I obviously don't understand a wizard's power

[Gametime]

Long story short, what people are saying here is that Clerics (like other casters) can do everything a Fighter can do and are _still_ full casters on top of that. What is so hard to understand?

Did I give the impression that I don't understand? I apologize; nothing could be further from the truth. I understand perfectly well that clerics, played properly, are not only better than fighters but better than fighters at fighting. I am also generally of the opinion that two clerics can do anything a fighter and a cleric can do and much more.

All I am trying to suggest is that the cleric's personal buffs are not so enormously powerful that they make the cleric self-buffing an inherently better option than buffing his fighter buddy. Are they good? Certainly. But as others have pointed out, the fighter likely has a higher strength and definitely has a higher BAB to start - Divine Power is closing the gap, not pulling ahead. The same is basically true of Divine Favor; what matters isn't whether the fighter has to spend several feats to get the same benefit but whether those feats take up room that should be spent on other feats. The reason people usually don't advocate taking Weapon Focus/Weapon Specialization isn't because the fighter can't spare the feats; it's because the bonuses aren't that huge. There's nothing wrong with a +3 here and a +3 there, but it's not going to eclipse the fighter when the cleric gets a minor boost like that.

Righteous Might is the big one, like I said. I'm still not convinced that it alone takes the cleric from "equal to fighter at bashing things" to "much better than fighter at bashing things." A magical item to get Enlarge Person - or, better yet, a Pearl to get some friendly caster to cast it on you - will get the fighter the reach boost. At that point, the stats are the only real point in the cleric's favor, and while that's big I don't think it's overwhelming compared to the boosts to tripping, bull rushing, or charging fighters can get from feats.

So would I say clerics are better than fighters? Obviously. Would I say two clerics are better than a cleric and a fighter? Probably. But would I say you should always buff yourself instead of your fighter friend? Probably not. Would I say you should make your friend playing a fighter reroll to a stronger class? Obviously not.

[Veyr]

Would I say you should make your friend playing a fighter reroll to a stronger class? Obviously not.

I disagree, at least as a blanket statement.

If a group is all Tier 1-2 casters who know how to play, someone who wants to play an unoptimized Monk doesn't fit in any better than the munchkin who wants to play a GOD Wizard in a group of Ninjas and Samurai.

I mean, it is equally selfish to play an underpowered character (compared to your group) for "roleplaying reasons" as it is to play an overpowered character (compared to your group) for "powergaming reasons". The general, sort of background discrimination (where the optimizer(s) are assumed to be wrong) and/or suggestion that we should all accept the lowest common denominator of optimization in a group is rather insulting, really.

[true_shinken]

D&D 3.5 is, quite frankly, the wrong system for that. It's so absurdly high magic that nothing completely mundane is going to be able to compete after about level 10.

Even if you were right (and I don't think you are), level 10 is really high and I haven't seen many campaigns get that far.
You don't have to be 'completely mundane'. A Fighter with a few wonderful toys is fine, it' a fantasy archetype, even.
And it's perfectly possible for the lower tier classes to compete with the MM monsters and such. It's the higher tiers that complicate stuff - you have to fiddle with the monsters,traps and such to provide some challenge. So I really don't see your point.

[Tvtyrant]

I disagree, at least as a blanket statement.

If a group is all Tier 1-2 casters who know how to play, someone who wants to play an unoptimized Monk doesn't fit in any better than the munchkin who wants to play a GOD Wizard in a group of Ninjas and Samurai.

I mean, it is equally selfish to play an underpowered character (compared to your group) for "roleplaying reasons" as it is to play an overpowered character (compared to your group) for "powergaming reasons". The general, sort of background discrimination (where the optimizer(s) are assumed to be wrong) and/or suggestion that we should all accept the lowest common denominator of optimization in a group is rather insulting, really.

And yet I hear "don't play a monk" at least ten times more often then "don't play a Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Archivist. These boards tend far more heavily towards optimization then away from it.

[true_shinken]

And yet I hear "don't play a monk" at least ten times more often then "don't play a Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Archivist. These boards tend far more heavily towards optimization then away from it.

This is not even a matter of optimization, it's a matter of playing high powered classes. BIG difference.

[Tvtyrant]

This is not even a matter of optimization, it's a matter of playing high powered classes. BIG difference.

It doesn't change my point that the majority of statements of the kind he is complaining about are directed down, not up.

[JaronK]

Secondly, it also screws over the fighter unless he's rather well optimized. We had a DM who had a dragon use a plot-large Antimagic field, mostly to screw over the party psion (Who then retreated to the back of the party and started using his crossbow). Said dragon then went over and disassembled the fighter, who no longer had an AC to speak of (AC became 18? 20?), lost a chunk of his to-hit and damage (Nonmagical weapon, go!), and could no longer bypass DR/Magic.

Totally unrelated nitpick: DR/Magic is a supernatural ability, which is lost in an antimagic field. See the 3.5 FAQ for details. DR/- and DR/(metals) is Ex, but DRs based on magic or alignment (such as DR/good, DR/magic, and IIRC DR/Epic) are all Su abilities. DR/Good and Adamantine is actually a Su and Ex ability... a rare thing indeed.

JaronK

[Greenish]

It doesn't change my point that the majority of statements of the kind he is complaining about are directed down, not up.

It's easier to start high and tone down than it is to start low and tone up.

[Veyr]

And yet I hear "don't play a monk" at least ten times more often then "don't play a Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Archivist. These boards tend far more heavily towards optimization then away from it.

Those comments are (as far as I can tell) universally in threads asking for optimization help.

Also, that I have seen, none of those comments attempt to take the moral high ground like some of the comments about power-gamers do.

But sure, I'll buy your general point — we have opposite opinions and selectively notice the posts clashing with them more often, thus leading us to have different perceptions of the board. I'm not particularly interested in attempting some kind of impartial tabulation to prove my point, and I'm assuming you aren't either, so I guess we'll just have to accept that neither of us can say for sure one way or the other. With that in mind, I'll rescind any implication that the board does favor one way or the other, but I maintain that there are comments that can be insultingly anti-optimizer.

Totally unrelated nitpick: DR/Magic is a supernatural ability, which is lost in an antimagic field. See the 3.5 FAQ for details. DR/- and DR/(metals) is Ex, but DRs based on magic or alignment (such as DR/good, DR/magic, and IIRC DR/Epic) are all Su abilities. DR/Good and Adamantine is actually a Su and Ex ability... a rare thing indeed.

JaronK

FAQ is not RAW, and I don't see that in RAW anywhere (and I just looked). I haven't checked Rules Compendium, but it sounds like once again the FAQ is pretending that RAMSTS (Rules As Make Sense To Skip) are RAW.

In this case, I agree with him, but that's besides the point.

[Tvtyrant]

Those comments are (as far as I can tell) universally in threads asking for optimization help.

With that in mind, I'll rescind any implication that the board does favor one way or the other, but I maintain that there are comments that can be insultingly anti-optimizer.

I'll admit that you have a point here and I apologize for making this an issue. Good day sir.

[Veyr]

Wow, an amenably resolved disagreement on the Internet! Huzzah! Good day to you as well, sir.

[true_shinken]

Those comments are (as far as I can tell) universally in threads asking for optimization help.

You know, back in 339, we had a few rules most old timers adhered to.
The first one was to optimize within the parameters requested by the OP. You would be surprised how often people want help to optimize a Monk or a CA Ninja, because it's damn hard to do so. So saying 'play a Swordsage instead' is not really helpful, because dude wants to play a Monk or a CA Ninja, for whatever reason.
We get that far too often here in the playground. Someone wants to play a Monk... and gets pelted with a barrage of 'Monks suck!' comments, while people don't even know the context. Maybe his group is low OP and an optimized monk would work perfectly fine. Maybe he just wants the challenge. Maybe he is wrong and in for a world of hurt, but is it too much a bother to ask before declaring that he is wrong and monks suck?

[dextercorvia]

FAQ is not RAW, and I don't see that in RAW anywhere (and I just looked). I haven't checked Rules Compendium, but it sounds like once again the FAQ is pretending that RAMSTS (Rules As Make Sense To Skip) are RAW.

In this case, I agree with him, but that's besides the point.

Page 41 of the RC, with the exception that DR/Silver and DR/Cold Iron are Su.

[Kantolin]

Maybe people like being badass normals? Maybe you don't want a religious character? Power is not the only reason why people choose character class, otherwise we would all only play Pun-Pun.

Um?

The statement was 'I don't understand why [class] is more powerful', in this case specifically, 'Why are Clerics more powerful than fighters'?

I explained why clerics are more powerful than fighters. If this is no longer in question then okay then.

If you're asking 'why do people like fighters', there are a bunch of separate reasons for that. I like fighters myself - they're one of my favorite classes, after bards and psychic warriors (Although incarnum and binding is jumping in here).

Tier system is helpful for that - it states 'fighters are likely to be less powerful than wizards', so you can be aware of this fact. You can then work around it or be okay with this.

Did anyone say that buffing the fighter was the cleric's only job? Because I didn't see it.

You said:

Cleric can cast good spells, yes. Most of those good spells are buff spells.
So why should the Cleric cast them on himself... when he cast them on a much better prepared warrior, like the Fighter?

I was explaining why not. Many of the more useful buffs are personal, and many people play clerics so they can go whap things, not so they can let other people shine instead.

I really don't see your point... specially when you consider there are classes that only buff and many people have a blast playing them.

My point is that you can't say 'Clerics are fair because they could boost the fighter instead of boosting themselves. Not only are clerics not as good at it, a lot of people prefer to shine themselves than to exist solely so others can shine. The fighter's player, for example, is not able to reciprocate buffing the cleric in any way.

Thurbane:

Far too many people misuse the tier system as a "don't play this class, ever, even if it's one you used to enjoy prior to reading this" hammer.

I agree! I even said as much earlier - in fact, to quote me:

Originally posted by: Me

It doesn't mean 'Sorcerors are lower tier than Wizards, so if you play a sorceror you are wrong'. Nor does it say 'Wizards are too high tier so if you play one you are wrong'. (In fact, if I recall, JaronK who invented the tier system prefers to play the game at tiers 3 and 4). If you would like to play a monk, go nuts! Monks are fun for some people (Not me, however, but I do like Lurks, Shadowcasters, and Hexblades quite a bit, neither of which are very high tier at all, and one of my favorite classes is the fighter).

It just says 'Wizards are stronger than commoners'. It does not say 'No playing Commoners! If you want to play a commoner you are bad!'

>_> Granted, a lot of people ask questions like 'I obviously don't understand why a wizard is more powerful than a barbarian', in which it gets explained why. This does not mean you're not allowed to play a barbarian nor that you're wrong to do so (I've seen tons of games ban tier 1, and all the ones that ban tier 5-6 also have banned or significantly powernerfed tiers 1 and 2).

Edit:

The first one was to optimize within the parameters requested by the OP. You would be surprised how often people want help to optimize a Monk or a CA Ninja, because it's damn hard to do so. So saying 'play a Swordsage instead' is not really helpful, because dude wants to play a Monk or a CA Ninja, for whatever reason.

Actually usually, when people say 'I want to play a monk', they actually mean 'I want to play an unarmed unarmoured fighter who punches people'. It's just that in core, your singular option for that is the monk.

To compare, when someone says 'I want to play a lurk', they may be notified that a lurk is weaker but then get help doing so. And if someone says, "I want to play a monk the class, I know it's weak but leave me alone I want to play a monk, how can I be more useful?" then people will suggest ways of doing that, or house rules they've done to make usually-flurry usually-a-standard-action.

Also note - when someone says 'I want to be a monk', the general response isn't "Be a wizard." as that's not an unarmed fighter by default. :P I mean, a wizard would certainly be stronger than the swordsage.

[true_shinken]

Um?

The statement was 'I don't understand why [class] is more powerful', in this case specifically, 'Why are Clerics more powerful than fighters'?

Your whole argument is moot when you repeteadly say a fighter should farm potatoes.

[Tvtyrant]

You mean when Aspenor said that.

No, I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that the cleric should cast, and the fighter should go farm potatoes.


Or, he could go farm potatoes, because that's what he really ought to be doing. His shock trooper-lance-trip is not relevant. The cleric casts spells, and can do everything the fighter can do, and more.

[Kantolin]

Your whole argument is moot when you repeteadly say a fighter should farm potatoes.

I didn't. o_o

Nor do I think so.

Edit: I like fighters. ;_; Really, I play a lot of fighters - I'm tired of them at the precise instant due to the volume of them I've played, but I like them. And most of mine are sorely unoptimized to make use of extra options

[Gametime]

I disagree, at least as a blanket statement.

If a group is all Tier 1-2 casters who know how to play, someone who wants to play an unoptimized Monk doesn't fit in any better than the munchkin who wants to play a GOD Wizard in a group of Ninjas and Samurai.

I mean, it is equally selfish to play an underpowered character (compared to your group) for "roleplaying reasons" as it is to play an overpowered character (compared to your group) for "powergaming reasons". The general, sort of background discrimination (where the optimizer(s) are assumed to be wrong) and/or suggestion that we should all accept the lowest common denominator of optimization in a group is rather insulting, really.

There are a lot of assumptions in here that don't actually reflect what I originally said.

First of all, I've got no problem with offering optimization help. I'm all for educating people who don't know about optimization; maybe they still won't want to play optimized characters, and (in my opinion) that's fine, but the choice shouldn't be made for them out of ignorance. Second, I've got no problem suggesting another class that might fit the concept just as well while working better mechanically; swordsage for monk, warblade for fighter, whatever.

But forcing someone to change their class? That's jerk behavior. Now, maybe they deserve it; maybe they're being a jerk by refusing to change their behavior when it clashes with the group. But none of that was obvious from the phrasing I used. There's no reason to assume the fighter would be unoptimized, for one thing, and an optimized fighter can at least contribute to a group of tier 1s that aren't totally breaking the game. And I was specifically talking about making someone switch from fighter to cleric, a switch which requires a fairly serious jump in flavor (unlike switching to, say, warblade).

Finally, I disagree that it's just as bad to play a bad character as it is to play an overpowered character. It's annoying, certainly, but overpowered characters are a pain because they invalidate other characters. One player does everything and no one else has any fun. In contrast, a weak character does very little, perhaps nothing; that means everyone else still gets to do exactly what they wanted. If the DM plans encounters such that the lack of another potent party member is deadly, then there will be a problem when one person doesn't contribute, but a group of three tier 1s can handle a lot before they need a fourth. In contrast, a group of weaklings with one powerhouse in the mix has no appropriate encounter balance. Either the powerhouse steamrolls everything and the weaklings do nothing, or the powerhouse steamrolls everything even harder and the weaklings make meaningless contributions.

So, yeah, it sucks to have one outlier, but it's much worse when that outlier is too strong (in terms of "everyone having fun," not necessarily in terms of actually overcoming encounters).

[Kantolin]

Gametime here is a genius - a lot of what he's said I totally agree with. ^_^

I've also never personally been in a party where someone was underpowered and people were jerks about it. I've been in parties where everyone was jerks, mind you, but not 'You're not very strong, we hate you'. Everyone wants to be playing the game, you don't just tell a player to go home.

[Veyr]

There are a lot of assumptions in here that don't actually reflect what I originally said.

Absolutely true; I intended to be clear about that when I said "as a blanket statement" — I probably should have been more explicit, though. What I meant was that "Obviously not" does not, in my mind, apply in all situations, and explained a situation where it does not. Yes, I read things into your post that you probably didn't intend, but then the entire purpose of my post was that there are things that people say without realizing how uneven they can be. Such as "Obviously" the Fighter could not be in the wrong.

First of all, I've got no problem with offering optimization help. I'm all for educating people who don't know about optimization; maybe they still won't want to play optimized characters, and (in my opinion) that's fine, but the choice shouldn't be made for them out of ignorance. Second, I've got no problem suggesting another class that might fit the concept just as well while working better mechanically; swordsage for monk, warblade for fighter, whatever.

K. I don't really think I suggested that you didn't.

But forcing someone to change their class? That's jerk behavior. Now, maybe they deserve it; maybe they're being a jerk by refusing to change their behavior when it clashes with the group. But none of that was obvious from the phrasing I used. There's no reason to assume the fighter would be unoptimized, for one thing, and an optimized fighter can at least contribute to a group of tier 1s that aren't totally breaking the game. And I was specifically talking about making someone switch from fighter to cleric, a switch which requires a fairly serious jump in flavor (unlike switching to, say, warblade).

How is it any more "jerk behavior" to say (as the DM) "Your Monk is not capable of keeping up with his party-mates and is therefore unsuitable for this campaign," than to say "Your Wizard vastly out-performs your party-mates and is therefore unsuitable for this campaign"? This is exactly the discrimination I was referring to.

As for Fighter to Cleric, I certainly would never tell anyone that they had to play any particular class, but that particular transition could be refluffed if you tried hard enough (and looked the other way a bit, perhaps).

Finally, I disagree that it's just as bad to play a bad character as it is to play an overpowered character. It's annoying, certainly, but overpowered characters are a pain because they invalidate other characters. One player does everything and no one else has any fun. In contrast, a weak character does very little, perhaps nothing; that means everyone else still gets to do exactly what they wanted. If the DM plans encounters such that the lack of another potent party member is deadly, then there will be a problem when one person doesn't contribute, but a group of three tier 1s can handle a lot before they need a fourth. In contrast, a group of weaklings with one powerhouse in the mix has no appropriate encounter balance. Either the powerhouse steamrolls everything and the weaklings do nothing, or the powerhouse steamrolls everything even harder and the weaklings make meaningless contributions.

So, yeah, it sucks to have one outlier, but it's much worse when that outlier is too strong (in terms of "everyone having fun," not necessarily in terms of actually overcoming encounters).

Disagree, and this is exactly what my post was saying.

A character considerably weaker than his party-mates forces them to either save him constantly, or for the DM to go easy on him (and therefore fail to challenge his teammates). Neither is fair to the party, and the latter option is decidedly unfair to the DM, who has to spend extra time making sure there's something for the Monk or Fighter to do while the real characters do the real work.

It further strains credibility: why, exactly, is this group carrying this lame duck around? In some cases that might make sense, but characters that need that much protection generally ought to be NPCs. And plenty of character concepts fulfillable with Fighter don't make any sense as the one constantly having to be saved.

[Kantolin]

A character considerably weaker than his party-mates forces them to either save him constantly, or for the DM to go easy on him (and therefore fail to challenge his teammates).

Or the dragon ignores the fact that there's a monk there, weathers the few punches he is taking, and continues playing as though the monk wasn't there.

This may not make the monk's player too happpy about being ignored, but if the monk's fine with that, then that's not a problem - it means enemies are slightly less useful than they would be otherwise. The DM does not have to specifically go gank the monk.

Furthermore, many low-tier classes are tolerably skilled at not-dying, especially monks. If the dragon full attacks the monk, and then the cleric wizard and druid kill the dragon because he wasted his action... then awesome for them, right?

It further strains credibility: why, exactly, is this group carrying this lame duck around?

Fun? They're certainly more useful than summon monster?

[Gnaeus]

A character considerably weaker than his party-mates forces them to either save him constantly, or for the DM to go easy on him (and therefore fail to challenge his teammates). Neither is fair to the party, and the latter option is decidedly unfair to the DM, who has to spend extra time making sure there's something for the Monk or Fighter to do while the real characters do the real work.

It further strains credibility: why, exactly, is this group carrying this lame duck around? In some cases that might make sense, but characters that need that much protection generally ought to be NPCs. And plenty of character concepts fulfillable with Fighter don't make any sense as the one constantly having to be saved.

I agree. I was once in a party playing a reasonably optimized Druid 4/Conjurer3/Arcane Hierophant 2, when a new PC came in playing a Warmage 4/Cleric (healbot variety) 4. As a player, I was stumped. He is casting second level blasty spells at CL 4. I am casting 3rd level blasty spells at CL 9 (one of us had taken Practiced Spellcaster). There was literally nothing his character could do that I couldn't do and hadn't been doing much better. He performed so poorly in his "niche" that it wasn't even like I could leave it to him. He actively resisted optimization advice (High op stuff like "please ask the DM to swap one of your feats for Practiced Spellcaster" and "Mystic Theurge is better than alternating Warmage and Cleric levels.")

We solved it (sort of) with the credibility straining idea of handing him (new guy we had just met in a tavern) a sizable number of WBL breaking magic items to give him something to do in fights. I can only guess that if he had lasted long enough we would have had to keep giving him new staves every couple of levels as his ran out.

The DM should have just said "No. Play a Cleric, or a Warmage, or a cleric with blasty domains." This character is inappropriate to this party.

[true_shinken]

I didn't. o_o

Nor do I think so.

The I apologize, I directed all my statements to the guy who said so in this very thread.

[Raendyn]

I don't know if anyone has asked this before...

But, since we are comparing an "uber-charger" then the enemy is an also-uber wizard, right?

so
a: Can an uber-wizard loose initiative?

b: Can an uber-wizard die without magic?

there are plenty of persist-able spells that literally renders him invincible without magic. like persist delay death .... even if the charger wins the init....
& now that i mentioned it.

c: can an uber-wizard be hit from someone with an axe???

[Firechanter]

If you allow the Celerity line of spells, then
a: no
b: no (technically yes, but nothing is going to even attack him)
c: no

Ubercharging is pretty easy to do; you just need a couple of features (Pounce, PA boosters, damage multipliers); Uberchargers will always look pretty much the same.

Opposed to that, there are many more roads leading to Uber-Wizardry, but they also require more effort to put into them (generally speaking), and the results are also in an entirely different league.

[Gametime]

Disagree, and this is exactly what my post was saying.

A character considerably weaker than his party-mates forces them to either save him constantly, or for the DM to go easy on him (and therefore fail to challenge his teammates). Neither is fair to the party, and the latter option is decidedly unfair to the DM, who has to spend extra time making sure there's something for the Monk or Fighter to do while the real characters do the real work.

It further strains credibility: why, exactly, is this group carrying this lame duck around? In some cases that might make sense, but characters that need that much protection generally ought to be NPCs. And plenty of character concepts fulfillable with Fighter don't make any sense as the one constantly having to be saved.

I should clarify, then. I don't think stronger party members are obligated to save a hopeless cause. I think if someone in your game is playing an inexcusably weak character, you should explain to them that the character is too weak to keep up. You should offer suggestions on how to improve the character, including maybe alternate classes. But ultimately, it's their decision to play whatever. If they realize that the class is too weak, and still want to play it for whatever reason, that's their prerogative. People have fun in doing all sorts of weird things.

Part of deliberately playing a weak character, though, is realizing that your party members can't always save you. You've made the decision not to contribute as much as you could be; this, to my mind, frees the other party members from the obligation to spend disproportionate resources keeping you safe. You get to play what you want, they get to play how they want. Everybody wins.

Someone who insisted on playing a weak character and on being carried through encounters? That's a selfish jerk. No disagreement there.

[Eldariel]

b: Can an uber-wizard die without magic?

It's possible to become immune to all non-magical forms of offense with magic, yes. At which point either magic items (or comparables like psionic items or such) or spells/powers/comparables are needed to harm the target. E.g. very simple regeneration + energy immunity is exceedingly difficult to affect without magic and if we do something like delay death + beastland ferocity + ghostform, I can't think of any off the top of my head.

Technically old age could kill him but there are plenty of ways around that. And hell, if we truly talk about a high level paranoid Wizard Astral Projecting from his own demiplane with all the wards up on his body and the Astral Projection, no, he could most certainly not die without Breaching Obelisks and some heavy duty dispelling or Silver Sword or such.

[Cog]

Gametime: So if somebody really wants to play an optimized Wizard/Incantatrix or a DMM Cleric next to the Fighter, Monk, and Samurai, the DM should be just as accepting of that as well?

[Gametime]

I already said a too-powerful character is much more detrimental to party-fun than a too-weak character.

Finally, I disagree that it's just as bad to play a bad character as it is to play an overpowered character. It's annoying, certainly, but overpowered characters are a pain because they invalidate other characters. One player does everything and no one else has any fun. In contrast, a weak character does very little, perhaps nothing; that means everyone else still gets to do exactly what they wanted. If the DM plans encounters such that the lack of another potent party member is deadly, then there will be a problem when one person doesn't contribute, but a group of three tier 1s can handle a lot before they need a fourth. In contrast, a group of weaklings with one powerhouse in the mix has no appropriate encounter balance. Either the powerhouse steamrolls everything and the weaklings do nothing, or the powerhouse steamrolls everything even harder and the weaklings make meaningless contributions.

So, assuming you mean a top-tier character played optimally in a party of lower-tier characters, no, I don't think that'd automatically be okay.

[Thurbane]

But far more use it as a guidline to assess how versatile each player could be. And the reverse is also true: if someone wants to play a druid in a low tier party, they will often be told about lower tier options.

YMMV, but I see the tier system trotted out a lot (most?) of the time as a warning not to play a particular class.

I should point out, I don't have a problem with the tier system per se, I just hate to see it used as a device for telling people not to even consider playing certain classes.

Thurbane, you're my favourite playgrounder ever.

Thank you kindly.