alt Tiers definition (?)

[SorO_Lost]

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

[oslecamo]

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.

I should point out that it fails by the FAQ as well.

Consider the worst fighter and wizard in the world. They both max cha and dump everything else and pick useless feats and spells and skills. The fighter ends better than the wizard since he has bigger Bab and hp.

[eggynack]

I should point out that it fails by the FAQ as well.

Consider the worst fighter and wizard in the world. They both max cha and dump everything else and pick useless feats and spells and skills. The fighter ends better than the wizard since he has bigger Bab and hp.

Exactly this. The element of the tier system under discussion is fundamentally implicit, rather than explicit, because the notion of equivalent optimization just doesn't tell us enough. The wizard is in its tier because you can kinda average up all these different optimization points, at various levels, and wind up with the overall power level as greater than most other classes. But how the averaging operates, and what the theoretical "average wizard" at the end of the process looks like, is a bit of an open question. I have this vague desire to build a spell list randomly sampling for the individual spell slots, but that doesn't seem like it'd work.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

 


"random" could work, but it'd have to factor in Retraining (if / if not)
Sorc has a little more retrain than average.
PsyRef is way better, level 5 for Psi Arty, level 7 for most Psi, level 10 for Leadership, diplo/gatherinfo in towns not the usual magic mart, level 13 for Limited Wish but very expensive bought earlier.

This could be framed at the All In-Combat on one side ... and All Out-of-Combat on the other.
Like an "all out" Barb, is better than Commoner, but still has lots of leftover combat prowess.
An "all out" Cleric, is almost at Aristocrat in combat, but 24 hours from now it's 1/2 way back to CoDzilla.

[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.

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

What you are getting at is true: balance fixes or categorization do not overwrite play style. Nor do they correct bad player behavior. But a party's gentleman's agreement to play a certain way is different from a gentleman's agreement to not play a broken combo. Balance != behavior. If a party is okay with being CE bastards and killing quest-givers mid-speech because its funny, then you're fine. If not, you are correct that its irrelevant if the disruptive player is a samurai or a StP erudite.

But that doesn't mean that the StP erudite will be weaker or only as powerful as the sumaria once they agree to play the game the way the DM expects. Also, you can make very strange encounters where casters are useless but the tier 6 samurai isn't. See "A job for aquaman" troupe. The assumption in the tier system (or most all boards optimization) is that you are already on the same baseline for not actively disrupting the campaign via roleplaying techniques (like purposely talking over NPCs).

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.

Sam isn't saying that. But I will. I'm totally okay playing, for instance, a swift hunter that sucks at diplomacy and intimidate. When it comes to bending mindblanked NPCs to her will, its legitimate to say "I can't." You can always think outside the box, though. For instance, you could instantly demolish said NPC and then have the party cleric res the NPC. "See, I suck at conveying my threats. But I can still make good on them."

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

the balance issues were never that big in the first place.

3 spells each for 1st-4th, 2 spells for  each for 5th-8th are what a sorc might consider from a small list. Now consider that sorcerers have the largest base class spell list and best in the entire game. Clearly that's a jump in power. It's pretty clear cut: a little over a hundred spells known or a little over two thousand?

But you are correct that much of 3e is already balanced. This is why fixing 3e only requires minimal changes (thought bottle, cough cough) rather than Frank and K overhauls. That "miss" rate for balance is actually pretty good. In the almost 500 source books and almost 900 web articles, there are only about 200 minor changes needed. See my sig to download the list (and yes sorc tier scrunching is already in there).

he never gave a shit about accurately listing things; only arguing he was right.

I think that's a little unfair. He was a little sloppy, but where he dropped off the boards (and indexers like me) have picked up and finished everything.

And I don't care about being right; only getting a board-driven consensus. When I was going for 100% completion I asked lots of opinions and only in instances of silence did the work no one else would. In my complete ranking there have been very few challenges to it, all from the 'favorite class' line of thought, and (aside from your artificer objections) no one has steadily claimed that any one particular class was off by more than one tier. And even I admit artificers only need a few infusions banned to put them into t3 (see sig).

[SorO_Lost]

But that doesn't mean that the StP erudite will be weaker or only as powerful as the sumaria once they agree to play the game the way the DM expects. Also, you can make very strange encounters where casters are useless but the tier 6 samurai isn't. See "A job for aquaman" troupe. The assumption in the tier system (or most all boards optimization) is that you are already on the same baseline for not actively disrupting the campaign via roleplaying techniques (like purposely talking over NPCs).

Your paragraph suggests that you're not quite picking up what I'm laying down but the underline text says you're close. Let's pretend you don't play Chess, or better yet since you probably don't know how to play Shogi so let's use that; the Lance piece is generally considered better than the Gold piece.

And based off that information, let's play Shogi and see if that fixes anything.

(click to show/hide)

Oh, you're not even sure what that means? Well Shogi is like Chess, come on now and keep up. And Hey, did I mention Lances are the best pieces in the game?

(click to show/hide)

Hey that other guy over there is saying Lances suck, their stuck in the corner and often murdered by your captured Pawn. You'd better yell at him because seriously in my grading rubic Lances need their respect man. Seriously, saying Lances own is all you need to know to competently run a game on the table without problems.

(click to show/hide)

Come on, my solution is the best. Look at the few people that already know how to play Shogi agreed with me over the thousands that don't, they said my guide was useful and that's all that matters.

(click to show/hide)

Are you picking up what I'm laying down now? Probably not, but how does ranking Classes based on who you think is more useful than the other going to teach anyone about D&D? Now go back up and read the underlined text.

(click to show/hide)

Did you read it? No, I bet you skipped it. I'll wait.

(click to show/hide)

So question, what is the "base line" in D&D? Like you can say a Rogue is more useful than a Fighter because the Rogue can disable a trap but in the only game I've ever played we didn't even come across a single trap. *dun-dun-dunnn!*

(click to show/hide)

Setting up the expectation that some Classes cannot break the game and others cannot avoid breaking the game also sets up the expectation that every game will run smoothly if you just play weak Classes. The problem is the game's expectations will beat the crap out of a group that doesn't meet certain standards. So now the newbie DM has to compensate and adjust things putting a larger workload on him self since he can't use any published Adventures. This also causes several problems in the long run, because no one in that group played correctly when disbanded and reformed with new players everyone walks in with different personal expectations of what the base line should or shouldn't be.

Another large people is pretty much this entire thread in a tl;dr. This entire time I've been telling you a Lance is awesome and that's a big fat lie, they barely rank above a Pawn. But is that thought sat in your mind for a bit and you invested into it a few times you won't give the idea up so easily. You'll actually end up arguing that the Lance is some kind of amazing piece that in certain circumstances is totally better than several other pieces making it useful, a must have, and if someone disagrees they just don't understand the piece like you do. It's an integral part of your army and a good general uses every piece to his advantage. Heaven forbid you ever understand or admit the truth: The Lance being awesome is a lie and ranking the pieces does not teach anyone how to play Shogi.

(click to show/hide)

So at this point I'm betting your sick of clicking on the spoiler button and haven't even read any of the text yet. So read it and have another button.

(click to show/hide)

Correctly addressing the real problem on the tabletop starts with behavior will set the mood for cooperation which will allow you to resolve issues without devolving into yet-another-troll-fest-like-this-sorry-excuse-for-a-thread.

Secondly, establishing real and clear expectations of the game in the mind's of the players will give them the ability to gauge their effectiveness. Sort of give a man a Wand and he Fireballs fifty times, teach a man to be a Wizard and he fireballs until he dies. Why do we have fights about AC? Because people have been falsely told AC is great. Why do we have fights about Barbarians? Because someone told them they are better than Fighters. Why do we have Eggy bitching at everyone in the thread? Because he was told JK's thread is important.

Thirdly, and this is the part that you're all going on about like it's the most important thing. Is D&D complex enough that there will be bad choices and good ones? Yes. But what defines a "good" choice? The knowledge of if it's good or not, and what's that based off of? An accurate knowledge and expectation of the game. As I've said before it's pointlessly trivial to know Spellcasting rules, but not only because who beats who is pretty fucking irrelevant but because Spellcasters have even more bad options than a non-caster does. It's why, for example, the Dungeoncrasher Fighter was ranked about the Fighter in the original list. In JK's experience on the table of a not so accurate game one Fighter build appeared superior to another. One player made bad choices but because "good" and "bad" were never explained someone thought they were "good" choices. What really matters isn't that Wizard>Fighter, it's good choices that exceed expectations, either intended or not, are better than bad ones.

And there is no education in saying a Lance>All, in fact it's utterly contrary to the end goal. As this thread is a living demonstrating of, all it does is push petty arguments back and forth. No one is actually getting any help or guidance and if they think they are, it's because they are being misled.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

We are beyond the thread at this point but concerning your Russian doll spoilers:

• Why would you think I wouldn't read them? Clearly an optimizer who's poured through dozens upon dozens of source books doesn't mind a few paragraphs.
• Whether or not replies end up trolly isn't the fault of the OP, even if you know the responses will go down hill.
• Expectations: I know you're trying to get at a larger point, but I don't believe people are robots. I don't notice (if there are anymore) fights about AC. I don't find it hard to believe that the lancer is less than useful piece in shogi. If I was told otherwise, I'd find out for myself that it wasn't.
• I don't know why eggy was rubbing you the wrong way, but I consider it a good possibility that he wasn't merely told that the tiers were important. He really thinks they are and would have come to that conclusion on his own. You have to accept that some people will simply disagree with you, even after they really understand your logic. For instance I often defend your sometimes surprisingly insightful logic, but I also think that the tiers a bit more of a useful pedagogical tool than you might. And that's okay. I don't feel the need to start threads about it, but it is one of those things that players expect to be 'fixed' (whether or not it is really necessary)
• Your good choice bad choice model is a little circular. I think you're trying to say that things like trapfinding are useless if you don't end up using it (because the DM doesn't include traps in the campaign). But unless a DM tells those playing the kinds of encounters (yes, traps are encounters) they are likely or even are able to find (which is rare, but nonetheless encouraged), the player doesn't know and has to prepare for as many as they care to as well as they care to.
• You also seem to be a bit vague about how the tiers are misleading those who follow their guidelines. You often do a very good job at tossing away others arguments (so presumably you understand them?) but do a poor job of illustrating your own. As a result only someone good at interpreting others (like me) is left to respond to the critical, but often terse, counterpoints you offer. I think you are basically agreeing with my 'job for aquaman' reference above but taking it a bit too far by saying things like "well how do you know your dungeon crasher will be more useful to the party than that extreme range archery fighter? Maybe they will always be in wide open spaces!" This is true, of course. It's possible. But the game is called Dungeons & Dragons, so it's likely that a dungeon will be involved somewhere. And while I have a special place for long range archery, people often protest to builds like that for the same reason they think reverse gravity is overpowed: few, if any, flat featureless plains. These are both 'expectations' of course, but that doesn't mean that the question 'on average, which one is more useful' is pointless. Maybe DMs could get together and see if the various niches PCs can fulfill are being represented, but I don't think that's necessary. You are free to disagree, and the issue is a bit more complicated than it seems at first glance, but I'm not sure I'm being overly misled.

[Kaelik]

You also seem to be a bit vague about how the tiers are misleading those who follow their guidelines.

How on earth does one "follow the guidelines" of the Tier system? What possible alterations of play do these "guidelines" people "follow" actually result in?

These are both 'expectations' of course, but that doesn't mean that the question 'on average, which one is more useful' is pointless.

Do you mean to tell me that the Tier system is supposed to say one average which class is more useful? Because they sure do a terrible job of that.

people often protest to builds like that for the same reason they think reverse gravity isn't overpowering: few, if any, flat featureless plains.

"Area:   Up to one 10-ft. cube per two levels (S)"

Not sure how floating 10-100ft up if you can't fly is supposed to be overpowered for failing a Reflex save on a 7th level spell. I mean, you could also literally be swallowed by the earth for that, to say nothing of fort or will saves which literally kill you.

Presumably if you can't fly as a level 13 character you have ranged attacks.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Wrong sense of 'follow'. I was vague there. I mean "believe" rather than "execute instructions."

The tier system kind of does. It's the reason I'd prefer an archivist to a lurk as an ally.

We agree about reverse gravity. I had an extra negation there. I've edited the post.

[Kaelik]

Wrong sense of 'follow'. I was vague there. I mean "believe" rather than "execute instructions."

The tier system kind of does. It's the reason I'd prefer an archivist to a lurk as an ally.

1) I still want to know what actual effects "believing" in the Tiers has. If the answer is "literally none" then it seems pretty pointless. If the answer is anything at all, I want to know what it is.

2) If the real reason you would prefer an Archivist to a Lurk is "because the Tier system ranks them higher" then a) you might be a huge idiot.
b) Does that mean that you would prefer an Archivist to a Beguiler?
c) Does that mean that you would prefer a Sorcerer to a Beguiler or Dread Necro?

[eggynack]

1) I still want to know what actual effects "believing" in the Tiers has. If the answer is "literally none" then it seems pretty pointless. If the answer is anything at all, I want to know what it is.

I can think of two effects that that belief can have off the top of my head. . The most obvious ramification is that you generally don't want to bring a character in that's too far away tier-wise from the rest of the party, assuming roughly equal talent between you and the other players. So, using only that heuristic as a guide, as opposed to personal preference factors, one can say that they'd prefer to play an archivist to a beguiler in a party with a wizard, a cleric, and a druid, and they'd prefer the beguiler when the other party members are a warblade, a totemist, and a dread necromancer. party imbalance is one of the core things the tier system seeks to address, and following the system's rough guidelines will likely get you closer to that result than you would otherwise (unless, of course, you just know the system inside and out, in which case you'd probably not be impacted one way or the other).

The other ramification touches on the kinda thing you were talking about, except people don't necessarily place a premium on higher tier. Some people like the sort of game play that tier one promotes, highly deep and complex on a mechanical level with a ton of counterplay, some prefer something around tier three, where you have a solid but not overwhelming quantity of options and can often find a way to participate, and some prefer one of the lower tiers, classes where your participation in a given problem depends on your ability to construct out of the box solutions that aren't dependent on mechanics explicitly drawn out in advance, and where you more frequently have to struggle and even run away. Of course, one can get a good idea of how well a class reflects their play style by just knowing the class well, but for those who lack that knowledge the tier system can be a handy resource. Speaking personally, I prefer playing at a higher tier because I enjoy that kinda complexity and depth of choice.

[Kaelik]

The most obvious ramification is that you generally don't want to bring a character in that's too far away tier-wise from the rest of the party, assuming roughly equal talent between you and the other players.

So the first implication is that it misleads and deludes people, by telling them that Rogue would really prefer a Barbarian in their party, not some kind of filthy Wizard that casts Glitterdust, because the no one wants a filthy Wizard around!

Yep, kind of proving the the point that the Tier system is bad and terrible and deludes fools.

So, using only that heuristic as a guide, as opposed to personal preference factors, one can say that they'd prefer to play an archivist to a beguiler in a party with a wizard, a cleric, and a druid, and they'd prefer the beguiler when the other party members are a warblade, a totemist, and a dread necromancer. party imbalance is one of the core things the tier system seeks to address, and following the system's rough guidelines will likely get you closer to that result than you would otherwise

So it sounds like what the Tier system is doing is making sure the party is imbalanced because of it's own dumb failures. If the same player could play either class, the same player would be more balanced in both parties of:

Beguiler/Wizard/Cleric/Druid and Archivist/Warblade/Totemist/Dread Necromancer

Than with Beguiler and Archivist reversed.

If they player isn't going to jump through hoops to spell acquisition, then the Beguiler bring trap finding, diplomacy, and spontaneous casting of pretty good spells, and maybe a minion army. Where the Archivist casts like a shitty Cleric who wakes up every day with fewer spells per day or worse save DCs, pick one.

If the player is going to jump through hoops to spell acquisition, then the Beguiler spontaneously casts from a huge list of really good spells and can easily keep up with Wizards and Clerics and Druid, and the Archivist is like a shitty Wizard who has fewer spells per day or lower DCs and also knows a couple good Druid spells, and an occasional other spell at a low level.

In both cases the Archivist is the odd man out in the Wizard party, where he doesn't contribute much, where the Beguiler always has something to do. In both cases the lower level party is a perfect fit for the Archivist, where the Beguiler would, if anything, remind everyone else how little he needs them.*

*Dread Necromancer excepted, since it's just like the Beguiler, but if the Dread Necro is a different player, it could be played at a lower optimization level.

And that's the point, the Archivist is just not a "higher tier" class than the Beguiler, it's a special snowflake class that JaronK liked, so he said "well obviously the DM is going to let you contract a 12th level Warlock make Divine Scrolls of Divine Bard Spells and Alternate Spell Source Assassin and Trapsmith Spells because it's a special Tier 1 class, and Tier 1 classes are VERSATILE!" But then he didn't like Beguilers so he turned around and said "What of course not, no Beguiler every spends feats or PrCs for more spells to cast, they definitely don't get their first Prestige Domain at level 2 and then use the Substitute Domain Spell to repick domains whenever they want and then spontaneously cast off the entire Cleric list! That's optimization, and filthy bad Tier 3 classes don't do optimization to expand their spell list!"

Which then leads to people, 8 years later, claiming with a straight face that if a single player has a choice between Beguiler and Archivist, that the exact same player will someone optimize the Archivist a different amount than the Beguiler, because the Beguiler expanded spell list tricks are "Just totally out there man" and the Archivist tricks are "Just something you do if you are an Archivist."

The other ramification touches on the kinda thing you were talking about, except people don't necessarily place a premium on higher tier. Some people like the sort of game play that tier one promotes, highly deep and complex on a mechanical level with a ton of counterplay, some prefer something around tier three, where you have a solid but not overwhelming quantity of options and can often find a way to participate, and some prefer one of the lower tiers

I think you are basically just proving Soro_Lost's point. You actually believe that different tiers produce different playstyles. This is literally you falling for "Lancer is the best piece" hook line and sinker. There is nothing about being a Dread Necromancer or Sorcerer or Wizard that creates a different playstyle. And playstyle choice comes later when you choose to band Planar Binding from the Dread Necro in your head cannon because he's not Tier 1!

[eggynack]

So the first implication is that it misleads and deludes people, by telling them that Rogue would really prefer a Barbarian in their party, not some kind of filthy Wizard that casts Glitterdust, because the no one wants a filthy Wizard around!

Yep, kind of proving the the point that the Tier system is bad and terrible and deludes fools.

How is that misleading? A wizard is obviously incredibly useful to have around, but they can also trivialize an encounter that a rogue of equal level would be equipped to face. What are you even trying to say here? That a wizard won't sometimes invalidate the efforts of lower tier classes? Because I think they very much can do that, and at pretty moderate optimization levels at that.

So it sounds like what the Tier system is doing is making sure the party is imbalanced because of it's own dumb failures. If the same player could play either class, the same player would be more balanced in both parties of:

Beguiler/Wizard/Cleric/Druid and Archivist/Warblade/Totemist/Dread Necromancer

Than with Beguiler and Archivist reversed.

If they player isn't going to jump through hoops to spell acquisition, then the Beguiler bring trap finding, diplomacy, and spontaneous casting of pretty good spells, and maybe a minion army. Where the Archivist casts like a shitty Cleric who wakes up every day with fewer spells per day or worse save DCs, pick one.

If the player is going to jump through hoops to spell acquisition, then the Beguiler spontaneously casts from a huge list of really good spells and can easily keep up with Wizards and Clerics and Druid, and the Archivist is like a shitty Wizard who has fewer spells per day or lower DCs and also knows a couple good Druid spells, and an occasional other spell at a low level.

In both cases the Archivist is the odd man out in the Wizard party, where he doesn't contribute much, where the Beguiler always has something to do. In both cases the lower level party is a perfect fit for the Archivist, where the Beguiler would, if anything, remind everyone else how little he needs them.*

*Dread Necromancer excepted, since it's just like the Beguiler, but if the Dread Necro is a different player, it could be played at a lower optimization level.

And that's the point, the Archivist is just not a "higher tier" class than the Beguiler, it's a special snowflake class that JaronK liked, so he said "well obviously the DM is going to let you contract a 12th level Warlock make Divine Scrolls of Divine Bard Spells and Alternate Spell Source Assassin and Trapsmith Spells because it's a special Tier 1 class, and Tier 1 classes are VERSATILE!" But then he didn't like Beguilers so he turned around and said "What of course not, no Beguiler every spends feats or PrCs for more spells to cast, they definitely don't get their first Prestige Domain at level 2 and then use the Substitute Domain Spell to repick domains whenever they want and then spontaneously cast off the entire Cleric list! That's optimization, and filthy bad Tier 3 classes don't do optimization to expand their spell list!"

Which then leads to people, 8 years later, claiming with a straight face that if a single player has a choice between Beguiler and Archivist, that the exact same player will someone optimize the Archivist a different amount than the Beguiler, because the Beguiler expanded spell list tricks are "Just totally out there man" and the Archivist tricks are "Just something you do if you are an Archivist."

Well, y'know, I just straight up disagree with your assessment of the archivist. The hoops you have to jump through for spell acquisition aren't that massive. You just have to know a caster of whatever variety you want the spell of, and have scribe scroll, which archivists do indeed have. Really straightforward stuff, especially for your more standard pool of cleric and druid spells. That any cleric or druid is going to have access to nearly all cleric and druid spells also means that you don't exactly need to be picky. And, if you're casting a broad subset of all cleric and druid spells that exist, particularly the best ones that exist, then you are a very powerful character, even if you can't pull out some super obscure crap.

But that's pretty close to worst-case, having to rely on found casters to get your spells working. In reality, based on the way finding magic items works, you can often just kinda, y'know, find scrolls. Like a wizard does. The thing about getting divine bard and trapsmith scrolls is great, sure. It really ups your power to be getting these spells at lower level. But it's not like those things are strictly necessary for your power. They're just nice to have. If you're only getting those cleric and druid spells, you're tier one already, and justifiably so, because those spell lists alone, hell, either spell list independently, is very much sufficient to get a huge edge over the beguiler list.

The difference between broader beguiler spell access and broader archivist spell access, incidentally, is that the archivist version is coming right from your class. This isn't some trick, as you implied. Everything you need to get a great spell list is right there in archivist, while beguiler needs to go book diving to get their power.

I think you are basically just proving Soro_Lost's point. You actually believe that different tiers produce different playstyles. This is literally you falling for "Lancer is the best piece" hook line and sinker. There is nothing about being a Dread Necromancer or Sorcerer or Wizard that creates a different playstyle. And playstyle choice comes later when you choose to band Planar Binding from the Dread Necro in your head cannon because he's not Tier 1!

Are you seriously claiming that a wizard and a cleric aren't going to play more similarly than a fighter and monk, or that a warblade and a totemist also don't operate more similarly? Wizards have access to thousands of spells that they can choose between on a roughly daily basis. Even if we ignore everything else and consider a wizard who has already decided to cast a particular summoning spell, there is still more complexity, just on a strictly combinatoric level, than a fighter gets from their entire class as applies to combat. A dread necromancer gets closer in terms of complexity and breadth of options, but they obviously aren't getting as many as a wizard. The former class is practically a subset of the latter in terms of capabilities. They can get closer if you consider non-class elements, but they're still not hitting that same level, and that's not really what the tier system is looking at anyway. And the warblade doesn't even hit that dread necro level of complexity.

Anyways, you're being really weird here. I thought you were genuinely curious about what implications the tier system could have if you think it works. But now, even though you had already assumed that premise in your question, you're just taking arbitrary pot shots at the thing. While I do think the tier system holds together pretty well in terms of its evaluations, that's not what my post was about at all. The post was about what it means if you think the evaluations hold true, and take the system to heart. Really, it seems like your whole argument is, "JaronK misevaluated the list casters, because he ignored effects that add spells to their list, so the entire system is bunk and anyone that uses it is an idiot." Which, personally, strikes me as something of a ridiculous argument.

[Kaelik]

How is that misleading? A wizard is obviously incredibly useful to have around, but they can also trivialize an encounter that a rogue of equal level would be equipped to face. What are you even trying to say here? That a wizard won't sometimes invalidate the efforts of lower tier classes? Because I think they very much can do that, and at pretty moderate optimization levels at that.

I think literally none of the statements you make ever make sense at all because you seem to have literally no conception of equal application of standards. A Barbarian can trivialize encounters that a Rogue would not be equipped to face too. That's probably not even a bad thing to have different people have different strengths in the same party, but a Wizard and a Rogue in the same party is about how two people work together to complement each other with different strengths, where a Rogue/Barbarian is about how one is just better than the other (depending on build).

Sure you can claim that the Wizard Planar Binds 50 Glabrezu's to fight for him, but that's fine, because the Rogue just uses a staff of Holy Word ect. at Caster level 50.

Well, y'know, I just straight up disagree with your assessment of the archivist. The hoops you have to jump through for spell acquisition aren't that massive. You just have to know a caster of whatever variety you want the spell of, and have scribe scroll, which archivists do indeed have. Really straightforward stuff, especially for your more standard pool of cleric and druid spells. That any cleric or druid is going to have access to nearly all cleric and druid spells also means that you don't exactly need to be picky. And, if you're casting a broad subset of all cleric and druid spells that exist, particularly the best ones that exist, then you are a very powerful character, even if you can't pull out some super obscure crap.

But that's pretty close to worst-case, having to rely on found casters to get your spells working. In reality, based on the way finding magic items works, you can often just kinda, y'know, find scrolls. Like a wizard does. The thing about getting divine bard and trapsmith scrolls is great, sure. It really ups your power to be getting these spells at lower level. But it's not like those things are strictly necessary for your power. They're just nice to have. If you're only getting those cleric and druid spells, you're tier one already, and justifiably so, because those spell lists alone, hell, either spell list independently, is very much sufficient to get a huge edge over the beguiler list.

The difference between broader beguiler spell access and broader archivist spell access, incidentally, is that the archivist version is coming right from your class. This isn't some trick, as you implied. Everything you need to get a great spell list is right there in archivist, while beguiler needs to go book diving to get their power.

So let's see:

1) If an Archivist casts Cleric and Druid spells "but only the best ones!" aka the ones that he bothers to find scrolls of because his casting is objectively worse than Cleric and Druid casting, then he's a piece of shit next to the Wizard/Cleric/Druid and he's the clear worst person in the party. But he fits in with the other party well, since his fewer spells per day and/or worse save DCs is totally fine when he's providing a bunch of stuff that no one else is and has a clear place. Almost like he shouldn't be in the same party with a Wizard/Cleric/Druid, and should instead be in a party with other characters.

2) "I personally see spell acquisition tricks for the Archivist as just something Archivists do, but I don't know why any Beguiler would do it!" Yes I know you think that, because the entire internet culture has been saying that for 8 years straight because JaronK once told them it was true. But that's the point. The Beguiler has the best method for adding spells in existence, but everyone assumes it's just crazy talk to actually do that for... well basically no reason.

Are you seriously claiming that a wizard and a cleric aren't going to play more similarly than a fighter and monk, or that a warblade and a totemist also don't operate more similarly?

Are you seriously claiming that a Wizard and an Artificer and a Beguiler and a Warblade? Or a Barbarian and a Rogue?

Or is it perhaps the case that the Wizard and the Beguiler and the Warblade and the Barbarian are the most similar play style groupings of all that group, with the Archivist and the Rogue playing differently from all the others and each other?

You don't get points for accidentally stumbling upon the idea that Clerics and Wizards are similar in concept. If the system bats 50% then it is terrible for telling people to play Tier X because they have the same playstyle.

Wizards have access to thousands of spells that they can choose between on a roughly daily basis. Even if we ignore everything else and consider a wizard who has already decided to cast a particular summoning spell, there is still more complexity, just on a strictly combinatoric level, than a fighter gets from their entire class as applies to combat. A dread necromancer gets closer in terms of complexity and breadth of options, but they obviously aren't getting as many as a wizard. The former class is practically a subset of the latter in terms of capabilities. They can get closer if you consider non-class elements, but they're still not hitting that same level, and that's not really what the tier system is looking at anyway. And the warblade doesn't even hit that dread necro level of complexity.

And here you seem to be implying that the only possible metric of playstyle is complexity? Even though that is literally the least important metric, since most complexity is only a measure of your own character tracking, and has no imposition on the group, even though something like Chargadin has a huge effect on the group and basically demands playstyle accommodation.

Anyways, you're being really weird here. I thought you were genuinely curious about what implications the tier system could have if you think it works. But now, even though you had already assumed that premise in your question, you're just taking arbitrary pot shots at the thing. While I do think the tier system holds together pretty well in terms of its evaluations, that's not what my post was about at all. The post was about what it means if you think the evaluations hold true, and take the system to heart. Really, it seems like your whole argument is, "JaronK misevaluated the list casters, because he ignored effects that add spells to their list, so the entire system is bunk and anyone that uses it is an idiot." Which, personally, strikes me as something of a ridiculous argument.

The particular crazy thing you claim the Tiers are useful for is always going to reflect the problems with "using the Tier System" which is the point. The reason most sane people defending the Tier system prefer to be vague about it's benefits is precisely because as soon as you say "The Tier system tells us that it's better for Rogues to be in a party with a Barbarian than a Wizard" or "Isn't it interesting how Beguilers and Warblades have the same playstyle, but Sorcerers and Beguiler have completely different playstyles and so shouldn't be in the same party?" You sound like a crazy person.

[eggynack]

I think literally none of the statements you make ever make sense at all because you seem to have literally no conception of equal application of standards. A Barbarian can trivialize encounters that a Rogue would not be equipped to face too. That's probably not even a bad thing to have different people have different strengths in the same party, but a Wizard and a Rogue in the same party is about how two people work together to complement each other with different strengths, where a Rogue/Barbarian is about how one is just better than the other (depending on build).

I'm not talking about encounters ill suited to one character's strengths. I'm talking about an encounter where the rogue would have a solid success chance, because the encounter was designed roughly around the rogue's power level, and the
wizard trivializes it through the massive power of casting. Or, conversely, an encounter designed around the wizard that trivializes the rogue. This isn't a matter of specialization, because the wizard has far far more ways to make that happen than the rogue does.

1) If an Archivist casts Cleric and Druid spells "but only the best ones!" aka the ones that he bothers to find scrolls of because his casting is objectively worse than Cleric and Druid casting, then he's a piece of shit next to the Wizard/Cleric/Druid and he's the clear worst person in the party. But he fits in with the other party well, since his fewer spells per day and/or worse save DCs is totally fine when he's providing a bunch of stuff that no one else is and has a clear place. Almost like he shouldn't be in the same party with a Wizard/Cleric/Druid, and should instead be in a party with other characters.

That's a particularly bad comparison for the archivist, because the only cleric/druid archivist is going to wind up a bit worse at either the cleric or druid at their own shtick. Not that much worse, because they can scribe from their party members, but somewhat so. However, if you instead assume a party with only a wizard, or just without a divine caster, then the archivist may in fact be a better choice than either cleric or druid. You could get similar results to the ones you're claiming by comparing a wizard to an arbitrary other tier one in a party with wizards aplenty.

2) "I personally see spell acquisition tricks for the Archivist as just something Archivists do, but I don't know why any Beguiler would do it!" Yes I know you think that, because the entire internet culture has been saying that for 8 years straight because JaronK once told them it was true. But that's the point. The Beguiler has the best method for adding spells in existence, but everyone assumes it's just crazy talk to actually do that for... well basically no reason.

It's not some personal opinion. It is objective fact that archivists have all the tools needed for spell acquisition natively available,  while beguilers do not. That divine scrolls exist in the world, specific ones at that, is a rule of the game.

Are you seriously claiming that a Wizard and an Artificer and a Beguiler and a Warblade? Or a Barbarian and a Rogue?

Or is it perhaps the case that the Wizard and the Beguiler and the Warblade and the Barbarian are the most similar play style groupings of all that group, with the Archivist and the Rogue playing differently from all the others and each other?

You don't get points for accidentally stumbling upon the idea that Clerics and Wizards are similar in concept. If the system bats 50% then it is terrible for telling people to play Tier X because they have the same playstyle.

And here you seem to be implying that the only possible metric of playstyle is complexity? Even though that is literally the least important metric, since most complexity is only a measure of your own character tracking, and has no imposition on the group, even though something like Chargadin has a huge effect on the group and basically demands playstyle accommodation.

Complexity is the main metric I was talking about, as opposed to an absolute claim surrounding the game, so perhaps I misspoke in indicating a more general idea. And I think it's a pretty important metric. It doesn't tell other people what sort of character you have by any means, but it's not supposed to. It's more about what it's like to play a character, and how much thought and strategy go into it. I wasn't talking at all about total party make up there. That was relegated to the previous claim.

The particular crazy thing you claim the Tiers are useful for is always going to reflect the problems with "using the Tier System" which is the point. The reason most sane people defending the Tier system prefer to be vague about it's benefits is precisely because as soon as you say "The Tier system tells us that it's better for Rogues to be in a party with a Barbarian than a Wizard" or "Isn't it interesting how Beguilers and Warblades have the same playstyle, but Sorcerers and Beguiler have completely different playstyles and so shouldn't be in the same party?" You sound like a crazy person.

The first claim I still contend is true. I think keeping the power level of different classes in a party similar is useful, and I think also that a wizard is significantly more powerful than a rogue. The second claim is just not one I made, and if you think it's implied somehow then I'll say right here that I don't think it's true. When I spoke of playstyle, I meant it in personal preference terms. I like things complex and strategic on a mechanical level, so I'd go tier one in a vacuum. Playstyle there was referring more to what the class is like to play, not the style of the overall campaign

[Kaelik]

I'm not talking about encounters ill suited to one character's strengths. I'm talking about an encounter where the rogue would have a solid success chance, because the encounter was designed roughly around the rogue's power level, and the
wizard trivializes it through the massive power of casting. Or, conversely, an encounter designed around the wizard that trivializes the rogue. This isn't a matter of specialization, because the wizard has far far more ways to make that happen than the rogue does.

This is the Classic Tier fallacy in a not completely distilled form (The Distilled Form is Sorcerers). The fact that theoretically some Wizard might use Planar Binding Cheese is not relevant if the Wizard in question isn't using it. Classes are not in fact the potential to break the game in X ways. Classes are structures on which you build a character, if you build literally any fucking Wizard that you would expect to be allowed to play by a DM who was going to use the CR system to present opposition, then you would have to build a Wizard who doesn't Planar Binding Cheese/Dominate and instead does literally anything else, at which point, he works with the Rogue in the party, not against him.

That's a particularly bad comparison for the archivist, because the only cleric/druid archivist is going to wind up a bit worse at either the cleric or druid at their own shtick. Not that much worse, because they can scribe from their party members, but somewhat so. However, if you instead assume a party with only a wizard, or just without a divine caster, then the archivist may in fact be a better choice than either cleric or druid. You could get similar results to the ones you're claiming by comparing a wizard to an arbitrary other tier one in a party with wizards aplenty.

No, if you have a party of 3 Wizards, they 4th Wizard will always be as good as the other Wizards. It's the Archivists Fault that he is just a Worse version of the Cleric. But no, the comparison is not unfair, because it's literally the same comparison Tierers demand of the Beguiler the "THEY CAN'T GET EXTRA SPELLS! THAT'S CHEATING!" Comparison. If the Archivists do dumpsterdive, then yes, they can totally be worse Wizards instead of worse Clerics, but then the Beguiler can also add spells and be better Clerics instead.

It's not some personal opinion. It is objective fact that archivists have all the tools needed for spell acquisition natively available,  while beguilers do not. That divine scrolls exist in the world, specific ones at that, is a rule of the game.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! "It's objective fact that is just a rule of the game that Archivists can go find Warlocks to create Alternate Spell Source Trapsmith spells." Look, you know what is objectively a rule of the game? Taking feats and levels. The things that give Beguilers more spells. Those are native parts of all characters, and Beguilers get them too. The only difference is that Beguilers get more benefit than anyone else.

Complexity is the main metric I was talking about, as opposed to an absolute claim surrounding the game, so perhaps I misspoke in indicating a more general idea. And I think it's a pretty important metric. It doesn't tell other people what sort of character you have by any means, but it's not supposed to. It's more about what it's like to play a character, and how much thought and strategy go into it. I wasn't talking at all about total party make up there. That was relegated to the previous claim.

So again, you ignore that Dread Necromancer is more complex and requires more planning to play a character than any other character class, and that Beguiler is easily comparable to Clerics and Wizards, if not more complex. And yet we are supposed to believe that the Tier system is a great measure of the complexity of the classes. Even though Rogue and Barbarian are completely different.

So again, at the absolute best (and of course, you are still wrong) the Tiers say "Class X is more complex than Class Y."

The first claim I still contend is true.

Again, I can only laugh at the idea that Rogues should be in parties with Barbarians, where one is guaranteed to be the basic bitch while the other wins everything forever, instead of having a party with different talents.

I think also that a wizard is significantly more powerful than a rogue.

You are missing some words, specifically the ones where you say "except all the times they aren't which is most of the time."

[awaken_D_M_golem]

... Whether or not replies end up trolly isn't the fault of the OP ...

(cough) ... ahem ... kitty avatar's Tail  says what?

  

[eggynack]

This is the Classic Tier fallacy in a not completely distilled form (The Distilled Form is Sorcerers). The fact that theoretically some Wizard might use Planar Binding Cheese is not relevant if the Wizard in question isn't using it. Classes are not in fact the potential to break the game in X ways. Classes are structures on which you build a character, if you build literally any fucking Wizard that you would expect to be allowed to play by a DM who was going to use the CR system to present opposition, then you would have to build a Wizard who doesn't Planar Binding Cheese/Dominate and instead does literally anything else, at which point, he works with the Rogue in the party, not against him.

The wizard has a lot that isn't planar binding cheese, and a lot of that stuff is more powerful than what the rogue brings to the table. Planar binding is obviously great, don't get me wrong, and it's doubly so if you're wish looping, but when I say that I think wizards are more powerful than rogues, I mean it in a moderate optimization context, with the wizard skipping at least the higher order uses of planar binding (or all of them) and instead using spells like acid fog and true seeing.

No, if you have a party of 3 Wizards, they 4th Wizard will always be as good as the other Wizards. It's the Archivists Fault that he is just a Worse version of the Cleric. But no, the comparison is not unfair, because it's literally the same comparison Tierers demand of the Beguiler the "THEY CAN'T GET EXTRA SPELLS! THAT'S CHEATING!" Comparison. If the Archivists do dumpsterdive, then yes, they can totally be worse Wizards instead of worse Clerics, but then the Beguiler can also add spells and be better Clerics instead.

You're missing the point, at least in the terms I laid out. The 4th wizard won't be better or worse than the first three, because they objectively have the same power level, but the marginal utility of each individual wizard is reduced, such that replacing the 4th wizard with an archivist would get you a better party. This is accurate at least on a long-term basis, where spell list trumps day to day capability and adding more spells to the global spell list is a major goal, and it's true also on a shorter term basis, because the party with a large number of wizards is going to have some serious cross-over in terms of spell list.

 I also don't agree that the archivist is just a worse version of the cleric. Adding stuff like teleportation effects, control winds, the heart of X spells, and other druid stuff, to the cleric list seems like a meaningful upgrade. Yes, you're losing a bit in the way of spells/day and DC, as well as perfect list access, but what you get in return is a spell list that, even without getting obscure at all, is plausibly better than that of plenty of tier ones. And, also, even if the archivist is somehow just a weaker cleric, that still leaves a lot of room to be incredibly powerful.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! "It's objective fact that is just a rule of the game that Archivists can go find Warlocks to create Alternate Spell Source Trapsmith spells." Look, you know what is objectively a rule of the game? Taking feats and levels. The things that give Beguilers more spells. Those are native parts of all characters, and Beguilers get them too. The only difference is that Beguilers get more benefit than anyone else.

I was actually only referring to cleric and druid spells. Other stuff is super useful, but it's not necessary for tier one status. And magic item discovery based on town-size is absolutely a rule to the game.

So again, you ignore that Dread Necromancer is more complex and requires more planning to play a character than any other character class, and that Beguiler is easily comparable to Clerics and Wizards, if not more complex. And yet we are supposed to believe that the Tier system is a great measure of the complexity of the classes. Even though Rogue and Barbarian are completely different.

It's not so much that I'm ignoring that than that I'm not sure that it's true. How is that true? Yes, on a moment to moment basis, they do have a wider set of spells accessible, but the tier one classes have a wider variety of spells, meaning the choices are more distinct, and they can alter spells day to day, which is its own form of in-game complexity.

So again, at the absolute best (and of course, you are still wrong) the Tiers say "Class X is more complex than Class Y."

In these play style terms? Sure, mostly. I mean, using tiers to determine play style was always a second order benefit to the tier system at best. Not so much an intended goal of the system as it is an outgrowth of patterns that exist within the game's power structure.

Again, I can only laugh at the idea that Rogues should be in parties with Barbarians, where one is guaranteed to be the basic bitch while the other wins everything forever, instead of having a party with different talents.

I don't see why those classes would somehow destroy the other, or be incompatible. Each class of those two has its own advantages and disadvantages, and neither is all that crazy compared to the other.

You are missing some words, specifically the ones where you say "except all the times they aren't which is most of the time."

I'm not missing those words, because I don't think they're true. Yes, the rogue has some cases where they'll have the advantage, but not that many, and the wizard has far more cases where the inverse is true.

[Ice9]

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

Ok, I think these examples have already been addressed, but I have to call out this one in particular - what the hell is this?

No seriously, how is this - in any way, shape, or form - a way of contributing to a mystery situation?  If it's meant as IC dialog - ok, you just said something confusing to someone ... congratulations?  If not, what is it even supposed to mean?  You're accusing the DM of railroading?  Or is the "choo-choo" part coincidental and you're just declaring your helplessness and asking the DM to feed you the answers? 

The other examples have some issues, but this one doesn't even make sense.

[Nanshork]

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

Ok, I think these examples have already been addressed, but I have to call out this one in particular - what the hell is this?

No seriously, how is this - in any way, shape, or form - a way of contributing to a mystery situation?  If it's meant as IC dialog - ok, you just said something confusing to someone ... congratulations?  If not, what is it even supposed to mean?  You're accusing the DM of railroading?  Or is the "choo-choo" part coincidental and you're just declaring your helplessness and asking the DM to feed you the answers? 

The other examples have some issues, but this one doesn't even make sense.

It's a quote from a movie.