why do people dislike tiers in dnd?

[Clistenes]

From a storytelling and world-building point of view, everybody understands that supernatural superpowers should be more powerful that beating stuff with a chunk of metal, I think.

However, the player who plays a warrior expects to be Conan and crush sorcerers under his sandaled feet... They want to be the exception, the mundane warrior who is so badass he can defeat spellcasters...

The only solution is to suggest the player to take some overpowered warrior PrC that is closer to full casters in power.

[AMFV]

PC of level X equals a monster of CR X. Pretty sure that's in the DMG. Transitive property (I think) means that PC of level X equals another PC of level X.

Edit: And the issue is not that the classes aren't PERFECTLY balanced (that's not true in ANY edition), the issue is how WILDLY UNBALANCED they are. You can (and people have brought stories of that) have a party where one character dominates, or one is totally useless, without anyone intending to make it so.

And that's still accurate a party of 5 tier 5 characters can manage an encounter of equal CR. Period. Maybe not as efficiently, but that was never promised. Also scenario design has less to do with classes than it does with DM applications. So the problem is that you're reading something that isn't there. A fighter, a healer, a rogue, and an adept will be able to handle challenges of appropriate CR, without huge optimization.

So again, it's an assumption that you're making that isn't not based on the text. Also transitive property doesn't apply here, because that's not how actual reality works, because reality isn't theoretical math.

Also a PC of level X != a Monster of CR X, it is that a party of level X can successfully defeat a monster of CR X, y percentage of the time, while using a percentage of their resources.

From a storytelling and world-building point of view, everybody understands that supernatural superpowers should be more powerful that beating stuff with a chunk of metal, I think.

However, the player who plays a warrior expects to be Conan and crush sorcerers under his sandaled feet... They want to be the exception, the mundane warrior who is so badass he can defeat spellcasters...

The only solution is to suggest the player to take some overpowered warrior PrC that is closer to full casters in power.

The tier system is not about fighting NPCs, it's about interparty balance. A DM can always design a tier 1 character to be defeatable by any party. My previous example party could beat a triumvirate wizard, cleric, and druid evil bad guy team if it was designed properly for that party. And that's the key to quality D&D DMing, knowing how to alter encounters to challenge but not defeat your party.

[Lord Raziere]

From a storytelling and world-building point of view, everybody understands that supernatural superpowers should be more powerful that beating stuff with a chunk of metal, I think.

However, the player who plays a warrior expects to be Conan and crush sorcerers under his sandaled feet... They want to be the exception, the mundane warrior who is so badass he can defeat spellcasters...

The only solution is to suggest the player to take some overpowered warrior PrC that is closer to full casters in power.

If we're being bound by stupidity like realism.

This is fantasy we don't need realism for awesome combat.

and supernatural powers don't exist, so there is nothing that actually says supernatural powers NEED to be more powerful than that, or that beating things with a chunk of metal can't reach the heights of a supernatural powers. the point of fantasy are things are not like reality, and something can be fantastical without being supernatural or magical. a wizard being behind all the cool things in the world is BORING.

[JNAProductions]

And that's still accurate a party of 5 tier 5 characters can manage an encounter of equal CR. Period. Maybe not as efficiently, but that was never promised. Also scenario design has less to do with classes than it does with DM applications. So the problem is that you're reading something that isn't there. A fighter, a healer, a rogue, and an adept will be able to handle challenges of appropriate CR, without huge optimization.

So again, it's an assumption that you're making that isn't not based on the text. Also transitive property doesn't apply here, because that's not how actual reality works, because reality isn't theoretical math.

Also a PC of level X != a Monster of CR X, it is that a party of level X can successfully defeat a monster of CR X, y percentage of the time, while using a percentage of their resources.

The tier system is not about fighting NPCs, it's about interparty balance. A DM can always design a tier 1 character to be defeatable by any party. My previous example party could beat a triumvirate wizard, cleric, and druid evil bad guy team if it was designed properly for that party. And that's the key to quality D&D DMing, knowing how to alter encounters to challenge but not defeat your party.

DMG, page 37.

An NPC with a PC class has a challenge rating equal to the NPC's level.

And why wouldn't the transitive property apply? PC X=CR X=PC X. Why can't you take out the middle step?

[Max_Killjoy]

An NPC with a PC class has a challenge rating equal to the NPC's level.

And why wouldn't the transitive property apply? PC X=CR X=PC X. Why can't you take out the middle step?

That's how I'd read it.

A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.

[Cosi]

If you want to make the argument, it's easier to get to the assumption of equality from equal costs. A level of Wizard costs the same thing as a level of Fighter. Absent evidence to the contrary (and it is, as far as I can tell, absent), we would expect that to imply they are of equal value. You don't need to go rooting around with CR (though the claims being made there are largely correct).

That said, I disagree with the idea that the problem is dishonesty. Maybe that's a problem initially, but does anyone seriously think that people still don't get the Wizards are better than Fighters? The problem is the imbalance, not the way the game presents itself.

[JNAProductions]

If you want to make the argument, it's easier to get to the assumption of equality from equal costs. A level of Wizard costs the same thing as a level of Fighter. Absent evidence to the contrary (and it is, as far as I can tell, absent), we would expect that to imply they are of equal value. You don't need to go rooting around with CR (though the claims being made there are largely correct).

That said, I disagree with the idea that the problem is dishonesty. Maybe that's a problem initially, but does anyone seriously think that people still don't get the Wizards are better than Fighters? The problem is the imbalance, not the way the game presents itself.

I think the problems are both. Dishonesty (well, more ignorance-the Devs honestly INTENDED them to be equal, they just goofed) is an issue for newer players-you end up with, on one hand, a Monk with Vow of Poverty or something, who sucks hardcore, and then a Druid, who took Natural Spell, and kicks all the butt.

And then, even once you realize there's issues, well... There's still issues. Knowing how to work around them doesn't fix them.

[Pex]

Of those who adhere to the Tier System there are four types. They were quite represented and on display in the "why the hate for win-buttons" thread. It's the same arguments repeated, not necessarily verbatim but they are the point.

Type 1: Tiers 1 & 2 are an abomination. How dare players have such power! Animate Dead! Teleport! Gate! They can do everything and anything all the time without fail. They always have the exact spell needed when it's needed. They always have the exact feat needed when needed. They always beat spell resistance. Monsters always fail their saving throws. If you are playing Tier 1 or 2 you are playing the game wrong.

Type 2: Tiers 4 and below are The Suck. They are a wasted space. A scenario exists where they cannot use a feat they have so that's proof they can't do anything. They have to use equipment. They always fail Will saving throws. They cannot do anything but hit things with a pointy stick and sometimes not even that. If you are playing Tier 4 or below you are playing the game wrong.

Type 3: Behold the One True Way Of Tier 3. It is complete Balance. It is how the game was meant to be. If everyone would play Tier 3 it is perfect Harmony. Players can do exactly what they are meant to do, no more no less. If you are not playing Tier 3 you are playing the game wrong.

Type 4: This whole Tier System is proof why the game is horrible. No one should play it. It needs to burn in the ashes. I play (insert favorite game system), and it's absolutely superior in every way. If are you still playing this game you are playing the game wrong.

[Frozen_Feet]

From a storytelling and world-building point of view, everybody understands that supernatural superpowers should be more powerful that beating stuff with a chunk of metal, I think.

As a matter of fact, I don't understand why that should be the case. Supernatural in the context of fiction is wholly arbitrary. There is no general case for it. Hence, there is no reason why in a given setting, the supernatural couldn't or shouldn't fail in comparison to cold steel.

It would, in fact, be wholly thematic for settings based on several myths where things like salt and iron were bane of all things supernatural.

[Lord Raziere]

Of those who adhere to the Tier System there are four types. They were quite represented and on display in the "why the hate for win-buttons" thread. It's the same arguments repeated, not necessarily verbatim but they are the point.

Type 1: Tiers 1 & 2 are an abomination. How dare players have such power! Animate Dead! Teleport! Gate! They can do everything and anything all the time without fail. They always have the exact spell needed when it's needed. They always have the exact feat needed when needed. They always beat spell resistance. Monsters always fail their saving throws. If you are playing Tier 1 or 2 you are playing the game wrong.

Type 2: Tiers 4 and below are The Suck. They are a wasted space. A scenario exists where they cannot use a feat they have so that's proof they can't do anything. They have to use equipment. They always fail Will saving throws. They cannot do anything but hit things with a pointy stick and sometimes not even that. If you are playing Tier 4 or below you are playing the game wrong.

Type 3: Behold the One True Way Of Tier 3. It is complete Balance. It is how the game was meant to be. If everyone would play Tier 3 it is perfect Harmony. Players can do exactly what they are meant to do, no more no less. If you are not playing Tier 3 you are playing the game wrong.

Type 4: This whole Tier System is proof why the game is horrible. No one would should play it. It needs to burn in the ashes. I play (insert favorite game system), and it's absolutely superior in every way. If are you still playing this game you are playing the game wrong.

I disagree with this, because I vacillate between 1 and 4 and maybe are sometimes a 3 depending on the day. I can be fine with playing with someone 4, 3 or 1, but not 2.

[Tinkerer]

Of those who adhere to the Tier System there are four types. They were quite represented and on display in the "why the hate for win-buttons" thread. It's the same arguments repeated, not necessarily verbatim but they are the point.

Type 1: Tiers 1 & 2 are an abomination.

Type 2: Tiers 4 and below are The Suck.

Type 3: Behold the One True Way Of Tier 3.

Type 4: This whole Tier System is proof why the game is horrible.

(cut down for brevity)

That is pretty true for the most vocal of proponents however there are quite a few of us who generally agree with the Tier System but aren't quite at that level. Because the people who aren't extremists got over it a long time ago. I personally tend to subscribe to Type 1, 2, and 3 so I adjust my games a little. Slight increase in benefits for Tier 4 and below, slight restriction on Tier 1 & 2 (particularly some of the high level stuff). It's still a little unbalanced but good enough to get by. At least I did that when I was running 3.5, haven't touched it in some time.

[The Insanity]

From a storytelling and world-building point of view, everybody understands that supernatural superpowers should be more powerful that beating stuff with a chunk of metal, I think.

That doesn't really preclude the game from having warriors and casters of the same level be, you know, same level (of power).

[JNAProductions]

That doesn't really preclude the game from having warriors and casters of the same level be, you know, same level (of power).

To expand on what (I think) he meant, let's say Casters and other supernatural folks have a power rating from 1-10,000, with 10,000 being basically a god and 1 being mundane human. And Martial characters have a power rating from 1-1,000, since their cap is lower.

You don't need to have the full 10,000 available to players. Anything above 1,000 can be reserved to artifacts, deities, and other such things beyond the players. Now, let's say the villain is at 4,000, then definitely let the players have a way to either 1) knock the villain down to their range or 2) boost themselves up to his range, probably via complex quests and rituals, but on a permanent basis, players shouldn't exceed 1,000 REGARDLESS of whether they're casters or martials.

[Cosi]

I think the problems are both. Dishonesty (well, more ignorance-the Devs honestly INTENDED them to be equal, they just goofed) is an issue for newer players-you end up with, on one hand, a Monk with Vow of Poverty or something, who sucks hardcore, and then a Druid, who took Natural Spell, and kicks all the butt.

Sure. That said, that's a problem of the imbalance, not the dishonesty. If you want to play a Monk, and you want to not suck, it's not like you're going to be happy with a solution where the game comes out and tells you "hey buddy, Monks suck!" explicitly.

And then, even once you realize there's issues, well... There's still issues. Knowing how to work around them doesn't fix them.

Agree and disagree. Yes, being able to say "don't play a Druid and a Fighter in the same party" isn't at all helpful. But understanding why those problems exist is necessarily the first step towards fixing them. And yeah, you can't necessarily do that on a large scale as a person (and you certainly can't remove the problems from existing content), but it's still important.

As a matter of fact, I don't understand why that should be the case. Supernatural in the context of fiction is wholly arbitrary. There is no general case for it. Hence, there is no reason why in a given setting, the supernatural couldn't or shouldn't fail in comparison to cold steel.

The point isn't that all magic is always better than all swordplay. The point is that the ceiling of magic is higher than the ceiling of non-magic swordplay (with "magic" roughly meaning "can't be done in the real world" rather than "is specifically a thing a Wizard does"). Minimally, there are magic swordsmen who can presumably sword good enough to be better than non-magic swordsmen, assuming those guys have some limit (and they have to, otherwise they would eventually become magic).

I disagree with this, because I vacillate between 1 and 4 and maybe are sometimes a 3 depending on the day. I can be fine with playing with someone 4, 3 or 1, but not 2.

But why though? It seems to me that if it is not okay to say "Tier 4 is not okay" it should equally be not okay to say "Tier 1 & 2 are not okay". It's the same sentiment. Are people whose character concepts are best represented by Druids or Artificers just bad people?

[awa]

one way i have seen it done is to alter what a starting character is so a level 1 martial might represent a veteran warrior with years of real combat experience while a starting wizard might have just learned his first spells and has never been in a real fight. So magic might be better than non-magic but the parties are still balanced because the martial has been doing this longer. The fact that ancient wizards of both power and experience exist doesn't matter because their not in the party.

Note this is talking about how to balance people with magic and people with out, not referring to the specifics of d&d and its class system.

[Lord Raziere]

To expand on what (I think) he meant, let's say Casters and other supernatural folks have a power rating from 1-10,000, with 10,000 being basically a god and 1 being mundane human. And Martial characters have a power rating from 1-1,000, since their cap is lower.

You don't need to have the full 10,000 available to players. Anything above 1,000 can be reserved to artifacts, deities, and other such things beyond the players. Now, let's say the villain is at 4,000, then definitely let the players have a way to either 1) knock the villain down to their range or 2) boost themselves up to his range, probably via complex quests and rituals, but on a permanent basis, players shouldn't exceed 1,000 REGARDLESS of whether they're casters or martials.

Then either nerf casters so that they can never go over 1000, and make sure martials can always get to 1000, or make sure martials can go the full 10,000. Seems logical to me.

@ Cosi:
Its not that your bad people, its that 2 players are the ones who like what I hate the most (the tier 1s) and thus will inevitably play in a "prepare for everything" style that will make everything unfun, suck all the life out of the game, nothing will actually happen because if it it does it'll just be a game of "auto-activation of contingencies ping-pong" the magic won't be interesting at all because it'll just be used for its effectiveness and not what magic is actually about, its mysticalness and wonder, and its just best to recognize what people you'll never have fun with. much like how I'll never play Call of Cthulhu and never have fun with players of call of cthulhu. DnD just has the unfortunate flaw of mixing people together and making them think these playstyles are compatible when they are not, because my playstyle is not "tier 3" or whatever, its "Tier I'm just as awesome as you, but no one is a god because screw that." and I don't care for whatever anecdotes you or anyone else has, I don't care if you define win buttons differently, I don't want binary abilities that switch the win on or off, I want something with an actual nuance and chance of failure and makes things interesting. there are other settings to the win-ness! it is a spectrum, that is ignored.

honestly, I keep explaining this and I still don't see how people don't understand this. People simply don't want to play games to be godlike mary sues, thats why we have challenge and health bars and chances of failure in the first place, and the character archetype of Leeroy Jenkins and berserkers and barbarians serve a valuable function of attacking immediately so that the game doesn't devolve into super-prep eternal batman stasis. because if you prepared for something, a GM might as well throw out ever using it because there is no point to using it if its not going to be useful in challenging anyone. if your prepared for everything, why bother playing at all? you've already won, no point in playing it out. Which is boring and stupid.

[Frozen_Feet]

The point isn't that all magic is always better than all swordplay. The point is that the ceiling of magic is higher than the ceiling of non-magic swordplay (with "magic" roughly meaning "can't be done in the real world" rather than "is specifically a thing a Wizard does"). Minimally, there are magic swordsmen who can presumably sword good enough to be better than non-magic swordsmen, assuming those guys have some limit (and they have to, otherwise they would eventually become magic).

There is no reason why supernatural's ceiling couldn't or shouldn't be lower than mundane means, and as a corollary no reason why magic swordsmen couldn't or shouldn't be worse than a normal swordsman.

Your definition of "magic" as "can't be done" in real life is both obtuse and doesn't actually address what I said.

[Cazero]

Your definition of "magic" as "can't be done" in real life is both obtuse and doesn't actually address what I said.

Also, magic as "can't be done in the real world" can be achieved mundanely by :

• at least half the monsters with natural flight,
• a first level character stacking a high ability score with a good racial modifier,
• every single Rogue upon gaining Evasion,
• every Fighter upon getting their third attack,
• and so on

so it's a pretty awful definition of what magic is in-game.

[Knaight]

Well the biggest problem that I have with them is how they keep invading the general Roleplaying board when they apply to 3.X in specific. Even when somebody specifically mentions that they are playing another edition of D&D people keep bringing them up. "Oh you're having a problem with your 4th level 5th edition archer? Let me bring up the tier list." They definitely applied to a specific edition (well 3 editions) however bearing in mind they only really apply to play above 10th level it's a situation where people just keep using it where it doesn't apply.

This isn't a tier system thing though, so much as a 3.x thing. It's part of an incredibly common (and really annoying) trend to view the specific way 3.x works as the way all roleplaying games must work. This often goes to the point of just assuming that every game must be a class and level system, or that there's only one GM role and that every game has it, or even being convinced that a focus on loot must be standard.

[Max_Killjoy]

This isn't a tier system thing though, so much as a 3.x thing. It's part of an incredibly common (and really annoying) trend to view the specific way 3.x works as the way all roleplaying games must work. This often goes to the point of just assuming that every game must be a class and level system, or that there's only one GM role and that every game has it, or even being convinced that a focus on loot must be standard.

I've seen it called the Playgrounder Fallacy, but it happens elsewhere in RPG discussion.

I've also seen the Inverse of the Playgrounder Fallacy, in which certain advocates of other approaches to gaming always assume that anyone and everyone they're arguing with is a very specific stereotype of a 3.5/PF player.

[AMFV]

Of those who adhere to the Tier System there are four types. They were quite represented and on display in the "why the hate for win-buttons" thread. It's the same arguments repeated, not necessarily verbatim but they are the point.

Type 1: Tiers 1 & 2 are an abomination. How dare players have such power! Animate Dead! Teleport! Gate! They can do everything and anything all the time without fail. They always have the exact spell needed when it's needed. They always have the exact feat needed when needed. They always beat spell resistance. Monsters always fail their saving throws. If you are playing Tier 1 or 2 you are playing the game wrong.

Type 2: Tiers 4 and below are The Suck. They are a wasted space. A scenario exists where they cannot use a feat they have so that's proof they can't do anything. They have to use equipment. They always fail Will saving throws. They cannot do anything but hit things with a pointy stick and sometimes not even that. If you are playing Tier 4 or below you are playing the game wrong.

Type 3: Behold the One True Way Of Tier 3. It is complete Balance. It is how the game was meant to be. If everyone would play Tier 3 it is perfect Harmony. Players can do exactly what they are meant to do, no more no less. If you are not playing Tier 3 you are playing the game wrong.

Type 4: This whole Tier System is proof why the game is horrible. No one should play it. It needs to burn in the ashes. I play (insert favorite game system), and it's absolutely superior in every way. If are you still playing this game you are playing the game wrong.

You're missing me

Type 5: The tier system is accurate but game balance is much less important than people think and game balance causing problems at a table is usually indicative of other issues.

DMG, page 37.

Yes, and you completely ignored all of my response. Like literally all of it. The CR system deals with what you're able to handle, not actually what you're able to do. Like a monster of CR 9, may have abilities that a level 9 character should not have, that's why playing as monsters is so incredibly difficult and why summoning spells and SLAs produce weird cheese.

And why wouldn't the transitive property apply? PC X=CR X=PC X. Why can't you take out the middle step?

Well first because it isn't reduced to a workable equation, you're creating something that looks like an equation but does not describe the situation in question. Also since the situation in question is whether a group has sufficient ability to handle something... that would mean that it would not described as an inequality a greater than if you will. A party with all tier ones would be greater than a CR encounter of equal level, a party with tier 5 and 4 would also be greater than a CR encounter of equal level, just by not as substantial an amount. So either develop a real equation, or stop trying to claim that your made up is an actual math equation, cause it isn't it's bullcrap.

[Cosi]

People simply don't want to play games to be godlike mary sues, thats why we have challenge and health bars and chances of failure in the first place, and the character archetype of Leeroy Jenkins and berserkers and barbarians serve a valuable function of attacking immediately so that the game doesn't devolve into super-prep eternal batman stasis.

But that's not what the other side wants either. The other side doesn't want to instantly win, they want to face challenges that operate in a different paradigm from the one you want. They would consider a game where people solve problems by just charging them in the face exactly as boring as you consider Tier One gameplay.

Also, that's conflating "liking classes in Tier One" with "liking Tier One".

There is no reason why supernatural's ceiling couldn't or shouldn't be lower than mundane means, and as a corollary no reason why magic swordsmen couldn't or shouldn't be worse than a normal swordsman.

Sure, not in any particular game. But in the abstract, the ceiling of "things you can do in the real world" is always going to be lower than the ceiling of "things you can do", because there are things you can't do in the real world, either as a result of the limits of human physiology or more fundamental laws.

Also, magic as "can't be done in the real world" can be achieved mundanely by :

• at least half the monsters with natural flight,
• a first level character stacking a high ability score with a good racial modifier,
• every single Rogue upon gaining Evasion,
• every Fighter upon getting their third attack,
• and so on

so it's a pretty awful definition of what magic is in-game.

What do we mean by "mundanely"? Is it defined from the perspective of the game world, or our world? If it's defined from the game world's perspective, why are "things you can do by swinging a sword" mundane while "things you can do by swinging a wand" magical?

[Frozen_Feet]

@Cazero:

A better example would be: silver can't hurt lycanthropes in real life, because there are no lycanthropes to hurt. By Cosi's standard, if lycanthropes are vulnerable to silver, then a gunman using silver bullets is magic, even if the gunman, his gun and the bullets function no differently from real life.

[2D8HP]

If you want to make the argument, it's easier to get to the assumption of equality from equal costs. A level of Wizard costs the same thing as a level of Fighter. Absent evidence to the contrary (and it is, as far as I can tell, absent), we would expect that to imply they are of equal value.....

Is this thread still at "General Role-playing" rather than one of the D&D Sub-Forums?

*checks*

Yea it is.

Current D&D has the same XP's equal the same Levels for all the classes, old D&D did not. At 100,000 XP in original Dungeons & Dragons (which would at my tables take you roughly 50 sessions to achieve, in the unlikely event that your PC survived that long) a Cleric would be a "Patriarch" (8th level), a human Fighting-Man would be a "Champion" (7th level), a Dwarf would be a "Myrmidon" (6th level), a human Magic-User would be a "Sorcerer" (9th level), an Elf would be a "Hero/Warlock" (4th/8th level), and with Greyhawk a Thief (all races) would be a "Thief" (125,000 XP would make you a "Master Thief").

So "back in the day" leveling up did not have "equal costs.

one way i have seen it done is to alter what a starting character is so a level 1 martial might represent a veteran warrior with years of real combat experience while a starting wizard might have just learned his first spells and has never been in a real fight.....

That pretty much was the assumption, a first level Fighter/Fighting-Man (both terms were used) was a "Veteran", a first level Cleric was an "Acolyte", and a first level Magic-User was a "Medium" (changed to "Prestidigitator" in AD&D).

People complained that arcane spell-caster were too weak too long so 3e "fixed" that.

People complained that 3.x was unbalanced so 4e tried to "bring the balance back".

*hums "The Battle of Evermore" by Led Zeppelin for many minutes*

People complained that 4e "didn't feel like D&D", so "the compromise edition" was made.

I complain that 5e isn't less like 3.x, so 6e will... probably be more like 3.5 BECAUSE MOST OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRONG ABOUT THE ONE TRUE GAME!!! dagnabbit!

After the reeking wreckage of 6e festers long enough then they'll come crying to me for my wisdom, but I'll respond:

[Cosi]

A better example would be: silver can't hurt lycanthropes in real life, because there are no lycanthropes to hurt. By Cosi's standard, if lycanthropes are vulnerable to silver, then a gunman using silver bullets is magic, even if the gunman, his gun and the bullets function no differently from real life.

We can reason about the properties of Lycanthropes even if none exist (for example, we could say a good argument by Frozen_Feet would be compelling, even though no good arguments by Frozen_Feet exist). In the real world, silver has the property of "harming Lycanthropes". That property doesn't go away simply because there are no Lycanthropes.

[Frozen_Feet]

Sure, not in any particular game. But in the abstract, the ceiling of "things you can do in the real world" is always going to be lower than the ceiling of "things you can do", because there are things you can't do in the real world, either as a result of the limits of human physiology or more fundamental laws.

Which is fine and dandy, but is not equivalent to Clistenes's claim I was responding to. In fact, your abstract case borders on meaningless, because it doesn't entail I should allow supernatural to trump natural in any game.

[2D8HP]

....In the real world, silver has the property of "harming Lycanthropes". That property doesn't go away simply because there are no Lycanthropes.

I feel a little bit bad for picking on you Cosi, but this is joke fodder
Shooting a Lycanthrope with a silver bullet harms them.

In the real world being shot with any bullet is harmful.

Stabbing a Vampire in the heart with a wooden stake is harmful to them.

In the real world getting stabbed by anything in the heart is harmful.

Hitting one of the "Fair Folk"/Elves upside the head with a cast iron pan is harmful to them.

In the real world.... that starts the party!

[Morty]

This discussion seems to be split between disliking "tiers" as the existence of power disparity, and disliking "tiers" as a means of cataloguing and outlining it. The disparity exists, so railing against people who try to nail down how exactly it works seems futile, to put it mildly. All the tier system does is describe an observable and massive difference in potential between classes. Whether or not you care or do anything about is entirely up to you.

D&D would spare itself a lot of trouble if it made the implicit assumption explicit and said "yes, magic-using characters are just better". Of course, that would be breaking tradition, so...

[AMFV]

This discussion seems to be split between disliking "tiers" as the existence of power disparity, and disliking "tiers" as a means of cataloguing and outlining it. The disparity exists, so railing against people who try to nail down how exactly it works seems futile, to put it mildly. All the tier system does is describe an observable and massive difference in potential between classes. Whether or not you care or do anything about is entirely up to you.

I agree it exists, but I think that it is often less important than people think. The games where I have had issues with the tiers are games where I've had players say things like "I could have just soloed that encounter" the problem there is player rudeness certainly the tiers facilitate that, but that's the core problem. Most tier related stuff boils down to that, it's other issues coming out through that, and those would be present tiers or no.

D&D would spare itself a lot of trouble if it made the implicit assumption explicit and said "yes, magic-using characters are just better". Of course, that would be breaking tradition, so...

It's worth noting that "able to handle more situations" or "more raw power" doesn't necessarily mean "better". Particularly in the case of a cooperative game where players should be cognizant of not hogging the spotlight from their fellow players.

[Frozen_Feet]

We can reason about the properties of Lycanthropes even if none exist (for example, we could say a good argument by Frozen_Feet would be compelling, even though no good arguments by Frozen_Feet exist). In the real world, silver has the property of "harming Lycanthropes". That property doesn't go away simply because there are no Lycanthropes.

Except mid-argument, you shifted from reasoning properties of lycanthropes to reasoning properties of the bullet. If you'd correctly followed the form of your own logic, you would've arrived at the conclusion that the "is hurt by silver" is property of the fictional lycanthrophe and we need not make any additional assumptions about real bullets.

Neither argument actually escapes that if you define "magic" as "can't be done in real life", then shooting lycantrophes is magic, because there are no lycantrophes you can shoot.