Class "Tiers"

[paladinn]

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

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

[OldTrees1]

1) Okay quick summary: 3E and 5E are talking about different things.

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


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

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

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

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

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

[Scots Dragon]

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

Consider; the potted plant is a variant vegepygmy druid.

[Stonehead]

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

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

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

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

[Kurald Galain]

Who came up with these rankings?

Various forums, over literally years of discussion.

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

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

[Eldan]

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

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

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

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

[MeimuHakurei]

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

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

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

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

[Anonymouswizard]

5e is narrower in tiers, but that's mostly due to essentially removing the very bottom and very top tiers, condensing the skill list, and increasing the minimum number of skills a PC gets.

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

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

Class tiers also got a namecheck by the Giant in this site's own webcomic.

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

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

[Grod_The_Giant]

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

Class Tiers in 3.5 existed not because it's more imbalanced than 5e

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

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

[Telok]

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

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

[RandomPeasant]

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

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

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

[JNAProductions]

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

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

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

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

[paladinn]

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



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

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

[Grod_The_Giant]

Grod, they're not saying that 3e wasn't more imbalanced than 5e, they're saying that wasn't the reason for tier discussion.

If that's the case, I'm sorry, MeimuHakurei. It's a bit of a pet peeve. I wasted so much time in college arguing and homebrewing about 3.5 balance issues...

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

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

[AvatarVecna]

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

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

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

[gijoemike]

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

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

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

First real fight encountered he...

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

[Telok]

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

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

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

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

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

[LibraryOgre]

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

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

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

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

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

[Stonehead]

It's also not mainly about complaining, I think. I find them a very valuable tool for DMs.

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

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

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

[RandomPeasant]

4e swung hard against this; most feats were minor bonuses, and the feats themselves were level-limited.

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

[PhoenixPhyre]

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

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

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

[Telok]

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

Preach it.

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

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

[Kurald Galain]

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

Very much this.

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

[RandomPeasant]

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

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

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

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

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

[Grod_The_Giant]

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

Preach it.

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

[paladinn]

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

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

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

Sorry, I digressed.. lol

[Mechalich]

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

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

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

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

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

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