depending upon optimization level, play nice with Tier 1s or Tier 5s; and have a nice number of options that they can perform without necessarily breaking the game.

As a DM, depends upon the player. Just here to be with friends and doesn't care enough to read the rules? Tier 4s and 5s since you can play them without much hassle (they won't be the strongest people but you can do it). Mostly care about RP, will double check what their abilities do, but not really into building a powerful character? Tier 1s and 2s because they'll enjoy the options without breaking the game. The Optimizers? Tier 3ish (low Tier 2 and option heavy tier 4 as well); they won't be happy without the versatility and options but they won't totally shatter the game either.

[Eldariel]

Tier 3. But instead of using the present Tier 3, I'd prefer Tier 1 classes depowered. I want a few non-magical types that are viable, I want a variety of spellcasters and blends. So like, spellcasters with slightly more fair spells. For example, expanded and nerfed psionics (get rid of the few truly obscene options like Synchronity and nerf the Time Stop-line a bit) along with expanded ToB and a ToB-base Duskblade. Or just fixed multiclassing where X 10/Y 10 is actually around the same level as X 20 or Y 20.

[Cadian 9th]

I generally try and make my adventures please all characters, making at least 1 use of every ability the character has, preferably one that is unique to them.

Also, I generally have games that are optimized, so Tiers are different. Same with low-level games, where Unarmed Shadow hand Swordsages are incredible.

I agree with the above posters. When you've got a DM/Player trust going, I'm happy with whatever they bring, so long as I can mesh it storywise. So far I've done alright that way...

[Tyndmyr]

Tier 1-2. Makes for an interesting and fun game.

Tier 3 is also a reasonable answer.

I prefer to avoid the lower tiers as a general rule, and have a general dislike of characters that rely on spamming one combo over and over again. Leads to boring combats and/or games.

[Dralnu]

I like Tier 3.5 - 4. D&D is a party-oriented game and I like the idea of classes filling a specific niche and requiring to work together to defeat all varieties of obstacles.

My ideal melee as a player and DM is unoptimized ToB characters, or maybe a smidgen less powerful than that due to a couple standout manuevers. I like my casters around there too. Unquestionably powerful but still has that classic D&D vibe of how we all started out with fighters, paladins, and healbot clerics.

Coincidentally, this is exactly where my RL group currently is in terms of optimization and I love it. As a DM, sure I have to spend more hours preparing my sessions to make sure they don't pull a trick to steamroll everything and pre-made modules will need tweaking, but it doesn't need THAT much tweaking. Once you're reaching the ceiling of tier 3 and beyond it's just a headache.

[Godless_Paladin]

I like the 1-3 range.

[prufock]

I like each character to have a role in the party, maybe two roles, but not ALL THE ROLES. They should have a few things they do well, then other things they do less well.

Yes, I like fighters that stand in front of the mage to soak up hits and give as good as he gets. Yes, I like rogues to be the skill monkey and sneaky-stabby guy. I like the cleric to be the healer, buffer, and fixer. The wizard should be the debuffer/buffer and area control.

Most of the time, this isn't a problem in my games. I'll bring the hammer down on any overpowered stuff, and I'll beef up underpowered stuff. Regardless of what I play I try to be effective, but I'll reign myself in if necessary. It usually isn't. My group doesn't play games to wank over optimized builds - they're fun to ooh and aah over as a mental exercise, but not to play. I'm playing a monk!

If I have to pick, I'd say tier 2 or 3. Everybody has options, and are good at what they do, but don't replace other character's niches without doing it on purpose (which you'd have to be kind of a jerk to do).

[Trundlebug]

Tier 3/4. Tier 3.5, I guess. . You have your tricks. And you have your other tricks. But you can't do everything. In fact, there's a lot you can't do, but that's why you have things known as party members.

Said it well. You can only play what your group supports. Otherwise your a ****. I like relying on my mates. Would like to play with a 1 group though.

[Jallorn]

I like tiers 2/3. I think that if you go too low, then there are lots of instances where only one character gets to shine, or instances where everyone is useless. Conversely, tier 1 gets a bit too rocket-tag and each player has too many options. I won't say it's easy, but it's certainly a different kind of challenge from the lower levels.

I think that each character should have some weaknesses, but should have something they can do in almost all situations. Hence, tiers 2/3. Most Tier 2 classes are spellcasters (with some exceptions) such as the sorcerer, who don't have everything, but have got some nice stuff. Most tier 3 are skillmonkeys or less manipulable spellcasters, like factotum and warlock (my two favorite classes).

[kryan]

Tier 1 groups can be properly challenged, and can be forced to rely on each other. This takes a lot of work, though.

Personally, Tier 3, usually high-ish Tier 3. And I'm not really keen on the +/- 1 that's pretty common; I dislike both Tier 2's and Tier 4's. Tier 2's can be held back, though, and Tier 4's often make decent dips, but other than that, meh.

[subject42]

I tend to like low 2 to high 4. It seems that's where the classes with minimal bookkeeping are.

[Tvtyrant]

I tend to play Cleric, so I guess 1. However I really really like the idea of playing a Bard or Monk and optimizing the heck out of them in order to make them viable in the group filled with Wizards and Druids.

I think Tier 1's are kind of crazy; I really wish they were prestige classes for weaker classes as opposed to base classes. So full on wild shape and animal companion as a prestige class of Ranger, OR full casting Druid spells over ten levels, but not both. Bard into Wizard, Pally into Cleric, something into Sorc. Essentially it would free low level games from the Tier 1's all together, but allow them in the higher levels where they belong.

[Tyndmyr]

Said it well. You can only play what your group supports. Otherwise your a ****. I like relying on my mates. Would like to play with a 1 group though.

It's awesome. It's like playing Xanatos Speed Chess when everyone has teleporters, nuclear bombs, and is constantly rewriting reality.

Going back to playing a charger afterwards will make you feel sad. It's like playing candyland after Arkham Horror.

[Zaydos]

It's awesome. It's like playing Xanatos Speed Chess when everyone has teleporters, nuclear bombs, and is constantly rewriting reality.

Going back to playing a charger afterwards will make you feel sad. It's like playing candyland after Arkham Horror.

Personally I didn't enjoy Arkham Horror much... except when everyone congo-lined into the portal right before I closed it winning the game and letting Yog-Sothoth eat them all. I prefer... any of several other less time intensive games. If I'm going to sink all night in a game I'm going to play D&D.

[true_shinken]

I will say tier 3.5 like most before me.

[Tyndmyr]

As a rule, I prefer RPGs for my rules heavy games as well. It's an interesting game, but actually spending the evening roleplaying is generally going to win unless the DM gets hit by a bus or something.

Mostly just a bit of hyperbole to describe the "well, this is simple" feeling.

[Godless_Paladin]

It's awesome. It's like playing Xanatos Speed Chess when everyone has teleporters, nuclear bombs, and is constantly rewriting reality.

Xanatos Speed Chess is my favorite pastime.

[Thrawn183]

I tend to like low 2 to high 4. It seems that's where the classes with minimal bookkeeping are.

This, just for a different reason. I think you do need a bit of what casters can bring to the table to deal with the variety of challenges a party will have to overcome. I just can't stand when a character will be really useful in every situation. It makes it impossible to let any of the other characters to have a moment to really shine when you know that the tier one character could have been useful in that spot too.

[theMycon]

Personally? "Intelligently played tier 3." It's powerful enough and has enough options that no one strategy will always work against it (problem with lower tiers), but controllable enough that "same idea, more power" actually makes a difference.

The problem with tier 1's is that they have so many simple "yes I win" powers that more oomph just slows 'em down, but doesn't make any difference in how they have to play. A wizard can always go "I'm invincible, I separate the battle, I read a book"

The problem with tier 5's is that there are simply things that, no matter how powerful they become, they can never do. Example: Rule that "unarmed attack" is exactly the same as "unarmed strike" and the monk becomes an unstoppable melee god of death. Still can't do jack ranged, and needs a hell of a lot of luck against flying foes (unless a better class holds them in place.)

[Elfin]

Like a lot of people, I favor Tier 3/4, leaning towards 3. It's heroic but without the ridiculous degrees of...erm...Tippyness (yeah, that's not a word).
Of course, it helps that nearly all of my favorite classes (martial adepts, beguiler, binder, warlock, factotum, etc) are in those two tiers.

[Show]

I think that games flow the most smoothly at about tier 2.5.
The party works together, they fight somewhat level appropriate challenges, and they still get a few cool powers. Not enough cool powers to break the game, and not few enough that they have to go power spamming to feel useful. The part I enjoy most is that you can actually attempt to bring strategy into the game. Whereas tier 4 has no strategic value, and tier 1 is just full of tactical nukes, a party made up of tier 2/3(and the occasional 1 or 4) characters can actually do stuff. That is, without breaking the game or bending reality too much.

[Godless_Paladin]

Speaking as a heavy practical optimizer:

The optimizing community doesn't unanimously agree that if a character is Tier X, they're going to be outclassed by a character of Tier X+1. People really like to have class tiers for some reason (indeed, it has been joked that, after that other thing the internet is for, the internet is all about who would beat who arguments), but it doesn't work out as cleanly as people seem to think it does, especially when JaronK uses theoretical op shenanigans, prestige classes, and multiclass builds in his arguments about where a class ought to be placed.

The thing is, a Sorcerer (tier 2) isn't actually all that and a bag of chips compared to a Beguiler (tier 3) unless you pull out the stops.

One of the problems with JaronK's tier system is that when you're talking about real, practical games, the fact that a Sorcerer can count off more potential silly tricks that no one will ever actually get away with like Explosive Runes Collecting dispel bombs doesn't actually make him a more effective character than the party Beguiler, because you're not going to use Explosive Runes Collecting dispel bombs. And if you are, well, it's not like you can't get arbitrarily high damage just as easily with a tier 4.

Most of the time what you're going to see is that a Beguiler has:
-A better base template than the Sorcerer with cool special abilities.
-A lot more spells on hand at any given time. Seriously, the second you hit level 6, you have 21 third level spells known that you can cast spontaneously.
-Spells that aren't limited to enemy targeting mind-affecting stuff. He totally has things like Haste and Dispel Magic on that list of third level spells known.
-Has at least as many skills as the Rogue because not only does he get 6 base, but he's got Int as the primary stat.

Not enough cool powers to break the game

I find this sentiment rather silly. You can break things with just about any class. Counting the number of ways you can break the game doesn't really matter because people shouldn't be playing Shambling Mound Electroshock Therapy or More Wishes anyways.

The nuclear bombs argument just doesn't really apply to practical optimization, because in a real game a "Locate City Bomb" is something that's against the gentleman's agreement and thus you just don't do it. And you can make Pun Pun out of a Paladin. So yeah.

[Show]

You can break things with just about any class. Counting the number of ways you can break the game doesn't really matter because people shouldn't be playing Shambling Mound Electroshock Therapy or More Wishes anyways.

The nuclear bombs argument just doesn't really apply to practical optimization, because in a real game a "Locate City Bomb" is something that's against the gentleman's agreement and thus you just don't do it.

What I mean is that a decent wizard can do almost anything, given even just a day or two to prep. A sorcerer, while able to do just as much direct damage, perhaps more with increased spells/day, actually has weaknesses and potential failures.
If you compare a decently prepared build of any kind, the tier 1 classes have many less weaknesses and are generally able to do anything they want by level 20, wheras a fighter is only able to hit things harder and more accurately throughout. This versatility and incredible range of powerful abilities is what, in my opinion, "breaks the game" in this case.
Straight damage output potential or ability to cause incredibly high saves isn't what the tier system is about. Its about how many things you can do, not that you can pull off a neat trick. While I agree with you that any class can be optimized to become "broken", Tier 1 characters become "broken" all on their own. No optimization necessary.

As for the beguiler, I'm not sure why its in tier 3. It seems like a decent tier 2 at least.

[Godless_Paladin]

Yeah, the thing with the Tier 1s is that they're actually uncapped, and their whole set of class features can change every day.

As for the beguiler, I'm not sure why its in tier 3. It seems like a decent tier 2 at least.

It's because of the criteria JaronK uses to rate things.

[Show]

Godless Paladin:
Sorry if you misunderstood anything. I meant to refer to their lack of weaknesses, not their ability to deal 1200 damage with an optimized disintegrate.

Edit: About the beguiler, perhaps, while it has the abilities, it doesn't utilize them as effectively?
I haven't looked at the class in-depth, but that could be a possible explaination.

[jiriku]

As a player, I love Tier 1 classes. Just love 'em. However, it's a delicate line to walk trying to play one without frying the DM's brain or stepping on the good time my friends are trying to have. That's a shame, cuz I love me my wizards.

As a DM, I'd LOVE to run a game for an all-Tier 1 group, but frankly the interest (and the skill level) just isn't there in the groups I play with. So I settle for Tier 3, wishing all the time that my players would push me harder.

EDIT: The chief difference between a beguiler and a wizard from a raw power perspective, and the one that drives a 2-tier gap between them, is that the beguiler has around 150 spells known, while the wizard has n spells known, selected from a pool of around 700 spells.