Tier System for Classes (Rescued from MinMax)

[Bovine Colonel]

Exactly. Dire animals are fine. Personally I don't know what monsters exist in Monster Manual 2, 3, 4, or whatever to give examples, but the point stands - don't hunt for the bestest mostest at everything in every book ever published. Lions and tigers and bears oh my are fine.

I think you misunderstood his point. He used the wolf and dire lion as examples of monsters that will outdo the fighter.

[Raven777]

I think you misunderstood his point. He used the wolf and dire lion as examples of monsters that will outdo the fighter.

Then, time to break out the dire badger. I suggest calling it Francis.

[Threadnaught]

Reject a player without reading their character sheet, based on the tier of the character they chose to play? I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Now see, you didn't specify that the character hadn't been looked at by the DM. I said that with the impression that the DM learned about the character's Tier, by at least glancing at the character sheet.

Sure, but g-cubes, animals and traps are little harder to justify.

Of course, though I see some reason for animals to go for Wizards and Sorcerers first. They're squishier and easier prey, anyone lacking armour is also gonna be an easier meal, as long as Wizards and Monks get the same treatment... Until Monks start moving.

If they do poorly, because they've been told how x class is high tier than Y class without understanding how the system works. The second time you come across a game where the wizard has penalty slapped onto their attack rolls "because they're a higher tier", it stops being quite so funny.

I feel like I've mentioned how a large part of the problem is a lack of understanding of why Wizards are Tier 1. Have I highlighted the problem before?
Ah yes as I've said before, the analysis skills of those who misuse the Tier system seems to be comparable to those who continue to maintain the argument that the Tiers themselves are at fault.

If they're a formal written document taken off the internet rather than tailored to the game, then yes, I do. And for broadly the same reasons.

The gentlemen's agreement being written up here is being done, so as to be applicable to as wide a selection of games/groups as possible. So an important part about it is being generic and nonspecific. One poster had their own idealization on what the difficulty of a campaign should be, they were shot down for being too specific.
Also, it's a list of guidelines that aren't meant to be followed by the letter, but the spirit.
Okay, sure, the Tiers are to be followed more closely, but the problem has never been caused by the Tiers. The real problem the Tiers cause are inexperienced Munchkins picking the Tier 1 Classes, then complaining after they use them poorly or when the DM introduces the to Rule 0.

Amusingly this entire discussion reminds me of the guns don't kill people, people do mindset of many gun users. Now to the gun users I'd say guns make it easier to kill people, but in the case of the Tiers I'm arguing against them causing arguments. Difference between Guns and Tiers? Well guns are made for the purpose of killing others (people/animals), while the Tier system is a tool for unity.
Someone using the Tier system to start an argument is (to me at least) on the same ground as someone using a gun to restart someone's heart. They're both stupid and end badly for everyone involved.

[eggynack]

Exactly. Dire animals are fine. Personally I don't know what monsters exist in Monster Manual 2, 3, 4, or whatever to give examples, but the point stands - don't hunt for the bestest mostest at everything in every book ever published. Lions and tigers and bears oh my are fine.

There's a few really good animals outside of core, like the desmodu hunting bat and the fleshraker dinosaur, but you hardly need to go that far to be super optimized. Those lions and tigers and bears you mention are some of the more optimal forms for a druid to take. Really, a druid can be close to perfectly optimized without leaving core at all. there's barely any sna's outside of MMI, and natural spell is sitting right there. It's apparently possible to build and play a druid in a poor manner, but the distance between any given druid and phenomenal cosmic power incredibly small.

[Amphetryon]

It's apparently possible to build and play a druid in a poor manner, but the distance between any given player and phenomenal cosmic power incredibly small.

You can; use your Druid as a scout/trap activator and 1) don't use good scouting Wild Shape forms 2) use the variant that calls the same animal again and again to activate your traps. Not that I've seen it in play or anything. Still as good or better at the job than a Rogue that hasn't been optimized.

[navar100]

I think you misunderstood his point. He used the wolf and dire lion as examples of monsters that will outdo the fighter.

And I'm saying they really don't, unless the player made poor feat choices.

[elvengunner69]

And I'm saying they really don't, unless the player made poor feat choices.

A Wildshape Dire Lion with a couple of buffs (Greater Magic Fang, Claws of the Bear (SC) to name just two) can out damage a Fighter by an extreme amount...Add haste and the Dire Lion gets ANOTHER attack on top of it all.

Even with out the buffs, Wildshaped Druid will do a lot more damage than a Fighter (or Samurai).

[Threadnaught]

A Wildshape Dire Lion with a couple of buffs (Greater Magic Fang, Claws of the Bear (SC) to name just two) can out damage a Fighter by an extreme amount...Add haste and the Dire Lion gets ANOTHER attack on top of it all.

Even with out the buffs, Wildshaped Druid will do a lot more damage than a Fighter (or Samurai).

When did Haste get added to the Druid's Spell list?

That's the only issue I have with your post btw. Druid is ridiculous.

[elvengunner69]

When did Haste get added to the Druid's Spell list?

That's the only issue I have with your post btw. Druid is ridiculous.

One of the Wizards cast it. Should have said self-buffing and then buffs from the 2 wizards -- one prepared Haste.

[rockdeworld]

A Wildshape Dire Lion with a couple of buffs (Greater Magic Fang, Claws of the Bear (SC) to name just two) can out damage a Fighter by an extreme amount...

You aroused my curiosity, so I tested this.

Spoiler

Show

Dire Lion with Greater Magic Fang (+1 to all attacks for +5 net bonus as opposed to +2 to 1 attack) and Claws of the Bear (raising claw attacks from 1d6 to 2d6)
Charging Pounce:
2 Claws +16 melee (2d6+8) and bite +9 melee (1d8+4) and 2 Rakes +15 melee (1d6+4)
vs AC20 (average for CR8): 2*0.85*15 + 0.5*8.5 + 2*0.8*7.5 = 25.5 + 4.25 + 12 = 41.75

L8 Fighter:
Str 22 (18 + 2 levels + 2 item) = +6
BAB +8/+3
Feats (8):Weapon Focus/Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Lion-Tribe Warrior, Improved Bull Rush, Shock Trooper, Leap Attack
Heedless Charging Leap Attack: +1 Greatsword +19/+14 (2d6+2860) Edit: made a mistake with Leap Attack damage
vs AC20 (average for CR8): 0.95*35 + 0.75*35 = 33.25 + 26.25 = 59.5 0.95*67 + 0.75*67 = 33.25 + 26.25 = 113.9

Edit: Tattoo of Psionic Lion's Charge = cheap, +1 Greatsword = 2,350gp, Gauntlets of Ogre Power = 4,000gp (WBL 27,000)
Going by the 10% WBL rule, the Gauntlets of Ogre Power are a bit high, but I think we all agree that a Level 8 fighter should have them.

The fighter wins this one. Of course, without Shock Trooper or Lion-Tribe Warrior Pounce, that changes a lot. And the druid can have good feats/items too, the fighter could have better/worse feats/items, whatever. It's not conclusive, just an example.

[Answerer]

First of all, Lion Tribe Warrior requires you to use a Light weapon; the Greatsword is out. It still wins, but it's closer.

But anyway, I think the fact that a Fighter can be optimized to out-fight a Core, obvious, default option for the Druid, doesn't really say very much.

For instance, if the Fighter in the group was already following the advice given to the Druid.

[rockdeworld]

First of all, Lion Tribe Warrior requires you to use a Light weapon; the Greatsword is out. It still wins, but it's closer.

But anyway, I think the fact that a Fighter can be optimized to out-fight a Core, obvious, default option for the Druid, doesn't really say very much.

For instance, if the Fighter in the group was already following the advice given to the Druid.

Ah, missed the light weapon bit. Replace that then. Otherwise, I already said it was just an example. I don't want to rehash the oldest and greatest scientific tradition.

[Togo]

Ah yes as I've said before, the analysis skills of those who misuse the Tier system seems to be comparable to those who continue to maintain the argument that the Tiers themselves are at fault.

um.. Wouldn't you class using opinions about the Tier system as a criterion for judgement whether someone is an idiot, a misuse of the tier system? In which case, what does that say about your own analysis skills...?

The gentlemen's agreement being written up here is being done, so as to be applicable to as wide a selection of games/groups as possible. So an important part about it is being generic and nonspecific.

Sure, and while it's doubtless a fine document, I won't be using it. Rather than using something generic and nonspecific, I'd rather use something specific to the game I was applying it to, and the people in it.

Okay, sure, the Tiers are to be followed more closely, but the problem has never been caused by the Tiers.

I've run into problem using Tiers that appear greatly reduced when not using Tiers. Hence, I don't use Tiers. I understand some people find them handy, and I wish the best of luck. I'm really at a loss as why this is such a controvertial position.

Amusingly this entire discussion reminds me of the guns don't kill people, people do mindset of many gun users.

I can see the comparison. The presence of guns means more innocent people get shot. It really doesn't matter for our purposes whether the guns are at fault, or whether people are idiots for misusing them, the fact is still that there are problems that occur with guns that don't when the guns are withdrawn. So you need to weigh up the benefits and costs of having a lot of guns around the house, and make a decision. Same with Tiers. I keep on getting told that x problem or y problem is the fault of people rather than Tiers, but I don't see why I should care either way. I have fewer problems with no Tiers, and get very little benefit from using Tiers, so I don't use them. Whether that's somehow an inherent problem with the concept or a reoccuring problem with people is a philosophical question that makes very little practice difference to my game.

Someone using the Tier system to start an argument is (to me at least) on the same ground as someone using a gun to restart someone's heart. They're both stupid and end badly for everyone involved.

So why were you insulting people who disagree with you about the Tier system (first quote above)?

[Togo]

The fighter wins this one. Of course, without Shock Trooper or Lion-Tribe Warrior, that changes a lot. And the druid can have good feats/items too, the fighter could have better/worse feats/items, whatever. It's not conclusive, just an example.

I find the biggest problem with being a wildshape druid is what while you can get a form that does a lot of damage, and you can get a form that's very tough, it's harder to get both, Dire lions have a very poor AC, and rely upon either doing enough damage in a pounce charge to escape counter attack. What the OP is likely worried about is kill-stealing - killing monsters before the fighters do. But unless the party expends spells or wealth in making the druid a well armoured killing machine, he simply won't be as durable as the fighters.

Despite apologising for the terminology, I think there's a distinction being missed between different meanings of tank. In WoW a tank is someone who takes hits, a careful process of managing aggro and damage output. In D&D 3.5, a tank is a combination of damage output and durability. Someone who specialises in output, but is fragile, is a 'light infantry' build. Someone who specialises in durability, but not damage output, is a meat sheild. A wildshape druid as a dire lion is a light infantry build, and can do a lot of damage but will often get badly hurt if they don't kill their opponents, or get immediately supported by the rest of the party.

[shadow_archmagi]

I'm curious as to what problems crop up when you 'use' the Tier system. (I put use in quotation marks since it's just a measurement system for power and shouldn't actually have an impact on your game except insofar as that you have a vague idea of everyone's classes's capabilities.)

[navar100]

The point wasn't "Fighters rule Druids drool". The question asked was how not to make the warrior players feel bad while playing a druid. That point still stands - don't go looking through the monster manuals for the bestest mostest creatures to wild shape into that do everything. That the druid will still do a lot of damage as a dire lion is irrelevant. The warrior classes will do their own thing. Hopefully they have wisely chosen their feats.

[Karnith]

I have had a realization while re-reading this thread. Based on your statements in this very thread, Togo, you consider the tier system valid.

I agree with most of what JaronK says about it.

I say it's a well-designed general model that I don't find useful for any particular game, where the ideosyncratic characteristics are far more important. This is also a point JaronK made in his original posts about the Tiers, which is why he went to the effort to explain his reasoning.

Yes, some characters are more effective than others, and yes flexibility is more important than power in most considerations

Moreover, you have also admitted that the problems in your gaming group are not the fault of the tier system, but rather the fault of the people you game with and their poor practices and reading comprehension.

Yes, these poor practices are not the fault of JaronK or his writing

If people actually read the damn thing instead of just looking at the rankings, they wouldn't...

Sure, I agree.

I keep on getting told that x problem or y problem is the fault of people rather than Tiers, but I don't see why I should care either way.

You should care because if the problems with your games are because of bad gaming practices, focusing on eliminating the bad gaming practices will stop a lot more problems than trying to stop people from looking at the tier system thread. You should not blame the tier system for their bad gaming practices, nor should you be surprised that reading the tier system doesn't suddenly make their bad practices disappear. In the guns analogy (which I don't like, but I'll run with it here anyway), taking away guns doesn't stop people from murdering each other, it only stops them from murdering each other with guns. Your gaming group's problems run deeper than the tier system, whether you want to admit it or not. You can choose to not want your players to look at the tier system, if you like, but it won't stop your players from having bad gaming habits. You would be better served focusing less on the impact of the tier system on your group and better served focusing on how you can eliminate your players' bad habits.

(Also, if you wanted, you could even try to explain the tier system to your players properly to expand their understanding of the game)

EDIT: On second though, Gwendol's right; more analogies won't help.

[Gwendol]

What's with the analogies anyway? This isb't exactly rocket science, or the meaning of life being discussed here. Stay on topic and quit dragging in examples that are only likely to further muddle the discussion.

On topic: I'm of the opinion that while there is nothing "wrong" ranking the classes into tiers, it's of nearly no use outside discussions of the tier system. As a tool for DM's or players it has limited value, mostly because people tend to want to play a character and not a tier.

[Trasilor]

I think the Tier system really helps both the DM and players during both character creation and game play. Unfortunately, it sometimes falls on deaf ears.

Recently I started a new campaign, and I tried to get my players to read about the tiers to hopefully get players more balanced (it stemmed from a prior campaign where the party imbalance was painful).

Unfortunately, my players were thought I was ranking the classes. They argued how only 'min/maxers' (read: munchkins) care about these things.

I wanted them to try and play classes near each other's power level. Instead, they told me that there was no problem and to let them play what they wanted.

Fortunately, I was able to convince the player who wanted to play a monk to play an unarmed swordsage, and the fighter to play a warblade. The other players were a wizard, cleric and crusader. The wizard, a good friend of mine, agreed to tone down the wizard awesomeness while the cleric is played sub-optimal.

In the end, everyone ended up around Tier 3. That means my encounters are easier to generate and everyone can contribute. The challenges do not need to be tailor made for the group, just appropriately powered. In the end, I have less work, all players can participate, and we have a great time.

[JaronK]

In the end, everyone ended up around Tier 3. That means my encounters are easier to generate and everyone can contribute. The challenges do not need to be tailor made for the group, just appropriately powered. In the end, I have less work, all players can participate, and we have a great time.

Now that right there is the point.

JaronK

[Gwendol]

No, it isn't. That's an example of the tiers used as straight jackets.

[Aegis013]

No, it isn't. That's an example of the tiers used as straight jackets.

If the straight jacket results in a fun game, and the absence of said straight jacket results in an unfun game, do you prefer to play with or without the straight jacket?

The point is to use the system in an effort to maximize enjoyment. After all, that's why most people play the game, isn't it? To have fun?

[JaronK]

It's the tiers being used by a DM to make his life easier, thus making it more fun for him, while also being more fun for the players.

Note he didn't actually force anyone to do anything, he just convinced them to contribute to the game in a way that really helped out.

JaronK

[Trasilor]

No, it isn't. That's an example of the tiers used as straight jackets.

If this is in regards to my post, I hope you understand at no point did I ban or restrict any players into playing a specific tier.

One player wanted to play an unarmed combatant. Strictly speaking, D&D allows that to be done several ways (monk, fighter with specific feats, unarmed swordsage, etc). Seeing what everyone else was playing helped us find a character that hit the same potential level. At no point was it " Don't play a monk, play an unarmed swordsage ". It was a discussion prompted by JoronK's tier discussion.

The other player, wanted to play a "I-hit-things-really-hard-with-a-greatsword character". Because he had not played in a long time, he only knew core and immediately thought of Fighter. This character concept can be done lots of ways - fighter, barbarian, self buffing cleric, paladin, psychic warrior...the list goes on. I suggested the warblade given the composition of the other classes not because I wanted him to play x versus y but because his character would have the same level of ability.

Furthermore, both of these players were not heavy optimizers and playing the ToB classes made it easier to do what they wanted to do well.

Your statement implies that I am a control freak who forces his players to play what I want them to play. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I stated above, the players didn't want to play a specific class, they wanted to play an archetype. The tiers helped me find classes of similar 'power level' that fit the player's archetype.

By the way JaronK, I didn't fully grasp the tiers until I read the example of 3 problems and how each tier could solve them. That really opened my eyes.

[Karnith]

No, it isn't. That's an example of the tiers used as straight jackets.

So, the DM had run campaigns previously in which party balance was, in his own words, painful, and tried to get the players to play classes that were less horribly imbalanced, with the effect that every player was able to contribute while still playing the kind of character they wanted and the DM's prep work became easier. He was able to do this thanks to understanding of the game reached through this thread (or, more likely, one of the earlier versions posted somewhere else).

What exactly is the problem here, again?

Also, just saw this:

people tend to want to play a character and not a tier.

The tier system helps players to select a class that allows them play the character that they want to play while also being mechanically capable of contributing at the same level that the rest of the party is operating at.

[Elderand]

So, the DM had run campaigns previously in which party balance was, in his own words, painful, and tried to get the players to play classes that were less horribly imbalanced, with the effect that every player was able to contribute while still playing the kind of character they wanted and the DM's prep work became easier. He was able to do this thanks to understanding of the game reached through this thread (or, more likely, one of the earlier versions posted somewhere else).

What exactly is the problem here, again?

It proved his assertion wrong

[Trasilor]

So, the DM had run campaigns previously in which party balance was, in his own words, painful, and tried to get the players to play classes that were less horribly imbalanced, with the effect that every player was able to contribute while still playing the kind of character they wanted and the DM's prep work became easier. He was able to do this thanks to understanding of the game reached through this thread (or, more likely, one of the earlier versions posted somewhere else).

What exactly is the problem here, again?

This is pretty much exactly what happened.

I would say that this is eerie but then it is probably more common than most people realize

[Trasilor]

It proved his assertion wrong

Which assertion was that?

[Gwendol]

True, and I can sympathize with that. But it's so easy to dismiss someones ideas or creations using tiers as the reason, and quite frankly, that makes it a net negative in my eyes.

[Hirax]

It causes class bigotry, gm to player friction, gm stress, and player stress.

Hm.. problems involving misusing tiers? Just off the top of my head..
1) Not being allowed to play games because your character is 'the wrong tier', without any consideration of the character actually being submitted.
2) Interpretations of the rules based on the Tier system. 'That class ability can't possibly save you from the wizard's spell, because the wizard is a Tier 1 character and this is only a Tier 4 class.
3) Games where attempts at balance have been abanonded because Clerics are Tier 1 and fighters are tier 5 and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
4) People who actively taunt or tease other players about the uselessness of their 'low tier' characters irrespective of whether the character is useful or not.
5) People who play characters or run games where the tier system is a fact of life that colours everything they do. From "I'm sorry, I can't let you in to see the king, you're a tier 1 character and we can't protect him from you." to monsters who attack party members in strict tier order, based on their mode of dress.
6) Games where vast penalties have been levelled at high tier characters, and vast bonuses heaped upon low tier characters, distorting the game beyond all recognition.
7) Poorly balanced homebrew, justified through appeals to the Tier system. "Yes I know he has full psion ability progression and full BAB and more feats than a fighter and more special abilities than a monk and extra abilities on top and rogue skills, but that's because I wanted a melee character who was Tier 3!"

But it's so easy to dismiss someones ideas or creations using tiers as the reason, and quite frankly, that makes it a net negative in my eyes.

I can't bring myself to believe that people do things like these in real life often. It's just so farfetched to me. If these sorts of tables do in fact exist, I doubt they exist for very long.