n other words, it's common sense to design the world to explicitly screw the most powerful classes because they're the most powerful classes.
Do note that this is, quite blatantly, not fair DMing (do note the difference between 'not fair' and 'bad'). It's tailoring the world to counter a single class, and that you have to do it is proof that the single class you're explicitly tailoring the world to counter is in fact so powerful that you have to very pointedly create an entire world that counters them. It's an open admission of the tier system you've been railing against.
Part of the tier system is, "These powerful classes require a lot more attention and action to manage," which is exactly what you're doing. It's not even subconscious.
I see what YOU are suggesting as metagaming. I try to do that as little as possible.
Thing is, the tier system DOES take non-combat situations in mind. That's why the fighter is so low - combat is all he does. It's also why the beguiler is so high - he's actually pretty bad in combat against some types of enemies, but his overall versatility outside of the fightan lets him shine. It's also why the wizard and druid are so powerful. Yes, they can be awesome in combat. But even outside of combat, their spells let them do just about anything.
I think that's one of the big misconceptions of the tier system. It's not about pure power in a fight, it's about how that class can effect the game world. It very much takes skills in and social situations in mind. The only time it's completely discredited is when you decide not to roll something (some groups I've seen adamantly refuse to use the skill system, for example).
Right, but it is based upon a best guess, not actual campaign performance. If I could look at the numbers across actual encounters in an Adventure Path or three, I might be convinced this is a useful tool. As it stands, I'm relying on the play experience of whoever assigned the tiers.
The process could, and should be improved before I would consider this to be of any use to me personally. We now have standardized campaigns. Heck, even a single evaluator could "conceptually" run classes through the Adventure Paths with a rating system and that would be less arbitrary (to my mind) than the status quo. At least then I would have a number I could work with going into that specific campaign.
Rangers, for example, might easily prove to be a higher "rating" character in Rise of the Runelords because of the availability of obvious Favored Enemies comparative to other campaigns.
I would love to see some of the intelligent minds that have bent themselves to combat analysis and optimization work on something like whole campaign analysis for once. The fact is, Pathfinder may be the best possible game for such analysis, since the ruleset was created to support a series of standardized campaigns.
Right, but it is based upon a best guess, not actual campaign performance. If I could look at the numbers across actual encounters in an Adventure Path or three, I might be convinced this is a useful tool. As it stands, I'm relying on the play experience of whoever assigned the tiers.
The process could, and should be improved before I would consider this to be of any use to me personally. We now have standardized campaigns. Heck, even a single evaluator could "conceptually" run classes through the Adventure Paths with a rating system and that would be less arbitrary (to my mind) than the status quo. At least then I would have a number I could work with going into that specific campaign.
Rangers, for example, might easily prove to be a higher "rating" character in Rise of the Runelords because of the availability of obvious Favored Enemies comparative to other campaigns.
I would love to see some of the intelligent minds that have bent themselves to combat analysis and optimization work on something like whole campaign analysis for once. The fact is, Pathfinder may be the best possible game for such analysis, since the ruleset was created to support a series of standardized campaigns.
The tiers assume the DM follows the intent of the designers, and then gives them ideas of what to watch for so the problems the tiers discuss don't take place. It is not an end all-be all that says X will take place, but all these arguments were taken care of in the thread made by Loopy. I don't want to derail this thread so I won't say anymore about it here.
I see what YOU are suggesting as metagaming. I try to do that as little as possible.
Finding an in-game excuse to do the exact same thing makes no difference. Whether you say, "I will design the world to screw mages because mages are too powerful," or, "The world has developed to screw mages because everyone knows mages are tremendously powerful," the difference is pure semantics and the result is the same.
|
Nobody enjoys playing a character who can't contribute.I don't necessarly agree that nobody enjoys playing a character who can't contribute.
However, all you need is for one player who doesn't enjoy playing a character who can't contribute being able to use tier ranking to prevent that from happening, and tier ranking has served its purpose.
I would state it as 'nobody enjoys playing a character who can't contribute when they were expecting a character who can contribute'.
|
I would state it as 'nobody enjoys playing a character who can't contribute when they were expecting a character who can contribute'.Nobody enjoys playing a character who can't contribute.I don't necessarly agree that nobody enjoys playing a character who can't contribute.
However, all you need is for one player who doesn't enjoy playing a character who can't contribute being able to use tier ranking to prevent that from happening, and tier ranking has served its purpose.
::inserts plug promoting character optimization::
*cough* Erm, ah, hello, er... anyway, on an entirely unrelated-to-the-above-quoted-text note...
... the general consensus seems to be that the tiers, or the theory concerning teirs don't create any conflict at all. Its all players.
|
|
... the general consensus seems to be that the tiers, or the theory concerning teirs don't create any conflict at all. Its all players.
I would wholeheartedly agree. Guns don't kill people, people use guns to kill people. That the tiers afford players the opportunity to cause conflict is not a fault of the system. If anything it is a fault of the imbalance.
Required reading (or at least required skimming):
JaronK's class tier thread on Brilliant Gameologists
Tier thread try 1, in which the tiers of the PF classes are discussed until it degenerates into a bunch of fighting
Tier thread try 2, about which the less said the better So here we are. What do you do about tiers? If you don't think that high-tier classes dominate your game, what is it that you're doing that's keeping that from happening? If you have had problems, what did you do to try to fix them?
Alright well remember that you asked for my opinion...
My thought on Tiers and the people that spout stuff about tiers is such. Too much of the tier development is done on paper and not in actual gameplay. Most of the examples pulled from gameplay are in fact lies as well making the entire idea at best a needless waste of time and at worst a way to encourage disruptive gameplay and stroke ones Epeen.
I find the very suggestion of Tiers to be counter productive to the spirit of the game and the job of the DM. Whether at my table or in an online game if I am running and people start getting into tiers they have 2 options, keep their opinions to themselves or find themselves kicked out of the group. Yeah Im a tough but Im also fair
Impressive. You manage to quote a link that completely disproves every one of your points, yet still go on to make those points in the first place...
Required reading (or at least required skimming):
JaronK's class tier thread on Brilliant Gameologists
Tier thread try 1, in which the tiers of the PF classes are discussed until it degenerates into a bunch of fighting
Tier thread try 2, about which the less said the better So here we are. What do you do about tiers? If you don't think that high-tier classes dominate your game, what is it that you're doing that's keeping that from happening? If you have had problems, what did you do to try to fix them?
Alright well remember that you asked for my opinion...
My thought on Tiers and the people that spout stuff about tiers is such. Too much of the tier development is done on paper and not in actual gameplay. Most of the examples pulled from gameplay are in fact lies as well making the entire idea at best a needless waste of time and at worst a way to encourage disruptive gameplay and stroke ones Epeen.
I find the very suggestion of Tiers to be counter productive to the spirit of the game and the job of the DM. Whether at my table or in an online game if I am running and people start getting into tiers they have 2 options, keep their opinions to themselves or find themselves kicked out of the group. Yeah Im a tough but Im also fair
But the examples given were thing that can and do happen in games. To call someone a liar, when the examples are perfectly plausible makes no sense to me.
To kick someone out of group for an opinion is counterproductive to group cohesion. Players should always be free to express an opinion. The unfairness of such as thing is a thread unto itself. If you don't think some classes are better than others then you can visit the WoTC boards. Many of the post have been deleted, but there are probably still enough to provide evidence. The BG board also has real life examples. One that wants to see only has to open his eyes.
Impressive. You manage to quote a link that completely disproves every one of your points, yet still go on to make those points in the first place...
The sentence below this one was most likely ignored.
Required reading (or at least required skimming):
Incorrect, I read the first and second posts in JaronK's listing of tiers and the reasons for it. I found his logic lacking as well as a failure to present detailed gameplay examples to support his system. I did not bother reading the other threads due to the fact that they were based around the original system which is the only thing Im commenting on as well as a few encounters with people who have come into my game and tried to make me power up classes because they were in a lower tier.
That said, you guys dont have to like or agree with my opinion but as an experienced DM and player I have seen many of these said "Issues" that support tiers around 90% of the time it was with a bad, uncreative, or inexperienced DMs. The rest of the time it was smart players trying to manipulate the system so they could turn the game into a Us vs the DM game which is against the spirit of the game IMO. I have zero tolerance for the latter
Incorrect, I read the first and second posts in JaronK's listing of tiers and the reasons for it. I found his logic lacking as well as a failure to present detailed gameplay examples to support his system. I did not bother reading the other threads due to the fact that they were based around the original system which is the only thing Im commenting on as well as a few encounters with people who have come into my game and tried to make me power up classes because they were in a lower tier.
That said, you guys dont have to like or agree with my opinion but as an experienced DM and player I have seen many of these said "Issues" that support tiers around 90% of the time it was with a bad, uncreative, or inexperienced DMs. The rest of the time it was smart players trying to manipulate the system so they could turn the game into a Us vs the DM game which is against the spirit of the game IMO. I have zero tolerance for the latter
The last thread explains why he could not write broad sweeping generalizations as opposed to detailed answers that would fit into any group. The tiers don't account for DM experience. This, among other things is also explained in the last thread which you admittedly did not read.
I can't force you to read it of course, and it is rather long now so I guess there is nothing more than can be said about it on this thread.
I don't have a huge pool of 3.x experience to pull from, but in the games I've played in mismatched tiers haven't been a problem. The issues we HAVE had in terms of game play balance have been caused by prestige classes. A friend was playing a druid-'master of many forms' and I had a barbarian-'frenzied berserker'-'some other PrC I forget' and the two of us destroyed the balance of combat. And we didn't even mean to. For the hell of it we did an arena battle with just the two of us at level 8ish and CRUSHED a group of four monsters each a CR 4 higher than us. I personally soloed an encounter that was supposed to be an extreme challenge for the whole party. At that point the DM kinda gave up and we moved on to trying out other systems that people had been wanting to play for a while.
Incorrect, I read the first and second posts in JaronK's listing of tiers and the reasons for it. I found his logic lacking as well as a failure to present detailed gameplay examples to support his system.There are examples in the third post, and you've made two separate, conflicting statements about the examples presented in JaronK's posts. You can't call the examples lies if you also claim that none are presented. If all you have to offer is a statement claiming that tiers are a scam perpetrated by people who are trying to get their favorite class buffed or people sucking at D&D, well, it's been noted to the degree it deserves, I guess.
I don't think anything good is going to come of pressing Windcaler further.
Actually I think you misunderstood me. If a class is under performing in a campaign it falls to that campaigns DM to make adjustments to the class so that everyone feels useful and most importantly has fun. Some random guy typing out a few pages of information based on flawed logic and generalizations has no right to determine whether a class is over or under performing unless its in his own campaign.
The lies I refer to include the OOC threads and around the table on the few occasions where people have discussed tier's. Ive heard and read many examples that I have no doubt are lies because no competant DM would have let things happen as they were
I'll agree with you on one point, pressing me more will likely not bring about any good since I have a vastly different view point from the majority of people that like tiers.
If a class is under performing in a campaign it falls to that campaigns DM to make adjustments to the class so that everyone feels useful and most importantly has fun.
From Jaron K
3) To help DMs who plan to use house rules to balance games by showing them where the classes stand before applying said house rules (how many times have we seen DMs pumping up Sorcerers or weakening Monks?).\Looks pretty similar to me. Help the weaker so they don't fall behind.
The lies I refer to include the OOC threads and around the table on the few occasions where people have discussed tier's. Ive heard and read many examples that I have no doubt are lies because no competant DM would have let things happen as they were
Care to give examples? It is quiet possible many of the tier examples were pulled from posts not related to tiers at all
I see what YOU are suggesting as metagaming. I try to do that as little as possible.Finding an in-game excuse to do the exact same thing makes no difference. Whether you say, "I will design the world to screw mages because mages are too powerful," or, "The world has developed to screw mages because everyone knows mages are tremendously powerful," the difference is pure semantics and the result is the same.
Nope.
Magic exists.
People know it exists.
People will try to defend themselves and their property against magic if they have the means.
It's that simple. It's not metagaming. It's the exact opposite.
I have learned to keep an eye on game balance for the classes by only allowing expansions or third party content with intense scrutiny and making it absolutely clear that any houserules or homebrew are subject to change at any time if a loophole or game balance issue shows up.
I suppose my "Tier 1 Classes" are kept in check through common sense application of their Tier 1-iness by the NPCs. I use logic and common sense in my world and dungeon design. Any dungeon or city builder is going to be aware of spells which might infiltrate or harm their structures and they are built to resist such incursions. Mid- to High-level characters know to expect magic use and Big Damn Swords to ruin their day from time to time and they prepare for such things as best they can. Any high-level character (or lower level character in an important position of power) will have casters on retainer, magic items, enchanted zones, magic aura, traps of various and sundry nature, or Cold Iron employed to resist scrying, teleportation, and other more obvious things that they would know about.
If someone wants to call this me "subconsciously DMifying the Tiers" then that's cool with me. I see it as in-character common sense decision making by the denizens of my campaign world.
Do I tailor the NPCs to fight powerful abilities of classes? Short answer: no. Long answer: if the NPC has foreknowledge of the PCs (especially a Bard), they will be more than prepared for any encounter with the PCs. So, I sometimes prepare my NPCs to fight the PCs, not their classes. A smart NPC will, of course, have contingency plans if their experience has given them reason to have one and if they have the means to prepare one.
Sometimes my players trounce my encounters. Sometimes they fail. Most of the time, it's somewhere in between. I have no problem with any of these outcomes.
EDIT: Do I tailor my encounters to the specific PCs in the party? No way, not unless the adventure is tied to one or more PCs specifically in the story....
So you're basically doing what the tier suggests and reeling the more powerful classes in. If they were not more powerful you would not have to go out of your way to stop them.
Edit: ninja'd by kyrt-ryder,
Edit 2: changed ninja's to ninja'd
PS: Darn you Ryder. :)
You know, when someone disagree with those of us who have read and understand the tier threads, our response is usually "did you read the thread? I don't think you understood it"
On the other side, we've been called munchkins, min/maxers, and, now, blatant liars.
Defensive much?
I would guess that some people have an enourmously irrational fear of anything that even has the whiff of "powergaming" and thus paints it all with one broad brush. The tier system falls into this catagory. It's not about powergaming. Like, freaking at all. Not in any sense. And yet some people continuously claim it is.
Then again, some people still think warlocks are overpowered, so what can you do?
Actually I think you misunderstood me. If a class is under performing in a campaign it falls to that campaigns DM to make adjustments to the class so that everyone feels useful and most importantly has fun. Some random guy typing out a few pages of information based on flawed logic and generalizations has no right to determine whether a class is over or under performing unless its in his own campaign.
Then solve the Soulknife problem.
If tiers do not exist, and any and all classes can always equally contribute to any number of situations, where does the Soulknife - a class that cannot mechanically contribute to anything - fit in?
Seriously. Anytime anyone claims classes are equal? Solve the Soulknife problem.
Um... Loopy, she's not trying to accuse you of metagaming.What she's saying, is that it's irrelevant if you metagame your reason for doing it, or if you do it because it makes sense in-world, it has the same result, which is a restraining factor on wizards and their ilk.
Just out of curiosity, do the designers of places of power in your campaign worlds not take steps to protect themselves from scrying, teleporting, and the like?
It seems that it is only logical, just like putting an Arcane Lock on a heavy steel door. The latter is not intended to screw the fighter just as the former is not intended to screw the wizard. It does, however, just sort of work out that way.
It's entirely illogical to me that the BBEG, with vast resources and connections, would NOT protect themselves from such easy magic. To just allow these things, against all logic, is to actually FAVOR the casting classes.
Are your inescapable dungeons not...well...inescapable?
Spell are expensive, and many adventures have more gold than some kings, some more than entire kingdoms. To just hand a BBEG a blank check to speak is illogical. Remember gold is not the common currency in D&D/Pathfinder as a whole. It is just the most common currency among adventurers. The game at a default level does not assume defenses against spells are common, maybe for the above reason. By doing things his way Loopy is using Tier logic, whether he likes it or not.
Um... Loopy, she's not trying to accuse you of metagaming.What she's saying, is that it's irrelevant if you metagame your reason for doing it, or if you do it because it makes sense in-world, it has the same result, which is a restraining factor on wizards and their ilk.
I was kinda thinking that doing things JUST for the sole purpose of reigning in a character class by imposing arbitrary restrictions and barriers certainly would be metagaming IMO. I think that pretty much what is being insinuated that folks do and what I am doing.
What I disagree with is the concept that my barriers are arbitrary. I do what makes logical sense. Some NPCs will have certain defenses erected against certain tactics. My NPCs aren't mindless drones. The BBEGs are usually way the hell smarter than I am for the most part and I have to do well by them as best I can.
To quote myself, was an incompetent DM. Since stumbling onto the Tier thread (and learning from other experienced DM's) I've learned to handle those things, but at the time I first started I didn't know what casters were capable of, and it was ugly the way the campaign got thrashed.
(Of course, since then I developed a style that pre-designs absolutely nothing, so I never ever have that problem anymore lol)Where I tailor things is, if there IS no primary caster, .....
Hmm, once again the tier idea shows its up since you have to specially prepare for a certain class. If the casters were not special you could just design the adventure without taking them into account.
Spell are expensive, and many adventures have more gold than some kings, some more than entire kingdoms. To just hand a BBEG a blank check to speak is illogical. Remember gold is not the common currency in D&D/Pathfinder as a whole. It is just the most common currency among adventurers.
There's no blank check. Don't be silly. Remember what I said about the BBEG doing things if they had the MEANS?
The game at a default level does not assume defenses against spells are common, maybe for the above reason.
Define "common".
By doing things his way Loopy is using Tier logic, whether he likes it or not.
I completely disagree with you 100% for the reasons stated in the post before this one.
Um... Loopy, she's not trying to accuse you of metagaming.What she's saying, is that it's irrelevant if you metagame your reason for doing it, or if you do it because it makes sense in-world, it has the same result, which is a restraining factor on wizards and their ilk.
I was kinda thinking that doing things JUST for the sole purpose of reigning in a character class by imposing arbitrary restrictions and barriers certainly would be metagaming IMO. I think that pretty much what is being insinuated that folks do and what I am doing.
What I disagree with is the concept that my barriers are arbitrary. I do what makes logical sense. Some NPCs will have certain defenses erected against certain tactics. My NPCs aren't mindless drones. The BBEGs are usually way the hell smarter than I am for the most part and I have to do well by them as best I can.
If you are taking allowances the default game, and you can look at premades for this, does account for on a regular basis then you are going out of your way to at least slow higher tier classes down. If they are not special then just make the adventure.
Doing X, and doing X with special consideration to neutralize ______ means _____ must have something going for it. You would not have to prepare in such a manner if it were not so. So it seems the reason the tier issue does not show up is becos you nick them in the bud before they show up, which is kinda what Jaron suggests doing.
There's no blank check. Don't be silly. Remember what I said about the BBEG doing things if they had the MEANS?
Your originally said "People will try to defend themselves and their property against magic if they have the means."
People to me means its common. BBEG means only very selective individual and places and even in those place not every lock is warded.
I completely disagree with you 100% for the reasons stated in the post before this one.
Are you or are you not making special considerations for casters?
Does the tier say not suggest making special considerations for casters?
You know, when someone disagree with those of us who have read and understand the tier threads, our response is usually "did you read the thread? I don't think you understood it"You DO realize that is enormously condescending, don't you? That anyone who disagrees with your conclusions must not have read and/or understood the material?
Not really defending the initial post, which was nearly on fire, bot pointing out that he is not the only one on the defensive.
When your argument comes across like that, it sounds an awful lot like "I'm smart, smarter than you, since I understand this and you don't, not watch me as I try to explain it so your puny mind can comprehend..."
It's annoying in politics, it's annoying in sports, and it's annoying here. Questioning the premises is a perfectly valid argumentation style, since conclusions are deduced from the premises, and false and/or inadequate premises invalidate the entire argument (not the same as falsifying the conclusion).
Just saying, don't start calling the kettel "cast iron".
Except almost every issue with the tier system actually does come down to someone not reading it. :U
See also: the vast number of people who think it's about minmaxing, the people who think it's about wanting to be as strong as possible, the people who think it's about their personal games, etc, etc.
If someone were to say "I think this class is in the wrong tier" that's fine. If someone were to say "I don't really like the tier system, and here's a logical reason for it," that would be fine too. Unfortunately, the argument is pretty much "I haven't read the thread, but here's what I think about the thing I just made up in my head and applied to it!"
Required reading (or at least required skimming):
JaronK's class tier thread on Brilliant Gameologists
Tier thread try 1, in which the tiers of the PF classes are discussed until it degenerates into a bunch of fighting
Tier thread try 2, about which the less said the better So here we are. What do you do about tiers? If you don't think that high-tier classes dominate your game, what is it that you're doing that's keeping that from happening? If you have had problems, what did you do to try to fix them?
At the present time I would consider this 'Tier' system outdated. Is there a post buried somewhere within the nearly two thousand posts on that thread that addresses these tiers specifically for Pathfinder?
So far, with limited anecdotal evidence available from playing and running Pathfinder the few months' time that has passed since its release, I am very hesitant to categorically 'Tier' the 11 core classes.
if there IS no primary caster,....
You misunderstand. I don't allocate defenses vs casters if there are no casters because that gives me more of my budget to prepare against more ordinary attacks. If there will likely be little scrying/teleporting, there is little reason for me to allocate large sums to defending against it. So, figuring out how to bypass my defenses is part of the puzzle. Anyawy, I would rather the party bypass the traps, since I find the actual dungeon crawl to be rather tedious.
I understood perfectly well. If there are casters you go out of your way to challenge them. If the classes were equal and the tier was incorrect you would not have to do so. You would make your dungeon/castle/etc as you wish without regard for them.
From the last thread:
Oh look, some giants. Fighter gets to die against them, while wizard gets to Time Stop loops, Wishes, Wail of the Banshee, Teleport away because he's not ready for it, casts some illusions to fool them, and etc.
From the Tier 1 description: "These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat
It seems if you have to modify the campaign just for then you are agreeing with the tier system.
From the thread before this one
8) There are plenty of ways to limit wizards, like counterspelling, AMFs, dispel magic, etc.
Answer: Nine out of ten times, these require yet another caster. One of the reason tier 1's are where they are is because they can't be bargained with. They can't be reasoned with. They don't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you use another caster. When the only way to stop someone is to replicate them, they are significantly powerful.
You do not use the same exact tactics but it looks familiar. The magical affects you use are coming from another caster.
Hmm, once again the tier idea shows its up since you have to specially prepare for a certain class. If the casters were not special you could just design the adventure without taking them into account.
NPCs will always try exploit class weaknesses and try to dull their strengths whether it's a Wizard, a Fighter, or whatever. Most of my mid- to high-importance NPCs are smart enough to do this. The only class I ever really have a problem finding a specific weakness of in a balanced party are Monks.
Hmm, once again the tier idea shows its up since you have to specially prepare for a certain class. If the casters were not special you could just design the adventure without taking them into account.NPCs will always try exploit class weaknesses and try to dull their strengths whether it's a Wizard, a Fighter, or whatever. Most of my mid- to high-importance NPCs are smart enough to do this. The only class I ever really have a problem finding a specific weakness of in a balanced party are Monks.
My point is that you had to design the campaign with the casters in mind. Why not just design a fight/situation without regard to the party makeup?
That is what my last few posts have been asking.Edit: I don't know if you watch basketball but--->It would be like me saying Kobe Bryant is not any more of a factor than Derek Fisher, but then I make sure Kobe is double or triple teamed.
To elaborate, I think most of the preparation against non-casters is tactical. There's some environmental stuff... mind-targeting traps, terrain arrangement. Most importantly are specifically-prepared spells. Hiring the right people to help you against classes like Fighter is a good idea if you can't do the mind-affecting thing.
Why the hell are we still awake????
My point is that you had to design the campaign with the casters in mind. Why not just design a fight/situation without regard to the party makeup?
Don't get me wrong, I really don't do SPECIFIC preparations unless the BBEG knows the PCs are coming.
What I do more commonly is put up the most blatant defenses the BBEG or their organization can afford.
For example, most organizations won't be able to ward their entire lair against teleportation, but some mid level groups might line their vault with Cold Iron or something like that. Most groups, even at the lower levels, would hire a mage to befuddle any weak-willed characters who might try to take their crap.
At the present time I would consider this 'Tier' system outdated. Is there a post buried somewhere within the nearly two thousand posts on that thread that addresses these tiers specifically for Pathfinder?
So far, with limited anecdotal evidence available from playing and running Pathfinder the few months' time that has passed since its release, I am very hesitant to categorically 'Tier' the 11 core classes.
Uhh, what about Pathfinder invalidates the tier system? Pathfinder is still pretty much standard 3rd edition D&D, so the tier system is still perfectly applicable.
I think what you mean is that Pathfinder has altered the tier classification of the classes. Is that correct? I don't think anyone's debating that seriously, if so.