alt Tiers definition (?)

[TiaC]

There are a few different issues that the tier system is trying to touch on.

First, there is the issue of encounter design. This is what I was addressing with my earlier post. This is somewhere versatility matters. Characters that are insufficiently versatile tend towards being binary in their ability to contribute. They either operate at full power or not at all. This is the Ubercharger problem. Dealing with them as a DM can include tailoring encounters both such that they can contribute, and such that they don't just run over it. On the other hand, characters who are too versatile are far more likely to do something you hadn't planned on. This is where the campaign-altering spells come in. Teleport, Contact Other Plane, Shivering Touch, all of these can leave a DM floundering.

Next is the issue of pure power. This is where all the talk about interparty balance applies. The questions that define this issue are "Am I pulling my weight?" and "Do my actions matter?". The tier system isn't great at dealing with this, because both the Ubercharger and God Wizard can answer those questions by saying "yes". In nearly every game, this only matters in combat. This becomes a problem when a player looks around and decides that either they have nothing they do better than another character, or that whatever they do on their turn does not matter. This is probably the most discussed part of the tier system and anything more I could say has already been said.

Finally, there is the issue of playtime or contribution. The question here is "What portion of the game am I completely unable to play for?" This is the other arena in which versatility matters. 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. Versatile characters can just play in more of the game. On top of that, this is not a problem that can always be fixed by putting everyone on the same level of versatility. If everyone specialized in different things, your party is always going to have multiple people sitting out.

[SorO_Lost]

This is where the campaign-altering spells come in. Teleport, Contact Other Plane, Shivering Touch, all of these can leave a DM floundering.

Teleport fails unless the DM already handed you everything you need to know about the location and in turn only skips multiple random encounters, but not all of them since you can just as easily teleport into one. In order for COP to even work the DM has to be smart enough to detail everything out but not be smart enough to exploit vague wording or COP's lie chance. And meh on Shivering Touch.

But the fact is you're real point is what happens when players get more creative than the DM and that really comes back to is the Gygaxian concept of assuming it's you vs the DM rather than all of you being a team. While it's a common misconception the DM should be the guy with the most rules knowledge and rule with totalitarian authority, but that is pretty much an example of how Lawful Evil works. If you buy into that style and have a problem, well that's kind of your problem and it's inherent towards that play style, ie you choose to add the possibility of error so don't complain when it bites you on the rear. And the solution is to play as a team, like you should have been.

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.

Kid's these days will check their facebook in the middle of their turn. 

But often overlooked is the fact that stone has HP and when you can deal 500 per hit you can pretty much carve a tunnel around the entire trap/monster filled dungeon in sixteen inch increments to reach the treasure room by using a Ring of X-Ray Vision to keep an eye on the actual dungeon. And with enough HP/healing, most traps are barely even a foot note. You'd also be surprised at how much a DM will much of a circumstantial bonus to Intimidate a DM will award when your Horc holds the NPC by their limbs sideways while threatening to rip them in half. It's also the meatshield's job to handle moving over terrain until flight becomes readily available to the entire party through not many classical dungeons actually bring up walls & moats, that's kind of an overworld thing.

Point being sure a typical meatshield needs to use Aid Other to replicate the effects of Fabricate or questionable rules of Sunder/Disarm to steal a keep from an Animated castle, foreword thinking about what you contribute to the party simply comes back to discussing team dynamics with the rest of the people on the table top and typically solved with either an idea or magic item more than whatever point someone wishes they make about how they think a Factotum is better than a Druid. I'm sure if you try real hard and paraphrase/edit things with an already deeper understanding of the rules fueled by the desire to rationalize something you can see any given thing as "useful", but surprise the newbie informational section is meant for newbies. It should come right out and explain things, and if you disagree well you can just apply that censorship concept to my post and dig all the amazing advice out of it.

[phaedrusxy]

I'm sure as hell not reading this whole thread... but I did read the OP...

The Tiers system is basically just a way to "eyeball" the power of classes. It's not based on any kind of rigorous analysis. If you want a better way to compare classes, the "Same Game" test is a bit better. In that, you run a representative character from each class through a gauntlet of encounters, typically against CR = their ECL, and see how many they can defeat on average vs. other classes. Of course, even this misses a lot because many classes work much better in groups than solo, and much of the results are dependent on the fickleness of the random number generator.

Like him/it or not, MeyerWilliam's method that he used back in the old "Fighter vs. Wizard" gauntlet threads were probably a bit better, because they eliminated the actual randomness of the dice rolling with percentages for success based on bonuses. Of course, this still suffered from the fact that some classes perform much better solo than others, but it was at least an attempt to use some kind of math and logic in the comparisons, and it eliminated the randomness of the dice. (Edit: If you don't know what I'm talking about here, sorry but I can't show you. Those threads have been dead longer than Cthulu.)

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

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.

Now if you want a non-broken game (still wildly unbalanced, but playable) then the 'don't be a dick' rule still works. But if you want to ensure balance, you have to tweak the game away from RAW and into rule fixes territory. If you only want to gloss over the big stuff, you probably only need a dozen or so changes.

If you want to lift the 'don't optimize' rule and still test out the capabilities of any set of balance fixes, you'll need to cover specific cases which means you'll need over 200 little tweaks here and there. Most people simply give up cataloging those hundreds of problems and create something that's no longer resembles third edition (Frank & K, pathfinder, etc). I'd know because as best I can tell, I'm the only one who's actually succeeded.

(click to show/hide)

I could be wrong: you're welcome to download it, read it, and give examples of thing I've missed. I've encouraged this but it's just so thorough...

Eggy feels the need to reply to nearly every single post to defend it

knock it off. He can be active if he wants to. I feel like half the time I'm telling you that you're full of it and the other half I'm telling everyone else that you're the only one who gets it. Do you just go on and off the meds or something? 

There's nothing wrong with later edits and I really enjoyed the original thread's houserules discussion. I even created the thread to mathematically create a boards-justified gestalt x = non-gestalt y variant. You are welcome to show the circular logic, though. I'm afraid I don't follow. Maybe it has to do with the admitted anecdotal nature. And by 'you tier system' are you referring to this one? I had to fish it out of your personal handbook thread since you don't link it in your sig (even 2 hyperlinks deep)

(click to show/hide)

"6: Skill based. Commoner, Expert, Samurai.
5: Mundane warriors. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk.
4: Partial casters. Artificer, Adapt, Hexblade, Paladin, Ranger, Spelltheif.
3: Focused casters. Bard, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Martial Adapts, Warmage.
2: Full casters. Favored Soul, Psion, Sorcerer, Wu Jen.
1: Elitists. Cleric, Druid, Wizard."

Um, this really looks like standard board-approved tiers except for your artificer-hate (which I love btw, even though you always forget)

What kind of "actual usage" would you like to see? Do you mean this?

@eggy

(click to show/hide)

I just really don't think that speed of enemy disposal is a valid metric. No one actually cares about whether the enemy is killed in two rounds or five outside of weird scenarios, so if that number matches up with an accurate power ranking, it seems like that'd happen by pure chance. For the sake of argument, one could easily imagine a class that defeats enemies in ten rounds 100% of the time, and a  second that defeats enemies in one round 10% of the time, and the former would be clearly superior. Success rate is closer to valid, but it loses something when you consider that PC's are expected to win against the majority of foes, and that what happens more often than not is success with some resource depletion.

With that in mind, it doesn't seem like either metric works all that well. If you really want a purely numerical metric, then how about, I dunno, the highest CR against which the class wins 50% of the time. Do that at each level, or every five levels, and use the difference between the level and the CR as the tier, so you get good and comprehensive data. Then maybe normalize the data such that numbers at different levels look pretty much the same. And, if you want the actual tier of a class, you can just average the sub-tier at each level. That is just for fights though, so if you want, you could do some adventures of varying CR's for the same general effect. That, and not this weird percent success over time system, is the kind of thing you'd need to do to get a solid mathematical model for tiering.

I'm not the guy to do as you list, but everything about this is well-reasoned and sensical. I just wanted you to hear it over voices that say things like "jerk-off"

Characters that are insufficiently versatile tend towards being binary in their ability to contribute.

Well said. Getting another few thousand damage on your ubercharger is fun and all, but it isn't useful aside from going for the record.

On the other hand, characters who are too versatile are far more likely to do something you hadn't planned on. This is where the campaign-altering spells come in. Teleport, Contact Other Plane, Shivering Touch, all of these can leave a DM floundering.

A) become a better DM. Many DMs don't have problems with those spells even when they are cast often. Why is that? B) If your players are optimizers, you may need to start fix 3e (see sig)[/quote]

Lastly, because I can't resist a little humor:

(click to show/hide)

you can just apply that censorship concept to my post and dig all the amazing advice out of it.

Uh. You mean this, er, attempt at a sentence?

Point being sure a typical meatshield needs to use Aid Other to replicate the effects of Fabricate or questionable rules of Sunder/Disarm to steal a keep from an Animated castle, foreword thinking about what you contribute to the party simply comes back to discussing team dynamics with the rest of the people on the table top and typically solved with either an idea or magic item more than whatever point someone wishes they make about how they think a Factotum is better than a Druid.

I'm nominating this grammatical monstrosity for best evidence that the meds were unavailable.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

@eggy

I just really don't think that speed of enemy disposal is a valid metric. No one actually cares about whether the enemy is killed in two rounds or five outside of weird scenarios, so if that number matches up with an accurate power ranking, it seems like that'd happen by pure chance. For the sake of argument, one could easily imagine a class that defeats enemies in ten rounds 100% of the time, and a  second that defeats enemies in one round 10% of the time, and the former would be clearly superior. Success rate is closer to valid, but it loses something when you consider that PC's are expected to win against the majority of foes, and that what happens more often than not is success with some resource depletion.

With that in mind, it doesn't seem like either metric works all that well. If you really want a purely numerical metric, then how about, I dunno, the highest CR against which the class wins 50% of the time. Do that at each level, or every five levels, and use the difference between the level and the CR as the tier, so you get good and comprehensive data. Then maybe normalize the data such that numbers at different levels look pretty much the same. And, if you want the actual tier of a class, you can just average the sub-tier at each level. That is just for fights though, so if you want, you could do some adventures of varying CR's for the same general effect. That, and not this weird percent success over time system, is the kind of thing you'd need to do to get a solid mathematical model for tiering.

I'm not the guy to do as you list, but everything about this is well-reasoned and sensical. I just wanted you to hear it over voices that say things like "jerk-off"

bolding ... rocket-launcher-tag at one end, 4e grind at the other end.  I think it matters to game play how long combats go.


1 on 1 , is much easier to do maths, than trying for an assumed party version of Core 4 classes +1.
Especially since Core 4 classes game maths assumption, from back in '99 has not held up at all.

edit --- and I've no idea how to do this.

... Of course, even this misses a lot because many classes work much better in groups than solo, and much of the results are dependent on the fickleness of the random number generator ...

 

... dead longer than Cthulu

(stifles urge to say heretic)
Surely you must be joking Mr. Feynman!

[Samwise]

But the fact is you're real point is what happens when players get more creative than the DM and that really comes back to is the Gygaxian concept of assuming it's you vs the DM rather than all of you being a team.

I think that's more "You vs Each Other vs the DM rather than the DM being a neutral referee, instead of Your Team vs the DM, or Your Team vs the Dungeon."
The Gygaxian concept actually evolved somewhat over time.
The rest of your comparison is valid if the DM does become an active opponent.

But often overlooked is the fact that stone has HP and when you can deal 500 per hit you can pretty much carve a tunnel around the entire trap/monster filled dungeon in sixteen inch increments to reach the treasure room by using a Ring of X-Ray Vision to keep an eye on the actual dungeon. And with enough HP/healing, most traps are barely even a foot note.

The first almost happened in my game Monday night, with the PCs about to break through a wall into a secret treasure chamber before getting distracted and going through the door and having to rely on a Spot check.
A friend of mine did the other, deliberately sucking up full trap damage to save another party member in a game he was in.

Point being sure a typical meatshield needs to use Aid Other to replicate the effects of Fabricate or questionable rules of Sunder/Disarm to steal a keep from an Animated castle, foreword thinking about what you contribute to the party simply comes back to discussing team dynamics with the rest of the people on the table top and typically solved with either an idea or magic item more than whatever point someone wishes they make about how they think a Factotum is better than a Druid.

I've seen more Tier 1 parties that couldn't cooperate go down in flames than I can count.
And more ATL 3-4 parties that could walkover the same set of encounters than that.

[eggynack]

knock it off. He can be active if he wants to. I feel like half the time I'm telling you that you're full of it and the other half I'm telling everyone else that you're the only one who gets it. Do you just go on and off the meds or something? 

It would indeed be nice if the often reasonable claims weren't bracketed by weirdness.

I'm not the guy to do as you list, but everything about this is well-reasoned and sensical. I just wanted you to hear it over voices that say things like "jerk-off"

One of the implications there is that seriously putting together a mathematical model for tiers is really difficult and really time consuming. Anything you arbitrarily put together in five minutes, or even an hour, is unlikely to have the rigor needed to be math. On some level, actually doing this is somewhat implausible, which is why you wind up far more likely to see back of the envelope experiential tier lists. Fighting games have it so easy with their readily available statistics.

bolding ... rocket-launcher-tag at one end, 4e grind at the other end.  I think it matters to game play how long combats go.

It might be relevant to game play, but I don't think it's relevant to problem solving ability, which is what the tier system should be measuring. I mean, if you want to measure game friendliness, you could just as easily put commoner in tier one because they don't disrupt games that much, and anything with strong summoning capabilities into tier six for adding combat rounds (as well as for breaking the game). It might make sense to create a second system measuring game disruption, but first, that system is not the tier system, and second, if anything, that system is the opposite of the tier system, because higher tiers disrupt things.

1 on 1 , is much easier to do maths, than trying for an assumed party version of Core 4 classes +1.
Especially since Core 4 classes game maths assumption, from back in '99 has not held up at all.

I didn't say anything about a party of four. Just run single classes. Theoretically, a single character is supposed to have an approximately 50% chance of beating an equal CR opponent. Realistically, most classes do better, but it's a good baseline.

[TiaC]

But the fact is you're real point is what happens when players get more creative than the DM and that really comes back to is the Gygaxian concept of assuming it's you vs the DM rather than all of you being a team. While it's a common misconception the DM should be the guy with the most rules knowledge and rule with totalitarian authority, but that is pretty much an example of how Lawful Evil works. If you buy into that style and have a problem, well that's kind of your problem and it's inherent towards that play style, ie you choose to add the possibility of error so don't complain when it bites you on the rear. And the solution is to play as a team, like you should have been.

This wasn't quite what I was trying to get at. I was speaking more of those moments when the DM goes "well, I don't have anything prepared for what you're doing now, so that's the end of today's session." Even without railroading, a DM only has so much material and versatile characters can more easily step into the whitespace of the game world.

But often overlooked is the fact that stone has HP and when you can deal 500 per hit you can pretty much carve a tunnel around the entire trap/monster filled dungeon in sixteen inch increments to reach the treasure room by using a Ring of X-Ray Vision to keep an eye on the actual dungeon. And with enough HP/healing, most traps are barely even a foot note. You'd also be surprised at how much a DM will much of a circumstantial bonus to Intimidate a DM will award when your Horc holds the NPC by their limbs sideways while threatening to rip them in half. It's also the meatshield's job to handle moving over terrain until flight becomes readily available to the entire party through not many classical dungeons actually bring up walls & moats, that's kind of an overworld thing.

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.


@Eggynack: I suggest you look at the Same Game Test. A list of varied encounters for common levels, and you look at what portion that class can be expected to overcome.

[Unbeliever]

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.

This is, at best, hyperbolic.  It clearly seems to imply that niche protection or even niches at all are a bad thing.  This would be inimical to a game like D&D.  The principle here seems that only characters who can do everything can play most/a lot of/enough of the game.  That doesn't really work in any troupe game, ranging from D&D to White Wolf to anything else that occurs.

One does need to be able to meaningfully participate, somehow, in key group scenes.  In D&D combat is the iconic one.  Other games might have other examples.

[eggynack]

@Eggynack: I suggest you look at the Same Game Test. A list of varied encounters for common levels, and you look at what portion that class can be expected to overcome.

I'm well aware of it, and it informs a lot of my thinking on this topic.

This is, at best, hyperbolic.  It clearly seems to imply that niche protection or even niches at all are a bad thing.  This would be inimical to a game like D&D.  The principle here seems that only characters who can do everything can play most/a lot of/enough of the game.  That doesn't really work in any troupe game, ranging from D&D to White Wolf to anything else that occurs.

One does need to be able to meaningfully participate, somehow, in key group scenes.  In D&D combat is the iconic one.  Other games might have other examples.

I don't think it implies that. It's just saying what it's saying, which is that more versatile characters have less of this niche protection keeping them from other roles, and more powerful characters have more niche protection keeping others out of their role. As you move up the tiers, the cross section of power and versatility shoots up, such that you wind up with characters that can supplant any other member of their party at any moment, but which cannot themselves be supplanted. The point is simply that versatility matters, and is variable between the classes, not necessarily that all classes should be infinitely versatile.

[Samwise]

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."

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

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

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.

[eggynack]

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."

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

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

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.

The first one was pretty clear cut intimidate, or aid another intimidate, which a barbarian actually is good at. They're at least better than fighters in that role, and their marginal skilledness is part of why they get a whole extra tier. The middle two seemed to be admissions that a barbarian just doesn't contribute at those things. I'm not sure what you mean by the last one. Is he just punching the... skill requiring thing? The underlying mechanics are somewhat difficult to decipher.

[TiaC]

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.

This is, at best, hyperbolic.  It clearly seems to imply that niche protection or even niches at all are a bad thing.  This would be inimical to a game like D&D.  The principle here seems that only characters who can do everything can play most/a lot of/enough of the game.  That doesn't really work in any troupe game, ranging from D&D to White Wolf to anything else that occurs.

One does need to be able to meaningfully participate, somehow, in key group scenes.  In D&D combat is the iconic one.  Other games might have other examples.

I'm not really disagreeing with you. You need to be able to do something. The only bar I will put on how effective that thing has to be is that it shouldn't feel like a waste of the player's time. (So your wizard firing a crossbow is fine at level 3, but not at level 13) How niche protection should work is by making a character better at their niche, not by telling every other character that they can't even contribute. The Bard should socialize better than the Fighter, Cleric and Wizard, but they should be able to make a positive contribution that keeps them checked in.

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."

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

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

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.

Well, the examples you've given are actually not contributing to the encounter. The first is either the one type of social encounter I excluded, the ones that you can just threaten people until they help you, or it's the Orc being an inanimate prop for another character. The second is just giving up. The third has you dealing with a sneaking encounter by not sneaking. If that works, then it's not a sneaking encounter. The last seems to be you suggesting that a skill monkey can contribute to combat by buying wands. Tell me, what AoE spells are you casting from a wand that actually matter in combat with their low CL and saves?

[Unbeliever]

EDIT:  TiaC captured my thoughts on this topic pretty perfectly in the response in the above post (that was written while I was typing the spoilered bit).

(click to show/hide)

[snip]

I don't think it implies that. It's just saying what it's saying, which is that more versatile characters have less of this niche protection keeping them from other roles, and more powerful characters have more niche protection keeping others out of their role. As you move up the tiers, the cross section of power and versatility shoots up, such that you wind up with characters that can supplant any other member of their party at any moment, but which cannot themselves be supplanted. The point is simply that versatility matters, and is variable between the classes, not necessarily that all classes should be infinitely versatile.

"Play in less of the game" is not a value-neutral phrase.  And, just look at your exchange with Samwise.  It's an argument that the Orc is a bad character in some sense b/c he can't do a variety of things.

EDIT:  back to Tiers and versatility and my issues with the Tiers system
My original point, stated clearly I think, was that the Tiers ranking overstated the importance of versatility.  If your point is just that it "matters," well, sure.  But, that's not a response to what I said at all.  I said that the Tiers generally weighted versatility too heavily, not that the weight should be set to 0. 

Like TiaC said earlier, if you're concerned with intraparty parity, which is what the Tiers system is emphatically focused on, then the ability to utterly trivialize combat, even without anything else, will really skew that.  Hence the criticism. 

There's more I could say, but I think this is more straightforward.  What does the Tiers system really tell you that you didn't know before?  I find a handful of maxims would probably be much more useful, and would eliminate the false implication of precision that the Tiers seem to carry with them.  Maxims like the following generally hold true: 

• The most versatile and powerful ability in the game is spellcasting.  Things that are very similar to spellcasting, such as usage of a variety of magic items which often simply duplicate spells, follow similar logic.
• Action economy is extremely important.

And ... actually that's kind of about it.  You could add in one more about how easily a character/build can just end encounters.  Going back above, I don't necessarily think 19 ways to end encounters is a much bigger deal than having 2, provided those are all reasonably generally applicable. 

What I think the Tiers system sets out to do is translate some charopp accumulated wisdom to people who are knew to the game/system.  That's the thought exercise that I subject it to, and I don't think it really succeeds at that, which is what the ubercharger type of counterexample is meant to illustrate.

All the rest asks questions about niches and niche protection, which are a fundamentally separate issue from "power," which is what the Tiers system purports to speak to. 

[eggynack]

"Play in less of the game" is not a value-neutral phrase.  And, just look at your exchange with Samwise.  It's an argument that the Orc is a bad character in some sense b/c he can't do a variety of things.

I don't really care what value you append to it. What it is is a true phrase. The orc can take an active role in a smaller percentage of the game than the bard. The role he takes when he does take a role is greater than the role the bard usually takes, though not necessarily to a degree sufficient to make up for it, because the bard is a higher tier character. If you think that's fine, then that's fine, and if you don't, then that's also fine. I don't think the orc is a good or bad character. I just think it's a less versatile character, and, in a lot of ways, a less powerful character. If you stick the orc with a bunch of other low tier characters, everyone will be participating about the same amount overall.

My original point, stated clearly I think, was that the Tiers ranking overstated the importance of versatility.  If your point is just that it "matters," well, sure.  But, that's not a response to what I said at all.  I said that the Tiers generally weighted versatility too heavily, not that the weight should be set to 0. 

My issue with that claim is that I'm really not sure how versatility is weighted right now. What do you think should move where? Should the barbarian be tier three in your view? Should the factotum become tier four? Because I'd disagree with that movement. Because, as I pointed out earlier, there's a lot of what magic does that impacts combat in ways that the barbarian really can't. Yes, the barbarian also has their niche in combat, but magic does really powerful things, things which care a lot less about what an opponent is doing on defense.

Like TiaC said earlier, if you're concerned with intraparty parity, which is what the Tiers system is emphatically focused on, then the ability to utterly trivialize combat, even without anything else, will really skew that.  Hence the criticism. 

The tier system is concerned with parity, but that doesn't mean that it's concerned with the general underlying fabric of the game. The system simply asks what level of contribution a character will have over the course of a variety of adventures. If you only have straightforward combat with grounded enemies without magical defenses, then that'll make the tier list less useful for your game.

There's more I could say, but I think this is more straightforward.  What does the Tiers system really tell you that you didn't know before? I find a handful of maxims would probably be much more useful, and would eliminate the false implication of precision that the Tiers seem to carry with them.  Maxims like the following generally hold true: 

• The most versatile and powerful ability in the game is spellcasting.  Things that are very similar to spellcasting, such as usage of a variety of magic items which often simply duplicate spells, follow similar logic.
• Action economy is extremely important.

And ... actually that's kind of about it.  You could add in one more about how easily a character/build can just end encounters.  Going back above, I don't necessarily think 19 ways to end encounters is a much bigger deal than having 2, provided those are all reasonably generally applicable. 

I actually had a list of things I got out of the system here, and there's no crossover between lists. I'd add that the game is really really imbalanced, and it's worth keeping a lookout. Just as a general thing. There's other stuff too, I'd think, especially if you go down to the minutiae, and I've gotta think that, at some maxim density, you'd just be better off with the tier system.

What I think the Tiers system sets out to do is translate some charopp accumulated wisdom to people who are knew to the game/system.  That's the thought exercise that I subject it to, and I don't think it really succeeds at that, which is what the ubercharger type of counterexample is meant to illustrate.

Well, it's trying to transfer some. Not all. It's worth note that the ubercharger is a build, rather than a class, and you could just as easily wind up with a barbarian that takes only reasonable feats, and does well in combat without killing everything in one hit. You can't really end up with an actively bad barbarian, because the floor is decently high, but you could end up with a  really mediocre one. And, of course, you can wind up with a really really broken wizard, because wizards have some incredibly potent magic that can just lay waste to combats and non-combats alike.

 Honestly, with a lot of this stuff, it feels like you're accusing the system of not measuring the thing it's not trying to measure, outside of the system's explicitly stated context of classes, and not incredibly optimized classes either. And, of course, I'd agree, because systems tend not to measure stuff that they're not trying to measure. Because, seriously, barbarians aren't that powerful. They can charge good, but so can a commoner, if you want. Barbarian gets some strong ACF's, but the basic class only really has some reasonable bonuses and a solid chassis. The barbarian being placed low isn't necessarily the tier system ignoring power. It's just not seeing a crazy amount of it. It's not a weak class by any means, but it's not super strong. It's kinda middling. Like, y'know, tier four.

All the rest asks questions about niches and niche protection, which are a fundamentally separate issue from "power," which is what the Tiers system purports to speak to.

The tier system focuses on both, if that wasn't clear.

[Samwise]

The first one was pretty clear cut intimidate, or aid another intimidate, which a barbarian actually is good at. They're at least better than fighters in that role, and their marginal skilledness is part of why they get a whole extra tier.

No, that is Diplomacy, selling the services of the barbarian as a blunt instrument.
If the NPC doesn't want to hire the party they just wander off and find another adventure.

The middle two seemed to be admissions that a barbarian just doesn't contribute at those things.

Clearly you've never seen Blazing Saddles, where a critical clue is providing by the bad guys' BDF who does a heel-face turn.
For the other, providing a major circumstance bonus to the skill checks of the rest of the party is clearly contributing.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last one. Is he just punching the... skill requiring thing? The underlying mechanics are somewhat difficult to decipher.

The skill monkey is using his skills to do something that affects the opponent without having to target the opponent's AC.
You know, thinking his way through the encounter rather than charging in and being useless.

Well, the examples you've given are actually not contributing to the encounter. The first is either the one type of social encounter I excluded, the ones that you can just threaten people until they help you, or it's the Orc being an inanimate prop for another character. The second is just giving up. The third has you dealing with a sneaking encounter by not sneaking. If that works, then it's not a sneaking encounter. The last seems to be you suggesting that a skill monkey can contribute to combat by buying wands. Tell me, what AoE spells are you casting from a wand that actually matter in combat with their low CL and saves?

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

[eggynack]

Yeah, I missed basically all of what you were going for there. Makes more sense now, though.

Edit: Still, it doesn't speak that well of your plans that they all seem about as good in the hands of some arbitrary warrior, or maybe even a commoner, at least in the latter three cases.

[Samwise]

Yeah, I missed basically all of what you were going for there. Makes more sense now, though.

Edit: Still, it doesn't speak that well of your plans that they all seem about as good in the hands of some arbitrary warrior, or maybe even a commoner, at least in the latter three cases.

Ummm . . .

My examples can make a "useless" Tier 6 class useful in "every" situation, and that makes them less valid as demonstrations of how simply innovation above and beyond optimization, or even outright cheese-weaselry, can overcome the limits of what classes can do?

[Sinfire Titan]

I will bet you good money that if I show up to a game that is Tier 3 or below with a Barbarian that does an arbitrarily large amount of damage reliably, it will be considered gauche.  Likewise, pick your favorite blaster or other mid-tier character.  And, before you say it, such a character would be not a glass cannon, able to survive multiple encounters, deal with range on occasion, etc.  It doesn't take too much work to do all of that. 

It is my experience that an Ubercharger is far more disruptive than a Buffs and BFC Wizard, despite being a few tiers lower. Every combat has to be set up so the charger can contribute but doesn't trivialize the fight, while avoiding the appearance of metagaming. It really limits encounter design. Meanwhile, for the wizard, the DM can generally just make fights a bit harder without much worry.

In most of cases, if the DM is not adequately prepared for it, rocket tag builds will disrupt campaigns more frequently than any other build would. This isn't a Tier system issue but one of combat encounter issues: Any encounter that tries to pit the party against equal or lower number of opponents is doomed to fail unless the encounter is designed to win the initiative (in which case another issue of a TPK arises).

JaronK's system, however flawed, addresses the idea of noncombat encounters. A rocket tag build is drastically less capable in such areas until you account for items and feats.

[eggynack]

My examples can make a "useless" Tier 6 class useful in "every" situation, and that makes them less valid as demonstrations of how simply innovation above and beyond optimization, or even outright cheese-weaselry, can overcome the limits of what classes can do?

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.