Tier System for Classes (Rescued from MinMax)

[Pandoras Folly]

Im totally escheing materials on my shurikin happy thri kreen monk/scout.

[Answerer]

Frankly, I've never had a DM that demanded that I keep track of mundane ammunition, either. Seems like a waste of game-time to do that.

[Hirax]

Frankly, I've never had a DM that demanded that I keep track of mundane ammunition, either. Seems like a waste of game-time to do that.

This, too. I don't know that I'd want to play with one that did.

[Pandoras Folly]

You've obviously not played Dark Sun.

9 kinds of desert. you want to be undead not for the fort saves but because you dont have to worry about water and food.

[Chambers]

Did I imply that Marx's goal of a classless society where idealistic equality takes precedent over individual merit was reminiscent of the goals and final result of the tier system?

Please explain how any of these goals are reminiscent of promoting a classless society where idealistic equality takes precedent over individual merit.

1) To provide a ranking system so that DMs know roughly the power of the classes of the PCs in their group before applying their own changes.

2) To provide players with knowledge of where their group stands, power wise, so that they can better build characters that fit with their group.

3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).

4) To help DMs judge what should be allowed and what shouldn't in their games. It may sound cheesy when the Fighter player wants to be a Half Minotaur Water Orc, but if the rest of his party is Druid, Cloistered Cleric, Archivist, and Artificer, then maybe you should allow that to balance things out. However, if the player is asking to be allowed to be a Venerable White Dragonspawn Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer and the rest of the party is a Monk, a Fighter, and a Rogue, maybe you shouldn't let that fly.

5) To help homebrewers judge the power and balance of their new classes. Pick a Tier you think your class should be in, and when you've made your class compare it to the rest of the Tier. Generally, I like Tier 3 as a balance point, but I know many people prefer Tier 4. If it's stronger than Tier 1, you definitely blew it.

Did i imply that Communism, an idea that is noble on paper and even works for certain cultures but on the whole is usually ruined by the people who practice it, is similar to the tier system.

That may be your opinion of Communism and as such if you view the Tier system in a similar light then I see why you would make that comparison. We're skirting the edges of the 'no politics' rule here, so I'll just say that your premises (understanding of Communism & Tier system) can lead to a logically valid result (treating the two as similar), even though the premises are not true (in the logical sense of the word, not implying value of your opinion). In other words: The moon is square, square things are made of cheese, therefore the moon is made of cheese. Logically valid but not true.

[Pandoras Folly]

This, too. I don't know that I'd want to play with one that did.

you mean you dont do this on your own? "

[Hirax]

you mean you dont do this on your own? "

Only in scenarios where it's relevant, which is rare enough that I'll just go ahead and say no. D&D has enough things to keep track of already, I can't picture going through the hassle you describe adding anything of value, except in a few oblique circumstances at low levels.

[Hiro Protagonest]

So...its a single use bag of holdin...

Im going to get one of those, be a thrikreen and say the bag holds all the thousands of daggers im spaming. Because that wont fly with most people. I have to account for arrows, daggers,and how many feet of rope I have. How much did raw sulphur cost in the middle ages? Also assuming you are in an area that has bats to begin with.

Daggers aren't ammunition. Arrows are technically supposed to be kept track of, but it's just a nuisance outside of survival games like Dark Sun. At this point, you're just ignoring the rules because you want to arbitrarily restrict a wizard. And if I am playing in Dark Sun... why wouldn't all Dark Sun casters have Eschew Materials? Did your DM ban it? Fine, one in five Templars is out of spell components. And I'm playing a psion.

Im totally escheing materials on my shurikin happy thri kreen monk/scout.

Except that doesn't work. It specifically only works for spell components. Also, infinite shurikens don't make you tier 4, let alone tier 1.

As for your complaints about not following xp costs... take a good look at the list and amount of spells with xp costs. That's what, Wish, Permanency, and Gate-for-summons? Besides, in D&D, by following the WBL guidelines (which you really should. Yes, even in Dark Sun. The game gets even more in favor of the casters when your fighter is deprived Winged Boots and a magic sword at 5th level), money is no object. And XP is a river.

Unless you decide to actually start following the RAW rather than complaining about how the rules aren't hardcore-survival enough (if Fireball requires me to seek out rare materials, I'll start using spells that are more effective, and have no expendable components, or at least easily found ones, like Summon Monster and Sleet Storm), I'm not going to take your arguments as valid reason to change tiers of casters.

[Threadnaught]

Did I imply that Marx's goal of a classless society where idealistic equality takes precedent over individual merit was reminiscent of the goals and final result of the tier system?

Yes, yes i did.


Did i imply that Communism, an idea that is noble on paper and even works for certain cultures but on the whole is usually ruined by the people who practice it, is similar to the tier system.

Yes, yes i did.


If you think that is unreasonable or incongruous, I would like to point out that it was not my intent to assign the tier system a social value equivalent to these weighty real world issues.

In theory, you do have a good point. People playing the game need to be on the same table in more ways than one. However, where your point begins to break down and starts to become something you're wrong about, rather than just something people disagree with, is your stance on how a system that fails to people who abuse it shouldn't be used by anyone.

Let me just point out this little fact. Every system ever has something that can be abused that is beneficial to the abuser and detrimental to everyone else. Communism, Capitalism, Despotism, Democracy, Theocracy (no idea), Monarchy and every single gaming system ever. They all have their flaws and are ripe for abuse, but does that mean non of them ever deserve to be implemented? No, it just means they have flaws.

If you've been in groups with players and DMs who have read this, but only know which Tiers certain Classes are in and try to ban stuff based on tier rather than team composition and game style, then I doubt the players/DM know all that much about the game either. Next time you're playing, ask your fellow players and/or DM to take a look at the Tiers, demand that they read the entire post and understand the reason for them. Then ask them kindly to read the second post including the spoilers.

I still need to conjure up a bunch of Tier 1s for a thought exercise.

[Raven777]

Abuse or resentment related to class tiering in D&D can be greatly mitigated by the group's adherence to some kind of gentlemen's agreement... It is a simple matter of sportsmanship to ensure everyone is having fun and that no one's fun is had at the expense of another, after all. Isn't it expected by default from friends sitting together to play a game?

[Con_Brio1993]

you mean you dont do this on your own? "

Heck my current DM doesn't make us keep track of food, water, or ammunition. Otherwise it turns off newer players.

[Answerer]

Abuse or resentment related to class tiering in D&D can be greatly mitigated by the group's adherence to some kind of gentlemen's agreement... It is a simple matter of sportsmanship to ensure everyone is having fun and that no one's fun is had at the expense of another, after all. Isn't it expected by default from friends sitting together to play a game?

Ugh, don't link that thread. It entirely defeats the purpose of a gentlemen's agreement to try to standardize it.

Anyway, point is, Gotterdamung, your thesis is essentially "some people get it wrong and abuse it, therefore it should not exist." Non sequitur. You are fundamentally wrong – that is not a valid conclusion to make.

[Threadnaught]

Heck my current DM doesn't make us keep track of food, water, or ammunition. Otherwise it turns off newer players.

It isn't just the players who would need to keep track of that stuff. Anyone here who's DMed knows how much of a pain the rules are, the more of the little stuff you watch out for, the more book keeping you have to do and the longer it takes for the players to perform their next actions.
It's hard enough for some people to keep track of Initiative, nevermind material components and hunger/thirst.

[Karnith]

Let me just point out this little fact. Every system ever has something that can be abused that is beneficial to the abuser and detrimental to everyone else. Communism, Capitalism, Despotism, Democracy, Theocracy (no idea), Monarchy and every single gaming system ever. They all have their flaws and are ripe for abuse, but does that mean non of them ever deserve to be implemented? No, it just means they have flaws.

If you've been in groups with players and DMs who have read this, but only know which Tiers certain Classes are in and try to ban stuff based on tier rather than team composition and game style, then I doubt the players/DM know all that much about the game either. Next time you're playing, ask your fellow players and/or DM to take a look at the Tiers, demand that they read the entire post and understand the reason for them. Then ask them kindly to read the second post including the spoilers.

Importantly, the tier system is a positive classification scheme for describing characteristics of classes, specifically the (somewhat vaguely-defined) "power bands" that classes operate within. It attempts to describe empirical reality by grouping classes together based on characteristics that those classes share. These characteristics are born out through years of empirical testing, i.e. actually playing the game, and out of theory, i.e. theoretical optimization as occurs in this very forum. It does not impose value judgements on the classes or tiers, nor does it argue for any particular style of play. The tier system merely groups classes together for the sake of easy classification and reference; criticizing the tier system and those who use it is akin to criticizing biologists for classifying organisms according to kingdoms, i.e. Animalia, Plantae, Fungi etc. The tier system is no different (save for subject matter) than such scientific classification systems. There is no normative favor placed upon plants over animals in biology (or vice versa); the terms and classification system exists solely for the purpose of ease of reference. The same is true of the tier system.

This places it apart from normative analysis, which explicitly does try to establish a particular value system, i.e. a "right way to play." Examples of normative theory include most political philosophy, including (and especially) Marxist theory. Aside from the vast difference in subject matter, the comparison between Marxist political theory and the tier system does not work because the former is normative, while the latter is explicitly positive.

The problems involving tiers arise from either the very phenomenon that the tier system was created to document, i.e. class imbalances leading to wildly imbalanced parties, or from people imposing normative analysis onto the tier system, i.e. "only play tier 3," or "tier 5 is trash, play tier 1 instead." This is not a problem with the tier system. It is a problem with people applying normative judgements to the tier system. People use the tier system to try to establish values on how the game can be best enjoyed. A common example (present in JaronK's FAQ) is "tier 3 is the sweet spot." That kind of analysis is also fine. Without normative analysis, the tier system would be rather useless; interesting to contemplate and look at, useful perhaps in providing an (extremely flawed) example for game designers working within the system, but it would have little use to most players. What is important is that such analysis is independent of the system itself; the system survives entirely on its own without value judgements being attached to it. JaronK's specific post contains quite a bit of normative analysis, especially in the FAQ. That does not make the positive aspects of the analysis presented invalid.

EDIT: Threadnaught, I'm quoting you because you were the most recent person commenting on this conversation thread; I'm not really directly replying to you.

[Zale]

That is what the Tier System is.

That is not how the Tier System is used. It is that incorrect use that leads to ruin. That is where the fault truly comes from.

How?

The Tier System is just knowledge.

If it had never been written, Wizards would still have more options than Fighters.

How can it possibly be used incorrectly?

[rockdeworld]

Hooray! JaronK you've saved this! Cookie for you!

Would it be possible to get back the "Why each class is in its tier" threads too?

How can it possibly be used incorrectly?

I suppose you could print it out with 72 pt Arial font, roll up the huge stack of papers, and start beating other gamers with it

[MeiLeTeng]

I suppose you could print it out with 72 pt Arial font, roll up the huge stack of papers, and start beating other gamers with it

Use comic sans for extra evil.

[Raven777]

Use comic sans for extra evil.

You monster.

[TuggyNE]

Ugh, don't link that thread. It entirely defeats the purpose of a gentlemen's agreement to try to standardize it.

Perhaps it should be renamed "ideas and starting principles for gentlemen to agree on in a D&D game", but that would be clunkier.

[Gotterdammerung]

Let me preface my response by apologizing. I have a very gruff writing style that is often misconstrued as aggressive or angry. I apologize for this and assure you it is not my intention to be arbitrarily confrontational. I am not angry, at best i am annoyed at the tier system and what i beleieve to be its negative impact on the community (by community I mean a few of my personal games, the climate of my local gaming store, and the climate of several D&D forum based sites.). I genuinely believe this system causes problems and my goal was to inform the community of these problems.


My argument is not Non-sequitur. You can't take one aspect of a multi-faceted argument, reduce that aspect to absurdity, and then argue your absurd version of my argument. Since you like rhetorical fallacies, that one is called a "Strawman".

Yes, part of my argument speaks out to the misuse of the tier system, but it does not stop there.

The tier system fails by trying to analyze data in a clinical environment. That data is inaccurate when carried over to a real world game where the factors are varied and uncontrolled. This makes the data derived from the system highly misleading to a large group of people. The data must be translated.
But, if you lacked the ability to gauge classes in the first place, then you will likely lack the ability to translate the data properly into your current environment. This makes the info the tier system provides a ticking time bomb destined for misuse. And if you had the ability to gauge classes to begin with, then you do not need the tier system to analyze obsolete data for you.

The tier system has 2 meritorious goals IMO. These are 2 saving graces of the system.


1. It tries to teach people how to accurately analyze data. I feel that this goal would be better served if it further tried to teach people the proper way to apply that data.

2. It identifies that a low powered character and a high powered character on the same table can create extreme difficulty on the dm from a game mechanics standpoint. This is a valid point and needed to come to the forefront. The problem is this factor of the game is not an exclusive point of the tier system and the tier system is not the only valid solution to this problem. There are many other valid solutions that don't carry the negative consequences of the tier system.

[LordBlades]

Abuse or resentment related to class tiering in D&D can be greatly mitigated by the group's adherence to some kind of gentlemen's agreement... It is a simple matter of sportsmanship to ensure everyone is having fun and that no one's fun is had at the expense of another, after all. Isn't it expected by default from friends sitting together to play a game?

Thing is, not everyone has the required mechanical knowledge to accurate judge the potential of a class/build. I've seen people that have been playing for years look surprised that somebody really thought a druid could overshadow a barbarian in melee.

Most people don't break the game because they want to, but because they don't know better.

[TuggyNE]

The tier system fails by trying to analyze data in a clinical environment. That data is inaccurate when carried over to a real world game where the factors are varied and uncontrolled. This makes the data derived from the system highly misleading to a large group of people. The data must be translated.
But, if you lacked the ability to gauge classes in the first place, then you will likely lack the ability to translate the data properly into your current environment. This makes the info the tier system provides a ticking time bomb destined for misuse. And if you had the ability to gauge classes to begin with, then you do not need the tier system to analyze obsolete data for you.

This seems to apply to any insufficiently detailed system of observation; what I can't make out is why the best way to resolve this is then to throw the baby out with the bathwater and halt any further attempts at unifying common observations. There may be a large variety of games, yes; there may be a lot to compensate for, yes; but surely a fuller understanding and accepted reference would be better than simply expecting everyone to learn everything from scratch? If it's actually impossible to create a single unified reference, logically that's because it's impossible to learn anything at all about the game balance, ever.

1. It tries to teach people how to accurately analyze data. I feel that this goal would be better served if it further tried to teach people the proper way to apply that data.

OK, now we're talking! Further efforts in this area are likely to prove useful.

[JaronK]

Considering the FAQ pretty clearly tells people how to analyze and apply the data and most of the objections I've seen are actually answered by the FAQ, I'm really not sure how I could improve things. At the end of the day, some folks just assume instead of reading.

Honestly, it seems like any "negative consequences" of the system from people who clearly have the problem already. As a result, it's sort of like blaming a hammer for someone injuring themselves by hitting themselves on the head with that hammer. If the hammer weren't there, they're still the sort of person that hits themselves in the head with an object in their hands.

I mean, I often get "AHH, THIS SAYS WIZARDS ARE A BETTER CLASS THAN FIGHTERS, WHY PLAY FIGHTERS THEN!" Clearly, such a person sees no value to a class other than its power and/or versatility, because simply showing that one class can do more in more situations is enough for them to think there's no point in playing anything else. But if that's how they feel, the tier system only shows them what they're going to learn anyway in play.

JaronK

[Pandoras Folly]

Considering the FAQ pretty clearly tells people how to analyze and apply the data and most of the objections I've seen are actually answered by the FAQ, I'm really not sure how I could improve things. At the end of the day, some folks just assume instead of reading.

Honestly, it seems like any "negative consequences" of the system from people who clearly have the problem already. As a result, it's sort of like blaming a hammer for someone injuring themselves by hitting themselves on the head with that hammer. If the hammer weren't there, they're still the sort of person that hits themselves in the head with an object in their hands.

I mean, I often get "AHH, THIS SAYS WIZARDS ARE A BETTER CLASS THAN FIGHTERS, WHY PLAY FIGHTERS THEN!" Clearly, such a person sees no value to a class other than its power and/or versatility, because simply showing that one class can do more in more situations is enough for them to think there's no point in playing anything else. But if that's how they feel, the tier system only shows them what they're going to learn anyway in play.

JaronK

This. Totally this.

[Chambers]

Thanks for apologizing but its pretty egotistical to think that you are "informing the community of the problems" when the majority of the community (or at least those that have posted) disagree that its a problem in the first place.

Also, you didn't answer my question about the goals being reminiscent, etc.

[Pandoras Folly]

Daggers aren't ammunition. Arrows are technically supposed to be kept track of, but it's just a nuisance outside of survival games like Dark Sun. At this point, you're just ignoring the rules because you want to arbitrarily restrict a wizard. And if I am playing in Dark Sun... why wouldn't all Dark Sun casters have Eschew Materials? Did your DM ban it? Fine, one in five Templars is out of spell components. And I'm playing a psion.


Except that doesn't work. It specifically only works for spell components. Also, infinite shurikens don't make you tier 4, let alone tier 1.

As for your complaints about not following xp costs... take a good look at the list and amount of spells with xp costs. That's what, Wish, Permanency, and Gate-for-summons? Besides, in D&D, by following the WBL guidelines (which you really should. Yes, even in Dark Sun. The game gets even more in favor of the casters when your fighter is deprived Winged Boots and a magic sword at 5th level), money is no object. And XP is a river.

Unless you decide to actually start following the RAW rather than complaining about how the rules aren't hardcore-survival enough (if Fireball requires me to seek out rare materials, I'll start using spells that are more effective, and have no expendable components, or at least easily found ones, like Summon Monster and Sleet Storm), I'm not going to take your arguments as valid reason to change tiers of casters.

I'm not arguing that casters belong in a lower tier. Ha, definetly Not.

Also wizards surviving to fifth level in dark sun rarely happens unless everyone there is playing bodyguard for them.

I guess I was raised in a different era where the dm didn't have to help us pee and count our arrows for us, what you rolled inthe order you rolled were your stats, and a bonus to being a dwarf was extra encumbrance because we measured how much our stuff weighed.

Although by the rules most of the arguments raised are correct someone thought the spell component bag was a good idea, also someone thought the truenamer was awesome. Its just a game, though I still dont understand the intense discussion about tier system. Its a tool we aren't arguing over to measure from ontop at the root or underneath next to the sack

[LordBlades]

Wizards surviving to fifth level in dark sun rarely happens unless everyone there is playing bodyguard for them.

Ever since Abrupt Jaunt got introduced theres very few low level things more survivable than a wizard.

I guess I was raised in a different era where the dm didn't have to help us pee and count our arrows for us, what you rolled inthe order you rolled were your stats, and a bonus to being a dwarf was extra encumbrance because we measured how much our stuff weighed.

The rolling stats s cerainly a matter of personal preference. Not a game I'd like to play in as I prefer to decide what to play and not rely on the dice to do it for me. Encumberance becomes irrelevant as soon as you can afford a Handy Haversack.

[Karnith]

The tier system fails by trying to analyze data in a clinical environment. That data is inaccurate when carried over to a real world game where the factors are varied and uncontrolled. This makes the data derived from the system highly misleading to a large group of people.

In case you weren't aware, you are, by extension of this line of reasoning, arguing that science is useless. "Trying to analyze data in a clinical environment" is exactly how we are able to learn about things we don't understand; it is nearly impossible to accurately analyze a full system, i.e. the universe or a human body (or an economy, or a society), at once because there is so much happening and there are so many variables. Isolating a given variable or process is the best way to learn about it. Obviously, this is easier in the natural sciences as opposed to something with social aspects, such as Dungeons and Dragons (or politics, continuing on the theme), but it is still the best way to do so.

The tier system measures the inherent capabilities of each class, separate from all other considerations, such as optimization level, play style, character wealth, luck, campaign style, etc. This means that the descriptive portion of the tier system holds true ceteris paribus, or when all of those other things are held constant. Obviously, if those other variables are altered, then the descriptive portion of the tier system may not hold true, but that is because of the other variables changing, not because the tier system is invalid. Introducing additional variables to a formula can change how the equation functions. We must also endeavor to understand how changing those other variables can affect outcomes, and we should do so by isolating those variables and testing how they change outcomes when varied. This is how science works. The tier system is an admirable effort at applying scientific principles to the analysis of a game.

But, if you lacked the ability to gauge classes in the first place, then you will likely lack the ability to translate the data properly into your current environment. This makes the info the tier system provides a ticking time bomb destined for misuse. And if you had the ability to gauge classes to begin with, then you do not need the tier system to analyze obsolete data for you.

I was not able to fully gauge the power levels of the classes when I first discovered character optimization and the tier listings thread. I had a very low op-level when I discovered the original thread back on BrilliantGameologists, and reading and, more importantly, understanding what it was to be used for, helped me vastly expand my knowledge of how D&D works, and how (as a DM) I can help my players enjoy the game, and how to create new content that is at a power level that I am comfortable with. I did not have the skills to accurately do either of those things before I read the thread, but I was able to gain those skills by reading the tier list (as well as the accompanying explanations of why each class is in its tier) and understanding the logic underlying it. Learning about the class tiers and using the principles derived from it has not harmed my games in any way, shape, or form, and has actually allowed me to try to prevent the horrible party and game imbalances that had characterized my games beforehand.

1. It tries to teach people how to accurately analyze data. I feel that this goal would be better served if it further tried to teach people the proper way to apply that data.

Three things.
First, trying to impose value judgements onto the tier list (i.e. "this is how it should be used," or more specifically, "here is how you can enjoy D&D more once you understand the tier list") is going to create the exact problems that you have complained about. I think that it is worth doing, since the misunderstandings stem from people who don't fully comprehend what the tier list means, but your suggestion will cause exactly the problems that you have complained about.
Second, JaronK, in the FAQ attached to the tier list and occasionally in the main post itself, does provide examples of how the tier list ought to be used.
Third, since apparently you disagree with JaronK's normative analysis of the tier system, how do you propose that we, as a community, establish the best way that the tier list should be used, especially in light of the fact that you apparently disagree with the majority of posters here?

2. It identifies that a low powered character and a high powered character on the same table can create extreme difficulty on the dm from a game mechanics standpoint. This is a valid point and needed to come to the forefront. The problem is this factor of the game is not an exclusive point of the tier system and the tier system is not the only valid solution to this problem. There are many other valid solutions that don't carry the negative consequences of the tier system.

The tier system is not a "solution" to the problem of imbalanced parties. It is not a "solution" to anything, except perhaps the problem of differing reference points of players trying to compare experiences. Again, the tier system does not impose normative values. It does not judge, it does not try to establish a right way to play, and it does not even (by itself) recommend anything, though JaronK's particular post describing the tier system does so. The tier system is a description of how the classes function in a game.

Also, what exactly is an alternative to the tier system?

[Saph]

In closing, I believe that it is in fact a fallacy to see the tier system as a measure of power rankings in the classical sense. The tier system is not a measure of who has the most plusses in an individual category. The system is using power in the same way that I have been using reactivity. The system measures how many options a character has. The power comes more as a byproduct. In a given set of moves, some are more powerful as a matter of statistics. In a big enough group, the outliers can be very extreme. The power of tier 1 comes from these outliers, which is by definition only existent due to their large availability of the moves.

I think this is probably the best way to see the tier system. (Surprised that no-one else commented on this post, to be honest.)

I generally find that the more experienced the DM, the more likely they'll ban said 'outliers', which goes a long way towards restricting the power of the tier 1 and tier 2s. If the really obviously busted stuff like Polymorph/Shivering Touch/Celerity is off the table, a Wizard and a Cleric can play in the same party as a Barbarian and a Rogue fairly comfortably.

[Karnith]

I think this is probably the best way to see the tier system. (Surprised that no-one else commented on this post, to be honest.)

I generally find that the more experienced the DM, the more likely they'll ban said 'outliers', which goes a long way towards restricting the power of the tier 1 and tier 2s. If the really obviously busted stuff like Polymorph/Shivering Touch/Celerity is off the table, a Wizard and a Cleric can play in the same party as a Barbarian and a Rogue fairly comfortably.

I think that one problem that people have with the tier system might come from how tier systems are used elsewhere. I play and have played several fighting games competitively, and tier systems in those communities explicitly use tiers to refer to power levels, i.e. Eddie being S-tier (in a ranking of S, A, B, etc.) in Guilty Gear X2 Reload means that he is the most powerful character in the game. If your frame of reference is that tiers are explicitly related to power levels, and being in a higher tier is absolutely better than being in a lower tier because the point of the game is to win, then I can see how moving into D&D tiers might cause confusion. No one really thinks that Ganondorf is worth playing competitively in Super Smash Brothers Brawl, but plenty of people enjoy playing fighters and monks in D&D. The disconnect would occur there because while there is no reason to play low-tier characters in fighting games if you want to win, there are plenty of reasons to play a low-tier class in a D&D game, because the object isn't to win (or, at least, to beat the other players).