alt Tiers definition (?)

[Samwise]

No, It's just not really valid in terms of challenging the tier system, which, as it necessarily must, measures class power absent ingenuity. It is often said that player is more important than class, and that claim has its truth to it. How could any system be otherwise? It's worth note, in any case, that while a barbarian with player skill can do things that one without cannot, a wizard becomes perhaps even more powerful, because the skilled player has more to work with. A smart player with a wizard is better off than one with a commoner.

The question was whether characters could contribute, not whether they are completely irrelevant and might as well be deleted from the system, never mind optimization.

Meanwhile, what about a "stupid" player with a wizard? What happens when "rules mastery" bites them?

Even the description of the tier system admits that it is not absolute.
Why then is it so outrageous to note other places where it is more subjective than it otherwise seems?

[SorO_Lost]

the real key to a balanced game, as the BG would say, is don't be a douche bag.

But that's wrong and that's the whole point of what the tier system shows. A single classed fighter and a single classed druid can both be nice and be trying to be faithful to their archetype and create a huge pain for the DM to even pretend that the campaign is balanced for both.

Not really, what's the Druid going to do? Burn the place down?

Don't be a douchbag isn't how to play but how not to play, IE is the group going to have a problem with burning the world down to begin with and if the answer is no then it's irreverent. Likewise, little Timmy could stab the quest giver in the throat while the DM is giving expostulation speaking. You are over there trying to assign an ease of breakage when all that matters is whether or not your player is going to intentionally break the game, because if they are no amount of houserules will save your game.

Now of course it requires the second part, the open discussion that establishes expectations of the campaign and follow party members. This goes a long way to preventing unintentional game breakage and lays the ground work for accepting nerfs if it does happen or simply choosing not to enact things in full.

What class measurement does have some impact on isn't at all what JK's tiers addresses since it's too caught up in it's excuses. And I think it's on the tip of your mind since you choose Druid as your example rather than Wizard. While the archetypes contain some overlap, such as a fully rested Arcane can potentially burn his Slots to fill another archetype, some Classes can simply fill multiple roles. You went with Druid but I'll go with the Bard.

The Bard is a Thief with a Arcane/Priest Spell pool and has a second resource to buff meatshields which makes him the default "5th man" able to cover anyone who becomes temporarily out of commission or augment any given archetype as the situation needs. The Bard also has an advantage in it takes very little in-game knowledge or even optimization to work. If a problem of him being underpowered comes up, often a single item or Spell change is all you need to put him back on par. While JK's minions have used the excuse that the Wizard is better than the Sorcerer because you're 24 hours away from changing Spells, the Bard doesn't even need to cast a Spell to be useful. And in it in those qualities that a Bard would either appear in each achetype or simply listed in a 5th category that could simply be named "Great for new players!"

It's kind of what Unbeliever seems like he it talking about I think, massive versatility ultimately becomes a trap of what to do any so many bad choices until you learn the game. JK saying unoptimized T1 is better than anything else and wins D&D isn't actually going to happen on the tabletop, it'll be more like a colossal failure as the newbies learn dice can be extremely unforgiving. With the actual goal of teaching new people in mind, ranking classes on who can theoretically kill who on a specific set of circumstances is barely even worth mentioning and it can just as easily be covered when you introduce them to the Arcanist archetype by saying as long as you have Slots you are awesome.

[TiaC]

Once again, nobody is threatening anyone in the first. It is selling services, which is Diplomacy. Or do NPCs routinely hire PCs to be thoroughly ineffective in stopping bad guys from attacking? And do orcs routinely specialize in Diplomacy?

Ah, so some other character is using diplomacy and the Barbarian player is building dice towers. How is this the Barbarian participating in the social encounter? You just described a situation where the Barbarian's player could have stayed home that day without changing anything.

The second is not giving up, but letting the PC provide information from other than just the "obvious" Search and Knowledge skills.

So what, you beg the DM to give you a clue? If the mystery is too hard they should just give you an NPC who will spell it all out for you? Or, the other way of reading that scene is that the charismatic character convinced an NPC to change sides. Too bad the barbarian is not that charismatic character.

The third is very much sneaking. It is just the one character who might happen to suck at sneaking doesn't, and instead does what they are good at to provide a circumstance bonus to everyone else.

And then you've raised the alarm and killed the barbarian. Well done. If the party is sneaking, there is a reason for it. Let's look at some of those. Perhaps they want to avoid notice. Perhaps they can't win in a frontal assault. Perhaps they don't want anyone to know they were there. Your plan will fail at all of these. 

For the last, the skill monkey can buy wands. Or use his skills to steal wands. Or use his skills to borrow wands. And of course use his skills to use wands.
As for what spells can be used, that depends on how creative you are. Blockade works. Haboob is one of my favorites. Or even just a basic web.

See, this is reasonable. Of course, the type of player that would know to buy a wand of Haboob and take UMD is not the type to make a character that is completely helpless in combat.

You wanted examples of people contributing outside their direct class, ability, and skill sets.
I provided them.
You now complain that they aren't good enough for some reason.
I showed you how it could be done. Now it is on you to actual think of ways for characters to be effective when you play them.

This is my problem with your argument. First, no, I didn't "[want] examples of people contributing outside their direct class, ability, and skill sets". I pointed to a problem in actual games. Namely, players feeling bored because whatever is going on in the game is something that their character can't help with. Your response was basically "roleplay harder, noob". You are either dismissing this as ever happening, or saying that it only happens to people who aren't good enough at D&D.

This is made worse by the fact that your examples either don't work or rely on DM pity. You seem to be one of those players who fetishizes creativity, which in my experience means you don't really like either rules or the DM pointing out how stupid your plans actually are. You just ended your post by saying that if your character isn't effective, it's because you just suck at D&D, dismissing any possibility of rule imbalance. Enjoy your Oberoni Fallacy.

[Samwise]

Ah, so some other character is using diplomacy and the Barbarian player is building dice towers. How is this the Barbarian participating in the social encounter? You just described a situation where the Barbarian's player could have stayed home that day without changing anything.

Not in the least.
That is your projection onto the situation, deriving from a lack of imagination.
Spend as much time thinking of what the barbarian could be doing as opposed to what he can't do and the problem will disappear.

So what, you beg the DM to give you a clue? If the mystery is too hard they should just give you an NPC who will spell it all out for you? Or, the other way of reading that scene is that the charismatic character convinced an NPC to change sides. Too bad the barbarian is not that charismatic character.

Nope.
Once again, that is you projecting a lack of imagination rather than trying to work with what you have.

And then you've raised the alarm and killed the barbarian. Well done. If the party is sneaking, there is a reason for it. Let's look at some of those. Perhaps they want to avoid notice. Perhaps they can't win in a frontal assault. Perhaps they don't want anyone to know they were there. Your plan will fail at all of these.

Nope.
You've raised a different alarm, and left the barbarian to do what he does best.
For a third time you are projecting your lack of imagination rather than trying to make the best of what is available.

See, this is reasonable. Of course, the type of player that would know to buy a wand of Haboob and take UMD is not the type to make a character that is completely helpless in combat.

Except he isn't being helpless in combat, he is just being less than effective in melee.
Now you are projecting your biases onto the situation in an effort to dismiss it.

This is my problem with your argument. First, no, I didn't "[want] examples of people contributing outside their direct class, ability, and skill sets".

Then why did you ask?

I pointed to a problem in actual games. Namely, players feeling bored because whatever is going on in the game is something that their character can't help with.

And the reason is because they aren't meeting some artificial standard of yours for direct involvement.

Your response was basically "roleplay harder, noob". You are either dismissing this as ever happening, or saying that it only happens to people who aren't good enough at D&D.

Absolutely not.
My response is "think of a way to use what you've got".
That could be role-playing.
It could be innovation.
It could be any of a variety of things over and above just sitting there and whining that you can't make the most important skill check, or do the most damage.
Again this is a failure of your imagination, not of the rules.

This is made worse by the fact that your examples either don't work or rely on DM pity. You seem to be one of those players who fetishizes creativity, which in my experience means you don't really like either rules or the DM pointing out how stupid your plans actually are. You just ended your post by saying that if your character isn't effective, it's because you just suck at D&D, dismissing any possibility of rule imbalance. Enjoy your Oberoni Fallacy.

The fallacy is yours, assuming the rules are broken because you can't insta-win just by pushing a button.
The fallacy is even more yours with the attempt to declare that "creativity" is somehow too much to expect in a fantasy game, and even more that doing more than just picking from set multiple choice options is too much to expect in a role-playing game.
The fallacy is still more yours as I'm not calling for anything to be Rule 0ed. I am simply asking people to play the game at hand, and not some CRPG where creativity comes in a cheat book.
And the fallacy is absolutely yours, as I've already mentioned the "rules mastery" element, which is an implicit acknowledgement of the imbalance in the rules.

So enjoy your multitude of fallacies.

[TiaC]

Ah, so some other character is using diplomacy and the Barbarian player is building dice towers. How is this the Barbarian participating in the social encounter? You just described a situation where the Barbarian's player could have stayed home that day without changing anything.

Not in the least.
That is your projection onto the situation, deriving from a lack of imagination.
Spend as much time thinking of what the barbarian could be doing as opposed to what he can't do and the problem will disappear.

So what, you beg the DM to give you a clue? If the mystery is too hard they should just give you an NPC who will spell it all out for you? Or, the other way of reading that scene is that the charismatic character convinced an NPC to change sides. Too bad the barbarian is not that charismatic character.

Nope.
Once again, that is you projecting a lack of imagination rather than trying to work with what you have.

Ah, you're just giving up on actually defending your point, instead just insulting me and swearing that there totally is an answer, but you're leaving it as an exercise for the reader. Yeah, you've failed at giving an example of what a Barbarian is going to do other than sit there like a lump and get DM pity.

And then you've raised the alarm and killed the barbarian. Well done. If the party is sneaking, there is a reason for it. Let's look at some of those. Perhaps they want to avoid notice. Perhaps they can't win in a frontal assault. Perhaps they don't want anyone to know they were there. Your plan will fail at all of these.

Nope.
You've raised a different alarm, and left the barbarian to do what he does best.
For a third time you are projecting your lack of imagination rather than trying to make the best of what is available.

I thought I'd actually call this one out. Let's look at some actual reasons you are likely to be sneaking. 1. you think a local merchant was involved in a crime, so you're going to break into his townhouse to find evidence. The Barbarian, and probably the rest of you just got arrested. 2. You've been hired to kill the evil Duke. His army would kill you, so you're going to sneak in and kill him. If the army would kill all of you, it will have no trouble with one of you. The Barbarian is very dead. 3. The enemy army is sieging your friendly city and you want to get in. Either the Barbarian dies attacking them or you leave him behind, failing to actually get the party in the city. Parties don't sneak when a frontal assault would work, so tacking a frontal assault onto your sneaking just makes everything worse.

See, this is reasonable. Of course, the type of player that would know to buy a wand of Haboob and take UMD is not the type to make a character that is completely helpless in combat.

Except he isn't being helpless in combat, he is just being less than effective in melee.
Now you are projecting your biases onto the situation in an effort to dismiss it.

Well, I could have given an exhaustive list of everything a character could do to contribute in combat and made it clear that this character isn't good at any of that, but I assumed that anyone who was not an idiot would get that I meant that the character could not contribute in combat from me saying that they weren't paying attention. Now, if they are maxing UMD and spending all their money on wands, they clearly can contribute in combat.

This is my problem with your argument. First, no, I didn't "[want] examples of people contributing outside their direct class, ability, and skill sets".

Then why did you ask?

Because it was a rhetorical question? If I had wanted examples, I would have given more details, rather than leave things vague enough that you can just assert that there totally exists some possible situation where your awful plan would work.

I pointed to a problem in actual games. Namely, players feeling bored because whatever is going on in the game is something that their character can't help with.

And the reason is because they aren't meeting some artificial standard of yours for direct involvement.

And now you're back to saying the problem doesn't exist. No, when a player looks up from their phone and asks "You done talking? What are we doing now?" or "Is it my turn? What happened to the demon?", it becomes very clear that they are bored and would have more fun if we just played a board game.

Your response was basically "roleplay harder, noob". You are either dismissing this as ever happening, or saying that it only happens to people who aren't good enough at D&D.

Absolutely not.
My response is "think of a way to use what you've got".
That could be role-playing.
It could be innovation.
It could be any of a variety of things over and above just sitting there and whining that you can't make the most important skill check, or do the most damage.
Again this is a failure of your imagination, not of the rules.

Please, show me where I have ever said that you need to "make the most important skill check, or do the most damage". Oh, what's that, you can't? It's almost like that's a bad strawman of my position? And then you go back to saying that this clearly only happens to bad players.

This is made worse by the fact that your examples either don't work or rely on DM pity. You seem to be one of those players who fetishizes creativity, which in my experience means you don't really like either rules or the DM pointing out how stupid your plans actually are. You just ended your post by saying that if your character isn't effective, it's because you just suck at D&D, dismissing any possibility of rule imbalance. Enjoy your Oberoni Fallacy.

The fallacy is yours, assuming the rules are broken because you can't insta-win just by pushing a button.
The fallacy is even more yours with the attempt to declare that "creativity" is somehow too much to expect in a fantasy game, and even more that doing more than just picking from set multiple choice options is too much to expect in a role-playing game.
The fallacy is still more yours as I'm not calling for anything to be Rule 0ed. I am simply asking people to play the game at hand, and not some CRPG where creativity comes in a cheat book.
And the fallacy is absolutely yours, as I've already mentioned the "rules mastery" element, which is an implicit acknowledgement of the imbalance in the rules.

So enjoy your multitude of fallacies.

First "fallacy" is the same strawman you used before.
Second "fallacy" is you either dismissing the problem again or bemoaning these noobs who actually play a game rather than just playing pretend with the DM. Obviously, the magic of "creativity" will allow your character to do things that they are terrible at. Here's a secret for you, most players are actually really bad at making plans. Almost every "clever plan" I've seen was no better than the simplest approach.
Third "fallacy", while this is not exactly the Oberoni fallacy, I thought your position that this problem doesn't exist because a real roleplayer doesn't experience it was pretty damn close.
Fourth "fallacy", you have used this term all of one other time, to say that a bad player will play a wizard badly. I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I think you're trying to say that you've admitted that Wizards are more powerful than Fighters. I never said you hadn't, I've been saying that Fighters are less often able to contribute, so if this was supposed to be some sort of gotcha, it really isn't.

[eggynack]

The question was whether characters could contribute, not whether they are completely irrelevant and might as well be deleted from the system, never mind optimization.

The core question is really whether the class can contribute. The question of whether the character can contribute is necessarily somewhat independent of the tier system. But, as is, you're making some pretty low order contributions. The party doesn't really need the barbarian there to make them worth paying for an adventure. A three member party consisting of tier one members (as opposed to a four member party with the barbarian included), would be just as purchase worthy. I'm really not sure what you're doing in the second instance, and your clarification later hasn't helped, so I'll leave that one alone. In the third situation, summoning would have worked just fine for creating a distraction. For the fourth, the rest of his party is even better at wand use. It's a core problem with this player oriented stuff. If they're so inclined, the other party members can trivially supplant it, and do so in a manner that's likely better than how the barbarian was doing it. In these situations, the barbarian's player would be just as well off

Meanwhile, what about a "stupid" player with a wizard? What happens when "rules mastery" bites them?

It depends, I suppose. I suspect you mean that the character is optimal but not played well. And the answer is that they'll probably do well when their abilities apply, which is going to be frequent, and less well when they don't, which is less frequent.

Why then is it so outrageous to note other places where it is more subjective than it otherwise seems?

Because it's not really subjective. This is the tier system for classes, not the tier system for classes as modified by good or bad players. This stuff doesn't seem to make the barbarian better.

 

Not really, what's the Druid going to do? Burn the place down?

All kindsa stuff? I mean, I have a whole handbook about it. So, that stuff. If druids have a benefit in these terms, it's that druids deal more in tangible and practical things than wizards. Wizards'll win encounters without you even being aware that they're the main cause of success. Druids tend to act more directly.

Don't be a douchbag isn't how to play but how not to play, IE is the group going to have a problem with burning the world down to begin with and if the answer is no then it's irreverent. Likewise, little Timmy could stab the quest giver in the throat while the DM is giving expostulation speaking. You are over there trying to assign an ease of breakage when all that matters is whether or not your player is going to intentionally break the game, because if they are no amount of houserules will save your game.

The issue isn't setting burning. It's something way simpler. It's, say, the druid deciding to use a riding dog as a first level companion, giving it barding because why not, casting reasonable first level spells like entangle, and completely overshadowing the party monk before even casting those strong spells. None of that need be intentional to occur. It just takes the desire to make good choices, choices that don't even seem broken, combined with a class for whom good choices are amazing.

The Bard is a Thief with a Arcane/Priest Spell pool and has a second resource to buff meatshields which makes him the default "5th man" able to cover anyone who becomes temporarily out of commission or augment any given archetype as the situation needs. The Bard also has an advantage in it takes very little in-game knowledge or even optimization to work. If a problem of him being underpowered comes up, often a single item or Spell change is all you need to put him back on par. While JK's minions have used the excuse that the Wizard is better than the Sorcerer because you're 24 hours away from changing Spells, the Bard doesn't even need to cast a Spell to be useful. And in it in those qualities that a Bard would either appear in each achetype or simply listed in a 5th category that could simply be named "Great for new players!"

It's kind of what Unbeliever seems like he it talking about I think, massive versatility ultimately becomes a trap of what to do any so many bad choices until you learn the game. JK saying unoptimized T1 is better than anything else and wins D&D isn't actually going to happen on the tabletop, it'll be more like a colossal failure as the newbies learn dice can be extremely unforgiving. With the actual goal of teaching new people in mind, ranking classes on who can theoretically kill who on a specific set of circumstances is barely even worth mentioning and it can just as easily be covered when you introduce them to the Arcanist archetype by saying as long as you have Slots you are awesome.

I really don't think the tier system says or even indicates the things you say it does. Wizard definitely does have a low floor. It also has a lot of power at moderate optimization, and insane and all consuming power at high optimization. And you keep talking about characters killing other characters. The tier system isn't about that, has never been about that, and the more you say it is about that the more I think you just don't understand it. Also, I dunno that I'd agree that bards are great at low optimization. Inspire courage is alright but scales slowly, and you really want your spell selection to be solid to get full or even partial benefit from it. That class is far from what I'd pick for a new player, unless I was helping with the build end, in which case it'd be great for a new player.

[Samwise]

Ah, you're just giving up on actually defending your point, instead just insulting me and swearing that there totally is an answer, but you're leaving it as an exercise for the reader. Yeah, you've failed at giving an example of what a Barbarian is going to do other than sit there like a lump and get DM pity.

What is the point of trying to defend my point when you are just going to insult me and swear that no answer can possibly be valid because you have said so?

I thought I'd actually call this one out. Let's look at some actual reasons you are likely to be sneaking.

Nope.
Too late for that.
You didn't include any of those circumstances before, you cannot edit them in now and insist my example is "wrong" for failing to account for them.

Well, I could have given an exhaustive list of everything a character could do to contribute in combat and made it clear that this character isn't good at any of that, but I assumed that anyone who was not an idiot would get that I meant that the character could not contribute in combat from me saying that they weren't paying attention. Now, if they are maxing UMD and spending all their money on wands, they clearly can contribute in combat.

Nope.
Too late for that as well.
You explicitly cited an inability to hit high ACs. You cannot edit in additional circumstances and insist my example is "wrong" because you meant them too.

Because it was a rhetorical question? If I had wanted examples, I would have given more details, rather than leave things vague enough that you can just assert that there totally exists some possible situation where your awful plan would work.

So your rhetorical question was answered leaving you with nothing to support your argument, and rather than accept that you want to blame me for being able to actually respond with functional answers.

And now you're back to saying the problem doesn't exist. No, when a player looks up from their phone and asks "You done talking? What are we doing now?" or "Is it my turn? What happened to the demon?", it becomes very clear that they are bored and would have more fun if we just played a board game.

Nope.
You are still trying to move the goalposts.
Further, you are conflating encounters that players do not want to engage with encounters that players cannot engage for some mechanical reason.
The reality is that no game system is going to be able to "handle" players talking on their phones instead of playing the game, and blaming that on whatever flaws are in the D20 system is disingenuous.

Please, show me where I have ever said that you need to "make the most important skill check, or do the most damage". Oh, what's that, you can't? It's almost like that's a bad strawman of my position? And then you go back to saying that this clearly only happens to bad players.

When you insist that my replies don't count because the players aren't doing whatever it is you want to assert next so they are not "bored", such is inherent from the context.

First "fallacy" is the same strawman you used before.

Nope.
That is inherent to your demand for ready made options that are "effective".

Second "fallacy" is you either dismissing the problem again or bemoaning these noobs who actually play a game rather than just playing pretend with the DM. Obviously, the magic of "creativity" will allow your character to do things that they are terrible at. Here's a secret for you, most players are actually really bad at making plans. Almost every "clever plan" I've seen was no better than the simplest approach.

Then they shouldn't be playing a game predicated on making decisions.
The same way people who are not physically adept should not seek to play sports, or who are not tactically adept should seek to play chess.
Not every game or hobby is suited to every person.
 

Third "fallacy", while this is not exactly the Oberoni fallacy, I thought your position that this problem doesn't exist because a real roleplayer doesn't experience it was pretty damn close.

So it is nonsense but you decided to throw it out anyway and hope it would stick.
Uh huh.

Fourth "fallacy", you have used this term all of one other time, to say that a bad player will play a wizard badly. I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I think you're trying to say that you've admitted that Wizards are more powerful than Fighters. I never said you hadn't, I've been saying that Fighters are less often able to contribute, so if this was supposed to be some sort of gotcha, it really isn't.

So first I denied there were balance issues, now I haven't.
But I'm projecting onto you.
Riiiight.

As for your not understanding what I mean by saying a bad player will play a wizard badly, how can you not understand that?
Have you really played so little or in such limited circles that you've never seen someone completely screw up playing a wizard?
Indeed have you never seen someone be utterly ineffective with a wizard to the point that someone playing a fighter overshadowed them?
Perhaps the problem is less with the balance issues in the game and the breadth and depth of your experience.
That's something I cannot help you with.

The core question is really whether the class can contribute. The question of whether the character can contribute is necessarily somewhat independent of the tier system. But, as is, you're making some pretty low order contributions.

No.
If the question is whether the class can contribute then that is the question.
You do not get to qualify it ex post facto and insist the problem has been established.

The party doesn't really need the barbarian there to make them worth paying for an adventure. A three member party consisting of tier one members (as opposed to a four member party with the barbarian included), would be just as purchase worthy.

Why?
What is it that those party members can do to make the physical presence of the barbarian moot?
Certainly if you disregard any element of role-playing you can handwave it off. But once you enter the realm of the social encounter that becomes impossible, and you are stuck having to account for the things a barbarian represents that the 3 tier one PCs do not.

In the third situation, summoning would have worked just fine for creating an distraction.

What if a summoning is not possible?
What if no one prepared a summoning?
What if there are wards present?
What if any of a number of other factors make a summoning less optimal?

For the fourth, the rest of his party is even better at wand use.

Yes they are.
Of course they are better still at direct spell use, so why would they be wasting their time with wands?
More critically, the problem was hitting AC, so if they are so exceptional, why aren't they in melee?

It's a core problem with this player oriented stuff. If they're so inclined, the other party members can trivially supplant it, and do so in a manner that's likely better than how the barbarian was doing it. In these situations, the barbarian's player would be just as well off.

Once again you are trying to move the goalposts.
The question wasn't whether the barbarian was as good as what another party member could manage, action economy aside, but whether he could contribute at all.
Clearly he can.

It depends, I suppose. I suspect you mean that the character is optimal but not played well. And the answer is that they'll probably do well when their abilities apply, which is going to be frequent, and less well when they don't, which is less frequent.

If they are being played that poorly, then not only will their character not be optimal, but their abilities will not apply as frequently.

Because it's not really subjective. This is the tier system for classes, not the tier system for classes as modified by good or bad players. This stuff doesn't seem to make the barbarian better.

Well yes, it is.
It admits that it is subjective!
If it is wrong in that admission, how correct can it be in its other assertions?

All kindsa stuff? I mean, I have a whole handbook about it. So, that stuff. If druids have a benefit in these terms, it's that it's druids deal more in tangible and practical things than wizards. Wizards'll win encounters without you even being aware that they're the main cause of success. Druids tend to act more directly.

You have a whole handbook about it.
Not everyone does.

And I might note, a good deal of those handbooks focuses on 20th level characters, handwaving away activity at lower levels when options are significantly fewer.
You may not have seen it that much, but I have seen quite a few characters that would be awesome in another few levels, but just sucked right then and there.
Being Tier -1 at 12th level is really impressive, even more so when you have to survive being Tier 7 at levels 1-11 while your build is coming together.
And that goes directly to:

It's, say, the druid deciding to use a riding dog as a first level companion, giving it barding because why not, casting reasonable first level spells like entangle, and completely overshadowing the party monk before even casting those strong spells. None of that need be intentional to occur.

And let's say he doesn't.
Then what?
Or let's say the druid gets silenced when the encounter starts, and can neither command his animal companion nor cast any spells.
Or he just gets grappled.
Or his lower AC and hp means he goes down before the fighter.
Or any of dozens of other scenarios where SUDDENLY! he is useless without a meatshield.

It just takes the desire to make good choices, choices that don't even seem broken, combined with a class for whom good choices are amazing.

Wait . . .
Isn't the first part precisely what I said about the choices for those low-tier characters?
Of course TiaC insists that the desire to make good choices is too much to expect, never mind the actual ability to make them.

I really don't think the tier system says or even indicates the things you say it does. Wizard definitely does have a low floor. It also has a lot of power at moderate optimization, and insane and all consuming power at high optimization. And you keep talking about characters killing other characters.

When you say that, you make the tier system precisely about that.

That class is far from what I'd pick for a new player, unless I was helping with the build end, in which case it'd be great for a new player.

Which directly supports what SorO said about so many great choices being a trap.
If you have to design a character for a new player for it to be functional, then clearly there is a problem with all that power.

[eggynack]

No.
If the question is whether the class can contribute then that is the question.
You do not get to qualify it ex post facto and insist the problem has been established.

It is the question. That's why it's the tier system for classes, and not the tier system for characters. This isn't an ex post facto thing. It's just the premise intrinsic to the nature of the thing we're discussing. The tier system explicitly states that the tier of a character can go up or down due to player skill. That means that player skill isn't accounted for in the base tier.

Why?
What is it that those party members can do to make the physical presence of the barbarian moot?
Certainly if you disregard any element of role-playing you can handwave it off. But once you enter the realm of the social encounter that becomes impossible, and you are stuck having to account for the things a barbarian represents that the 3 tier one PCs do not.

They can do casting things. They can say, "We have magic. It's really powerful. Watch as gouts of flames shoot from my friend's hand. This is but a small part of our casterly might." Casters are generally going to be more useful than non-casters, which means that an offering of casterly might should be of greater interest than one of physical might.

What if a summoning is not possible?
What if no one prepared a summoning?
What if there are wards present?
What if any of a number of other factors make a summoning less optimal?

I mean, you're sneaking into a place here, right? That means you necessarily have the initiative. Which, in turn, means that you have time to prepare and knowledge of what you're preparing for. Magic can make a distraction if you really need it. But you probably don't. Cause I'd usually rather not alert the enemies to my presence while sneaking in.

Yes they are.
Of course they are better still at direct spell use, so why would they be wasting their time with wands?
More critically, the problem was hitting AC, so if they are so exceptional, why aren't they in melee?

I'm honestly not sure when the problem became hitting AC. I thought this was a skill monkey scenario. And they probably wouldn't waste their time with wands. As you note, they'd just do what the barbarian's doing better and more consistently. Doesn't really speak well of the barbarian's capabilities.

Once again you are trying to move the goalposts.
The question wasn't whether the barbarian was as good as what another party member could manage, action economy aside, but whether he could contribute at all.
Clearly he can.

Theoretically, I suppose, in the most minimal possible way. And only in really specific versions of these scenarios. And, critically, in relatively easy versions of these scenarios, because if a first level commoner can do it, then it's not that hard. That's why class tends to be what's assessed, because otherwise you're essentially doing the bare minimum.

If they are being played that poorly, then not only will their character not be optimal, but their abilities will not apply as frequently.

So they aren't optimal? I'm really not sure what exactly you're seeking here.

Well yes, it is.
It admits that it is subjective!
If it is wrong in that admission, how correct can it be in its other assertions?

I meant more that your claimed area wasn't one where the tier system is subjective, rather than that the system as a whole lacks subjectivity. That probably wasn't stated optimally.

You have a whole handbook about it.
Not everyone does.

What? No, I mean I wrote a handbook that's several hundred pages long over the course of a couple of years, and it's publicly available such that you can read it right now. Soro was in the discussion thread for it on this website, so I didn't feel the need to link it. Here you go. Point being, you do, in fact, have a whole handbook about it.
 

And I might note, a good deal of those handbooks focuses on 20th level characters, handwaving away activity at lower levels when options are significantly fewer.
You may not have seen it that much, but I have seen quite a few characters that would be awesome in another few levels, but just sucked right then and there.
Being Tier -1 at 12th level is really impressive, even more so when you have to survive being Tier 7 at levels 1-11 while your build is coming together.

I think it covers the early levels quite well. Maybe even better than the late ones. Druids are cool cause they start out better than most classes, without even using feats or items, and then get better from there. You can judge for yourself though, if you like.

And let's say he doesn't.

You're missing the point on this one. This is an example of a way that a druid could really screw with party dynamics early on without meaning to, rather than a claim that this will always happen.

Or let's say the druid gets silenced when the encounter starts, and can neither command his animal companion nor cast any spells.

Silence is a second level spell in what I think is still a first level scenario. Even if this is third level, silence is limited in radius, so it can usually be left, and I don't think I see anything stopping a druid from commanding the animal companion silently. Without commands, I'd have to figure that the companion would either attack nearest enemies, summon style, or continue the last command, which might well have been to attack if the silence doesn't happen soon enough. I've gotta think that a companion's basic instinct would be to protect its druid friend.

Or he just gets grappled.
Or his lower AC and hp means he goes down before the fighter.
Or any of dozens of other scenarios where SUDDENLY! he is useless without a meatshield.

He's not without a meatshield. That's part of the reason low level druids are cool. There's a roughly equal melee character right there, capable of biting the enemy in the grapple, capable of standing in front of him if that'd help, and, y'know, whatever things would help in those dozens of scenarios. And he also has spells. Also, druid AC is significantly lower, but HP is really comparable. Con as the second most important stat plus a d8 hit die is nice. The riding dog might even have better HP, and comparable AC.

Wait . . .
Isn't the first part precisely what I said about the choices for those low-tier characters?

No, these are build options that are practical enough to exist within the bounds of the tier system. In character decision making isn't accounted for in the same way.

When you say that, you make the tier system precisely about that.

How's that work? Being really powerful doesn't specifically mean really powerful when fighting other classes.

Which directly supports what SorO said about so many great choices being a trap.
If you have to design a character for a new player for it to be functional, then clearly there is a problem with all that power.

Well, floors and ceilings aren't really something accounted for in tier system classic. The system uses something of a gentle averaging, assuming something in the middle where bards do rather well. It's a known lack in the system, and one that I've seen subsequent optimization folk seek to address. The bard has a floor and ceiling that are relatively far apart, while, say, the warblade has a floor and ceiling that are really close together. So, a warblade might overshadow a bard in a low op game, and might be overshadowed in a higher op game. There are different sorts of optimization difficulty too. Some classes are hard to play and easy to build, some are easy to play but hard to build, and some are uniformly easy or hard. It's just the nature of the game.

Edit: Oh, okay, I get the wand thing now. I thought this was a barbarian trying to use skills, and that skill just happened to be UMD, not a skill guy trying to beat face. Still, you do need the right wand, and choosing/having that wand is significantly harder for the skill monkey than it is for the caster whose right spell having ability you were criticizing earlier. At least the whole thing makes sense now.

[Jackinthegreen]

What exactly is the Orc supposed to do in a social encounter (where threatening to kill them won't help), or in a mystery, or when the party needs to sneak? The problem goes the other way too, I've seen too many skill monkeys that only hit monsters on a 18 just check out during combat. Narrow characters mean you can play in less of the game.

Social Encounter
"Why should you hire us? See that guy standing in the corner trying not to break anything accidentally or scare the horses? He's our +10 Can of Whupass. For a small fee, you can open him up on your enemies."

The criticisms of this particular encounter center around the fact that the orc isn't an active participant in the socializing.  It's the difference between having a conversation -with- someone versus having it -about- them when they're in another room.  Maybe that's okay for the player and hence why they were okay being an orc barbarian in the first place, but if the player wants to have their character actively engage with the socializing then the character is clearly not cut out for that due to no skill investment and no ability by themselves to get skill ranks.  The assumption is of course that it is skill checks that ultimately decide how things go in that encounter, with various circumstance bonuses based on roleplaying.  If it is purely roleplaying and there are no skill checks or other mechanical ways for the player character to interact then the tier system might as well not exist for this situation because the class's rules and mechanics no longer apply.

Regular barbarians aren't going to have much use in social encounters where they can't use Intimidate.  Listen could be used and the skill trick "Listen to This" would improve that skill's effectiveness, if it's a social encounter where that sort of thing could be useful.  The quoted encounter isn't going to have either of these unless perhaps the person hiring them asks for a display of the barb's prowess in which case Intimidate could be used.  But it's likely that Intimidate won't be useful because the context leaking in from a previous post is:

If you bring an Charisma 6 Orc Ubercharger with 1 skill point/level to a game that isn't hack-and-slash, you will have long portions of the game where your best option to contribute to the party will be to pull out your phone and check Facebook.

If we're allowing for alternate class features and not shit skill points then barbarians can start contributing better to social encounters.  Cityscape has class skill swap ACFs that allow a barbarian to trade Handle Animal for Gather Information and Survival for Sense Motive.

Whether that ACF would be considered for the tier list is a different matter since the tier list typically assumes average play and optimization.  If the barb's player is interested in being useful in social encounters then those trades are the lowest-hanging fruit.

Mystery Encounter
"Mongo not know where choo-choo go. Mongo only pawn in game of life."

If this is a reference then I am totally clueless as what it means.  Just looking at a barb stuck in a mystery, a regular one could just have Intimidate, Listen, and Survival+Tracking, while a Skilled City barb would have access to Gather Information and/or Sense Motive to get more clues and contribute.

Sneak Encounter
"Hey Gronk! Walk over there and have fun. There, nobody will notice us now!"

Being a distraction is fine for some encounters and useless for others.  If the barb's presence somewhere doesn't lead to suspicion for the other party members then it's usually a candidate for some distraction.  A regular barbarian is admittedly pretty good at surviving being the distraction due to higher hit points, faster speed, and good combat abilities if the need arises.  Making the distraction is often as simple as a random act of violence.

Skill Monkey
"Hey guys, check out this area effect wand I found."
KANERF
"Take that AC 20!"

Just because you don't inflict a kajillion points of damage, or make the DC 5,000 skill check, doesn't mean you are not contributing to an encounter.

Note that not all skillmonkeys have UMD/UPD.  If it was someone experienced then they'd better have a damn good reason for dropping it if they didn't have it.  And even when they do have it, they might not have an appropriate spell etc for the situation due to various factors like lack of funds or not being able to find the items.

The barbarian scenarios somewhat highlight another thing in the tier list though:  Often there's a tradeoff between power and versatility.  The main difference between T4 and T3 is the T3 can specialize while still having useful contributions outside their expertise while the T4 class either specializes and has little or no competence outside that specialty or they go Jack of all Trades and have a little competence in many areas but lack power that specializing can bring.  In the case of the 6 charisma orc ubercharger with 1 skill point/level (which for a barbarian or other 4 skill points/level class means having a 4 or 5 int), they've specialized in doing lots of damage and that's at the expense of using skills to meaningfully contribute in other areas since those skill points will inevitably go into jump and other skills needed for charging feats.

I wonder if I should do a skill contribution writeup for each class both as vanilla and with ACFs or specific feats.

[Samwise]

It is the question. That's why it's the tier system for classes, and not the tier system for characters. This isn't an ex post facto thing.

Yes it is.
And no matter how much you want, you cannot separate the class and character from the player.

They can do casting things. They can say, "We have magic. It's really powerful. Watch as gouts of flames shoot from my friend's hand. This is but a small part of our casterly might." Casters are generally going to be more useful than non-casters, which means that an offering of casterly might should be of greater interest than one of physical might.

Which still isn't being a wall of muscle that doesn't require fancy words and gestures to manifest.
And which doesn't presume the NPCs have meta-knowledge of the versatility of the various classes.
 

I mean, you're sneaking into a place here, right? That means you necessarily have the initiative. Which, in turn, means that you have time to prepare and knowledge of what you're preparing for.

No, it does not.
What if you are chasing someone and have to infiltrate immediately?
What if you discover there is a Ritual of Doom (TM) that you must stop immediately?
Now you need to parse the circumstances to favor casters and dismiss any that favor other classes.

I'm honestly not sure when the problem became hitting AC. I thought this was a skill monkey scenario.
. . .
Edit: Oh, okay, I get the wand thing now. I thought this was a barbarian trying to use skills, and that skill just happened to be UMD, not a skill guy trying to beat face. Still, you do need the right wand, and choosing/having that wand is significantly harder for the skill monkey than it is for the caster whose right spell having ability you were criticizing earlier. At least the whole thing makes sense now.

The caster already has spells.
The skill monkey doesn't.
The caster must assign spells to mimicking the skill monkey.
The skill monkey must assign wands to . . . mimic the caster.
Who is more likely to have the right wand available?

Theoretically, I suppose, in the most minimal possible way. And only in really specific versions of these scenarios.

And there is the attempted redefinition again.
And the attempted exclusion.

So they aren't optimal? I'm really not sure what exactly you're seeking here.

Clearly.
You have decided that wizards are always Da Bomb, and you refuse to hear otherwise.
That is on you, not me.

I meant more that your claimed area wasn't one where the tier system is subjective, rather than that the system as a whole lacks subjectivity. That probably wasn't stated optimally.

FAQ:

. . .

Q:  I totally saw a [Class X] perform far better than a [Class Y] even though you list it as lower.  What gives?

A:  This system assumes that everything other than mechanics is totally equal.  It's a ranking of the mechanical classes themselves, not of the players who use that class.  As long as the players are of equal skill and optimize their characters roughly the same amount, it's fine.  If one player optimizes a whole lot more than the other, that will shift their position on the chart.  Likewise, if one player is more skilled than the other, or campaign situations favor one playstyle over another, classes can shift around.  Remember, this is a rough ranking and a guideline, not a perfect ruler.

. . .

The author declares the whole thing specifically excludes everything other than raw mechanics.
That makes the whole thing subjective.
Compounding that:

Q:  So what exactly is this system measuring?  Raw Power?  Then why is the Barbarian lower than the Duskblade, when the Barbarian clearly does more damage?

A:  The Tier System is not specifically ranking Power or Versitility (though those are what ends up being the big factors). It's ranking the ability of a class to achieve what you want in any given situation. Highly versitile classes will be more likely to efficiently apply what power they have to the situation, while very powerful classes will be able to REALLY help in specific situations. Classes that are both versitile and powerful will very easily get what they want by being very likely to have a very powerful solution to the current problem. This is what matters most for balance.

The author directly states he is only ranking potential, not actual function.

You need to argue with him that his system is absolutely, mechanically, objective, and in no way influenced by optimization and ability.

What? No, I mean I wrote a handbook that's several hundred pages long over the course of a couple of years, and it's publicly available such that you can read it right now.
. . .
Point being, you do, in fact, have a whole handbook about it.

Yes, I know.

And no, I don't.
I personally know about this forum.
I personally can access your handbook.
Unless you have sent it to everyone who has ever purchased a PHB or sat down to play the game, then you cannot assume that everyone has your handbook, or any other handbook.
I know this because I have sent links to multiple handbooks to my players for reference, so clearly they did not have access to them until that point, and I know that I have not sent such links to everyone I know, as well as knowing that I do not know every single player.
 

I think it covers the early levels quite well. Maybe even better than the late ones. Druids are cool cause they start out better than most classes, without even using feats or items, and then get better from there. You can judge for yourself though, if you like.

I have.
I find that most do not.

You're missing the point on this one. This is an example of a way that a druid could really screw with party dynamics early on without meaning to, rather than a claim that this will always happen.

And you are missing the point that "possible" is not "always".

Silence is a second level spell in what I think is still a first level scenario.

So a 3rd level caster with a 2nd level spell is not a reasonable challenge for a 1st level party?
Hmmm . . .

I've gotta think that a companion's basic instinct would be to protect its druid friend.

"Protect" is not the same as "fight intelligently".

He's not without a meatshield.

His meatshield is not intelligent.
It does not have the same range of abilities as a character.

No, these are build options that are practical enough to exist within the bounds of the tier system. In character decision making isn't accounted for in the same way.

See above - the tier system does not account for them.

How's that work? Being really powerful doesn't specifically mean really powerful when fighting other classes.

Potential Power is not Actual Power.
 

The system uses something of a gentle averaging, assuming something in the middle where bards do rather well.

No, it doesn't.
It measures only potential, explicitly leaving out optimization and ability as unratable.

The criticisms of this particular encounter center around the fact that the orc isn't an active participant in the socializing.

Which is still moving the goalposts.
And requires that the barbarian is really not doing anything, like say breaking out with Perform (weapon drill), or just a random Strength check to look impressive.
The scenario was two words - "social encounter", with one limitation - "[no intimidating]". My reply covered that.

If this is a reference then I am totally clueless as what it means.  Just looking at a barb stuck in a mystery, a regular one could just have Intimidate, Listen, and Survival+Tracking, while a Skilled City barb would have access to Gather Information and/or Sense Motive to get more clues and contribute.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2AZtIz5-ww

And yes, they could have other skills.
The key is thinking of barbarians, well - orcs technically, as more than just blunt instruments.

Being a distraction is fine for some encounters and useless for others.

Again, the requirement was only "where the party needs to sneak", no other qualifiers.

Note that not all skillmonkeys have UMD/UPD.

And one more time, no such qualifier was present in the original question.

  If it was someone experienced then they'd better have a damn good reason for dropping it if they didn't have it.  And even when they do have it, they might not have an appropriate spell etc for the situation due to various factors like lack of funds or not being able to find the items.

The barbarian scenarios somewhat highlight another thing in the tier list though:  Often there's a tradeoff between power and versatility.  The main difference between T4 and T3 is the T3 can specialize while still having useful contributions outside their expertise while the T4 class either specializes and has little or no competence outside that specialty or they go Jack of all Trades and have a little competence in many areas but lack power that specializing can bring.  In the case of the 6 charisma orc ubercharger with 1 skill point/level (which for a barbarian or other 4 skill points/level class means having a 4 or 5 int), they've specialized in doing lots of damage and that's at the expense of using skills to meaningfully contribute in other areas since those skill points will inevitably go into jump and other skills needed for charging feats.

I wonder if I should do a skill contribution writeup for each class both as vanilla and with ACFs or specific feats.

Well, as I quoted above, that is NOT something in the tier list.
ONLY potential is rated.
ACTUAL versatility is left to the optimization and ability.
This is why trying to reset the Tier system to just versatility will fall short of not accounting for potential.
Or why resetting it to raw power will fall short.

"Theoretically", if someone did separate tier lists for the three major factors - potential, raw power, and versatility - plus some subjective factors like complexity/required player ability, optimization, level variation, and "fun" factor, then you could advance the tier system.
Of course the subjective factors will remain subjective, but that would be the path to go, and it would require overt acknowledgement of that element.

[Maelphaxerazz]

I appreciate the tiers in how they've created a mutually-understood jargon for 3.5 gamers. However, I do find them not always accurate, and I also think there are too many tiers. I think it comes down to how people have thought too much about tiers, until the difference in class power was blown completely out of proportion.

For example, consider Sorcerer and Beguiler. Sorcerer is considered Tier 2 and Beguiler is Tier 3 – yet at 20th level, the Sorcerer knows 34 spells while the Beguiler knows 113. They're good spells, too: a lot of them are ones sorcerers would want to pick, and five are from Advanced Learning so you pick them yourself. And that's where the gap is narrowest, because the sorcerer gains his spells one at a time while the beguiler gets them all as soon as he reaches the new spell level (with the exception of Advanced Learning spells). To make matters worse for the sorcerer, the Beguiler has 6 skill points per level and actual class features. Thus the Sorcerer should be in the same tier as the Beguiler or lower, except in those specific cases where the sorcerer chooses spells that make up for the lack. Once we get into specific builds like that, we start noticing that there are many ways to gain spells known from another spell list, and other examples and counterexamples.

I could go on with other examples, but my point is this: the difference in power and versatility between the tiers is not that great. The tier system helped communicate the message that the balance issues in 3.5 could be worked around, but it obscured the other message that the balance issues were never that big in the first place.

[eggynack]

Yes it is.
And no matter how much you want, you cannot separate the class and character from the player.

Well, you can't. I can do it just fine, thank you very much. Class and character things come from class and character. Player things come from the player.

Which still isn't being a wall of muscle that doesn't require fancy words and gestures to manifest.
And which doesn't presume the NPCs have meta-knowledge of the versatility of the various classes.

It's not metaknowledge. It's just knowledge. These casters exist, in the real world, being super powerful all the time. People know that casters are useful, even if they don't necessarily know they're more useful, and they probably do know they're more useful.

No, it does not.
What if you are chasing someone and have to infiltrate immediately?
What if you discover there is a Ritual of Doom (TM) that you must stop immediately?
Now you need to parse the circumstances to favor casters and dismiss any that favor other classes.

If you're rushing in, you're probably not hiding that well anyway. And if you are hiding well, then you don't really need the distraction. I mean, in the first scenario, the guy you're chasing is presumably on the side of the people you're infiltrating. So he's going to alert the place to your presence either way. In the second, alerting the people guarding the ritual of your presence and splitting the party at the same time just seems counterproductive.

The caster already has spells.
The skill monkey doesn't.
The caster must assign spells to mimicking the skill monkey.
The skill monkey must assign wands to . . . mimic the caster.
Who is more likely to have the right wand available?

The caster probably isn't trying to mimic the skill monkey. Why would they? There's a skill monkey right there. You mimic a skill monkey when there isn't a skill monkey. And a caster is less likely to have the right wand, but more likely to have the right spell. Wands are expensive, and the caster's spells, as their primary means of interaction, are likely to be geared at least somewhat towards combat. Casters are pretty likely, bordering on definite, to have a spell that bypasses AC. It's hard not to, really. Skill monkeys, whose wand use tends to be utility backing up their main face beating strategy, is less likely to have some combat spell.

And there is the attempted redefinition again.
And the attempted exclusion.

It is what it is. I was slightly agreeing with you, that the barbarian can contribute in a weak and situational way in some non-combat scenarios. It's really not a lot, and is worse than what many other classes could do in that scenario.

Clearly.
You have decided that wizards are always Da Bomb, and you refuse to hear otherwise.
That is on you, not me.

Now you're just being silly. You were unclear when you communicated the scenario, and I just want to know what is going on. Does the wizard suck all around or not? If they do, they're probably going to mostly be fireballing stuff, which is okay but not all that much better than a low op fighting guy.

The author directly states he is only ranking potential, not actual function.

You need to argue with him that his system is absolutely, mechanically, objective, and in no way influenced by optimization and ability.

I already said that the system is subjective in part. I'm not entirely sure what you want here.

And no, I don't.
I personally know about this forum.
I personally can access your handbook.
Unless you have sent it to everyone who has ever purchased a PHB or sat down to play the game, then you cannot assume that everyone has your handbook, or any other handbook.
I know this because I have sent links to multiple handbooks to my players for reference, so clearly they did not have access to them until that point, and I know that I have not sent such links to everyone I know, as well as knowing that I do not know every single player.

He asked what a druid can do. I said that there's a whole handbook filled with stuff a druid can do. Whether some arbitrary person has seen it is irrelevant, because the core question is of potential druid capabilities. It's not like someone who hasn't read the thing can't cast boreal wind.

I have.
I find that most do not.

Most which? Druids or handbooks? Cause honestly, on the druid side, you can build those things really crappy without hitting strength in play. You really have to be playing badly in-game to get bad stuff, which hurts the claim that druids are built to excel late at the expense of the early.

And you are missing the point that "possible" is not "always".

That's not me missing the point. It's you misunderstanding the premise entirely.

So a 3rd level caster with a 2nd level spell is not a reasonable challenge for a 1st level party?
Hmmm . . .

It's a difficult challenge, at the very least. And I already noted ways of dealing with it, at least in part. Druids are probably better at dealing with the problem than most.

"Protect" is not the same as "fight intelligently".

Didn't say intelligently. Riding dogs have pretty straightforward attack routines. The trip is automatic and junk.

His meatshield is not intelligent.
It does not have the same range of abilities as a character.

Not too far off. With direction, they move in, bite, and trip, all with solid effectiveness. Without direction, they do the same, except they might go after different targets. A melee character in the same scenario would do much the same.

See above - the tier system does not account for them.

Does not account for which?

Potential Power is not Actual Power.

That's not anything close to a response to anything I just said.

No, it doesn't.
It measures only potential, explicitly leaving out optimization and ability as unratable.

Not really true. The system necessarily has an assumed level of optimization, and it's intrinsic to the system whether that's explicitly stated or not. You can change where you stand in the system by exceeding that level of optimization, or going beneath it, but there is that assumed level. I mean, you're essentially saying the same yourself. If it's measuring potential power, then included in that potential is the theoretical ability to, I dunno, cast entangle. So, that capability must be accounted for in the system. The ability to cast a much worse spell is also accounted for in the system, because again, we're working with potential here. So, you take an averaging of the two, striking decently close to the middle. Which is what I said is happening.

[SorO_Lost]

I appreciate the tiers in how they've created a mutually-understood jargon for 3.5 gamers. However, I do find them not always accurate, and I also think there are too many tiers. I think it comes down to how people have thought too much about tiers, until the difference in class power was blown completely out of proportion.

For example, consider Sorcerer and Beguiler. Sorcerer is considered Tier 2 and Beguiler is Tier 3 – yet at 20th level, the Sorcerer knows 34 spells while the Beguiler knows 113.

And hey we're back on which Class is better than another

Actually it comes back to T3 is a Focused Caster (my list not JKs), the Beguiler's list is full of redundancies so often a lower level Spell is simply out performed by a higher. Comparatively, a Sorcerer is a Full-Caster, able to swap those redundant Spells for entirely different things like Summoning, Save-less CC, Fabrication,  extra Actions, etc. You're also forgetting Sorcerers actually get some nice splat support, specially if they are a True Dragon. Oh, and Beguiler's don't get Familiars 
You laugh but compare DDoor (4th) to Lightning Leap (5th), one teleports you can you can't do anything afterwards and the other hits for up to 30d6 by sharing with your familiar and you can still take Actions.

[Samwise]

Well, you can't. I can do it just fine, thank you very much. Class and character things come from class and character. Player things come from the player.

Really?
So . . . you with your handbook designing a druid and someone completely new to the game designing a druid, going head to head, and you may as well just toss a coin to determine the winner?
Of what relevance then is your handbook?

It's not metaknowledge. It's just knowledge. These casters exist, in the real world, being super powerful all the time. People know that casters are useful, even if they don't necessarily know they're more useful, and they probably do know they're more useful.

So . . . metaknowledge.
Of the Tier system.
And the absolute potential of each class.

If you're rushing in, you're probably not hiding that well anyway.

You hide a lot better with a distraction.
And you keep trying to add new conditions.

The caster probably isn't trying to mimic the skill monkey. Why would they?

Because that is the whole point of the potential of the caster - they can do everything anyone else can, and better than they can do it.
Now you are trying to argue against a key point of the Tier system!

It is what it is. I was slightly agreeing with you, that the barbarian can contribute in a weak and situational way in some non-combat scenarios. It's really not a lot, and is worse than what many other classes could do in that scenario.

But they can contribute.
You just want to dismiss them because it isn't as good as you can do it.

Now you're just being silly. You were unclear when you communicated the scenario, and I just want to know what is going on.

The scenarios are all generic.
If we start detailing them, we will be here forever, with endless scenarios, each taking turns adding one more factor that trumps out the plan of the other, in a circle of one-upmanship.
 Does the wizard suck all around or not? If they do, they're probably going to mostly be fireballing stuff, which is okay but not all that much better than a low op fighting guy.

I already said that the system is subjective in part. I'm not entirely sure what you want here.

For you to understand and accept the subjective parts, and not keep dismissing them as unworthy of any consideration.

He asked what a druid can do. I said that there's a whole handbook filled with stuff a druid can do. Whether some arbitrary person has seen it is irrelevant, because the core question is of potential druid capabilities. It's not like someone who hasn't read the thing can't cast boreal wind.

If they do not know of boreal wind because they didn't get to the relevant splatbook yet, or recognize its potential, then they will not memorize it, and thus be unable to cast it.

Most which? Druids or handbooks? Cause honestly, on the druid side, you can build those things really crappy without hitting strength in play. You really have to be playing badly in-game to get bad stuff, which hurts the claim that druids are built to excel late at the expense of the early.

Handbooks.
And you would clearly be amazed at some of the awful character builds I've seen.

That's not me missing the point. It's you misunderstanding the premise entirely.

I get the premise - dismissing the relevance of optimization and player ability.
I simply do not consider it valid, and thus it is you missing that such is the point being asserted.

It's a difficult challenge, at the very least. And I already noted ways of dealing with it, at least in part. Druids are probably better at dealing with the problem than most.

And once again, "probably" is not "always".

Didn't say intelligently. Riding dogs have pretty straightforward attack routines. The trip is automatic and junk.

Do they bite and trip the rogue, who cannot one-shot the druid, or the barbarian, who can?
Hmmm . . .

Not too far off. With direction, they move in, bite, and trip, all with solid effectiveness. Without direction, they do the same, except they might go after different targets. A melee character in the same scenario would do much the same.

Except a melee character, with system knowledge and ability, can learn and know to go for the higher damage threat.
The dog never can.

Does not account for which?

Optimization and ability.

That's not anything close to a response to anything I just said.

It is a direct response, and an inherent element of the Tier system.

Not really true. The system necessarily has an assumed level of optimization, and it's intrinsic to the system whether that's explicitly stated or not.

No, it doesn't.
And it explicitly states otherwise, as I quoted.

You can change where you stand in the system by exceeding that level of optimization, or going beneath it, but there is that assumed level.

 

Which means the system is only measuring potential power, and not actual power which requires optimization and ability.

I mean, you're essentially saying the same yourself. If it's measuring potential power, then included in that potential is the theoretical ability to, I dunno, cast entangle. So, that capability must be accounted for in the system. The ability to cast a much worse spell is also accounted for in the system, because again, we're working with potential here. So, you take an averaging of the two, striking decently close to the middle. Which is what I said is happening.

No, you don't.
Because JaronK explicitly said he was not accounting for optimization or ability.
He was not averaging anything.
He was just measuring raw potential.
If you did that, then you would have to consider the functional tier of a wizard specializing in divination, memorizing nothing but true strike, spending a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword), another 3 getting Heavy Armor Proficiency, and running around in full plate, getting one attack at +20 every other round, then "average" that out with someone who has read TreantMonk's handbook.
So much for wizards being Tier 1!

[eggynack]

Really?
So . . . you with your handbook designing a druid and someone completely new to the game designing a druid, going head to head, and you may as well just toss a coin to determine the winner?
Of what relevance then is your handbook?

I didn't say that play skill wasn't a factor. I said that I can separate play skill from character and class. In particular, the opposing designed druid may theoretically be indistinguishable from mine before it sees play.

So . . . metaknowledge.
Of the Tier system.
And the absolute potential of each class.

No. Metaknowledge implies that the information must derive from outside of the game in some fashion. Standard knowledge means that it's knowledge that can be attained within the game universe. This is thus standard knowledge.

You hide a lot better with a distraction.
And you keep trying to add new conditions.

I'm not convinced on the first count and it was your new condition on the second. If you want to play the no new conditions game, then you can no longer assert that our team was in a rush to enter the building, so they got to plan out the spell list. It goes both ways.

Because that is the whole point of the potential of the caster - they can do everything anyone else can, and better than they can do it.
Now you are trying to argue against a key point of the Tier system!

No, the point is that they can if they want to, and they might do so if so inclined. There is no absolute onus to try to fill already filled roles.

But they can contribute.
You just want to dismiss them because it isn't as good as you can do it.

I'm mostly dismissing it because it's not very good at all. I'm not entirely dismissing it because it's a thing that exists, at least.

The scenarios are all generic.
If we start detailing them, we will be here forever, with endless scenarios, each taking turns adding one more factor that trumps out the plan of the other, in a circle of one-upmanship.

I'm not asking you to detail them. I'm just asking you to tell me if this apparent rules master yet sucky player built a somewhat optimal wizard. I don't need any specifics beyond that. I just need some frigging idea of what I'm discussing.

For you to understand and accept the subjective parts, and not keep dismissing them as unworthy of any consideration.

The subjective parts you want me not to dismiss just aren't a part of the system. And I don't see how I can consider it either way. Maybe the wizard is awesome but the barbarian sucks.

If they do not know of boreal wind because they didn't get to the relevant splatbook yet, or recognize its potential, then they will not memorize it, and thus be unable to cast it.

As you so like to say, I was talking about potential capabilities. As in, things the druid player could start doing the moment he gets his hands on any of these high power spells.

Handbooks.

I honestly haven't seen much of this late focus tendency in handbooks. And I still think I've got a relatively early game oriented one.

And you would clearly be amazed at some of the awful character builds I've seen.

I've seen some bad stuff. You usually have to take ACF's that make you bad early and late alike to make a bad druid. Prestige classes would do it too. It's rare that a druid build sacrifices the early for the late, and when it happens the sacrifice leaves you only slightly hobbled. Aberration wild shape, for example, is a sacrifice of early for late, but a druid can make do with one fewer feat, or even more fewer feats.

I get the premise - dismissing the relevance of optimization and player ability.
I simply do not consider it valid, and thus it is you missing that such is the point being asserted.

The context makes it valid. It was asked what a druid could do. That means that arbitrary optimization tricks are allowed, because only potential need be considered.

And once again, "probably" is not "always".

There's always ToB classes. Those are really up there in terms of first level capabilities, and this situation was manufactured to be better against casters, so they have a really good shot of doing better in this scenario.

Do they bite and trip the rogue, who cannot one-shot the druid, or the barbarian, who can?
Hmmm . . .

The attack command allows you to direct the animal companion to attack a specific target (through the magic of pointing such that silence doesn't stop it) so whichever one the druid wants.

Except a melee character, with system knowledge and ability, can learn and know to go for the higher damage threat.
The dog never can.

As above, so too here. The dog doesn't need to learn anything. Only the druid does.

Optimization and ability.

True. But that doesn't mean that optimization is necessarily falling to the minimum. The null case for optimization is generally average optimization.

Which means the system is only measuring potential power, and not actual power which requires optimization and ability.

Potential power strongly informs actual power.

No, you don't.
Because JaronK explicitly said he was not accounting for optimization or ability.
He was not averaging anything.
He was just measuring raw potential.
If you did that, then you would have to consider the functional tier of a wizard specializing in divination, memorizing nothing but true strike, spending a feat on Exotic Weapon Proficiency (Bastard Sword), another 3 getting Heavy Armor Proficiency, and running around in full plate, getting one attack at +20 every other round, then "average" that out with someone who has read TreantMonk's handbook.
So much for wizards being Tier 1!

It's only really problematic if you weight those two outcomes equally. If you instead weight them by the percent you expect them to occur, then you get what I said, which is average optimization.

[Sinfire Titan]

A player's ability to roleplay through an encounter is not an accurate reflection of his class' ability to contribute to said encounter. However, the class itself can provide benefits to the player that can help his/her ability to roleplay the character. The Tier system doesn't care about the player, just the class. Builds, player skill, and party members are not a part of the concept of the Tier system.

The Barbarian, as a class, isn't going to be able to negotiate a truce between two countries without resorting to a cheesey rule in the Epic Level Handbook; said rule is available to any class that can hit a DC 50 Bluff/Intimidate/Diplomacy check and as such isn't an accurate representation of the class' ability (since even with CC ranks you can get that DC).

The Druid class has spells that could potentially help with such a negotiation. Spells such as Control Weather can be used to very good effect (Eberron has an entire guild build around such a concept), and because it costs the Druid 0 permanent resources to actually use most of those the system gives the class an appropriate treatment. While everyone can potentially do these same things ONCE by using the WBL guidelines, the Druid merely expends a spell slot.

Abilities such as those define the tiers. Who cares how good you are at roleplaying a drunken soldier when the Wizard is literally able to stop time?

[Samwise]

I didn't say that play skill wasn't a factor. I said that I can separate play skill from character and class. In particular, the opposing designed druid may theoretically be indistinguishable from mine before it sees play.

"May"
"Probably"
"Possibly"
You use words like that over and over again, yet you still declare they refer to absolutes.

I'm not asking you to detail them. I'm just asking you to tell me if this apparent rules master yet sucky player built a somewhat optimal wizard.

Optimization is not part of the tier system.

As you so like to say, I was talking about potential capabilities. As in, things the druid player could start doing the moment he gets his hands on any of these high power spells.

But is not guaranteed.

And you would clearly be amazed at some of the awful character builds I've seen.

I've seen some bad stuff. You usually have to take ACF's that make you bad early and late alike to make a bad druid.[/quote]

No, you just have to suck at being a druid, doing everything your handbook notes they are weak at, and nothing they are strong at.

The attack command allows you to direct the animal companion to attack a specific target (through the magic of pointing such that silence doesn't stop it) so whichever one the druid wants.

Pointing means "attack that person" and not "go over there"?
The animal knows this how precisely?
And when the druid points at random?

True. But that doesn't mean that optimization is necessarily falling to the minimum. The null case for optimization is generally average optimization.

Which is a completely undefined value.
And one that can vary based on available material.

Potential power strongly informs actual power.

But not totally.
 

It's only really problematic if you weight those two outcomes equally. If you instead weight them by the percent you expect them to occur, then you get what I said, which is average optimization.

Based on what?
How many wizard builds have you examined to make that declaration?

The Barbarian, as a class, isn't going to be able to negotiate a truce between two countries without resorting to a cheesey rule in the Epic Level Handbook; said rule is available to any class that can hit a DC 50 Bluff/Intimidate/Diplomacy check and as such isn't an accurate representation of the class' ability (since even with CC ranks you can get that DC).

Pretty much by definition, "role-play" does not involve skill checks. That would be "roll-play".
"Role-play" would be the barbarian acting and speaking as a barbarian and making convincing arguments that effects the truce without the need for any skill check.

The Druid class has spells that could potentially help with such a negotiation. Spells such as Control Weather can be used to very good effect (Eberron has an entire guild build around such a concept), and because it costs the Druid 0 permanent resources to actually use most of those the system gives the class an appropriate treatment. While everyone can potentially do these same things ONCE by using the WBL guidelines, the Druid merely expends a spell slot.

Help how exactly?
By gaining bonuses to make a skill check using a cheesy rule in the ELH?

How does control weather negotiate a truce? By making it rain too much for fighting?
That isn't negotiation, that is forcing a truce. One that will last only as long as the druid keeps up the bad weather. That requires his attention on a permanent basis, which is a bit more than just expending a spell slot.
How is that different from a barbarian just raging and destroying stuff until people agree to play nice? Same expenditure of a renewable class resource.

Abilities such as those define the tiers. Who cares how good you are at roleplaying a drunken soldier when the Wizard is literally able to stop time?

You are confusing ability to play with ability to role-play.
A player running a wizard who is unable to role-play runs around acting and talking like a fighter.
A player running a wizard who is unable to play runs around in full plate with a bastard sword using true strike every other round.
Who cares how you could stop time as a wizard if you never do and the drunken sailor guts you like a fish?

[eggynack]

"May"
"Probably"
"Possibly"
You use words like that over and over again, yet you still declare they refer to absolutes.

Hey, I don't know how well some arbitrary new reader would internalize hundreds of pages of handbook, and I definitely don't know how well they'd be able to synthesize that information into an optimal character. It's a good handbook, but it's not like a perfected some new information transfer technology in its construction.

Optimization is not part of the tier system.

Irrelevant. Optimization is a part of your arbitrary scenario.

But is not guaranteed.

As long as the books are legal, the possibility is guaranteed to exist. And if the books aren't legal, well, there's a reason druids do really well in core.

No, you just have to suck at being a druid, doing everything your handbook notes they are weak at, and nothing they are strong at.

That only hurts on the play end. You'll still have a, perhaps not perfectly built, but definitely passably built druid. To be clear here, you could do take pointless skill focuses in all your feat slots and you'd still have a druid capable of doing tier one stuff. Druids adapt really well to build errors.

Pointing means "attack that person" and not "go over there"?
The animal knows this how precisely?
And when the druid points at random?

It's all part of the attack command. The command specifies that you can pick a target, so you can. I honestly don't care too much how.

Which is a completely undefined value.
And one that can vary based on available material.

I agree. Average optimization is a murky region, and one that's frequently debated when discussing the tier system. But, at the same time, we know that it's neither minimal optimization, which would be a wizard making really poor use of its available resources, nor maximal optimization, which would involve breaking the game in two, and that's something. We have some idea of what that optimization level is, based on the tier rankings and on JaronK's discussion of said rankings, but we'll never know for sure.

But not totally.

Indeed.

Based on what?
How many wizard builds have you examined to make that declaration?

Based on your reasonable expectation, and none. I'm not arguing that this is perfect information we're working with, or that we have some mathematical model for what optimization level the tier system was intended for. I'm telling you that the tier system has as a somewhat unstated assumption an average optimization level. Characters make use of their available class resources decently, and don't crush the universe into tiny bits with them. The paladin does reasonable damage and charges in, supported by some minor spell use, but doesn't trade out that casting for way better casting and start using inspire courage, or spend their feats utterly pointlessly and fail to do anything in combat. It's all just how the system was designed.

[Nanshork]

I'd like to point out that the tiers system explicitly assumes "equivalent player skill and equivalent optimization level".  It's right there in the FAQ under "What assumptions were used in making this system?"  All this arguing about optimized versus un-optimized isn't really relevant to JaronK's tier list.


I'd also like to point out that per the rules the only official way to adjust someone else's attitude is through a skill check (Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff).  Any role-playing done that makes people like you is Rule 0.

[Unbeliever]

The Druid class has spells that could potentially help with such a negotiation. Spells such as Control Weather can be used to very good effect (Eberron has an entire guild build around such a concept), and because it costs the Druid 0 permanent resources to actually use most of those the system gives the class an appropriate treatment. While everyone can potentially do these same things ONCE by using the WBL guidelines, the Druid merely expends a spell slot.

I contend that this is a cheat.  Control Weather does not in any obvious sense help a negotiation.  I'm not saying that's totally cool and awesome use for it.  I'm just saying that you could strike Control Weather from the same sentence and replace it with "win a test of strength with the chieftain" or "slay Grendel" or "credibly threaten to kill the entire opposing army in single melee combat."  All of those would potentially function the same, and to be fair, are examples of a lot of the stuff Samwise has been mentioning in this thread. 

Indeed, in a straight social negotiation, bracketing any of the creative stuff (which I hesitate to do, since I do happen to like some role-playing in my RPGs ...), the Barbarian and the Druid are about equal, maybe slight edge to the Barbarian.  They both have a social skill available to them, Intimidate and Diplomacy respectively, but the Barbarian has an easier time and more incentive to optimize his.  It's different if we consider a Wizard since Charm spells, etc. can directly play into social encounters.  Although at this point we may be at such a remove from actual D&D gameplay that the heuristic is losing its utility.