Class Pecking Order

[ken-do-nim]

Growing out of my party A / party B thread, I thought it would be fun to hash out the pecking order of all the base classes, you know list them in the order they are capable of contributing to the party. I haven't even read them all myself so I can't start us out. I guess you have to do this with RAW, meaning shapechange, shivering touch, persistent spell are in. Let's only consider levels in these base classes as opposed to all the multi-classing builds out there.

I'm sure I'll miss a few, but here's the classes I can think of (if I'm wrong it's because I'm doing this from memory):

PH - barbarian, bard, cleric, druid, fighter, monk, paladin, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, wizard
PHII - duskblade, knight, beguiler, dragon shaman
CArc - warmage, warlock, wu-jen
CW - swashbuckler, samurai, hexblade
CAdv - scout, spellthief, ninja
CD - favored soul, shugenja, spirit shaman
MH - healer, marshall
Psi - psion, wilder, soulknife, psychic warrior
CP (I don't own Complete Psionic) - ?
Eb - artificer
TOB - Crusader, Swordsage and Warblade.

So by my count, that's 38 classes (assuming the usual 3 in CP). Hmm... ranking from 1 to 38 may take people a while. How about ranking them in tiers, like:

tier 1 (wizard, druid, cleric...)
tier 2 (sorcerer, favored soul...)
tier 3 (hexblade, rogue...
tier 4 (fighter, monk...)
tier 5 (samurai...)

Of course if you want to do a full 1 to 38 go ahead, or do the top 10, whatever.

Feel free to note how your pecking order might change at level 5 vs level 10 vs level 15 vs level 20, because I suspect many people might be more interested in say level 10 balance than level 20, even though that is what is usually discussed here.

[Captain van der Decken]

How about Tome of Battle? Cruader, Swordsage and Warblade.

[ken-do-nim]

Right; I edited my post to reflect ToB. Then there's other books I don't own like Magic of Incarnum, Dragon Magic, etc.

[Pegasos989]

1: Full preparing casters (Cleric, Wizard, Druid)
2: Full spontaneous casters (Favored sould, Sorcerer) and casterlike-thingies (ToB classes)
3: Average classes (Barbarian, Rogue, Paladin, etc... I would actually keep fighter here too instead of 4)
4: Weak melee classes (Monk, etc.)
5: Classes that just don't contribute enough to be worth noting (Bard, Warlock, etc.)

[ken-do-nim]

I would at least put bard in category 4. Inspire greatness can be very useful, and 2 great spells they get are freedom of movement and Otto's irresistible dance.

Also I think if we were to rank the 5 tiers in terms of solo playability, bard would get to tier 2. Even warlock would rise, whereas classes unable to heal themselves would sink.

[Soepvork]

Don't forget PHB-II's Dragon Shaman

[Telonius]

For generic combat situations only, of the books I own.
1. Cleric, Wizard, Druid. Full casters.
2. Sorcerer, Artificer. Almost full casters.
3. Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, Knight, Ranger. Full Melee combatants.
3.5. Rogue. Generally better than Tier 4 (due to sneak attack), not so good as Tier 3 (due to sneak attack's limitations).
4. Monk, Bard. Situational specialists and party enablers.
5. Warlock, Samurai. Ugh.
Not yet seen optimized or in combat: Duskblade, Beguiler, Hexblade, Swashbuckler.

That's all for generic combat. Depending on the exact nature of the combat, the ranking could change. (Wind Wall making a ranger archer useless, antimagic field, etc.)

[ken-do-nim]

Don't forget PHB-II's Dragon Shaman

Thanks! I updated the list. I haven't read any of the PHBII classes yet, but I gather from the forum that beguiler and duskblade rock.

[ken-do-nim]

For generic combat situations only, of the books I own.
1. Cleric, Wizard, Druid. Full casters.
2. Sorcerer, Artificer. Almost full casters.
3. Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, Knight, Ranger. Full Melee combatants.
3.5. Rogue. Generally better than Tier 4 (due to sneak attack), not so good as Tier 3 (due to sneak attack's limitations).
4. Monk, Bard. Situational specialists and party enablers.
5. Warlock, Samurai. Ugh.
Not yet seen optimized or in combat: Duskblade, Beguiler, Hexblade, Swashbuckler.

That's all for generic combat. Depending on the exact nature of the combat, the ranking could change. (Wind Wall making a ranger archer useless, antimagic field, etc.)

I suppose we could extend to 6 tiers. Hmmm... I might drop ranger down to that 4th tier with rogue then.

Edit: btw, I never so much as glanced at the samurai entry until today. Gack! You guys are right! I can just tell by reading the class entry that they are basically ranger-wannabees.

[Draco Ignifer]

On the Tome of Battle classes, I'd definately put the Warblade at Tier 2. Anything a Tier 3 can do, they can do better (Power/Shock/Leap <<<< Power/Shock/Leap with a full attack plus an extra attack at max BAB, or two extra at level 15). Swordsage's BAB and Crusader's randomness make them less effective, however... they're probably strong Tier 3s.

I don't have any other arguments with the current rankings, either because I've never looked hard enough at them to see what they're like, or because I don't disagree.

[Skyserpent]

Man... my monk favoring self-esteem...

Anyway that seems about right, though I think Rogues are a bit more useful than Fighters. Mostly since I've never seen anyone try a "Let's try and balance a rogue with a Wizard now" Thread.

[MandibleBones]

1. Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Psion. (full casters)
2. Sorcerer, Artificer, Favored Soul, Shugenja, Wu Jen, Wilder. (spontaneous full casters and 2nd-teir prepared casters)
3. Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, Knight, Swashbuckler, Soulknife. (full melee combatants)
4. Bard, Duskblade, Rogue, Ranger, Hexblade, Monk, Psychic Warrior, Scout, Warmage (gish melee classes and situational/party enhancers)
5. Warlock, Samurai, Ninja. (drags on resources or same role filled more effectively by similar class).

Not really sure where to put Spirit Shamen; haven't seen the rest of the classes.

[Pegasos989]

1. Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Psion. (full casters)
2. Sorcerer, Artificer, Favored Soul, Shugenja, Wu Jen, Wilder. (spontaneous full casters and 2nd-teir prepared casters)
3. Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, Knight, Swashbuckler, Soulknife. (full melee combatants)
4. Bard, Duskblade, Rogue, Ranger, Hexblade, Monk, Psychic Warrior, Scout, Warmage (gish melee classes and situational/party enhancers)
5. Warlock, Samurai, Ninja. (drags on resources or same role filled more effectively by similar class).

Not really sure where to put Spirit Shamen; haven't seen the rest of the classes.


I would definitely put duskblade in 3rd tier. Also, soulknife sucks. So I would switch their places. And rogue being weaker than fighter (TWF rogue has good damage output and though not working on some opponents, the class skills are more than enough to fix that)? Also, while warmage is definitely weaker end in the full casters, it should be above bard

I would modify your list like this:
1. Cleric, Wizard, Druid, Psion. (full casters)
2. Sorcerer, Artificer, Favored Soul, Shugenja, Wu Jen, Wilder. (spontaneous full casters and 2nd-teir prepared casters)
3. Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, Knight, Swashbuckler (full melee combatants), Duskblade, Psychic Warrior, Warmage, Rogue
4. Bard, Ranger, Hexblade, Monk, Scout (gish melee classes and situational/party enhancers), Soulknife.
5. Warlock, Samurai, Ninja. (drags on resources or same role filled more effectively by similar class).

Swashbuckler taken 20 levels is also weakish but well...

EDIT: Actually, I would start with defining core balanced classes and then comparing others to them.

I would say that paladin and rogue are best examples of them, so putting them to 3. Fighter is a bit weaker but not enough to be a whole step down. Bard is definitely one step lower. Etc.

[MandibleBones]

Also, while warmage is definitely weaker end in the full casters, it should be above bard

If the question were about effectiveness in combat, I'd agree. However, the question was about usefulness to the party itself - and as a bard gets cure spells, it is just about as useful to the party as a warmage (who, if you are putting melee classes with 3/4 BAB up to 3rd tier, should also be there).

[Bears With Lasers]

Man, what? Artificers are the uberest class in the game, and psions aren't as good as wizards/clerics/druids. Soulknife deserves the lowest rank.

[Dhavaer]

Man, what? Artificers are the uberest class in the game, and psions aren't as good as wizards/clerics/druids. Soulknife deserves the lowest rank.

But then where would we put the samurai?

[Bears With Lasers]

The Samurai should share the Complete Psionic's status.

[Pegasos989]

Man, what? Artificers are the uberest class in the game, and psions aren't as good as wizards/clerics/druids. Soulknife deserves the lowest rank.

Yeah, I thought that soulknife was definitely weaker than average classes but hadn't seen one in action or played one, so thought I might not realize something. Anyways... How about

1: Overpowered if even tried to play effectively, might be able to go solo on high levels - Wizard, Druid, Cleric, Artificier
2: Very strong classes but they need the team around them - Sorcerer, Favored soul, Warblade, Swordsage, Psion
3: About average classes, which contribute notably (atleast untill high levels) but can't even wish to go solo: Barbarian, Fighter, Ranger, Scout, Rogue, Swashbuckler...
4: Classes that contribute very little compared to their level: Monk, Soulblade, Bard...
5: Classes that contribute next to not at all compared to their level: Warlock, NPC classes

[Bears With Lasers]

With the advent of Dragon Magic and Complete Mage, and then the Hellfire 3-level PrC in Fiend Folio II, Warlock is just mediocre, not terrible. It's certainly a good step up from the Soulknife or Samurai.

Even without those, you can make a sort of-useful one--take Chilling Tentacles plus the wall of fire invocation plus Repelling Blast plus Chain Blast. Throw tentacles down, throw some fire down, and Repel enemies who manage to get out back in.

[Pegasos989]

With the advent of Dragon Magic and Complete Mage, Warlock isn't that terrible. It's certainly a good step up from the Soulknife or Samurai.

Haven't either of those books, so for me, it is still very terrible class. Hell, I would propably play adept as likely (I would have 5 level spellcasting, so Heal and such stuff comes to mind). Okay, not quite but still... As to Samurai, are we talking about CWar samurai or OA samurai?

EDIT: Hmm, yeah. Those might actually make it workin character, though I think that adept with heighten spell and Web might work too. (Actually, adept has Polymorph on his list, making it a very strong class.)

[Bears With Lasers]

For example, Dragon Magic features the Eldritch Glaive blast shape invocation, letting the warlock attack with his blast a number of times equal to iterative attacks he'd get from BAB; the glaive lingers until the next turn, allowing AoOs. Good with Repelling.

Complete Mage has the hilarious-when-combined Crawling Eye and Floating Hand--your eye detatches and crawls around as a scout, or your hand detatches and does stuff for you. They regrow if they're killed, or you can reattach them. The thing is, technically, you can blast from the detatched hand.
So take both of them, have the hand carry the eye, so you can see and therefore have line-of-sight to wherever the eye is carried. Take Eldirtch Spear, and have your hand snipe from 250' away (huge penalty to the Spot check, counteracting the -20 Hide from sniping). They'll never know what kept hitting'em.


We're talking about the CWar Samurai. The crappy one.

[ken-do-nim]

So just what are the classes in Complete Psionic? I remember now that Ardent is one, only because one of my players is using it. It gives him the fairly sick ability of being able to do "teleport hops" of 10 feet just about every round, I can't remember as a move action or swift action.

Also I was shocked to see MandibleBones place psychic warrior in tier 4. I played alongside one with my sorcerer, and it was pretty clear that the two of us were far and away the most potent characters. So I would place psychic warrior in tier 2.

[ken-do-nim]

We're talking about the CWar Samurai. The crappy one.

It's really a shame it is so crappy. For one of my gaming groups, the plan is for me to run Red Hand of Doom after the current campaign finishes. I was thinking of setting it in the Forgotten Realms, but tell the players that they are strangers to Faerun (I think that is the main continent's name), having come out of Kara-Tur. I'll come up with some interesting backstory as to why they left KT, but anyway, I'd encourage them to play all Oriental classes: samurai/ronin, ninja, wu-jen, shugenja, monk, barbarian, kensai, I'm not sure what else. But come to think of it, none of those are tier 1, so maybe the class balance discrepancy isn't so bad :-) After all, another thing I realized with my party A/party B thread is that the important thing is how balanced the player's characters are to each other, because the DM can always raise and lower the CRs.

[Shazzbaa]

Also I think if we were to rank the 5 tiers in terms of solo playability, bard would get to tier 2. Even warlock would rise, whereas classes unable to heal themselves would sink.

I have never thought that needing the rest of the group is a bad thing, so I don't know why inability to go solo would be included in the ranking. Heck, the casters that everyone's putting at top levels need their party dearly at early levels.

But then, I'm playing a barbarian. And I think that they're like, last when it comes to solo survivability...

[Maclav]

I have never thought that needing the rest of the group is a bad thing, so I don't know why inability to go solo would be included in the ranking. Heck, the casters that everyone's putting at top levels need their party dearly at early levels.

But then, I'm playing a barbarian. And I think that they're like, last when it comes to solo survivability...

They do? Between grease, sleep, scorching ray, alterself, wolf/dog animal companion, cleric pounding, hold person, healing power theres not much at lvl 1-4 party of wizards, sorcs, clerics and druids isn't going to be able to manage in a typical 4 encounter day.

Thats not even close to all the good stuff ether. :) About the only thing they are missing is trap finding, so put in a cloistered cleric or a beguiler to handle skill monkey stuff. Yeah, they need a party, but they only need a party of themselves.

[ken-do-nim]

I have never thought that needing the rest of the group is a bad thing, so I don't know why inability to go solo would be included in the ranking. Heck, the casters that everyone's putting at top levels need their party dearly at early levels.

But then, I'm playing a barbarian. And I think that they're like, last when it comes to solo survivability...

To be clear, I'm not including going solo in the ranking. I think you'd want a separate ranking entirely for that option. I just wanted to mention it. I've played a bard solo, and I think they work out fantastic that way. Remember that once you introduce solo-play, the difference between class balance becomes irrelevant, as it is up to your DM to provide "appropriate" challenges anyway.

[Pegasos989]

I have never thought that needing the rest of the group is a bad thing, so I don't know why inability to go solo would be included in the ranking. Heck, the casters that everyone's putting at top levels need their party dearly at early levels.

But then, I'm playing a barbarian. And I think that they're like, last when it comes to solo survivability...

Because:
-Solo campaigns. I am currently running two, have ran several others.
-Duels do happen. Not all the time, but several times in my games a character has challenged NPC because of something - for honor, to free a prisoner, for leadership...
-BBEGs. High level BBEGs should not go solo (solo opponent is never hard at high levels) but if he doesn't have a huge amount of people around him, he should definitely be one of the strong classes

Also, at low levels wizards need a group, true. However, let's say level 5, group of 4 wizards should be atleast as strong as a "balanced" group, so they aren't the weakest link even at low levels.

[Pegasos989]

To be clear, I'm not including going solo in the ranking. I think you'd want a separate ranking entirely for that option. I just wanted to mention it. I've played a bard solo, and I think they work out fantastic that way. Remember that once you introduce solo-play, the difference between class balance becomes irrelevant, as it is up to your DM to provide "appropriate" challenges anyway.


Well, I dunno... My worlds still have wizards, who still cast those will save spells even if solo fighter challenges them, just as they will cast when solo cleric challenges them (and he propably passes the saves, too.).

Sure, I am not saying that I would do no diffrence with the encounters when there is solo campaign, but they still live in "realistic" (come on, you all know what I mean, don't start nitpicking) world and thus should be able to win both spellcasters and non-spellcasters.

[Gorbad the Limb Rippa]

[QUOTE=Bears With Lasers;1755170]With the advent of Dragon Magic and Complete Mage, and then the Hellfire 3-level PrC in Fiend Folio II, Warlock is just mediocre, not terrible. It's certainly a good step up from the Soulknife or Samurai.QUOTE]

Mediocre?I wish my dm would read this,
he is convinced that warlocks are over powered and i say that they are not,
you gain so few spell like abilitys compared to (my favourite) wizards,
sure warlocks can blast once a round but casters can do so much more!

[Bears With Lasers]

A lot of people think Warlocks are overpowered.

These people have no idea what they're talking about. The Warlock is mediocre at best. Try asking your DM this, after a big fight in your game: what would the Warlock have done? A few d6es of damage a round? Compare that to what the characters in play contributed.

[Gorbad the Limb Rippa]

Thats exactly what i am trying to point out to him!
he says he has play tested it and found it too powerful,which i think is rubbish.

[Bears With Lasers]

You can't really convince a DM who doesn't want to be convinced. I suppose you could try making a druid and being ridiculously overpowered, then suggesting you play a Warlock instead, but that's not necessarily the right thing to do.

[Gorbad the Limb Rippa]

Good point,
thanks 4 enlightening me

[Thrawn183]

I first looked at this thread a few days ago (maybe only one? man you'd think time flies when it doesn't). Anyway, I decided to check out the warlock as a result and I was pretty amazed at how weak it is. My problem is that it is just as weak against spell resistance as a wizard, but wizards or course can get spells that get around spell resistance so that is actually quite inaccurate, but so inflexible as to be pathetic. I saw the hand and eye trick but I don't think that it does much to make up the difference. How did this one ever get published? I mean, wow.

[Bears With Lasers]

Warlocks eventually get an invocation (Vitriolic Blast) that lets them overcome SR, but yeah, it's a very weak class.

[Draco Ignifer]

I find the best way to convince people about the Warlock is to do a comparison with an archer. At level 1, the archer does 1d8 while the warlock does 1d6. At level 3, the Warlock increases to 2d6... but the Archer is now doing 1d8 + strength, because they've moved to a composite bow with their wealth. The two are basically matched at that point, assuming 15 strength. At level 5, the warlock now does 3d6, for an average of 10.5 and the archer does 8.5, assuming +1 bow, 16 strength. OK, Warlock's winning, right? Casters start out weak, get strong. No problems.

Level 6, things change again. The bowyer is now doing two shots, for 2d8 + 2 + 2x strength. With our same assumption of 16 strength, this is, on average, 17 damage. The Warlock now needs to be doing five dice of damage to beat the archer. Unfortunately, at level 8, the archer pulls ahead again, with a +2 bow. 19 damage is a little stronger than what a Warlock gets at level 9, but 1.5 damage less is close enough for government work, right? Level 11, the Archer just got a third attack. 28.5 damage, on average... a Warlock would need 9 dice to beat that. And at level 19, there's really no hope for catching up... The archer's doing 54 average damage, with a +5 bow, 19 strength, and four iterative attacks.

Now, do you notice the big problem with this? Zero optimization whatsoever. The bowyer doesn't have any feats. Point blank is +1 to hit and damage, rapid shot is an extra attack at the highest BAB for -2. There's no bonuses to strength from gauntlets of ogre power or belts of giant strength either, nor is the weapon flaming, bane, or any of the other neat tricks PCs love. The archer also has not been buffed by a cleric, bard, or wizard, which is something they can benefit from and the warlock can't.

And, with all that said and done, the archer has armor, a better hit die, and a higher base attack bonus, although I'm already factoring that in when I assume hits The warlock gets a very limited number of fun abilities to make up for it, but they're much weaker at constant damage dealing, their main specialty, than this archer.

Now consider one last thing... this archer could be made by a PC who, for some stupid reason, played a warrior... one of the NPC classes.

[Ramza00]

Crusader is about equal to a warblade. Instead of listing all the reasons why I would just link to a person who asked a similar question on the Char Op boards.

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=763775

[ken-do-nim]

I find the best way to convince people about the Warlock is to do a comparison with an archer.

I am not disagreeing with the consensus that warlock is underpowered (having not played one), but your analogy fails because:
1. Eldritch blast is a touch attack.
2. Arrows have to get by dr. Sure eldritch blast has to get by sr, but that's less common.
3. Warlocks get use magic device.
4. Warlocks get fast healing.
etc.

[Pegasos989]

I am not disagreeing with the consensus that warlock is underpowered (having not played one), but your analogy fails because:
1. Eldritch blast is a touch attack.
2. Arrows have to get by dr. Sure eldritch blast has to get by sr, but that's less common.
3. Warlocks get use magic device.
4. Warlocks get fast healing.
etc.


And they get invocations, and stuff like fly... The comparament assuming you only compare damage and assume that every attack hits just won't work...

[pita]

My orderings....
Tier One: Wizards, Clerics, Druids.
Tier Two: Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians
Tier Three: Rogues, Bards, Sorcerers.
Tier Four: Fighters.
If this were the Wizard's forums I would get soo flamed.
TOAST.
EDIT- Pegasos, Warlock is weak. Trust me, I played one. You need to Prestige class out with a DM that understands the weaknesses of a Warlock.

[Pegasos989]

My orderings....
Tier One: Wizards, Clerics, Druids.
Tier Two: Monks, Paladins, Rangers, Barbarians
Tier Three: Rogues, Bards, Sorcerers.
Tier Four: Fighters.
If this were the Wizard's forums I would get soo flamed.
TOAST.
EDIT- Pegasos, Warlock is weak. Trust me, I played one. You need to Prestige class out with a DM that understands the weaknesses of a Warlock.

Oh yeah, agreed. I always put warlock in the last tier if you check my earlier posts. I just don't think that the way it was compared was the correct way...

[ken-do-nim]

Alright, I've gone through all the posts and made a rough composite of what the votes are, favoring those with strong opinions and adjusted to some of my own thinking. I've broken it out into 6 tiers.

Tier 1: Wizards, Clerics, Druids, Artificer, Beguiler
Tier 2: Psion, Favored Soul, Sorcerer, Warblade, Shugenja, Wu Jen, Wilder
Tier 3: Barbarian, Paladin, Fighter, Knight, Swordsage, Crusader, Psychic Warrior
Tier 4: Ranger, Rogue, Swashbuckler, Duskblade, Warmage, Scout, Hexblade, Bard
Tier 5: Monk, Warlock
Tier 6: Samurai, Ninja, Soulknife

Note that no one has mentioned beguiler thus far, but I think that as a 9 level spellcasting class with trapfinding and skills, their party contributing value is extremely high.

So what do people think? Have we gotten it right?

One comment I will make is that in a low magic setting or low wealth setting, the monk can easily rise as high as tier 3, and I've seen many campaigns that are that way. The wealth-by-level chart is really very generous.

[Ramza00]

Spirt Shaman is at least tier 2, and probally tier 1.5. Beguiler is tier 1.5 till you add shadowcraft gnome.

Crusader tier 2 (I repeat tier 2).

Archivist Tier 1.

Dread Necro Tier 2.

[Draco Ignifer]

and a higher base attack bonus, although I'm already factoring that in when I assume hits

The assumption of all hits was made for an easier comparison, because it'd require a lot more math to play with it all, and the archer has a much better bonus to hit than the warlock, what with an enchanted bow and a higher base attack bonus.

Nevertheless, I recognize that my example is flawed; however, when people look at the Warlock, the main thing that makes them think it must be broken, in my experience, is that it does magical blasts every round. If those blasts are challenged by an NPC class, though, it gets people thinking. The question isn't "is my comparison wrong," but "how wrong, after adding in feats, a full set of magic items, and a friendly bard, is it?"

[silvermesh]

I don't think any of these rankings are perfect.
To say that the warlock is underpowered is silly. The warlock can be an excessively viable class in the right hands. One thing that many people forget is that wizards and sorcerers can be run out of spells. the average dungeon crawl contains quite a few encounters, and especially at low levels, those primary spellcasters get to do next to **** in at least 50% of these encounters. Unless your DM is letting you "rest up for spells" with no reprocussions in between every encounter, the warlocks usefulness is his ability outlast every primary spellcaster in the group. warlocks are only less useful in a big one-shot fight. Most adventures are a myriad of smaller fights.
The Warlock also proves extremely useful in any campaign where the DM doesn't just let the PCs buy whatever gear they want.

I should point out that the original poster was looking for rankings in "usefulness to a party" rather than damage potential, soloability in comparison to other classes, etc.
Of the original core classes I would put clerics at the top of this list, followed by druids, rogues, and then wizards. My list is about versatility. clerics and druids make excellent casters AND tanks, which sadly puts my lovely fighters in a bit of a pickle as far as this particular rating system is concerned. An adventuring party is going to come accross obstacles and challenges that have nothing to do with combat, so the rogue and druid are very effective. the rogue with his wide array of skills, particularly Use Magic Device, can find a solution to just about any problem that a DM throws at the PCs. The Wizard isn't up as high as the rogue because the wizard is only as useful as his memorized spell selection, and without peeking at the DMs notes, the wizard will be caught with his pants down at least once or twice an adventure. The sorc is restricted in his spell choices for obvious reasons.

being able to contribute to the party implies that the character does not have to be excessively good at one thing, he just has to be able to help the team overcome the obstacles thrown at them. any group can muddle through a combat situation. it takes a team of experts to figure the way accross a 100 ft chasm in a null magic area ;)

[Gralamin]

From the books I own:

1. Wizard (Battlefield controllers only), Druid, Cleric, Psion, Artificer, Archivist, Erudite, Beguiler
2. Wizard (Blaster), Sorcerer, wilder, Dread Necro, Warblade, Wu Jen, Favored Soul, Shadowcaster, Ardent
3. Duskblade, Scout, Rogue, Swordsage, Crusaders, Hexblade, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Fighter, Warmage, Lurk, Divine Mind, Knight, Shugenja, Spirit Shaman, Totemist
4. Swashbuckler, Monk, Bard, Warlock, Binder, Truespeaker, Incarnate, Dragonfire Adept, Dragon Shaman
5. Ninja, Spell thief, Samurai, Soulborn

Am I missing anything?

[Thrawn183]

My problem with warlocks is that fighters are better at lower levels. That really says it all.

[Gralamin]

My problem with warlocks is that fighters are better at lower levels. That really says it all.

Really I look at it like this. A fighter can do up to 2d6/turn at level 1 (with an okay chance to hit), A Warlock can do 1d6/turn at a distance, as a touch attack.

[Benvolio]

I should point out that the original poster was looking for rankings in "usefulness to a party" rather than damage potential, soloability in comparison to other classes, etc.
Of the original core classes I would put clerics at the top of this list, followed by druids, rogues, and then wizards. My list is about versatility. clerics and druids make excellent casters AND tanks, which sadly puts my lovely fighters in a bit of a pickle as far as this particular rating system is concerned. ...
.....
being able to contribute to the party implies that the character does not have to be excessively good at one thing, he just has to be able to help the team overcome the obstacles thrown at them. any group can muddle through a combat situation. it takes a team of experts to figure the way accross a 100 ft chasm in a null magic area ;)

honestly as far as usefulness to the party Clericks I agree come in at number one with a bullet, the buffs, the healing, and slow movement rate means they get most of their job done by helping tohers. followed by (if you have a complete party ..beat sneak divine arcane) Bard. WHile they don't solo well they give the leg up to everyone, between the stackable bonuses and the healing in a pinch plus providing the all important "everything that isn't combat" competance category. many quests have things that arent combat and most pc classes tend to be pretty piss poor at it. the correlation between gp and xp and power is well understood so they guy that can get you a discount on magic items and supplies especially at low levels contributes as much to the party as people who make that extra kill. reducing party spending is just as good as increasing party income in many situations. immediately after that I'd sat the next biggest helpers are the fighters, followed by the wizards. the fighters have the hardest job of anyone in the party. they have to direct the flow of combat, they're tactical anchors, the practicaly define the center of a tactical engagement and they absorb a great deal of trauma. every time the fighter closes to melee and an enemy hits him its a hit that isn't being taken by the wizard, the rogue, or the cleric. the provides a stabel base for the rogue to flank, a fighter without a rogue is still dangerous, a rogue without someone solid to flank with is essentially an expert. the fighter provides breathing room for the cleric, its hard to cast spells, buff or otherwise while being pounded on.
sorceror's don't help the party in any way that a bag vull of horns of blasting coudn't also help. except that particularly good sorcerors don't blow up in your face quite as often. a sorceror is a mobile artilary piece that needs careful care and maintenance, (and to be oiled occasionally) by the other party members, in return he makes the bad monsters go away. In terms of group contribution though, he eats group resources and craps out damage, preferably all over the enemy. The wizard is variably helpful largelky depending on if he's decided to go into item creation.