A campaign that implemented this system is not a campaign I would even consider being a part of. It looks horrible!
The reason is I fundamentally disagree with the reasoning behind why this is a good idea. I don't thing anything need to be any more balanced.
P.S. fyi there are no class tiers
|
Although I can tell the original poster put a great deal of work into this, I also don't see the reason for it. That whole 'class tier' quasi theory is simply a highly subjectiv, misguided and, honestly, unneccesary internet thing that sprung up some time ago. I don't know anyone that actually uses it (although you still sometimes find folks on the net claiming to)
Hey, if this helps to solve some perceived problem you see in the game, and your players are OK with it, then give it a shot and see what happens!
Pesonally, I'd never do something like this (primarily because I don't agree it needs done in the first place) and I think I'd be pretty reluctant to play in a game that had a convoluted set of rules like this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, a nice string of threadcraps there. I came to this thread to see a discussion of how to handle the tier problem. Instead I get a string of posts saying the problem is all in the orginal poster's head. Why did you guys check out the thread in the first place?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To address the OP's orginal question.
1) I don't think the additional feats are going to be a problem. Compared to spells (the real source of Tier disparity)feats are narrow and kinda weak.
2) The stat bonus sounds like a good idea, but it will only work if the player spreads them around. Most players won't do that. They just spike out whatever thier prime stat is.
3) Your progessions are a little confusing. Are these bonus feats?
Ultimately, I don't think it'll break the game, but I also don't think it will address the disparity between tiers.
Wow, a nice string of threadcraps there. I came to this thread to see a discussion of how to handle the tier problem. Instead I get a string of posts saying the problem is all in the orginal poster's head. Why did you guys check out the thread in the first place?
Why? Well because I think the concept is preposterous and wished to offer a voice of reason.
|
A campaign that implemented this system is not a campaign I would even consider being a part of. It looks horrible!
The reason is I fundamentally disagree with the reasoning behind why this is a good idea. I don't thing anything need to be any more balanced.
P.S. fyi there are no class tiers
Hah.
There are certainly class tiers. A Paladin isn't nearly as strong as a Wizard, and a Monk isn't nearly as strong as a Paladin. They may not be as neatly designed as the 3.5 class tiers (where CoDzilla and Wizards ruled with iron fists while everyone else was good at one thing, if they were lucky) but they certainly are there.
And OP, I honestly don't think this will solve the problem. The solution to class tiers, as it was in 3.5, was that everyone should agree on a level of power, and everyone should stick to it. No Wizards in parties with Fighters, no Monks in parties with Summoners.
Your idea will even the playing field a bit, but no amount of stats and extra feats can change the fact that magic breaks everything.
|
|
A campaign that implemented this system is not a campaign I would even consider being a part of. It looks horrible!
The reason is I fundamentally disagree with the reasoning behind why this is a good idea. I don't thing anything need to be any more balanced.
P.S. fyi there are no class tiers
Hah.
There are certainly class tiers.
Well, some people certainly subscribe to this 'tier' concept, while a great many others do not. In all fairness, you can't realistically say 'There are certainly class tiers'. At best, I think you might say 'In my opinion there are class tiers'
In my personal opinion, as well as, it would seem, many others, this distinct, codified tier system is nothing more than a theory concocted to solve a 'problem' that many (I'd go so far as to say *most*) people simply don't have.
I can only speak from personal experience (and really, that's all anyone should do) and in my almost 30 years of playing with I don't know how many different groups, I can honestly say we have NEVER encountered this problem. Some others certainly may have, although I wonder if that has more to do with their style of play and less to do with some inherent issue with the game.
If people want approach this from the standpoint that in their personal experience, they have encountered this problem, so they like to apply this or that theory or idea in order to try and solve their problem ... well,that's more than reasonable.
What bothers me is when someone says categorically that a certain perceived problem is absolutely a fact, there is no getting around it, everyone should agree and if you don't you are simply wrong. Frankly, that kind of thinking is ridiculous. I understand that this kind of mind-set can unfortunately be all to common on the net, but it is still ridiculous none the less.
Here is the bottom line. This 'tier concept' is NOT a fact and should not be presented as such. It is simply one theory about the game we all love. Some people agree with this theory, others think it's bunk.
And the simplest way to fix this would be to implement different XP tables for the classes just like they had in 2nd edition.
Not all change is good.
Wizards are more powerful then Fighters.. that's okay the Fighter is 7th level by the time the wizard reached 5th, and the Monk/Rogue just hit 8th level. Problem solved.
And you bring back true multi-classing at the same time.
In 3.5, maybe we did need to address the problem, but I don't think it's such a big problem anymore. The idea of tiers isn't really applicable to a system where each class can do very different things. How tough is a wizard in an anti-magic field?
A lone wizard, no matter how powerful, has a low survivability rate. Yeah, he can prepare all sorts of spells, but that's the kicker. He has to prepare them. He has to cast them. A fighter just does and keeps doing until you take him down.
These classes don't exist in a vacuum. They aren't dueling each other in a static scenario all the time. Tiers aren't applicable. This isn't a fighting game.
My personal opinions asside, this change does not address the actual problem.
The 'tiers' are not there because they have slightly too low stats or because they need a feat or two to make things work. The discrepancy is a result of the flexibility of the options available to the class as a whole. A fighter isnt at a lower tier then the druid because his to hit isnt high enought and he doesnt have enough feats. Its because he can swing a sword, and do a few things that are slight variations on swinging a sword. The druid can cast a spell that traps your in vines, sick a bear on the enemy, summon an additional bear to eat the enemy, turn INTO a bear and eat them himself, turn into a hawk and fly around you.
The rogue can sneak up to a guy and stab him. Or flank with him and stab him. The wizard can blind him, trap him in a pit, daze him, blow him up, mess with his head, make him see things that arent there, summon a monster to stab the enemy for him, enhance the fighter so he can go stab the enemy, or turn invisible and sneak as well or better then all but the best rogue.
Feats or slight stat boosts are not going to fix this. The fighter already fights really really well, and has lots of feats. Geting a little higher strength, and another couple feats isnt going to change his place when compared to a summoner.
As for the 'do tiers exist' arugment. Well yes and no. If you compare any two characters, not neccessarily, there are a ton of different factors that could make any two characters more or less effective, not the least of which is system mastery. In my group there are people who could take the summoner and make an average character, and people who could make a monk be a game changer. System mastery plays into it to a huge degree.
What DOES exist is a variation in the POTENTIAL of the classes. A druid, or summoner has alot more POTENTIAL then a rogue or monk, but that doesnt mean it will be any individual character will realize that potential. For instance, I am currently playing a druid who was deliberately built around the idea of not using wild shape or an animal companion. I wanted see if i could make a frontliner out of a druid with just a changelings claws. Its Ok, but ive seen fighters that were more effective most of the time. But that doesnt mean there isnt a difference in power between the fighter and druid.
|
I think the first issue you'll run into is in defining the tiers, and who belongs to what tier. I doubt you can get a broad consensus on where everyone fits and why. So you're not fixing "the problem", you're fixing "the problem as you see it".
(For example: some people prioritize damage-dealing potential when describing tiers, other people think that it's important to be versatile, and other people think that it's about being able to operate on your own, without assistance. Those three people will classify the classes into very different tiers.)
Next... I'm not convinced of the tier problem in the first place. Classes are strong at different things, but does that make any classes useless? If the fighter isn't all that flexible, but the wizard can't live without the fighter in his party, what does that mean? I think that as long as every class has an important contribution to make to the party, the tier problem isn't really real.
Then... Are these tier differences things that you experience during actual game play, and does it ruin anyone's fun? Or is it something you only see while reading the book? Because if the problem doesn't appear in practice all that much, but only in theory, then maybe the theory isn't so great.
Finally... will your solution really fix the problem? If you give a barbarian more feats and attributes, what will he do with them? Probably buy more Strength and Combat Feats. Which will make him an even bigger damage-monster, but doesn't change anything about his versatility vis-a-vis the wizard.
To be convincing, you should demonstrate that people will use these extra feats and attributes to overcome the limitations of their tier. That means:
* proving that there EXIST feats that let you do that
* and that people will take those feats, rather than spend their freebies on more of the same they're already taking
@The Terrible Zodin
"Compared to spells (the real source of Tier disparity)feats are narrow and kinda weak."
Yes, indeed they are. I certainly didn't anticipate this solving the disparity. I wonder though is it sufficient to collapse the 5 tiers into say 3 tiers? A straight fighter and a straight wizard in a party is a much bigger problem than a straight wizard and a straight rogue, or a straight ninja and a straight fighter.
There is probably more then 5 now. The 'top' tier has kind of been spread out a little. Buts its not just spells explicately that are the problem. Its powerful flexible supernatural abiltiies. Wild shape, or the eidolon are certainly among the things that put the druid and summoner at the top of the list in my mind.
The 'tiers' in my mind are something like the following:
1. Classes that can handle themselves in combat from day one, and have powerful, yet flexible supernatural abilties that are nearly universally useful, and have an action economy advantage..
Druid, Summoner top this list form me
2. Full Casters with very flexible availabilities of spells. Wizard, Cleric, witch, and probably magus, which is kind of in limbo between tier 1 and 2. It doesnt have the raw power of the druid, and summoner, but its combat ability plus fairly flexible spell list I think keeps it up hgih.
3. Full casters with restricted spell availability, or partial casters with significant combat abilities and a variety of supernatural abilities. Sorceror, Oracle, Inquisitor, Alchemist (argument could be made for the alchemist to be in tier 2), Bard, Paladin, Barbarian
4. Characters that are very good at what they do, or have some supernatural abilities that add certain amounts of flexibility in their supernatural abilities. Fighter, Ninja
5. Characters that are descent in combat, but have a significant portion of their class power devoted to niche abilities that fit their specific concept - Cavalier/Samarai, Ranger
6. Characters who have trouble keeping up in combat or suffer from a dispersed concept that splits their power in varied directions
Rogue, Monk.
I think the first issue you'll run into is in defining the tiers, and who belongs to what tier. I doubt you can get a broad consensus on where everyone fits and why. So you're not fixing "the problem", you're fixing "the problem as you see it".
(For example: some people prioritize damage-dealing potential when describing tiers, other people think that it's important to be versatile, and other people think that it's about being able to operate on your own, without assistance. Those three people will classify the classes into very different tiers.)
As far as I understand it, tiers are all about the ability to handle challenges. Whether its crossing a river, fighting a dragon or getting past the palace guard. Which class is most likely to have to tools to get the job done. That usually means which class has the greatest flexibility of options. Spells are a big part of this. Spells can do a rediculous variety of things. Seriously. Sit down and look at JUST the core rulebook spells. Just the core.
Now think of the overwhelming variety of options they give you to overcome challenges. Does a caster have all of these? No ofcourse not. A wizard may not have invisibility prepared when he has to sneak, or he might not have charm person ready to talk his way past the guard. But his investment to being able to overcome that challenge is relatively small. A spell in his spell book and a prepared spell. The rogue can do something similar with skills, IF he has the right skills. This is a choice made during character creation and level up. In between levels a rogue can do very little to change how he can overcome challenges, and his toolset is very limited to begin with when compared to spells. A wizard has to AT MOST wait a day to switch out his spells, forget if he has advanced warning of a challenge or can dictate the circumstances of that challenge.
Next... I'm not convinced of the tier problem in the first place. Classes are strong at different things, but does that make any classes useless? If the fighter isn't all that flexible, but the wizard can't live without the fighter in his party, what does that mean? I think that as long as every class has an important contribution to make to the party, the tier problem isn't really real.
Its not a game ruining group destroying problem. It doesnt make the game unplayable, but it DOES represent a very real differnt in the classes. No class is useless, but some classes are a whole heck of alot more useful. Examining this and trying to improve things is not a bad thing. The wizard might have trouble without the fighter, but the druid and summoner dont. And they have nearly as much flexibility of options as the wizard.
I dont think tiers mean classes have to stand on an island, its more about characters getting time to shine and having tools to deal with a problem. A well prepared wizard, will almost always shine, including when the fighter shines. A fighter will shine when he is stabing things, so long as the wizard didnt beat him on initiative and 'handle' the encounter before he gets there.
Then... Are these tier differences things that you experience during actual game play, and does it ruin anyone's fun? Or is it something you only see while reading the book? Because if the problem doesn't appear in practice all that much, but only in theory, then maybe the theory isn't so great.
Define problem. Does it ruin the game? Probably not, but it does make it 'not as good' as it could be. Just because the game isnt BAD doesnt mean it cant be BETTER. If the fighter had a larger toolbox in front of him, it would be more fun to play a fighter in many cases. Is it fun to play a normal fighter? Sure. But it could be MORE fun, isnt making the game better a worthy goal?
Finally... will your solution really fix the problem? If you give a barbarian more feats and attributes, what will he do with them? Probably buy more Strength and Combat Feats. Which will make him an even bigger damage-monster, but doesn't change anything about his versatility vis-a-vis the wizard.
Yea I agree with you here, I dont think his 'fix' addresses the actual problem
To be convincing, you should demonstrate that people will use these extra feats and attributes to overcome the limitations of their tier. That means:
* proving that there EXIST feats that let you do that
* and that people will take those feats, rather than spend their freebies on more of the same they're already taking
I agree that a 'fix' should allow a way to overcome their tier. Mostly though that means a significant change to either the lower tier classes (making them more flexible and thus more complicated) or to the upper tier classes (reducing their 'power' in the form of flexibility). A fairly successful attempt at this in the mechanical sense is also significantly derided, that being tome of battle from 3.5.
@Kolokotroni
You think Rogue is that low, or fighter that high? I'm surprised...
For me tiers 4-6 are differentiated mostly by a single question.
Are these characters actually good at what they are trying to do? They all have fairly limited toolsets, and while the fighter is probably the most limited (he fights) he is at least the best at what he does. He is also ALWAYS good at fighting.A rogue has sneak attack, and skills, and thats about it. Rogue talents are cool, but they pretty much boil down to a bonus on skills, a cute flavor option, or a bonus to sneak attacks. Sneak attack is pretty sub par because a rogue has to fight to use it. He needs a flanking buddy to get it consistently, and to be able to overcome his limited combat abilities. Making this a fairly inflexible option. Skills are problematic for a different reason. First of all the rogue isnt even the unparalleled master of skills. Bards are as good if not better.
And skills are an extremely inflexible option. You can take it AT LEVEL UP, and thats it. You either have diplomacy or you dont until next level. And it can be used for the limited set of things diplomacy can do. Spells, and alot of super natural abilities are far superior to this. A wizard can switch out spells relatively easily, and doesnt have to wait to level to do it. And if he HAS the right spell, he is usually better at dealing with a challenge then a rogue with an applicable skill. Skills are neat, but I think waaay too much of what the rogue gets to 'fill their cup' is tied up with skills.
|
|
@Shea: Kolokotroni's tiers are a nice case in point: opinion varies wildly about what should be in which tier and why.
Personally I really don't believe a wizard can do the solo campaign. I like playing wizards, and I like to believe I'm doing alright, but I don't see myself surviving alone. I've got nowhere near the tanking power of a fighter, nor the damage-dealing potential. That means that if I come up against a nasty monster I can't simply evade, that I can't kill it before it'll kill me. Now this may be because we tend to play in the 1-8th level range, but at that range, a wizard can't do it alone. So if you wanted to fix tiers, pick wisely at what level you start implementing changes.
I think fighters are boringly specialized, that's true. Wizards get to involve themselves in almost everything in the game, because higher Int means more skills (= not staying behind in skill-driven parts of the game), and Detect Magic means you get to analyze the random magical phenomena too. It's kind of like being an engineer in Star Trek, vs. being a foot soldier. The amount of plots where you'll have something to do is a lot bigger.
If I had to divvy up classes into tiers, based on how good/fun I think those classes are, I'd use different criteria too.
* Does the class do something very valuable, fill a role which the party really needs? This is okay for most classes, because the many different problems a party faces, you need different "food groups" (arcane problem-solving casters, divine status-repairing casters, martial monster-destroyers etc.). Some classes perform poorly in this aspect though (*cough*monksandrogues*cough*).
* Does the class get to play with enough parts of the campaign? The ability to Detect Magic, as well as a large bag of skill points, helps here. Fighters suck at almost everything except fighting; wizards can do a whole lot more than just magic. Clerics get saved by Detect Magic and some "I'm with the Church" social poohah, but they've got skill point blues too. Rangers, bards and such do pretty well here, because they get a nice bag of varied abilities.
SO... if I wanted to fix things, it wouldn't be by giving the fighter feats, because he'll just spend them on more combat feats. I also won't apply blanket fix to classes based on tier; I want to solve each class's specific problems, rather than a "one size fits nobody" solution. Fighters might get more class skills/points, rogues would get a break on the combat side.
What I won't be trying is trying to make each class equally powerful, or equally versatile.
1) It's futile. The game system is way too big and complex to make them equal.
2) Equality isn't all that important anyway. What's important is that each class has stuff that makes it fun to play; that means every class needs to be good at something important, and that each class can participate in a high % of the adventure, not merely one specialized task in it.
I never had any doubt to begin with whether Sorcerers were Tier 2 or not. Kolokotroni is the one who put forth a variant tiering spectrum that didn't actually mention Sorcerers (and put Magus in Tier 1, when I'd see him in Tier 3.)
Really, I don't see the tiering system changing from its presentation in 3.5. A few classes got a little less powerful, and a few other classes got a little more powerful (and the water is further muddied by things like certain combat feats being made weaker) but the core of it remains the same.
Tier 4 and above are defined by how many things they can do. Tier 5 is determined by whether or not they do their shtick well, and Tier 6 fail at even that.
Sorcs are in tier 3 for me but yea I get that opinions may vary.
The difference for me is that the 3.5 tier system linked ignores some very important factors.
1. Low levels. Seriously, the tier system as designed in 3.5 is mostly about high level play. Clerics and wizards only hit their stride later on. It ignores classes that start strong/flexible and STAY that way through the whole game.
2. It puts a huge value on full casting, but the paradigm has shifted in pathfinder. The 'bard chasis' 3/4 bab 6 level casters have kind of exploded onto the scene in pathfinder. The adjusted spell lists and lots of supernatural powers that they get are as good as or better then some 'full caster' ability sets. The idea that an oracle or even a sorceror should be a higher tier then the summoner is laughable. The eidolon represents a tremendous amount of power AND flexibility. Heck the transmogriphy spell means that in an hour (about the same time it takes a wizard to fill an empty high level spell slot) for 1000 gold means the summoner can have the right tool for the job, that can do that job without putting himself in harms way and can kick ass all on its own. The summoner especially, but also the inquisitor and alchemist simply break the mold the original tier system was built on.
3. It undervalues the action economy. Mostly becuase there was really only one way around it in 3.5, the druids animal companion. But there is a huge value in being able to do more then one thing in a turn in terms of dealing with challenges. The druid and summoner get a big boost with their powerful pets, but the magus gets it with spell combat. If the wizard buffs in combat, he isnt also moving the encounter towards its conclusion. The magus can cast very similar buffs and control spells AND deal hit point damage. Thats are rather significant advantage that was not as prevalent when the original tier system was created.
The whole “Quadratic Wizard / Linear Warrior” thing has been going on since the original 3 volume set (which I not only played but wrote a supplement for, so…) so the “Tier” concept is not new and the issue is well known. IMHO, it is more of a feature than a bug. It’s there whether you like it or not or think it’s a “problem” . Personally some part of wizards being wimpy to start then being demiurges at the highest level works for me. Maybe this could be cut back a little and still have a fun game, I admit. That doesn’t mean that I agree entirely that this class is this tier and that class is that tier, just that the disparity exists.
One way to solve it, is NOT to introduce Fumbles, which nerf warriors far more than wizards. Easy!
Another way is to re-do the casting. After a class gains 3rd level spells, jigger the tables so that 9th level spells become a capstone (appearing at 19th for prepared and 20th for sorcs), so that the first 8th would appear @ 17, the first 7th @ 15th, 6th @ 13, 5th @ 11, and 4th @ 9 (adjust for spontaneous casters). However, the number of spells per day increases slightly to start , and both known and number gets a bump @ 7th instead of 4th level spells.
Of course, making fighters a 4SkP per level class is something I have always wanted, and I think that has lots of support. I’d also have a Save bump for martial classes @ level 10, every non-spell caster gets a +2 to any one save, then again @ 15th and 20th. Note this is for any PC that can’t cast spells at that level.
Again, it's really screen time. No one wants to play Dr. Crusher, because she's a 5 minute character. She heals, or analyzes, and then the other characters go solve problems. Filling a niche is insufficient unless that niche comes up frequently, or unless when it comes up it's very dramatic.
Wizards and Druids at higher levels are definitively yes on both those counts.
I agree about screen time. Its why I disagree with the existing tier layout. The fact that druids and summoners come with combat crushing pets AND significant combat prowess in addition to robust spell lists are why i rate them above wizards and clerics. At low levels when the wizard has to conserve resources, and often rely on lesser abilities like damage dealing spells in a wand or 1st level school abilities like acid dart, the druid and summoner's pets are a key part of every combat.
At high levels, the druid and summoner have robust and powerful spells and supernatural abilities that while maybe not AS flexible as the wizards list, are almost universally useful to most situations. AND they still have that direct combat power to fall back on which has been effectively scaling through their whole career.
/edit
The idea here is to make every class /at least/ good at what they specialize in.
I dont think you should consider tiers in this case. Tiers arent about being good at your niche, they are about breaking through your niche and being flexible enough to be involved most of the time. If you want to make sure each class is good at their thing, you should really take a look at each class in turn and have specialized solutions. And in most cases the class is already good at their specialty (except maybe the rogue and monk), so no change is needed.
I think the goal ought to expand the amount of situations a given class could be useful in. And the easiest way to do that is to give them spells or something like spells (read tome of battle manuevers). If you give all lower tier classes something like spells, everyone is going to settle out around tier 3.
You want the simplest, laziest way to 'fix' tier disparity? You differentiate the wealth by level charts based on tiers to accommodate for it, so the characters at low tiers can buy themselves the necessary flexibility while remaining level appropriate.
This is fixing a problem with another problem. The wealth and magic item system is a whole different can of worms that is probably more of a systemic problem then tiers are.
You really dont think the fighter does their one thing well? That just doesnt make sense to me. They really are the best at dealing damage consistently without expending resources in pathfinder, particularly archer fighters.
I just dont know that feats or stats are a good answer. Class features and spells are what make the difference between tiers, not feats or stats.
One recommendation I have for you is something i have incorporated into my game as part of a sub system. The 3rd party publisher supergenius games has their own version of Archetypes, which are different from paizo archetypes. Any class can take an archetype by trading out set suites of class features from the class for it. Though they are not all created equal (like every class option its about how it meshes with what you are doing) they are very roughly balanced with eachother. Some of them are available on d20pfsrd if you want to take a look but there is a wide variety of them available in the paizo store in SSG's 'Archetype' product line.
There is a real wide variety of things those archetypes can allow you to do. From giving a limited selection of spells, to making you a better in combat, to turning you into a wushu crouching dragon hidden tiger type of character. My 'fix' would be as follows based on the tiers as you define them (though i think by the definition the fighter is a tier 3 since he does in fact fight exceedingly well, same with barbarian)
Tier 1 - nothing, serisouly these guys are tip top, they dont need more.
Tier 2 and 3 - Gain 1 free (without having to trade out any abilities) super genius archetype, but it must add flexibility to the class instead. For instance a sorceror may not take an arcane archetype, only a martial, archer, or divine archetype.
Tier 4 and 5 - Gain 2 free archetypes, at least one of them must add flexibility as described above.
A campaign that implemented this system is not a campaign I would even consider being a part of. It looks horrible!
The reason is I fundamentally disagree with the reasoning behind why this is a good idea. I don't thing anything need to be any more balanced.
P.S. fyi there are no class tiers
Hah.
There are certainly class tiers.
Well, some people certainly subscribe to this 'tier' concept, while a great many others do not. In all fairness, you can't realistically say 'There are certainly class tiers'. At best, I think you might say 'In my opinion there are class tiers'
In my personal opinion, as well as, it would seem, many others, this distinct, codified tier system is nothing more than a theory concocted to solve a 'problem' that many (I'd go so far as to say *most*) people simply don't have...
I can only speak from personal experience (and really, that's all anyone should do) and in my almost 30 years of playing with I don't know how many different groups, I can honestly say we have NEVER encountered this problem...
If people want approach this from the standpoint that in their personal experience, they have encountered this problem, so they like to apply this or that theory or idea in order to try and solve their problem ... well,that's more than reasonable.What bothers me is when someone says categorically that a certain perceived problem is absolutely a fact...
Here is the bottom line. This 'tier concept' is NOT a fact and should not be presented as such. It is simply one theory about the game we all...
So, here's the thing. To those of us who have seen the existence of tiers as a reality, it is not a theory. And we are speaking from our own experience in order to try to solve our problem.
You say that you think many, perhaps most people do not face this problem. That is entirely contrary to my own experience of the game. I have also noticed this: the people who deny the existence of tiers tend to be at the extremes of the spectrum. They are often heavy duty power gamers (this is not an insult, btw, as I think that's a potentially valid mode of play) who are so esoterically familiar with the rules that they've in a sense transcended the concept of tiers and are capable of turning anything into a GM's nightmare.
On the other hand, they are just as often relatively inexperienced (or just non crunch oriented) gamers who deny the existence of tiers because they don't really understand (or just don't care to understand) the rules well enough to perceive the imbalance.
The point is this: call the problem what you want (tiers/character build imbalance/power creep), but don't deny that there is a problem. You may not care about the problem; it may not bother or impact you personally for a variety of reasons. But that does not mean that there is no problem. And those of us who do care about and are impacted by the problem aren't just going to suddenly stop caring because you tell us it doesn't exist.