Tiers?

[Cranthis]

Who wants tell me what all the tiers of optimization are? As I have no idea, I just do it.

[Tebryn]

Originally Posted by Cranthis

Who wants tell me what all the tiers of optimization are? As I have no idea, I just do it.

They're a myth. Ignore them, and enjoy your game.

[Spuddles]

Let me google that for you

[Cranthis]

I love you spuddles.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Tebryn

They're a myth. Ignore them, and enjoy your game.

This isn't quite true. There is something to it though.

The importance of the tiers is proportional with your group's average or highest optimization ability. Sometimes that proportion is direct, other times it's inverse.

At a certain level of optimization the tiers are almost completely irrelevant. At the other end of the optimization spectrum it's nearly impossible for characters in the lower tiers to keep up with members of the higher tiers in overall effectiveness.

There are simply too many variables to make an assumption of where someone else's group lies on the spectrum.

[TopCheese]

Originally Posted by Tebryn

They're a myth. Ignore them, and enjoy your game.

They're a myth. Ignore them, and enjoy your game.

There that's better.. I fixed it for you! Blue is sarcasm afterall!

[Firechanter]

To give an example of what Kelb is talking about:

s'pose your group is composed of a Fighter, a Rogue, a Cleric and a Wizard. If the Cleric is played as a healbot with a mace and the Wizard as a no-frills blaster, there's not much to worry about. With some moderate splatbook usage the Fighter and Rogue can make themselves useful; nothing fancy needed.

The Tiers come into play when the caster players take a closer look at their spell lists and realize what they can do. Both the Cleric and the Wizard can do any job in the party and do it well; basically they become the Angel Summoners while Fighter and Rogue remain the BMX Bandits. Using splatbooks for full casters just adds some bacon, they can break the game just fine using only Core material.

To briefly sum up the meaning of the tiers:
T1: can do any job and do it well, has many potential ways of breaking the game. Such as the "Big Three", Cleric, Druid and Wizard.
T2: has to focus on a more narrow selection of tricks, but in his field of expertise is at least as good as a T1. Has to choose in which ways he wants to break the game. Example: Sorcerer.
T3: Can do his job extremely well, but not gamebreakingly so, and has some other tricks when his primary shtick doesn't apply. Considered by many to be the "sweet spot". Example: Bard (with splatbook usage), ToB classes (Warblade etc.)
T4: Can do his job pretty well, but quickly becomes useless when his primary field of expertise isn't applicable, or does an average job at a slightly wider variety of tasks. Examples: Ranger, Rogue
T5: can do only a single thing, and not necessarily all that well, or is so unfocused that he has trouble doing anything at all. Example: Monk
T6: about the power level of a Commoner.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by Firechanter

To give an example of what Kelb is talking about:

s'pose your group is composed of a Fighter, a Rogue, a Cleric and a Wizard. If the Cleric is played as a healbot with a mace and the Wizard as a no-frills blaster, there's not much to worry about. With some moderate splatbook usage the Fighter and Rogue can make themselves useful; nothing fancy needed.

The Tiers come into play when the caster players take a closer look at their spell lists and realize what they can do. Both the Cleric and the Wizard can do any job in the party and do it well; basically they become the Angel Summoners while Fighter and Rogue remain the BMX Bandits. Using splatbooks for full casters just adds some bacon, they can break the game just fine using only Core material.

To briefly sum up the meaning of the tiers:
T1: can do any job and do it well, has many potential ways of breaking the game. Such as the "Big Three", Cleric, Druid and Wizard.
T2: has to focus on a more narrow selection of tricks, but in his field of expertise is at least as good as a T1. Has to choose in which ways he wants to break the game. Example: Sorcerer.
T3: Can do his job extremely well, but not gamebreakingly so, and has some other tricks when his primary shtick doesn't apply. Considered by many to be the "sweet spot". Example: Bard (with splatbook usage), ToB classes (Warblade etc.)
T4: Can do his job pretty well, but quickly becomes useless when his primary field of expertise isn't applicable, or does an average job at a slightly wider variety of tasks. Examples: Ranger, Rogue
T5: can do only a single thing, and not necessarily all that well, or is so unfocused that he has trouble doing anything at all. Example: Monk
T6: about the power level of a Commoner.

While the above is mostly accurate, most of the T3's do have at least one method of breaking the game, that only takes a moderately high level of optimization, and if somebody cuts the brake-line on your op-fu even a commoner can be game-shattering. Seriously, google bubs the commoner.

[Soranar]

I'll just add my 2 cents

rule of thumb, most classes can go up 2 tiers (possibly reaching tier 0, see below for explanation on that) with the right optimization

tiers not covered by previous posts

tier 0 , technically possible but never meant to be played in a game (first that comes to mind is Pun-Pun). Trying to play such a character usually means a DM will just reboot the game and say ''no , you cannot do that'' or ''your character dies/goes insane/becomes unplayable for x reason''

One of the challenge of high level optimization is to reach tier 1, as high as possible, without ever entering tier 0 territory.

[navar100]

Originally Posted by TopCheese

They're a myth. Ignore them, and enjoy your game.

There, that's better. Refixed as black is making a statement after all.

[Flickerdart]

To clarify, OP, the JaronK Tier system is what everyone is talking about. They have nothing to do with optimization, since they measure classes, not builds.

[Lord_Gareth]

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.

[Aharon]

For the reasons given above (real strength depends on optimization, not on the class you choose to optimize), there's also the lesser known Test of Spite Tier System:

Originally Posted by Olo Demonsbane

Here's the ToS Tier System as I remember it:

Tier -2: Pun Pun

Tier -1: An unbeatable build.

Tier 0: An effectively unbeatable build, though it can actually be beaten by the higher Tiers.

Tier .5: A build that can probably only be beaten if you have specifically prepared for it. Example: Sofawall's Cube build.

Tier 1: A build that has many effective tricks, insanely high defenses, and can end most encounters in a round. Example: A very effectively played Batman wizard.

Tier 2: Multiple great tricks and great defenses. Where I usually build for. Example: A CoDzilla or a Warmarked.

Tier 3: A build that either has one great trick or a lot of moderately good ones, while still having stellar defenses. Example: A well made Warblade, a good tripper, or a buff focused Sorcerer.

Tier 4: A build that, while still having a trick or two, has fallen very short on the defensive side of the line or has great defenses without being able to defeat an opponent on its own very easily. Example: A Charging Fighter or a VoP Monkadin.

Tier 5: A build that, while attempting to be optimized, still has neither good defenses nor a worthwile trick. Example: A typical fighter.

Tier 6: A build that *twitch* chooses feats for flavor reasons *twitch*

[ThiagoMartell]

Because caring about fluff is doing it wrong

[Lord_Gareth]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

Because caring about fluff is doing it wrong

There's 'caring about fluff' and then there's 'shackling yourself to published fluff'. There's a lot of ways to express a concept and deliberately choosing not just sub-par, but hideously crippling options "for flavor reasons" usually shreds other parts of your concept. If my character was raised by his parents (who were shepherds) before finding his calling as a paladin, taking a few points in Profession (Herding) is probably a good idea. Taking Skill Focus: Profession (Herding) is not.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

Because caring about fluff is doing it wrong

Who said that? I didn't read where anyone said that.

I suppose it could be implied by the T6 entry quoted from the test of spite tier system, but nobody uses that when they refer to the tiers anyway.

[ThiagoMartell]

Originally Posted by Kelb_Panthera

Who said that? I didn't read where anyone said that.

I suppose it could be implied by the T6 entry quoted from the test of spite tier system, but nobody uses that when they refer to the tiers anyway.

That's exactly what I was talking about (should have quoted it). I'm not against tiers, I'm against the notion the T6 entry in the ToS tiers enforces.

Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth

There's 'caring about fluff' and then there's 'shackling yourself to published fluff'. There's a lot of ways to express a concept and deliberately choosing not just sub-par, but hideously crippling options "for flavor reasons" usually shreds other parts of your concept. If my character was raised by his parents (who were shepherds) before finding his calling as a paladin, taking a few points in Profession (Herding) is probably a good idea. Taking Skill Focus: Profession (Herding) is not.

And that is not what the T6 entry says. It's an absolute statement - "choosing feats for flavor reasons makes you weak". If your concept is master of Scorching Ray so you take Arcane Thesis (scorching ray), according to that lovely ToS tier, you're doing it wrong.
The point being made there is quite clear - your options should be guided by what is mechanically more powerful, not what fits your character more.

[Lord_Gareth]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

And that is not what the T6 entry says. It's an absolute statement - "choosing feats for flavor reasons makes you weak". If your concept is master of Scorching Rat so you take Arcane Thesis (scorching ray), according to that lovely ToS tier, you're doing it wrong.
The point being made there is quite clear - your options should be guided by what is mechanically more powerful, not what fits your character more.

Test of Spite was a PvP arena designed to brutally beat the mechanical flaws out of 3.5 and flavor was at a minimum there. In that competition, that is doing it wrong.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

That's exactly what I was talking about (should have quoted it). I'm not against tiers, I'm against the notion the T6 entry in the ToS tiers enforces.


And that is not what the T6 entry says. It's an absolute statement - "choosing feats for flavor reasons makes you weak". If your concept is master of Scorching Rat so you take Arcane Thesis (scorching ray), according to that lovely ToS tier, you're doing it wrong.
The point being made there is quite clear - your options should be guided by what is mechanically more powerful, not what fits your character more.

In fairness, those tiers are for measuring builds for the test of spite contest. A PvP contest centered around optimizing for the most powerful build you can make. In that context, flavor based choices miss the point of the contest, and are in fact doing it wrong.

I agree with you in the more general sense though. There's absolutely no reason a person shouldn't build a character with flavor ahead of mechanics if that's their thing.

[ThiagoMartell]

Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth

Test of Spite was a PvP arena designed to brutally beat the mechanical flaws out of 3.5 and flavor was at a minimum there. In that competition, that is doing it wrong.

No, it's not. In any 3.5 arena, if you only care for power and power alone, there is only one possible build and we know which build that is. By it's own definition, all builds end up at tier 6, since not going for that one build is (guess what?) a flavor decision.

[Lord_Gareth]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

No, it's not. In any 3.5 arena, if you only care for power and power alone, there is only one possible build and we know which build that is. By it's own definition, all builds end up at tier 6, since not going for that one build is (guess what?) a flavor decision.

Untrue, mostly because of how Test of Spite works. Here, lemme dig up a link for you so you can read it.

Here it is!.

Remember when I said it was designed to 'beat out' the flaws? Part of that was the creation of the ToS banlist (eventually, ToS was abandoned in favor of creating Legend, and the banlist remains unfinished as a result) that winnowed away build options as unacceptable combinations were discovered, thus creating an environment where more than one build is possible for non-flavor reasons, and also to the creation of niche builds such as ShneekeyTheLost's samurai.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

No, it's not. In any 3.5 arena, if you only care for power and power alone, there is only one possible build and we know which build that is. By it's own definition, all builds end up at tier 6, since not going for that one build is (guess what?) a flavor decision.

You're right, when the only concern is power, pun-pun is the answer. That answer's almost 10 years old now though, so it's kinda boring. Test of spite was a contest about finding the most powerful builds within a series of categories with pun-pun being defacto banned by the contest's rules. Specifically the no infinite loops rule.

[Leon]

{Scrubbed}

[TheOOB]

Understanding the class tiers is incredibly important to gaining the maximum enjoyment out of D&D. While some people only care about telling a story or acting out a role, it's fair to say most players want their characters to at least be effective, and the only way to tell how effective your character is is to compare them to your party members.

You see, a well played fighter will never be effective in a party with a well played cleric or wizard. It just won't happen. If the fighter is more useful in a brawl than the cleric, the fight was either a)tailor made to screw the cleric, or b)the cleric felt bad to the fighter and didn't fight well. And if the fighter had a chance to do well at all the wizard really isn't doing their job.

Thus, if you want your character to be effective, you shouldn't play a fighter when a wizard or cleric is in the party.

In general, I prefer if every character is within 1 or 2 tiers of eachother. If any tier 1 characters are in the party, the lowest tier in the party should be a 3, and knowing this, if you choose to play a lower tier, you don't have a right to complain when you feel useless or when the rest of the party treats you like a liability.

[Tebryn]

Originally Posted by TheOOB

Understanding the class tiers is incredibly important to gaining the maximum enjoyment out of D&D. While some people only care about telling a story or acting out a role, it's fair to say most players want their characters to at least be effective, and the only way to tell how effective your character is is to compare them to your party members.

I'm going to ask this, because actual sarcasm is difficult to read over text but are you implying that people who ignore the teir system are somehow playing the game wrong?

[Lord_Gareth]

Originally Posted by Tebryn

I'm going to ask this, because actual sarcasm is difficult to read over text but are you implying that people who ignore the teir system are somehow playing the game wrong?

No, but they are deliberately ignoring realities of the system and thus impairing their ability to enjoy the game to its fullest.

[Tebryn]

Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth

No, but they are deliberately ignoring realities of the system and thus impairing their ability to enjoy the game to its fullest.

How? Saying those very words implies that there is a correct way to play the game and they're -not- playing it correctly. If they're enjoying it, who are you or anyone else to tell them that they aren't enjoying it to the fullest?

[Lord_Gareth]

Originally Posted by Tebryn

How? Saying those very words implies that there is a correct way to play the game and they're -not- playing it correctly. If they're enjoying it, who are you or anyone else to tell them that they aren't enjoying it to the fullest?

No, saying those words doesn't imply that there's a correct way to play. It does imply that there's more than one way to play, and that deliberately rejecting a method of play and keeping oneself ignorant about that method of playing means you're not experiencing the whole game. If optimization isn't for you, or if your group's optimization levels are so low/wildly differing that the tier system isn't relevant, then fine, that's great. But denying that it's a thing at all and deliberately failing to learn about it? That's cutting off a whole new kind of fun you could be having, but aren't.

'New' fun isn't necessarily 'better' fun, but it's certainly still fun.

[Menteith]

If people are having fun, the game's being played right. Regardless of power level, game balance, or fluff restrictions, if a group is enjoying a game then it's being done right.

With that said, it's remarkably incorrect to say that they're a myth. The Tier System is a ranking of classes against each other, when one assumes that the optimization level is equal. For those interested, it can be helpful to have a guideline (even if one disagrees with specifics, I feel that the original tier rankings are reasonably appropriate) with which to rate a class's power, and more importantly, establish criteria for evaluating what's powerful within 3.5. It is an observation that individuals can use in whatever way they please; nothing more, and nothing less. But it is not a myth, and to state as such without any explanation or context is incorrect, uninformative, and unhelpful toward the OP.

The Tier System doesn't promote power gaming or optimization, though it can be used to help evaluate a more powerful choice against less powerful choices, and one can use it in that capacity if they chose. All that it does is inform individuals of how much potential power a given class has. End of the day, everyone should enjoy their games regardless of the way that they're being played - but don't bash a tool which many people find useful without explaining your position.

[Tebryn]

Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth

No, saying those words doesn't imply that there's a correct way to play. It does imply that there's more than one way to play, and that deliberately rejecting a method of play and keeping oneself ignorant about that method of playing means you're not experiencing the whole game. If optimization isn't for you, or if your group's optimization levels are so low/wildly differing that the tier system isn't relevant, then fine, that's great. But denying that it's a thing at all and deliberately failing to learn about it? That's cutting off a whole new kind of fun you could be having, but aren't.

'New' fun isn't necessarily 'better' fun, but it's certainly still fun.

That would require the person to be ignorant of that style of play to begin with. Some people just don't like certain styles of play and don't need to go into extensive play throughs to figure it out. The whole game is what you make of it. Not everyone plays the same or wants the same things out of the game and aren't somehow "missing out" on something just because they don't play the way other people think they should be playing.