[3.5] Questions about JaronK's Tier System

[Timeless Error]

So, there are a few things I was wondering about concerning the tier system for classes by JaronK.

(I know, this stuff must sound pretty simple to you experts out there, but I'm pretty new to D&D and I've never played nor DM'd an adventure beyond second level, so I don't have much experience.)

1) In an adventure where players pick a race, a class, and a few feats that look cool and go with it, where wizards consider fireball to be their most powerful spell, where character optimization has never been touched nor even heard of (my group, for example), does the tier system really matter? Are all characters in the same boat? I would guess that tier ones and twos would still take the lead (after all, they're bound to notice teleport, genesis, and shapechange eventually), but as I mentioned earlier, I don't have much experience with the game yet. In your opinion, would it really make a difference?

2) What tiers work well together? I know that a tier one would be out of place in a group of tier fives, but would a tier three class in a party of tier fours outdo everyone else? Would a tier two be undermined in a party of tier ones?

3) What effect does the tier system have on Encounter Level and XP? Would it be fair to challenge a group of tier fours with a tier three? A tier two? Would an encounter with a tier five be to easy?

4) What factors do you take into account when determining the tier of a class (besides the obvious checking spell lists for game breakers like teleport and gate)?

5) If anyone is familiar with the Advanced Player's Manual by Skip Williams (published by Green Ronin), would you be kind enough to evaluate the tiers for the classes in there (including the appendix on the psychic)?

6) And, just for fun...what is your favorite tier to play?

Thanks in advance for answering my questions!

--Timeless Error

[Amphetryon]

1) In a world where players pick a race, a class, and a few feats that look cool and go with it, where wizards consider fireball to be their most powerful spell, where character optimization has never been touched nor even heard of (my group, for example), does the tier system really matter? Are all characters in the same boat? I would guess that tier ones and twos would still take the lead (after all, they're bound to notice teleport, genesis, and shapechange eventually), but as I mentioned earlier, I don't have much experience with the game yet. In your opinion, would it really make a difference?

2) What tiers work well together? I know that a tier one would be out of place in a group of tier fives, but would a tier three class in a party of tier fours outdo everyone else? Would a tier two be undermined in a party of tier ones?

3) What effect does the tier system have on Encounter Level and XP? Would it be fair to challenge a group of tier fours with a tier three? A tier two? Would an encounter with a tier five be to easy?

4) What factors do you take into account when determining the tier of a class (besides the obvious checking spell lists for game breakers like teleport and gate)?

5) If anyone is familiar with the Advanced Player's Manual by Skip Williams (published by Green Ronin), would you be kind enough to evaluate the tiers for the classes in there (including the appendix on the psychic)?

6) And, just for fun...what is your favorite tier to play?

Thanks in advance for answering my questions!

--Timeless Error

1) The Tiers assume everyone at the table plays at the same level of optimization, roughly. A Fireball Wizard is still Tier 1 compared to a Sword n Board Fighter. The Wizard also has the opportunity to do much more than a Fighter does, overall, regardless of whether those opportunities are pursued.

2) Tiers work most closely together when everyone is within 1 Tier of each other. Tier 2s can play with 1s or 3s without either feeling especially out of place, but all three Tiers together will start to show the powers of Tier 1 while Tier 3 starts to lag.

3) XP should not be influenced, IMHO.

4) Not my system. I think he addresses this, though.

5) Not familiar.

6) I prefer Tier 3 and 4 characters most. It creates the atmosphere I'm most interested in, without phenomenal cosmic power coming out of everyone's ears. Tier 3 also has the widest variety of archetypes, I think.

[Frosty]

The main part of judging what tier a class belongs to is versatility and options. The more effective options a class has, the higher tier it is.

[erikun]

The tier system if fundamentally a measure of how powerful a character is, and how well they can adapt or prepare for a given situation. A Fighter is a higher tier than a CW Samurai because one is statistically stronger, but a Psychic Warrior is a higher tier than a Fighter because it has the ability to work in more areas than the Fighter.

All tiers assume basic classes with all material and a decent level of optimization. That is, the Wizard can learn any spell they wish and prepare the most efficient ones, but is not an optimized fireball caster, nor is he Pun-Pun.

1) As for how heavily optimization applies, I don't think it really weighs into the tier system. An unoptimized Wizard can be worse than an unoptimized Fighter, because even a poorly build Fighter can still swing a weapon at an opponent. (A poorly build Wizard, though, could end up with spells that are not helpful at all in a challange.) A Druid is a lot harder to "mess up," though, and even unoptimized Druids tend to outshine most melee classes. Most Monk, even optimized ones, run into problems unless they are in a low-treasure campaign.

2) Tiers can work together just fine. It largely depends on the attitudes of the players, and how the optimization is handled. ClericZilla can party happily with Commoners and Soulknifes if they focus on buffing their teammates. Batman Wizards can work just fine magically opening chests and charming guards if the party doesn't have a Rogue or Bard, or if the party just doesn't want to deal with such challanges.

The largest problems with tiers occur when one character outclasses another in their speciality (even unintentionally, see Fighter vs. Druid) or if one character routinely falls behind the rest of the party in every situation.

3) Tiers are about how well a class can work when optimized, and what challanges they can face. A properly optimized and smart party can take apart most challanges, regardless of CR. Conversely, a poorly optimized or dense party can be defeated by CRs exceptionally lower through clever planning. (see: Tucker's Kobolds) The best way to challange optimized characters is with smart planning from monsters and varied challanges, not just something bigger.

4) How many situations the class can deal with, and how easy it is to change solutions, determine tier. Healer can really only do one thing (heal) and that doesn't solve many problems, hence the low tier. Wizards can deal with numerous situations very effectively, and can change their options every day, hence their high tier. The reason that Wizards are higher than Sorcerers is because a Wizard can change his spells daily (to fit the challange) while a Sorcerer cannot.

5) Nope, never heard of it.

6) Tier 2-Tier 3. I'm a fan of psionics, which typically falls into these two tiers. I don't mind outliers, either high (Wizard) or low (Ranger) as long as they aren't intentionally designed to break the game/be useless, respectively.

[Keld Denar]

1) All things being equal, it is still easier to "accidentally" optimize a class like the druid or the wizard. Given the open ended nature of their abilities, simply trying a different option might result in the knowledge that x is stronger than y, whereas a class with less flexability might not make such a discovery as easily. Optimization levels being equal and low, the difference will be less pronounced, but is still likely to be seen.

2) A lot of people consider Tier 3 to be the sweet spot. As long as optimization levels stay pretty low, T2-T4 should all play along with each other nicely. At higher optimization levels, a narrower band of T3-T4 will result in relatively balanced play.

3) RAW wise, XP should not be affected. That said, if the entire party is T1 and optimization levels are high, encounters have to be made tougher to be more challenging. This doesn't mean higher CR monsters, but smarter encounters to counter smarter played characters. A half dozen gobos with short swords are gonna be a cake walk, but the same half dozen gobos with short bows firing from cover would be tougher. Same CR, same XP, different EL.

4) Tiers are a measure of versatility. The more adaptive a class is from day to day, challenge to challenge, the higher tier it is. Spellcasters, especially those with adaptive spell lists (wizards, clerics, druids) tend to rate the highest because they can potentially always have the proper tool for the job. Spellcasters with fixed lists (sorcerer, beguiler, etc) are a slightly lower tier. They have fewer tools, but those tools are powerful enough to accomplish a pretty wide spectrum of goals. Not the best tool, but one that is good enough. Classes that have NO versatility (fighter with his fixed feats) typically rank lower. They can do one or two things really good, but if those aren't the proper tool, they really suffer. Etc.

5) No idea. If you are familiar, you might be able to do this. As stated, its simply a measure of versatility, rather than shear power. I can build a barbarian that can deal 50,000 damage in a round. That doesn't make barbarian T1.

6) As stated, T3 tends to be the sweet spot for most people. The spellcasters in it are decent, but not too strong. The support classes have a fair number of options, and melee consists mostly of ToB classes and the Totemist, all the versatile and varied options on a round/round and day/day basis.

[Augmented Lurk]

1. Having played in and DMing for numerous unoptimized groups i can say that it usually doesn't. However, some classes are far more powerful in unoptimized games, most notably the Tome of Battle classes.

2. It depends on the optimization level. I've DMed for groups that ranged from 1 to 5 and experienced no noticeable imbalance.

3. It depends on the level of the classes involved and how well the DM builds the character. An optimized level 18 sorcerer (t2) would probably defeat a level 14 tier one party, for instance.

6. 3

[Curmudgeon]

There are some good answers already, so I'll just add my 6) answer:

Tiers 4-5, assuming the rest of the party plays around Tiers 2-3. I enjoy the optimization challenge, and generally have no problems making my characters equal contributors to the party's goals.

[Akal Saris]

And for a 3rd opinion

1) The optimization assumes core, the book the character was printed in, and 1-2 books that are very important to optimizing the class in JaronK's estimation. So a factotum is assumed to have access to the Iajutsu Focus skill from Oriental Adventures, for example, since skill optimization is a factotum's core strength.

2) In the end, it's all about the players and the DM. Different tiers sometimes make it more challenging for DMs to challenge the entire party effectively, especially if you have two characters with a similar role. I'd say tiers 1-3 all work together well enough.

3) In my opinion, CR presumes a party at tier 4 in core (aka 'blaster wizard and rogue tier'), and tier 3 in later Monster Manuals. Adjust accordingly.

4) JaronK was primarily concerned with versatility in solving encounters. So a character who can teleport, charm, create a bridge, scry, fly, blast, summon, or cast save or dies (basically a L11+ wizard, cleric, or druid) can probably solve nearly any encounter that he's faced with, and he can change his list on a daily basis to adapt to expected challenges, and on "downtime" days he can craft items or cast long-lasting spells to prepare for the next day. It's quite difficult for a fighter to match that.

5) Sorry mate!

6) I like tier 1 and tier 3-4. None of the T2 classes appeal to me, since I value versatility over sheer power, and classes lower than T4 generally lack the options that I want. With that said, I disagree on the exact placement of several classes, so I don't necessarily take JaronK at his word either. But the overall intent is good.

[Frosty]

1. Having played in and DMing for numerous unoptimized groups i can say that it usually doesn't. However, some classes are far more powerful in unoptimized games, most notably the Tome of Battle classes.

2. It depends on the optimization level. I've DMed for groups that ranged from 1 to 5 and experienced no noticeable imbalance.

3. It depends on the level of the classes involved and how well the DM builds the character. An optimized level 18 sorcerer (t2) would probably defeat a level 14 tier one party, for instance.

6. 3

The tier system does not point out how optimized classes are *out of the box*. For newbies, that kinda information would be slightly more useful than the tier list, but the tier list is still a good resource. ToB classes just happen to come pre-optimized for tier 3 play.

With that said, I disagree on the exact placement of several classes, so I don't necessarily take JaronK at his word either. But the overall intent is good.

Which placements do you disagree with?

[molten_dragon]

Just a quick add-on to this question. His original list leaves out quite a few classes. Is there another list somewhere that includes them, or am I going to have to dig through the posts looking for mentions of them?

[Keld Denar]

I believe the post on Brilliant Gameologists is the most recently updated list. Check that one first. The one on the boards formally known as gleemax, formally known as CharOp...I doubt that one has been touched in years.

PS, JaronK posts on this forum, under the username...JaronK. If you have any burning questions, you could always send him a PM!

[Psyren]

Just a quick add-on to this question. His original list leaves out quite a few classes. Is there another list somewhere that includes them, or am I going to have to dig through the posts looking for mentions of them?

He has said that approximating the tiers of missing classes is something individuals should be able to accomplish fairly easily with the guidelines presented, so it's not worth updating to include every single base class in 3.5.

[Timeless Error]

Thanks to everyone for the replies so far! So, to recap, from what I can gather...

1) There was some disagreement on this, but the general consensus seems to be "Yes, the tier system is still in effect even when optimization does not come into play."

2) Basically, tier ones, twos, and threes work well together, but even a tier one will not outshine a tier five if the tier one is a team player and devotes time to filling empty roles and buffing other players.

3) In short, no, XP and EL are not affected. With good tactics, an adventuring group can overcome practically any encounter, but even if strategy is lacking, the change in power is not drastic enough to justify an XP modification.

4) Versatility is the key element in the tier system.

5) Nobody so far has heard of the Advanced Player's Manual? Well, I guess that doesn't really surprise me, as it's a random third-party sourcebook that I sort of pulled out of the blue. Hopefully, if nobody comes along and resolves the issue, I'll be able to work it out myself with the information you guys gave me on evaluating tiers.

6) It seems that so far, most people aim for the tier 3 area.

--Timeless Error

[Psyren]

Thanks to everyone for the replies so far! So, to recap, from what I can gather...

1) There was some disagreement on this, but the general consensus seems to be "Yes, the tier system is still in effect even when optimization does not come into play."

The Tier system represents potential. Potential does not change regardless of actual optimization involved, just as your Porsche doesn't stop being a sports car just because you intentionally drive it as slowly as the Prius next to you in traffic.

2) Basically, tier ones, twos, and threes work well together, but even a tier one will not outclass a tier five if the tier one is a team player and devotes time to filling empty roles and buffing other players.

That depends on your definition of "outclass." (A better word might be "outshine" here.)

6) It seems that so far, most people aim for the tier 3 area.

--Timeless Error

Tier 3 is the sweet spot between one's character feeling irrelevant and one's group feeling irrelevant.

[Timeless Error]

That depends on your definition of "outclass." (A better word might be "outshine" here.)

OK, cool, I fixed it.

Tier 3 is the sweet spot between one's character feeling irrelevant and one's group feeling irrelevant.

Would you say that tier fours already begin to feel like they are useless? I mean, a tier five feeling useless I can understand (as they are, in fact, mostly use impaired), but tier fours generally have at least one area at which they can excel. Right?

[Frosty]

Tier 5s would not feel useless in a group with lots of tier 4s, but would in a group of tier 3s and above. It's all relative.

[Prime32]

I believe the post on Brilliant Gameologists is the most recently updated list. Check that one first. The one on the boards formally known as gleemax, formally known as CharOp...I doubt that one has been touched in years.

Note that there are two threads on BG. The one with "Repost" in its title is more current.

[Amphetryon]

Would you say that tier fours already begin to feel like they are useless? I mean, a tier five feeling useless I can understand (as they are, in fact, mostly use impaired), but tier fours generally have at least one area at which they can excel. Right?

That depends on what their area is, and how often it comes into play. Also, consider how much enjoyment you get out of that particular area of play. I like Hexblades, for example, because they are debuffer-focused characters in a primarily melee role. If you're one that prefers options besides debuffing - for example, if you like AoE effects - the lack of versatility relative to your preferred niche will likely be grating on you, and potentially your group as a result.

[Gnaeus]

The tier system does not point out how optimized classes are *out of the box*. For newbies, that kinda information would be slightly more useful than the tier list, but the tier list is still a good resource. ToB classes just happen to come pre-optimized for tier 3 play.

Which placements do you disagree with?

Without speaking for Akal, there are a number of placements that I disagree with. They mostly hinge on 3 questions:
1. Are characters assumed to have WBL of equipment at an optimization level similar to their character? (Tier system assumes no, If yes, some classes like UMDers will shift)
2. What is equivalent optimization between class X&Y?
3. What dirty tricks does the DM allow/not allow?

Rogue, for example, could hit tier 3 depending on the answer to #1. Beguiler and sorcerer could be in the same tier depending on the answers to 2&3. That said, I wouldn't move any class by more than one tier, and the system as a whole is useful, it is just blurry around the edges, since it is based on one (albeit one very experienced) player's opinions and what he determined to be a "normal" campaign.

[Timeless Error]

That depends on what their area is, and how often it comes into play. Also, consider how much enjoyment you get out of that particular area of play. I like Hexblades, for example, because they are debuffer-focused characters in a primarily melee role. If you're one that prefers options besides debuffing - for example, if you like AoE effects - the lack of versatility relative to your preferred niche will likely be grating on you, and potentially your group as a result.

Well first of all, I'm not in the best position to consider which area of play I enjoy the most, since I'm not a seasoned gamer, only which area of play I think I would enjoy the most. I'm also not familiar with the abbreviation AoE. Did you mean AoO (Attack of Opportunity)? Nitpicking aside, I see your point.

[Psyren]

Would you say that tier fours already begin to feel like they are useless? I mean, a tier five feeling useless I can understand (as they are, in fact, mostly use impaired), but tier fours generally have at least one area at which they can excel. Right?

As JaronK himself posted, T4 actually comes in two main flavors:

1) I have an area I excel at, but when it comes to tasks not requiring that area I tend to fall short;

2) I can do lots of different things, but can't really do any of them particularly well.

Rogues are the poster-child of (1) - great skillmonkeys, but in combat they are mediocre at best and totally handicapped at worse. This is also the type you're referring to.

Warlocks are the poster-child of (2) - A Warlock can try his hand at almost any role in the game, but is never quite good enough at any of them to really stand out.

T4s (the first type) feel like they are useless anytime their niche is not needed. Drop a rogue into a fight with some golems, or set him to guard a location against an incoming horde, and his class will feel pretty ill-suited to the task at hand.

[Amphetryon]

AoE = Area of Effect. Referencing both blast effects like Fireball, and things like Entangle or Solid Fog that stick around for more than a nanosecond.

[Timeless Error]

AoE = Area of Effect. Referencing both blast effects like Fireball, and things like Entangle or Solid Fog that stick around for more than a nanosecond.

Oh, OK. Thanks for clarifying.

[erikun]

3) In short, no, XP and EL are not affected. With good tactics, an adventuring group can overcome practically any encounter, but even if strategy is lacking, the change in power is not drastic enough to justify an XP modification.

Not quite. We're saying that smart playing (player optimization) should be met with smart playing (good tactics, optimization, or both) rather than simply increasing CR or decreasing rewards.

High optimization can bring a very drastic change to the game, but the CR system does not deal with that change very well - opposing tactics and/or optimization does.

[JaronK]

2) Basically, tier ones, twos, and threes work well together, but even a tier one will not outshine a tier five if the tier one is a team player and devotes time to filling empty roles and buffing other players.

Note there's a thread right now about someone trying to play a Druid (T1) in a party full of T4s and below. The player is finding it extremely frustrating because the class is so full of win buttons that it's hard not to dominate even in the barbarian's areas of specialty... and note this is Pathfinder, which actually nerfed the Druid. So while it's possible to play nice, it can actually get difficult.

T4s are partly defined by the fact that sometimes, they're kinda useless. Barbarians are amazing in melee combat, especially while charging, but have almost nothing else going for them, so as soon as the current encounter becomes "sneak through these trap filled caves undetected" or "meet up with the underground resistance leader and convince him you're here to help" or even sometimes "destroy this enemy who is far more maneuverable than you and is using ranged tactics." Rogues are great when skills actually matter and they have the right ones... but good luck in a battle with a plant or an ooze or an elemental or even often with undead or golems if you don't have exactly the right gear. Or heck, a fight where the enemy could easily take down your D6 HD lightly armored butt so flanking would be nearly suicidal and from 30 feet away you can't trigger sneak attack for some reason.

This just means as a DM you have to make sure T4s get their times to shine. If I've got a party that's Barbarian, Warmage, Rogue, Crusader, then I'm going to have to make sure this is going to be mostly combat, and I can shift it between ranged swarms (when I want the Warmage to look good) and big single bosses (when I want the Barbarian to look good), while being careful to make sure the Rogue is also useful. I can't throw a lot of diplomatic intrigue around, because while the Crusader and Rogue will be fine there, the Warmage and Barbarian will get really bored really fast. I don't really have to worry about the Crusader though. He'll be fine no matter what.

Still, this can make life easier on the DM, because players become more predictable.

JaronK

[Godskook]

1) In an adventure where players pick a race, a class, and a few feats that look cool and go with it, where wizards consider fireball to be their most powerful spell, where character optimization has never been touched nor even heard of (my group, for example), does the tier system really matter? Are all characters in the same boat? I would guess that tier ones and twos would still take the lead (after all, they're bound to notice teleport, genesis, and shapechange eventually), but as I mentioned earlier, I don't have much experience with the game yet. In your opinion, would it really make a difference?

Honestly, player awareness plays a greater role at this point than tiers. That S&B fighter who's standing in front, taking *ALL* the blows, and dealing *ALL* the damage isn't going to notice that the wizard just cast web on 90% of the enemies, or that the encounter was ended by coup-de-graces.

2) What tiers work well together? I know that a tier one would be out of place in a group of tier fives, but would a tier three class in a party of tier fours outdo everyone else? Would a tier two be undermined in a party of tier ones?

Well, that depends on the group, but tier 3 classes have a hard time being everywhere at once, so its possible for even commoners to shine alongside warblades, for instance, provided the spotlight is bigger than the warblade can fill.

Tier 2 classes tend to be more single-schtick than tier 3 or 1 classes are, so again, big spotlights. Although it'll be hard to wedge anything lower than tier 4 in without it being painfully apparent.

Tier 1s, however, we're talking maybe tier 3s, and that's it.

'Course, this can be mitigated by the high-tiered classes willfully restricting themselves out of certain fields of play. For instance, the casters never learn the feat summon elemental or bother preparing "Summon dead celestial monkey". Then there's room for a rogue to shine in the party, since the wizard can't(or won't) do traps.

3) What effect does the tier system have on Encounter Level and XP? Would it be fair to challenge a group of tier fours with a tier three? A tier two? Would an encounter with a tier five be to easy?

1.Tier is dependent on optimization levels.

2.Tier is a group dynamic, and can not be directly applied to CR.

4) What factors do you take into account when determining the tier of a class (besides the obvious checking spell lists for game breakers like teleport and gate)?

Let's see:

1.How many skills it gets access to, both in terms of skill list size, variety, and # of skill points. Also includes access to trapfinding or an alternative method.

2.Ability to deal a reasonable amount of damage or damage-equivalent(Negative levels in-class counts here).

3.Healing in-class, especially if non-cheesy(i.e., cleric healing is more valuable than Dread Necro healing, since DMs will more likely allow it)

4.Yes, game-breakers.

5.Durability in regards to party role. A fighter gets shut down by any number of tactics that would deprive him of his weapon. A wizard gets shut down by loss of LoE and/or LoS, but so does *EVERYONE* else.

5) If anyone is familiar with the Advanced Player's Manual by Skip Williams (published by Green Ronin), would you be kind enough to evaluate the tiers for the classes in there (including the appendix on the psychic)?

Not familiar

6) And, just for fun...what is your favorite tier to play?

Tier 4 or better. Tier 3 or better if the DM is a stickler for rules like multiclassing penalties.

[Timeless Error]

Note there's a thread right now about someone trying to play a Druid (T1) in a party full of T4s and below. The player is finding it extremely frustrating because the class is so full of win buttons that it's hard not to dominate even in the barbarian's areas of specialty... and note this is Pathfinder, which actually nerfed the Druid. So while it's possible to play nice, it can actually get difficult.

T4s are partly defined by the fact that sometimes, they're kinda useless. Barbarians are amazing in melee combat, especially while charging, but have almost nothing else going for them, so as soon as the current encounter becomes "sneak through these trap filled caves undetected" or "meet up with the underground resistance leader and convince him you're here to help" or even sometimes "destroy this enemy who is far more maneuverable than you and is using ranged tactics." Rogues are great when skills actually matter and they have the right ones... but good luck in a battle with a plant or an ooze or an elemental or even often with undead or golems if you don't have exactly the right gear. Or heck, a fight where the enemy could easily take down your D6 HD lightly armored butt so flanking would be nearly suicidal and from 30 feet away you can't trigger sneak attack for some reason.

This just means as a DM you have to make sure T4s get their times to shine. If I've got a party that's Barbarian, Warmage, Rogue, Crusader, then I'm going to have to make sure this is going to be mostly combat, and I can shift it between ranged swarms (when I want the Warmage to look good) and big single bosses (when I want the Barbarian to look good), while being careful to make sure the Rogue is also useful. I can't throw a lot of diplomatic intrigue around, because while the Crusader and Rogue will be fine there, the Warmage and Barbarian will get really bored really fast. I don't really have to worry about the Crusader though. He'll be fine no matter what.

Still, this can make life easier on the DM, because players become more predictable.

JaronK

Hi JaronK,

Yes, I noticed the PF Druid thread some time after posting this. I see why it's hard not to outsine a party with a tier one class. Then again, building a battlefield controller is not the same as hanging back and buffing (which probably isn't that fun, but from what I can gather it's what a tier one has to do in order to avoid besting other PCs). As to the rest of your post, no, tier fours won't be useful in every scenario, but neither will tier threes. That crusader is going to have as tough a time getting through the trap-laden cave as the barbarian. The crusader will come in useful more often, and his abilities are more powerful, but the difference isn't all that drastic.

[Psyren]

That crusader is going to have as tough a time getting through the trap-laden cave as the barbarian. The crusader will come in useful more often, and his abilities are more powerful, but the difference isn't all that drastic.

Would he? Can a Barbarian Take 11 on saving throws, give himself DR, take extra 5-foot steps, grant his allies additional move actions or change the initiative order to get the party through such an area? A Crusader can do all of those things. And all of that is without monsters around - add monsters to the traps and the Crusader's job actually gets easier, while the Barbarian's gets harder.

[erikun]

As to the rest of your post, no, tier fours won't be useful in every scenario, but neither will tier threes. That crusader is going to have as tough a time getting through the trap-laden cave as the barbarian.

The problem is that the Barbarian is only good at fighting - dealing damage, actually. Virtually anything else, beyond surviving in the wild, will leave the Barbarian hanging out in the back of the party. The Crusader can deal damage, take damage, keep others from being hurt, heal, and talk with NPCs with relative ease, all on the same character.


As for the Druid... the Druid is a lot easier to optimize, because it is a lot easier to see the effective options and make use of them. Compare the Wizard to the Psion. The Wizard is tier 1, can have access to any spell on his spell list and can change them every day. The Psion is tier 2, can only memorize a specific number of powers and doesn't have full access to all lists.

And yet, most new players would be more successful with a Psion than a Wizard. The difference is that some of the optimized option for the Psion to take are very easy to use and obvious to choose. There is not Wizard spell like the Energy Ray power, which can be used from level 1 to level 20 and is effective throughout his career.

[Curmudgeon]

Rogues are the poster-child of (1) - great skillmonkeys, but in combat they are mediocre at best and totally handicapped at worse.

You're not doing Rogues properly, then.

Some ways to make Rogues better in combat:

• Craven feat (Champions of Ruin) adds +1 point per character level to sneak attack damage. Even multiclassing into non-sneak attack classes still boosts your sneak attack damage.
• Lightbringer Penetrating Strike ACF (Expedition to Castle Ravenloft) enables sneak attack with ½ the normal dice against sneak-immune foes you flank. (Since Craven bonus damage isn't from dice, it isn't reduced.)
• A keen rapier has a 15-20 threat range. Since Craven bonus damage isn't from dice, it gets doubled on a critical sneak attack.
• Get Hide in Plain Sight, and maximize your Hide skill. Hide while attacking your foe, gain +2 to each attack from being visually undetectable, and enable sneak attack each hit.
• Get a reliable flanking partner. If you don't have a PC flanking buddy, apply Use Magic Device to a Summon Monster wand. The summoned critter doesn't need to do anything other than flank for you. Flanking adds +2 to each attack.
• Add extra hits. Buy Improved Unarmed Strike via a cheap item, and take Snap Kick (Tome of Battle) to add an unarmed strike to any melee attack form (full attack, standard attack, AoO, or bonus attack). Extra hits are how you do extra sneak attack damage.
• Add 2 points of STR ability damage on each hit with Crippling Strike. The Savvy Rogue feat makes this happen even against sneak-immune foes ─ like swarms of Tiny creatures.
• Walk around with a missile weapon ready to fire (typically a composite shortbow, or longbow if Elf). With Spot skill maximized you'll rarely be surprised, so you can add sneak attack damage against foes within 30'. On the first regular round of combat fire at flat-footed enemies, adding sneak attack damage each hit. You may get a couple of kills before anybody else in your party even has a chance to act.
• Enable full sneak attack damage against other creature types with gear. Add a cheap wand chamber to your rapier so you can UMD wands like Grave Strike (undead), Golem Strike (constructs), and Vine Strike (plants).