Retiering the Classes: Home Base

[jywu98]

No, because your explanation is absolutely wrong. If you asked me to explain why the sky is blue, and I say it's because space is blue, yeah sure it's an explanation, but not a valid one because it's wrong.

I think there's utility to being able to identify how strong a class is, both in that you can use that to pick classes closer in power to classes already in the party, and so that the DM can make decisions about what to allow or ban on the basis of how good a class is. It helps balance. You might not agree with me either, but I think people here see the utility to this.

both in that you can use that to pick classes closer in power to classes already in the party

There is nothing here that is in any form correct, especially because retards keep thinking more versatile = more power. Kaelik already tried to address this when you last tried to pull out this bull**** on minmax.

So it sounds like what the Tier system is doing is making sure the party is imbalanced because of it's own dumb failures. If the same player could play either class, the same player would be more balanced in both parties of:

Beguiler/Wizard/Cleric/Druid and Archivist/Warblade/Totemist/Dread Necromancer

Than with Beguiler and Archivist reversed.

If they player isn't going to jump through hoops to spell acquisition, then the Beguiler bring trap finding, diplomacy, and spontaneous casting of pretty good spells, and maybe a minion army. Where the Archivist casts like a ****ty Cleric who wakes up every day with fewer spells per day or worse save DCs, pick one.

If the player is going to jump through hoops to spell acquisition, then the Beguiler spontaneously casts from a huge list of really good spells and can easily keep up with Wizards and Clerics and Druid, and the Archivist is like a ****ty Wizard who has fewer spells per day or lower DCs and also knows a couple good Druid spells, and an occasional other spell at a low level.

In both cases the Archivist is the odd man out in the Wizard party, where he doesn't contribute much, where the Beguiler always has something to do. In both cases the lower level party is a perfect fit for the Archivist, where the Beguiler would, if anything, remind everyone else how little he needs them.*

*Dread Necromancer excepted, since it's just like the Beguiler, but if the Dread Necro is a different player, it could be played at a lower optimization level.

And that's the point, the Archivist is just not a "higher tier" class than the Beguiler, it's a special snowflake class that JaronK liked, so he said "well obviously the DM is going to let you contract a 12th level Warlock make Divine Scrolls of Divine Bard Spells and Alternate Spell Source Assassin and Trapsmith Spells because it's a special Tier 1 class, and Tier 1 classes are VERSATILE!" But then he didn't like Beguilers so he turned around and said "What of course not, no Beguiler every spends feats or PrCs for more spells to cast, they definitely don't get their first Prestige Domain at level 2 and then use the Substitute Domain Spell to repick domains whenever they want and then spontaneously cast off the entire Cleric list! That's optimization, and filthy bad Tier 3 classes don't do optimization to expand their spell list!"

Which then leads to people, 8 years later, claiming with a straight face that if a single player has a choice between Beguiler and Archivist, that the exact same player will someone optimize the Archivist a different amount than the Beguiler, because the Beguiler expanded spell list tricks are "Just totally out there man" and the Archivist tricks are "Just something you do if you are an Archivist."

So how do you actually build a good party? Surely it's not slapping a bunch of classes of the same tier and calling it a day. Does having a Barbarian or a Rogue really hurt the Barb or Rogue in a party that also contains a Cleric and Wizard? No, as long as the class has a role to fulfil. The tier system creates this false dichotomy that implies that it is nigh-impossible for lower tier classes to be effective in the party containing higher tier classes - this is a blatantly WRONG statement that only retards believe. Last time I checked, D&D wasn't a competition amongst players to see how many EPIC MONSTERS I CAN PWN ALONE, so naturally something like a Wizard/Rogue duo won't be a cutthroat competition to see how many encounters they can solo, but will lead to synergy where each will fulfil their own party role, with the Rogue as the DPR, and Wizard as the BFC with utility split between them both.

so that the DM can make decisions about what to allow or ban on the basis of how good a class is

Too bad this statement is a crock of lies since the way the tier system determines power is inaccurate, false, misleading, and pointless, unless you're playing some sort of stupid solo dungeoncrawler akin to Test of Spite to show off your optimization-fu obviously to compensate for the lack of something else (probably social skills). Does being able to do a lot of things really matter that much in a D&D game, to the point where versatility is treated as the most important thing to have in a character? No, because you have a ****ING PARTY WITH YOU. All you need is to perform your role well and BAM you can be a valuable contributing member of your party. Yet everyday here some smartass says X class is better than Y because Y is just a one trick pony.

As a DM, if your party consists of a Rogue/Barb/Ranger/Wizard, your solution is not to nerf the Wizard to the level of the rest - the Wizard player won't have any fun, and the party will struggle even more and the other players might also have less fun. Your solution is to build better encounters that enable the rest of the party to contribute. YES you may need to ban some problem spells, but honestly if the Wizard player isn't a jackass he won't use them in the first place, and if the Wizard player is a jackass he'll still find a way to break the game. D&D has always been a game where the DM and the players aren't antagonistic forces, as they cooperate together to tell a story. Unless, of course, you're playing something like a dungeoncrawl, which I won't wrong (it isn't) but also isn't what most people play the game for.

Aside from that, the common complaints of class bias, lack of true determining factors, vague descriptions for each tier, and unequal optimization all still stand true.

It helps balance.

No it doesn't. Would you rather be the rogue doing massive damage in a Cleric+Wizard party, or the archivist in that party, forever being overshadowed by both?

I think people here see the utility to this

And this is probably the funniest thing I've read so far out of you. Conveniently forgetting to mention that you proposed the same idea in another tabletop forum, one with more experience, mind you, and got completely blown the **** out. """""People here"""""" see the utility in the tier system, because these are the same people that can't stand being told they're wrong to their faces and hence gathered in this hugbox to circlejerk about their own beliefs.