Tier System

[Togo]

Togo the tier system explicity mentions that it doesn't expect heavy optimization,

True, but it also says that the Tier ratings are based on the maximum possible capabilties of the characters. This is only sensible, since anything less than 'anything goes' runs into a much larger amount of variation in terms of what is allowed and what isn't.

You can argue that if everyone optimises to the same extent then the Tier structure is preserved, but that's kinda begging the question. I've played many games where the Tier structure proved relatively accurate, and many where it hasn't. If the OP plays a game where it doesn't work, that doesn't surprise me. That also doesn't change the usefulness of the system to people playing games where it does work. I use it or don't use it, depending on the game and the people I'm playing with.

[ahenobarbi]

Actually, the tiers do absolutely nothing to counter this problem.

They describe it. That's something. They can warn you about possible problems (like in my group we have Cleric, Wizard, Ranger/Rogue and a Fighter. I knew since the beginning there will be problems and... on last session Cleric and Wizard were unscratched, Ranger got saved by the Wizard and Fighter died in 2 rounds... would co-players acknowledge the problem (they won't) we could work to avoid it).

[ThiagoMartell]

Of course many kind of phones won't be used, but still are you using a phone? Yes. The tier system simply resumes how good is the phone you're using.

I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm disagreeing with that concept that you don't "use" the tier system.

Well, of course. A car magazine can tell me what vehicle has better performances, but doesnt' fix the problems the other cars have.

This has nothing to do with the 'problems other cars have'. As I pointed out, save-or-lose abilities are a problem even if everyone has access to them. One way or another, someone solves a problem by himself and the rest simply sits there, watching. It's the same problem with trapfinding, really. Thankfully, D&D game design has swung away from that.

They describe it. That's something. They can warn you about possible problems (like in my group we have Cleric, Wizard, Ranger/Rogue and a Fighter. I knew since the beginning there will be problems and... on last session Cleric and Wizard were unscratched, Ranger got saved by the Wizard and Fighter died in 2 rounds... would co-players acknowledge the problem (they won't) we could work to avoid it).

Dude, the tier system never mentions save-or-lose as being disruptive of team play. It doesn't even point out which classes get save-or-lose abilities. The problems you are describing are not the problems I mentioned back in that first post you quoted. I'm not talking about options and balance. I'm talking about save-or-lose disrupting team play because one person does all the work alone. This happens across all tiers and as mentioned in that very post you quoted, even in a full t1 party. It's a problem that cannot be solved, even. It's ismply integral to 3.5 design.

[Killer Angel]

As I pointed out, save-or-lose abilities are a problem even if everyone has access to them. One way or another, someone solves a problem by himself and the rest simply sits there, watching. It's the same problem with trapfinding, really. Thankfully, D&D game design has swung away from that.

I cannot disagree with this.

Now, the problem I have when I read declarations as “tier system is bulls…”, is that, to me, it’s kinda reading “3.5 is perfectly balanced”. The TS is a compendium of the imbalances between the various classes, and dismissing the TS, is like dismissing also the imbalances (a thing that, btw, it’s been somehow done also in the OP).

[LordBlades]

I disagree with your assessment.

He may well be, but the wizard is not a Tier 1 character because he has invisibility, fireball, fly and teleport. He's a Tier 1 character because he can replace other character's roles in the party and can break the game in a number of ways.

I also don't agree that you've optimised those characters to the same extent, but that's a side point.



hm... You're still confusing terms here. A low-op game is a game where characters are not optimised. This could be because people don't know how to optimise, as you are assuming, or it could be because optimisation options are either discouraged or simply unavailable. You seem to be equating low-op with ignorance, which suggests you don't really understand these styles of play.

You might equally well argue that the reason why the Tier system is so popular amongst high-op players is that keeping a game balanced is hard and requires understanding how the rules fit together. For those who can do it, there is a range of styles of play. For those who can't, high-op is really the only option, and Tiers represent an inescapable fact that dominate the game. I think both arguements are flawed, but each arguement is a mirror of the other. If you don't like one, you need to reconsider both.

The way I see it is that, as you said, there's mainly 2 categories of low-op games:

a) low-op where people don't know how to optimize, and that is what I was referring to. And in these groups casters tend to be optimized less IMO because the book sends you off in the 'wrong' direction and most people would assume, lacking proof of the contrary, that the game designers have a good understanding of how theur game works.

b) deliberate low-op, where people may have optimization knowledge but for whatever reason they decide to 'keep it down'. These games don't prove the tier system invalid, because here casters are also less optimized than martial classes as you.can usually see in the low-op games enforced by the DM, where the 'ban list' for casters is usually a fair bit longer than the one for non-casters. At least this has been my experience with most low-op games bans and houserules I've seen. If you need to restrict class A harder than class B, doesnt that imply class A is stronger and also that after restriction you.can optimize class A less than you can class B?

[ThiagoMartell]

I cannot disagree with this.

Now, the problem I have when I read declarations as “tier system is bulls…”, is that, to me, it’s kinda reading “3.5 is perfectly balanced”. The TS is a compendium of the imbalances between the various classes, and dismissing the TS, is like dismissing also the imbalances (a thing that, btw, it’s been somehow done also in the OP).

But I'm not dismissing it.
Maybe you're not alking about me, but you quoted me, so I kinda needed to say that.

[Killer Angel]

But I'm not dismissing it.
Maybe you're not alking about me, but you quoted me, so I kinda needed to say that.

Well, i was debating with you and quoting you about some of your positions, but I was also elaborating the concept of the OP I was disagreeing with, hence (probably) the confusion. My fault.

[Togo]

I cannot disagree with this.

Now, the problem I have when I read declarations as “tier system is bulls…”, is that, to me, it’s kinda reading “3.5 is perfectly balanced”. The TS is a compendium of the imbalances between the various classes, and dismissing the TS, is like dismissing also the imbalances (a thing that, btw, it’s been somehow done also in the OP).

In some games, those imbalances are not present. In other games, they appear as in the Tier system. In yet more, an entirely different set of imbalances arise. The Tier system documents some problems that occur in a subset of games, and is popular or unpopular depending in part on how typical that subset is regarded as being.

The only way you can make a claim for the Tier system being a fundamental imbalance in 3.5 itself is either if you assume a 'default' game to which other games are house-ruled variations, or if you insist that all games everywhere, no matter how they are played, always turn up the same imbalances. I don't think either position is defensible.

The tier system is useful, but it's not true for every game. That's really not a terribly controvertial statement. The OP claimed that the Tier system is rubbish, and for the games he's used to playing he may well be right.

The way I see it is that, as you said, there's mainly 2 categories of low-op games:

Sure, you can divide into two categories in this way. I can see no good reason to assume the first rather than the second. Is there one?

I don't agree that casters are harder to optimise in the first category, since it's so easy to make a melee character that's fairly bad at fighting, monks that can't do anything very well, rogues with no way of using their class features most of the time, and so on. Casters, by contrast, are plug and play - most spells are useful at least part of the time and for most casters unfortunate choices can be rectified quite quickly.

And I don't agree that the second category is characterised by long banlists aimed at casters and not at non-casters. My experience may be different from yours. The OPs certainly appears different. I don't see why that would be a surprise to anyone, or why some special circumstances would need to be invoked to explain it.

[Tyndmyr]

Just went over the tier system again (wizard top, fighter bottom) and every time it looks like complete bull**** to me. Complete and utter bull****. In the example for the list in which the black dragon is involved the wizard can simply kill the dragon while the fighter would be struggling at best.
Really???
I get the other examples but this? At level 7 where with not too powerful feats and magical items the fighter can cause high end 2 digit damage in a single round and the wizard will barely be able to hurt the dragon.
According to the tier system you can't really have the classic group of wizard, cleric, fighter and rogue because pretty soon the fighter and rogue will become useless. Anyone who played a campaign or two knows that this is bull**** as well. Granted they are more versatile but the occasions in which they are outmatched are not all that rare.
Except for spell caster worship, is there something I'm missing?

Yeah, you apparently have never played with optimizers.

At level 7, while a charger can do quite solid damage, dragons fly. So...unless the dragon opts to fight on the fighters terms, the fighter is reduced to using a backup ranged weapon for minor damage.

Wizards engage at range just fine.

[GenghisDon]

Just went over the tier system again (wizard top, fighter bottom) and every time it looks like complete bull**** to me. Complete and utter bull****. In the example for the list in which the black dragon is involved the wizard can simply kill the dragon while the fighter would be struggling at best.
Really???
I get the other examples but this? At level 7 where with not too powerful feats and magical items the fighter can cause high end 2 digit damage in a single round and the wizard will barely be able to hurt the dragon.
According to the tier system you can't really have the classic group of wizard, cleric, fighter and rogue because pretty soon the fighter and rogue will become useless. Anyone who played a campaign or two knows that this is bull**** as well. Granted they are more versatile but the occasions in which they are outmatched are not all that rare.
Except for spell caster worship, is there something I'm missing?

There must be a great many ball-less DMs out there that meekly accept every broken spell they are force fed. No doubt stuffed in their faces by ruleslawyering munchkins.

There isn't much excuse to, past DMing one's first HL campaign anyway, not breaking the tier system. Tiers 1 & 2 are pretty much defined as game breakers. Game breaking characters are by definition, bad for the game, the epitome of "unfun". Any DM worth the name MUST deal with this problem, however they deem fit. Reduced to, by definition, Tier 3's, the game becomes a different animal. Tier 5 (& 6) classes could still use some work in the opposite direction, but that's somewhat less imperitive.

[Killer Angel]

The tier system is useful, but it's not true for every game. That's really not a terribly controvertial statement. The OP claimed that the Tier system is rubbish, and for the games he's used to playing he may well be right.

For the sake of discussion, I'll concede it. Still, claiming that the Tier System is bulls..., only because in your game, you don't incur in balance problems, it's (to me) unacceptable.
It's negating balance problems and relative powers of the classes as written (a fact), only on an occasional anecdote. It's kinda saying "Core monks are the most powerful class. In my group, my monk rocks, so y'all should stop with this senseless declarations regardin casters' power".

[kitcik]

First, let me say that I am a supporter of the "tier system" in that it provides a lot of useful and generaly accurate information about relative "power" under the conditions specified.

That said...

Building and playing a caster even somewhat optimally is harder than building and playing a melee type somewhat optimally - for the very reason given in the tier system, namely versatility. There are so many things they can do, it takes more work to build them and play them optimally.

Therefore, in my experience, casters are generally both built and played more suboptimally than melee types, thereby evening things up at the table to a large extent.

At high levels, where the BBEGs have an arsenal of special abilities of various types, the casters are forced to think more and their true strengths come through. This is the only place where I have really seen melee types falter at the table - say 15+ level (which is sad b/c I currently am playing a 14th level monkblade).

[Tyndmyr]

There must be a great many ball-less DMs out there that meekly accept every broken spell they are force fed. No doubt stuffed in their faces by ruleslawyering munchkins.

Not in the slightest. Some of us simply enjoy optimizing and high-tier play. I allow Shivering Touch, and yeah, it IS pretty good. However, it's got some tradeoffs. Most notably, being a touch attack. Charging into range is frequently painful.

And it's not that wizards are broken because of one or two crazy spells...it's that there are literally thousands of spells, most of which are pretty useful, and a wizard can easily have dozens on tap.

There isn't much excuse to, past DMing one's first HL campaign anyway, not breaking the tier system. Tiers 1 & 2 are pretty much defined as game breakers. Game breaking characters are by definition, bad for the game, the epitome of "unfun". Any DM worth the name MUST deal with this problem, however they deem fit. Reduced to, by definition, Tier 3's, the game becomes a different animal. Tier 5 (& 6) classes could still use some work in the opposite direction, but that's somewhat less imperitive.

Nah. You can run a game with optimized T1s and T2s just fine. It is, however, a very different animal from the game designed for unoptimized tier 5s, and understanding those differences is essential to making the end result work.

[Togo]

For the sake of discussion, I'll concede it. Still, claiming that the Tier System is bulls..., only because in your game, you don't incur in balance problems, it's (to me) unacceptable.

<shrug> It's exactly as unacceptable as claiming that the imbalance is an absolute fact, and that anyone who doesn't encounter it must be missing something. In each case it sounds like someone ignoring what's true in other people's games and treating their own as standard.

It's negating balance problems and relative powers of the classes as written (a fact), only on an occasional anecdote. It's kinda saying "Core monks are the most powerful class. In my group, my monk rocks, so y'all should stop with this senseless declarations regardin casters' power".

All games are anecdotes. They're all individual instances of applications of the same ruleset. If you can't relate to someone else's game, that's not a problem with their game. If monks rock in their game, while your game follows the Tier structure, then what possible reason do you have to hold up your experience as more valid than theirs?

[Urpriest]

One important point that people miss about the Tier system, mostly because JaronK isn't very good at explaining it: the Tier system isn't really describing what characters can do in play. It's a system that classifies classes, not characters. While the term gets slung around occasionally, there is no such thing as a Tier 3 character, or a Tier 1 playstyle.

Instead, the Tier system classifies the classes themselves by the resources they offer. The Fighter is low-tier not because Fighters in play behave any differently from Wizards, but because the Fighter class provides a stack of feats, and this is less versatile of a build resource than the spells of every book ever, which is what the Wizard class (not any specific Wizard's spellbook, but the class itself) provides. If you decide to build a Fighter, you do so because you believe the Fighter provides the best resources for you to accomplish whatever you are choosing to accomplish with your build. But often other classes provide a wider range of resources to let you achieve these goals. Thus those other classes are higher Tier, and you will generally choose them if you are rationally choosing the class that best lets you accomplish your desires.

[Togo]

Not in the slightest. Some of us simply enjoy optimizing and high-tier play.

Nah. You can run a game with optimized T1s and T2s just fine.

Despite the Nah and and the Not, I'm not sure you actually stated anything that's in disagreement with the person you were quoting. You easily could both be right.

[Agincourt]

I'm not sure if we've lost the original poster, but if you're still reading the thread, I wouldn't take the tier system personally.

If you're playing fighter/tanks, having fun, and contributing to your party then you're playing the game right. Ignore anyone who implies you're having wrongbadfun. Someone in the party should be a tank, and if you enjoy it, it might as well be you. Playing the tank is not my cup-of-tea, so I'm delighted when someone else in my group wants to.

Where I think the tier system goes awry is when players use it as a prescription for what they must play. It's more of a tool for DMs to ensure everyone has fun and contributes. And lower tiers will contribute effectively if the higher tiers focus on buffing/debuffing. For DMs having trouble balancing their groups, the tiers are a helpful guide.

[Killer Angel]

<shrug> It's exactly as unacceptable as claiming that the imbalance is an absolute fact, and that anyone who doesn't encounter it must be missing something. In each case it sounds like someone ignoring what's true in other people's games and treating their own as standard.

sigh...
at a certain point, fighters receive, as a class feature, a feat, monks receive a weak version of feather fall, while wizards gain the ability to cast time stop and clerics to cast miracle. They're not the same thing, they're not on the same power level.
That is the fact. The imbalance, is a fact.
How it can affect your game, it's an anecdote.

It doesn't affect your games? good, but don't tell me that there is not.

If monks rock in their game, while your game follows the Tier structure, then what possible reason do you have to hold up your experience as more valid than theirs?

That not the point, I'm not telling that their experience is not valid.
I'm pretty sure that in Aesop's campaign, the tortoise winned over the hare, and it was certainly a great adventure, but Aesop doesn't pretend that the tortoise is really quicker than the hare.


EDIT: sorry, but i must go... don't know if a can resume the discussion today. If not, I'll read it again tomorrow. See ya.

[danzibr]

Hey uhh while we're at it...

Is the quick & dirty "let tiers 3 and 4 freely gestalt with NPC classes, tiers 5 and 6 gestalt with each other" fix any good?

[Tyndmyr]

Despite the Nah and and the Not, I'm not sure you actually stated anything that's in disagreement with the person you were quoting. You easily could both be right.

He's positing that the reason here is "ball-less DMs accepting everything stuffed in their face by ruleslawyering munchkins".

I think that's an unnecessarily negative view of the game, and that most games don't look anything like that. Instead, groups tend to play at a level of power that most of the players feel comfortable at. Things significantly below that level are discouraged, and things significantly above that level are considered overpowered.

As the comfort level of the party rises, the odds that they recognize the tier system(or some rough approximation thereof) rise. No insulting at all is necessary to explain why some people recognize the tier system, and others do not. It's simply a natural outgrowth of differing playstyles.

[Togo]

sigh...
at a certain point, fighters receive, as a class feature, a feat, monks receive a weak version of feather fall, while wizards gain the ability to cast time stop and clerics to cast miracle. They're not the same thing, they're not on the same power level.
That is the fact.

Yes, that's the fact.

The imbalance, is a fact.

No, the imbalance is how the above fact changes your game. That's what 'balance' refers to. You're not arguing for everyone having the same powers (at least I hope not), you're arguing for everyone having an ability to contribute that's roughly similar, and that nebulous 'ability to contribute' thing varies wildly from game to game.

How it can affect your game, it's an anecdote.

No, how it can effect your game is balance, almost by definition. How it happened to effect your game that one time, that's anecdote

It doesn't affect your games? good, but don't tell me that there is not.

If it doesn't effect my games, time after time after time, then for the purposes of my games, it's not there. That's the point. Presumably that's also the OPs point.

That not the point, I'm not telling that their experience is not valid.

You're saying that your perceptions of balance are facts, and theirs are anecdotes. How would you prefer to describe it?

I'm pretty sure that in Aesop's campaign, the tortoise winned over the hare, and it was certainly a great adventure, but Aesop doesn't pretend that the tortoise is really quicker than the hare.

If the race was sufficiently long that the rabbit was unable to complete it without sleeping, then the tortoise is genuinely faster.

You might want to consider what happens to a wizard in a game where 10 or more encounters per day is the norm. It's not a bad analogy.

[Eldan]

Hey uhh while we're at it...

Is the quick & dirty "let tiers 3 and 4 freely gestalt with NPC classes, tiers 5 and 6 gestalt with each other" fix any good?

I'd say it doesn't generally do much. Most of the NPC classes (adept excluded) don't really offer more options. The expert has skill points, the warrior has high base attack, that's about it. You will gain very little versatility from it, normally, unless you choose UMD as your expert skill. And versatility is the key to the tier system, not just power.

[Prime32]

You might want to consider what happens to a wizard in a game where 10 or more encounters per day is the norm. It's not a bad analogy.

Not only are you supposed to have 4/day...

The fighter has expendable resources too - his HP won't last for 10 encounters unless he has fast healing.

The wizard can retreat into an impenetrable fortress between encounters and regain all his spells. You can't force him to have 10 encounters in a day if he doesn't want to.

[Boci]

Hey uhh while we're at it...

Is the quick & dirty "let tiers 3 and 4 freely gestalt with NPC classes, tiers 5 and 6 gestalt with each other" fix any good?

I think its better to gestalt as follows: 6-1, 5-2, 4-3. Tier 3 and 4 won't be that improved by NPC classes. Its a fix, but more of the bandied kind then a bandage, though ultimately it depends on your group.

[Axier]

First of all, as an avid fighter, I would like to point out the lack of ranged attack use by people fighting the dragon. If you are going to fight a dragon, I always appreciated the rogue-esque tactics and ranged fire.

Secondly, I disagree with OP, simply because the Tier System exists, does not make it "bull#@%$", and not agreeing with it does not mean you have to use it as a reference. However, there is certainly a tendancy, especially with modern, video-game centrique players to break Wizards, while "breaking" a Fighter is neigh impossible without at least some kind of cross-class, or pristege class; but even then are they limited in capability.

When it comes to Wizards in a relatively Low-OP Campagin, I look at the players themselves. Some people understand the concept of the "Gentlemen's Agreement", and make wizards more suited to supporting the other players, or placing their godly powers towards epic moments of survival. These dependable individuals sould actually be encouraged to be the Wizard, to best discourage other players from also being a Wizard. (Because most people would rather be a different class than one another.)

The players that you should watch are the ones whom fall into BOTH of these catagories:
1) Do not care about the others in the group's entertainment, or puts oneself forward as the "sole hero",

2) and Does all they can to be absolutely undefeatable.
(Especially noticable in people whom are REALLY excited for Halo 4, or think Call of Duty MW3 was the best game ever this year.)

These people should be guided towards non-pure spellcasters, or they will ruin the fun for other people.

As for balancing acts, Gestalting is interesting, but I prefer a combination of E6, which makes spellcasters have less resources to burn through later on; as well as the Bell Curve roll style, which makes rolls more average, making Full BAB more important, and natural Save bonuses more crucial.

[kitcik]

I think its better to gestalt as follows: 6-1, 5-2, 4-3. Tier 3 and 4 won't be that improved by NPC classes. Its a fix, but more of the bandied kind then a bandage, though ultimately it depends on your group.

If I'm after power, I'm always playng Tier 6 in this game. Now I get full casting + full BAB? Seriously? This is the fix?

How about your limiting your maximum full-casting advancement to 1/2 your level, so that you don't get 9th level spells until 34th level? Anyway, casting needs nerfing to get balance. I have seen several suggestions along these lines (nerfing casting by various means) that at least offer the possibility of balance if they were fully thought out. I have never seen any suggestions to boost melee types that have had any possibility of working even slightly (other than giving them full casting, of course).

[Boci]

If I'm after power, I'm always playng Tier 6 in this game. Now I get full casting + full BAB? Seriously? This is the fix?

How many tier 1 classes are made significantly better by full BAB (the only one who really cares is the cleric and maybe the artificer)? You want a warrior mage, then a sorcerer would also be a valid choice, since they could choose from this list: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight rather than simply the CW samurai.

[Orran]

How many tier 1 classes are made significantly better by full BAB (the only one who really cares is the cleric and maybe the artificer)? You want a warrior mage, then a sorcerer would also be a valid choice, since they could choose from this list: Fighter, Monk, CA Ninja, Healer, Swashbuckler, Rokugan Ninja, Soulknife, Expert, OA Samurai, Paladin, Knight rather than simply the CW samurai.

At the least, prestige class entry would be easier, and who doesn't love free extra hit points?

[vrigar]

Awesome discussion!
If there is any direction the posts here steered me toward is that there are spells which break the game balance (which book is "Shivering Touch" from anyway?) and I'm glad my DM won't allow them.
I'm happy to see the many points of view but I'm pretty sure I won't be taking part in optimizers' game.

[Boci]

At the least, prestige class entry would be easier, and who doesn't love free extra hit points?

But tiers 2 and 3 gain more. That's the point.

Awesome discussion!
If there is any direction the posts here steered me toward is that there are spells which break the game balance (which book is "Shivering Touch" from anyway?) and I'm glad my DM won't allow them.
I'm happy to see the many points of view but I'm pretty sure I won't be taking part in optimizers' game.

Shivering touch is from frostburn. In high op games it works okay, but in lower powered ones its best to make it a dex penalty rather than damage.

If our group doesn't optimize (which in itself can be difficult to determine since the term differs from person to person) or doesn't mind power discrepancy within the group then the tier system isn't worth as much, although some say it is still useful in alerting the DM to classes that can accidentally break the game (a wizard teleporting past part of the story, or learning something too early via divination magic. If they ever get adventurous and try out some of the more exotic core spells like evard's black tentacles then that can also catch Dms off guard).