alt Tiers definition (?)

[Unbeliever]

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.

This is one of my pet peeves.  Not that I'm calling you out on in it Eggy; it's really common, your comment just made me think of it.  With the exception of the Paladin trading out for much better casting, which arguably means you're not really playing a Paladin anymore, the other optimization options, like Inspire Courage, are at least as easy to find and use as picking a decent spell list is for any caster class.  The latter takes a lot more work, as there are a stultifying number of spells to pick from. 

Making a Paladin go from "reasonable damage on a charge" to "holy hell that's a lot of damage on a charge" doesn't take much work at all.  And, that's with a Paladin, a notoriously weak class (and for good reason).  The effort in optimizing a spellcaster comes largely from choosing their spells rather than build.  For classes that don't rely on a huge subsystem like that, it goes back into their build. 

There often feels like an apples to oranges comparison here.  The hypothetical Druid is a straight Druid, a really solid build, but has a reasonably optimized spell list.  The hypothetical Paladin doesn't have the same effort put into the things that can be optimized for it. 

My usual guidelines for comparing anything, to the extent it ever comes up (rarely in my actual gaming life ... like ... never, maybe?) is Practical Optimization, which I'm going to operationalize as reading a handbook or two on this site. 

[SorO_Lost]

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.

And banning optimization is irrelevant in the first place, plus I'd like to point out proper spacing of the word "ass-u-me".

Technically speaking no optimize and fully optimized are the same thing. I doesn't really matter if a Barbarian picks up ubercharging using Feats and some Persisted Spells using gold. Every single class in the game has Feats & gold so no matter how many "win" points you can score with your favorite build every one else is capable of matching them. As long as both examples are optimized near the same levels, be it none or all, the only thing that will affect a Class's ability to break a tie is it's actual Features. The concept that you could argue to dismiss a Class simply on the grounds that you feel it's too optimized is one of the red herrings inherent to JK's worthless list. As I said before, he never gave a shit about accurately listing things; only arguing he was right.

[Samwise]

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.

If you don't know, then you cannot derive a certain conclusion.
Which means the Tier system is a guess at best.

Irrelevant. Optimization is a part of your arbitrary scenario.

No; optimization is part of play.

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.

So it isn't guaranteed.
And . . . we still need the player to know what do with the druid.

That only hurts on the play end.

Exactly.
So someone looks at the Tier system, looks at a druid sucking it up, and concludes . . .

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.

So now the rules don't matter?
Then how can you rate it?

I agree. Average optimization is a murky region, and one that's frequently debated when discussing the tier system.

You mean like . . . now?

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.

Then you have no basis on which to disparate objections.
You cannot prove the objections are wrong, nor can your prove your support is correct.
All you have is opinion versus opinion, and questions and suggestions as to how to change/fix the Tier system.

Based on your reasonable expectation, and none.

After 8 years of organized play, my reasonable expectation is profoundly lower than yours, as the number I've seen are astounding.

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.

And I'm not arguing that the premise of a Tier system is utterly useless.
I'm telling you that people expressing objections to it have standing to do so, and rather than dismissing them because you are an awesome optimizer and player and so have no issues with measuring things purely on potential is destructive to any actual discussion and advancement of game system analysis.

As I said before, a system measuring potential is useful.
But so would a system measuring optimization. (Particularly noting what Unbeliver said above not actually playing a class after a certain point of ACFs and such.)
And a system of ease of use. (I've got some wonderful anecdotes from my days of wargame playtesting that speak to this.)
And a system that measures innovation within the system. (Again noting what Unbeliever said above, which explains what I was trying to say much better than I did.)

[awaken_D_M_golem]

eggy - sorry on last post, not enough space to indicate changed subjective.

**

Has anybody ever tried to model 4+1 combat?
Presumeably wotc has their original maths somewhere ... were they ever willing to show it.

Semi-Educated guesses could bounce off of the ~known 4e game maths.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

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

  ... or to isolate it even more :  Out-Of-Combat Only.

[eggynack]

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.

 
I can't be sure, but I think what they were getting at was that control weather is simultaneously a really huge carrot and a really huge stick. Meet in peace and see the end of winter come early, and with it a flourishing of your lands. Fail to do so and watch your entire village be consumed by a blizzard. Druids can threaten things on a really large scale. Those other things you listed would be helpful, but they're probably not as meaningful as the incredibly fast mass destruction of everything they hold dear.

This is one of my pet peeves.  Not that I'm calling you out on in it Eggy; it's really common, your comment just made me think of it.  With the exception of the Paladin trading out for much better casting, which arguably means you're not really playing a Paladin anymore, the other optimization options, like Inspire Courage, are at least as easy to find and use as picking a decent spell list is for any caster class.  The latter takes a lot more work, as there are a stultifying number of spells to pick from. 

The sources for inspire courage are pretty obscure. You need to be all the way down in champions of valor, and the champions of valor web enhancement. Druid spells are right there in core, and right in the spell compendium, and so on. Getting the right list might be hard, but it doesn't take that kind of obscure searching, and specific book having.

If you don't know, then you cannot derive a certain conclusion.
Which means the Tier system is a guess at best.

This is just completely unrelated to what I was talking about.

No; optimization is part of play.

This also.

So it isn't guaranteed.
And . . . we still need the player to know what do with the druid.

The player necessarily has access to core, so they're guaranteed to have something really powerful. And they don't really need to know what to do. They could just arbitrarily pick the right spell.

Exactly.
So someone looks at the Tier system, looks at a druid sucking it up, and concludes . . .

Again, unrelated. Your claim was that advice somehow pushes characters to be top heavy, forgoing early play for late power. That claim really isn't true for druids.

So now the rules don't matter?
Then how can you rate it?

The flavor doesn't matter. The rules do matter. The rules say you can direct the animal companion by pointing. You're asking, "Well, can you not direct an animal companion by pointing?" The answer is no. The text says you can.

You mean like . . . now?

Not exactly. You're arguing whether average optimization is a premise, not what that premise implies.

Then you have no basis on which to disparate objections.
You cannot prove the objections are wrong, nor can your prove your support is correct.
All you have is opinion versus opinion, and questions and suggestions as to how to change/fix the Tier system.

We have some basis, at least. Standard practical optimization is fine. Cheese is not fine. Non-optimization is not fine. Such is the way of average optimization.

And I'm not arguing that the premise of a Tier system is utterly useless.
I'm telling you that people expressing objections to it have standing to do so, and rather than dismissing them because you are an awesome optimizer and player and so have no issues with measuring things purely on potential is destructive to any actual discussion and advancement of game system analysis.

I'm fine with objections. I just don't think your objections are credible, because they're largely strictly out of scope for this tier system, and by extension for any tier system. For the record, your critique of the notion of average optimization is stronger, in my opinion, than your claims that optimization should just not be a thing, or that we should somehow consider player skill.

As I said before, a system measuring potential is useful.
But so would a system measuring optimization. (Particularly noting what Unbeliver said above not actually playing a class after a certain point of ACFs and such.)
And a system of ease of use. (I've got some wonderful anecdotes from my days of wargame playtesting that speak to this.)
And a system that measures innovation within the system. (Again noting what Unbeliever said above, which explains what I was trying to say much better than I did.)

Sure. Well, less the last one. I'm not sure how to measure innovation. I guess that'd be a player end thing? Like, I dunno, run those measurements from before, assessing classes against various high CR opponents for percent success, and then run them again with people trying to also use innovation. Or maybe make the challenge to run a commoner against stuff. And then a high tier class, to test innovation with lots of weird resources.

As for ease of use, I think that has been explored. I'm having a bit of difficulty finding the right thread, but as I recall, the system considers build difficulty and play difficulty as independent, and measures classes on both metrics. There's also one for optimization, I think. Saying how powerful a class is at the floor, average optimization, and the ceiling. A lot of neat adaptations to the tier system have been constructed since the original, ones that work to fix the flaws in a rather simple and linear system.

[Unbeliever]

This is one of my pet peeves.  Not that I'm calling you out on in it Eggy; it's really common, your comment just made me think of it.  With the exception of the Paladin trading out for much better casting, which arguably means you're not really playing a Paladin anymore, the other optimization options, like Inspire Courage, are at least as easy to find and use as picking a decent spell list is for any caster class.  The latter takes a lot more work, as there are a stultifying number of spells to pick from. 

The sources for inspire courage are pretty obscure. You need to be all the way down in champions of valor, and the champions of valor web enhancement. Druid spells are right there in core, and right in the spell compendium, and so on. Getting the right list might be hard, but it doesn't take that kind of obscure searching, and specific book having.

Or, y'know, 45 seconds on the internet.  I haven't looked at the Paladin's Handbook here in forever, but I'm pretty sure it's mentioned there prominently.  Along with other options that are even more straightforward. 

And, now we're introducing some whole other metric.  You're going to have to assess some sort of "obscurity of resources" metric, which strikes me as silly to begin with, against an "information overload/proliferation of trap options" one.  Can we really say that it's easier to find out about Champions of Valor than it is to sort through however many spells there are in the PHB + SpC?  That strikes me as dicey, and introducing the kind of implicit bias that I'm calling out, to presume one way or the other.

[eggynack]

Or, y'know, 45 seconds on the internet.  I haven't looked at the Paladin's Handbook here in forever, but I'm pretty sure it's mentioned there prominently.  Along with other options that are even more straightforward. 

And, now we're introducing some whole other metric.  You're going to have to assess some sort of "obscurity of resources" metric, which strikes me as silly to begin with, against an "information overload/proliferation of trap options" one.  Can we really say that it's easier to find out about Champions of Valor than it is to sort through however many spells there are in the PHB + SpC?  That strikes me as dicey, and introducing the kind of implicit bias that I'm calling out, to presume one way or the other.

Book limitation is a real thing though, and actually, obscurity of resources was already a metric in use by the tier system. Theoretically, inspire courage stuff requires that you have book and handbook alike, while spells require only the latter. The web enhancement is pretty accessible though, for obvious reasons. Moreover, the thing about picking good spells is that it can happen accidentally. Sure, some people pick bad spell lists while other people build bad paladins, but, by sheer force of randomness, some really bad players are gonna stumble upon entangle. The same won't really happen with from smite to song, and that's the power of obscurity. Casters are less likely to have a good list without a good optimizer or handbook. Paladins are basically never going to have this stuff without one of those things, and that strikes me as a greater hurdle. I get your general claim though. One of the big issues with power level comparisons at average optimization is that it's easy to say, "This thing over here is at average optimization, and that thing is above it, because I value this metric of optimization more than that one."

Edit: One other key difference is that the list optimization is far more malleable than the build optimization. Spontaneous casters don't have that flexibility, but, say, a cleric, can just keep preparing different spell lists until they hit on a good one. With a paladin, your choices are locked in, either forever or until you can level up and retrain. It's a strong asset, one that can turn a caster from weak to strong overnight. Consider that a paladin needs to get access to this handbook before they make these choices, while the wizard can find one later.

[Samwise]

I can't be sure, but I think what they were getting at was that control weather is simultaneously a really huge carrot and a really huge stick.

You mean a circumstance bonus to Diplomacy or Intimidate.
And that is different from the barbarian breaking some for Intimidate how?

Meet in peace and see the end of winter come early, and with it a flourishing of your lands. Fail to do so and watch your entire village be consumed by a blizzard. Druids can threaten things on a really large scale. Those other things you listed would be helpful, but they're probably not as meaningful as the incredibly fast mass destruction of everything they hold dear.

So a druid upsetting the ecosystem for political reasons.
So much for any semblance of role-playing.
 

The sources for inspire courage are pretty obscure. You need to be all the way down in champions of valor, and the champions of valor web enhancement. Druid spells are right there in core, and right in the spell compendium, and so on. Getting the right list might be hard, but it doesn't take that kind of obscure searching, and specific book having.

So you dismiss me when I note the availability of handbooks and sources for optimization, but appeal to it the minute it is used against you.

This is just completely unrelated to what I was talking about.

Sure it is. You just want to impose a double standard for who can appeal to various elements, as demonstrated above.

I'm fine with objections. I just don't think your objections are credible, because they're largely strictly out of scope for this tier system, and by extension for any tier system. For the record, your critique of the notion of average optimization is stronger, in my opinion, than your claims that optimization should just not be a thing, or that we should somehow consider player skill.

You seem confused.
My objections, and those of others, are that the Tier system does not account for these elements.
That you acknowledge they are not is a confession that they are quite credible.
As for your assertion that such makes them beyond any Tier system is simply absurd on the face of it.

Sure. Well, less the last one. I'm not sure how to measure innovation. I guess that'd be a player end thing? Like, I dunno, run those measurements from before, assessing classes against various high CR opponents for percent success, and then run them again with people trying to also use innovation. Or maybe make the challenge to run a commoner against stuff. And then a high tier class, to test innovation with lots of weird resources.

That is one way.
Another is looking at the vast array of handbooks on miscellaneous and obscure items and how to optimize them.
Indeed, the various Fun Finds threats are pretty much overt demonstrations of that.

As for ease of use, I think that has been explored. I'm having a bit of difficulty finding the right thread, but as I recall, the system considers build difficulty and play difficulty as independent, and measures classes on both metrics. There's also one for optimization, I think. Saying how powerful a class is at the floor, average optimization, and the ceiling. A lot of neat adaptations to the tier system have been constructed since the original, ones that work to fix the flaws in a rather simple and linear system.

Wait . . .
You just said my objections are innately beyond the scope of any tier system, and now you are saying they are part of other discussions.
"That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works."

[eggynack]

You mean a circumstance bonus to Diplomacy or Intimidate.
And that is different from the barbarian breaking some for Intimidate how?

It's way more threatening, would be the big one. I dunno. Mechanically, I can see how they're similar. If we imagine these things as existing in the real world though, it seems way more likely that they'd change their mind because of the druid. That may or may not mean something in the game world.

So a druid upsetting the ecosystem for political reasons.
So much for any semblance of role-playing.

Feh. "Disrupting the encroachment upon the firmament by man no more upsets the ecosystem than treating a rash upsets the man it is placed upon. I may compromise my stance on nature because working with humans is more efficient than acting against them, but don't think for a second that destroying your towns and farms would be harmful to nature in the long run. In the future, I would advise you not to preach to me about what is and isn't in accord with nature. It is my domain, not yours." This especially is really easy to justify. I mean, you were granted weather control abilities by nature itself. You can't be completely barred from using it. It's not like I'm exploding a forest.

So you dismiss me when I note the availability of handbooks and sources for optimization, but appeal to it the minute it is used against you.

No, I dismissed the notion of incredibly low optimization being the only baseline. Casters don't really need sourcebooks, and I don't think I called upon handbooks.

Sure it is. You just want to impose a double standard for who can appeal to various elements, as demonstrated above.

I was addressing a point of yours. You changed the topic and acted like I wasn't talking about that specific point. Thus, completely unrelated.

You seem confused.
My objections, and those of others, are that the Tier system does not account for these elements.
That you acknowledge they are not is a confession that they are quite credible.

Your objection is credible iff the tier system was meant to account for these elements. It wasn't.

As for your assertion that such makes them beyond any Tier system is simply absurd on the face of it.

The tier system could have accounted for optimization better, and didn't. It really couldn't have accounted for this kind of play skill you're citing.

That is one way.
Another is looking at the vast array of handbooks on miscellaneous and obscure items and how to optimize them.
Indeed, the various Fun Finds threats are pretty much overt demonstrations of that.

That's just game object based innovation. I was talking about innovation that's partially based on stuff from outside the game, like your distraction example. Trickier to measure.

Wait . . .
You just said my objections are innately beyond the scope of any tier system, and now you are saying they are part of other discussions.

I think your objections based particularly on player skill are outside of scope, and basically must be so, and the other objections, focusing on optimization and difficulty of use, are known to be out of scope for this handbook, and are difficult to implement, but aren't strictly out of scope for the tier system. The "Barbarians can look really tough by standing in a corner, or can help with infiltration by acting as a distraction," point was relatively weak, because it wasn't particularly based on class or mechanics. The, "Barbarians have a pretty high optimization floor, in spite of their low optimization ceiling, and have decent ease of use on top of that," point is relatively strong, as it derives purely from the game itself, rather than from these less known player end things. I've been a part of the threads that discuss these holes in the tier system. It's not a flawless system, after all. But, typically, said threads are more about finding constructive ways of filling those holes than about poking the holes in the first place, especially because the holes are rather known and obvious. Also, while they are holes, they're not, like, insane holes. The tier system is pretty close to true already. It just doesn't have quite the depth it could and should have.

[Nanshork]

It's nice to know that the facts I stated about the tier system go completely ignored by you two.

[SorO_Lost]

It's nice to know that the facts I stated about the tier system go completely ignored by you two.

Try being me, I've said the Tier thing is troll bait and even went so far as to call out the whole excuses for exclusion thing total bs.

Minor question though, outside of the land of make believe is there anyone reading this, besides Eggy, that doesn't know that D&D Tools is a thing? If not, oops I broke your cherry.

[eggynack]

It's nice to know that the facts I stated about the tier system go completely ignored by you two.

I was aware of the thing you posted. It's just not all that important. No, JaronK didn't claim a particular level of optimization, and yes, that does imply that there is no assumed level, but that doesn't really impact the fact that there totally is an underlying level of optimization. After all, the relative power level of classes changes depending on scale of optimization, based on the already discussed factors of floor/ceiling distance, and class difficulty. So, for example, the level of optimization in the tier system can't be too insanely high, because ToB classes have a really small distance between floor and ceiling, and so they lose tier ground as you up the optimization. Thus, if multiple separate optimization points aren't being considered, there must be some average optimization being used.

Try being me, I've said the Tier thing is troll bait and even went so far as to call out the whole excuses for exclusion thing total bs.

I've definitely responded to that claim. I think those responses were solid, though clearly you disagree. What's inarguable is that your claims didn't go ignored by any stretch of the imagination.

Minor question though, outside of the land of make believe is there anyone reading this, besides Eggy, that doesn't know that D&D Tools is a thing? If not, oops I broke your cherry.

I'm aware of it. I don't assume that everyone else would be, and I don't know that everyone would be comfortable using it as the sole source for things. Also, it's been really wonky lately. The PW version is down, and I think that all the underlying systems for the Alcyius version, including search and filter, use the PW version and thus don't work. Been super annoying, cause I use that thing all the time for various purposes. Also, sometimes people just have book limitations on their games for various reasons. Simple access doesn't necessarily eliminate that.

[Samwise]

It's way more threatening, would be the big one. I dunno. Mechanically, I can see how they're similar. If we imagine these things as existing in the real world though, it seems way more likely that they'd change their mind because of the druid. That may or may not mean something in the game world.

So it is perfectly valid, but you prefer the way the druid does it, therefore the druid "must" be better.

This especially is really easy to justify. I mean, you were granted weather control abilities by nature itself. You can't be completely barred from using it. It's not like I'm exploding a forest.

No, just violating the natural weather, which is likely to destroy the forest long term.
But hey, what's a little eco-disaster if it means making a skill check.

No, I dismissed the notion of incredibly low optimization being the only baseline.

Strawman - I never mandated any such baseline.

I was addressing a point of yours. You changed the topic and acted like I wasn't talking about that specific point. Thus, completely unrelated.

As opposed to the way you change topics whenever needed?

Your objection is credible iff the tier system was meant to account for these elements. It wasn't.

Once again - which is the complaint.
Thus you validate it.

The tier system could have accounted for optimization better, and didn't. It really couldn't have accounted for this kind of play skill you're citing.

Prove it.

That's just game object based innovation. I was talking about innovation that's partially based on stuff from outside the game, like your distraction example. Trickier to measure.

Mine are very much inside the game - gaining circumstance bonuses.
Trickier is not impossible. You've contradicted your absolute declaration already.

I think your objections based particularly on player skill are outside of scope, and basically must be so, and the other objections, focusing on optimization and difficulty of use, are known to be out of scope for this handbook, and are difficult to implement, but aren't strictly out of scope for the tier system.

So then . . . I'm right, but you continue to declare I'm wrong.

But, typically, said threads are more about finding constructive ways of filling those holes than about poking the holes in the first place, especially because the holes are rather known and obvious.

I'd be happy to find constructive ways to fill those holes.
Except of course you refuse to countenance any such discussion, insisting such is not even worthy of discussion.
Kinda, sorta, makes it hard to get to the constructive part when you do that.

Also, while they are holes, they're not, like, insane holes. The tier system is pretty close to true already. It just doesn't have quite the depth it could and should have.

If that were true, nobody would ever complain about it.
And if it doesn't have the depth it could and should have, then you are agreeing it is far close to true.
Never mind arguing with me, you can't even agreeing with yourself.

It's nice to know that the facts I stated about the tier system go completely ignored by you two.

You mean other than me quoting the same passage?
And noting that it acknowledges that variations in optimization and ability will cause wide variations in actual effectiveness?

Try being me, I've said the Tier thing is troll bait and even went so far as to call out the whole excuses for exclusion thing total bs.

Actually, I noted your complaints shortly after I stumbled over the Tier system (from references elsewhere), which is why I'm arguing for alternatives or expansions or what not.
However, I am beginning to think it is more relevant that you are 100% correct about it being troll bait, and there is no reason to even bother trying to discuss it.

[eggynack]

So it is perfectly valid, but you prefer the way the druid does it, therefore the druid "must" be better.

It's not that I prefer it. It's just that it seems bigger impact to me.

No, just violating the natural weather, which is likely to destroy the forest long term.
But hey, what's a little eco-disaster if it means making a skill check.

If you weren't supposed to sometimes control the weather, then you wouldn't be given the ability to control the weather.

Strawman - I never mandated any such baseline.

Fair enough. That's just how I read your whole thing about these considerations necessarily being absent optimization. I'm honestly just not sure what not considering optimization at all means. 

As opposed to the way you change topics whenever needed?

I don't recall having done that, though I'm sorry if I did.

Once again - which is the complaint.
Thus you validate it.

I guess. I suppose my point is that, while it may be a gap, it's not precisely a mistake. Things don't usually do things they're not meant to do, and, when they do, that's a nice bonus. The tier system wasn't built or intended to consider things at multiple optimization levels, so it doesn't. I feel like we agree on this, and are primarily arguing on the semantics of it.

Prove it.

Well, how could it have? We're necessarily ranking mechanical game objects here. How would one consider the ability of a barbarian to do something that any other character would be able to do, where some of those abilities are actually ones that would be present if you just kept the player and subtracted the character from the game? It just doesn't seem to have anything to do with what's being ranked.

Mine are very much inside the game - gaining circumstance bonuses.

Yes, but they're circumstances derived from the player, rather than from the character. Considering an example from earlier, let's say you have that situation where your party is trying to get hired. The barbarian's player says, "We should play up my competence to convince this person to hire us." Everyone agrees on that course of action, and they get a bonus. But, consider a that same scenario, except now the former player is a weird party adviser. Said adviser tells the party to play up the competence of the party wizard to convince the employer. Again it works, and the party still gets that bonus. Thus, in this situation, it's the player outside the game, rather than the character inside the game, granting the bonus.

Trickier is not impossible. You've contradicted your absolute declaration already.

Not necessarily. One can theoretically measure the value of a particular amount of inventiveness on a player's part without that measurement being relevant to the core thing you're seeking to understand, which is the power level of various classes.

So then . . . I'm right, but you continue to declare I'm wrong.

I think you were wrong, before, when you were discussing the barbarian examples and the ramifications of that. I'm not sure if you were wrong about optimization potential, because the meaning of that term and what it's meant to indicate about the system as a whole is unclear. I think you're right that these are gaps in the system, and important ones. I don't know what scale of difference these gaps make, but depending on that claimed scale I may either agree or disagree.

I'd be happy to find constructive ways to fill those holes.
Except of course you refuse to countenance any such discussion, insisting such is not even worthy of discussion.
Kinda, sorta, makes it hard to get to the constructive part when you do that.

To be honest, I think each of us interpreted the other as having positions they didn't have. I think some of these are real holes, but may, depending on the specifics of your position, disagree with you about the impact those holes have on the integrity of the tier system.

If that were true, nobody would ever complain about it.
And if it doesn't have the depth it could and should have, then you are agreeing it is far close to true.

What I mean by that is that the gaps usually represent about 0-1 tiers of difference from reality, with a rare occasion where there are 2 tiers of difference. The overall structure of the tier system thus remains pretty similar with adjustments. A lot of the adaptations to the tier system are less gap filling and more out and out addendums to it. For example, a measurement of class difficulty wouldn't necessarily alter the tier list at all. It's just something you could put under the tier list, as a separate and also important tool.

[SorO_Lost]

However, I am beginning to think it is more relevant that you are 100% correct about it being troll bait, and there is no reason to even bother trying to discuss it.

And this is with one guy who wants to defend it even as everyone else chimes in over various flaws or how they don't use it. Imagine back in it's heyday. >.>

[Nanshork]

Okay, so you both fail at reading comprehension.  That's good to know, I can go back to ignoring the arguments between you two.

Just for clarificaiton, JaronK's teirs are based on all of the classes having, and I'll quote the tier post again, "equivalent player skill and equivalent optimization level".

PLAYER SKILL AND OPTIMIZATION LEVEL ARE VERY EXPLICITLY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE TIER SYSTEM.


Feel free to argue about the tier system, lots of people do.  However, you both keep saying things that aren't true because you didn't read the FAQ.

[eggynack]

Okay, so you both fail at reading comprehension.  That's good to know, I can go back to ignoring the arguments between you two.

Just for clarificaiton, JaronK's teirs are based on all of the classes having, and I'll quote the tier post again, "equivalent player skill and equivalent optimization level".

PLAYER SKILL AND OPTIMIZATION LEVEL ARE VERY EXPLICITLY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THE TIER SYSTEM.

That does mean that optimization is considered, but it doesn't really indicate what particular optimization level is being considered. And, as I noted above, there really does need to be an optimization level considered. At this point though, I just really want to know what "Potential optimization" is actually supposed to mean. It's a weird term.

[SorO_Lost]

Wow Nan, really? I bet your next comment will be how the tier system claims it's a rough estimate guideline as a last resort proof of infallibility, ie it can't be wrong because it called it's self a guideline.
Oranges are green, air is dense.
Roses are Mountain Dew.
This poem makes sense.
Because it doesn't have to.
Well, heck why don't you go ahead and go there so you can agree it's worthless. 

[Nanshork]

I actually don't give a shit about about the tier system, I just hate when people argue about shit without reading all of the source material.

Also, comments like that are why I generally want you to just fuck off.