Author Topic: Tier System For Classes (Repost)  (Read 452756 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Prime32

  • Administrator
  • Organ Grinder
  • *
  • Posts: 7534
  • Modding since 03/12/10
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #840 on: June 15, 2011, 10:27:07 AM »
Are Pathfinder classes still in the same tiers or are there any changes?
Paladin is probably tier 4, otherwise no changes. There's some shifting within the tiers though.
What do you mean?
Some classes are stronger or weaker without moving tiers. Druids are nerfed, rogues are buffed, etc.
My work
The tier system in a nutshell:
[spoiler]Tier 6: A cartographer.
Tier 5: An expert cartographer or a decent marksman.
Tier 4: An expert marksman.
Tier 3: An expert marksman, cartographer and chef who can tie strong knots and is trained in hostage negotiation or a marksman so good he can shoot down every bullet fired by a minigun while armed with a rusted single-shot pistol that veers to the left.
Tier 2: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything, or the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.
Tier 1: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything and the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.[/spoiler]

Mixster

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1642
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #841 on: June 15, 2011, 10:32:09 AM »
Are Pathfinder classes still in the same tiers or are there any changes?
Paladin is probably tier 4, otherwise no changes. There's some shifting within the tiers though.
What do you mean?
Some classes are stronger or weaker without moving tiers. Druids are nerfed, rogues are buffed, etc.

Also, the reason why Paladin moved up is that Smite Evil is now pretty good IIRC.
Monks are pretty much the best designed class ever.

JaronK

Meep Meep - Mixster out

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #842 on: June 15, 2011, 01:26:30 PM »
Are Pathfinder classes still in the same tiers or are there any changes?
Paladin is probably tier 4, otherwise no changes. There's some shifting within the tiers though.
What do you mean?
Some classes are stronger or weaker without moving tiers. Druids are nerfed, rogues are buffed, etc.

Also, the reason why Paladin moved up is that Smite Evil is now pretty good IIRC.
Incredibly good, you could shred anything thats evil and vulnerable to a lot of damage. And if you miss you get to keep trying until they're confetti.
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

Agita

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5465
  • SFT is mai waifu.
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #843 on: June 15, 2011, 02:10:03 PM »
Are Pathfinder classes still in the same tiers or are there any changes?
Paladin is probably tier 4, otherwise no changes. There's some shifting within the tiers though.
What do you mean?
Some classes are stronger or weaker without moving tiers. Druids are nerfed, rogues are buffed, etc.

Also, the reason why Paladin moved up is that Smite Evil is now pretty good IIRC.
Incredibly good, you could shred anything thats evil and vulnerable to a lot of damage. And if you miss you get to keep trying until they're confetti.
Indeed. You should see our PF Paladin go at it. As a rule of thumb, if it's Evil and within her LoE, it doesn't survive the round (slightly exaggerated, but you get the idea).
« Last Edit: June 15, 2011, 02:14:01 PM by Agita »
It's all about vision and making reality conform to your vision. By dropping a fucking house on it.

Agita's Awesome Poster Compilation
Lycanthromancer's Awesome Poster Compilation

Unbeliever

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #844 on: June 15, 2011, 05:33:38 PM »
@JaronK and NinjaRabbit

Here's my response to all that.  It's defining "optimization" as, roughly, "choice of feats, magic items, class levels, and so on."  It's not, crucially, defining it as "choice of spells."  That strikes me as wrong.  The most relevant choice the lowly Fighter gets is his choice of feats, that's what the Fighter class in D&D 3.5 does (unfortunately).  The most relevant choice a Wizard gets is his spell selection.  That's what he does. 

For Sorcerers, optimizing includes choice of spells.  For those who get their entire list, it's less so... choice of spells is something that can be changed day by day.  It has nothing to do with how the character is built and everything to do with how it's played.  A Cleric can change his spells on a whim, just as a Barbarian can change who he'd like to try to attack or a Rogue can chose when to hide... these things are playing skill and tactics, not optimization.  A Wizard who chose useless spells and thus felt useless could simply learn some more spells that were more useful and there he goes.  A Fighter who chose useless feats, however, is pretty stuck unless rebuilding is available.

So, spell selection isn't quite the same as optimization, it's really more playing skill.  An unoptimized Wizard who choses solid spells is equivalent to an unoptimized Fighter who uses solid tactics.

JaronK

That distinction just strikes me as artificial and unhelpful.  You can't actually change your spells round to round, typically, so it's not quite the same as tactics.  And, more importantly, whenever we discuss character builds, the spells they have available to them, the ones likely to be in their repertoire, are part of the discussion.  That's why it matters whether you're playing an Focused-Specialist Enchanter or not. 

I also just don't think a big divide between something like spell choice -- which is uncontroversially the most important thing a character like the Wizard is going to be doing -- and feat, etc. choices is useful.  It seems to create the following thinking on the part of the community:  we compare a Wizard whose choice of spells and spell combos is at the level of Sun Tzu, but whose feats are obvious or suboptimal to a Fighter whose choice of feats, etc. (b/c he doesn't get spells) is likewise suboptimal.  Sure, the Wizard is going to wipe the floor w/ him, but it seems like Sun Tzu's choice of spells there is doing all the heavy lifting.  Whether you call that "optimization" or something different, ignoring that situation or thinking doesn't seem to be useful for the project of identifying the power of various classes and builds. 

Now, it's probably the case that the upper bound of an optimized Wizard is probably higher than the upper bound of an optimized Fighter.  But, perhaps the gap between say a player who put the same amount of thought and acumen into his Paladin's build (and spell choice, to the extent relevant) as our stereotypical God Wizard puts into his selection of typically memorized spells (which, I contend is quite a lot, even if a lot of the work has been done for you on these boards) is smaller than the Tiers system and conventional wisdom might indicate.  I'm not sure if that's true, but it highlights the concern. 

I don't know if I've got any real point behind this.  I find the whole Tiers approach somewhat unhelpful personally and prefer to judge particular builds on their own, which I think is all the Tiers thing is doing but masking it under classes.  A lot of people find it very useful, though, so I guess I'd just say that when they are thinking about it it might be valuable to apply the same "level of optimization," whatever that actually means, to stuff like spell choice, choice of soulmelds, and the like.

JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #845 on: June 15, 2011, 05:57:22 PM »
Considering the Tiers cares about both builds and tactics (equivalent optimization, equivalent player skill), it doesn't really matter where the distinction lies that much.

But the point is not about changing round by round.  The reason I care about the difference between optimization (the build, including stuff like spells known) and player skill (the way the character is played once the character is built, including stuff like spell chosen on a given day) is that the first gives potential power but is locked in, while the second can change.  If a player says "my character is weak" do you make house rules to buff the character, do you give him better items, or do you show him that his character could be doing far more with what he has?  If the character could indeed be doing far more with what he has but simply hasn't figured that out yet, then your house rules or bonus items may end up dramatically overpowering him as soon as he does figure that out, and that could dramatically change the campaign.  If he's sitting there shooting off random blast spells and so you give him free CL bumps and double his spells per day, what happens when he figures out he's also got Glitterdust and battlefield control to work with?   

JaronK

Gavinfoxx

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
  • *Forkbark* Wauwau!
    • Email
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #846 on: June 15, 2011, 06:17:17 PM »
I always thought that an 'ease of optimization' or 'effort of work put in to getting it work vs payoff', like the new 'base tier' thread is trying to do, would be a nice third axis.
BG's other resident furry!

Unbeliever

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #847 on: June 15, 2011, 07:16:09 PM »
Considering the Tiers cares about both builds and tactics (equivalent optimization, equivalent player skill), it doesn't really matter where the distinction lies that much.

But the point is not about changing round by round.  The reason I care about the difference between optimization (the build, including stuff like spells known) and player skill (the way the character is played once the character is built, including stuff like spell chosen on a given day) is that the first gives potential power but is locked in, while the second can change.  If a player says "my character is weak" do you make house rules to buff the character, do you give him better items, or do you show him that his character could be doing far more with what he has?  If the character could indeed be doing far more with what he has but simply hasn't figured that out yet, then your house rules or bonus items may end up dramatically overpowering him as soon as he does figure that out, and that could dramatically change the campaign.  If he's sitting there shooting off random blast spells and so you give him free CL bumps and double his spells per day, what happens when he figures out he's also got Glitterdust and battlefield control to work with?   

JaronK

All seems reasonable.  Though I'd almost argue that a blaster wizard and a bfc wizard are essentially different builds.  But, it may be that the game design is too coarse, or people are less thematically-motivated than I am, to really sustain that kind of distinction. 

B/c they happen to be the most mutable, though, it is going to naturally pitch spellcasters, especially of the cleric and druid variety, at a higher level. 

Tshern

  • Clown Prince of Crime
  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5726
  • Aistii valoa auttavasti
    • Email
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #848 on: June 15, 2011, 08:58:02 PM »
@JaronK and NinjaRabbit

Here's my response to all that.  It's defining "optimization" as, roughly, "choice of feats, magic items, class levels, and so on."  It's not, crucially, defining it as "choice of spells."  That strikes me as wrong.  The most relevant choice the lowly Fighter gets is his choice of feats, that's what the Fighter class in D&D 3.5 does (unfortunately).  The most relevant choice a Wizard gets is his spell selection.  That's what he does. 

For Sorcerers, optimizing includes choice of spells.  For those who get their entire list, it's less so... choice of spells is something that can be changed day by day.  It has nothing to do with how the character is built and everything to do with how it's played.  A Cleric can change his spells on a whim, just as a Barbarian can change who he'd like to try to attack or a Rogue can chose when to hide... these things are playing skill and tactics, not optimization.  A Wizard who chose useless spells and thus felt useless could simply learn some more spells that were more useful and there he goes.  A Fighter who chose useless feats, however, is pretty stuck unless rebuilding is available.

So, spell selection isn't quite the same as optimization, it's really more playing skill.  An unoptimized Wizard who choses solid spells is equivalent to an unoptimized Fighter who uses solid tactics.

JaronK

That distinction just strikes me as artificial and unhelpful.  You can't actually change your spells round to round, typically, so it's not quite the same as tactics.  And, more importantly, whenever we discuss character builds, the spells they have available to them, the ones likely to be in their repertoire, are part of the discussion.  That's why it matters whether you're playing an Focused-Specialist Enchanter or not. 

I also just don't think a big divide between something like spell choice -- which is uncontroversially the most important thing a character like the Wizard is going to be doing -- and feat, etc. choices is useful.  It seems to create the following thinking on the part of the community:  we compare a Wizard whose choice of spells and spell combos is at the level of Sun Tzu, but whose feats are obvious or suboptimal to a Fighter whose choice of feats, etc. (b/c he doesn't get spells) is likewise suboptimal.  Sure, the Wizard is going to wipe the floor w/ him, but it seems like Sun Tzu's choice of spells there is doing all the heavy lifting.  Whether you call that "optimization" or something different, ignoring that situation or thinking doesn't seem to be useful for the project of identifying the power of various classes and builds. 

Now, it's probably the case that the upper bound of an optimized Wizard is probably higher than the upper bound of an optimized Fighter.  But, perhaps the gap between say a player who put the same amount of thought and acumen into his Paladin's build (and spell choice, to the extent relevant) as our stereotypical God Wizard puts into his selection of typically memorized spells (which, I contend is quite a lot, even if a lot of the work has been done for you on these boards) is smaller than the Tiers system and conventional wisdom might indicate.  I'm not sure if that's true, but it highlights the concern. 

I don't know if I've got any real point behind this.  I find the whole Tiers approach somewhat unhelpful personally and prefer to judge particular builds on their own, which I think is all the Tiers thing is doing but masking it under classes.  A lot of people find it very useful, though, so I guess I'd just say that when they are thinking about it it might be valuable to apply the same "level of optimization," whatever that actually means, to stuff like spell choice, choice of soulmelds, and the like.
Assuming you could objectively build two character at exactly the same level of optimisation, the Wizard would still win. Even the worst spells tend to clearly outclass pretty much every choice Fighters have. A simple Detect magic is far more useful out of combat than anything the Fighter has to offer. I'd also rather cast Fireball than hit people with an axe, because my character would still be safe and hurt multiple targets. That is the way it goes.
Ja vuosia myöhemmin
kalvas kaksikko lattialla motellin tihrustelee,
kun sama keiju katossa leijailee.
Kyselevät: "Mikä päivä nyt on?
Tiedätkö sen?"
Kuiskaten laulaa keiju:
"Tämän elämän viimeinen."

Handy Links

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #849 on: June 15, 2011, 09:08:19 PM »
Well, at the least you need to account for naive optimization. The naive versions of the wizard/cleric are blasters/healers with straightforward metamagics. The wizard can drop to T4 in that light, sorcs might go to T5 entirely with a bad spell selection(I've seen a few who managed to nab all the niche spells and a blast spell or two, they wind up being well....useful only in highly specific situations.).
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

Prime32

  • Administrator
  • Organ Grinder
  • *
  • Posts: 7534
  • Modding since 03/12/10
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #850 on: June 18, 2011, 07:47:31 PM »
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11234151
Quote from: tyckspoon
To run with the football analogy:

Sure, the quarterback throws, the offensive line blocks for him, and the receivers get outside and downfield so the quarterback has somewhere to throw to. In that situation, every part of the group is doing something vital.

But.. say the quarterback is not restricted to just throwing and trying not to get hit. Maybe he can make his offensive line twice as big so nobody on the other team has any chance of getting by them. Maybe he can generate a repulsive field around himself so he can just carry the ball downfield alone and nobody can tackle him. Maybe he can put the entire defending team to sleep or root them in place. Maybe he can create a wall blocking off half the pitch and have his entire team focus on getting through just half the opposing team. Maybe he just throws the ball up and makes it stick in the air until a receiver is free, and then the ball guides itself into the receiver's hands. Maybe he can create his own receiver wherever he wants it to be.

When that kind of thing can happen, the quarterback goes from being just an important part of the team to being the *only* important part of the team- the tricks he chooses to use that day determine how the ball gets scored and who gets to take a part in it. Some of those plans leave a role for the linemen and the receivers, but they're only there because the quarterback decided that today, they get to do something. That's the kind of thing the tiers measure. They're not meant as value judgements on the classes (well, mostly- Tier 6 is pretty much in 'can't mechanically do anything, why bother' range), but they do help to assess if your parties are liable to have intra-character balance problems.
My work
The tier system in a nutshell:
[spoiler]Tier 6: A cartographer.
Tier 5: An expert cartographer or a decent marksman.
Tier 4: An expert marksman.
Tier 3: An expert marksman, cartographer and chef who can tie strong knots and is trained in hostage negotiation or a marksman so good he can shoot down every bullet fired by a minigun while armed with a rusted single-shot pistol that veers to the left.
Tier 2: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything, or the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.
Tier 1: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything and the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.[/spoiler]

Unbeliever

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #851 on: June 18, 2011, 08:40:10 PM »
@Prime32's quote
I'm not exactly sure how that bears on what I was saying.  My argument was, more or less, that things like spells available and the like ought be figured into assessment of Tiers b/c they are the most significant character decisions that such characters make.  And, empirically, I observe a skewed assumption that the spells chosen will typically be among the best in D&D, which naturally has the effect of inflating the Tiers of such classes.  In contrast, more mundane classes -- where feats and the like are the most important character creation choices -- tend to be treated as if their feats, etc. choices are more "reasonable," meaning not necessarily optimization gold uberness.

So, to continue the analogy, I'd argue that a build that is Wizard 10 but has almost entirely blasting spells (say various flavors of Fireball and its ilk) is a different build in most important respects than an archetypal god wizard.  One is the quarterback that can just throw the ball, and the other has repulsor fields or whatever.  By the way, who in says "the pitch" when talking about American football?

JaronK's response, which is a good one, is that while that might be true, it's pretty easy for the Wizard to wise up and change his spell list around, so if you followed my logic you could end up w/ something suddenly powering up midway through the game.  So, this might be a better argument for things like Sorcerers or games where Wizards cannot easily change up their abilities. 

Ideally, and this is what I do in my gaming life, I judge individual builds rather than classes, as I find it to be mostly useless in 3.5 D&D.  I actually think that is what is going on in the background of the Tier system.  People have exemplar builds in mind -- for Wizards it's the God variety, for Clerics it's probably something involving some good usage of turning like DMM or Devotion feats, for Druid it's ... err ... well a Druid ..., you get the idea.  These are thought to be builds that aren't so esoteric but are still good representations.  If people ask me to judge how powerful characters in a party are, and this is something I do a lot as one of our resident optimizers who helps people w/ their characters, I have to look more to the particular build and combinations and style of character they are bringing to the table than the classes they used, though obviously that affects what they can do. 

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #852 on: June 20, 2011, 08:48:21 PM »
Oh and just thought of an ideal case for optimization skill with regard to tiers.

An artificer playing with naive optimization is going to be a little worse than a bard with the same level of optimization. Imagine one crafting nothing but +X equipment using only the craft reserve, and not working out the metamagic trigger trick. Now imagine the same guy, except he knows how to make use of meta wands and create scrolls of everything under the sun. One is easily T5, the other in the halls of T1.
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

Petruchio

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 40
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #853 on: June 21, 2011, 03:56:04 AM »
I always thought that an 'ease of optimization' or 'effort of work put in to getting it work vs payoff', like the new 'base tier' thread is trying to do, would be a nice third axis.

Interesting. I think 'ease of optimization' is a misnomer though. Wizards are hard as hell, and require a in-depth knowledge of their potential spells and their uses, the scores of PrCs and ACF which the wizards may choose from, and the feats that they may take. All without straying from the first (or whatever) commandment of optimization "Thou shalt not lose caster levels". The board here takes it for granted, but it took a stroke of genius for someone to figure out that they should combine heighten spell with Shadowcraft Mage.

Fighters on the other hand, just need to choose a weapon, ask themselves if this feat/item can make them hurt more things, and go on their merry way.

I know what you are saying though. An alternative term might be 'Potentiality for further optimization', but that doesn't quite ring the same way.

zook1shoe

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
    • Email
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #854 on: June 21, 2011, 04:09:03 AM »
Primary spellcasters, manifesters, artificers, and shadowcasters are the most difficult.

Secondary casters, manifesters, incarnum, binders, martial are next.

Skill monkeys are next

Beat sticks, and everything else last.

Gavinfoxx

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 822
  • *Forkbark* Wauwau!
    • Email
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #855 on: June 21, 2011, 04:38:25 AM »
Something like I was thinking would put these classes under 'harder':
Wizard
Fighter
Psychic Warrior


And these classes under easier:
Warblade
Beguiler
Druid
Barbarian

The base class thread did it like this:


"Coloring Key for optimizing the base classes:
Too simple or too few options: It is just about as powerful or weak as it is going to be even after optimization so it's not worth the effort. For low tier classes this means you can't stretch it into higher tiers as easily. For upper tiers its nice that you probably won't suck that much even if you are fairly new.
Some complexity, some options: You get out what you put in. Heavy optimization won't be as obvious as blue colored, but it will be noticable. Consider this normal 'stretchiness' to go up or down a tier dependent on the build and player. JaronK noticed that optimization bumps up or down a tier - two for classes on the edge or with more extensive cheese. This is normal.
Too complex or too many options: You get more than what you put in. You really need to understand how this class works. For high tier classes this is bad because you can't start cold and be the epitome of tier 1. For lower tier classes this is actually a good thing because if you try, you can pull it up more than normal. However it might be frustrating to get past the learning curve."
BG's other resident furry!

evilbob

  • Monkey bussiness
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #856 on: June 21, 2011, 05:20:47 AM »
First off:  wow.  This thread is absolutely epic and I absolutely love it.  I joined this site just to be able to participate.  Two years in and it's still being discussed actively (including the original poster).  What a great thread.

Of course, like anyone else, I also have an opinion on this thread.  :)  I think the rankings, on the whole, are brilliant and generally spot-on.  Of course there's room to wiggle a little (apparently 43 odd pages plus another 50-page thread's worth), but generally I think these statements have stood the test of time.  I must confess I have not read the entire thread (nor the one before it), so forgive me if I'm beating a dead horse here, but my main thought on the rankings was that the original poster seemed to be focusing a lot on end-game play - which I think the majority of games never reach.  These rankings are absolutely right for level 16+, and maybe even 12 or 13 through 20.  But levels 1 to 2 - a place the vast majority of games have experienced - do not match these ratings.  Of course, levels 1 through 2 or so also do not accurately represent what a class is capable of:  but I submit they do in fact represent what the majority of players actually see from a class.  Which ultimately means these rankings almost need a caveat, or perhaps a bit of a weighting with respect to early, mid, and late game play.

For example, some (unscrupulous) player who wishes to be all "tier 1" may read this thread and decide to play a wizard - only to learn that a level 1 wizard is decidedly NOT tier 1.  In the early game, I'd rank fighters as tier 3 at worst and wizards as tier 4 at best.  Using the "how would someone solve this situation" example, let's try a more level-appropriate scenario:  kill some goblins.
Round 1:  the fighter moves to the goblin and kills it.
Round 1:  the wizard casts grease; the goblin makes its save and nothing happens.
Round 2:  the fighter move to another goblin and kills it.
Round 2:  the wizard casts magic missile and hurts the goblin.
Round 3:  the fighter move to another goblin and kills it.
Round 3:  the wizard casts magic missile and kills the goblin.
At the end of the encounter, the fighter continues forward.
At the end of the encounter, the wizard realizes he has spent his entire magical arsenal for the day to kill one goblin.  He decides to go home.
During the next encounter, the fighter kills a skeleton.
During the next encounter, the wizard stares at a wall.
During the third encounter, the fighter continues to move to things and kill them.
During the third encounter, the wizard mercifully falls on his own dagger.

The thing is, we all know this is (somewhat) true and we all know it doesn't get better for a long while.  The wizard doesn't really "catch up" to the fighter until mid-game, which in my opinion is around level 6 or 7.  A wizard is SO limited in his options due to the spells-per-day mechanic that even being properly prepared doesn't give him much advantage (and at those levels, he'd be hard pressed to be properly prepared) - and this continues until he finally gets enough spell slots plus enough interesting spells to really do something.  (And then, of course, around level 13, the power mechanic changes so rapidly he practically ceases to need the party anymore.)

I think you could have a more accurate assessment - and thus, a better tool for DMs - by dividing the game into three basic categories:  early game (1-6), mid game (7-12), and late game (13+).  (The level ranges are suggestions.)  The rankings in this thread are perfect for late game.  They're pretty good for mid game.  And they are sometimes inaccurate for early game.  As a DM, you may always plan to take every game from level 1 to 20.  And if you're someone for whom this has happened, you are amazingly lucky!  :)  (Never happened for me in all my gaming years.)  In reality, life happens.  Life gets in the way and most games never make it to mid game, much less late game, unless they start there from the beginning of the campaign.  If you're a DM and you care about your players having equal tiered PCs, I think you'd be better suited to this information if you also knew about how long your game would go (or at least how long you'd expect) and could keep that in mind.  In that case, having a party with a wizard and a fighter is probably a fine idea if you know you'll never make it past level 6 before Jim has to move for that job and Sally has her baby and the kids go back to school or whatever.

In fact, early games probably only have tiers 3, 4 and 5.  Fighters and barbarians are tier 3 or 4 in that case, and casters are generally tier 5 at best.  In fact, you might even be able to make the case that a level 1 commoner has about as much raw functionality as a level 1 wizard (3.5, anyway).  If you know you'll never make it past level 4ish, a "low magic" campaign is actually (ironically) a power-gaming campaign.  Then, by mid game, wizards start to push tier 3 while fighters and barbarians slowly transition down (but not by much).  Finally, in the late game, wizards have turned into gods and fighters fell to tier 5 by comparison.

These examples are just my opinions - the numbers aren't really that important here and are certainly open to interpretation - but I think the larger point is key:  power levels fluctuate, and therefore so do rankings.


On a different note, I am also interested in how others believe Pathfinder changed the rankings in this tier system.  Personally, I think tier 5 and 6 were removed (not that 6 was really a tier in the first place) and tier 1 was pushed down closer to tier 2 (no more summoned diva cascades, for example).  ALL classes were boosted a bit, but a lot of the high-end spells were given realistic constraints (or removed).  Assuming that you're focusing on "core" Pathfinder material and only including 3.5 splat books that didn't intentionally re-break what Pathfinder fixed, I'd put the base classes something more like:
tier 1.5:  wizard, druid, cleric
tier 1.75:  sorcerer
tier 3:  rogue, bard, maybe ranger, paladin (yeah, that much)
tier 4:  barbarian (pushing 3), fighter, monk
This is trying to keep the relationship closer to the original rankings, thus the silly "1.5" and "1.75".  Of course, given ONLY the core Pathfinder materials, I'd bump everything above 2 down to tier 2 and maybe lower a few others, but generally I'd say if the main goal of Pathfinder was to make it so that all the classes were slightly more "even" in power, especially through the early and mid game:  they did it.

I'm not sure how I'd rate the new classes, since I've only seen a couple in action for a very small amount of time, but the alchemist and the summoner seem like solid tier 3s (potentially 2s late game) to me.  I'm curious as to what others believe about these classes so far.  (One thing that I was very happy to see is that unlike many of the late-product cycle 3.5 splat books, which blatantly embraced power creep, so far Paizo has been trying to keep things under control.  We'll see how that continues as the product matures.)


In any case thanks again for a great thread and great discussion!  I'm happy to be a part of it.

Sinfire Titan

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5697
  • You've got one round to give a rat's ass.
    • Email
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #857 on: June 21, 2011, 07:06:50 AM »
Evilbob, what you just described is a textbook example of an IDIOT Wizard.


Grease's duration is too short at 1st level to matter. Color Spray and Sleep are better at that level.
The Save DCs of a 1st level Wizard's spells should be 15 or 16, possibly higher (Int 20 is easily achieved, and you can use Spell Focus because it works at this level).
A 1st level Wizard's best tactic at this level is to prep 3/4/5/6 copies of Color Spray and as many castings of Resistance as possible, or to take Precocious Apprentice/Focused Specialist to get access to either Melf's Acid Arrow or Scorching Ray (and then use either the Acid Splash or Fiery Burst reserve feats to win at life).
Wizards have no trouble using Crossbows. This is the single best weapon a Wizard can have at this level because it can hit things hard enough to matter while being easily used.



The Goblins in your example were also idiots. Big time. They have an Int of 10, and think that going toe-to-toe with the Fighter is a better idea than gang-raping the guy in the robes with a spellbook (which, incidentally, sets up the Color Spray targets and Abrupt Jaunt).


[spoiler][/spoiler]

zook1shoe

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 784
    • Email
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #858 on: June 21, 2011, 07:16:57 AM »
Agreed, each class has stupid and good use of the class. I think they are attempting to make it consistent with all of them as 'good use' of the class.

But I do agree with evilbob, about there being tiers for different levels. The problem is... where do you put the break? Each choice helps and hinders a vast number of classes because they each have levels where they gain nothing or a lot.

Put it a a certain level, then it benefits classes that gain an ability at that level, over ones that gain something the following level.

So, unless one wants to make an extremely complicated line graph with each class at each level, then a single table is the best.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2011, 07:19:12 AM by zook1shoe »

ImperatorK

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 500
Re: Tier System For Classes (Repost)
« Reply #859 on: June 21, 2011, 07:55:57 AM »
Quote
The Goblins in your example were also idiots. Big time. They have an Int of 10, and think that going toe-to-toe with the Fighter is a better idea than gang-raping the guy in the robes with a spellbook (which, incidentally, sets up the Color Spray targets and Abrupt Jaunt).
See, I think that Int 10 goblins would rather gang-rape the fighter, you know, the guy who is looking more threatening, is armed and is actively trying to hurt them, instead of the weak looking dude who's cowardly avoiding contact. Not everyone, average inteligent goblins included, will see a person in robes and think "Oh, this guy is a caster, he the biggest threat! Everyone get him!" It strikes me as too metagame-y. But YMMV.
"I'm done thinking for today! It's caused me enough trouble!"
"Take less damage to avoid being killed."
"In the arena of logic, I fight unarmed."


[spoiler]
Quote from: Lateral
Or you could just be a cleric of an ideal. Like, physics and say that the domain choices reflect potential and kinetic energy.

 Plus, where other clerics say "For Pelor," "For Nerull," or "For Crom?" You get to say, "FOR SCIENCE!" *fanfare*

About me:
Quote from: dark_samuari
I know your game, you just want a magical Amazon.com to knock off those good ol' honest magic shops run by polite, old wizards!
Use Iron Heart Surge on the sun. That'll teach him to use fluff as RAW.

Damn you! You totally ruined my build that was all about getting epic far shot early and throwing my enemies into the sun!
[/spoiler]