why do people dislike tiers in dnd?

[adrian23]

i mean,this is supposed to be a roleplaying game right? not "gameplay and story segregation wow. by definition story and gameplay are supposed to be one, so logically speaking does it not make sense that reality warping should be stronger that hitting something with a big stick? if i could say (in real life) move things with my mind,bend others to my will,change shape,become invisible and summon cthulhu i would be emperor of the world.tomorrow morning in fact. if i could smash people's faces with fists i would be.. at best making money as a boxer.


it's not even something unique to dnd
it's why the big bad in tolkien's middle earth is a magical fallen angel instead of some angry troll with an axe.
or why the biggest threat to palpatine were the 10,000 strong jedi order or hell even the survivors of his purge
or why cthulhu is such a threat(size alone would not get him anywhere near)
or why circe beats the argonauts even though they are more muscular than her.
or why the lich king's terror is not caused by wielding a big ****ing sword.
or how demeter nearly destroys the world when her daughter is kidnapped.
or how "let there be light" did not involve any muscle .

essentially my point is that having fighters be as strong as wizards only makes sense in settings where the lore/fluff supports it. for instance classical mythology and whitewolf's Exalted solve the problem by giving a convincing in-game metaphysical reason about how(for instance) you were able to shoot ten people in one shot.i.e making everyone magical but looking like ridiculously advanced mundane stuff.

personally(though i haven't yet played it) i think 5e is in a somewhat better direction i.e removing ,insanely abused feats/prestige classes etc,giving fighters some extra capabilities(not unlike,say,warblades in 3.5e or for that matter what real life people or heroes like drizzt can do)

[Cosi]

As far as I can tell, it's because people like non-magical sword wielders and would rather cut out all the magic stronger than a sword than accept that sword guys must eventually pick up some amount of magic.

[JNAProductions]

Because, at least in 3E, there's an assumption that PC of level X is equal to another PC of level X.

And that's a flat out lie. A Fighter 15 is nowhere near equal to a Wizard 15, or even a lower level Wizard.

I'd be much more okay with it, IF THE GAME ACKNOWLEDGED IT. If each class had a tier and a small blurb explaining it, along with recommendations on how to make disparate tiers work and recommended ranges for tiers, I'd have much less of an issue. As it is, though, if you read the PHB (and maybe the DMG) for 3rd edition, you'll have the impression that a Wizard and a Fighter of equal level are equally strong.

Take a look at 5th edition-there aren't tiers there. Each class is reasonably balanced against each other (barring Wish-Simulacrum chaining, which is a clear exploit and TO, not PO, and POSSIBLY minionmancy, which is more PO) so that, even if you have a Wizard 20 and a Fighter 20 in the same party, they can both contribute well and neither player feels left out, short of the DM being malicious/bad.

Whereas back in 3rd edition, if you have two characters, one a well-built Wizard 20 and the other a well-built Fighter 20, the Wizard has spells that can literally replace the entire Fighter, possibly better, spells that will trivialize every encounter they come across (and enough slots to do that in EVERY encounter, probably) and just in general, you'll have the Fighter be not contributing unless there's some REALLY weird shenanigans going on. The kind that take mental gymnastics to the extreme to justify.

BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner

[KillianHawkeye]

I don't think you understand what the tiers are all about.

It's not about making Fighters equal to Wizards. On the contrary, it's just a tool that's designed to help people understand why certain classes are more useful (NOT more powerful) than others. It's only goal is to explain that a Fighter is pretty good at one thing (hitting things with sticks), while a Wizard can be good at lots of things (depending on what spells he knows and has prepared). Wizards are higher tier than Fighters only because they can potentially do more things, not because of the relative strength of the two classes.

This really only becomes a problem when the Wizard tries to do the Fighter's job, because they can potentially do it better than a Fighter can, and this can leave the player of the Fighter character feeling left out of the fun. This doesn't mean that putting characters from different tiers together is bad, just that people need to be aware of these things to avoid spoiling other peoples' fun. And spreading that awareness is the entire point of putting the classes into tiers in the first place.

Again, the tiers themselves are just a statement on relative usefulness and versatility. They aren't something that can be liked or disliked.

[Lord Raziere]

Again, the tiers themselves are just a statement on relative usefulness and versatility. They aren't something that can be liked or disliked.

I dislike the tiers because they revealed that they aren't equal and encourage people to keep them unequal. furthermore, people clearly misinterpret and change the definitions to suit their own view of the system sot hat they don't have to do anything about the problems the tier list points out, so its not even doing the job its originally meant to do, which is point out the problem because the people who use it keep reframing the problems as not problems which is stupid and dishonest, and me pointing out these problems as just my opinion so they don't have to think of them as problems.

[Anymage]

Three thoughts.

First, there exists some level of reality warper that corresponds to some level of swordsman. The reality warper has a much higher cap, and the high level swordsman quickly goes from breaking real physics to breaking action movie physics all the way to superhero territory, but it's not intrinsically impossible to find balance points.

Second, "magic" does whatever we want it to. Rituals in 4e are notoriously underpowered compared to mundane skill uses, as well as being more widely available. Magicians in Shadowrun have to contend with drain, the fact that learning new spells costs xp, and the fact that mundane skills can achieve many of the same effects. Wizards in Dungeon World who want to create a spectacular effect are basically told "the GM will tell you what sort of adventure you'll have to go on to pull it off". D&D's conceit of an all-purpose magic man whose spells take effect in a matter of seconds and with no cost other than opportunity cost is far from the only option available. (See also: the like that fixed list casters get.)

Third, "reality warper vs. guy with pointy stick" carries baggage of its own. I want the reality warped to be pared down to "just" a pyromancer, necromancer, or what have you, and at the same time want the "muggle" to be on par with at least sherlock holmes or some other mid tier superhero. I understand that D&D tries to make a lot of people happy with all sorts of conflicting expectations, and that many of its flaws are emergent rather than intentional. But given the many steps the game has made towards that goal over editions, I don't think what I ultimately want is that bad a thing.

[Cluedrew]

Because it means you can't (rather, have more trouble) putting together parties hand having everyone make a meaningful contribution. Which is to say the "Batman Wizard" who solves every problem with a spell makes it hard to feel relevant as a rogue.

As far as I can tell, it's because people like non-magical sword wielders and would rather cut out all the magic stronger than a sword than accept that sword guys must eventually pick up some amount of magic.

As someone who has duked it out with you on this and related issues: Come on, give me/us a bit of credit, there is more to it than that. For instance, the idea of having differing levels of power in PCs aka "tiers", is separate from what the level(s) of power in the game actually are. I think you know my views on both of those issues are, but they are separate issues.

[Cosi]

Again, the tiers themselves are just a statement on relative usefulness and versatility. They aren't something that can be liked or disliked.

The tiers are absolutely something you can like or dislike. This is like saying you can't disagree with someone's review of a book. There are any number of reasons one could disagree with the tiers from "the rankings aren't accurate" to "the methodology for determining rankings is bad" to "the criteria on which the tiers are based are bad" to "the idea of tiers misses the point of how party balance works". They're not the law of god handed down on stone tablets. They're just an analytic tool some dude proposed.

Honestly, "people treat the tiers with way more respect than they deserve" is a fantastic reason to dislike the tiers.

[Knaight]

A lot of it has to do with how D&D is constructed - there's an archetypical party (Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard), which goes on adventures and gets more powerful. Generally this involves getting more powerful at what is supposed to be the same rate (whether that's levels or XP, depending on edition) - but that's total B.S. for several editions.

Meanwhile, in Ars Magica mages are just better than everyone else - there's a group of nonmagical people who still have some heft below them, and a group of nonmagical people who really don't below them, but mages are the best. The game is designed around this, and as such you don't see people complaining about it.

[awa]

take conan as a hypothetical martial
he is a master of virtually all fighting styles from horse archer to hand to hand combat
He has virtually superhuman strength, speed, stamina, and senses.
He is incredible charismatic able to woo women and lead armies,
He is a master climber and expert thief with incredible stealth and is able to identify strange monsters and ancient relics in a setting where such knowledge is incredible rare.
He has virtually unshakable courage and will
He is incredibly lucky, he often finds just the thing he needs to get him out of a scrape/ a bystander gets killed by the inescapable instant death attack

If this was an example of what a martial character say depicted as they would stay relevant far longer, say ever 4 levels they get to gestalt with another martial class and every 4 levels they get an extra +1 to a stat and every 5 levels all stats go up by 1. Finally give them some kind of meta resource to alter the scene if you want to keep a mundane character relevant at higher levels.
That's just something super crude off the top of my head

If you decide from the get go that all a martial can do is swing a sword of course he will be lame, but why would you do that.

[Cosi]

he is a master of virtually all fighting styles from horse archer to hand to hand combat

So out hypothetical martial that's supposed to be as good as casters is good at "most" fighting styles? He can't even be good at every kind of killing people?

He has virtually superhuman strength, speed, stamina, and senses.

You understand that mages can be actually superhuman in those attributes right (for example, a Mistborn)?

He is incredible charismatic able to woo women and lead armies,

Yes, because there are no charismatic mages, and no mages who even lead armies.

He is a master climber and expert thief with incredible stealth and is able to identify strange monsters and ancient relics in a setting where such knowledge is incredible rare.

Oh my god, he can climb good and thief good. I guess I'll cry all the way to overland flight.

He has virtually unshakable courage and will

Again "virtually"?

He is incredibly lucky, he often finds just the thing he needs to get him out of a scrape/ a bystander gets killed by the inescapable instant death attack

You understand this is a narrative contrivance that you can't pull off in a TTRPG right? There are dice determining the odds of things, and things that are improbable are actually improbable.

Finally give them some kind of meta resource to alter the scene if you want to keep a mundane character relevant at higher levels.

Yeah, that sounds great. You could have different tokens they cash in, with different effects for each token. So you might have a "now there's a wall made out of stone over there" token, or a "raise that guy from the dead" token, or a "shift the party to a different plane" token. Token's kind of a kludgy name though, surely there's something better we can use...

[Quertus]

Well, I dislike the 3e tier system because it a) stupidly includes a "brokenness" stat in what might otherwise be a useful description of power and versatility; b) it explicitly excludes a listing for the level of power and versatility I think would be a good design goal.

That, and people foolishly blame tiers instead of people being a **** when someone obsoletes another character.

Now, personally, I love the archetype of "gains power by scavenging bits of arcane lore from fallen civilizations (and occasionally by researching and innovating something new and cool)" that is the D&D wizard*. It's an archetype that, afaik, really doesn't exist anywhere else. I also like the archetype of "warps reality" that is the WoD Mage. Personally, I want the archetype "has attained superhuman mastery of combat arts" to out-contribute my preferred archetype in combat. Fortunately, in 3e, the übercharger, the keen Vorpal beheader, the infinite attacks builds, etc, all seem to do the job nicely.

* 2e and earlier, at least

[Quertus]

You understand this is a narrative contrivance that you can't pull off in a TTRPG right? There are dice determining the odds of things, and things that are improbable are actually improbable.

You and I may not like such narrative games, but you absolutely can give a character such narrative powers in a TTRPG. I spend one use of my luck, and that's a boat tied up, unattended, at the edge of this river we need to cross. Imagine the stink if only fighters got such powers!

[awa]

you realize its all one character right? Conan's like a specific character, one who kills wizards on occasion, I'm surprised you haven't heard of him.

A fighter who is basically a master of all mundane abilities not forced to pick just one.

you realize even d&d 3rd edition has meta resources through the luck feats I mean I understand their bad feats but they do exist and they exist in many other non d&d rpgs in a much more usable form don’t act like they are so gosh darn impossible to conceive.

[AMFV]

I suspect that people who dislike tiers in D&D would probably like other systems better in how they do things. Largely because the tiers are a pretty natural result of the way the system works, and in most editions there have been similar. I think that personally, the tiers are not that bad. I've noticed that player competence causes far more imbalance at tables than any tier difference. That and rudeness about tiers, like if one player flaunts their TIER 1 superiority then it can cause problems, but usually it doesn't. I mean generally player canniness and competence is far more impactful on the game than any actual difference in tiers. You have to remember that the tiers suppose equal optimization and that's not often the case.

[Cosi]

you realize its all one character right? Conan's like a specific character, one who kills wizards on occasion, I'm surprised you haven't heard of him.

Yes, I'm aware. I've used him as an example of someone who is not sufficient to keep up with casters in the long term. You can put all those abilities in a pile, and you get someone who is somewhere between level 6 and level 10. If you pay careful attention, you'll note something those numbers have in common -- not being 20. High level casters can be people like Gideon Jura, who is a skilled soldier, and also a planeswalker with various law magics.

you realize even d&d 3rd edition has meta resources through the luck feats I mean I understand their bad feats but they do exist and they exist in many other non d&d rpgs in a much more usable form don’t act like they are so gosh darn impossible to conceive.

Luck is not a meta resource, it's a reroll.

Yes, you can have resources that let you do <arbitrary thing>, but those are part of the game. Whatever they let you do is already priced into the situation.

[Darth Ultron]

Because Tiers are just made up junk.

Someone does not like X. And they feel like they must have a ''reason'' not to like X. So they invent the whole ''tier'' thing. And it catches on with all the like minded people.

And that is the worst thing about people and the tier thing: You have to accept like 100 ''truths'' and ''viewpoints'' and ''options''. And, amazingly, a great many people accept all the same ones in mostly the same way. So ''tiers'' can exist and are great...for them.

Amazingly, change even one of the 100 things, and the tiers don't work and make no sense.....but, of course the believers will never change anything and just say ''the tiers'' are all.

[awa]

Yes, I'm aware. I've used him as an example of someone who is not sufficient to keep up with casters in the long term. You can put all those abilities in a pile, and you get someone who is somewhere between level 6 and level 10. If you pay careful attention, you'll note something those numbers have in common -- not being 20. High level casters can be people like Gideon Jura, who is a skilled soldier, and also a planeswalker with various law magics.



Luck is not a meta resource, it's a reroll.

Yes, you can have resources that let you do <arbitrary thing>, but those are part of the game. Whatever they let you do is already priced into the situation.

If you read my post a bit more thoroughly you might note I said they would let you stay relevant longer I never said level 20, though I disagree with you on when they fall behind (provided they get enough of those extra feats, powers and stat increases I believe they can function well past level 10) I agree that level 17-20 is definitively not the place for martial not without some kind of tweaking either in the types of adventure, the spells, or something else. But then again the tier system does not talk about the top levels at least no jarnoks which is the default tier system on this board.

you don't seem to understand what a meta resource is, reroll or auto success on a roll described as luck or fate is certainly one way to do it, and a common one as well but not the only kind

here a pathfinder example of a meta resource just so you can wrap your head around one. theirs a prestige class that gets the ability to Set aside some money and carrying capacity when you leave town. whats in the bag? Who knows, you don't need to decide until you pull out the item, its lucky you happen to have the perfect potion on hand. This does not represent a magical bag it represents either excellent luck or exceptional planning.

An example from a middle earth variant of 5th edition allowed the scholar (don't remember if that's what they were actually called) character to have retroactively performed some kind of plausible act such as bribing a guard, setting up a supply catch etc.

[Cosi]

If you read my post a bit more thoroughly you might note I said they would let you stay relevant longer

"Maybe 10th" is not really longer when e.g. Warblades can already do that, or close, with a good enough build. Of course, if the period of relevance is less than "the whole game" you still have the same fundamental issue. One (or more) of the following must be true:

1. Martials and casters can progress to the same degree.
2. There is a cap on character power.
3. Either martials or casters will be overpowered (as, technically, you could constrain the power of casters).

There's no option four where martials can't be better than Conan and can still compete with casters who can be.

[RazorChain]

i mean,this is supposed to be a roleplaying game right? not "gameplay and story segregation wow. by definition story and gameplay are supposed to be one, so logically speaking does it not make sense that reality warping should be stronger that hitting something with a big stick? if i could say (in real life) move things with my mind,bend others to my will,change shape,become invisible and summon cthulhu i would be emperor of the world.tomorrow morning in fact. if i could smash people's faces with fists i would be.. at best making money as a boxer.


it's not even something unique to dnd
it's why the big bad in tolkien's middle earth is a magical fallen angel instead of some angry troll with an axe.
or why the biggest threat to palpatine were the 10,000 strong jedi order or hell even the survivors of his purge
or why cthulhu is such a threat(size alone would not get him anywhere near)
or why circe beats the argonauts even though they are more muscular than her.
or why the lich king's terror is not caused by wielding a big ****ing sword.
or how demeter nearly destroys the world when her daughter is kidnapped.
or how "let there be light" did not involve any muscle .

essentially my point is that having fighters be as strong as wizards only makes sense in settings where the lore/fluff supports it. for instance classical mythology and whitewolf's Exalted solve the problem by giving a convincing in-game metaphysical reason about how(for instance) you were able to shoot ten people in one shot.i.e making everyone magical but looking like ridiculously advanced mundane stuff.

personally(though i haven't yet played it) i think 5e is in a somewhat better direction i.e removing ,insanely abused feats/prestige classes etc,giving fighters some extra capabilities(not unlike,say,warblades in 3.5e or for that matter what real life people or heroes like drizzt can do)

People have problems with the power discrepancy. A lot of systems just don't make the caster so much more powerful than the martial. You see casters in D&D are superheroes that hog ALL the superpowers.

To take few of your examples, Sauron didn't teleport around disintegrating everything while he was both invisible and flying and when beaten he didn't have a contingency that brought him back to his personal impregnable pocket universe so he could recuperate.

Circe used food and wine to change the Argonauts to pigs, if she was in D&D she would just have wished them into pigs or used a custom mass polymorph spell. She wouldn't have waited for them to come to her palace but would have teleported while invisible and flying of course and cast a mass polymorph spell on all the crew, not just half of them. End of story.

Palpatine didn't just rise to become an emperor because he had force powers, it was because he was supreme chancellor. Palpatines purge was enforced by non force users, so if they could be killed by non force users then so could he. In D&D world Han Solo and Chewie would be nothing but irrelevant sidekicks while Vader and Luke duked it out, flying, encased in force bubbles in space while Luke was trying to disintegrate the Death Star and Vader trying to stop him. Invisible of course!

Cthulhu, Demeter and God...they are gods, but relevant examples as it just shows that wizards are almost gods while the martials are just guys with a stick.

[awa]

"Maybe 10th" is not really longer when e.g. Warblades can already do that, or close, with a good enough build. Of course, if the period of relevance is less than "the whole game" you still have the same fundamental issue. One (or more) of the following must be true:

1. Martials and casters can progress to the same degree.
2. There is a cap on character power.
3. Either martials or casters will be overpowered (as, technically, you could constrain the power of casters).

There's no option four where martials can't be better than Conan and can still compete with casters who can be.

The tier system does not concern itself with the extreme late game where it is impossible for any combination of mundane abilities to plausible keep up. Thus while your statement is true it is also not relevant to the tier system nor a large, very possibly majority of actually d&d games. I for one have never played a game that got all the way to level 15 let alone 20.

Conan's true strength is how broad his abilities their are lots of martial characters better than him at something, there are very few who can do quite as many things, bat man is a similar character hes just good at every thing. If fighters ability were broad enough they could still have a place in the game, right now a wizards strength is so great for much of the game because they have to spend so much fewer resources to get an ability. Sneaking requires tons of skill pts for an inferior version of invisibility, while the wizards just needs one spell slot; but what if the fighter got those skills for free and hide in plain sight and dark stalker as well at certain skill rank thresholds, now when the party needs to sneak, the wizard could use his spell slot but the fighter can do it just as well maybe better without spending a spell slot.


If the fighter gets trap finding and super discounted open lock/ disable device (+ feats associated with it) the wizard could cast knock but why bother the fighter has that covered.

If the martial characters were significantly broader in focus they could manage into the mid teens just by being excellent at everything mundane without having to spend any resources

[Lord Raziere]

Well, I dislike the 3e tier system because it a) stupidly includes a "brokenness" stat in what might otherwise be a useful description of power and versatility; b) it explicitly excludes a listing for the level of power and versatility I think would be a good design goal.

That, and people foolishly blame tiers instead of people being a **** when someone obsoletes another character.

And who is this jerk of which you speak? how can you possibly define them? the line between who does and doesn't seems pretty dang blurry to me. someone who "supports" me through magic is just as bad at obsoleting as someone who steals the kill directly. its not my power, its not equal to a wizard, when it should be. supporter wizard is not something I can rely on appearing, nor is expecting the best of people something I can rely on either. expecting the worst of people and the worst of wizards however is a sure bet.

[Dimers]

From what I've seen, people who dislike theory-talk about tiers feel that way because they take it as prescriptive (full casters SHOULD be kicking everyone's butt, and here's how) rather than descriptive (full casters HAPPEN TO BE kicking everyone's butt, and here's why).

Paying attention to the different abilities of different classes will give information, which has no inherent positive or negative value. But people assign lots of value to it. If a tier-system-appreciator says, "Hey, that's pretty neat information," a tier-system-disliker assumes they mean Now I know how to wreck the system better or even just I must act in certain ways in accordance with this inflexible information, I can't choose otherwise ... rather than Now I can anticipate and avoid stuff that might cause player frustration.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Tiers are not bad because different characters deal with different "threat levels".

Tiers are bad because low-tier characters are boring to play, and this is a game. The object of a game is to have fun. Why present players with incredibly boring and rather pointless options if the object of a game is to have fun?

Going back to Tolkien, you could argue that the Hobbits are lame and powerless compared to the rest of the Fellowship (at the beginning), but the purpose and theme of Lord of the Rings is not epic fantasy battles (no matter what Peter Jackson tells you). On the other hand, the purpose and theme of D&D, as far as how the rules and scenarios are presented, where they focus, and what rules and scenarios they even are, is Epic Fantasy Battles. If one character type (Wizards) actively prevents another character type (Fighters) from being able to participate in the core engagement of the game, why even have that other character type?

Of course, it's always possible to play a Wizard/high-tier character and a Fighter/low-tier character in the same campaign and have fun. People have been doing it for decades. It just requires the wizard, at least, to play in a certain way and ignore some of their class's in-game potential. Most people are fine with that, but the fact of the matter is, the fact that that's not only helpful but necessary to cooperative play is just bad game design, and people like to gripe about bad game design when they're paying money for, in theory, a well-designed game.

[Kish]

From what I've seen, people who dislike theory-talk about tiers feel that way because they take it as prescriptive (full casters SHOULD be kicking everyone's butt, and here's how) rather than descriptive (full casters HAPPEN TO BE kicking everyone's butt, and here's why).

Close. I dislike it because the vast, vast majority of the people who talk extensively about "tiers" do take it straight to "...so if you're playing a fighter or barring conjuration as a wizard there's something wrong with you." Examples abound on this forum.

[Lord Raziere]

Tiers are not bad because different characters deal with different "threat levels".

Tiers are bad because low-tier characters are boring to play, and this is a game. The object of a game is to have fun. Why present players with incredibly boring and rather pointless options if the object of a game is to have fun?

I disagree.

Why present players with incredibly boring and overpowered options of Tier 1 that solve everything instantly? Its just as boring and as exactly bad as hitting things with a stick with no other options. Tiers are bad, but not for the reasons you claim.

I know the system is for epic fantasy battles that is why I want everyone able to participate in those battles in any manner they so wish without some stupid cheese build

[Nerd-o-rama]

I disagree.

Why present players with incredibly boring and overpowered options of Tier 1 that solve everything instantly? Its just as boring and as exactly bad as hitting things with a stick with no other options. Tiers are bad, but not for the reasons you claim.

I know the system is for epic fantasy battles that is why I want everyone able to participate in any manner they so wish without some stupid cheese build

I fail to see how this is disagreement in any way with what I said. We're just focusing on opposite ends of the bell curve that is the actual problem.

[Cluedrew]

Well, I dislike the 3e tier system because it a) stupidly includes a "brokenness" stat in what might otherwise be a useful description of power and versatility; b) it explicitly excludes a listing for the level of power and versatility I think would be a good design goal.

1. Perhaps not the most neutral way to phrase it I'll agree, but the point of "T1/T2 classes can do thing that you have to particular counter or they will never be challenged" remains.
2. That is because it is about the classes D&D does have, not the ones it should. I agree the balance point of QT1 (Quertus's Tier 1, from what I can recall of the previous thread) would actually be a good point of balance point, in fact I think my favourite RPG uses it.

[Pex]

Because I don't believe one person's opinion on classes should be gospel to how one should play the game. He only wrote it because people had the audacity to like the fighter showing how the class functions well enough in and out of combat and didn't give a feces about his obsession that not having Knowledge (History) as a class skill meant fighter couldn't be a leader because some book allowed a successful Knowledge check to give a +2 bonus to morale checks for your underlings.

People have their own tastes and tolerances. If people have issues with various classes that's their business, but it's not universal truth.

[JoshuaZ]

Because Tiers are just made up junk.

Someone does not like X. And they feel like they must have a ''reason'' not to like X. So they invent the whole ''tier'' thing. And it catches on with all the like minded people.

And that is the worst thing about people and the tier thing: You have to accept like 100 ''truths'' and ''viewpoints'' and ''options''. And, amazingly, a great many people accept all the same ones in mostly the same way. So ''tiers'' can exist and are great...for them.

Amazingly, change even one of the 100 things, and the tiers don't work and make no sense.....but, of course the believers will never change anything and just say ''the tiers'' are all.

This is not fair to people concerned about the tier system at all. If the tier system were just about finding reasons to rationalize pre-existing likes and dislikes, then you wouldn't have so many people who subscribe to the tier system and then proceed to say that they prefer Tier 3 (which is the middle of the tier system). The primary concern about the tier system is that roll playing games are fundamentally games where everyone wants to have fun, and that's tougher to do when some characters have a level of power and flexibility that others do not. And yes, changing rules can reduce the tier difference; JaronK's original essay on the tier system even discusses that, although it isn't true that simply changing one of a "100" things will do it without drastically altering the fundamentals of the game. But please note that while some of the changes one can do (such as gestalting certainly classes) are actually frequently suggested precisely by the people who are pay attention to the tier system.