Impact of tier 1-2 classes on lower tier class competence

[Snowbluff]

A sage is the opposite of a bump.

What's your problem?

It's not how competent everyone else is, it's how competent/impatient your T1-3s are.

It's about having fun. That you can achieve by making everyone competent. Tier 1s and 2s can do it with ease.

I frakking hate litigation about empirical compilations of information, like the Tier list. JaronK knew what he was doing when he wrote it, I think it's foolproof in it's simplicity.

Okay we seem to be in agreement here. I'll just say that making a point that the 'competence' you'd be  granting the plebeian T4s is just the T1 demonstrating what he does, but in no way reflects the capability of the T4. I don't know if this applies to everybody, but I like being independent of other party members as much as possible. If I was playing a Monk, I would recognize my own inferiority and my reliance for T1 assistance, and feel bad for making the T1 carrying me.

[ImperatorK]

I did kinda say that I'm talking about cooperative groups, so... your rambling is irrelevant, I guess.

[Rejakor]

 

The purpose of this thread is to discuss which classes move up or down tiers in a 'team environment', i.e. the Bard is more effective in a team of Fighters than he is in a team of Wizards (thanks to Dragonfire Inspiration, words of creation, and it's ilk).

I'll just throw some out here;

Transmuter Wizard is stronger in a group of melee beatsticks.

Bard is stronger in any non spellcasting group.

Cleric is weaker in a group with fighters, because there is a strong temptation to use your slots to buff them instead of nova'ing it all on yourself.

Beguiler is stronger in a group with a frenzied berserker.