
Peter Stewart |

Peter Stewart wrote:
As has always been, and will always be, the case, the power of a given class depends entirely upon the GM in question and the player in question. Trying to rank them is a fool's errand.I don't agree. It's a simple statement of fact. At level 1, the wizard's casting Color Spray, and the fighter is hitting things with a sword. At level 20, the wizard is casting Prismatic Sphere, summoning demons, teleporting across the world and controlling minds, and the fighter is... hitting things with a sword really well.
There's definitely a quantifiable disparity here.
Uh huh. And yet the effect of any of the wizard's high level toys is going to vary depending on the player and his specialization (save or dies, debuffs, direct damage, party utility, spells prepared) and the GM (type of game, opponents, how various spells are interpreted, availability of high level spells, targeting of vulnerable points like spellbooks, ect).
Laying that aside, all of those wizard options are open to a fighter that is built with any sense (hint: use magic device is pretty awesome). Even laying that aside, the suggestion that the wizard teleporting around and raising prismatic sphere and summoning is more game breaking than the fighter dishing out 500 damage a round is somewhat questionable to me.
At that point you are really playing around with questionable definitions of game breaking.

Saronian |
Avh wrote:I think this is a much more constructive idea than the usual tier list.I suggest something that I think is better :
What if there was a class tier list in each great role in the game ?
- Damage
- Skills (maybe different roles : scout, face, knowledge, ...)
- Controller
- Buffer
- Healer
- ...Because the tier list above only sort classes by versatility (which is fine), not roles : and roles are much more important IMHO that versatility by itself, or otherwise we wouldn't have anything other than Wizard, Cleric, Summoner and Druid at our tables.
Also factor in learning curve. Initially, a player starting out would be either a fighter or a rogue until the player gets the hang of the system while a Wizard/Cleric is a bit harder to master.

Arbane the Terrible |
Peter Stewart wrote:As has always been, and will always be, the case, the power of a given class depends entirely upon the GM in question and the player in question.As a thought exercise, I wonder if anyone has tried to figure out which classes are the hardest to mess up via takng poor options?
That's a tough one - "Nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious." Just how poor are we talking in regard to the options?
After all, you can always make a fighter with 8s in Str/Con/Dex. :-P

Assuming_Control |

Grey Lensman wrote:Peter Stewart wrote:As has always been, and will always be, the case, the power of a given class depends entirely upon the GM in question and the player in question.As a thought exercise, I wonder if anyone has tried to figure out which classes are the hardest to mess up via takng poor options?That's a tough one - "Nothing is foolproof, because fools are so ingenious." Just how poor are we talking in regard to the options?
After all, you can always make a fighter with 8s in Str/Con/Dex. :-P
Vanilla Monks. Think about it, You won't notice much of a difference anyway, and you'll always be really good at running away. ;p

Mortuum |

Peter, you are right to an extent. If people over rely on the tier list or treat it as unquestionable fact it becomes a problem. How a character is built and played also has an effect on its tier.
The reason I'm bothering is the tiers still work as a guideline. A fighter is almost always not going to be tier 1, if they can ever be. Oracles in tier 3 makes no sense to me and yeah, it's pretty clear they can be extremely versatile in multiple different ways. That said, I don't see how the monk is every going to be tier 1.
Kolo, the tiers don't have to be filled. It's fine for one or more to turn out completely empty and be useless.

andreww |
Fighters are hard to mess up with poor options too. Despite what happens, you still kill stuff with your weapon pretty damn well.
Wizards on the other hand can go from being quite powerful to almost useless if you don't know what you're doing.
cheers
This is in my view almost exactly the wrong way around. Fighters are extremely easy to screw up because their main feature, feats, are to a large extent fixed. The difference between a well built fighter and a poorly built one is huge.
Wizards on the other hand get to change their main class feature every day which allows a new player to actually learn through play.

![]() |

Peter Stewart wrote:
As has always been, and will always be, the case, the power of a given class depends entirely upon the GM in question and the player in question. Trying to rank them is a fool's errand.I don't agree. It's a simple statement of fact. At level 1, the wizard's casting Color Spray, and the fighter is hitting things with a sword. At level 20, the wizard is casting Prismatic Sphere, summoning demons, teleporting across the world and controlling minds, and the fighter is... hitting things with a sword really well.
There's definitely a quantifiable disparity here.
That is your fighter.
My high level fighter is teleporting across the world, self-buffing, self-healing, banishing, generally giving casters nightmares and hitting things with sword really well.

DreamGoddessLindsey |
Humphrey Boggard wrote:Also factor in learning curve. Initially, a player starting out would be either a fighter or a rogue until the player gets the hang of the system while a Wizard/Cleric is a bit harder to master.Avh wrote:I think this is a much more constructive idea than the usual tier list.I suggest something that I think is better :
What if there was a class tier list in each great role in the game ?
- Damage
- Skills (maybe different roles : scout, face, knowledge, ...)
- Controller
- Buffer
- Healer
- ...Because the tier list above only sort classes by versatility (which is fine), not roles : and roles are much more important IMHO that versatility by itself, or otherwise we wouldn't have anything other than Wizard, Cleric, Summoner and Druid at our tables.
Now this stuff I can agree with. A tier list per role and learning curve would be much more useful. For roles, I would suggest (bear with me) using the Final Fantasy XIII roles. Don't jump me, but I think the six roles cover things nicely and a tier list could be formed.
COM (Commando, physical single-target damage)
RAV (Ravager, magical damage and setting up combos)
SEN (Sentinel, defensive ability)
SAB (Saboteur, debuffing ability)
SYN (Synergist, buffing ability)
MED (Medic, healing ability)
I think it might be fairly easy to divide tiers by this. Fighter would be a Tier 1 COM, Wizard would be a Tier 1 RAV, Witch would be a Tier 1 SAB, Cleric would be a Tier 1 MED and SYN, Paladin would be a Tier 1 SEN, etc.

![]() |

Wrath wrote:Fighters are hard to mess up with poor options too. Despite what happens, you still kill stuff with your weapon pretty damn well.
Wizards on the other hand can go from being quite powerful to almost useless if you don't know what you're doing.
cheers
This is in my view almost exactly the wrong way around. Fighters are extremely easy to screw up because their main feature, feats, are to a large extent fixed. The difference between a well built fighter and a poorly built one is huge.
Wizards on the other hand get to change their main class feature every day which allows a new player to actually learn through play.
Interesting challenge.
I would go for a Sorcerer with all the wrong spells in his Known Spells list.

Assuming_Control |

Arbane the Terrible wrote:Peter Stewart wrote:
As has always been, and will always be, the case, the power of a given class depends entirely upon the GM in question and the player in question. Trying to rank them is a fool's errand.I don't agree. It's a simple statement of fact. At level 1, the wizard's casting Color Spray, and the fighter is hitting things with a sword. At level 20, the wizard is casting Prismatic Sphere, summoning demons, teleporting across the world and controlling minds, and the fighter is... hitting things with a sword really well.
There's definitely a quantifiable disparity here.
That is your fighter.
My high level fighter is teleporting across the world, self-buffing, self-healing, banishing, generally giving casters nightmares and hitting things with sword really well.
Because you have unlimited money?

wraithstrike |

Artanthos wrote:Because you have unlimited money?Arbane the Terrible wrote:Peter Stewart wrote:
As has always been, and will always be, the case, the power of a given class depends entirely upon the GM in question and the player in question. Trying to rank them is a fool's errand.I don't agree. It's a simple statement of fact. At level 1, the wizard's casting Color Spray, and the fighter is hitting things with a sword. At level 20, the wizard is casting Prismatic Sphere, summoning demons, teleporting across the world and controlling minds, and the fighter is... hitting things with a sword really well.
There's definitely a quantifiable disparity here.
That is your fighter.
My high level fighter is teleporting across the world, self-buffing, self-healing, banishing, generally giving casters nightmares and hitting things with sword really well.
Aranthos you have just been called out. I think he indirectly just said "post a build or go home".