Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 122

Thread: Tiers?

  1. - Top - End - #61
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Gnorman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Seattle
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Why is saying that something encourages X bad, mind you? DO you have anything against power-carpenters or optimizers?
    I have nothing against either, and in fact land squarely in the optimization camp. I don't think you quite understood the thrust of my admittedly haphazard analogy, which is: Don't blame the tool. Blame the tool user. The tier list is a tool. An imperfect tool, maybe, but a useful one nonetheless.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Killer Angel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Northern Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cranthis View Post
    Who wants tell me what all the tiers of optimization are? As I have no idea, I just do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tebryn View Post
    They're a myth. Ignore them, and enjoy your game.
    You certainly can enjoy the game, but tiers are not a mith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth View Post
    @Original Poster: Essentially, the tier system measures where classes fall on their ability to affect the game world when all amounts of optimization are equal. So if everyone optimizes at the same level and has the same resources, then Wizard will generally be more versatile and powerful than a Sorcerer, who is in turn more versatile and powerful than a Factotum, who is more versatile and powerful than a Warlock, and so on. It is in no way a value judgement on the 'worth' of a class, and instead measures that class's mechanical ability to solve problems in terms of both breadth and depth.

    If players at the table operate at different levels of optimization, then the tier system starts to shake apart.
    This is absolutely true. I would like to add an example to explain the concept that, even if you are not aware of tiers, they’re there.
    Low optimization.
    Pick a fighter and develop it in a classic way, with combat feats, your magical sword / shield (or 2h weap)/ armor. Acceptable protection, acceptable damage.
    Now pick a wizard and imagine a novice player choosing the spells.
    1st lev. Spells: magic missile (oooh, damage!), magic armor (ooooh, protection!).
    2nd. Lev. Spells: scorching ray (moar damage!), Invisibility (Can I be invisible?!?, that rocks!)
    3rd level spells: fireball (MOAR damage!!!), Fly (I can fly! I’m invincible!!!).
    The wizard is far from optimal (AC for protection instead of miss chance, too much damage spells, and also of the same type, yadda yadda), but compare it to the fighter: who is the one with more options?
    Last edited by Killer Angel; 2012-10-16 at 02:40 AM.
    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Whitman)


    Things that increase my self esteem:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiyanwang View Post
    Great analysis KA. I second all things you said
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeYounger View Post
    Great analysis KA, I second everything you said here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryu_Bonkosi View Post
    If I have a player using Paladin in the future I will direct them to this. Good job.
    Quote Originally Posted by grimbold View Post
    THIS is proof that KA is amazing
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Killer Angel, you have an excellent taste in books

    Avatar removed, work in progress...

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Gnorman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Seattle
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    The fighter has: A.) fewer choices and B.) crappier choices. Demonstrably so. This should not be a point of contention - it is evident in theory as well as application.

    This is why the tier system is helpful to a new player. It exposes the traps of poor system mastery. It's not enough to just examine the classes, systems, and rules, and how they bear out in play, because each table does have a drastically different idea of how the game should be played and what is fun.

    But one must also analyze the hidden agenda inherent in the "ivory tower" school of game design that formed the foundation of D&D 3E. There, you will see that things like Skill Focus and the Fighter were at least partially designed to punish poor players (as in, players less inclined to page through the list of feats or with a less masterful grasp on the rules).

    The roleplayer vs. power-gamer is, and always has been, a false dichotomy. They are not mutually exclusive; they are not on a sliding scale where being one makes you inherently worse at the other. Playing a fighter instead of a warblade does not make you "better". You might have other reasons for playing a fighter (lack of access or approval, distaste for the fluff, resistance to ToB mechanics, resistance to new systems in general, an adherence to tradition, et cetera), but that doesn't mean that the player who chooses to be a warblade is somehow compromising himself.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by eggs View Post
    TheOOB and others seem equating knowledge and use of JaronK's Tier system with knowledge of optimization and mechanical knowledge in a general sense.
    No. That's not it at all. First, I've mentioned I don't care about optimization in the context of this thread too many times to be misinterpreted like that. The tier system is a tool for understanding a game phenomenon, and can be used to help run a more balanced game, nothing more, nothing less. Anything more you think is implied is something you brought to the conversation, so don't bring me into it.

    Second, you're points don't prove the tier list is wrong, and as that list has been used for years, and is based on even more years of play, it's difficult to greatly refute. A few classes might be a little off(bringing up a semi-obscure class from a late game sourcebook, especially when the tier list explicitly is not designed to cover psionics.)

    The Tier list does tend to care more about late game power than early game, but ultimately, it's design philosophy(places classes in tiers based on their ability to solve problems), is solid. Classes who are better able to solve problems, or can solve more types of problems, get a higher tier.

    The system does mention multi-classing if you'd read it. Further, that doesn't change that it is a look of comparative power between classes. The fact that you can multiclass rogue and samurai doesn't mean the samurai isn't a crap class.

    Quote Originally Posted by eggs View Post
    I believe the unwavering support of this system is misleading. First of all, I believe this is a problem because new players are given feedback like "Monk is a terrible class," which is an overly simplistic guideline, given other considerations left unaddressed by its Tier ranking (such as the value of a dip, ACFs, prestige class combinations, and so on) and are left to echo and devalue any use of the poorly-rated class. Secondly, I believe the unqualified backing of the system
    Who said unwavering support. I said it's a good tool to understand and balance the game. It's not a guide on how to play your game or build a character, and it makes no assumptions on how to play the game.

    The fact is, mechanically, the monk is a terrible class. It's primary problem solving method, melee combat, it's not terribly good at(low hp, can't use good magic eq, medium BAB, underpowered abilities). They don't have enough skills to be all that spectacular outside of combat, and they have little to do in combat other than punch people. Honestly, a cleric in heavy armor with a shield is nearly just as good of a fighter even before spells. Yes there are occasions where taking a few levels of monk may be useful(though i have seen few builds where taking make monk makes them more powerful than if they did not), but that doesn't change the fact that monks will have little to do in a party full of druids, wizards, and clerics of similar optimization levels.

    If a newer player wants to make a character and be useful to such a party, might it be good to know that say a monk might not be very useful, and an unarmed variant swordsage might be more useful to the party while still keeping the same concept. Might it be useful for a DM to know ahead of time when they have a party with a fighter, a bard, a rogue, and a beguiler that the new player bringing in an artificer might cause some problems in the future?
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Firechanter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by rockdeworld View Post
    Holy smokes! How did the fighter get banned?
    Probably because it's considered altogether too weak, so any Fighter who isn't a Dungeoncrasher would be considered a waste of everybody's time.
    So you know, university Physics D&D 3.5 Optimization is essentially three seven years of this discussion among like-minded enthusiasts. Done with supercomputers, access to the textsplatbook collections of five continents and thirty languages with thousands of classes, prestige classes, feats and spells.
    On four hours sleep a night.
    With no sex.
    You're not going to find the loophole these guys missed.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnorman View Post
    I have nothing against either, and in fact land squarely in the optimization camp. I don't think you quite understood the thrust of my admittedly haphazard analogy, which is: Don't blame the tool. Blame the tool user. The tier list is a tool. An imperfect tool, maybe, but a useful one nonetheless.
    Yeah, but that's exactly what Kelb was saying. Going further down the analogy, handheld drills encourage users to use it one handed, which causes spiral fractures. Is it always the user's fault? Or is it because the drill lacked a handle? I don't know, but my company installed handles on all handheld drills to prevent that.
    Basically, tools can encourage certain behaviors while using them. JaronK's tier list fits in a weird spot as a tool, because it takes some assumptions for it to even work (making it a specialized tool) and encourages using it in some ways within that specialized context (though you can tweak it in your own way, 'installing a handle', if you will).

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Gnorman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Seattle
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Yeah, but that's exactly what Kelb was saying. Going further down the analogy, handheld drills encourage users to use it one handed, which causes spiral fractures. Is it always the user's fault? Or is it because the drill lacked a handle? I don't know, but my company installed handles on all handheld drills to prevent that.
    Basically, tools can encourage certain behaviors while using them. JaronK's tier list fits in a weird spot as a tool, because it takes some assumptions for it to even work (making it a specialized tool) and encourages using it in some ways within that specialized context (though you can tweak it in your own way, 'installing a handle', if you will).
    If we educate people about the risks of using handheld drills one-handed, can we not then hone and improve our skill with the tool?

    There are risks and flaws in the tier system, as stated. That doesn't mean you should throw out the drill with the bathwater.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    The Tier list does tend to care more about late game power than early game, but ultimately, it's design philosophy(places classes in tiers based on their ability to solve problems), is solid. Classes who are better able to solve problems, or can solve more types of problems, get a higher tier.
    It doesn't. The tier list is focused on mid op games around mid to high levels.

    The system does mention multi-classing if you'd read it. Further, that doesn't change that it is a look of comparative power between classes. The fact that you can multiclass rogue and samurai doesn't mean the samurai isn't a crap class.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    If a newer player wants to make a character and be useful to such a party, might it be good to know that say a monk might not be very useful, and an unarmed variant swordsage might be more useful to the party while still keeping the same concept. Might it be useful for a DM to know ahead of time when they have a party with a fighter, a bard, a rogue, and a beguiler that the new player bringing in an artificer might cause some problems in the future?
    Bringing in an Artificer might create problems... for the Artificer. Artificer is a class that's very hard to play and requires plenty of support from multiple splatbooks and downtine to actually be up to tier 1 status. Badly played artificers are just Soulknives with a limit of charges per day.
    You mentioned Swordsages. ToB classes are pretty much optimized by default - they have a lower ceiling but start higher. The tier system does not address that, because it is based on a specific level of optimization and system knowledge.
    It's a useful tool, but it's far, far from perfect and universal. It simply does not apply to many games.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Gnorman's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Seattle
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    It doesn't. The tier list is focused on mid op games around mid to high levels.
    Can you cite your evidence for this? I'm not familiar with this element.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kelb_Panthera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Default Re: Tiers?

    To take the drill analogy a bit further, part of what I was saying is indeed what Thiago was attributing to my statements, use of certain tools does encourage certain behavoirs, but I was also saying that it's not always a good idea to give someone a tool unless you know they won't cause problems with it. You don't hand a power drill to somebody that's never shown any interest in drilling, and you certainly don't hand a drill to somebody you think is going to start punching holes in random objects/people.

    Read: showing the tier list to someone with no interest in optimization is a waste of both your time, and handing it to a munchkin will lead to him playing T1 and T2 classes almost exclusively.

    It's only a useful tool for a DM if he understands both the list, and optimization to rather a significant extent.
    I am not seaweed. That's a B.

    Praise I've received
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by LTwerewolf View Post
    [...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
    A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign

    Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Killer Angel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Northern Italy
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnorman View Post
    Can you cite your evidence for this? I'm not familiar with this element.
    I would like also an evidence for this:

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    The tier system does not address that, because it is based on a specific level of optimization and system knowledge.
    'cause I don't recall it.
    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Whitman)


    Things that increase my self esteem:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaiyanwang View Post
    Great analysis KA. I second all things you said
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeYounger View Post
    Great analysis KA, I second everything you said here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ryu_Bonkosi View Post
    If I have a player using Paladin in the future I will direct them to this. Good job.
    Quote Originally Posted by grimbold View Post
    THIS is proof that KA is amazing
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Killer Angel, you have an excellent taste in books

    Avatar removed, work in progress...

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnorman View Post
    Can you cite your evidence for this? I'm not familiar with this element.
    JaronK says this regularly. You'll note it is not on the OP for his tier system and that his rating don't account for the assumptions he presents there.
    This 'mid op, mid level' thing is one of the only things stated consistently by him. Finding it by google is proving to be too much of a hassle, so if you don't want to believe it, well, don't. I did think at least another guy quoting it as such, but guessing where JaronK started saying it is anyone's guess.

    Spoiled for side rant
    Spoiler
    Show
    The Factotum is infamous: JaronK says you should consider core + completes plus the book the class is on... then he considers Oriental Adventures as a given for his Factotum. Oh, and Races of Stone, as well. And Spell Compendium. You'll note he even says in the OP that 3.0 books are "less likely to be used" (and OA is 3.0). Bias, bias, bias. But I digress.

    In fact, this is the first reply to tier system back when it was just posted.
    Last edited by ThiagoMartell; 2012-10-16 at 04:32 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    eggs's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    Second, you're points don't prove the tier list is wrong, and as that list has been used for years, and is based on even more years of play, it's difficult to greatly refute.
    In case you missed it, when I talk about dogmatic support, this is exactly what I'm referring to. Saying it's been used for years does not resolve its deficiencies or flaws.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    The system does mention multi-classing if you'd read it.
    Believe me. I've read it. That's exactly why I have beef with it. If you've forgotten how utterly uninformative that section is (ie. you should categorize the build in the better tier, unless you shouldn't), you might want to revisit the thread in question yourself.
    Yes there are occasions where taking a few levels of monk may be useful(though i have seen few builds where taking make monk makes them more powerful than if they did not), but that doesn't change the fact that monks will have little to do in a party full of druids, wizards, and clerics of similar optimization levels.
    This encapsulates two of the major problems I mentioned with the Tier thread:
    1. When you say "monks," you refer to every monk build, and your statement simply isn't true. A Kalashtar Wild Shape monk with Metamorphic Transfer would be the easiest illustration for the problem involved.
    2. Defining "levels of optimization" is not as objective or trivial as you seem to be indicating. Even in the gauged-by-splatbook dive method that cropped up soon after the first tier thread, the previously-mentioned Eberron+Dragon Mag Monk and a Wizard dipping Spell Sovereign would ping equally for player effort in character building, despite the Wizard arguably becoming weaker from that investment.

    Might it be useful for a DM to know ahead of time when they have a party with a fighter, a bard, a rogue, and a beguiler that the new player bringing in an artificer might cause some problems in the future?
    Any of those characters may cause problems. The significance of the builds themselves and player abilities overshadow character classes to such a degree that class tiers would be pretty far from the first thing I'd worry about in assessing party balance.
    Last edited by eggs; 2012-10-16 at 04:40 AM.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    The tier system as it stands is flawed. Anyone posting here seems to know that.
    If instead of arguing back and forth and nitpicking we spent all that energy into actually improving said system, the world would be a better place.
    Well, no, it wouldn't, but at least the system would be.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: Tiers?

    From my own experience, the tier system stays valid until very low levels of optimization.

    At the lowest end of optimization you start to run into the issue of different optimization floors. Assuming you're not deliberately trying to cripple your char (like a spellcaster with a negative casting stat for example), you can screw up some classes a lot more than others.

    Take ToB classes as an example of high optimization floor. There's almost nothing you can do to inadvertently screw up a ToB class. There really aren't any horrible maneuvers, so no matter what you do, you'll probably be hitting stuff decently.

    Now consider a sorcerer. There's ton of bad/trap spells published, and if you pick one you're pretty much stuck with it.
    Last edited by LordBlades; 2012-10-16 at 04:56 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by LordBlades View Post
    From my own experience, the tier system stays valid until very low levels of optimization.

    At the lowest end of optimization you start to run into the issue of different optimization floors. Assuming you're not deliberately trying to cripple your char (like a spellcaster with a negative casting stat for example), you can screw up some classes a lot more than others.

    Take ToB classes as an example of high optimization ceiling. There's almost nothing you can do to inadvertently screw up a ToB class. There really aren't any horrible maneuvers, so no matter what you do, you'll probably be hitting stuff decently.

    Now consider a sorcerer. There's ton of bad/trap spells published, and if you pick one you're pretty much stuck with it.
    You mean a high optimization floor.
    Paladin is a class with high optimization ceiling, because it starts very weak and ends very strong.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    You mean a high optimization floor.
    Paladin is a class with high optimization ceiling, because it starts very weak and ends very strong.
    True, wrote the other thing by accident. edited now

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Wings of Peace's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Some of what I am about to say will have already been said but I don't feel like wading through the debate over the credibility of the tier system to find out what has and hasn't been said already.

    The tier system by JaronK is a rating system of each class' problem solving abilities. Problems can be anything from solving social encounters, to combat encounters, to poodle grooming encounters. It's impossible to list every type of problem that can be solved because some like combat are actually a conglomeration of problems that can be described usually as "empty his hp box".

    People will tell you it's not necessary to know the tier system and ostensibly they're right. Knowing the tier system, especially if you're not the DM, is not necessary to enjoy the game. However, learning the patterns of thought that the tier system encourages is incredibly helpful if you want to understand hypothetically how your party is going to perform.

    I tend to DM quite often in my gaming groups and in the case of a 3.5 party I can generally eyeball each players character and make educated guesses about what situations I should put into an adventure to give each character their moment to shine.

    Note that I don't use 'just' the tier system for these educated guesses. Earlier I said the value of the tier system is in the patterns of thought that it encourages and I meant it. When I look at the parties I dm I don't have a mental copy of the tier system in my head. What I do have is a basic mechanical understanding of the potential abilities each class has and from that I can extrapolate roughly how all the characters will interact mechanically in the situations I place them in. Understanding things in this way is useful because it means I can make adventures everyone will enjoy but it also means that if one party member is going to lag behind the others build wise I can spot it early on and offer advice.
    Doc Roc: We're going to eat ourselves.
    --------------------------------------
    Snazzy avatar courtesy of Rowsen!

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Firechanter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Gnorman View Post
    But one must also analyze the hidden agenda inherent in the "ivory tower" school of game design that formed the foundation of D&D 3E. There, you will see that things like Skill Focus and the Fighter were at least partially designed to punish poor players (as in, players less inclined to page through the list of feats or with a less masterful grasp on the rules).
    I know what article you are referring to, but still, I beg to differ. As I see it, said article was a late apology/attempt at justification of what was nothing more or less than bad design. I suspect that in fact the authors of 3.0 simply didn't really know what they were doing, and grossly misjudged the value of a lot of feats, in both directions.

    Exhibit A is the attempt of a "Feat Point System" by Mr Sean K. Reynolds, back then co-designer of 3E (mainly the Monster books) and crucially involved with Pathfinder. Apparently Mr Reynolds seriously believes - or at least used to believe in 2003 - that the +3HP of Toughness are not only equal, but _twice as valuable_ as being able to cast two spells per round (i.e. Quicken Spell). or that Skill Focus is twice as good as Natural Spell.

    I rest my case.
    So you know, university Physics D&D 3.5 Optimization is essentially three seven years of this discussion among like-minded enthusiasts. Done with supercomputers, access to the textsplatbook collections of five continents and thirty languages with thousands of classes, prestige classes, feats and spells.
    On four hours sleep a night.
    With no sex.
    You're not going to find the loophole these guys missed.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Banned
     
    Answerer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    This is highly offensive and I would request you to avoid personal attacks. I'm no trying to fool anyone.
    I didn't actually say you were trying to fool anyone, I only said you weren't succeeding.

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    I was just unfamiliar with the Test of Spite and was replying to someone who did not provide the context you mentioned.
    This confuses me immensely since I count no less than three posts by Lord_Gareth before mine where he explained it to you.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    If someone's completely ignorant about it - as the OP stated - it's a bit more helpful to actually explain what it is rather than give a pithy one liner to them. Calling it a system isn't exactly right either. It's not like reading it actually alters anything in game or inherently changes a playstyle. The Tier System is a set of observations that have been compiled in a way to help facilitate a better understanding of game balance. If one is looking for a way to create homebrew or enact houserules for the sake of game balance, it can help an individual understand both what is potentially powerful and more importantly, why it's powerful. If one is looking to create a powerful BBEG, knowing that a Wizard has a great deal of potential and can be a more credible villain who requires less DM fiat than a Fighter is a good thing. The Tier System is about informing people, rather than forcing a particular style of play on a group - and in my experience, more knowledge is rarely a bad thing.

    I do disagree with the notion that greater understanding is some kind of necessity for fun, however - we agree on that wholeheartedly.
    Quoted for truth.

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Because caring about fluff is doing it wrong
    It is weird, but some people think the opposite way. They think the fluff first and the mechanics after. It does not work at all.

    The correct way is thinking the mechanics, thinking if they are fun to play and if they work in the game well. It is important making the famous question: this using this class/feat/power a reasonable choice? Will everyone want to make it? Or no-one will?

    Once the mechanics is done, you can think the fluff as a toolbox for ideas characters.

    The authors hardly ever did this way... They seem thinking the fluff and writing some random number for it. Seldom it works (Bard), usually it does not (Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Paladin...).


    The Ur-Priest from the Book of Vile Darkness is a good example: the mechanics are fairly well done. But the fluff makes the class unplayable in many campaigns. What the hell?!?

    With a little fix to the requirements the Ur-Priest, that mechanically is indeed an half-cleric, can be used in many contexts:
    the Complete Divine idea of clerics who lost the god;
    Warrior/Priests of some sorts,
    Divine Wizards Theurges... let the fantasy run!

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kelb_Panthera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by etrpgb View Post
    It is weird, but some people think the opposite way. They think the fluff first and the mechanics after. It does not work at all.

    The correct way is thinking the mechanics, thinking if they are fun to play and if they work in the game well. It is important making the famous question: this using this class/feat/power a reasonable choice? Will everyone want to make it? Or no-one will?

    Once the mechanics is done, you can think the fluff as a toolbox for ideas characters.

    The authors hardly ever did this way... They seem thinking the fluff and writing some random number for it. Seldom it works (Bard), usually it does not (Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Paladin...).


    The Ur-Priest from the Book of Vile Darkness is a good example: the mechanics are fairly well done. But the fluff makes the class unplayable in many campaigns. What the hell?!?

    With a little fix to the requirements the Ur-Priest, that mechanically is indeed an half-cleric, can be used in many contexts:
    the Complete Divine idea of clerics who lost the god;
    Warrior/Priests of some sorts,
    Divine Wizards Theurges... let the fantasy run!
    No.

    A) there is no "correct" way to build characters. Whether you put fluff or mechanics first is an entirely personal decision. It's a generally good idea to put at least some effort into both, but you can get away with picking one or the other.

    B) There is no class in D&D that just plain doesn't work ever. Even monks and fighters have a reasonable chance at overcoming most creatures in the MM of a CR equal to their level, with no more mechanical consideration than putting at least 14 in their attack stat and getting a few plusses here and there. There are monsters that will have a nearly equal chance of killing them, and a few that they will be more likely to fall to than not, but there is not a single one that they have absolutely zero chance of overcoming. Not that it'd matter much if there were, since no PC travels alone.

    The idea that there are unplayable classes in print is the single biggest fallacy that gets tossed around on the internet, in regards to 3.5.

    T6's can certainly struggle in certain games and against certain enemies, but only a massive gap in the optimization between the T6 and a T2+ in his party will actually render his presence entirely moot.
    I am not seaweed. That's a B.

    Praise I've received
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by LTwerewolf View Post
    [...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
    A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign

    Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Banned
     
    ThiagoMartell's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Brazil
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by etrpgb View Post
    The Ur-Priest from the Book of Vile Darkness is a good example: the mechanics are fairly well done. But the fluff makes the class unplayable in many campaigns. What the hell?!?
    Actually, the mechanics are a wreck. It's a ridiculously overpowered class.

    Quote Originally Posted by Answerer View Post
    I didn't actually say you were trying to fool anyone, I only said you weren't succeeding.
    Splitting hairs when it comes to insulting someone is even more insulting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Answerer View Post
    This confuses me immensely since I count no less than three posts by Lord_Gareth before mine where he explained it to you.
    Yes, but there was no mention of the banlist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera View Post
    No.

    A) there is no "correct" way to build characters. Whether you put fluff or mechanics first is an entirely personal decision. It's a generally good idea to put at least some effort into both, but you can get away with picking one or the other.

    B) There is no class in D&D that just plain doesn't work ever. Even monks and fighters have a reasonable chance at overcoming most creatures in the MM of a CR equal to their level, with no more mechanical consideration than putting at least 14 in their attack stat and getting a few plusses here and there. There are monsters that will have a nearly equal chance of killing them, and a few that they will be more likely to fall to than not, but there is not a single one that they have absolutely zero chance of overcoming. Not that it'd matter much if there were, since no PC travels alone.

    The idea that there are unplayable classes in print is the single biggest fallacy that gets tossed around on the internet, in regards to 3.5.

    T6's can certainly struggle in certain games and against certain enemies, but only a massive gap in the optimization between the T6 and a T2+ in his party will actually render his presence entirely moot.
    QFT. The bolded part is sig-worthy.
    Last edited by ThiagoMartell; 2012-10-16 at 07:42 AM.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Axier's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: Tiers?

    The tier system can be used as a method of choosing the mechanical elements of a class. If you consider multiclassing, you can get a very general idea that combining two classes from different tiers would affect their overall play style. This is not necessairly a bad thing. I have also used the tier system to balance myself out, and make sure I wouldn't be stepping on too many toes.

    That being said, the tier system is not nearly dynamic enough to cover true Optimization. I can take enough dips and ACFs in apparently low-tier classes, and make a fairly high tier character.

    Using the Tier system as an end-all reference to optimization, I would have to disagree. It could be useful in introducing new players into the general power level of the classes. This can, so long as it is clear that it is not definite, can be a useful teaching aide in character optimization.

    As for the Stormwind Fallacy that tends to follow these discussion, I feel that it depends on the person. For example, I have played a masochistic blood worshipping healer that doesn't do anything but heal. The literal T5 healing class. One of the only sevierly low tier casters. Would I be terribly effective at much? Not really. But I enjoyed the concept of worshiping blood, and even planed on writing a book in character about Healing and the Life Blood, out of my own blood.

    Just because you aren't contributing as much as the wizard does not mean that you can't have fun with it. It really just depends on who you are.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kelb_Panthera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Actually, the mechanics are a wreck. It's a ridiculously overpowered class.


    Splitting hairs when it comes to insulting someone is even more insulting.


    Yes, but there was no mention of the banlist.


    QFT. The bolded part is sig-worthy.
    Using Ur-priest as an example of anything but an overpowered class or a sample of self-contradictory RAW is indeed a bit silly.

    If the comment about the bolded part is a request, then feel free to sig away.
    I am not seaweed. That's a B.

    Praise I've received
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by LTwerewolf View Post
    [...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
    A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign

    Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth View Post
    Oh sweet Asmodeus people, the OP is genuinely looking for information. If we want to have our monthly fight about the tier thread can we at least go make a new thread for it?

    @Original Poster: Essentially, the tier system measures where classes fall on their ability to affect the game world when all amounts of optimization are equal. So if everyone optimizes at the same level and has the same resources, then Wizard will generally be more versatile and powerful than a Sorcerer, who is in turn more versatile and powerful than a Factotum, who is more versatile and powerful than a Warlock, and so on. It is in no way a value judgement on the 'worth' of a class, and instead measures that class's mechanical ability to solve problems in terms of both breadth and depth.

    If players at the table operate at different levels of optimization, then the tier system starts to shake apart. Likewise, at bizzarely low levels of optimization, it starts failing to apply as the players' own inability to comprehend the system takes precedent, but otherwise it's a pretty good way to summarize what to expect from any given class.
    Quite true. This is the Tier system as it was originally presented to be, something I have no issue with. However, the problem is people have taken it to mean it is a value judgment on the worth of a class. They use it as a crutch to claim you're Doing It Wrong.

    As I've mentioned many times before, there are four groups:

    Group 1: Tier 1 is an abomination. Gate exists. Natural Spell is a horror. How dare players have such power. Spellcasters have any spell they need any time all the time at the exact moment they need it, and it always works every time all the time. Ban! Ban! Ban!

    Group 2: If you play Tier 4 or 5 you are The Suck. You can't do anything. You always fail your saving throws. You're pathetic because you rely on equipment. You are a waste of resources and space. You are a loser when faced with a large flying four-legged creature with 10 ft reach or any combination there of.

    Group 3: All Praise Be the Holy Tier 3. It is the One True Way. It is perfect Balance. All your troubles will go away if you only just play Tier 3. You are a power-hungry munchkin for wanting Tier 1 or 2. You are doomed to have no fun for wanting Tier 4 or below.

    Group 4: This is why 3E sucks donkey. It is horribly unbalanced, a stupid game. That's why I play (insert system), It is so superior in every way.

    I will say, thankfully, that such talk has been quiet lately. I'll read a snippet here and there, but nothing more comes from it.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Kelb_Panthera's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    Quite true. This is the Tier system as it was originally presented to be, something I have no issue with. However, the problem is people have taken it to mean it is a value judgment on the worth of a class. They use it as a crutch to claim you're Doing It Wrong.

    As I've mentioned many times before, there are four groups:

    Group 1: Tier 1 is an abomination. Gate exists. Natural Spell is a horror. How dare players have such power. Spellcasters have any spell they need any time all the time at the exact moment they need it, and it always works every time all the time. Ban! Ban! Ban!

    Group 2: If you play Tier 4 or 5 you are The Suck. You can't do anything. You always fail your saving throws. You're pathetic because you rely on equipment. You are a waste of resources and space. You are a loser when faced with a large flying four-legged creature with 10 ft reach or any combination there of.

    Group 3: All Praise Be the Holy Tier 3. It is the One True Way. It is perfect Balance. All your troubles will go away if you only just play Tier 3. You are a power-hungry munchkin for wanting Tier 1 or 2. You are doomed to have no fun for wanting Tier 4 or below.

    Group 4: This is why 3E sucks donkey. It is horribly unbalanced, a stupid game. That's why I play (insert system), It is so superior in every way.

    I will say, thankfully, that such talk has been quiet lately. I'll read a snippet here and there, but nothing more comes from it.
    Now that you mention it, I have noticed a down-trend in that sort of post too.

    I'm certainly not complaining about it.
    I am not seaweed. That's a B.

    Praise I've received
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell View Post
    Kelb, recently it looks like you're the Avatar of Reason in these forums, man.
    Quote Originally Posted by LTwerewolf View Post
    [...] bringing Kelb in on your side in a rules fight is like bringing Mike Tyson in on your side to fight a toddler. You can, but it's such massive overkill.
    A quick outline on building a homebrew campaign

    Avatar by Tiffanie Lirle

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Pensacola, Florida
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth View Post
    No, but they are deliberately ignoring realities of the system and thus impairing their ability to enjoy the game to its fullest.
    MY fullest enjoyment of the game has come solidly at tier 4, every time. Stop using absolutes.
    "Thursdays. I could never get the hang of Thursdays."-Arthur Dent, The Hitchhiker's Guide

    "I had a normal day once. It was a Thursday." -Will Bailey, The West Wing

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    DruidGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    Default Re: Tiers?

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    Quite true. This is the Tier system as it was originally presented to be, something I have no issue with. However, the problem is people have taken it to mean it is a value judgment on the worth of a class. They use it as a crutch to claim you're Doing It Wrong.
    Sometimes value judgements are useful (maybe even necessary). Sometimes realizing pre-game that the fighter in the CoDzilla, God Wizard and Mailman Sorc might be a bit out of his league (polite understatement for hopelessly outclassed and only able to contribute as much as the others care to enable him to) is useful, both as a player and a DM.

    What I can agree on is that telling people they're doing it wrong for playing weaker classes in a vacuum is not constructive at all. Some times playing a Monk is perfectly fine.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •